Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Cyclone Bulbul
Cyclone Bulbul

How to nominate an itemEdit

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

HeadersEdit

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an itemEdit

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

Please do not...Edit

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

SuggestionsEdit

November 17Edit

International relations

2019 Sri Lankan presidential electionEdit

Article: 2019 Sri Lankan presidential election (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Results are expected on Sunday, otherwise Monday. No doubit, prose is lacking hence would like to start discussion on what else could be done to make it to ITN Sherenk1 (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Since the votes are still being counted, I'm holding off on officially adding a blurb. But since sources from Reuters and BBC are projecting Gotabhaya Rajapaksa as the winner, my proposal is: Former Defense Minister Gotabhaya Rajapaksa is elected president of Sri Lanka.
    • With that being said, I unfortunately will have to give this a weak oppose for now. While this election is unusually important for such an overlooked country (due to, among other things, the controversial reputation of Rajapaksa, the election happening months after a devastating terrorist attack, the strength of Indian and Chinese influence in the region depending on who wins, etc.), the article itself is poorly organized. The "Timeline" section needs to be converted to prose (probably reorganized into "Background"), and there is an "Empty section" tag in the "Polls" section, for starters. Mount Patagonia (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

November 16Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

International relations

Politics and elections

2019 Bolivian political crisisEdit

Article: 2019 Bolivian political crisis (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination

 Kingsif (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Blurb is still on news and no immediate sign it is about to fall off. Better to consider the situation when the blurb does fall off. --Masem (t) 21:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point. I nom'd because the blurb is a week old... but so is the box... Kingsif (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Iranian fuel protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Iranian fuel protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least two people have been killed after protests erupted across Iran when the government unexpectedly announced it was rationing petrol and hiking prices.
Alternative blurb: ​Multiple protests break out in Iran after the government announces fuel rationing and price hikes, killing at least one.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Dominating worldwide headlines. Article is well referenced. Sherenk1 (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

November 15Edit

Business and economy

International relations

Politics and elections

November 14Edit

Business and economy
  • Ford announces that its new electric SUV will be known as the Mustang Mach-E. The "Mustang" model name, previously employed by Ford's muscle cars, could be an important asset for the new venture. (Reuters)

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) Saugus High School shootingEdit

Tragic, but consensus will not emerge to post, and discussion will inevitably turn into US mudslinging. Stephen 22:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Saugus High School shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Shooting at Saugus High School in Santa Clarita, California, USA
News source(s): https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/los-angeles-county-deputies-respond-report-santa-clarita-school-shooting-n1082231

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The calamity in Santa Clarita has made national news. One person has been killed and countless injured. This is a high-profile situation — politicians like Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Amy Klobuchar have responded to the devastation at SHS. To exclude this from the Main Page would be a disservice to Santa Clarita's over 200,000 residents as well as the victims of the shooting and students at the school. Sanjay7373 (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/los-angeles-county-deputies-respond-report-santa-clarita-school-shooting-n1082231

  • Not wishing to partake in the rest of this conversation, I will note that To exclude this from the Main Page would be a disservice... is not an argument for (or against) Main Page inclusion or any Wikipedia action, as we are not here to right great wrongs. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a high-profile, national event. One person has been killed. It certainly merits inclusion in the Main Page, just like the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Sanjay7373 (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. School shootings are regretfully a common event in the United States, and as they go this is a relatively minor one- and I get that sounds terrible to say. The event is certainly a terrible event generally and of extreme importance to the community the school is in. This is, however, a global encyclopedia and we have to make certain decisions about what goes on the Main Page. If this shooting is significant enough, there would likely need to be a permanent spot on the Main Page for posting all of them as they happen. Politicians routinely comment on them and doing so isn't always an indicator of importance. Trying to right the great wrong of shootings is not the role of ITN or Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • How many times do we have to go through this? Shootings are routine in the United States. Americans regard them as normal and acceptable, and a fair exchange for a right to possess lethal weapons. The politicians there haven't taken any action for decades and are not likely to do so in the foreseeable future. A car bomb in Baghdad has far more long-term domestic and international impact. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
This is not the place to express views on guns in the United States, regardless of their merits. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not expressing any views on guns. I am just saying that this event is very high-profile and should be included on the Main Page. One person has died in what is generally considered a safe city.Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    Sanjay7373 My comment was addressed to Hawkeye7. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    Well I am not either. I was only commenting on the impact. That politicians on the campaign trail have commented seems routine; a media rep will often pose a question about a current event. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, I don't see anything about a car bomb in Baghdad on the main page. Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose tragic for the community but sadly run of the mill. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • And now another person has died. This is a national and international news story, and it certainly warrants inclusion on the main page. In fact, it should be included on the main page, just like shootings in Parkland, Orlando, Las Vegas, etc.Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Those shootings had much higher levels of casualties. If we posted every shooting like this in the United States, that's all we would be doing here. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, sadly. And @Sanjay7373: Please stop posting so many of your own comments on this nomination; I understand how you feel, but it's not good form. Funcrunch (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
A better way to look at this: if there was a mass stabbing in France that killed two people, that'd also not make ITN. Neither would any mass casualty incident which killed two people in Canada (unless the people who died were notable: such as an assassination of a prominent political figure or something). Nothing really to do with it being in the US. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As others have said, shootings in the US are too common place to every one up, and this, with only 1-2 deaths, fails to meet "MINIMUMDEATHS". Yes, it is tragic, but too commonplace. --Masem (t) 20:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, car bombs are pretty common in Baghdad in the same way shootings are common in the USA. In addition, Santa Clarita is a relatively safe community. A massacre in Compton might not be as notable as one in Santa Clarita. Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. Aside from the notability of the event, the article isn't really up to par for ITN anyway - it's barely passed stub-level. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This event is pretty notable, as evidenced by the reactions not only from Santa Clarita, but from politicians across the country in Washington, D.C. Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
As I indicated, politicians routinely comment on tragic events and doing so is no indication of its significance. Maybe if a law was passed as a result, but not now. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Which do you think is more notable: the construction of a Hindu temple in India, or the deaths of 2 innocent students at a school in Santa Clarita? A Hindu temple is just a building, here, two students have died and countless more were injured.Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
That's a false equivalency. We judge each nomination on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The injured are not 'countless', either. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I had a feeling this would be nominated if for no other reason than this occurred in Los Angeles County. You have made your point, Sanjay, but there's just not enough for this to be fit for ITN due to the high frequency of mass shootings in the US. With that said, strong oppose. Also, regarding your comparison to the Hindu temple story, please be mindful of your systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but for a different reason than the people trashing our gun laws: even if this shooting took place outside of the US, it still wouldn't be notable enough for ITN. It's tragic, but there are neither enough deaths nor any indication that it'll impact things long term in order to warrant a blurb. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lacks long term notability. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the last school shooting in the US that was posted on ITN was the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in February 2018. Since then there have been, according to List of school shootings in the United States, some 57 further incidents that we have not posted, including several with higher casualty figures than this one. The bar for inclusion in ITN is high, and this doesn't seem to meet that level, as others have noted. Spokoyni (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – For all the reasons expressed, once again, above. – Sca (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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

RD: Vashishtha Narayan SinghEdit

Article: Vashishtha Narayan Singh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NDTV, India Today

Article updated

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

 --DannyS712 (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Needs a copyedit and there are some unreferenced claims.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - A few sources needed, then looks good to go ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage: lists some positions that he worked in, but nothing mentioned regarding his contributions to the field of mathematics. SpencerT•C 13:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Updated/organised/expanded with references. -Nizil (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Spencer, Mike gigs, and Pawnkingthree: Please reconsider you votes. I have updated article. May require minor copyediting. -Nizil (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your referencing work. My position remains since there have been no new additions regarding his career work as a mathematician. SpencerT•C 15:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I see, it looks like he did not contribute much to mathematics and the article is reflective of that. I will be honest, the article does not do a good job explaining why Singh is notable. Is he notable for being lost on the train journey? If so, then the article should be expanded more to reflect that. Right now, the article is basically a CV in prose form without much meat to it. Best, SpencerT•C 00:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Branko LustigEdit

Article: Branko Lustig (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/schindlers-list-producer-branko-lustig-dies-87-67015227

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Well referenced article --DannyS712 (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now; Filmography unreferenced.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per P-K3 ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ping me when ready.BabbaQ (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Gordie GosseEdit

Article: Gordie Gosse (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/speaker-of-the-house-ndp-mla-gordie-gosse-1.5358686

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Speaker of the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia (2011–2013). Just cleaned up some unsourced content, but should look good. ミラP 17:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Short article but sourcing looks good ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The election result is unsourced. Also, he was in office from 2003-2015 so why is only the 2013 result included? Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Article looks good. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As with many other start-class politician articles nominated to RD, very minimal information about what he accomplished in his role as a politician (policies, political issues, legislation passed, etc.) beyond "Gosse implemented a strict policy banning the use of mobile devices, including smart phones in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly during Question Period". SpencerT•C 12:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to go in my POV.BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The 2013 election result now has a source attached to it. ミラP 02:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

November 13Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
  • A bus collision with a truck near Nitra kills 13 people and leaves at least 17 wounded. The disaster is the deadliest in Slovakia in a decade. (Reuters)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Tom SpurgeonEdit

Article: Tom Spurgeon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Well-known comics journalist, died yesterday. Article is well-sourced and has been updated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - I added a couple of refs to a couple unsourced claims, looks good to go now ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Don't see any issues now referencing has been improved.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Niall TóibínEdit

Article: Niall Tóibín (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): RTÉ, Independent.ie, The Irish Times

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Not much info yet as to how he died, only reported about 10 minutes ago. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Sourcing not quite there yet ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - sources improved Joseywales1961 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per mike, referencing needs more work.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Raymond PoulidorEdit

Article: Raymond Poulidor (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, Spiegel

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Notable cyclist, Vuelta winner, several podiums at the Tour de France, immortal rivalry with Jacques Anquetil. Article needs some work, I will try to get to as much as I can later today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Prose is pretty undersourced. Hard to tell which of his results are sourced as well ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kieran ModraEdit

Article: Kieran Modra (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, ABC News

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced and updated. Australian Paralympic swimmer and tandem cyclist, died in cycling accident. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Seems sourced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Seconded. Nice looking article ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

November 12Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Edwin BramallEdit

Article: Edwin Bramall (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Times

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

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced and updated --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - An admirable man and an impressive article ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Well sourced, a true hero and ready for the main page. Only question I would have, should we list it as "Edwin Bramall" or "Lord Bramall"? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    I have deferred to the article's current title — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

November 11Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Law and crime
Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Charles Rogers (American football)Edit

Article: Charles Rogers (American football) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBS News

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: C Class article with excellent sourcing DBigXray 15:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Large swathes of text are unreferenced, contrary to assertion by OP. --Jayron32 16:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose A significant number of claims are unsourced, including many that are BLP issues (which apply to the recently deceased). Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Le MesurierEdit

Article: James Le Mesurier (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Independent

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

Nominator's comments: Founder of the White Helmets volunteer organization. Responses section needs a neutrality fix and there's one unsourced sentence in the "Work with the White Helmets" section, but other than that it looks good. ミラP 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose orange tag will need resolving - when fixed, support. Well-cited article. Kingsif (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support when the orange tag is removed. The article is mostly well-sourced. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just edited the article a bit, adding more sourced information about his work with the White Helmets, and deleting an unsourced and incomplete sentence in that section. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks good now. Significant improvements made. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The information in paretheses under Military service surely means something, but it's lost on ENGVAR and JARGON. Presumably, he was in the military while not under command, or somesuch. If that was the extent of his official service, then I don't know why there should be a Military service section.130.233.2.197 (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems that he joined the army before he was on active service. His actual service is covered by "He was promoted to lieutenant on 11 August 1993, and to captain on 11 August 1996. He worked with the United Nations peacekeeping force in the former Yugoslavia. He retired from the military on 1 June 2000." So that's 7 years of military service, after 3 years at university sponsored by the army, and about 6 weeks on probation at Sandhurst. Perhaps that section could be edited to make that a bit clearer. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delay until article is more settled. I'm not experienced with ITN proposals, but with the Turkish media talking about his wife saying Le Mesurier was thinking of suicide 15 days before his death and was on psychiatric medication, it looks like there likely will be significant messy developments before too long. I wouldn't add such stuff at the moment on WP:BLP and WP:RS grounds, but here is an example. Rwendland (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Transit of MercuryEdit

Article: Transit of Mercury (talk, history)
Blurb: Mercury transits the Sun.
News source(s): The Independent, timeanddate.com

Nominator's comments: Currently ongoing. Quite rare astronomical event. Arseny1992 (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support It is not a super rare event (last was 3 yrs ago, next is about 20) but this is along the lines of total eclipses and the like, so fair enough to post. --Masem (t) 14:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
According to that article, the next transit of Mercury is projected for 2032 Nov 13, which is 13 years from now. Banedon (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - the article is not up to standard, several unsourced data in tables, sentences or even paragraphs. starship.paint (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
    @Arseny1992: - I suggest you improve the article by citing sources for all information in text or tables. starship.paint (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there seems to be no prose about this specific transit, and the pattern of the article suggests there never will be any. --LukeSurl t c 15:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Whilst this is indeed a rare event (next one is in 2032), and I've been watching a live stream of it, at this point it's little more than trivia. All the science that can be obtained from such events was extracted centuries ago. ITN did post 2012 transit of Venus, but that event got a lot more public attention and a stand-alone article. That's even more true of total eclipses, which still have difficulty filling an article with useful information. Other than 'rare event happened exactly as predicted', it's not clear what could be said about this transit. There's certainly no substantial new content in transit of Mercury (currently just a tense change). Creating a new article and getting it into DYK would be better than putting the generic article in ITN. Modest Genius talk 15:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well as this transit is about to end soon, so no point to post on ITN now. As astronomical events can be predicted to eternity into the future, this probably needs to be posted on ITN/R instead and be notified in due time without short notice before one occur (be it a transit or any type of eclipse). --Arseny1992 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, call for close Didn't seem particularly important, and is (almost) over now. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 17:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure why something described by a reliable source as an ""incredibly rare celestial event" should be snow-closed. It won't happen for another 20-odd years. ITN does cover events that have completed, so no reason to just shut this down. Probably as notable (and indeed rarer) as many other predictable celestial events, such a total eclipse. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support as notable as eclipses etc, and rare, as noted above, but the article could use some work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article doesn't have much info on this more than one line in a table. If it's not notable enough to have more than a brief mention on the general article about the topic then surely it's not notable enough for ITN.  Nixinova TC   21:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem - it's not a rare event. Banedon (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
    CLARIFICATION: Masem said it wasn't a "super rare" event, and it won't happen again for 20 years. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: I've reopened this nomination, which I felt was closed prematurely. Although I !voted oppose, 5v3 is not 'clear consensus', the nomination has been open for less than 24 hours, and the outcome could change if there is substantial expansion of the article (or creation of a new one). Let this one play out a bit longer. Modest Genius talk 11:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The article is updated, the subject has some news coverage, the article is okay. Yes, it's not world-changing, but neither are the rote violence and protests that we post on ITN. We can call this a genuinely rare event that will not be repeated anytime soon without running afould of CRYSTAL.130.233.2.197 (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't see any prose update in the article. The 2019 event just has one line in a data table. Modest Genius talk 12:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Glad this was reopened. It is a sufficiently rare astronomical event. Definitely encyclopedic. WaltCip (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The specific occurrence doesn't even seem to merit its own article (unlike eclipses, where we generally post the stand-alone article about the event). The information about this transit appears to be confined to a date in a chart. There's just not enough Wikipedia content about this event to make it worth posting to the main page. If there were a sizable stand-alone article, or at least a several-paragraph section in a more general article, I could support it. However, there is not enough there there. --Jayron32 13:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 
A Mercury of transit
  • Oppose – Consensus against on ephemeral nature of (past) event, lack of general visibility and lack of wider significance. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I had to add 36 {{cn|date=November 2019}} tags because I already warned about unsourced information earlier, but it was not fixed. starship.paint (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
But on the plus side, it could be illustrated with this pic. – Sca (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC) →
Comment IMHO requesting sources for every obvious claim is considered disruptive, as well as requesting sources for every table item that result in what happens currently with ref #25. Especially when every occurrence of any astronomical event can be calculated up and is at NASA anyway, thus the table exists. Or Wikipedia is going nowadays only about adding sources to everything, including adding {{cn}} even to simple obvious claims such as "1+1 equals 2.", then this would be requiring getting a reference, which then explains in long detail why 2 is a sum of 1+1? Common sense guess would work better. If a meteorite would start falling, or aliens from alternate dimension would be invading, the last thing you probably would be doing, is requiring news sources for claims. As for this transit, when it did occur, you as well probably could watch it happen: you don't get a transit or eclipse everyday, and well since this discussion haven't gathered much in favor for notability of a rare event, it may be closed, but is to be taken into account when next transit/eclipse is about to occur, so probably best to note such events as ITN/R criteria. --Arseny1992 (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Arseny1992: - in my view as a layperson in this field, nothing unsourced in the article fits simple obvious claims such as "1+1 equals 2." You can't expect our readers to be versed in astronomy. If you can find something to disprove my assertion, post it. starship.paint (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I sort of want to see this on the main page since it's not common by any measure, but there's no way an article on this would have enough data, as seen through the linked article not even being specific to the date. Pie3141527182 (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

November 10Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Noel IgnatievEdit

Article: Noel Ignatiev (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New Yorker, LA Times

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Scholar and activist known for How the Irish Became White —Collint c 03:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rick LudwinEdit

Article: Rick Ludwin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: TV executive best known for his support of Seinfeld Teemu08 (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Spanish general electionEdit

Article: November 2019 Spanish general election (talk, history)
Blurb: Spanish Socialist Workers' Party wins the most seats in the November general election but fails to obtain majority as the People's Party and the far-right Vox gain many seats.
Alternative blurb: ​The Spanish Socialist Workers' Party wins the most seats in the second general election in Spain, but does not gain a majority.
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, El País

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: PSOE wins most seats but the "hung parliament" situation remains as right-wing parties Vox and PP gains lots of seats --SirEdimon (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose needs a prose update of the results, more citations in the timeline and ideally some more prose here. Also, the opinion polls graph seems to go on into the future - it should be cut down to end in Nov 2019 so we can see the lines. Kingsif (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • We don't typically mention lesser parties in blurbs like this. Suggest altblurb. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Still no prose in results. There is, however, a giant table-dump daughter article listing results by district, and some (poorly sourced) new prose under Aftermath. The content of the latter might be suitable for Results prose.130.233.2.197 (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The major contributor, Impru20, says that a prose summary is not needed. I guess we will never post Spanish elections any more. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a small prose summary at the November 2019 Spanish general election#Aftermath. What I said is that a summary is not needed in the "Results" section, because all sources depict results with tables and, frankly, there is little sense in trying to describe with words what is already better described through a sourced table. Impru20talk 05:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Resignation of Bolivian gov't; Jeanine Áñez becomes president-designateEdit

Articles: Evo Morales government resignation (talk, history) and Evo Morales (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After pressure from the Armed Forces, President of Bolivia Evo Morales resigns
Alternative blurb: ​After weeks of protests, Bolivian president Evo Morales (pictured) and other high-ranking politicians are forced to resign amid accusations of electoral fraud; senator Jeanine Áñez becomes president.
Alternative blurb II: ​After weeks of protests, Bolivian president Evo Morales (pictured) and other high-ranking politicians are forced to resign amid accusations of electoral fraud and military pressure.
News source(s): (BBC News) (CBS News) (Financial Times) ---- more sources coming soon, still on Live TV

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Sources coming soon. --CoryGlee (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support in principle, but Morales's resignation is barely mentioned in the article right now. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • That's totally true, I am working on it along other users users, but it's as hot as a hot dog. Not much info apart from the military pressure. --CoryGlee (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This is major news. Articles seems ready to be posted. BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits, should the blurb mention that the VP resigned too(as we don't know who is in charge yet). 331dot (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Generally a change of head of state is regarded as ITNR as well(though, again, we don't know who it is changing to yet). 331dot (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
331dot Hi my friend, as I said, it's so hot the news that it's overwhelming TV, I've just heard that military authorities have ordered the arrest of Morales. Too many changes at any moment. --CoryGlee (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until we know who has taken over. Also I'm not wild about the blurb which seems to imply this was a military coup. It should reference the ongoing protests what the hell is going on -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and added alt. Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Kingsif Hi my friend, Jorge Faurie, Foreign Minister of Argentina made it clear on TN (Todo Noticias) TV channel, that Argentina would not grant asylum to Morales. That should be dismissed. :) ----- --CoryGlee (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Whoa! Coup d'état is a very loaded term. We would need very widespread, near unanimous, use of that term in reliable secondary sources to use it in wiki voice. The title of the new article is highly problematic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I never suggested it was a coup. I didn't add that. --CoryGlee (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I only edited the article; it does really depend on who takes over as to whether it's a coup, but since it was the military turning on Morales, it's at least in the ballpark. edit: update to say that sources are citing or openly using the term because of the police action at least; sources added to article. Kingsif (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I think the blurb should include the fact that Morales resigned under pressure from the military. (Morales says he was not given a choice.) So I prefer the original blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Coup d'état"? Really? Morales disrespected his people will expressed in the 2016 Bolivian constitutional referendum and then he, mostly likely, frauded the 2019 Bolivian general election according to OEA. Then his own people protested for several days asking for a new election and for resignation and it's called a "coup d'état". The article doesn't show any of these complexities. Also, who called this a "coup d'état"? I don't see any reliable sources calling it a coup. The word "coup" is used in the news articles only when they refer to Morales accusations against the opposition.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
SirEdimon, my original nomination article target was 2019 Bolivian protests. I don't know who changed it and I don't understand it. It's been confirmed that Gen. Williams Kaliman suggested him to resign but not confirmed he launched a coup. --CoryGlee (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. My opinion was about the article 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. If the target article is another one, I don't know exactly what to say. This nomination is quite confusing now. We should clarify things before going ahead.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm going to be BOLD and put this on hold pending more information and article discussions re. coup. The protest page should be fine as a target, but when I saw the coup page had been made, I ran with it. Kingsif (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what "on hold" means - does it mean that no discussion can be allowed? that an item cannot be posted? - and because there is not clear consensus to "hold", I have reverted at this time. If there is consensus to post and an updated article, then an item should be posted. If a new article becomes a better target, then that can be discussed here or in a new nom; I don't see any reason to put a nom on indefinite hold. Best, SpencerT•C 01:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
      • An 'on hold' has been used before, it just means 'don't post even if there appears to be consensus, there's another issue being discussed'. Kingsif (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Blurb needs "why?" Is it because of voter fraud? Because he's native? Bad for business? Corrupt? Sadistic? Progressive? I typically forget which South American country Bolivia is, and I'm not the only one. Can we get a hint of the compelling political forces at play here, experts? Keep it vague, if need be, just some agreed motive. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, November 11, 2019 (UTC)
  • Added Alt3 feat. Jeanine Áñez. Working on her article. Kingsif (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Also, coup title issue sorted.
  • Support, with simple blurb Keep it simple, especially since this is a fast moving, current event. I prefer "After weeks of protests, Bolivian president Evo Morales (pictured) and other high-ranking politicians are forced to resign amid accusations of electoral fraud".----ZiaLater (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose alternative blurbs. His call for reelection comes from the OAS while his resignation comes from the coup. --107.77.223.113 (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Agree that shorter is better, but I’d go with the alt blurbs too. Article appears to be in good shape. Suggest timely post. Jusdafax (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted the first alt-blurb as I think the successor is important. I'm about to put Morales' picture in the queue for protection. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe the current blurb reads as if the protesters forced the government to resign. According to all sources this is not the case; the military forced the government to resign. Even as we justifiably agree not to use the term 'coup' as of now, we still cannot avoid the facts of the case. Davey2116 (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: T. N. SeshanEdit

Article: T. N. Seshan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Times of India

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

Nominator's comments: Former Chief Election Commissioner of India who brought significant changes and electoral reforms. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose based on lack of citations. Kees08 (Talk) 03:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kees08: Please reconsider your vote. Article is updated. -Nizil (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as updater. Article needs some copyediting and some more info in Career section. -Nizil (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone BulbulEdit

Article: Cyclone Bulbul (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Thirty-six people have been killed as Cyclone Bulbul hits the Bay of Bengal.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Very Severe Cyclonic Storm. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now – A bit too early to tell if this is worth posting. Bangladesh is notorious for catastrophic cyclones, but we don't have enough info at present. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait per Cyclonebiscuit. This might turn out to be a massively significant storm, but it isn't one currently. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - 18 have died as of now, updated blurb. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - the storm is now sufficiently significant and the article is in fairly good shape. NorthernFalcon (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - might help people to get information around it at this juncture much . Devopam (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - and good to go now.BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ReferencesEdit

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

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