Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:41, 12 August 2020

Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here.

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

• WP:ITN/C

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Wildfire in Pacific Palisades A series of wildfires (pictured) in Southern California, United States, leaves 5 people dead and forces more than 100,000 others to evacuate. A 7.1-magnitude earthquake hits Tingri County in the Tibet Autonomous Region, China, leaving at least 126 people dead. Indonesia becomes a full member of BRICS. Justin Trudeau announces his intention to resign as prime minister of Canada. Luke Littler wins the PDC World Darts Championship. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Jean-Michel Defaye Ágnes Keleti Ripken Wayne Osmond The Vivienne Tariana Turia Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

Archives

August 12

August 11

RD: Trini Lopez

• Nominated by CoatCheck (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: If I Had a Hammer singer (or at least one of them) and Dirty Dozen actor. COVID-19 CoatCheck (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - As far as I can see sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020 Midwest derecho

• Updated and nominated by Gwenhope (talk · give credit)
• Created by SuitcaseFan17 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Large-scale, newsworthy natural disaster caused by rare type of wind storm (derecho). Sources compare damage to hurricane winds, of which the storm's peak matched in wind speed. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 22:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose A large tree fell down and crushed half a Subaru across the street from me (in Chicago) due to this. However, this does seem parochial overall. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  John M Wolfson, I'm confused how a massive multi-state weather event which left millions with utility outages, spawned five tornadoes, and destroyed roughly 1/3 of the crops on Iowa's agricultural land is "parochial" Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 23:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  It's parochial in that it does not appear to have much significance outside of the United States; while that's not fatal to the nomination per the "please do not..." section, there appear to be thankfully zero deaths so far and little long-term impact, so I don't think this suitable for the Main Page. (We also didn't post Hurricane Isaias, another storm doing storm things that was otherwise transitory.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  John M Wolfson, indeed, the deaths are minimal (only two confirmed so far, mass injuries, however). Regardless I think it could be useful additionally considering these storm types are relatively rare, especially ones that last this long and get this big. However it doesn't really fit a WP:DYK type. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 23:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support in the news, decent article. Highly developed countries with strictly enforced building codes have lower death tolls but that doesn't lessen the notability of the event. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  How do we measure the impact of the event if not by its death and destruction? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support The equivalent of a Category 3 hurricane. Highly unusual event. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn’t seem to be getting front-page coverage on US news websites. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I got smacked by a freak derecho once. It was weird and crappy, I survived in an average house and to this day, I still find myself telling people who weren't there how weird and crappy it was. In other words, local story; maybe a legend in time, but never a blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That said, this one is weirder and crappier than mine, on account of the dead or missing cornfields. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose lots of things are going on which "affect" lots of people. This is just American weather. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose in worldwide terms, this does not appear to be a particularly devastating weather event. Power cuts and property damage occur in every big storm. Natural disasters need to be much more significant to justify posting in ITN. The article seems suitable for WP:DYK though. Modest Genius 11:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ceres

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.

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)

• Conditional support If as big as it seems. News still seems fuzzy here. Kingsif (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Oppose per MG Kingsif (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Conditional support - I have to agree with Kingsif here.BabbaQ (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Conditional support per all. A cursory glance of the article (via Ctrl-Fing "ocean") doesn't mention it AFAICT, much less explain its significance. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Oppose per MG. I knew it didn't look like an ocean world. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm close to having a CoI here, but will comment anyway. Ceres has long been known to have active geology and subsurface brines, which are responsible for the surface salt deposits and cryovolcanism, both known since 2016. These latest results fill in some of the details, but Ceres having ocean-level amounts of water is not a new discovery. It's also not really an ocean, but a layer of rock which is saturated with brine, so the blurb is misleading (it wasn't a Flyby either). None of the papers were important enough to publish in Nature itself, just three subsidiary journals owned by the same publisher. The source linked to above is from Nature Astronomy, not Nature, and is over-selling the importance because it's advertising work published in the same journal. Finally, the results are so confirmatory that the article itself has received no update whatsoever. Modest Genius 12:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's really a good thing we have actual scientists here who can let us know when we're falling prey to pop science journalism.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Modest. "Vital" or not, it's not newsworthy. Next. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Ditto. Decidedly underwhelming. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't appear to be significant per the above comments, including the nominator. Gotitbro (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• History As the timescales for this mission were even longer than Brexit, I was curious to know what ITN said about it over the years:

So, no results since Dawn arrived at Ceres. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment since this is probably toast anyway, we should wait until the inners have stripped all the ice from Ceres and the belters riot after Mars destroys the Canterbury --LaserLegs (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's wait until Elon arrives on Ceres. – Sca (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm waiting for The Boat Race on Ceres. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Zero gravity rowing klaxon!!!!!!! --LaserLegs (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on how difficult it is to complete 18 to 20 minutes of rowing on the Thames, perhaps "zero gravity" (which of course it wouldn't be zero) is the way ahead. O';;l suggest it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Doubtful significance. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support According to The Guardian link, this is the first time hydrohalite has been observed outside of Earth. If that's pop science, then colour me a monkey's uncle. Jenga Fet (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I had a dream about hydrohalite last night. It was terrifying. – Sca (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment suggest this is closed as not newsworthy and with a very strong consensus against a very poorly updated article. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Gam-COVID-Vac

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.

• Nominated by Александр Мотин (talk · give credit)

• Oppose This is definitely covered by the COVID box. (It would also be remiss to post this without mentioning that they allegedly stole it.) Kingsif (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Posting about any vaccine for this should not even be considered until such a vaccine sees widespread deployment. TompaDompa (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  "Widespread" is how much? You will tell us later? I'm not proposing to write "widespread", I propose to write "first registered" --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose we have the COVID box for this. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose any news outside of the banner (even a widespread vaccine) except for a definitive "end" to the pandemic, preferably by WHO proclamation. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - at this time. No.BabbaQ (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Please do not...
  • add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.--212.74.201.229 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose flatly.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Please do not...
  • add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.--212.74.201.229 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – There's many a slip. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Please do not...
  • add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.--212.74.201.229 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Sca gave a reason. You just need to brush up on your proverbs.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Propose - Propose to update the info-box for links to COVID treatments and COVID vaccines - we are now half a year in, and real progress has been made on both fronts and they are becoming popular articles, make sense to link them straight from the front page. -Albertaont (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  It may be a good idea since there are many other vaccine candidates from other powerful research institutions and after today's event the readers' interest may increase many times.--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Nice try mate, but we all know that if there's a vaccine ITN will post, it's the British one. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I like the idea of updating the box on the top with a link to COVID-19 vaccine.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Sensational and redundant to Covid box. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This has been described as a "political stunt" and it widely controversial in the scientific community. Natureium (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

August 10

(Posted) RD: P. J. Sheehan

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by EJL21 (talk · give credit)

 Bloom6132 (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Short article but we're getting there.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Yes it is a short article but it is pretty well referenced and up to RD standard JW 1961 Talk 20:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Spencer, Stephen, and Amakuru: I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 23:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(Bumped) Lebanese government resigns

• Nominated by Kingsif (talk · give credit)
• Updated by TheEpicGhosty (talk · give credit) and Ardacebi (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Pretty self explanatory, but Diab's speech was an amazing acknowledgement of corruption and giving over to the will of protesters. Kingsif (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose for now. The Hassan Diab article contains only a single sentence that says he resigned, and says nothing about his cabinet. I'm fine bumping the blurb and adding more information, but as yet the various Misplaced Pages articles you are highlighting are very light on relevant information and will need some expanding before we tell people they should read them. --Jayron32 18:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Bump This is a continuation of the existing blurb about the explosion. So, just update that blurb and bump it. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Question Didn't the hyperinflation also impact the decision? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, it looks like some of the reason was pre-pandemic protests being renewed. Feel free to suggest alts, but I couldn't find a protests article for a blurb. Kingsif (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• another question. Is the government really the government? I read somewhere that the political leaders just report to some more powerful people behind the scenes, which was the same people before and after the "revolution" last year. Is that true? If so, we should probably nuance the hook accordingly. Apologies, by knowledge of the full situation is incomplete. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Every short-term government overlaps with longer-lasting lobbyists, priests, tribal leaders, bankers, generals, corporate officers and organized crime bosses. But "really" rarely matters here. The titleholders "rule". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Conditionally support It needs to update the previous blurb to include the aftermath of the explosion in the government such as resignation, at least bump the previous update and update with this. 36.77.94.89 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Bump Definitely still biggest story in most western news after a week, and the resignation of the government is significant new development.Albertaont (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Major development, the blurb should make the bit about the explosion a bit more clear though. Gotitbro (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - time for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support Bump the previous blurb which posted before with newly update blurbs that includes aftermath of resignation. it is definitely biggest international news on the day. 182.1.26.10 (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support bumping blurb The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Bumping the blurb. --Tone 08:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Post-bumping comment the "protests" word needs to wikilinked, because they are already have a article about 2019–2020 Lebanese protests. 114.125.235.207 (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the article - I hadn't included 2019 when I looked! Kingsif (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 PGA Championship

Nominator's comments: Major championship in golf, fits with ITN:Recurring items criteria. Compy90🐉(talk) 10:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Updated with sufficient prose summaries.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Support. Minor update on blurb --> Altblurb. Looks good. Ktin (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Article is sufficient. --Jayron32 18:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support original blurb. Good prose summaries for each round. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's awful – like reading the sports pages in a tabloid newspaper rather than an encyclopedia article. It's clearly written for fans rather than the general reader as it's full of crufty line-scores and other stats. It assumes that the reader knows all about the rules of the game and the tournament format and it's riddled with jargon like "birdie" and "eagle" which are not explained. And it seems easy to find factual errors. For example, the lead says that it "had no spectators in attendance" but it's easy to find coverage which contradicts this: Steph Curry among spectators at PGA Championship in San Francisco. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• This is more suitable as a complaint about golf tournament pages on Misplaced Pages in general than against this particular article. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• That is not an error. The event was closed to paying spectators. It's clear from reading the link that Stephen Curry was there as a guest of Jordan Spieth. P-K3 (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now on quality. I don't particularly agree with the general objection Andrew makes about the tone of the article - a golfing article would be expected to use golfing terminology. Birdie and Eagle are not jargon because many people such as myself, who don't play golf, nonetheless know what they mean. And the relevant articles are linked, for those who don't know the terminology. Our guidelines suggest targeting articles to those familiar with, but not necessarily expert in, a given subject. But a couple of Andrew's objections are valid. (1) The "Field" section is far too long and detailed, interrupting the flow of the article. It probably belongs in a subpage, with just a brief summary of how the field was chosen, and a few principal players, given here. And (2) the point about spectators clearly is an error, because Curry was a spectator. He wasn't there in any capacity other than to watch the golf. It sounds like that point needs to be nuanced. ITN articles don't have to be GA standard certainly, but they must still conform to basic structural norms. With a bit of tidying up this would be ready to go though.  — Amakuru (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That is how all golf tournament articles are written. The place to challenge that practice is probably at WP:GOLF, not here. It shouldn't be valid to oppose this because of an objection to the way golf tournament articles, which have been posted at ITN many times before without objection, are written on Misplaced Pages. Regarding your second point, reliable sources reported that there were no spectators. Curry was apparently there as a "guest reporter". Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 06:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Wikiprojects form a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The wider community here judges whether it's suitable to go on the main page.—Bagumba (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
      • In that case, if I don't want to see golf major championships barred from being posted at ITN again, I have to garner consensus for changing how the field sections of tournament articles are written? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 06:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I have no intention of challenging anything at WP:GOLF. WikiProjects don't define the basic rules for article structure, that's the job of the MOS, and it applies everywhere. As an aside, I've checked the stats for golf articles and it lists only two articles as FAs (one of which is Wii Sports, only loosely connected to golf) and nine GAs. There are no tournament pages included in those so we have no point of reference. The figures seem astonishly low for such a prominent subject, and suggest the project may not be very active...  — Amakuru (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• I wasn't sure what "birdie" and "eagle" mean and so just had to look them up. And I bet if you asked the general public what "bogey" means in golf, you'd get a variety of amusing answers with "don't know" being a strong contender. A "hole-in-one" might be ok because it is self-explanatory but note that the phrase isn't used in the article even though there was at least one. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The lead should be accessible, but those terms are in the body. A sports event article should not be expected to teach a newbie about the sport. Linking to common technical terms is generally sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Switching to support - Following a productive discussion, and new edits by Wjemather, the Field section has now been rewritten to contain just prose, with the other info in a linked child info. My concerns are therefore now addressed, and I am switching to support on this candidate. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

*Oppose On article quality and prose. Gotitbro (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Support Appears fine or ITN now. Gotitbro (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: Yep, the updated version at the time you wrote this would have been fine, but unfortunately that improvement was reverted so it's now back at the unwieldy poor quality version.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The "Field" section is unwieldy, and the bolding with linking is an eyesore. This isn't GA, but it's a large-scale failing of MOS:PSEUDOHEAD: Do not make pseudo-headings by abusing semicolon markup (reserved for description lists) and try to avoid using bold markup. It's screaming to be a table with minutiae moved to footnotes.—Bagumba (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bagumba. And the summaries for the first three rounds don't really pass muster. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Seems like some here are trying to push the bar too high. The tone and style may be wanting, and the layout may not be ideal, however this meets the basic quality criteria for ITN – "Articles are held to a minimum standard of quality. Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items." _wjemather 11:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Entirely agree. Not sure why this article has attracted so many pile-on opposes when it's no worse than many other ITN/R sports items we've routinely posted. I thought the standard was sufficiently referenced with prose summaries.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Nope. Basic compliance with the MOS is also up there. We're showcasing this on the main page of our project, let's at the very least showcase the way articles are actually structured, rather than some bizarre format developed within one project and seemingly copied every year because nobody can think of anything better to do. As ever on this page, if people just made some basic changes, like those proposed by Bagumba above, this could just go straight up.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  We posted both the Masters and the US Open last year which used an identical format. To suddenly declare that what was acceptable before is now unacceptable smacks of moving the goalposts for me. (Sorry, can't think of an equivalent golfing metaphor.) P-K3 (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Seems raising the bar without prior discussion or consensus to do so. I'm struggling to find the passage in the ITN criteria which mentions MOS compliance and to what degree it is necessary. For information, it actually quite closely replicates the format used by the major championships themselves for many years, and is to a degree still used by the USGA & R&A, so attacks on the project in this regard are somewhat unwarranted. _wjemather 22:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have edited the field section in accordance with the criticisms and suggestions of Amakuru, Bagumba, Gotitbro, and The Rambling Man above. Let me know if you have any further objections and I would be happy to work on fixing them. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Reverted due to making the information much less accessible and also losing several details. Changes in this regard would be better discussed centrally (suggest WT:GOLF), as there are many tournament articles with the same mos/formatting issues (as noted above). _wjemather 22:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  I've gotten myself involved in enough inane discussions here lately, I'm not interested in starting a new one over formatting at WT:GOLF. I guess this is the end of golf at ITN unless someone else wants to start working on changing this. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  We shouldn't sacrifice content on the alter of MOS. It does no service to the encyclopedia. There are many ways of removing the bolding without losing content and accessibility/readability – your solution (moving most content – some would say the most important details – into footnotes) was not one of them. _wjemather 22:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  I reasoned that was what everyone objecting here wanted since Bagumba suggested it and most other opposes were on similar grounds. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think calling a section on the field "most content" and even "most important" is really a far stretch, I would say most people which would access this article from the front page would be interested in how the tournament actually played out, which is behind 3 full pages of rather trivial information for a non golf enthusiast. This big section actually hurts the readability. Chaosquo (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  It shouldn't need spelling out, but I was obviously referring only to the content of that section. Misuse of footnotes is worse than perceived MOS transgressions. People are welcome to discuss ways of presenting the information better, in collaboration with the editors who do the bulk of the work in this area, but sadly it seems none here are willing (discussion started here). _wjemather 09:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  The topic under consideration is the 2020 PGA Tournament, and it should be clear by now from the number of objecters here, that the format of that article simply doesn't conform to Misplaced Pages guidelines on how to structure an article. I am happy to have a conversation about the details of this page, with a view to getting it listed at ITN, since that's the goal here. We can have that by WP:BOLDly trying different layouts on the page (which both Bzweebl and myself have now done), discussing it at the talk page, and coming up with a sensible compromise. But the starting point has to be that the previous format was not of sufficient quality, since multiple experienced editors have now made that same point here on this page. If we come up with a sensible way to present the info, then no doubt WikiProject Golf can incorporate that into their guidelines going forward, but non-members of that project are not bound by any edicts coming from "those who do the bulk of the work in this area", nor are those editors exempt from following the basic MOS guidelines. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  The suggestion was only to engage with the golf project; that way when a format is agreed upon, past and future articles will likely follow the same standards (as it is those active project editors who will likely do the bulk of any remedial work). Otherwise we end up with this article and maybe a handful others being "fixed" and the rest not. _wjemather 10:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, sure, engaging with the golf regulars, including yourself, is vital and no doubt they will also have good ideas about how to go forward. The more voices the better. I just think that in the immediate term, we should concentrate on the 2020 PGA as a concrete example that we can work on, hopefully with a view to getting it posted on ITN. If we try to fix everything at once, we won't have time for this one to be featured.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support. There have been numerous heavy changes to the article, but the current version seems fine to me. The information is there, the rounds have brief-but-adequate prose summaries, and referencing appears sufficient. Modest Genius 11:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't feel comfortable thrusting to the main page an article wherein an edit war is taking place.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 11:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Indian coal mine auction

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.

• Created by Bluerasberry (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Narayansg (talk · give credit)

• Oppose grossly repetitive stub which, having been created just days ago, gives some indication as to the relative notability of this "virgin" forest. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Notability? The other Indian stories which we are featuring are a hotel fire, a religious photo op and a plane skidding into a ditch. Which story is really significant? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• All red herrings. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oh and I must have missed the featuring of a hotel fire. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Who needs hotel fires when you've got all that cheap Indian coal? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• It was reading the nomination of the 2020 Vijayawada fire below which got me wondering what was really happening in India. That article is better developed than our article about the forest coalfield. If it bleeds, it leads. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support, if article can be expanded. An interesting and very worrying story that seems to be largely hidden from media view. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose ...and if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a bicycle. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose meh per TRM, the Amazon's more important. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 10:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Do you mean Jeff Bezos investing 10 billion in fighting climate change or the fact that fires in the rainforest are up 28% on last year? Both these items are in the news but we are ignoring them too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Nominate away. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Article is far too sparse and short and stubby for main page highlighting. --Jayron32 12:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment we have lot of stories from India alone in past few days and let's not forget the 2020 Idukki landslide and 2020 Kerala floods are also mainly covered in google search much higher when compared to the coal mine auction. 2020 Vijayawada fire has now started to lose focus of main headlines. Abishe (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose on article quality. Article is in poor shape and falls well short of our customary standards for being linked on the main page. Neutral on the merits of the nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per TRM, Wolfson. "Stick it inside someplace." – Sca (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We generally only post stories that are points of action and/or when it is a point of no return (large # of deaths/loss). That there is some initial call to action is not the type of thing we post to start with regardless of anything else that is behind this nom or the coverage. --Masem (t) 15:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose What is the event here? Were new egregious mining permits issued over the last few days? Seems to be more "Did you know"... vs current event.Albertaont (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• The auctions for 41 blocks of land are currently running and the bid deadline was August 18. That's why it's in the news now. But by all means wait until the land is strip-mined and the coal is burnt. In the meantime, let's play more golf, shall we? Andrew🐉(talk) 20:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Article is a stub, and this story doesn't seem to have reached the "significant development" stage that would justify a blurb. "Feel threatened by" is not enough.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment suggest this is now closed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

(Protests posted) Belarusian election

• Nominated by Smurrayinchester (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Assuming this is ITN/R, as a national election, but the election is so widely considered a sham that the protests surrounding it are the bigger story. Smurrayinchester 08:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Smurrayinchester This has been nominated already below; initially the protests were the focus, but the election results have been added. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Ah OK, when I looked I only saw the protests. Smurrayinchester 09:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• First blurb's good InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think that we should shed light on the protests as the main story. There are multiple protests of larger scale with much higher casualties every year that we normally don't post, so there's no strong reason why to consider these as an exception unless they result in a presidential change. Considering how things develop for now, this is probably going to be an ultimate failure.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, while I support in principle, the election article is a bit of a mess; there are many uncited claims about living people. All the blurbs so far also need to be toned down for NPOV. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I have added Alternative blurb III to address my concern about the blurbs but the article on the election needs a lot of work before posting. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

How about Alt4, offered above? Short & to the pt. – Sca (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment- My preference is for Altblurb3. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support Alternative blurb III or my blurb V: (Officially) Re-elected Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko orders to disperse (peaceful) protesters who (claims victory of other candidate / accuses him of electoral fraud) or my blurb VI: Protesters against electoral fraud contest re-election of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko (and claim victory of other candidate). TarzanASG (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the election article is missing vast amounts of citations (amongst other problems) and is in no condition to be posted on the main page. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – Too bad, as Svetlana Tikhanovskaya's flight to Lithuania, and her demonstrative video there, have been widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support in principle, with either article bolded and a preference for alt3 blurb, but oppose on quality. This is a major story but both articles are lacking in references. Some of that could be addressed by simply deleting the associated material e.g. most of the infobox on the protest article. We only need to fix one article to post the blurb, just bold that one for now. Modest Genius 13:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Posted per consensus below, with only the protests bolded. The election article can be bolded whenever it is ready. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

August 9

(Posted) RD: Martin Birch

• Nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

 Bloom6132 (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Generally all fine, but the discography section contains a cite to discogs which, looking at the RS noticeboard archives, is not considered suitable for citations, only external links. Please could you make sure every entry in the list is verifiable by one or more of the non discogs sources?  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Amakuru: Fixed now, I think. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Practically the whole discography was sourced to AllMusic - I've sourced some that weren't, and removed the remaining few that I couldn't source. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Spencer, Stephen, and Amakuru: All refs from Discogs have now been replaced. I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• posted  — Amakuru (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kamala

• Nominated by GreatCaesarsGhost (talk · give credit)

 GreatCaesarsGhost 01:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there a policy / convention on using stage names vs real names in the RD section? Seems like this post should be referenced as James Harris. But, is there a precedent in this group to use stage names? Regards. Ktin (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think COMMONNAME applies: use Kamala. Kingsif (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support I've been expecting this day for 28 years, and preparing the bio for eight. It could still use a few small wordiness tweaks, but I think it's ready. I'll spare you rubes my suggested blurb, you're welcome! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is not ready. There are couple of citations needed tags, unsourced awards and even a whole unsourced section. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Where he worked and with whom those four years is in his Cagematch profile (External links), if anyone's feeling citey. Click the Career or Matches buttons. I can't paste links, or I might. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not about being "citey" (whatever that means). It's about following one of our most important policies.These cite tags need to be resolved before posting this. I have amended my comment to make it more clear. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Feeling citey just means "wanting to cite". Cagematch is considered reliable for results. Resolution's pretty easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You literally just made that up. Spman (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Only the first part. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I see you added those tags about a minute after I called "ready", so I stand by it; it was ready at the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support I have fixed a few cn tags so I would say this is ready. And a response to the original comment, yes we do use wrestling names in RD. Likewise stage names as we have done for Barry Chuckle in the past. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The artist known as "Prince" got a blurb in 2016, no formal address, around the time Chyna got RDed. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose dreadful line-by-line article with plenty unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Update 1988 to 1992 is now verifiable enough, as is his sale by The Wizard to the devious Master Fuji. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment If only Kendo Nagasaki were still alive.... he'd be spinning in his grave. Oh no sorry, he IS still alive. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You've got the wrong guy, I tell ya! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Still many unsourced statements.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I see one, about why his WrestleMania match was scrapped. Nobody should care. ITN is rigged against wrestlers. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Sheesh... and they don't even carry guns. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll put in some cite tags. Does placing a reference at the end of the paragraph mean it's verifying every sentence within the paragraph? It's not clear.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I usually never use that trick when trying to get an article rapidly posted at WP:ITN/RD. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not a trick, they cover everything, have for years. Staleness is coming. Hulk is dead! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

They may well cover everything, but in my experience putting multiple links at the end of a paragraph with nothing on the individual lines, makes it very difficult to actually verify the facts. It's somewhat better than just listing all sources at the end of the article, like the old days of Misplaced Pages, but it's a step in that direction, and I definitely think it's best to be more specific on individual lines. If all the cites cover all the facts, then scatter them around a bit. If some cover some facts and others others, then that's easy. Just put them against the correct ones.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

(I'm very surprised there is not clear MoS policy on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC))

Easy if you can highlight, click, drag and all that luxury. Typing for me is like entering a Nintendo password. Nobody who read his article in life complained about clumps. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Because nobody read his article until he died. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Bobby Eaton, Featured Article See how similarly wide enough the citations are? See the same blending of kayfabe and "reality"? Why's it OK for that Southern gentleman? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think a FA from 12 and a half years ago is probably not a good yardstick for what we look for in terms of quality and BLP adherence today. Just sayin'. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  Aloha. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Fully referenced. Ready to go. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD Referencing issues resolved. Spencer 16:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kurt Luedtke

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

 Bloom6132 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Great update. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support satis. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Posted—Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Vijayawada fire

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.

• Created by Abishe (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Abishe (talk · give credit)

• Comment – Also covered by AP, Reuters. Possibly ITN-level due to Covid19 aspect? – Sca (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support has a death toll, is in India, even has background and reaction sections, so it ticks all the necessary boxes. Maybe add a map? Few unreferenced claims. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  I added the map of where this happened.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yep, looks like the template now. Background section needs a ref. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Completely un-notable other than the fact that it happened to a COVID-19 facility. Besides, if we add this one to ITN, we kick out Beirut explosions and 3 of 4 articles end up being "bad things in India" which seems unbalanced... and all 4 ITN articles end up being about the Indian subcontinent. If the death rate were higher, I would be okay with kicking out Beirut to replace but not this instant.Albertaont (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As a note, we do not control where the news happens. We've had cases where all the items were in the US, and where they were all in the UK. News happens where it happens, we have no control on that. --Masem (t) 01:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Even though I don't think this merits posting, it's important to point out that this oppose does not make sense. Misplaced Pages is not here to balance bad and good stories between conutries/continents, please read WP:RGW. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Very much the same as the below nom. Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment a little context: --LaserLegs (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Did a quick scan of Indian news sources. Seems like news has not made it, prominently, to the front page on most of them. The news cycles still seem to be on the aircraft incident rescue actions, and the 2020 Idukki landslide which seems to have degenerated from an impact standpoint, unfortunately. Ktin (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per similar fire Czech republic fire below. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Bohumín apartment fire

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.

• Created by Abishe (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Abishe (talk · give credit)

• Oppose Has already dropped off most news cycles, not notable enough and no international significance. Things nominated to ITN tend to stay up for a week, I can't see this as being newsworthy for a week.Albertaont (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose on notability per above and also on quality, it's only three small paragraphs.  Nixinova   T   C   06:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support local authorities are calling it arson, death toll comparable to an airplane skidding off a runway. @Abishe: add a map, background and reactions section to fluff it out and you might get more support. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose (for now) per stubby article.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  Weak oppose (for now) still stubby but at least there are more info.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – Tragic, but lacks general significance. Parochial. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Note that I've moved the article (The title was bugging me as it suggested the entire nation was on fire which... no. --Masem (t) 13:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Article looks to be in good shape. One thing that stood out to me was: The incident has been widely regarded as the worst ever fire incident in the history of Czech Republic. -- Tavix 18:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I actually went to check the source on that claim (which was pointing to this article ) and it does not at all support that, nor any of the other sources. I can't find where that came from, so I have had to remove that claim. --Masem (t) 18:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Here's the BBC making the claim. -- Tavix 18:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Not to split hairs on this one -- but, the link above says "...has been described as the...", without any attribution (e.g. described by whom), so, this claim should not be attributed to BBC, at least not based on the above link. Regards. Ktin (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment It is an arsony and a mass murder blurb should reflect this. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment a little context: --LaserLegs (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Adding altblurb2 given this is now looking like an arson attack. --Masem (t) 01:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Also I've moved it again to the more specific location name per BBC and updated the above. --Masem (t) 01:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Unfortunately. It's tragic but no general significance. Much larger disasters are reported everyday around the word. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

August 8

(Posted to RD) RD: Erich Gruenberg

• Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Iconic violinist, born in Vienna, studied in Israel, then for life in London, played the Moscow premiere of Britten's concerto, and with The Beatles. The article was practically in place, but - so far - undersourced. - I need to go now. There's more in sources if you want to add. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment reference 5 says it is a page on The Strad, but the link points to a BBC page with a mirror of our own article on it, which isn't acceptable as a source... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, BBC fixed, and it's a reference to five Proms concerts, not the bio. I meant to name the others also but had no time yet. Click to each one has the details. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support As the concerns of Amakuru has been addressed, seems fine now JW 1961 Talk 20:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - per improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. A little on the short side but consensus to post and meets minimum standards. Spencer 21:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pere Casaldàliga

• Nominated by Alsoriano97 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Spanish-Brazilian prelate. Missionary to Brazil, where he developed an important and award-winning social work and defense of human rights, especially of indigenous people. Nicknamed "The Bishop of the Poors". Exponent of the liberation theology. Working on updating his article. Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support This article seems to be great.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - looks ready.BabbaQ (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per above. Albertaont (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment this appears to have been ready for 12 hours. Also worth noting the page appears to have been moved to Pedro Casaldáliga. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Posted—Bagumba (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Belarusian protests

• Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)

Large scale significant protests in Belarus, ongoing for some time, gaining significant momentum and coverage in recent days.Abcmaxx (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - article seems ready. Perhaps add it together with voting results tomorrow.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The main article is 2020 Belarusian protests, I've added it to the blurb. Brandmeister 14:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support The outcome of the election will be significant for this country, as well as Russia and the rest of Europe. Maybe the result of the election could also have its own blurb once those are announced? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment should this be ongoing, rather than a blurb? Today is a large event but these have been occurring for two months and are expect to occur until the election? --Masem (t) 15:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I support adding this in the blurb on the election results but, for now, the protests solely don't merit one. And while it's clear what happens in the country, POV-pushing words like "regime" are not welcome.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Wait – I hate to say the W-word again, but it seems only logical to wait until tomorrow's election results are available. (Besides, Saturday is traditionally an off-day news-wise.) – Sca (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support now as a blurb (no sign that it's being continuously updated for ongoing) and when the election is done, if the election article is suitable, merge. Lots of election articles fail to go up due to inadequate updates or referencing issues. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ongoing to be clear, despite the hysteria the article does not meet the basic requirement of being "continually updated with new, pertinent information" --LaserLegs (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support ongoing per notability of the events and the article is ready. (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose & Wait The election outcome and the "hook" of this news will depend on results in 24 hours. We can wait till then, no need to post this today and re-litigate it again tomorrow. Albertaont (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Nominator comment For those who say wait; I would point out that the elections are really merely academic at this point and so the protests will be ongoing regardless of the already known outcome. Besides, as some have pointed out, the blurb can always be changed accordingly Abcmaxx (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• I would definitely support adding this to ITN today.BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Good to know your opinion. – Sca (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Just drew 60,000, without incident. Big by Belarus standards, maybe. The election will be bigger. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @InedibleHulk Not without incident; given hundreds have been arrested, more threatened, and most of the opposition leaders and activists have been detained in some form or another, that is hardly an accurate statement. Belarus is a secretive police state, so 60000 open protesters is huge by any comparable standard. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Arrests are normal in police states. Lacks newsworthy incidents. Violence, property crime, clashes like elsewhere; this is a sidebar to an election story. But yeah, good to see a whole 3% of Minsk in the streets. Maybe after tomorrow, a full twentieth will get angry. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Wait until the election or post to Ongoing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support and possibly post to Ongoing. 3% is very close the the 3.25% for a revolution so this story looks like it might have legs. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Very Strong Support This is some of the biggest change or attempt at change in Belarus since its inception. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 21:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support combined election blurb. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Widely reported and now the "election" has concluded as well. I proposed an alt-blurb above which combines both events. Regards SoWhy 07:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - merged my altblurbs from nominating the election. Smurrayinchester 09:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Alt II's nice InedibleHulk (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment the election article is not in posting condition. Shouldn't have rushed to merge the two. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support altblurb2 Since its both about the election and the subsequent protests. Gotitbro (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – See explanation above. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose solely on article quality. The election article is nowhere near ready for linking on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support posting without delay. Both articles in decent condition and items certainly all over the news where I am. Mkwia (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per above. Election results are themselves newsworthy, so this seems like a clear candidate. EryZ (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Posted. Currently the protest article is good enough so I've posted it without haste. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Pull bold or not, you can't link the election article in that state on the main page. Update the blurb to exclude the link please. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  We link horrible articles on the Main Page all the time. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. We just shouldn't highlight them as something we are proud of. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry but no, the election article has unreferenced claims about individuals being arrested -- a WP:BLP vio. It's gotta come down --LaserLegs (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

August 7

(Posted) RD: Adin Steinsaltz

• Nominated by Sir Joseph (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Prolific scholar and groundbreaking translator of the Talmud. Sir Joseph 18:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  I removed the tag, the page did not need the full tag on the whole page. I see a few spare "when" but nothing that seems too major for such a large article. Sir Joseph 18:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose too much uncited material. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  Coffeeandcrumbs, I have filled in more than enough to get it at RD. ("Of sufficient quality.") Sir Joseph 00:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see his death mentioned and cited in the article and, if we don't have a source for his exact date of birth, it should be removed from the lead. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

  OK Folks. Added mentions of his death in the article. Added a few other references. Done. I think the top-of-the-fold section looks reasonably clean. Ktin (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

  Support – I added two missing refs I noticed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support – Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support satis. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Looks fine. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer 05:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Air India Express Flight 1344

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Navas Puthanazhi (talk · give credit)
• Updated by ArnabSaha (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Developing. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support: 15 dead, 135 injuries ❯❯❯   S A H A 17:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  the alt blurb is more accurate ❯❯❯   S A H A 18:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Disasterous but the article currently has insufficient content.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  Support Now that article has a sufficient amount of info.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Wait – Reportedly two casualties, 30-40 injured. – Sca (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - 15+ dead, article coming together nicely. Mjroots (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support hull loss, many dead. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support Dozens dead, possibly up to 200 potential deaths and injuries. Eternal Shadow Talk 17:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Per above notes. Someone knowledgeable about this topic, please feel free to update the blurb if there is a difference between 'crash' and overrunning runway / runway excursion. Also now that we know the number onboard, we perhaps update the nearly 200 onboard to the actual number onboard. Added Altblurb above.Ktin (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  Ktin, overrun is appropriate. ❯❯❯   S A H A 17:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Causalities will likely climb looking at the wreakage alone. Support characterization as crash instead of runway excursion, since this will be complete hull loss and its well pass the runway in a valley. Albertaont (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support It just happened a couple of minutes ago. Plane fell into the valley and 15+ dead. 70.106.212.233 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Marked ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Posted alt blurb. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Sri Lankan parliamentary election

• Updated and nominated by Abishe (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Sri Lanka was the only country in the world without a functioning parliament for months amid COVID-19 pandemic and this is an importamt election to determine the stability of the ruling government. It is also important as Sri Lanka is the only South Asian country to have held election in the middle of a pandemic. Abishe (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This is ITN/R, so I have edited the nom to reflect that. The results section needs a prose update and the results should also be included in the infobox and lede, which incidentally is overly long and some of its material should be moved to the body. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, the above was intended as an oppose on quality with the hope that the editors currently working on the article will fix the deficiencies I described, but I didn't think it would be necessary to make that explicit because I assumed succeeding !voters would agree that the article needs improvement. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Some recent elections have gone stale on ITN, this is not one of them. Thanks again for the work so far, agree with @Bzweebl: article needs minor touch-up, but the substance is there.Albertaont (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nomination, and above points. Blurb looks good too! Ktin (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good. Prose is there as well. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment a few uncited sentences at the end of paragraphs and in the timeline; consider this a support once those are addressed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Article looks good, with a few fixes needed. Major election in Sri Lanka. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 12:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I hope I fixed those concerns mentioned above but hope the overall shape of the article is okayish. Cheers. Abishe (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Article looks better now. Thanks to Abishe and others for their efforts. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support on the face of it, this looks ready. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Looks OK – Ammarpad (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Posted. Spencer 02:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

August 6

(Posted) RD: Frances E. Allen

• Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: First woman to win Turing award, key comp.sci. figure in the basics of compilers for computers. Died on the 4th but the earliest I can find notice of her death is this date (local paper , local obit), the bigger reports after this. Few small CNs that I will fix up after this. Masem (t) 19:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Looks fairly good, will Support when the CNs are attended to JW 1961 Talk 19:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • CNs have been fixed and I've added a couple small things that were implied by the Turing but more explicit in a few weeks. --Masem (t) 20:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Looks good to me. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support satis. G2G. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer 05:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wayne Fontana

• Nominated by Pawnkingthree (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: British singer best known for "Game of Love." P-K3 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Reasonably good coverage in article, everything seems to be sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose' there are several singles which aren't showing any chart positions at all which means they are currently unverifiable, unless there's a general source somewhere in there for such flops. And where do I verify all those catalogue numbers? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The Rambling Man I've fixed the cite tags, and found a source for the catalogue numbers, that also lists the non-charting singles. P-K3 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Support good work. G2G. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um.... will someone post?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Frequently deathly slow around here at the weekend. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
        • "chortle, chortle". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment still ready nine hours later. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "There's no justice!" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Posted—Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brent Scowcroft

• Nominated by Valereee (talk · give credit)
• Updated by LemonJuice78 (talk · give credit), Bloom6132 (talk · give credit) and Williamsdoritios (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article has been updated recently but now has multiple cn tags —valereee (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Looks like referencing issues have been addressed. Spencer 02:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Looks good enough. cn tags have been removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support decent article, the first three honours appear to be unreferenced, the rest seems satis. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, if anyone has any concerns please specify them and we can see if we can get them addressed. KConWiki (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support looks good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Spencer, Stephen, Amakuru, and Jayron32: I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Posted—Bagumba (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Ram Mandir, Ayodhya

• Nominated by Titodutta (talk · give credit)
• Updated by DiplomatTesterMan (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Adding background/context, as requested in the comment section below: The temple construction started on 5 August 2020 in Ayodhya. It was followed by decades of legal and other battles. This is a very major and significant event in India and in the subcontinent. Time (magazine) has explained in an article why it matters. Deccan Herald prepared a note with 10 key facts. To know more about how it unfolded over the years, kindly read this The Times of India article.
Please feel free to suggest alternative blurbs. Titodutta (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This is not an area I know much about, would the nominator (@Titodutta:) be able to give some context about why starting construction of a building is significant in this case? Kingsif (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Greetings, I have added comments above. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks! Kingsif (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support in principle. From the links provided above, this is receiving international attention as a prominent and controversial religious matter that has spanned at least the last 30 years just about this temple, let alone the site it's on. Modi's attendance adds to the story. I haven't judged the article, yet, so this !vote could change if it's in poor condition. Kingsif (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• leaning Oppose - we did already post this story, when the supreme Court made the decision to allow the temple last November. So in effect this is just another development in the same story, much like the spacecraft returning to earth after earlier launching. Unless I'm missing something?  — Amakuru (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• leaning Support with a better blurb. Has shown up on ITN within the last year, but the Ayodhya dispute is an 80+ year saga that's had enormous ramifications on Indian society and politics. Its generally credited with kick-starting the now-dominant Bharatiya Janata Party for one thing. Given the length of time between events it doesn't seem unreasonable to mention again. --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Major event in one of the greatest controversies in Indian history and society. I recommend linking to Ayodhya dispute in the blurb to provide context for unfamiliar readers. This is at least equally significant to the court decision we posted last year. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 09:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per Bzweebl. A better blurb is needed, however.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support and added another blurb. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 10:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Alt III. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems similar to the Hagia Sophia story which wasn't posted. If this has already been posted once then giving it more exposure again so soon seems premature. The ceremony in this case seems mainly to have been a photo-op for Modi and doesn't seem to be getting much attention outside India. Better to wait until the temple is completed and officially opened when there will be an actual building to report. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson "Because x didn't get it, y shouldn't too" has been established to be an INVALID arguement. If you are going to oppose this, you're going to have to look at it on its own. Dantheanimator (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Amakuru this was posted last fall. The "ground breaking" is ceremonial. Nominate again when it's complete. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - As per above supports. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article states that construction has been underway for four months, so this ceremony does seem like a photo op rather than a substantial step. That doesn't seem major enough to post the same story twice. Furthermore, if the dispute over this temple has had widespread impacts, it really isn't obvious from the article. Modest Genius 12:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Article looks ok. I'm not a Hindu but this seems to have some importance in the faith so in that way it is significant. (Hinduism is 1 of the 5 major religions of the world). Dantheanimator (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality. Neither the article nor any of the blurbs succeed in explaining the event's significance. Alt0 and Alt2 don't even pretend to. —Cryptic 15:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - with Altblurb 4 that explains the events broader context. It is getting global coverage outside of India. The date chosen seem to have been the anniversary of the revocation of autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir, but that could be a coincidence.Albertaont (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This is ready to be posted. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Went with Alt 3, which IMHO explain significance best. --Jayron32 18:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting comment For those questioning the significance of this, my understanding from past reading on the dispute is that this is THE most important symbolic flashpoint of Hindu-Muslim tensions in India. The section in the bolded article on the ground-breaking ceremony should give a sense on how big a deal it was in the context of the overall controversy. The ceremony was broadcast and celebrated by Hindus all over the world. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting feedback on blurb: Is it right to say "disputed", once the Supreme court gave its final verdict on this matter in November of 2019? My thinking is that prior to this time, it would be alright to say "disputed", but, post the supreme court verdict, we should not be using the phrase "disputed". Also, in perhaps a minor point, we might want to reconsider starting with "In India". This brings up the systemic geographic bias that was being discussed yesterday, and gives the impression that the center of our universe is somewhere in the western world. E.g. we didn't start the post about the Spanish king by saying, "In Spain, ...". I know getting consensus on a blurb is a challenging one, but, AltBlurb2 remains the most neutral. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As the person who (mainly) wrote the blurb on the page, a) the Supreme Court case did not change that this is still the flashpoint of strained Hindu-Muslim relations, and b) we said that Juan Carlos was the "King of Spain" in the blurb, thereby providing geographical context, and given that most people in the Western world (this is the English Misplaced Pages, after all) are not privy to this dispute, adding "In India" is a brief yet effective way to provide needed geographic context. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Regarding a), I have added my notes below to Jayron32's comment. Regarding b), sure, please do what is best. I agree with you that whatever conveys the message in a succinct manner and with brevity, should be done. But, on a minor point, we should just be aware of our biases when we say "in the Western World (this is the English Misplaced Pages, after all)" -- ~87% of the Misplaced Pages traffic from India is to the English Misplaced Pages (source). So, the western world can not be the only preserve of the English Misplaced Pages, or vice versa. But, to give you the benefit of doubt, only ~10% of all Misplaced Pages traffic comes from India. So, maybe that is driving your thinking. Cool either ways. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Per John M Wolfson, the dispute exists whether or not any legal conclusion was reached. The end of the dispute happens when there is no longer a significant dispute from opposition groups. The groups who were opposed to the temple construction still do, and the dispute is itself what makes this a major news event. Places of worship are under construction all over the world all the time, what makes this one newsworthy is that this one has been the source of tension in one of the world's largest nations. --Jayron32 19:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Will let you guys decide the appropriate wording. You might know this better than me. But, "disputed" seems wrong, particularly when the it took the courts 28 years to end the dispute by providing a resolution. Now, will some parties to the dispute be aggrieved at the end of a verdict, perhaps yes, but, the whole reason a verdict was announced was to close a dispute, so to speak. Re: the second point, sure, please do what is best. Cheers.Ktin (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm not particularly tied to one word in particular, if you have a word that better encapsulates the controversy without using "dispute", I'm open to changing it. I'm just not smart enough to think of one myself. --Jayron32 19:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Also, I read this once more - the blurb clearly says building "on disputed land", I don't think the law would allow you to build on disputed land. If somoene were to do that, they would be breaking the law, and we don't want to be implying that the folks who are building are breaking the law. Cheers.Ktin (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Jayron32, I must admit, I am in the same boat as well. Hence my thinking was that using Altblurb2 was the most neutral way to go about this one. Maybe pop in 'Indian' in between to give the geographical context. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Ktin, in the context of the sentence, it can be reasonably inferred that by "dispute" it means "controversial". Also, consider the fact that "disputed land" is linked to the article, so any reader such as you can just click/hover over the link to learn more about the "dispute". You're interpreting "dispute" to politically, this is more of a socio-cultural thing from what I know (similar to the situation of East Jerusalem). If you want more clarification, just send me a ping and I'll be glad to make this clear for you. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Ktin, you just openly accused people of being racists here. You probably don't want to do that if you really are trying to convince people to help you out. Furthermore, I asked you for some help in crafting better wording. Your response was 1) to delete my request for help and 2) to go back to an earlier post of yours and edit it to accuse anyone who doesn't do exactly what you want to be a racist. Good luck with that. I'm done trying to be helpful to you. You can find someone else to do your bidding. --Jayron32 20:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
          • @Jayron32: Please let me admit that I am not accusing anyone of anything. There was a genuine edit conflict. Let me be the first one to apologize, if I gave anyone the impression that I was casting aspersions on them. Specifically, John M Wolfson, please accept my apologies, if that was what came out. I will stand down. Thanks everyone. Have a nice day. Ktin (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

August 5

(Posted) RD: Horace Clarke

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

 Bloom6132 (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Looks to be in good shape. --Jayron32 16:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Spencer, Stephen, and Amakuru: I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer 02:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hawa Abdi

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

 Bloom6132 (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The DHAF site used as a reference for a couple statements is under construction. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Hrodvarsson: just added an archive URL of the site from March 2017. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support looks good, should be ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Spencer, Stephen, and Amakuru: I think this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 02:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pete Hamill

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

 Bloom6132 (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support pretty decently referenced article JW 1961 Talk 12:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Commment Fails MOS:ROLEBIO, listing everything but the kitchen sink in the lead sentence.—Bagumba (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  I got rid of "educator". The rest might arguably be notable enough to stay.—Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Well-referenced, looks ready.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Spencer, Stephen, and Amakuru: I think this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Posted --Jayron32 18:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Hurricane Isaias

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.

• Nominated by Destroyeraa (talk · give credit)
• Updated by ChessEric (talk · give credit), Destroyeraa (talk · give credit) and Dough4872 (talk · give credit)

• Support in the news, thorough article, and storm during storm season does storm things is an established pattern here. Also deaths. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  WP:POINT. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support For me a hurricane that causes significant impact to millions and leads to 10+ deaths is enough to post. Article is already in good shape. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support in principle -- Question for folks who might know -- the article is worded "Hurricane Isaias was a category 1 hurricane" -- is that because the worst of the hurricane is behind us now? Also, is there a thumb-rule in this group about a category threshold above which a hurricane is relevant to be posted on ITN? E.g. Category 3 and beyond. I am assuming not. Ktin (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ktin: Damage repairs and estimates are still ongoing. For second question: ni, only if it is notable and causes significant damage/kills people.~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 20:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The hurricane itself is done. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks folks @InedibleHulk: and @Destroyeraa:. Hope everyone in the NE is safe. Ktin (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose not even the deadliest storm of this season. Standard weather with a standard outcome. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Which one is the deadliest storm of this season? We should definitely post that one :) Ktin (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Cristobal. Not even sure it got nominated. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Seems like we missed it. We should not miss this one. Ktin (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It was missed because it was non-notable, just like this. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Very Interesting. Is there a numerical threshold to being 'notable'? Ktin (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Well history tells us that around 30 to 40 deaths is the usual threshold for such storms to be considered worthwhile posting (I've only gone back as far as 2015 mind you). Setting the bar this low on a hurricane season would literally open the door to monthly postings of regular weather patterns in the US which fade away almost immediately. Perhaps we could add a new line to ITN during hurricane season in the US alone to publish all the various storms there for our audience. In the meantime, floods in India and China with far more impact on much less-developed countries are routinely dismissed as "standard weather for this time of year". Double standards anyone? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 Pacific typhoon season has caused 6 fatalities all year. China hasn't been hard hit by typhoons recently, there only having 1 fatality from that country in 2020.

2020 China floods were posted to ongoing last month for 11 days with no opposition.

2020 Assam floods weren't posted because the article wasn't updated enough. (It still is!) Only IndelibleInk opposed based on importance grounds. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, and that's just this year. How many over the last five years ridiculed and objected to through systemic bias? Yet people support this trivial storm, the like of which happens several times per year in one isolated part of the world? Amazing. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Howard. This is good to know. So, seems like with all of this, we should go ahead with posting this one. Let's move forward. Also, at the risk of stating the obvious, I do not think we should trivialize the less developed countries and their suffering as "standard time of the year". I am onboard that we should be posting those in a timely manner. Ktin (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Typhoon Jebi (2018) killed 17 surely non-Caucasians and was posted. Good work, Misplaced Pages! Howard the Duck (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That is outstanding research. Meantime in 2019 there were something like eight notable floods in India alone with death tolls in excess of 50, none of which were posted, most of which weren't nominated. Let's just run a US weather ticker under the Covid banner, that's much easier than all this silly debate. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Ktin. Cristobal didnt get posted bc we didnt know it caused 15 deaths till laye July! Always thought it caused only 5. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 20:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support. 13 deaths and affected 6 countries of Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland and New York. We post ITNR entries that affect far less than 6 countries. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Sadly a relatively trivial number of people killed and infrastructure affected in almost all of those "countries". More people have been killed in the US by mass shootings in the same amount of time Isaias has been trundling along. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Those are states, not countries. Affected more than 6 countries - Dominica, Trinidad+Tobago, Dominican Republic, Bahamas, US, Grenada, Britain (territories). ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 20:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry. Those were Easter eggs linking to actual countries affected by this natural disaster. Even the queen's realms (plural!) were affected. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Technically, the United States are 51 sovereign states, hence the name. And only seven people have died in mass shootings this month, from just six counties (encapsulating Mulholland Drive). There was one in a federal district, most recently, everyone lived. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly! 7 is 6 less than 13. The Rambling Man, you can keep Rambling about how it's not notable and that 13 deaths are nothing. This is notable. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 22:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't follow you at all, but please stop trying to canvass votes. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

And sure, mass shootings in August in the US amount to seven dead, but it's only 4 August. More than 60 in July. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(I clarified here, but it was destroyed, now TRM's pissed, so forget it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC))

Um, if you mean "upset" then no, I'm just saying people killed in mass shootings in August (it's the 4th) nearly equates to the death toll here. And if you meant "drunk" then also no. I don't think your comment is very helpful at all and I'd urge you to strike it/explain it/apologise for a borderline NPA. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose If death and destruction are what's hot, and the hotter one wasn't, this one's not. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This was already nominated on Aug 1. Posting it then might have been sensible but it has dissipated now. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson: If it needs to be backdated, so be it. It's still more recent than the two 7/26 blurbs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  It would make sense if it was a truly notable storm. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support After all, it did damage a lot of structures (and injure people) in the East Coast.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

If it weren't going on after a whole lot of buildings (and people) were blown right away in Beirut, it'd be impressive; timing matters in the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. While 13 deaths and loss of property etc is certainly tragic, it seems like that is not at the level which it would make sense to post, bearing in mind the frequency of expected events at that level. As an aside, re "Setting the bar this low on a hurricane season would literally open the door to monthly postings", I'm curious where this door is, which will be literally opened if we're not careful? Might be worth putting anotbet padlock on it.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

If you don't mind my asking. What is that 'level' where it would make sense to post? Re: your latter question, I am tagging The Rambling Man to give you the location of that door. Ktin (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Standard door, it's got "systemic bias" just above the knocker. Cheers Ktin! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

oh, that door. I know it well, and I've seen many people going through it in the past. It has a big red warning sign on it but is still left wide open for all to pass through.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think on this one, I am on the same page as you The Rambling Man. However, the way to fix it is not to oppose everything else, but, instead when we see systemic bias denying an action for a under-represented region, we should speak up. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment and now the canvassing begins. Honestly. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as thankfully it was not a devastating hurricane as can be seen by the relatively low number of deaths and people losing power rather than losing everything. P-K3 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – How much damage is 'signficant,' and how does this hurricane rate on a scale of 1-10 compared to other hurricanes in this regard? (Personally, I find most weather news inherently boring.) – Sca (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  It's a "3 out of 10" based on my reading of the last six years of this hurricane season thing. This is relatively trivial even in the context of hurricanes, let alone the context of global encyclopedic events (such as Beirut). Posting this would be a sublime kowtow to systemic bias. But Donald the Orange would be happy to see the US winning again, while pointing to some graphs he knows literally nothing about! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, the article is in good shape, but in the grand scheme of things this is just a low-grade hurricane, which makes notability and systemic bias concerns certainly valid. Titoxd 22:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just look at what else is in the news. Half of the capital city of Lebanon has been destroyed by an explosion. A (former) king goes into exile! That would be huge news two centuries ago. Guyana now has a clear winner, five months after its election. (I really hope that doesn't happen to US's election ._.) And then an $11 billion scandal that took down a prime minister of Malaysia. All of these are major historic events. Isaias was a deadly storm, it spawned several tornadoes, and brought the strongest winds to large parts of the northeastern United States. Perhaps the power outage, as millions of people are without power. In June, Cyclone Nisarga left about 2.5 million people without power (more than Isaias), but it wasn't on ITN (as far as I know). Isaias doesn't seem like the kind of historic storm that the world has gotten used to in the past few decades. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Good analysis. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Don't forgot the literal, actual bus plunge we posted just last month. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, the one where 21 people died in a flash in a under-developed country as opposed to where 13 people died in "the greatest country on earth" from typical weather. Bravo. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Well you bot the greatest country on earth bit right anyway --LaserLegs (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Certainly the greatest at killing its citizens with an orange leader advocating the use drugs which actively exacerbates Covid-19 deaths? You're welcome to it!!!! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  And "you bot"... you couldn't make it up! Like the CIA are trying to convert Misplaced Pages into their vessel! Brilliant. I go to bed a happy man, thanks LaseLegs, always up for it! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Ha, your country thinks seven o' clock is bedtime! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  What the actual fuck are you talking about?! Come back when you have something meaningful (and/or accurate) to say!! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Given that it's currently 00:27 in the UK, that seems quite reasonable. What time do you sleep over there in the good 'ol USA? Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  It was supposed to be a lighthearted time zone joke. I'm Canadian. But fine, I'll kill myself, sheesh (no, not really). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes it is quite a burden having the most powerful, most important country in the world where the inept flailing of our leader demands international attention. There was a time when the inept leader of Great Britain would have demanded international attention but alas, the sun has set on that era. Too bad. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Ah, Trump is literally in a league of his own. And then you have Brazil's Bolsonaro. Our bonkers PM is way down on the list. Meanwhile the US is "winningest" at dead people from Covid and it's getting much much worse. "Mask debate" sounds like "masturbate" when y'all say it too. Brilliant. My life is nearly complete! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Just close this discussion bc the consensus is clearly against me. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 22:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I was running against the wind. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Seems like we are trending toward yet another "Unable to reach consensus" closure. This is not bad in and of itself. Speaks to the vibrancy of our debates. But, sometimes we should remind ourselves that this is "In the news" and not "In the olds" and show some bias to action. After all this section is not a "This day in history!". Cheers folks. Ktin (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Nice thought, but given this has been nominated twice, it's been tortuous and unnecessary. Probably worth knowing when a dead duck is a dead duck. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see this in any news outside of the US. Doesn't seem like a very deadly or notable storm. Albertaont (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Not even close to the biggest story in the US. 160,000 dead from COVID now, is it? Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This actually ended up being less of a story than I was expecting, which I suppose is probably for the better. Pie3141527182 (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The impact of the storm in the Caribbean was mild enough to not post then, and in the US and Canada... a few COVID-19 testing centers closed (something which couldn't happen at any other time). Basically, it rained heavily for half a day in a few states. Suggest close based on the strong opposes above and the fact it's not a story, it's a minor weather pattern. Storms just exist, only their effects really give notability over other wind, and this had none. Kingsif (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax 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:

• Misplaced Pages In the news
• Main Page discussions