Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

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

Coronaviruses viewed under an electron microscope
Coronaviruses viewed under an electron microscope

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) 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.


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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... 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


January 23[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Doomsday clock[edit]

Article: Doomsday Clock (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientests advance the Doomsday Clock to 100 seconds before midnight, the first time it has been under 2 minutes, due to increased risk of nuclear warfare and global warming.
News source(s): NBC News

Nominator's comments: Outside of a few image updates due to this new state, the article is updated and ready. Masem (t) 16:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  • 100 seconds? Really? How long is this farce going to continue? Editorializing aside, I have nominated the Doomsday Clock before and consensus was usually against it. So oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all previous nominations. It's a meaningless scale. Modest Genius talk 17:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We'll post the clock when it hits midnight and the nuclear holocaust is underway. Until then, its just a meme. Teemu08 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
But none of us will be around to post it then. ;) 331dot (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Macaca fuscata juvenile yawning.jpg
  • OpposeSca (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

January 22[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy
  • Elliott Management, a prominent hedge fund, has sold all its shares in the Hyundai Motor Group of South Korea. It had long quarreled with Hyundai's management, demanding more generous dividend pay-outs. Their departure from the shareholder ranks is likely welcomed by Hyundai executives. (Reuters)

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) Terry Jones[edit]

Already posted as RD, consensus is against a blurb.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Terry Jones (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
Nominator's comments: Dead "Terry Jones, Life of Brian director and Monty Python founder, dies at aged 77". The Guardian. January 23, 2020. Jones, who was diagnosed with dementia in 2015, was the main directing force in Python’s films, as well a prolific creator of TV documentaries and children’s books 7&6=thirteen () 13:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Duplicate nomination? Already posted! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Ongoing removal Citizenship Amendment Act protests[edit]

Article: Citizenship Amendment Act protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: The last protests (this is an article about protests) were on January 17th with around 10k people. Since then it's been legislative wrangling and petitions. Time to come down. LaserLegs (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak support removal - it's still in the news but it's ceased to be very prominent. I'm sure India remains captivated by it (and people are welcome to cite the well-known "please do not" statement above), but the rest of the world appears to have moved on. Banedon (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Removal. Tens of thousands (e.g. 300,000 on 21 Jan) of people are protesting regularly in several cities [1] [2] and today it is all over the international news due to the court cases. [3] filed by protesters and violence [4] The article is getting regular updates. I note, LaserLegs has nominated this removal a second time and without good reasons again. DBigXray 23:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    The "updates" you mentioned aren't in the article, which is where they need to be to stay in the box. If you have commentary on me or my intentions, take it to WP:ANI --LaserLegs (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Here is the diff of almost 43 KB of updates in the last one week, and they appear very much in the article to me. Are you sure you are talking of the same article titled "Citizenship Amendment Act protests". --DBigXray 02:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal at this time. Topic is still being covered, article is in sufficient condition and still getting daily updates on latest developments. Checks all of the boxes.--Jayron32 00:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The latest developments in the article aren't "protests" it was a petition and lawsuits. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure what beef you have with this article, but you have now resorted to lies that are quite easy to prove. Here are a few major updates of past 1 week and clearly they are more than lawsuits and petitions. see below. --DBigXray 02:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Summary of major updates in last 1 week
16 January
  • Police in Chennai banned all protests in the city for a period of 15 days. 6 were detained by the police for protesting against CAA.
17 January
  • The Punjab Legislative Assembly, that has the Indian National Congress in majority, passed a resolution against the Act and urged the Modi Government to avoid discrimination on the basis of religion through the new Act. The resolution was moved by Punjab minister for parliamentary affairs Brahm Mohindra of the Congress and was supported by the Aam Aadmi Party and the Lok Insaaf Party
  • Inspired by the Shaheen Bagh protest, a massive anti-CAA-NRC-NPR protest started in Mumbai. Around 10,000 women gathered at the YMCA ground in Mumbai to protest in the evening. The protest was organised by a NGO named Mumbai Citizen Quorum.
  • Around 500 women start a sit in protest at the Clock tower grounds in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
18 January
  • Uttar Pradesh police cracked down on the CAA protesters near the Clock Tower in Lucknow
19 January
  • In Delhi, hundreds of protesters joined a protest march holding lighted candles from Jamia University to Shaheen Bagh
20 January
  • Several Labour MPs of the UK parliament discussed the concerns on the CAA, in a meeting organised by South Asia Solidarity Group (SASG) and Ambedkar International Mission (UK) in London.
21 January
  • More than 300,000 people join an anti-CAA protest rally at Kalaburagi in Karnataka.
  • In a unique way of protesting, more than a hundred women protesters at Khureji Khas in Delhi released 10,000 gas filled black coloured balloons with the message "No CAA NPR NRC".
  • Police register cases against 160 women for violation of the ban on assembly and protesting against CAA in Lucknow.
  • Despite ban on assembly, Home Minister Amit Shah addresses a pro CAA public rally at Lucknow.
22 January
  • Thousands of students from 9 universities in North-East India boycott classes and join protest march in the states of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh.
  • A 5 kilometer long procession against CAA was led by CM Mamta Bannerjee in Darjeeling, West Bengal.
  • Women continue sit in protests at the Haj House near Kadru Over Bridge in Ranchi, Jharkhand enters third day.
  • 144 CAA related petitions scheduled for hearing in the Supreme Court of India were brought up.

--DBigXray 02:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

My "beef" with the article is that it is stale, none of the pertinent recent updates you mentioned existed when I nominated the article for removal, instead you added them [5] [6] [7] [8] then you call me a liar. Tell you what, I'll take it to WP:ANI in the morning. Cheers. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
LaserLegs, The version you linked contains 7 updates that are common with what I wrote above. How does 7 equals "none" ? On ANI threats, sure and looking at your past experiences with ANI, due to your ITN behaviour I would advice caution on the WP:BOOMERANG. DBigXray 02:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove I think we've lost sight of the purpose of ongoing with these perma-posts. We should consider both the duration on the main page and the relevance of recent events. 10K people at a protest is a Tuesday in many places around the globe. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean by "is a Tuesday"? Banedon (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
= "is routine." Very large protests have become extremely common in the last few years. I would speculate that protests of >10K people occur in multiple places every day. (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the removal, the event is still ongoing and the news are still covering the event e.g. [9][10][11]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
First link is about a court ruling, not protests. Second and third links are analysis, not "new, pertinent information" as stipulated Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section. Thanks for proving my point. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove per nomination. Intensity of the protests is decreased and of course, relevance too. These protests have trivial mentions in the news right now compared to last month.-- Harshil want to talk? 03:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
As updated here more than 300,000 people joined in a rally on 21 Jan. I would not rush to call that reduced intensity or relevance. --DBigXray 03:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry for late reply, "....not of the world appears to have moved on..."- POV..on what basis. People in New Zealand day before yesterday protesting and lawmakers also participated, online campaign going on. We are talking about in the news, not how many people visiting. By the way daily article page views showing its more than 20,000. Dey subrata (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose because follwoing the recent hearing on 22nd January, 2020 from the SC on this bill, there has been new developments on the protests across India. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment At the risk of this becoming an ad hominem argument... @LaserLegs: Please explain your continuous effort to remove items from the Ongoing tab on ITN. This seems like something you have made a pet project for a while now, and most of the time, consensus is fiercely against you, as it is here.--WaltCip (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@WaltCip: we can discuss this at WT:ITN, at my talk page, or at WP:ANI if you think I'm not behaving appropriately -- I don't think this is the right venue. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#ITN_Ongoing_removal_nominations_by_LaserLegs as requested.DBigXray 15:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose This is still making a huge ongoing forever impact in Indian politics and the economy. It would continue for unforeseen future until the Indian government withdraw from legalising the citizenship act. Abishe (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(posted RD, consensus against blurb) RD or blurb: Terry Jones[edit]

Wikipedia has decided that it doesn't want any more Spam on the main page. Nevertheless, RIP Terry Jones.--WaltCip (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Article: Terry Jones (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Monty Python actor Terry Jones (pictured) dies aged 77.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: There are couple of gaps that need sourcing, but will work on these now. (Addendum: I would also support the addition of a blurb for this: he's a member of one of the world's best known comedy troupes) SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support blurb - A prime example of a comedian and writer who was absolute tops in his business. Definitely on the same level as other blurbed persons we have posted.--WaltCip (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support RD only Neither the manner of his death nor the events surrounding it need special explanation; as a result there's nothing to say in a blurb other than "he died". Such types of death are what RD was created for. --Jayron32 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
A person need not die in an unusual manner in order to be blurbed.--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The guidance listed at Wikipedia:In the news/Recent deaths#Blurb? tends to disagree with that, it notes "In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." Several people, yourself among them, have asserted this is an exception to that rule, but have provided no evidence this merits an exception. That is, where can I read in sources outside of Wikipedia that his death is of such significance that it merits a blurb? Anyone can assert anything. It just requires one to type things. The real kicker is how can one show evidence that ones assertion is valid as supported by reliable sources. I've looked, I'm not seeing the sort of reliable sources coverage to indicate this merits a blurb. --Jayron32 13:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Your second comment is well-stated and valid; I'm wondering why it was not your first. It would simplify matters if editors commented on the obvious criterion for which the blurb is being suggested, rather than oppose an argument that no one is making. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I only made one point: We should follow the guidance based on existing standards already and long since written down, unless people can provide clear evidence that an exception should be made. Normal operating procedure is to post deaths to RD, and where we post a blurb instead, there are criteria for that. My objections directly address the reasons people are giving for posting this as a blurb, which is that Jones somehow counts as an exception to the standard " if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." which I quote a second time. People have asserted his career is itself meritorious of a blurb. I have merely noted that such assertions should carry little to no weight without evidence that sources outside of Wikipedia are treating it with a similarly elevated level of attention over the normal obituary cycle. No one, has yet, provided such evidence. --Jayron32 15:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Standards can change. Consensus can change. If the standards do not agree with the process that we have been undertaking for the past two years or so, that does not inherently mean all of those past actions were mistakes. It could mean that the standards that we came up with years ago no longer reflect the editorial consensus on ITN/C. I am arguing from the standpoint of overall notability, recognition, and how news sources have responded to Terry Jones's passing. Several notable people also in Jones's field have spoken out on social media, as per the BBC article. It would not surprise me if there were further news coverage even after today.--WaltCip (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Dozens of dead celebrities have been eulogized by their peers and inspirees on Twitter this year, with quite a few mentioned even one day later in the news. That's a low bar to crawl over. Keep the higher standard, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support blurb per WaltCip. Blurb added. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per WaltCip. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC) - Having said that: minor improvements are still wanted, example ref 26, which is a bare url, and positioned after "Medieval" about which it says nothing, while it would rather support "Barberians" which has no ref at all. - The image - sorry - is awful, at least in that size, looking as if a hand grew at a strange place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Lead image has recently changed. to Spanish Inquisition character Cardinal Biggles, but not many close-ups to choose from. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: The image really needs to be of TJ as himself, rather than playing a character. That said, there is a better one, so I swapped the image in the nom. Mjroots (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the swap, but it's not a great image, so perhaps blurb but no image. If we need to show this one, it might be cropped bottem and right, to have his face more in the centre. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
This might upset the purists, but how about a crop of this image? Monty Python Live 02-07-14 12 47 22 (14415436819).jpg It shows him performing the "Spanish Inquisition" scene, and would be a good way to pay tribute to his comedic genius!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hell yes Well what you got? Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and blurb; egg bacon and blurb; egg bacon sausage and blurb; blurb bacon sausage and blurb; blurb egg blurb blurb bacon and blurb; blurb sausage blurb blurb bacon blurb tomato and blurb; blurb blurb blurb egg and blurb; blurb blurb blurb blurb blurb blurb baked beans blurb blurb blurb or Lobster Thermidor au Crevette with a Mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and blurb. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Eughhh! Have you got anything without blurb in it? I don't want any blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, there's egg, bacon and blurb, that hasn't got much blurb in it, Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
At least on this nomination, I think we can afford a bit of Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam....--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Ritchie333, Please unbold the comment.DBigXray 14:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support RD only per User:Jayron32. I know he is a popular actor and have seen Monty Python films. The subject lacks major awards that UK confers. I am not convinced that a blurb is merited here. DBigXray 14:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted to RD. Blurb discussions may continue — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    @MSGJ: Is there a reason you moved the blurb criteria to an information page off the main ITN criteria? As says the legend, info pages are not policy and not vetted, where I believe the blurb criteria is. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb not Mandela or Thatcher --LaserLegs (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
No, but he's Terry Jones.--WaltCip (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Nor were Prince or Carrie Fisher, but there we go. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
It should be noted that we are not required to repeat past mistakes forever. If something had been done in the past that should not have been, it doesn't mean we must continue to do the wrong thing forever. At any point, we must make our decisions on what is the right thing to do, not on what we may or may not have done before (each of which in retrospect may be judged as having been a bad idea). --Jayron32 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, Prince's death was a complete surprise (rather than old age), and was a top recording artist in his field. Fisher is the type of blurb case we want to avoid. --Masem (t) 16:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb The crowd here skews both nerd and British, so I think we may be overstating his importance. The Pythons are big, but does each get a blurb? GreatCaesarsGhost 14:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
We have a Wikiproject WP:WPSPAM. We have a content guideline about WP:SPAM. Who is a key person who caused the word "spam" to mean other things than food? Terry Jones. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - on balance, yes I think so. I had a "wow moment" when I saw the news, and it's front page on the websites of the New York Times and Le Monde, so is a global story already. I would also support WP:IAR (if there is any rule on this) and use a crop of the Spanish Inquisition photo, as mentioned above, as it is a fitting tribute to him.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't expect a picture of the Spanish Inquisition! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Nobody expected it :O Tone 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Amakuru, then I hope you are going to invoke this WP:IAR for every artist across the world. If you aren't going to do that then your acts are actually reinforcing the opinion that the ITN is biased in favour of American and British personalities. --DBigXray 16:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    @DBigXray: my mention of IAR was related to the choice of image, not the decision as to whether to blurb or not. As for ITN being biased in favour of American/British personalities, that's not actually the case. It's actually biased in favour of things that are in the news. And that people want to read our articles about because they're in the news.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    Amakuru, then I stand corrected. I got an impression that you are using IAR for the blurb. Which news ? The British and American news sites will obviously give a disproportionate coverage for their domestic audience, passing the buck wont help reducing the bias. --DBigXray 17:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Popular and influential, but not at the level of global importance at which we should be setting a blurb. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Yes, I think so. You can usually tell by the amount and level of reaction to a death and I believe this clears the bar. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - I may be a huge MP fan, but we have to recognize that few of the individual members had a significant impact "top of the field" contributions for entertainment beyond Python (Cleese and Gilliam, they are different stories). His health issues were documented so this death was not a surprise, either. We want to avoid the fan-driven impulse to post this like what happened with Carrie Fisher. RD is fine enough. --Masem (t) 14:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Much as I enjoyed his work, he died of dementia in old age, and the reaction to his death has not been a major news story in itself. Very sad, but exactly what RD is for. Modest Genius talk 15:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - I definitely think this passes the bar for a Blurb mention. Has received massive amount of attention.BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Fond of the man's work as I am, I don't see why this is blurbworthy. He was old, it was well known he was gravely ill, and he's not as well-known outside of Python as Cleese/Gilliam/Idle, which limits his influence. (Not dismissing his comedic skills, more than Python as a whole deserves some group credit.) Nohomersryan (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb as per statement of WaltCip Joseywales1961 (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per WaltCip --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Look, I love Monty Python as much as the next person, but this is not a blurb worthy death. It strikes me as systemic bias at its core to think of one in this case. He was not a Bowie / Mandela / Thatcher type, and his death wasn't as shocking as Prince or Carrie Fisher. I don't see the level of tributes coming out for TJ as did for those deaths, which is what made those blurb worthy. RD is fine here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Yup - I've seen comments from the other living Pythons and some other significant writers, but this is not "shocking" the world that we'd normally post blurbs on. The battle with dementia made his death a matter of when, not if, and everyone had been ready for it. --Masem (t) 17:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb agreed that he was a comedic genius and a step above a lot of the people on RD, but still not former U.S. President/British PM tier. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Blurb please As someone not of the US, the UK or the Commonwealth, I'd say that a Python deserves a blurb. As to the actual blurb, I think Jones' legacy other than being "one of the pythons" would be being credited as director in two of the greatest comedy films of all time. Be best if "director" could be inserted somewhere. Usedtobecool ☎️ 22:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb It's a common name and so a blurb would provide some helpful context for the reader. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb it's there if I look for it, but other topics are dominating the headlines. Banedon (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No blurb The proposal is a shorter version of his existing line at Deaths in 2020, and his bio's opening sentence. Clearly cooler than Thatcher, Franklin or Prince, but that's irrelevant. Slightly complicated stories are what matter here. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb RD is fine for a not-unexpected death from natural causes. P-K3 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb – beloved comedian, yes, but not top of his field as far as I can tell. His death was also long expected. Falls short of the importance for a blurb, imo. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb – Regardless of intense cult following, Terry Jones isn't a generally significant household name, IMHO. – Sca (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb -- Not a household name. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - per the above opposes. Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

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

January 21[edit]

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime
  • Two judicial sources announce that the trial of seven Cameroonian soldiers has begun for the killing of two women and two children in July 2018, in a case that sparked international outcry. Six of the soldiers admit to the charges, but say they were given the order to open fire. (Reuters)

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Morgan Wootten[edit]

Article: Morgan Wootten (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBS Sports

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The greatest high school coach in the USA. Added refs to coaching record but some parts there need refs. ミラP 01:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support I expanded the lead. Good to go.—Bagumba (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

January 20[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Wolfgang J. Fuchs[edit]

Article: Wolfgang J. Fuchs (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Tagespiegel

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Writer of first German standard book on comics, translator of Garfield and Mom's Cancer to German, among others - I translated the German article. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support – Seems well-documented. – Sca (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) 2019–20 Lebanese protests[edit]

Article: 2019–20 Lebanese protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After weeks of relative calm, protests in Lebanon escalate to open conflicts between protesters and security forces, with more than 370 people being injured.
Alternative blurb: ​After weeks of relative calm, protests in Lebanon escalate to open conflicts between protesters and security forces while a new cabinet takes office.
News source(s): NBC NEws

Article updated

 --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment In the same article, Al-Jazeera says "dozens" injured and Reuters says "370". Which is it? And how many were trying to reach Martyr’s Square in the first place? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    "dozens" were injured in the protests near Martyr's Square. More than 370 were injured during the whole day. I don't see a discrepancy. The Reuters article was published the day after, so it is not surprising that they have a better handle on the figure. I don't understand what the question "how many were trying to reach Martyr’s Square in the first place?" has to do with the blurb suggested. If you can find out how many, feel free to add it to the article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for your feedback. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I would suggest that this be placed under "ongoing" instead since it is ongoing. It could/should replace the protests in India which hasn't moved in three days. I wonder if either is worthy of the front page though. -- Tsukide (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
You might consider nominating the CAA protests for removal --LaserLegs (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Either blurb or ongoing. Article quality is in good shape, it seems to be actively updated, and the topic is being covered by reliable news sources in sufficient depth. I would be good featuring this article on the main page, and it could either be as a blurb or ongoing. --Jayron32 12:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is ready now. BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to ongoing as there doesn't seem to be a significant event that would have made it as a blurb in it's own right. Stephen 01:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jaroslav Kubera[edit]

Article: Jaroslav Kubera (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [12] [13]

Nominator's comments: president of the Senate of the Czech Republic, long-serving Czech politician — Draceane talkcontributions 18:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

January 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) as blurb Ongoing: 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus[edit]

Article: 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The outbreak of a new type of coronavirus has been making headlines over the past week or so. The daily update from China shows 139 new cases (compared to a total of 62 up until yesterday), so it's probably going to get even more coverage now. Johndavies837 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support ongoing because there are many case about coronavirus that can be spread into another country. It is highly notable to included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing elderly people dying of pneumonia is hardly unusual, and human to human transmission has not been established. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support it's in the international news right now and is provoking a government response. If it proves to be less worrying than expected, we can always take it off ongoing then. Banedon (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I change my mind, support blurb per Spencer. Banedon (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb only. This is the type of item that would be great for a blurb: posted once and ages off, and then won't be stuck on the template indefinitely. Items like these are hard to pinpoint since it takes time to isolate the virus and there's a lot of looking back to see when the first case started, so I wouldn't have a problem posting a blurb "late" per se. Example wording: A new strain of coronavirus infects over two hundred people in China, killing three. or something like that. Then if it gets drastically worse to an ongoing-level item, then it can roll off the template onto there. SpencerT•C 05:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support its being a public health concern and it seems that have high chances of spreading, even more since cases with people that dont visited the origin place of the virus were confirmed, rasing the chances of concern about human spread, i think that would be good to be on current events area of front page Meganinja202 (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per Spencer. -Zanhe (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
plus Posted. El_C 10:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posted comment I think it is reasonable to posted it as blurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting commentOngoing seems more appropriate at this point. It is in the news [14] [15] [16] but so far fatalities are reported at three. – Sca (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support blurb per above, it's an international story. If it proves to be long-lasting, with daily updates over months, we can move it to ongoing after it slips from the bottom of the blurbs.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, although even some RS reporting seems rather hyped. But deaths have risen to six. – Sca (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-post-posting support + pre-support for ongoing With confirmed deaths, and word that this is human-to-human contagious, this is going to be a big medical story for weeks as they try to contain it. --Masem (t) 15:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    • And to add, there's a reported case in the US too, though CDC has it at low risk. [17]. So very much should stay ongoing once it falls off since more cases likely to arise worldwide. --Masem (t) 19:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I have left a hidden admin note next to the item stating "if updated, consider rolling to Ongoing". SpencerT•C 20:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
        • We've actually discontinued that practice. If someone wants it in ongoing they'll need to nominate it as such (this was an OG nom but consensus was blurb). --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-post-posting support + pre-support for ongoing similar to Kivu Ebola epidemic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Yet for me if the number of casualties was changed, it is no longer used as blurb, but it is more like ongoing section, like India CAA protest, which on 29th December nominated as blurb but posted as ongoing instead because that original blurb was different than actual situation.

(Posted) RD: Jimmy Heath[edit]

Article: Jimmy Heath (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NPR

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Influential jazz saxophonist and composer. Prose looks fine, discography could use some references shoy (reactions) 19:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. Very long and productive career (reads like a Who's Who of mid 20th-century jazz). Performed on more than 100 albums, including 7 with Heath Brothers and 12 as a leader; also wrote more than 125 compositions. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

January 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Gordon A. Smith[edit]

Article: Gordon A. Smith (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [18]

Nominator's comments: Influential British-born Canadian artist; centenarian 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:9C2F:D4F1:3:574F (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Article is in good state. I've tagged a couple of sentences where references are needed. Otherwise it looks good — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Afgooye bombing[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 00:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2020 Afgooye bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A car bombing kills 4 and injures at least 20 others near Afgoye, Somalia.
News source(s): Al Jazeera

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Attack on Turkish aid workers near Mogadishu LaserLegs (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment This article needs some verification and expansion, but i support to it to include in ITN section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose It would need some expansion, but I'm also not certain of the notability as stands. Feel free to ping me for review when the article's expanded. Kingsif (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose if this had been an US School Shooting we wouldn't bother posting, and Somalia is a borderline warzone. Juxlos (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not really notable, especially for a war zone like Somalia. Prism55 (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per two previous. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

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

January 17[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Bobby Kay[edit]

Article: Bobby Kay (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [19] [20]

Nominator's comments: Canadian professional wrestler; member of the Cormier wrestling family -- one of Canada's best-known wrestling families GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hwang Sun-hui[edit]

Article: Hwang Sun-hui (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): 김정은, 리설주 여사와 빈소 찾아 조문 故 황순희, 김일성·김정숙 등과 항일운동

Nominator's comments: A North Korean politician. ミラP 02:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment I just oppose it if it have non-english source. I rather support it if there is a English-language source and change it from Korean language source because it would not understand for speakers who use Latin alphabet. Where is English-language source of death of Hwang Sun-hui? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    There's no requirement that mandates article sources to be in English. Naturally someone from North Korean must have majority or even all of sources about them to be in Korean. Sources are not meant for everyone on earth to be able to read them, just that somebody (in this case one who can read Korean) should be able to verify them. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks Okay to me. Well-sourced. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose lead tagged. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is without information on what she did once appointed to any role. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support appears well-sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Although InedibleHulk makes a good point about lack of what she did in her roles (and it being in essence a resume/CV in that respect), it seems that she was notable for her public image (as described in Hwang Sun-hui#Public image. Based on the descriptions there she was more of a propaganda poster child and her role on the committees was "ceremonially important", and goes to a greater depth than a resume-article. Given that it's North Korea and not a politician in a democratic country who has more of a role, I would consider this meeting a minimum standard of coverage for RD. SpencerT•C 06:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - article is well sourced and I agree with Spencer's argument. -Zanhe (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Terence Hallinan[edit]

Article: Terence Hallinan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): KRON

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The DA of SanFran. Neutrality in politics section needs some sorting out ditto some small paragraphs but every paragraph is referenced. ミラP 02:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose tagged per nom. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I have pulled the section tag after review. The article in general and section in question is well-referenced, in my view, and the article is front-page worthy. Jusdafax (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting story, too, especially relative to North Korean "politics". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Glass[edit]

Article: David Glass (businessman) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Kansas City Star

Nominator's comments: He died on January 9, but the death was just announced today. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Bueller? Bueller? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal 2019–20 Australian bushfire season[edit]

Article: 2019–20 Australian bushfire season (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: Yes the fires are still ongoing, yes the article is still getting updates. Those "updates" are ref improvements, copy edits, and low grade edit wars. The most recent "new, pertinent information" is a note on January 6th that "Premier Andrews said that bushfires had burnt through 1.2 million hectares" and on the 5th a fire near Voyager Point that was "containing the fire to 60 hectares". Since the 14th of January the only new information I see are a few bits of proseline about international support. What was burning on the 10th? I have no idea because the article has no new information. Same for today. The requirements for ongoing are "continuously updated" not "continuously edited" and the updates simply aren't happening. LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose per OP, who's clearly showed the article is being continuously updated. Banedon (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    • What are you talking about? I carefully explained that the article is being "edited" not "updated" with "new, pertinent information" as stipulated by WP:ITNC#Ongoing_section. Did you read my comments? Or the article? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Australia is a big place, with different climates across the continent. While the bushfire season is easing off now in northern parts, with the expected tropical influence at this time of year, further south things are just warming up. (A semi-deliberate pun.) Historically, the hottest and most severe fire weather in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania comes in February. The two fires with the biggest death tolls in Australia, the Ash Wednesday bushfires and the Black Saturday bushfires, both occurred in February. While this editor is naturally hoping nothing of the kind happens this year, saying this is all over now would be just a little premature. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Think positive, dammit! A natural lack of hope is not enough. We sometimes need to actually want things to end, before they really do. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll think cautiously thanks. The fires in both those earlier events came within about four kilometres of my house, which would be regarded as being in one of Melbourne's (outer) suburbs. I'm still watching out. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
You seem to have picked a good place to live, my upside-down friend. I got smoked by a record-breaking blizzard yesterday, but it only broke records four provinces over. Still turned the sky almost pure white for a few hours, then the deepest, darkest blue after the hydro went out. One witness described it as "Heaven on Earth, but not in a warm way." That old man then prepared to die regretfully, but it turned out alright, because that old man still is me. May you continue to shine on through what clouds you're shown this "summer", because you're unforsaken, too! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hardly. The next ongoing item on the Main Page right now is Impeachment trial of Donald Trump. While it feels to me like that's been going on forever, I know rationally that it will stop at some point. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now It seems like need more update about impact of bushfire itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Meets the definition suggested at WP:ITN#Ongoing for what is "continuously updated". For example as it relates to the fires in Tasmania. Figures are been updated with new totals frequently enough. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Support Jayron32 is right. There has been no significant updates. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove If analysis and reaction are all that's new, that's aftermath for you. Aftermath actually does trickle on forever. We're still learning new things about several mass extinction events that happened before Australia was even a thing, doesn't mean we should alert the general public about these latest geological developments. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still in the news (BBC has quoted authorities saying "bushfires far from over") and readers like me would be interested in this topic. 2401:4900:330D:19A2:E9D:46AF:B0B2:2F16 (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support removal. The only event in the past 4 days mentioned in the article text is a benefit concert from the Wiggles on 18 January. Any other recent additions have been updates to old information. There have not been substantive updates with new information for quite some time. --Jayron32 13:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Removed. While not unanimous, consensus is that the article has not received constant updates, which is needed to keep the article in Ongoing. Arguments reporting that the subject is still in other news sources were considered, and if the article is updated with new information, should be renominated for ongoing. Best, SpencerT•C 21:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Derek Fowlds[edit]

Article: Derek Fowlds (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: British entertainer and actor. Minor referencing issues. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

January 16[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime
  • After his escape from Japan, Carlos Ghosn's Japanese lawyer Junichiro Hironaka and seven other members of his defense resign. Hironaka says Ghosn's escape was a "complete surprise". (CNN)
  • The bodies of seven people are found in a mass grave in the indigenous Ngäbe-Buglé region of Panama. Authorities believe a religious sect performed an exorcism on the victims. Police rescued 15 people who had suffered bodily injuries. (BBC)

Politics and elections

Block of Wikipedia in Turkey lifted[edit]

Article: Block of Wikipedia in Turkey (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Access to Wikipedia in Turkey is restored after a 2.5 year-long ban, following a Constitutional Court ruling that declared the ban unconstitutional.
Alternative blurb: ​In Turkey, access to Wikipedia is restored following a ruling by the Constitutional Court that declared the block unconstitutional.
News source(s): Wikimedia press release and reuters article

Nominator's comments: End of a major and long-lasting block of Wikiepdia, important news to Wikiepdians, and all supporters of free speech. dmartin969 02:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson It's not Wikipedia or a Wikipedia editor righting the wrong, it's the legal process in Turkey, and as WP:RGW notes, "We can record the righting of great wrongs". 331dot (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
But was this a great wrong that is being righted? It's true that it's a step towards transparency, but governments engage in censorship of information and the Internet all the time.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I think reversing the denial of access to a database of general human knowledge is righting a great wrong and a great step for free speech in country not known for free speech. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Was unsuccessfully nominated on 27 December. Stephen 08:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
That was the court decision itself, and at the time it was unknown as to if the government would comply. Now, they have. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – We are not the only ones that consider this important. NYTimes, DW, Al Jazeera, VOA, and Bloomberg all consider this important. A precedent setting decision by a supreme court of a nation is usually a good candidate for ITN. Some times nazel-gazing is unavoidable, if everyone is admiring our navel as well. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support certainly notable and relevant for this platform.--MaoGo (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose same reason as last time, this is likely to be a one-off news event with no follow up. Banedon (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This is not a Wikipedia issue, this is a free speech issue in Turkey. It was notable that the court ruling was made, and also notable that the government complied, given that Turkey is not known for free speech decisions like this one. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Navel gazing and previously rejected. This is not the whole of the Internet aka China's free speech problem, but one website. Ask if this would have support if instead of Wikipedia it was Google or the New York Times or any other single website. Way too much importance on this being about Wikipedia here. --Masem (t) 13:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    Certainly yes if Google was blocked/unblocked. No for the NYTimes. You underestimate the impact of --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    I completely understand we are editing on, so any story with Wikipedia in it may seem of much higher importance. But it is at the end of the day just another website, not the entire Internet. I'm trying to consider how important this story is without placing any special value on WP beyond being an online encyclopedia anyone can edit, and to that point, it is just effectively a wiki. May be the world's most important wiki, yes, but in considering this type of story for ITN, that doesn't give it any more special weight. --Masem (t) 15:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    I would have the same opinion if it was Facebook, Amazon, or Twitter. Are you telling me that if China blocked Amazon tomorrow that would not be major news worthy of ITN? People are these days intricately connected to the internet. Severing/restoring access to a major part of it has far reaching consequences. Even in the most humble of estimates, Wikipedia has far reaching impact. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, its just one website, not the internet. But it were the case of, for example, Turkey dropping a whole firewall to non-Turkey websites, or China deciding to lift its own firewall, that would be major news as that is definitely a free speech issue either way. Lacking access to one website is not the end of the day. --Masem (t) 15:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support because it is free speech issue in a country, not only Wikipedia itself. It is notable to posted. A previous ITN was opposed because only Court decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per C&C. A major story involving Wikipedia would be of higher interest to Wikipedia's audience anyway. -- Tavix (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – A significant development for freedom of information. The fact that it's Wikipedia is not relevant to the basic issue. – Sca (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
PS: French and German Wikis feature it in their ITN sections. – Sca (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Without prejudice to the rest of your argument, what other Wikipedias do has no bearing on what the English Wikipedia ought to do. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
No website is an island, entire of itself. – Sca (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Navel gazing for sure. But even if it was "Number one ranked site Google unblocked in Turkey" it would not merit front page news. Also, it was not a "significant development for the freedom of information." I was in Turkey multiple times during the "block" and it was an open secret that Wikipedia was available on numerous mobile networks and the block was mostly on landlines/wired networks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Sca. Far more important than the Boat Race. Gamaliel (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
More important than the darts championship, too. – Sca (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Or college football.--WaltCip (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Is that a 'support' vote? – Sca (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: This is not an event just for Turkey; Italian Wikipedia supported lifting the ban from their edition. There was a #WeMissTurkey campaign online that has been attended by most wikipedians worldwide.--Joseph (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    • That makes it seem even more like navel gazing, tbh. While it's certainly big news for the WMF and Wikipedians, that doesn't show out-of-Wikipedia significance. We didn't post Framgate on ITN, for example. (Not that I don't think Wikipedia isn't a big deal in the real world; I have tried to put Wikipedia's founding on the January 15 OTD and was thereby introduced to the concept of navel gazing, but not everything Wikipedia is newsworthy.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't think Framgate is a valid comparison. It wasn't headline news in more than a dozen major English-language news outlets and it didn't require a major constitutional court decision on free speech rights.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - per SCA. It was definitely a freedom of information issue that was resolved. OctaviusSlockpit (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Sca. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as much as we take an interest in internet freedom, this is at heart a local domestic story, and there are likely to be many countries around the world that impose or lift restrictions on any website or another at any time or another. The fact that it's Wikipedia shouldn't sway an objective judgement.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
"Please do not 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." 331dot (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Masem. They make a compelling argument. PackMecEng (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I think readers will find this of interest. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - this news has been all over the worlds media. also per established news sources. BabbaQ (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per C&C. Substantial coverage in reliable sources & it was a notable ruling by their top constitutional courts that reversed the ban. Notability is established through coverage in sources, and coverage is not absent. The fact that the website involved is the one we're using is not a factor. To respond to Masem's hypothetical, of course I'd support the nomination if Wikipedia was swapped out with Google, as it's the #1 website in Turkey (and by extension the world), but I would not support if it was swapped out with the NYT because it doesn't even register in the top 50 websites by traffic. Wikipedia does, and it surpasses websites like Yahoo and Amazon. Combine that with the landmark court ruling on free speech online & the sea of English-language outlets covering it and I see no reason to oppose other than the fear of being accused of navel gazing  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Would like the article to be more expanded regarding the impact that unblocking Wikipedia will have on censorship in Turkey in general, connecting this to a wider context. Some reactions to the unblocking would also be useful: is there pushback from the government? IMO that would help with my concerns about navel gazing, and I'm willing to reconsider my position if the article is suitable expanded. SpencerT•C 02:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely worth posting, this is not just about Wikipedia/Wikimedia issue, it is about freedom of information access in general. The Verge noted here that this is the "tightest Wikipedia ban in the world" as apparently it was the entire domain they blocked. Lifting the ban after this lengthy period is quite important, and yes more important than many niche topics that we post here. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose not notable and self-referential. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 05:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Of absolutely no international significance. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Please consider 331dot's reply to Amakuru. The fact that the story received significant coverage in English-language outlets is itself demonstration of notability outside of Turkey.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 08:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is about freedom of information and Wikipedia is accidentally the subject of the whole story. The block being lifted after it was ruled unconstitutional in a large country like Turkey is a major news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per navel gazing; it's one website in one country. Other websites and other counties is other stuff. ——SN54129 08:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    I want to reply you that "Please do not 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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
No website is an island, entire of itself. – Sca (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Although there is rough consensus to post this, the article is not properly updated yet, as other editors have pointed out — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    I returned to this nomination with a view to posting, but there have been no further updates in three days. Are people satisfied with the update to the target article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Navel gazing. Remember when Turkey banned Twitter, then eventually lifted it because the ban was found illegal? Probably not. It had no significant effect, much like this probably won't, and it definitely wasn't worth posting on ITN. Unless we plan to give a blurb to when Turkey decides to kill Pornhub for a few months. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Sca. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – This sort of topic has a short half-life. Unfortunately, this one is getting stale. Suggest close. (This user supported nom. on Jan. 16. but has stricken it as article is now stale.)Sca (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - per C&C. Either post it or close it. Jusdafax (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ban on a single website being lifted in a single country is not news worthy. Amir (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Second call for close whichever way it might be. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Third call for close again per Sca. Post it or don't. But it's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note: it would help if the editors calling for close would indicate if they support or oppose the nomination. As I noted above several days ago, there are lingering doubts on the quality of the update to the target article. I have checked periodically and no further improvements have been forthcoming. Therefore, based on this discussion, I am not confident to call a consensus to post, but neither would it be appropriate to close it. Therefore the default position is that the nomination stays open until it becomes stale — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @MSGJ: I oppose the post, but Sca and Ad Orientem support it. This is already getting stale and approaching the bottom of the list. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
As noted above, I cancelled my support cuz it's stale. – Sca (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Trump impeachment[edit]

Article: Impeachment of Donald Trump (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): The New York Times

Nominator's comments: With the impeachment articles delivered to the Senate, we can expect this to be in the news for a while. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support in the news, quality article being updated with "new, pertinent information", ticks the actual boxes. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Nom makes the clear case for this inclusion. Davey2116 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This ITN Needs at least one reference to be nominated in ongoing. I oppose to posted this article to ongoing this week but i would support it for next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Banedon: since this is your nom, would you kindly copy/paste one of the myriad of high quality current references in the actual target article and add it to this nom? Also, thanks for nominating. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't own noms. Anyone can edit the nomination (I notice WaltClip has already done so). Banedon (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is a highly consequential ongoing event subject to significant global media attention. Meets all criteria for inclusion. WMSR (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    WMSR, highly inconsequential from now on. Republicans are in majority and as they have stated, they are not convicting their president. So other than political drama, you are not getting anything DBigXray 07:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support It would be better if he gets removed, but there's no reason we can't have both. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There are procedural steps ahead this week (starting with today's impeachment manager and sending the articles updates) and the trial itself is set to start on Tuesday. No reason not to post it now, though I wouldn't say anything if it isn't posted until Tuesday. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support given that now the circus shifts from one house to the other. --Masem (t) 06:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose we should ignore minor inconsequential events such as the case moving from House to Senate. as per Business insider senate could bring it for hearing on 21 thereafter it will have to be seen when it gets next major updates. Also everyone knows Senate Republicans are not going to vote support, so Trump is not getting impeached convicted. So I cannot see the impact of this going forward. DBigXray 07:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Trump is already impeached. The Senate will decide if there is enough to convict him on the terms of impeachment. Even if the Senate votes not to convict, that is still news - it would be the same as a major court case ending with an innocent verdict. --Masem (t) 07:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
      Masem, thanks for correction. As a non American I may have wrongly used few terms. I am talking about the (1)"relevant impact" and (2) the schedule of major events. When is the senate going to vote? Not within a week. The impeachment news was already posted. As of now, all I see is, some signed papers were moved with pomp and show, from one chamber to another. --DBigXray 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose While this is one of the more major events in the process, there's also about a million steps in said process. Ongoing would be a better option in my opinion, but I wouldn't complain if this was posted. -- a lainsane (Channel 2) 07:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted to ongoing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – A pretty obvious 'must' – even though ultimately the Demos won't prevail. – Sca (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post Posting Support It's back in the news and will be for a while. Ongoing is where this belongs until the trial wraps up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support because it is a major political event, and since the trial has started according to the constitution, it is in the news, and should be until the senate delivers the verdict, officially closing the trial. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ongoing only - Oppose blurb until the impeachment process is concluded. That is the time to post a blurb. Mjroots (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We now have a new article for the trial: Impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Can we update the link to this page? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    Updated link — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, but for next week I also want to replace the Impeachment of Donald Trump to Impeachment trial of Donald Trump with more specific in ongoing section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree that's likely the better target article. Banedon (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support there are a billion people starving to death which I guess is not news but this needs to be on the front page even though everyone knows it`s a stacked deck 2600:1702:2340:9470:14B3:A536:533A:AD06 (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
It might have a political effect in November, though. – Sca (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christopher Tolkien[edit]

Article: Christopher Tolkien (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Var-Matin

Nominator's comments: British editor, third son of the author J. R. R. Tolkien and editor of much of his father's posthumously published work. Jamez42 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now too much of it is uncited. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose far too soon for use of "fair use" image. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless improved while the topic itself is worth it, the article itself isn't that great. Flalf (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the article is significantly improved This article is missing several citations and ISBNs. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - some work being done on this now. Hopefully there will still be time for this to go up if the improvements are sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I've tidied up the article, adding citations and ISBNs for you guys. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - with thanks to Chiswick Chap for their work on the article. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
plus Posted. El_C 14:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
It's still far too soon to be uploading a fair use image of this individual. It shouldn't be featured on the main page with the image in place. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
TRM is right (and was right to remove it from the article). Let's give this a bit of time. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


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

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