This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page, 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. Archives of past nominations can be found here.

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.

A blurb is a one sentence summary of the news story. An alternate suggestion for the blurb is called an altblurb, and any more suggestions get labelled alt1, alt2, etc. A blurb needs at least one target article, highlighted in bold; reviewers check the quality of that article and whether it is updated, and whether reliable sources demonstrate the significance of the event. Other articles can also be linked. The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time. RD stands for the "recent deaths" line, and can include any living thing whose death was recently announced. In some cases, recent deaths may need additional explanation as provided by a blurb; this is decided by consensus.

Krystsina Tsimanouskaya in 2019
Krystsina Tsimanouskaya

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).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • 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.

Please do not...

  1. 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.
  2. oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  3. accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives

August 5


August 4

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

(Posted) 400m hurdles world record, update

Article: Sydney McLaughlin (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​New world records are set in men's and women's 400 metres hurdles by Norwegian Karsten Warholm and American Sydney McLaughlin. (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Wow, since Kevin is fundamentally against people doing the almost-certain at ITN and making a header clearer, proposing a better alt, on something he nominated, let's go for a decent blurb here.
Now, as noted below, this wasn't a particularly impressive record break, but on the other hand, it's 2 for 2 on 400m hurdles records. Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Adding a new article requires people to check that article for ITN criteria. No error, no "simple" change. Kingsif (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - But I do not support this blurb. Just add MacLaughlin into the current blurb and add her image and make it a trio.BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • At current that would be a bit long. Feel free to propose alts that don't take up half (if not more) of the box. Kingsif (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted by adding to the existing blurb. I will repeat what I said in my edit summary - this entire blurb is somewhat arbitrarily (and perhaps unfairly) putting a spotlight on athletics and ignoring the other world records in other sports, so I question the entire approach of putting Olympic world records in this ITN box. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • PULL How was this allowed to go AND get posted when it's a copy-paste of a nom below with 2 opposes? 188.27.36.191 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    While your observations are interesting and may even be valid, without a preponderance of reliable sources discounting the world records, it would amount to original research to make a judgment to consider these world records as requiring special treatment in ITN. Now as to whether we should be taking this much blurb space at all for arbitrarily highlighting these world records, but not the ones in swimming or cycling, that is indeed a valid issue to bring up. For now, it is only logical and fair that either all three folks should be gone from the ITN box, or all three should exist. Putting only 2 of the 3 athletics world records, as it was previously, just doesn't make sense. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
For reference nobody seems to have addressed any issues here: Seems that this new record was set WITH the "super spikes" that are reportedly a 1-1.5% bump over the old ones. Since this new decrease of .44 sec is by less than 1% of the old record (compared to the 1.6% for the men's one) and it is done WITH the new technology, this is definitely significantly less notable. The magnitude of the men's hurdles one was the notability there, and the long-jump one was the age of the record, neither of which apply in this case. Had this record been set outside of a competition with many records, this should have been posted, but can be skipped now. Alternatively, can add the records article to the ongoing link on the bottom of ITN (alongside medal table one).
  • More @Fuzheado: has anybody checked the linked article for quality updates? There are 2 sentences in the intro with ZILCH coverage in the body of the BLP. 188.27.36.191 (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    The quality of the article was considered and it is fine. It could benefit from more additions but nothing is a show stopper. --
    Article: Milavče train crash (talk · history · tag)
    Blurb: ​Three people are killed when two trains crash head-on at Milavče, Czech Republic (Post)
    News source(s): (BBC)
    Credits:

    Article updated

     Mjroots (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

    • Wait Stub article that also somewhat contradicts itself: it suggests there is a definite cause for the collision, but also that an investigation has just been opened. We should wait for it be clear which of those is true (do they know why, or are they looking into it?) RS should hopefully clarify with a few more hours. Kingsif (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Oppose unless there's a criminal investigation, this isn't notable enough to be posted.
      Otherwise covered by Fuzheado's posting of combined blurb above. Redundant, limited, discussion. (non-admin closure) Kingsif (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2021 (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: Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics (talk · history · tag)
      Blurb: ​In Olympic athletics, Venezuelan Yulimar Rojas breaks a 26-year-old world record in the women's triple jump, and Norwegian Karsten Warholm and American Sydney McLaughlin set world records in the men's and women's 400 metre hurdles respectively. (Post)
      News source(s): NYT, Reuters, Guardian, [1] SI[2][3]
      Article updated
      Nominator's comments: Very similar levels of hype to those in response to Warholm's run; if that really is the way we are going (promoting one sport's records to ITN, totally disregarding historical achievements in others), then it seems only consistent to do this as well. Kevin McE (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Comment/suggestion: Can we have a cap on the number of these new records in the same blurb at the same time, please? Perhaps the most recent three? Just to avoid putting up bloated bullet-points on ITN. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Comment May I suggest bumping Rojas out (back to individual blurb?) and having the 400m hurdlers in the same blurb. Kingsif (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Comment I agree that it's better to combine the world records in 400 m hurdles in one blurb and keep Rojas in a separate one. We should also consider a new montage of Warholm's and McLaughlin's photos.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Kevin McE Users unrelated to the nominator are allowed to propose alt blurbs; nominations are not the property of the nominator and unalterable by others, and adding an alt blurb does not suggest support by the nominator. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      How then can it be allowed to appear without accreditation or being marked as distinct from my proposal in a section that has my name, and my name alone, attached to it? Kevin McE (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      Users have proposed alt blurbs on the nominations of others for years and this is the first objection I've seen to it. Often discussions lead to such things and it is assumed that alt blurbs were not necessarily written by the nominator. My suggestion, if you are concerned that others will interpret the addition of an alt blurb as your suggestion, is that you make a statement saying that you do not support any suggested alt blurbs. Perhaps the nomination template can be tinkered with as well. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      Simple: it's not your proposal. The nominator's name is only there to give credit for bringing attention to the item, which is what gets the bulk of pure !votes, with blurb wording always open to improvement, sometimes (often) even changed by the posting admin without discussion at all. Kingsif (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      Patent nonsense, a proposal made by me, in my name, is my proposal. Why the incredibly rude tone from you on this page? Kevin McE (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      That's not true, and I've not been rude. ITN isn't a series of mini-autocracies, and I have merely tried to elucidate that. Wordily and firm, probably. You're making incorrect generalizations of a process you evidently don't understand and now are trying to "win" by saying I'm not nice to you. It's embarrassing. Kingsif (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Oppose Seems that this new record was set WITH the "super spikes" that are reportedly a 1-1.5% bump over the old ones. Since this new decrease of .44 sec is by less than 1% of the old record (compared to the 1.6% for the men's one) and it is done WITH the new technology, this is definitely significantly less notable. The magnitude of the men's hurdles one was the notability there, and the long-jump one was the age of the record, neither of which apply in this case. Had this record been set outside of a competition with many records, this should have been posted, but can be skipped now. Alternatively, can add the records article to the ongoing link on the bottom of ITN (alongside medal table one). 188.27.36.191 (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm going to suggest that for the purposes of the rest of the games that we do not try to suggest more WRs, and instead add a link to World and Olympic records set at the 2020 Summer Olympics in the ongoing line (eg "Olympics (medal table, world records)") That article seems to be reasonable sourced and in good shape. That will avoid this issue of us not featuring every WR set. --Masem (t) 13:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      And removing those already there? And acknowledge that sports other than athletics exist? Radical: I like it. Kevin McE (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      Maybe we should think about posting a box with links to multiple articles about the Olympics as we did for the COVID-19 pandemic last year. It's clear that the Summer Olympics are the main ongoing event in the world and the ongoing section cannot properly accommodate multiple links.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      The box for COVID was more as a attention-getting highlight because of its severity and that we felt the need that we wanted to do something to alert the readers of a global issue. Olympics is not of that severity, but we can add extra links to what are likely articles of high interest, which I agree include the medal table and WRs. I would propose a similar approach for any other ongoing where there is a subpage or two that would be a reasonable target article associated with the main ongoing event where that information isn't on the target page (eg when World Cup comes round, the tourney bracket structure if its not on the Cup's main page could be a possible target like this). --Masem (t) 14:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      I came here to propose exactly what Masem just suggested. --LukeSurl t c 14:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      Wasn't that a suggestion at ITN talk, and completely shot down? Kingsif (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      There was a suggestion to have sports icons alongside the Olympics to point to every single major event. That was shot down. But having a couple side links is completely reasonable given that we already have one (the medal table). --Masem (t) 14:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      Ah, well, I'm sure that would be a separate ongoing nom. Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Strong oppose and, frankly, suggest close. Massively overloaded blurb, and the nominator has made it very clear that t(his) nom is for that blurb wording alone, rather than for the item (i.e. event, i.e. bold article) - which ITN noms are supposed to be. I suggest Kevin, who also stuck this nom outside the date template until I fixed it, actually learn the ITN rules before trying it again. The rules which also say that items have to be nommed to get posted, so nobody is actively saying swimming and cycling can't be posted and he should stop whining about it. Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2021 (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.

August 3

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports


(Posted) Ongoing: 2020 Olympics

Article: 2020 Summer Olympics (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Its now out of ITN, and I think it should be listed in some way. My proposal would be 2020 Summer Olympics (medal table). I agree with the criticism of the Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics article on this page, but linking to the medal table seems reasonable. Something similar should probably be standard procedure for future games, once the opening ceremony is no longer the top ITN item. jonas (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - Seems like a good suggestion in my opinion.BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape and we're already late. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Long overdue - this should have been updated last week. There's no excuse or any valid argument against including this on the Ongoing section.
  • Strong Support Such a major, worldwide, once-in-four(five)-years event should be added to Ongoing. The 2016 Summer Olympics were posted in Ongoing from the day it began. CosmicLycanroc (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I like Jonas1015119's suggestion of going with 2020 Summer Olympics (medal table). Ktin (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems a very simple solution to days of convoluted debate, accusation and and recrimination. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Such a shame that all the convoluted debate, accusation and recrimination couldn't have been answered with simple factual responses rather than endless and hopeless snide comments, but glad we got to a result that now re-shapes Ongoing. I assume that Stephen, having posted this, will now update ITNR to account for this anomaly. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull a couple of HOURS AGO it was made clear that the original potential item: Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics had been fixed up. This is a proper ONGOING item, and it's sad it's taken this long for all those complainants to fix it up, but it looks good enough now, and much more suitable that the article posted which is barely updated. Change the target, good job someone here is doing the job of the whining massive, shout out to NormalPerson7, sadly surrounded by pseudo-comedians and users who literally do nothing here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    You want a fact? The 2020 Summer Olympics are ongoing and the In The News box should state it as such. It really is that simple.
    Please replace this curious smorgasbord of links (neither of which has consensus) with the timeline, which at least has some kind of ITNR pedigree. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    I promise to do nothing here, as long as I can be called a pseudo-comedian. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    I'm just glad I'm not a sports fan (except for snooker, of course). – Sca (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    No Martin, not a comedian at all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    No, he's not is he. Poor SCA. You can still be a snooker-pseud though. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Please Martin, take a break, stop responding to everything I post. It's bordering on bullying now. I'm sure you can find something better to do than continually harass me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Sca, even the World Snooker Championship doesn't have the global impact of the Olympics, so it'll never get an "ongoing" slot. And I'm sure you're a real snooker fan, not a pseudo one as I suggested. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics is now well-referenced and ready for posting. That's the standard article we always post to document ongoing Olympics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support 2020 Summer Olympics, strong oppose the chronology page. The Olympics themselves are ongoing, while the chronology is just fluff.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    So let's change the ongoing criteria? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Not really. Just treat this as a special case. It does get its own mention at WP:ITNSPORTS after all, and we already have COVID-19 pandemic as a perennial Ongoing item which also isn't updated on a daily basis either.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Actually, to be accurate, the ITNSPORTS link says it was the timeline which was accepted for 2016. The Covid article is a different matter altogether, it's not been updated properly and should be removed, but that's a red herring for this discussion. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    I think what I'm saying here is that this is an appropriate case for WP:IAR to apply. The Olympics page isn't being updated daily (although actually it should be, but that's another matter) but it's the page that readers most want to see, by a significant margin.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Reinstating the pull as we have an ongoing timeline article which is properly updated and sourced. Unless we're setting a new precedent here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I am extremely certain it is not standard procedure for one unhappy editor to put "PULL" in a heading because they don't like something. If it's an actual error you should ask for it to be pulled at WP:ERRORS, otherwise you really must wait for at least one editor to agree with you, no? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
      • No, you don't get it. There's no evidence this article meets the Ongoing update criterion. We have timeline article (noted at WP:ITNR) which should go into ongoing, now it's been updated. This article is not appropriate for "Ongoing". I think you all know that. Whether you are "extremely certain" or not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
        • The "evidence" is the 8 editors above who have supported this. I don't know or care what the Ongoing criterion are; there's certainly consensus that something about the Olympics should go there. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
          • Yes, correct. So the Ongoing criterion is now superseded. You don't care about it, but fuck that guideline. Glad the article which receives almost literally NO updates is now in the "Ongoing" section where "updates" are "continually" required. Well played. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is definitively not what the ongoing targets were supposed to be about. There's literally NOTHING in the target article about the ongoing events in the Olympic Games. The choice of two articles, one about the games, and a repeat, the medal table, is utterly shambolic. Neither give any indication as to the ongoing events and this project should be ashamed of this second-class choice, particularly in light of the work done on the timeline article. Embarrassing and pointed, this is junk and sets a clear precedent for literally any event to be added to Ongoing without any kind of substantial or useful update to our readers. Well done everyone, a proud moment. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose quite conflicted here, as I appreciate the epic troll y'all are running on Rambling Man. But we shouldn't burn the whole project to the ground to do it. Just make fun of Thatcher or something. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • May I make the suggestion that we add Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics to the Ongoing section just as well as the Medal table. They are all three part of the Olympics. I see no reason to Pull neither of the other two articles part of the Ongoing section though. BabbaQ (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • There is zero reason to pull this, if we want to alter what is posted, we can do so. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Post the timeline (per ITNR). Last chance saloon for me. This has dramatically changed my view on what the community believes "Ongoing" is for. We can now post things like the World Cup or the Euros because there's literally no updates to the articles in question, but "they're a big tournament". We will remember. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Sounds great! Glad we reached this solution.


In my opinion that article should be added to Ongoing as well, along with the Medal table with the 2020 Summer Olympics as the main article. This is the biggest Sporting event in the world. So having three articles at Ongoing for a few more days would make sense. BabbaQ (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Swap medal table for chronology. I'm not generally a fan of chronology articles (there's a very good reason the other item is COVID-19 pandemic, not Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic), but the chronology article here includes the winners of all the events, which is relevant in the newsy sense. I think the general Olympics article is the target readers more expect, though, so I would very much oppose removing that. Including two Olympics links is fine, but I wouldn't want to see more than that. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article has a continually updated medal table. Will China win? Stay tuned! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The ongoing section was originally created for having a link the Olympics and then was built up since then. Appropriate to continue having a link since various events are on subpages that can be reached by the existing link. Has a clear starting and end point, unlike the vast majority of other events on Ongoing. SpencerT•C 03:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Horrible choice to now instead cram two Olympic items to ongoing because the original proposal failed because Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics, the single link typically posted, is now a bloated set of tables and an egregious violation of MOS:COLLAPSE. I'm not a slave to the "Olympic spirit" marketing machine to WP:IAR this (though I am updating 2020 United States men's Olympic basketball team).Bagumba (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)