Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

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

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

SMS Scharnhorst, c. 1908
SMS Scharnhorst, c. 1908

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers[edit]

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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

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

Suggestions[edit]

December 9[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Paul Volcker[edit]

Article: Paul Volcker (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: American economist, chairman of the Federal Reserve (1979–87), dies at age 92. Davey2116 (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Russia banned from global sports for four years[edit]

Articles: Doping in Russia (talk, history) and Russia at the 2020 Summer Olympics (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russia is banned from international sporting events for four years, including from the 2020 Olympics, due to doping violations.
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

 Davey2116 (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support was going to nominate this. Banedon (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Not an accurate blurb. The source above includes the words "if upheld" in describing the decision very early in the piece. The referenced article says "recommended that Russia be...banned..." This is significantly different from actually being banned at this moment in time. HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Guardian is reporting that this is a ban that Russia has 21 days to appeal. They also report that drug-free individuals will be permitted (as they were in PyoengChang). 331dot (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Question where are the updates? The massive Doping in Russia article makes no mention of it. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Partial Support This is being covered by reliable sources, but I would suggest debolding the Russia at the 2020 Summer Olympics, we should NOT highlight that article, it is decidedly NOT main-page ready. It consists mostly of empty placeholder tables and has very little prose. The other bolded article is in good shape, and can be a highlighted article. --Jayron32 16:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

2019 White Island eruption[edit]

Article: 2019 Whakaari / White Island eruption (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Whakaari / White Island volcano in New Zealand erupts, killing at least five people and injuring many others.
News source(s): AP, BBC, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Developing event.  Nixinova TC   06:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - article developing nicely. Just need to keep on top of the referencing (currently one unreferenced fact) and it'll be good to go. Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, from List of volcanic eruptions by death toll, and if all the missing people are dead, the death toll would the 50th worse in all recorded history. The high number events typically involve more non-direct fatalities. Abductive (reasoning) 08:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I am not sure how reliable that list is. It seems to suggest that only 60 eruptions have caused fatalities. Not to mention the sourcing is disparate.AIRcorn (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I'd prefer this list, which indicates that this is the sixth-deadliest volcanic eruption of the 21st century. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - however blurb needs editing. One of the deceased was a local NZer, a tour guide, so not "five tourists". MurielMary (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the cfork is pointless and leaves this as another disaster stub. Merge it back into the island article and you have something decent for the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is small but seems just long enough, though I'm sure it will continue to expand. Sourcing looks good. Sizable volcanic eruptions such as this one are certainly rare, so I think this is ITN-worthy, regardless of death toll mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait – Article says 20 missing, Reuters says "more than two dozen" missing. Developing. – Sca (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose for now. This is a highly active volcano that erupts frequently. The only people affected seem to be those who were stood on the volcano when it exploded (currently the death toll is five; although that may rise later that is WP:CRYSTAL), with no broader impact. Tragic for those involved, but this event seems unlikely to have a long-term encyclopaedic value. I agree with LaserLegs that the current eruption article could have been one section in the volcano article; unless there's substantial expansion a separate article seems unnecessary. Modest Genius talk 15:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support article is short but sufficient, story is appearing in major news outlets. --Jayron32 16:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely in the news, article is not too bad and will undoubtedly be expanded.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Police believe there are no survivors: [1]. 27 were left stranded on the island. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support At this point we can be reasonably certain that the death toll is going to be high. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

December 8[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: René Auberjonois[edit]

Article: René Auberjonois (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Seattle Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Well-known actor on Benson and ST: DS9. Unfortunately, sourcing is way off. Masem (t) 22:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Orange tagged sections and sourcing is indeed subpar mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Father Mulcahy and Odo were played by the same actor!? Ah, I find that it was just the movie for the former role. He and William Christopher did look similar though. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sections almost entirely devoid of sourcing. Kees08 (Talk) 15:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Samoan measles outbreak[edit]

Article: 2019 Samoa measles outbreak (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): [2] [3]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Was going to nominate this a while ago, but got caught up in off wiki activities. Massive death toll considering the size of the nation (post article puts it into perspective). It is ongoing, but if accepted maybe a blurb would be better. Article alright. AIRcorn (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Large death toll and ongoing crisis. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Plenty of international coverage and the article looks good. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing only – This has been going on for quite some time and looks to continue, so it should go into Ongoing. It's not spot news. – Sca (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Caroll Spinney[edit]

Article: Caroll Spinney (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety, WaPo, NYT
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: American puppeteer, most famous for playing Big Bird and Oscar on Sesame Street for half a century, dies at age 86. Davey2116 (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Sourcing is a bit poor and needs to be improved before posting. --Masem (t) 18:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly a notable person. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Scs: notable goes without saying because he has a Wikipedia article. The only thing that needs to be assessed here is whether the article is of sufficient quality to be featured on the main page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand. But I don't see anything wrong with the article, and I support linking it from the main page. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Once sourcing is determined to be fixed, I support putting him up. That said, I added/fixed some of the sources and wording, although I left unsourced one bit that I don't know whether it should be there. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support with blurb and photo of Big Bird pbp 23:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the farthest case I would even begin considering for a blurb. May be a fond childhood memory but we're not going to post a blurb based on that. --Masem (t) 23:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd support adding a picture of Big Bird, as it is globally recognizable. Davey2116 (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, filmography needs some work. Spengouli (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unfortunately, I see the same referencing issues as others mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now; In addition to the filmography, the early life section needs other sources. Once that's taken care of, it's an obvious support. I actually think the suggestion of a blurb and photo might not be a bad idea, considering the global reach and popularity of Sesame Street and his longevity in the show's lead role. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Juice Wrld[edit]

Article: Juice Wrld (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety, NYTimes
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Young rapper that died from a seizure. Article is not quite there but its within range in terms of sourcing. Masem (t) 16:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Pretty significant death. –MJLTalk 19:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    I'll added a bit to the sections and merged what remained. Article quality is pretty decent enough. –MJLTalk 00:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Some small sections need to be worked on some in terms of sourcing, but beyond that, I have no issues with the article. --PootisHeavy (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Sourcing is passable and the death is getting a lot of social media attention. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support sourcing is adequate. Shocking death at such a young age. -Zanhe (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, article is in good shape. Sad. Spengouli (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Sourcing issues I saw when I nominated this appear to have been dealt with. --Masem (t) 04:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of several uncited claims about the subject and other living people. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note: I came close to posting this, but on closer look there are a few too many gaps in referencing. It's not a lot, but too many to ignore for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Surprised this hasn't been posted yet considering Juice Wrld's notability. The referencing is passable, but I'll go in and try to fill in what's still missing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 13:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    Filled in all missing citations. Should be good to post. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 13:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    For what it is worth, notability does not play into how fast or if RD's get posted, only article quality (unless you meant you were surprised the article was not cleaned up yet). Thanks for filling in the gaps. Kees08 (Talk) 15:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I cleaned up any CN's that I saw, I see no issues with posting this now. It's not going to be nominated for a FA, but it's certainly good enough as a RD mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as sourcing concerns appear to have been addressed.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Maurizio Cattelan's $120,000 banana eaten by David Datuna[edit]

WP:SNOW. Mindless drivel. – Sca (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Maurizio Cattelan (talk, history) and David Datuna (talk, history)
Blurb: Maurizio Cattelan's $120,000 banana eaten by David Datuna
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Both articles need updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I wonder the significance of this. Even though I am glad that someone made good use of it before it got spoiled, by the looks of it, it was half rotten already. --DBigXray 12:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DBXr. Not april Fools yet, and a fella noshing on a moody banana is not a newsworthy event, whatever spin be put upon it. In any case, Datuna's article devotes a single sentence to the "event", and Cattelan's nothing at all. ——SN54129 12:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Call this art?! Didn't even need a can opener. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Although if Datuna has his thinking cap on, he would approximate Manzoni's work with the banana, a valued recycling of semi-epic proportions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This is a sarcastic and humorous blurb which do not meet with ITN news section guidelines. It doesn't have any meaning and readers would be in disarray in case if it gets nominated. Abishe (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Thousands of Wikipedia readers in disarray after a hungry artist eats a US$120,000 banana seems like a good headline though. --DBigXray 13:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
...Or a devious publicity stunt.--DBigXray 14:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
And (not 'Or') a publicity stunt. It was also part of the Performance art. Man eats $120,000 piece of art taped to wall AFP December 8, 2019 7&6=thirteen () 14:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
naah, I'd not call this as fake news, the man did eat the banana after all. The fact that the museum added another banana there within 15 mins, is a different story. --DBigXray 15:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
"Fake news" doesn't apply to this, events which actually occurred. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree it occurred, and that is a fact. So it isn't worthwhile "news" even if it isn't fake. But it is a manufactured event that isn't worth mentioning on the main page. 7&6=thirteen () 15:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
yeah, to that I would agree. It is just that calling an event that "actually" happened as fake news will itself be a fake news. With all these fake news floating around, why add another ? DBigXray 15:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree. And of course, there are persons in power that use the "fake news" label as an epithet, even when it shouldn't apply. 7&6=thirteen () 15:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose It would be one thing if we were talking about a multi-million dollar piece of art of significance being destroyed, but this is definitely not that. More a funny curiosity than ITN. --Masem (t) 15:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fake fruit?? All sounds a bit trippy to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Delhi factory fire[edit]

Article: 2019 Delhi factory fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least forty three people dead and more than fifty injured in fire at a factory in Delhi
News source(s): Reuters, NDTV, BBC, CNN, AP, Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: stub class, being expanded. Now start class after I expanded. Well sourced. DBigXray 09:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as updater of article. Article is long enough, notable to have place on front page of Wikipedia.-- Harshil want to talk? 11:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per DBXr (who has added >46% of the artcle), not per Harshil169 (who has added <12%). ([4]) ——SN54129 12:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is not similar to the 2019 London Bridge stabbing where two casualties were reported. This fire incident is very much notable because 43 casualties have been reported so far and has coverages even from CNN, BBC.My concern is just to add more sources for this article. Abishe (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose needs a copy edit for grammar (or you can accuse me of "a bicker", whichever). As an aside, we posted the 2019 Surat fire it almost seems as if civil disasters in India are as common place as other causes of large scale civilian deaths in other countries. Either way fix the article before posting please. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, Today's fire is the worst Delhi has seen since 1997, Surat is a separate city and it happened in May. LaserLegs it would be helpful if you could point the improvements on the talk page, thanks. --DBigXray 15:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Needs copy-editing for Eng. style, syn. – Sca (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Valereee has helped to copy edit the article. --DBigXray 06:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - major disaster with high fatality, widely reported (I saw reports on BBC, NYT, CNN, etc.) -Zanhe (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

December 7[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Herbert Joos[edit]

Article: Herbert Joos (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Herbert Joos
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Influential jazz trumpeter and flugelhornist. When I met the article not even his death had a ref. Much more could be possible, - he has an article on his recordings on de. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me, well done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Does the With Vienna Art Orchestra list need citations? Kees08 (Talk) 15:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Bump Elliott[edit]

Article: Bump Elliott (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Long-time college sports coach and administrator. Article is classified as a GA. Lepricavark (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for nominating. Need a short update on his death — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment @TonyTheTiger: Perhaps you would have time to address Martin's concern and make any other updates required for this article? Kees08 (Talk) 15:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ron Saunders[edit]

Article: Ron Saunders (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Veteran football manager. Article is in good shape. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) 2019 Maltese protests[edit]

Article: 2019 Maltese protests (talk, history)
Blurb: Maltese Prime Minister Muscat set to resign in January amid continued and escalating protests in Malta.
Alternative blurb II: ​A series of protests rock Malta, following an investigation into the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia
News source(s): CNN, BBC ABC news,
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: News on the protests have been widespread across international and national agencies. Protests are ongoing, and of national and European importance. Zugraga talk 09:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment First of all the article needs to sort out the copyright issues. I was not aware about the protests in Malta before looking at the article. Abishe (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The article is now well sourced and would be great to make it into ITN as most of them might not be aware of this protest. Abishe (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing – More appropriate. Note that present-tense lead says "a series of ongoing protests." – Sca (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Ongoing. For now.BabbaQ (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Ongoing. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ongoing no evidence of "continuous updates" as required by WP:ITN. November 7 update mentions "dozens of protestors". Dozens. Come on. Oppose Blurb for now it'll be fine when he actually resigns in January. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure if my comment is allowed - the "dozens" you are referring to refers to a small protest carried out by Maltese in London. Tomorrow, another demonstration in Malta has been announced, with a turnout expected in tens of thousands, as all other protests in Malta. Thanks! Zugraga talk 18:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • So when that happens it will have been the second protest of any significance in a week -- still not "ongoing". I don't care that much if it's blurbed I just don't want a slow simmering story festering in the box for a year. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing, willing to support individual blurb only. While the event is continuing, subsequent updates wouldn't be worthy of ITN-level postings, but a regular blurb about what's going on would be. Can consider an additional posting with a later resignation. SpencerT•C 19:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing and/or blurb OK The article topic seems reasonable updated for ongoing and has no major problems. Taewangkorea (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
On second thought I will support a blurb once the Prime Minister resigns, so ongoing for now I guess. Taewangkorea (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Question don't we usually wait for the Prime Minister to actually resign before posting this kind of blurb? Banedon (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have posted to ongoing. Discussion about a blurb should continue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb since the PM hasn't resigned yet. He can change his mind anyday. --DBigXray 17:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This is getting messy. The nomination was for a blurb and posting to Ongoing does not, by my eye, have consensus. The above comments are correct in that the blurb can't be posted as-is, because plans to resign has not historically met the impact threshold at ITN. The updates to the article are a bare minimum for a current event, the organization of the article is not good but passable, and on reading through the article I lost track of what, exactly, the protests are supposedly about. I strongly suggest to pull from Ongoing and continue with this as a blurb nomination. I have suggested an alt-blurb that I think is more reasonable. If Ongoing is desired, someone should make an Ongoing nomination so we can vote clearly for/against that.130.233.3.203 (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

December 6[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Berkley Bedell[edit]

Article: Berkley Bedell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): KUOO News
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Member of Congress for ten years. Article appears to be in good shape. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support High quality article. Taewangkorea (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, updated. -Zanhe (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Ron Leibman[edit]

Article: Ron Leibman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Start Class article of an American actor. Sourcing, especially filmography needs volunteers to work upon. DBigXray 09:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose For now, until refs are added. Taewangkorea (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Hyderabad gang rape[edit]

Article: 2019 Hyderabad gang rape (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Four suspects in the Hyderabad gang rape case are shot dead by the police.
Alternative blurb II: ​The four suspects in the Hyderabad gang rape are shot dead while trying to escape by the police.
Alternative blurb III: ​The four suspects in the Hyderabad gang rape are shot dead while allegedly trying to escape by the police.
News source(s): CNN, BBCDawn ABC news, NDTV AFP
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The news of rape and murder was itself widely reported. After the Police encounter it has become a leading news item across international newspapers (see links above from today). The article is well sourced. DBigXray 13:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Suppport I also thought of nominating this here. It is a developing story across the globe and has enough coverages from prolific news media. Despite the current Afd, I feel it would be worth enough to nominate here. Abishe (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Just noting that I've closed the AfD as Keep. Sam Walton (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Thx Sam, we can now focus this discussion on the article quality.--DBigXray 13:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape, story is getting wide and deep coverage. --Jayron32 13:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    Since it has been added, support Alt blurb III (The one with allegedly) --Jayron32 14:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Suppport AfD it is mentioned here has been closed as keep, the subject is newsworthy. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Suppport Noteable and definatly in the news at the moment. N0nsensical.system(err0r?) 14:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I made an altblurb as to clarify why they were shot (knowing that, if this were the case in the US, the original blurb would question if the police willingly did it). All accounts I see state the police were acting in according when the suspects attempted to grab weapons and flee during scene recreation, making it a justified shooting. --Masem (t) 14:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Masem, The concern I have with the alt blurb is, we are assuming the claim by the police as a fact here. Only an independent investigation by NHRC that is ongoing, can bring out if it was indeed what the Cops (who are the killers here) were indeed being truthful or if it was a fake and staged Police encounter. AFAICS the sources are attributing the claim to the Police, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to not do it. --DBigXray 14:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I can understand that - just that none of the RSes are posing that question. As I mentioned, if this was in the US, it would be implicit that there was a possible police setup to kill these outside the justice system. I don't know if India has that same problem, but the sources are not giving that impression - no one seems to be begging the question of the police story, yet. I have no problem with the alledgely in there as in the alt2, but the first was just a bit too terse that it could have been read that this was a criticized action on the police, where in fact its being treated as a resolution on the rape crime. --Masem (t) 14:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb. Alt blurb would need to be changed to allegedly, according to the police, trying to escape during a 3am reconstruction of the crime. :) --valereee (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Note Added Alt III which should address the concerns noted above. --Jayron32 14:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I must confess some doubt about the wider significance of this sordid episode, which seems to depend on its lurid and violent character for newsworthiness. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    Slow down I keep thinking the same thing, and mentioned as much in an earlier incident. Rapes happen everywhere, and India is a big country. As an American right now, I'm thinking WHAT THE HELL is going on in India with all the rape/murder/burning incidents all of the sudden? Gang rapes of 8 year olds?! Then my brain clicks and thinks - is this not just a matter of media coverage? I honestly don't know which is true, but we should weigh that question carefully. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, the thing you think after your brain clicks is true. Sometimes I wonder how you, as an American, are even alive right now, with the opioid, shooting and fascism epidemics tearing your world apart simultaneously. Then my brain clicks. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:04, December 6, 2019 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, Sca, User:GreatCaesarsGhost. If it was just a rape, we probably wont even be having an article on wiki. yes rapes happen everywhere, but not all rapes are covered like this. The reason for the enormous coverage is the enormous public protest and outrage that came after the rape. You can see the Aftermath section to understand more. --DBigXray 19:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
That's fair - the reaction is the story. My point (before it was intentionally perverted) is that a casual reader may not make that connection, but instead read a steady stream of rape stories about India as evidence that India is uniquely afflicted. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Opinion - The frequency illusion that tags India as rape central is a good article on this. Side discussion continued on User_talk:GreatCaesarsGhost --DBigXray 21:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Apart from various aspects of culture, India does have one point of uniqueness directly related to potentially increasing gender issues -- its rapidly tilting gender ratio, currently 1.12/1.13 males to every female through the age of 24 (fifth highest in the world at birth) and climbing. In a country of 1 billion+ population, that adds up to a lot of unattached men. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support either original or ALT3; pace Masem, but I don't think anyone actually believes that the police's story is wholly unelongated, and certainly not to the extent of treating them as a WP:RS (as opposed to having the biggest WP:COI since Charles Canning won an Influencer of the Year Award, 1857). ——SN54129 15:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Unelongated – is that like unmeaningless? – Sca (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - and good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - blurb is good; I'm not concerned about the wording. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted No consensus (and seems most WP:NPOV at this point) to not get into what "allegedly" happened.—Bagumba (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment We're not featuring this grammatical curiosity on the main page: "The police has not confirmed a link between the second corpse and veterinarian's murder.". --LaserLegs (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
LaserLegs, Are you saying a problematic sentence is reason to keep the blurb off the main page? Because if it's just an issue you've found in the article that needs to be fixed, it's generally better to just fix it yourself, or if you can't figure out how to fix it, you can discuss how to fix it at the article talk rather than bringing it up in the itn nom. --valereee (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree with valereee, this is bickering. I don't see any problem in the sentence, but if someone thinks they can rewrite it in a better way, they are welcome to change it.--DBigXray 19:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree all you want, I read articles before rushing to pile "support" on some "very important" bullshit if that's not good enough for y'all I don't know what to tell you. These ESL articles ALWAYS have questionable grammar and require constant attention while on the MP. Nevermind... --LaserLegs (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I have no clue what ESL articles mean. Nevertheless, you should know that "require constant attention while on the MP" is never a reasonable justification to oppose a proposal for Mainpage. That is another bickering. --DBigXray 19:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Presumably English as a second or foreign language is what LaserLegs is referring to.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
LaserLegs, not only have I read the article, I've edited it heavily in the past 8 hours. The sentence you objected to as being disqualifying for the article being linked from the main page was fixed by this: The police has have not confirmed a link between the second corpse and the veterinarian's murder. --valereee (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: Indian English can be appropriate under MOS:TIES.—Bagumba (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Grammar Slam Shot by police, not while trying to escape by them. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:49, December 6, 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting edit - While still not a great headline, I added 'case' to it so that it reads less like the perpetrators were caught in the act. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree, thanks Fuzheado--DBigXray 19:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Comment – Interestingly, none of the 15 European Wikis include this squalid affair in various versions of ITN. – Sca (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    yes, and how many of those 15 European languages are spoken in India? Let me guess. None. --DBigXray 23:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST.—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Tabloid trash in any language. – Sca (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape and it’s one of the most important news trending in India right now.—IM3847 (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

December 5[edit]

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Ji Zhe[edit]

Article: Ji Zhe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): SCMP, Xinhua
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Three-time CBA champion, died at age 33. Zanhe (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Looks good. plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Robert Walker (actor, born 1940)[edit]

Article: Robert Walker (actor, born 1940) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: American actor. The article has several issues, but I'm working on it. --SirEdimon (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose but ping me once the references are added. Taewangkorea (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) SMS Scharnhorst[edit]

Proposed image
Article: SMS Scharnhorst (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The wreck of the German armoured cruiser SMS Scharnhorst (pictured), sunk in December 1914, is discovered near the Falkland Islands.
Alternative blurb: ​The wreck of the cruiser SMS Scharnhorst (pictured), which sank during the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December 1914, is discovered
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Interesting news and it's a featured article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment – The sinking of the Scharnhorst, with the squadron commander, Vice Admiral Maximilian von Spee aboard, was a significant event in the early naval history of WWI. – Sca (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
PS: This is not the noted battleship Scharnhorst of World War II. – Sca (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Article is of great quality. My support is only weak because of the small size of the portion of article that's on the wreck/discovery mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. A famous warship that seems more significant than other recent shipwreck nominations. The article needs more than two sentences on the wreck discovery before it should be posted, but is otherwise good (an FA). I suggest we get Battle of the Falkland Islands into the blurb. Modest Genius talk 18:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Altblurb added. Modest Genius talk 20:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A significant find. The ship was the flagship of the Imperial German Navy's Asiatic Squadron that was involved in arguably the most important chapter of naval warfare during the Great War, second only to the Battle of Jutland. In addition to the Battle of the Falkland Islands (see above) she was also involved in the Battle of Coronel. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - seems like the article is ready for posting. and interesting news.BabbaQ (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support FA quality article, seems a no-brainer to me. --Jayron32 20:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support High quality article. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 02:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support, although it's wild to see at least two people supporting above who previously opposed a discovering of a different sunken warship, a ship that was arguably more significant that Scharnhorst and also has a FA article on Wikipedia. That's not to take anything away from this nomination, which I'm happy to see posted. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Sri Lankan Swiss embassy controversy[edit]

Procedural close: The article is currently at AfD and a speedy close does not appear likely. I would also note that this has been going on for a while and might reasonably be considered stale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2019 Sri Lankan Swiss embassy controversy (talk, history)
Blurb: Sri Lanka and Switzerland engage in a diplomatic standoff after the abduction of Swiss embassy personnel in Colombo
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is a major incident in Sri Lankan politics after the 2019 Sri Lankan presidential election and has been in the headlines since 25 November 2019. Abishe (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have slightly re-formatted your nomination to include the updated & bolded article and to re-phrase. At a minimum, the article needs some CE. Note that the sources in the nomination are from 27 and 28 Nov., while the motivation for the nomination is based on reports from today in lesser-known sources. More coverage may develop in the coming days.130.233.3.203 (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. It's a fascinating story - one that I think could be featured on ITN - but the sourcing is questionable and the article is currently red tagged as a candidate for deletion. If there is consensus to keep the article, please ping me for reconsideration of my vote. mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Article certainly needs some work, but I'd disregard the AfD. The editor that did that is a disruptive user and proud of it (seriously, check out his user page). 159.53.78.147 (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @IP159.53.78.147 you weren't kidding. I noted my opinion to keep the article on the AfD page. And Abishe, don't be sorry! I don't agree with the red tag but unfortunately, we cannot support a red tagged article for ITN. Hopefully it'll be taken off soon mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Self oppose I am extremely sorry for this nomination because it has now been Afded and it might not be factually right to get into ITN section. Possibly if the article is retained then can think about this. Abishe (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

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

December 4[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
  • A boat carrying refugees capsized near Nouadhibou, off the coast of Mauritania, in one of the deadliest maritime disasters this year, leaving 58 people dead and many more who tried to swim to shore in need of treatment. The boat had departed The Gambia on 27 November 2019. It was heading towards the Canary Islands when it approached the Mauritanian coast to get fuel and food. The boat had been carrying between 150–180 people when it capsized, most of them aged between 20 and 30. (The Guardian)
  • A gas explosion in Szczyrk, Poland causes a three-story building to collapse and kills 8 people (tvn24.pl)

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Chen Xingbi[edit]

Article: Chen Xingbi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Xinhua
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article is fully sourced. Zanhe (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Posted. Looks good, fully updated and sourced. SpencerT•C 19:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tetsu Nakamura[edit]

Article: Tetsu Nakamura (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Japanese humanitarian in Afghanistan whose murder has been making headlines worldwide. Zanhe (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - article is in shape. This man is a hero that our readers would be privileged to read about. starship.paint (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Would love to see more info about his humanitarian work as the article is slanted toward coverage of his death, but covers the key details and is ready for posting. SpencerT•C 13:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Looks ready mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 15:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Parker Solar Probe[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Parker Solar Probe (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists publish four papers reporting their findings from the Parker Solar Probe's first two of three dives toward the Sun so far.
Alternative blurb: ​The Parker Solar Probe's first findings report "rogue" magnetic waves.
Alternative blurb II: ​After flying closer to the sun than any probe in history, the Parker Solar Probe's first findings report "rogue" magnetic waves.
Alternative blurb III: ​After flying closer to the sun than any probe in history, the Parker Solar Probe's first findings report "rogue" magnetic waves strong enough to completely reverse the local magnetic field and increase solar wind speeds by 300,000 mph.
News source(s): The New York Times, The Guardian, Nature [5], National Geographic
Credits:

Nominator's comments: May need more of an update than my layman's understanding of the Physics. This should be an ITNR, by my interpretation, as the mission is now accomplishing its goal, but our criteria for probes and other spacecraft at ITNR needs to be updated reflect the modern way these missions accomplish their goals. Reaching their destination is not the major accomplishment anymore. It is times like these when scientists report their findings that the mission reaches its true climax. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose We did post when Parker "arrived" at the Sun last August in an operational state. We have 6+ more years of scientific study. Unless we have a groundbreaking result, this is not really news. (If we had not posted its arrival, this would have been a way to recognize that) --Masem (t) 04:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Masem, no we posted the launch. We have not posted the arrival. In a manner of speaking, it will arrive at its destination more than 2 dozen times (already reached the Sun's corona three times). So arrival is not a major accomplishment for this mission. Results are the major event for this mission. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Hrm. I thought that was arrival, but yeah. Obviously this is an important mission, but we can't post every time papers are released, (and with about 3 passes each year, that's potentially a lot). I would still want to see some fundamentally important affirmation/discovery from the data that is groundbreaker rather than just because the first data was published. But I'm not sure now yet. --Masem (t) 05:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    We need an expert. @Modest Genius: what do you think? The media is making a big deal out of this. Is this much ado about nothing? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry, I have a conflict of interest on this one, so should refrain from !voting. I do think this nomination needs to be judged on the scientific advance, not 'arriving at destination', as that doesn't really apply to PSP (even first perihelion would have been a stretch). Modest Genius talk 12:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Ping Kees08 too. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose there're plenty of astronomy missions and it's not plausible to make their reporting of results ITNR. For example, just count how many probes were launched by the European Space Agency that we have articles on (and that's only one space agency). These missions all led to scientific papers as well, many of them quite important for their respective fields. There's nothing especially important about these Parker papers other than the fact that the media has chosen to cover them. Banedon (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support – Four reasons:
    1. Solid article.
    2. There are not plenty of astronomy missions like this one. These are the first published scientific data from the closest we've ever been to the sun. The headline of yesterday's editorial in Nature (journal) was Parker probe kicks off a golden age for solar exploration: Humanity is finally getting up close and personal with Earth’s nearest star.. The media is widely reporting it. NPR: An unprecedented mission to venture close to the sun has revealed a strange region of space filled with rapidly flipping magnetic fields and rogue plasma waves. National Geographic: Today, four studies in the journal Nature report the first data from NASA’s Parker Solar Probe, an unprecedented mission that has been able to fly ever closer to the sun, three times so far, and taste its coronal breath. Already, these close encounters are solving some solar mysteries, and they’re revealing a treasure trove of unexpected findings. NYTimes: Scientists released the mission’s first batch of findings on Wednesday, revealing that the dynamics of our star are even weirder than once imagined. Space: The first science results are in from NASA's Parker Solar Probe (PSP), which has flown faster and closer to the sun than any other human-made object in history. Science News, Reuters, CNN, CNET, Guardian, Independent, Le Monde, India Today, The Australian and so on.
    3. We are an academic project and it would be good to have something in the box that isn't politics, sports, natural disasters, or recent celebrity deaths.
    4. Great picture. Levivich 06:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, but I have to agree with Banedon here. It's not reasonable to make spaceflight any more ITNR than it already is, as there's a flurry of high-profile events about to happen; ongoing results from Juno and Parker, the OSIRIS-REx asteroid landing, the launch of Chang'e 5, the return to Earth of Hayabusa2 (that one probably will be significant enough to highlight), the maiden flights of Dragon 2 and Boeing CST-100 Starliner (which will mark the return of crewed US spaceflights after the retirement of Shuttle), the start of construction on the Chinese large modular space station, the launches of four separate Mars missions (US, Russia/ESA, UAE and China), and activation of OneWeb and Starlink, all over the next 12 months. Our existing guidelines (both written and unwritten) when it comes to spaceflight were drawn up before the start of the latest space race and if anything need to be tightened, not loosened. ‑ Iridescent 09:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Strictly because the blurb does not make clear the significance of the event. It might well be that, even clarified, the significance is not high enough. Publishing reports is de rigueur for these kinds of projects, even if the project yields nothing new. Contra above, I do not think that existing rules wrt spaceflight should be tightened, because I don't sense an over-abundance of spaceflight items getting into ITN.130.233.3.203 (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per IP 130.233.3.203 above. The publishing of findings is a poor blurb in my opinion - the blurb should mention the findings and what's significant about them. If they found anything of interest, that would be the event I think ITN would want to cover, but it does not seem that's the case here (from my novice understanding of physics). mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    mike gigs, alt blurbs added. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now because I find the blurb banal and uninteresting. Scientific papers are published daily on a variety of subjects. What makes them newsworthy is what those papers say. If we can get a blurb that outlines a particularly novel or groundbreaking bit of science this probe has provided for us I would reconsider, but this is a nothingburger. --Jayron32 14:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Jayron32, alt blurbs added. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Alt blurb – "After flying closer to the sun than any probe in history, the Parker Solar Probe observes a thousand "rogue" magnetic waves strong enough to completely reverse the local magnetic field and increase solar wind speeds by 300,000 mph." (Sources: [6], [7], [8], [9]).
    • Shorter: "The Parker Solar Probe's first findings report "rogue" magnetic waves and other solar surprises."
    • While this isn't the scientific breakthrough of the century, that shouldn't be the metric by which we judge inclusion. This is a lot more rare than "head of government elected" or "head of government resigns", which are two blurbs currently in the box. Levivich 15:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I think that's closer to what we need. I would drop the "and other solar surprises" as basically meaningless. --Jayron32 17:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        I would support just "The Parker Solar Probe's first findings report 'rogue' magnetic waves." There are four papers published about four separate findings of the probe, and rogue waves is just one of them, which is what I intended to convey with something like, "among others", but it's really hard to condense four scientific papers into one short blurb. Perhaps just picking the rogue waves one is best. Levivich 17:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        Levivich, please go ahead add a couple of blurbs to the nomination template and add the facts you want to highlight to the article body. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
         Done Updated the article and added some alt blurbs to the nom. Levivich 02:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Haven't we posted this (or something very similar) recently? – Ammarpad (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Wider significance beyond a niche audience is not apparent. What impact do the 'findings' have on people in general? – Sca (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb II or altblurb - but altblurb III makes me feel like there might not be anything more in the article - so I probably wouldn't bother clicking rogue waves - and regards the previous comment by Sca - I think that's not important - some foreign leader resigns has very little direct impact, but doesn't mean it isn't potentially interesting EdwardLane (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) P. Chidambaram[edit]

Closed. Consensus against posting. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: P. Chidambaram (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Finance Minister of India gets bail after 106 days in prison.
News source(s): IndiaToday, BBC
Credits:
 175.157.245.124 (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is not particularly clear, but if I understand it (and the BBC story) correctly he hasn't been convicted of anything, this is just an issue of whether his bail is served in or out of prison while he awaits trial. We do occasionally post convictions in sufficiently newsworthy cases, but a release on bail is nowhere near that level. Also the article has an orange NPOV tag. Modest Genius talk 17:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Politicians get arrested daily. Nothing significant about this. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait/Oppose for now We generally only post convictions, not earlier steps in the judicial process. Would be willing to revisit this article when he's been convicted. --Jayron32 14:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Bob Willis[edit]

Article: Bob Willis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Daily Telegraph; Sky News
Credits:

 SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Is 9 minutes a new record? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    And I thought 15 minutes was fast... Brandmeistertalk 10:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    @MSGJ: Which quality concerns with the article do you have? --Jayron32 17:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    None at all? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Alphabet Inc. CEO changed[edit]

WP:SNOW closing. No chance of getting support at this point. --Jayron32 12:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Articles: Alphabet Inc. (talk, history) and Sundar Pichai (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Google CEO Sundar Pichai becomes the CEO of parent company Alphabet Inc. after founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin stepped down.
News source(s): [10] [11]
Article updated
 2409:4062:2E93:B445:5C8C:925:3991:8A43 (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not even remotely close to significant enough for ITN. Routine business news standard. -- KTC (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per KTC DTM (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a significant impact. Anyway Sundar Pichai is the CEO of Google and becoming a CEO of Alphabet is just a little thing in his case. Abishe (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yawn. I can't think of any company where a change in the CEO would be ITN-level news. Modest Genius talk 12:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

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

December 3[edit]

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment
  • 2019 Samoa measles outbreak
    • The government makes it illegal to make non-essential domestic travel on the roads while vaccination units cross the country with 40,000 still to be vaccinated. Also, the opposition calls for an inquiry into the low vaccination rates which began after a mistake by two nurses last year which resulted in the deaths of two children. (RNZ)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Cha In-ha[edit]

Withdrawn by nom. Insufficient chance of expansion. ミラP 17:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: New article I made. Korean actor, found dead recently. Death has been grouped with Sulli and Goo Hara. It's a stub because I created it in haste, but I think I can expand this in time. ミラP 22:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Over-emphasis on his death and almost nothing about his life. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Yeah, per C&C it's basically a stub mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ping me when the article is expanded. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

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

December 2[edit]

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • Thirteen Pakistani nationals, including eight children and four women, have died and three others are injured in a fire at a farm in rural Jordan. (BBC)

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Mutaib bin Abdulaziz Al Saud[edit]

Article: Mutaib bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Arab News
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article is of adequate length & is sufficiently cited thus looks good to go. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support I've removed some minor early life info with an unreliable Armenian Wikipedia source. The rest of the article is well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Looks good. SpencerT•C 14:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Spencer: credits please. --Vegan Gypsy (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Johann Baptist Metz[edit]

Article: Johann Baptist Metz (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): DF
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Important German theologian, focussed on compassion after WWII experience - article had almost no refs but has now. Much more in English book, if tempted to add. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Wow, Gerda, what you did with the article is awesome! Support, all looks good. --Tone 21:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Marked ready. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Very nice! Thanks Gerda! mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Atkinson III[edit]

Article: George Atkinson III (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Second-generation American football player dies at 27. Article has basic details and is sufficiently sourced. —Bagumba (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: D.C. Fontana[edit]

Article: D. C. Fontana (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Noted Star Trek (TOS + TNG) writer. Article is in good shape outside of a long lede which I will likely tacckle here in a second. Masem (t) 19:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Minus long lead, the article is in really good shape. I'd weakly support with the long lead and yellow tag, but strongly support if it was cleaned up. Thanks Masem! mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I've trimmed the lede and removed the tag. --Masem (t) 20:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to me. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

COP25[edit]

Article: 2019 United Nations Climate Change Conference (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): BBC Guardian The New York Times
Credits:

 Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Not certain but I don't believe we typically list conferences as ongoing, even UN ones. In any case, I'm not sure the article will be updated a ton during the conference. Perhaps when it is over there may be some news to blurb, but I don't see much updating being done in the meantime mike_gigs talkcontribs 21:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing, Wait for blurb. Ongoing is for articles which have incremental updates which individually would not merit inclusion in ITN, but do collectively. It isn't generally for things that are merely in progress. I could see posting a blurb for the commencement of this conference, but it would probably be better to post the conclusion if some notable agreement is reached. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing - If there is a major decision that falls out of the conference in two-weeks time, then we can go with a blurb, but we usually do not post these international conferences (UN, G7/8, G20, etc.) unless we have something newsworthy about them. --Masem (t) 21:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait – The conference lasts two weeks and will produce a plethora of verbiage and data, some of which might be be newsworthy and blurblable. Whether it might be more suitable for Ongoing we shall see. However, such a momentous topic probably will deserve a "climate conference ends with..." blurb at its conclusion. – Sca (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose maybe we'll have a blurb at the end of the conference, but conferences generally don't belong in the ongoing section. Lepricavark (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support when conference concludes. The news is already out that the optimistic scenarios we're going to end up with 2.9 C warming, while the evidence for entering into a Hothouse Earth state due to an initial warming of more than 1.5 C as mentioned here has become a lot stronger. If the conference concludes without any pledges for stronger action, then that will be very significant news just as any pledges to implement very strong actions. Count Iblis (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Yet at the same time, I would not be the least bit astonished, considering The Orange One's boorish eagerness to crash out of the Paris Agreement and tout the wonders of beautiful clean coal. That may diminish its significance somewhat.--WaltCip (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait. I agree this is not suitable for ongoing, but will probably produce a blurb at the conclusion of the conference. Revisit once we know the outcome. Modest Genius talk 14:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Regularly-scheduled conference about a well-worn subject. I highly doubt that any resulting pronouncement at the conclusion will be blurb-able, but if someone feels differently then a nomination should come later.130.233.2.197 (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Everyone is tired of the topic, but that doesn't mean it's not newsworthy. – Sca (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support... if it's regularly undated until 13 December. STSC (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the opening of the conference. We can revisit when it closes or if there is otherwise a notable development. Teemu08 (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as ongoing as I think we do not typically list conferences there. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Power of Siberia opened[edit]

Article: Power of Siberia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Power of Siberia pipeline, delivering Russian natural gas to China, begins operations
Alternative blurb: ​The 3000-kilometre pipeline Power of Siberia begins operations, delivering up to 38 billion cubic metres per year of natural gas from Russia to China.
News source(s): [12] [13]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Not sure if it's begun operations, but it's supposed to start on 2 December, i.e. today (by Wikipedia time). Banedon (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support 3,000 km of pipe, $400 billion over 30 years for 1.8 trillion cubic metres, sourcing looks fine. Maybe a blurb with an impressive number? Delivering gas to China isn't much, in itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:02, December 2, 2019 (UTC)
  • Altblurb added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support alt1. This does seem to be a major piece of infrastructure, with geopolitical implications, and the article meets ITN quality criteria (barring one {{cn}} tag). However the article left me wanting more information (such as the actual cost, not just the planned one) and is strangely uninteresting. Surely there's more to say about the context and implications of such a project? Modest Genius talk 12:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    [14] has some interesting context and a map that makes the one in our article seem misleading... Modest Genius talk 13:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - While the article looks fine, I'm going to argue that this event really isn't significant enough to be featured on ITN. It simply seems like just another big pipeline - and while that may not be the case, the article doesn't suggest there is anything special about this pipeline compared to others (is it a biggest? a most expensive? a first? etc). However, as this is my subjective opinion, I am open to changing my vote based on others arguments for significance ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
It's the widest (flow-wise), beating Yamal-Europe by five billion annual cubic metres. In theory, anyway. We'll see next year. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:54, December 3, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article quality is sufficient, news sources are covering the event. --Jayron32 13:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I think this is an important moment in China-Russia relations.--WaltCip (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It does seem to have geopolitical impact and it's definitely an engineering feat. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weakly Support ALT1 The article has no problems, and I think its impact on China-Russia relations is important. That being said, idk if it really is that significant for ITN. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This is significant event relating to two giants from North and East. STSC (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Major impact on international relations as shown above. Swordman97 talk to me 19:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 07:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Hong Kong protests[edit]

It's been posted. Closing to stop continued irrelevant side discussions. Quality concerns can be taken up on the article talk page. --Jayron32 20:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2019 Hong Kong protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): Reuters Associated Press, Agence France Presse,
Credits:
Nominator's comments: It's no longer a blurb, but the protests are clearly continuing, so renominating. Banedon (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - the district council election was effectively a successful referendum in support the pro-democracy movement, and will likely energize protesters. Meanwhile the Hong Kong government has not given any concession. Therefore the protests will continue - they have not died out in months (the lull was due to wanting a peaceful election) - protesters have learnt from the 2014 Hong Kong protests turning up nothing. Since Beijing will likely not concede anything, this will likely not end well. starship.paint (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Major protests occurred as recently as yesterday. feminist (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I nominated the election, and my intent was for the election blurb to be separate from the protests; unfortunately I didn't make that clear enough. The protests are clearly ongoing; the temporary pause following the election was expected, and now things are picking back up again. Davey2116 (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Ongoing, definitely.BabbaQ (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.DBigXray 09:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is not being continuously updated as stipulated by WP:ITN. This is a base requirement and is not negotiable no matter how "ongoing" you deem the event to be. "Hundreds of people marched along Lower Albert Road beside the US consulate on 1 December". That's yesterdays one sentence update about "100's" of people. The article is getting these garbage, one sentence non-specific updates. (one-hundreds? eight-hundreds? Who knows). Nominate a different article if you want this one is not suitable for the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hundreds of people probably walk that road each day regardless. If this were a major protest, they'd have gone to Garden Road as intended, instead of obeying police marching orders. There'd have been conflict, like interesting stories have, not just routine Trump mentions. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:00, December 2, 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree that the target article is simply not being meaningfully updated enough. Even if it was, the article is getting HUGE and I fear that, as more information is added, quality may decrease. What if we instead used List of December 2019 Hong Kong protests as the target article? While list is in the title, it is much more detailed than a typical list and (presumably) will be updated more without creating an article the size of a textbook ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
That article mostly signifies nothing, too. Hundreds carried balloons, called on people who weren't there, then dispersed in an orderly fashion at dusk, like pedestrians. A few rowdies in the news chucking stuff, but a few mildly bad apples don't bump up the bunch. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:50, December 2, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is a good overview article, and being sufficiently updated for the level of detail, per WP:SUMMARY, one would expect. Sub-articles broken off for space are appropriate and also in good quality. --Jayron32 13:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Per Jayron. Still the biggest story in the world's 'biggest' (pop.) country. – Sca (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The article has already failed the criteria: "The article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information" per WP:ITN, and it has been removed from 'ongoing'. I don't think we may reinstate the ongoing status for the same article which has been judged as not regularly updated. STSC (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Note that the article was removed from ongoing without any comment on its updates. It was removed because we posted a blurb about the district council elections. Davey2116 (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Enough updates to justify ongoing. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note: I came to post, but there are now two maintenance templates on top of this article — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    • It doesn't seem like the templates are that popular, looking at the talk page. Maybe they should be removed? Swordman97 talk to me 19:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
      • User:Swordman97 I agree and I have removed the tags and left a note on the talk page explaining my removal of the tags. MSGJ over to you. --DBigXray 22:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The neutrality tag should have been accompanied with the opening of a talk page discussion; I don't see one, so removing the tag is justified. Davey2116 (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -- it is as much ongoing as the Impeachment inquiry, at least. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Sure, but is it being "continuously updated with pertinent information" as stipulated by WP:ITN? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment has anyone read this? "The Siege of PolyU"? A siege? Really, a friggin siege? I mean ..... y'all are gonna put this back on the main page and we know it but holy NPOV batman a siege? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    A really basic search comes up with things like the Washington post, the Financial Times or the Telegraph all calling it a siege. Decently diverse group, although of course all Western media. Surely loads and loads more reliable sources out there calling it a siege as well. But then again, looking at your recent comments here, i am not even sure how serious you are in mentioning this or if this is making some sort of point again. 2003:D6:2729:FFD1:6921:9F6:90F7:B605 (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    Well the "Siege of CUKH" has already been moved to the more neutral "Chinese University of Hong Kong conflict" even though the 2019 Hong Kong protests article still uses the loaded term "Siege". Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    So, be bold and change it in the article perhaps? 2003:D6:2729:FFD1:6921:9F6:90F7:B605 (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
IP has this one right. Searching Google for a definition of "siege", I get "an operation in which a police or other force surround a building and cut off supplies, with the aim of forcing an armed person to surrender", which is a picture perfect description of what happened. Banedon (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you should get the CUHK article renamed again, since consensus was against you there. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
By the way, even China Daily called it a siege. But what another article is called really makes no difference to this nomination. So maybe move that discussion to the article talk of said article?2003:D6:2729:FFD1:6921:9F6:90F7:B605 (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: - siege was the exact description given in Reuters / Associated Press / Agence France Presse / BBC / Bloomberg / Al Jazeera / Nikkei Asian Review. I'd like to see you provide sources that are even more neutral that what I can come up with. Plus, you have mixed up the universities. The Chinese University of Hong Kong conflict is not the same as the Siege of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Clearly, you are not as well read on this issue as I would have hoped. starship.paint (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
So, the Polytech article still uses siege in the name and is not renamed like LaserLegs claims? Oh well... What is the issue regarding the term 'siege' NPOV wise anyway? Seems to be a term used to describe the event by both sides (link to a China Daily article in a previous comment), plus all the sources Starship paint linked to and my basic search from before... What is your issue here exactly LaserLegs? Why is it not NPOV in your opinion? 2003:D6:2729:FFD1:F091:9422:AF9A:319A (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
So CNN calls it an occupation since we're cherry picking WP:RS which suits our POV and rightly points out that the students were free to leave any time they just faced arrest -- so not a siege at all. Cool right? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Cherrypicking sources? You cannot be serious with that. In this nomination alone there are 11 sources calling it a siege, from both sides of the issue no less. You present one source and say the rest of us are cherrypicking to suit a particular POV?!? And since when is a siege defined through physical harm? It does not matter if they 'just faced arrest' (citation needed on that by the way). Banedon gave you the definition for what a siege is. So, again... What is your actual issue here. And this time please without cherrypicking a single source and making a pompous argument out of it. For example, why is 'siege' not ok in your opinion? What is the value judgement of the term, how is it POV? Please explain that. You may not like this "zombie article", as you called it before, but come on... this is ridiculous. 2003:D6:2729:FFD1:F091:9422:AF9A:319A (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: - what a ridiculous charge of cherry picking given the breadth and the quality of the sources I've provided, followed by original research (not a siege at all) totally contrary to reliable sources. Who's the one cherry picking, when CNN has also called it a siege? starship.paint (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
CNN also calls criticism an attack, Washington a battlefield and information ammunition. News skirts the line to make the mundane feel interesting, encyclopedias needn't ought to. It is technically a very small siege, though (any besieged force is free to surrender). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:16, December 3, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Given that the article is quite long, there are spinoff articles such as List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests and now List of December 2019 Hong Kong protests where readers can find day-to-day updates. Chrisclear (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – item is still in the news daily; article is being expanded daily. Levivich 06:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support very much an ongoing situation. Lepricavark (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is very much still a news-worthy item. Swordman97 talk to me 08:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Sure, but is it being "continuously updated" as stipulated by WP:ITN? All the supports in the world do no good if they don't evaluate the article against the actual inclusion criteria. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - clearly ongoing, and given that the pro-democracy camp has won the local election AND there is a march organized by CRHF, it shows that the movement is going on and it is expected many more details should be added to the article. --223.17.167.158 (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have put back the 'very long' maintenance tag because the oversize issue has not been resolved. An oversized article would not be a quality article for ITN. STSC (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted The currently tagged "too long" concern does not fall within the quality points outlined at Wikipedia:In_the_news#Article_quality.—Bagumba (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This is still being constantly updated. The march next week will be huge (hopefully). PS: The "too long" maintenance tag is disputed. OceanHok (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

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

References[edit]

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: