Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Shortcut

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.

Billie Eilish in 2019
Billie Eilish

view - page history - related changes - edit

How to nominate an item

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.

Headers

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

  • 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...

  • ... 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

Archives

January 29

Current events of January 29, 2020 (2020-01-29) (Wednesday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Northwestern Syria offensive

Article: Northwestern Syria offensive (November 2019–present) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Syrian government forces retake the strategic town of Maaret al-Numan in the Northwestern Syria offensive (November 2019–present)
Alternative blurb: ​Syrian government forces retake the strategic town of Maaret al-Numan in the Northwestern Syria offensive.
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article is orange-tagged. I leave it to someone else to delete the tag and make it postable. Banedon (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment – proposed Alt1, which eliminates disambig "(November 2019–present)" and adds a full stop. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

January 28

Current events of January 28, 2020 (2020-01-28) (Tuesday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Yang Xiaobo

Article: Yang Xiaobo (Hubei politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Paper, Radio France
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Former mayor of Huangshi, a major city near Wuhan. Probably the first notable death of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Death announced on this date (actual date not yet disclosed). Zanhe (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Short but adequate and decently referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article is sourced and recently expanded. TJMSmith (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD  — Amakuru (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harriet Frank Jr.

Article: Harriet Frank Jr. (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Is a GA and looks generally good to me, although I don't think some of the awards are directly cited in the body? Could maybe use another set of eyes. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose Awards and filmography need cites. Otherwise looks good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Ref'd those sections. Only thing I can't corroborate is that Edgar Award, so it might be worth removing. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Support Good to go. The one CN is not enough to hold up posting given the otherwise solid article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD  — Amakuru (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Lexii Alijai

Died on 1 January, and reported on that date. RDs aren't posted when the cause of death becomes known. Stephen 23:58, 28 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: Lexii Alijai (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Died on January 1, 2020 but was widely reported today (COD). TJMSmith (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This death wasn't recent. It occurred nearly a month ago, where recent deaths are usually people who died within a few days prior. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:26, 28 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.
  • Only adding to affirm the death was widely reported when her body was found UPI, so this definitely is stale for RD. --Masem (t) 03:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nicholas Parsons

Article: Nicholas Parsons (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Needs work... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support An amazing entertainer who was still working until not long before his death at 96. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 11:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait and see if somebody can fix the fact tags without hesitation, repetition or deviation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Support Article has now been cleaned up sufficiently. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support article looks in good shape Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per others. Spengouli (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, good improvements took just a minute. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support well respected entertainer in UK, oldest working presenter (at 96) and presenter of longest running panel show since its inception Hoffie01 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 15:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak

Article: 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The blurb fell off the Main Page earlier, and I added it to ongoing as there was a prior consensus on the original nomination. Adding a procedural ongong nomination here, and if there is any dissent to it being in ongoing we can remove it. Stephen 03:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Post-posting support clearly still ongoing and being updated. No issues. --Masem (t) 03:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support This has to stay as Ongoing because it is ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This is the logical thing to do. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post Posting Endorse Filing this under WP:COMMONSENSE. No need to jump through the bureaucratic hoops all over again. It's still front page news more or less daily and likely to remain so for a while. The article is still in good shape. Good call. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting endorse clearly the right call. Lepricavark (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • PP Support – Still very much in the news, more than any other ongoing item we've put in recently.  Nixinova   T   C   07:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Clearly still in the news, and likely to be so for a while. Hard to get an edit in edgewise in the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support posting as ongoing The story just keeps getting bigger. Nsk92 (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Clear consensus in favour so just tagging as posted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Automatically support the story is being update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – With the toll in China at 106 132 and some cases confirmed elsewhere, we should keep a close watch on this for possible new blurb. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment there was consensus for OG in the original nom, good call from Stephen to post. This is going to be in the box for a year... --LaserLegs (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

January 27

Current events of January 27, 2020 (2020-01-27) (Monday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

2020 Brazilian floods and mudslides

Proposed image
Article: 2020 Brazilian floods and mudslides (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Floods and landslides hit southeastern Brazil, killing at least 50 people and leaving thousands outside their homes.
News source(s): FOX News BBC Al Jazeera
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Large number of deaths. ArionEstar (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose until significantly expanded. Currently it is a micro-stub consisting of two sentences and a total of 41 words (including numbers). -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality: Two sentences and two refs isn't nearly enough for the main page.  Nixinova   T   C   07:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem and Nixinova, the article is not nearly long enough for the main page at this point. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on notability; oppose on quality. Clearly undeniable deserving of ITN, but it urgently needs improvement. MSN12102001 (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 United States Air Force E-11A crash

Article: 2020 United States Air Force E-11A crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A United States Air Force flight crashes in Dih Yak District, Afghanistan, killing all five on board.
News source(s): bbc voa, AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The BACN is a civilian type (in this case a Bombardier Global Express), it's not a combat aircraft and the Taliban is claiming they shot it down. LaserLegs (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Wait until the US says it was shot down. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait per 331dot. We don't have enough information right now and most of what we are hearing is coming from the Taliban. It should go w/o saying that they are not a reliable source for the time of day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait – While the U.S. has confirmed the crash, no details available. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - whether or not it was shot down, the article isn't in bad shape with all that is known included. Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Mjroots It matters if it was shot down or not, as that likely affects coverage of this and the significance of the crash. I haven't seen a great deal of coverage of this- but if the Taliban brought down an aircraft, that's much more notable. Military personnel take on the risk of things like this happening when they sign up(unlike civilian aircraft carrying passengers). 331dot (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Whether it was shot down, or suffered a double engine failure (per forum gossip), it is still the first fatal hull loss for the type. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – U.S. retrieves the remains of two crewmen, the only occupants, and says no indication plane was shot down. – Sca (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Caspian Airlines Flight 6936

Like the aircraft involved, this one's not gonna fly. Mjroots (talk) 16:51, 27 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: Caspian Airlines Flight 6936 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​All 144 people on board Caspian Airlines Flight 6936 (aircraft pictured) survive when the aircraft overruns the runway on landing at Mahshahr Airport, Iran.
News source(s): Mehr News
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Let's get some good news up for a change. Mjroots (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless this has wider news coverage- which may not happen for a simple overrunning of the runway, where the chances of casualties are low(unlike say, the Miracle on the Hudson). 331dot (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose this certainly is good news but not really notable enough for main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support not every day an aircraft overruns, and the MD-80s were extensively built. Weak because the article is still kind of disaster-stubby. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I can only work with what is available. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I know, I'm not judging contributors just reading it that's my sense of it. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – although it's very good news, I don't see this as being notable enough for the main page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per 331dot, TRM. Glad they all survived. – Sca (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's possible the newsworthiness of this item might be inflated due to the previous airline "accident" that took place in Iran. Still, we generally don't post no-casualty accidents on ITN, as morbid as that principle seems.--WaltCip (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ITN was a different kettle of fish back then.--WaltCip (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree that such a large over-run is unusual, as is the under-carriage being ripped from an aircraft full of passengers and it coming to rest on a public road. However, the aircraft seems to have survived as well as anyone could have hoped, and there are only two injuries. A dramatic near-miss certainly, but not significant enough for an ITN blurb. It should be possible to expand the article enough to qualify for DYK. Modest Genius talk 15:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We generally don't post near-misses: it would have to be an event like US Airways Flight 1549 ("Miracle on the Hudson") where there was significant attention to the rescue efforts/etc. And even then, not an assurance. --Masem (t) 16:01, 27 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 26

Current events of January 26, 2020 (2020-01-26) (Sunday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

(Posted) Grammys

Proposed image
Article: 62nd Annual Grammy Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the Grammy Awards, Billie Eilish's "Bad Guy" and When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? win Record and Album of the Year, respectively.
Alternative blurb: ​At the Grammy Awards, Billie Eilish wins Best New Artist as well as for Song, Record, and Album of the Year for "Bad Guy" and When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?, the second time in the history of the awards.
Alternative blurb II: ​At the Grammy Awards, Billie Eilish wins Best New Artist as well as for Song, Record, and Album of the Year, the second time in the history of the awards.
Alternative blurb III: ​At the Grammy Awards, Billie Eilish wins Best New Artist as well as for Song, Record, and Album of the Year.
Alternative blurb IV: ​At the Grammy Awards, Billie Eilish wins all four major categories with her song "Bad Guy" and album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?.
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:

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: There probably could be more on viewership, and perhaps mention that the tribute to Bryant was a last minute thing. However, the rest seem updated better than past years. Masem (t) 04:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support, but comment - She also won Song of the Year and Best New Artist. Maybe those two should be incorporated. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Article needs a bit more prose, and I've tried to add a bit where I can. Of note, Eilish is the first artist to win Album, Song, Record and New Artist in the same year since 1981, and that was the only other time this has ever happened. That could also be mentioned in the blurb too instead of just the two awards. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 05:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    Changing my vote to a full Support now that there is sufficient prose in this article (For once!). For the blurbs, personal preference is for either alt2 or alt3, but any of them would do. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 21:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The "Nominations" section is an eyesore and I'd like to see some prose outside of the lead, but thank you all who worked on this article for doing it this year, and staving off the otherwise inevitable ITN/R removal threads. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose original blurb with suggestions I would Support altblurbs because they not only awarding one awards, but also two awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment for the sake of brevity can the blurb just say "Billie Eilish wins record of the year and album of the year"? We barely fit 4 blurbs in the box these days ... --LaserLegs (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The nominations section seems to be completely unreferenced — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. History made! MSN12102001 (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support – nominations section is largely, if not entirely, unreferenced; while I don't doubt the accuracy of the information, I think references would be of benefit. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and proposing Alt III and Alt IV. No need for trivia in ITN. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC); Edited 16:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    I updated the article to expand on the pre-existing controversy and the tribute to Kobe Bryant. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment History made indeed. This might be the first time in like five or six years that we've been able to post the ITN/R Grammys on ITN. Thanks, Billie Eilish!--WaltCip (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose no prose outside the lead and also maintenance-tagged. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    That was an inappropriate "too many wikilinks" tag that has now been removed.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too little prose. The article is also clearly trying to evade the controversies leading up to the ceremony, which should be mentioned. Teemu08 (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Teemu08: I've tried to update the article to address these concerns. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Alright, that looks better. Willing to support now. Good work. Teemu08 (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb as it is focused on Billie Elilish alone, instead of the grammys as a whole. I would support a blurb that is a bit broader. --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    The normal blurb we use for the Grammys is to cover the Album and Record of the year (this is what the first blurb had done) and nothing else. But Elilish "swept" the top awards, a fact that is clearly important by the RSes, so while the trivia (2nd time its happened) can go, naming the 4 major ones she won is fully reasonable. --Masem (t) 16:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    I agree with Masem. The four awards we would conceivably put in the blurb were all won Eilish. Removing her from the blurb also removes the major news story about the awards. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Sufficient prose now. Alt3 is fine. Looks like this ITN/R might actually get posted for once :)-- P-K3 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Alt2, though the others are fine as well. Morgan695 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
    Glad to see this up. :) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Altobelli

Article: John Altobelli (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Died in the 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash. TJMSmith (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Jeez, that is some impressive work. GreatCaesarsGhost 03:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment How would other editors feel about adding his article to Kobe’s blurb? Nonstopmaximum (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Best to keep it just to Bryant, like when Soleimani was killed. Juxlos (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Railsback

Article: Tom Railsback (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Article updated

 Neutralitytalk 23:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak support Refs are fine, but the Political career section could benefit from a pronoun. Every sentence calls the man Ralisback. GreatCaesarsGhost 03:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support a few pronouns scattered around now, and article is ok. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted. This was stale actually, but I sneaked it in at the bottom because the death was only reported on Jan 22 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Kobe Bryant

Discussion is devolving. Stephen 03:30, 27 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: Kobe Bryant (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American former basketball player Kobe Bryant (pictured) dies at 41 in a helicopter crash.
Alternative blurb: ​American former basketball player Kobe Bryant (pictured), age 41, and four others die in a helicopter crash.
Alternative blurb II: ​American former basketball player Kobe Bryant (pictured) and four others die in a helicopter crash near Calabasas, California.
Alternative blurb III: ​American former basketball player Kobe Bryant (pictured), his daughter Gianna, and three others die in a helicopter crash near Calabasas, California.
News source(s): New York Post, ESPN The Guardian, L.A. Times, AP
Credits:
 PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Wikipedia is experiencing an explosion of traffic right now so I apologize if this ECs anyone. Information is still coming in but if true, this should be considered for a blurb. He is retired but only recently, and this is extraordinarily unusual.--WaltCip (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Bryant was tops in his field(even if just retired) and the manner of his death is unusual. I don't know if the other four casualties should be mentioned. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: World news and extremely notable former athlete, but lets wait for more details to update the article. MX (✉ • ✎) 20:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, pitching altblurb 1 The fact that four others died in this crash is also noteworthy. —BLZ · talk 20:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - All over the place at the moment. If needed here is another source ABC. PackMecEng (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt1 I think the fact that this nuked Wikipedia's servers is pretty good evidence of blurb notability. At a glance the article looks in fairly good shape and I don't think it is too big of an issue for the main page. Yes, it needs a little tuning, but that will be challenging until the news dies down. I'm willing to IAR a little here given the unique circumstance of his article being for all intents and purposes uneditable right now. Agree that the others in the crash should be mentioned Teemu08 (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Both blurbs looks good to me (the four other can be mentioned, but the noteworthy event is Bryant’s death rather than the crash itself) but this should be posted after the WP outage dies down. — MarkH21talk 20:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment As a Wikinotable person has been killed in an aviation accident, a stand-alone article on the accident is justifiable. The aircraft in question was a Sikorsky S-76B, which is a large helicopter. Am being affected by the reported issues accessing Wikipedia in Europe at the moment by only getting intermittent access, otherwise I'd start the article myself. Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support for blurb, but strongly support for RD It is very good, well reference and notable. But i would willing for support it posted for RD because his death.
  • Support blurb3 - Top of field, unusual death, article is of good quality.  Nixinova   T   C   20:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on completely unsourced tables. There are a handful of sentences that could use a cite but I can overlook those given the generally decent condition of the rest of the article. But all of the stats tables are unsourced. That needs to be fixed before this can be posted. [Note: The servers are barely functioning under the weight of all the traffic, so I'm having trouble refreshing pages and this oppose may already have been resolved by time I get it posted.] Support blurb once these issues are resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Tables now sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, with the third being my preference. The article has 447 citations and is almost entirely sourced. Kees08 (Talk) 20:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb sources are saying it's his four daughters who have also died.... needs to go into the blurb. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm hearing conflicting information on that. It's not mentioned in the ESPN article.--WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I see that they're saying it was one of his daughters, not all four. But it hasn't been confirmed (or denied) yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, the four daughters info from ABC has since been deleted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (multiple times EC) We have a consensus for a blurb. The article is loading super slow so it will take it a while to expand the updates but the basics are there. Posting. --Tone 20:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (ec × ∞) Support Kobe's death is why servers are on the fritz? Oh. A world-class athlete dying at 41 (the kind of death that makes me exclaim "HOLY SHIT" and drop my phone when I first saw), is much different than a septuagenarian comedian with dementia. This will be reflected in the press as writers put out their thinkpieces in the coming hours. The death is news, rather than merely being in the news. Article quality is great. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Blurb two time MVP winner doesn't strike me as "transformative world leader" in his field and he doesn't pass the "Mandela/Thatcher" test for me. Still the media circus probably justifies. Awards section in the infobox needs refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The other thing that merits a death a blurb is if the death itself is a notable event, not just the career of the deceased person. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
🏆 Five-time NBA champion
🏅 2008 NBA MVP
🏅 Two-time NBA Finals MVP
🏅 Two-time NBA scoring champion
🏅 Two-time Olympic champion
🏆 2018 Academy Award winner
The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2)Support His death broke Wikipedia. What more do we need? The article itself isn't accessible right now, so I can't really look through it, though. — Gestrid (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
You're the second person to attribute the availability issues to Bryants death. Is there some RS reporting the same? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2)Not that I know of, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. TMZ's site also went down when they broke the news. — Gestrid (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like a planned upgrade caused a spike in CPU usage and response times -- not Bryants death. Just wanted to close the loop on that one doesn't affect support for blurb at all. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ALT1 preferred; the other four people deserve some recognition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I couldn’t even so much as fix a typo because a billion people came to Wikipedia at the same time. (I for one didn’t believe it was really Kobe Bryant. I thought there was another Kobe Bryant who was a basketball player and Oscar winner too. Then I thought, maybe it was his dad. Absolute disbelief.) Hopefully, the page is stable enough to actually be a recent death notice. ⌚️ (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment For the record, it's a little premature to say his death "broke Wikipedia". The site has been having problems all day. Wikipedia tweeted about it at 11:20 PT. TMZ broke the news about Kobe Bryant's death at 11:24. Surachit (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Would we be able to remove the word "former"? I don't think it's necessary. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Take it up at WP:ERRORS.  Nixinova   T   C   21:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
      No, this is the place to discuss wording changes, not ERRORS, but in any case the word "former" has already been removed. Thx  — Amakuru (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
      I've raised this at ERRORS. He wasn't a ball player when he died, so he was a former player. It's an important distinction that needs reinstating. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment image needs to be replaced. And yes, it wasn't this death which broke Wikipedia, it's been a bit broken all day. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment ESPN now saying that one of Kobe's daughters died in the crash.--WaltCip (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment image should be replaced with one of kobe. Bohbye (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ’’’Comment’’’ As WaltCip mentioned above, add daughters death to the blurb. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Comment TMZ corroborates this report about his daughter, and it's currently in the Wikipedia article. Was apparently told to TMZ by a rep for Kobe. https://twitter.com/TMZ/status/1221533868433592320 — Gestrid (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – L.A. Times says "and four others" but doesn't mention daughter (filed abt 2130 UTC). Mercury-News says "unclear" if family members on board. – Sca (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    There are literally dozens of other RS saying as much. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Calif. sources. – Sca (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Say wut? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't know you were from Kentucky. Sca (talk)
AP quotes 'source' saying daughter Gianna also killed (filed 2145 UTC). – Sca (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Let's leave professional scrutiny to the professionals. If the majority of reliable sources are corroborating Gianna's death, then we go with that.--WaltCip (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course, but bear in mind the AP is the world's largest news-gathering organization. – Sca (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep, we'll stick with RS, this is Wikipedia, not Reuters or the BBC. Vast majority of sources now stating that his daughter was with him when they perished. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment While deeply tragic, his daughter Gianna is not independently notable and I am not seeing any reason to name her in the blurb unless we are going to name all of the other people who also died. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, in a high-profile case like this it could be argued that she's notable by virtue of being his daughter and also being killed. It's a judgment call. – Sca (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, I think it's a case of us all being human beings, it's simple to appreciate that the loss of Bryant and his daughter is worthy of note. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
L.A. now confirms Gianna as victim. – Sca (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
That's the link I posted a while ago... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
She wasn't there when I first looked at it, but now she is. – Sca (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Added his daughter to the blurb.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
NYT confirms Gianna. – Sca (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Plenty of RS have confirmed this for at least an hour, I don't think it's necessary now to continue to add more when it was made clear to you some time back. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

NYT is the most respected U.S. newspaper with the largest staff. I was a bit uneasy until they confirmed it. – Sca (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - 9 people in total now confirmed dead. Blurb should be updated to reflect this. Andise1 (talk)
  • Post-posting blurb support This is exactly the scenario that, in terms of RD guidance, would be taken as an "unusual death", and also with fair consideration of how significant Bryant was (If it was some random 2nd string from a NBA team, that likely would have just been RD, no blurb). This is ITNC RD processing working as intended. --Masem (t) 23:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose blurb per LaserLegs. One could say Kobe Bryant has won lots of titles, but so have other players. What makes his death more notable then - an unnatural manner of death hardly seems convincing. Banedon (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Kobe Bryant is the most accomplished player in the 21st century in a sport labeled as "global" by at least one person in WT:ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • An unnatural manner of death and at a relatively young age is an accepted and explicit factor for posting a person's death as a blurb, not even factoring in Kobe Bryant's phenomenal status in sports.--WaltCip (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support blurb one of the greatest basketball players ever + a sudden death that absolutely stuns millions of Americans = a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
"Not a good look for ITN." – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment Oh FFS, it's posted. OK? Can the rabid fans with their post-posting comments please move on to other more useful tasks? There are always nominations needing more work. Your love for Bryant and for basketball won't help that. It just highlights the US-centrism of this place. HiLo48 (talk)
Editors obsessing over one person while ignoring lots of other things to be done for ITN is rude. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It's mine. I've made my point. You clearly don't get it. I give up. Bye. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I do not appreciate being referred to as a 'rabid fan'. In reality, I was indifferent to Kobe Bryant even during his playing days. Spiteful comments like the above are unhelpful and have no place in a collaborative environment. Even if you had a point (which you don't), there would have been a better way to make it. Lepricavark (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
So why did you join five other editors with unnecessary, almost identical post-posting comments? It's not a good look for ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Might be time to close this whole thread up. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
That has been my point all along. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Then maybe just stop talking. I'm sure we'd all be very happy with that. Lepricavark (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Please don't give HiLo48 what he wants. 72.208.178.248 (talk) 03:25, 27 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 25

Current events of January 25, 2020 (2020-01-25) (Saturday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Science and technology

Boeing 777X

Proposed image
Article: Boeing 777X (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Boeing 777X (pictured), the world's largest twinjet airliner, makes its maiden flight.
News source(s): (BBC News Online)
Credits:

 Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment I want to support this, but I don't see where the article has a paragraph about the test flight (it should be in production?). The whole production section has tense issues which need adjustment (this happens when you build an article from news stories). Consider "the GE9X first flight has been delayed ... but the slip should not change the engine certification schedule". That was two years ago. Did it change the schedule or not? I don't care enough about the subject to fix the article, but reading through it felt like a 4 year summary of press releases. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support incremental change but article is good and it's in the news. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The test flight of a new design doesn't seem sufficiently significant. – Sca (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – I think it's okay. 70.138.211.34 (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • non-rhetorical question - what is the value of a superlative "world's largest twinjet" when the world has quadjets? GreatCaesarsGhost 03:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@GreatCaesarsGhost: Quadjets are being phased out. The A380 program ended, the A340 is long over, the 747 is on life-support. Tri and quad jets almost exclusively predate ETOPS certification so there is some notability in the evolution of very large and very long range twin jets. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a derivative of an existing model (although a larger derivative than others). Even a newly designed aircraft with no prior derivatives failed to garner enough support for inclusion on ITN and I don't see why Boeing 777X should be any different (other than having the word "Boeing" attached to it). OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
That was 7 years ago .... we're not doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Questions: it's unclear to me how much this differs from existing variants of the 777. If we posted this, would it set a precedent for every minor modification of a major airliner? And would it not be better to wait until the aircraft enters service (2021 if all goes to plan)? Modest Genius talk 16:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • They added four frames to stretch it out. The big question is if it will require a new type certificate or not. If it's the former it may not be that noteworthy but if the latter then it's functionally a new aircraft. Now is when it's most likely to be in the news ... we post 8 to 14 air crashes a year, personally I feel like we can do one new aircraft variant every two years but that's just me. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - How a TEST FLIGHT notable enough to be in "In the News?" --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment if this winds up posted, it'll be rather contradictory, considering Microsoft terminating support for Windows 7 wasn't posted and both Windows 7 & the Boeing 777X are the products of certain companies. Banedon (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, does not seem notable enough for the main page considering the flight itself, the subject of the blurb, does not even have its own page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jordan Sinnott

Article: Jordan Sinnott (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian; BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Died 25 January Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support slim article but enough, and referenced, and tragic death. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not seeing anything about his recent career. It's mentioned in the infobox but not explicitly sourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've just added that - it only needed a sentence, to be honest. 'Support and marked Ready. Black Kite (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - just over the threshold for RD. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 15:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

January 24

Current events of January 24, 2020 (2020-01-24) (Friday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Pete Stark

Article: Pete Stark (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): L A Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: He served in the US House of Representatives for 40 years. A few citations are needed, but it's otherwise an okay shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

RD: Rob Rensenbrink

Article: Rob Rensenbrink (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBCWashington Post
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Renowned Dutch footballer. Death announced today (26th). Have updated article with his death but it needs a lot more work. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yuri Viktorovich Kuznetsov

Article: Yuri Viktorovich Kuznetsov (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Rossiyskaya Gazeta, RIA Novosti
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Military leader, Hero of the Soviet Union, local/regional politician Spokoyni (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Elazığ earthquake

Article: 2020 Elazığ earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A major earthquake strikes Eastern Anatolia, causing 22 deaths and more than a thousand injuries
Alternative blurb: ​A 6.7 Mw earthquake in Elazığ, Turkey, kills at least 22 people and injures more than a thousand.
News source(s): CNN, BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major damaging earthquake, still a little short on details Mikenorton (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support, but may need further update. Added altblurb. Brandmeistertalk 12:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. The "Tectonic setting" is basically filler and you're left with three sentences describing the technicals of the quake and one about the damage caused. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. But need updates. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ... in principle, pending expansion of thin existing article. (Three sources added above.) – Sca (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Lookin' better. – Sca (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

RD: Clayton Christensen

Article: Clayton Christensen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): HBR, WSJ
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Influential Harvard Business School professor and author died of cancer. Natureium (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - He was notable in the business world and a popular author. - Indefensible (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose On balance, the sourcing here is very problematic. Lots of missing citations or primary sources. Also lots of LDS-alligned stuff that, while not junk, cannot be the foundation of an encyclopedia article. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose not adequately cited. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support there's nothing wrong with religiously-based sources (that document his role in church institutions) that are reliable. --Varavour (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    But there is something wrong with posting BLPs with [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    That's just the point - they're not reliable (go check RSN if you don't trust me). We wouldn't publish an article about a priest that is entirely cited to the Catholic church. A few in a long article is okay, but of the 28 citations currently in the article, 7 are to the Deseret News and 6 more are written by the subject himself. I've no doubt Christensen has seen broad and sustained coverage in reliable sources; but they are not cited here. GreatCaesarsGhost 05:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Question - how does the citing for Christensen compare to Seamus Mallon? If Christensen meets the threshold for notability and his citing is at the same standard or better, then he should be posted. - Indefensible (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    About as well as Boris Johnson compares to Usain Bolt in the 100 meter. GreatCaesarsGhost 05:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
How exactly? There are articles referenced from The Economist, WSJ, Bloomberg, HBS, and Forbes--those are all respectable sources. Christensen's article is actually rated better than Mallon's: C-class vs start-class. - Indefensible (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
It is not sufficient to have some material cited to reliable sources, but rather "any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged [must be cited] to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The bulk of this article is not cited to reliable sources. This is not the place to discuss Mallon - if you have concerns, you may note them in that nomination or in the Errors page.GreatCaesarsGhost 17:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The point isn't that Mallon's article isn't post-worthy, it's that Christensen's article is rated higher than Mallon's [and should thus similarly be posted]. There are more citations for Christensen than for Mallon and only a couple places where the {citation needed} tag is used--if that is really the issue, the affected statements can just be removed. - Indefensible (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, so none of that is of any relevance to getting Christensen's article posted, which is the matter currently being discussed. Separately, but just as important, my comments do not prevent the article from being posted; they only draw an admin's eye to issues. They will sustain or reject my concerns. If you think those concerns are unjustified, the admin may agree. If my concerns are valid, someone will need to fix the article before it can be posted. In any case, there is no need to engage with me whatsoever. GreatCaesarsGhost 03:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) March for Life

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 03:44, 25 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: March for Life (Washington, D.C.) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The March for Life, an annual anti-abortion protest, is held in Washington, D.C.
Alternative blurb: ​U.S. President Donald Trump attends the March for Life in Washington, D.C., an annual anti-abortion protest.
News source(s): USA Today, Fox News, CNN
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The March for Life, a pro-life protest, was held today, drawing around 100,000 people. It usually doesn't get too much attention from the mainstream media (besides Fox, of course), but this year it's different because Trump actually attended it in person. JOEBRO64 20:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment if the 2020 march had a few paragraphs of prose including preparations, speakers, police, counter-marches, etc all that good stuff I could support it. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the main hook here is that Trump personally attended, that should be in the blurb. Otherwise I don't see much reason for posting this annual protest, held to commemorate Roe v. Wade. While 100,000 is a large crowd, it isn't a big newsmaker(as noted by the nominator). 331dot (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not internationally significant and at best, a bipartisan flashpoint for American politics. Droodkin (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Brand news. The president spoke there. MSN12102001 (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
So add something to HIS article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Happens every year. Trump did attend for the first time, but it's still a regular event. On top of that, the relevant section about the 2020 March for Life is literally one sentence. Master of Time (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Recurring annual protest lacking the kind of significance we generally look for in order to post such things at ITN. Trump's presence does not alter that reality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose {removed personal opinion}--WaltCip (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@WaltCip: That is way out of line and I strongly advise you to strike or better, simply delete the comment. See also FORUM, NPA and BLP. I'm INVOLVED, so this is not an admin warning but you should know better. This is not borderline or questionable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Politicians attend rallies all the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Life doesn't need support. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Politicians attend rallies to hopefully convince those attending they are nice people. There is no news here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The March is a routine event - only if it drew massive crowds after the event would we post. And every time a Trump association is added we should ask "Would we do the same if we were talking Obama? Or Bush? Or Clinton? Or Bush Sr.?" and I hope obviously here the answer is no. Trump is an extremely divisfy figure but we have to be very wary of how much attention the media makes of tracking him. We are not in that position. --Masem (t) 02:56, 25 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.

(Posted) RD: Seamus Mallon

Article: Seamus Mallon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): RTÉ ITV
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: An important figure in the Northern Ireland peace process. Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland from 1998 to 2001 and Deputy Leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party from 1979 to 2001. Sheila1988 (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Short article mostly referenced although some dead links need to be fixed Joseywales1961 (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment added a few CN tags, most aren't a big deal but his position on NRA violence and police reform need strong refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    References added throughout including those 2 specified by LaserLegs Joseywales1961 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • LGTM marked Ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

January 23

Current events of January 23, 2020 (2020-01-23) (Thursday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Gudrun Pausewang

Article: Gudrun Pausewang (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): hr television
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Influential writer of young adult literature, for peace and environment, against nuclear power and Nazi thinling ever again, books on school canon, in film and on stage, awards in Germany and international - deserves more attention. - I expanded the article, and plan to expand Die Wolke (Fall-out, literally: The Cloud), her best-known work. Much much more available in German, but as usually without inline citations, so I'm reluctant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Cagua fire

No consensus to post. ——SN54129 13:10, 26 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 Cagua fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A wildfire in Cagua, Venezuela, kills at least 11 people
Alternative blurb: ​A fire in Cagua, Venezuela, kills at least 11 people, most of them underaged
News source(s): BBC, CNN, La Vanguardia
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Unusual event in the country and significant death toll. Nine of the dead were underaged. Jamez42 (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No way we can post that short an article. And from I can read, this was accidental death by fire, and not as severe as we'd consider other tragedies. --Masem (t) 06:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose micro-stub, not encyclopedically significant. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I read the Spanish language article (through Google translate) it has a lot more words, but not a lot more info. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article contains no more info that what is available in this blurb.  Nixinova   T   C   22:49, 25 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.

(Posted) RD: Franz Mazura

Article: Franz Mazura (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BR
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Operatic bass-baritone with a long career - 25 years at the Bayreuth Festival, 15 years at the Metropolitan Opera (debut there at age 59), on stage at the Staatsoper Berlin the night before his 95th birthday. - The article was in a sad state, - we thought he'd sing forever. Could still be improved, - plenty of sources were added in 2010 and are an unused treasure. The next one died, though ... Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The source treasure is now used, just one review in Italian left, - anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose according to the project guidelines, discogs (as user-generated content) is not considered a reliable source, so the discography needs properly sourcing before this can be posted. The rest looks satisfactory. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    Did you see that there was no discography when I nominated?? It was kindly added by LeQuattroStagioni. Sigh, I'll go again and add the sources that are in the discographies of the pieces. - Or should we take away the discography until after RD? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    TRM, job done (and another hour later for writing about the next one who died, two days ago.) I found two good reviews on the way, wish I had time to put them in the prose. Later perhaps. - I wonder why he has this entry on WorldCat but it doesn't show in authority control. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    It shows in authority control: https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n85025197/ as entry "WorldCat Identities (via VIAF): 61733733" Grimes2 (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    Now it does. When I looked last - beginning of the ref search, I got a 404 error. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    No, I didn't see that Gerda, but that's because I was otherwise engaged and then spent the afternoon out doing other things. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: Are you satisfied with this now, TRM? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    Hi Espresso Addict, thanks for the ping, it's good to go. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Espresso Addict, are you satisfied. Others? We talk about a nice addition to the article, not about the body of the article. This great person died three days ago, presentation held up because one person is busy elsewhere and has no time to look? Really? - Thanks to the RD-crew, however, for the speedy handling of noms so far in 2020! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    Calm. Since not one other soul has actually supported this, it seems perfectly reasonable to allow the only person to actually issue a preference to re-visit. Which I am doing. And I don't think the three-day delay is my doing either. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    I am calm. I didn't say revisiting wasn't allowed, only that waiting for the revisit of someone who said he was busy wasn't a prerequisit for being ready. I confess a certain nervousness, remembering Márta Kurtág whose going stale was one of two failures last year I haven't yet forgiven myself. Thank you, TRM and all. Now to Gudrun Pausewang.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    The problem is not really with me or waiting for me, after all I try to comment and return to every single candidate here. The problem is a general lack of interest in many such nominations, and that's something you might like to try to address at various other venues e.g. wikiprojects who may be interested in such nominations. The fact that I read each nomination, comment on them and even usually try to make general improvements should be lauded really. Where's my barnstar? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Please donate my barnstar to TRM. What a hero. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    Oh wow. And coming from you. Such an honour!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, I know. Even I have to make allowances. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    TRM, I'm no barnstar-giver, just number-1-thanks clicker in 2019, and think you got a few of those ;) - I also awarded you the rare Impact, and partly for what you do here, day by day. Satis? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you. Credits? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Lehrer

Article: Jim Lehrer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT, NBC News
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Long-time American journalist and PBS news anchor, who moderated many presidential debates, dies at age 85. Davey2116 (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Parts of 'Early Life' and 'Career' need referencing (tagged) Joseywales1961 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. J4lambert (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    J4lambert, when you provide a reason, it allows other editors to try to fix the problem. --valereee (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support pbp 23:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Also, have resolved several citation-needed tags. pbp 23:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Admins willing to post ITN: I think this is ready now. I have add refs for anything that was missing one. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Doomsday clock

SNOW close. SpencerT•C 21:18, 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: 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
Credits:
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
Oppose – Sca (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
(However, a Doomsday Device would be a different matter.) – Sca (talk)


  • Oppose - Mostly per Modest Genius. Otherwise it does not appear to be anything special at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 18:50, 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 22

Current events of January 22, 2020 (2020-01-22) (Wednesday)
edithistorywatch
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

Sports

(Closed) RD: John Karlen

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 01:15, 28 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: John Karlen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: American actor. Article in need of citations. Skteosk (talk) 09:01, 24 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.

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Citizenship Amendment Act protests

Kept in ongoing. Stephen 01:17, 28 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: 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 [3] [4] and today it is all over the international news due to the court cases. [5] filed by protesters and violence [6] The article is getting regular updates. I note, LaserLegs has nominated this removal a second time and without good reasons again. DBigXrayᗙ 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". --DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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.

--DBigXrayᗙ 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 [7] [8] [9] [10] 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. DBigXrayᗙ 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. 159.53.174.143 (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. [11][12][13]--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. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry for late reply, "....not prominent....rest 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.DBigXrayᗙ 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)

  • Support removal. Per nom and Banedon. Very similar situation to the Hong Kong protests, which are also still continuing. SpencerT•C 21:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • support removal - It doesn't appear to be any more aggressive/notable than other protests that happen all the time. It's at a low intensity and days can go by without the article gaining an update. The protests in places such as USA, France and Hong Kong can achieve greater scale and intensity without being posted online. At least the Lebanon one is high intensity and has had far reaching consequences for the Lebanese people (including the resignation and replacement of its government) whereas the Indian one seems to be a few small protests in a country of a billion people. When the protests reach the intensity of the ones in Hong Kong and France, then it can be re-posted to Ongoing. Tsukide (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I will add that there are several protests around the world of similar intensity, some of which have had further-reaching consequences such as the protests in Iran and Iraq, but that they don't get posted to the front page. The protests in places such as Latin America, France and Hong Kong tend to be of higher intensity. The small scale and low intensity of the protests which can easily mimic the anti-Trump protests that are always happening, especially in a country of over a billion people, means that the protests are not severe enough for the front page. Tsukide (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    Tsukide, If you think something deserves to get posted, feel free to nominate it so that community can discus and get it posted, instead of using unposted events as an excuse to pull things down. DBigXrayᗙ 07:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm using them as comparisons as to why the these protests should not be on the front page in their current form. Tsukide (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The updates have been ongoing. CAA protests garnered 900,000 views in the last 30 days, (30K avg everyday) while Lebanese protests got 23,000 views in the last 30 days. So this also gives an idea of the relevance of these protests. DBigXrayᗙ 19:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment For those who opposed and support ongoing removal, Indian CAA protests now added at
Current Events sidebar in section Ongoing protest. I added it in order to participate if this article was removed from Ongoing items, same as Hong Kong protest, Australian bushfires, or even Wuhan coronavirus outbreak as it happened today. I also planned to add Shaheen Bagh protests to Ongoing events sidebar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 21:12, 25 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.

(Posted to RD) RD or blurb: Terry Jones

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
Credits:
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.DBigXrayᗙ 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. DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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 (talk • contribs) 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.

References

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: