Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pie3141527182 (talk | contribs) at 23:32, 12 November 2019 (→Transit of Mercury). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Suggestions

November 12

RD: Edwin Bramall

• Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced and updated --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support - An admirable man and an impressive article ~mike_gigs _contribs 18:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Well sourced, a true hero and ready for the main page. Only question I would have, should we list it as "Edwin Bramall" or "Lord Bramall"? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

November 11

RD: Charles Rogers (American football)

• Updated and nominated by DBigXray (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Arbor to SJ (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: C Class article with excellent sourcing DBigXrayᗙ 15:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Large swathes of text are unreferenced, contrary to assertion by OP. --Jayron32 16:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A significant number of claims are unsourced, including many that are BLP issues (which apply to the recently deceased). Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Le Mesurier

• Nominated by Miraclepine (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Philip Cross (talk · give credit), Jwslubbock (talk · give credit) and Mvolz (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Founder of the White Helmets volunteer organization. Responses section needs a neutrality fix and there's one unsourced sentence in the "Work with the White Helmets" section, but other than that it looks good. ミラP 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose orange tag will need resolving - when fixed, support. Well-cited article. Kingsif (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support when the orange tag is removed. The article is mostly well-sourced. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I've just edited the article a bit, adding more sourced information about his work with the White Helmets, and deleting an unsourced and incomplete sentence in that section. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good now. Significant improvements made. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support The information in paretheses under Military service surely means something, but it's lost on ENGVAR and JARGON. Presumably, he was in the military while not under command, or somesuch. If that was the extent of his official service, then I don't know why there should be a Military service section.130.233.2.197 (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• It seems that he joined the army before he was on active service. His actual service is covered by "He was promoted to lieutenant on 11 August 1993, and to captain on 11 August 1996. He worked with the United Nations peacekeeping force in the former Yugoslavia. He retired from the military on 1 June 2000." So that's 7 years of military service, after 3 years at university sponsored by the army, and about 6 weeks on probation at Sandhurst. Perhaps that section could be edited to make that a bit clearer. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• I believe this is the Officers' Training Corps, but someone with more knowledge of British military organization would need to confirm. The U.S. has a similar system called the Reserve Officers' Training Corps of which I am more familiar, but the source is not clear on this. --Jayron32 13:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delay until article is more settled. I'm not experienced with ITN proposals, but with the Turkish media talking about his wife saying Le Mesurier was thinking of suicide 15 days before his death and was on psychiatric medication, it looks like there likely will be significant messy developments before too long. I wouldn't add such stuff at the moment on WP:BLP and WP:RS grounds, but here is an example. Rwendland (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• He was on "psychiatric medication"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Transit of Mercury

• Nominated by Arseny1992 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Currently ongoing. Quite rare astronomical event. Arseny1992 (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support It is not a super rare event (last was 3 yrs ago, next is about 20) but this is along the lines of total eclipses and the like, so fair enough to post. --Masem (t) 14:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

According to that article, the next transit of Mercury is projected for 2032 Nov 13, which is 13 years from now. Banedon (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - the article is not up to standard, several unsourced data in tables, sentences or even paragraphs. starship.paint (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Arseny1992: - I suggest you improve the article by citing sources for all information in text or tables. starship.paint (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, there seems to be no prose about this specific transit, and the pattern of the article suggests there never will be any. --LukeSurl 15:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Whilst this is indeed a rare event (next one is in 2032), and I've been watching a live stream of it, at this point it's little more than trivia. All the science that can be obtained from such events was extracted centuries ago. ITN did post 2012 transit of Venus, but that event got a lot more public attention and a stand-alone article. That's even more true of total eclipses, which still have difficulty filling an article with useful information. Other than 'rare event happened exactly as predicted', it's not clear what could be said about this transit. There's certainly no substantial new content in transit of Mercury (currently just a tense change). Creating a new article and getting it into DYK would be better than putting the generic article in ITN. Modest Genius 15:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Well as this transit is about to end soon, so no point to post on ITN now. As astronomical events can be predicted to eternity into the future, this probably needs to be posted on ITN/R instead and be notified in due time without short notice before one occur (be it a transit or any type of eclipse). --Arseny1992 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, call for close Didn't seem particularly important, and is (almost) over now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure why something described by a reliable source as an ""incredibly rare celestial event" should be snow-closed. It won't happen for another 20-odd years. ITN does cover events that have completed, so no reason to just shut this down. Probably as notable (and indeed rarer) as many other predictable celestial events, such a total eclipse. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support as notable as eclipses etc, and rare, as noted above, but the article could use some work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Article doesn't have much info on this more than one line in a table. If it's not notable enough to have more than a brief mention on the general article about the topic then surely it's not notable enough for ITN.  Nixinova  T / C   21:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem - it's not a rare event. Banedon (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  CLARIFICATION: Masem said it wasn't a "super rare" event, and it won't happen again for 20 years. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I've reopened this nomination, which I felt was closed prematurely. Although I !voted oppose, 5v3 is not 'clear consensus', the nomination has been open for less than 24 hours, and the outcome could change if there is substantial expansion of the article (or creation of a new one). Let this one play out a bit longer. Modest Genius 11:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support The article is updated, the subject has some news coverage, the article is okay. Yes, it's not world-changing, but neither are the rote violence and protests that we post on ITN. We can call this a genuinely rare event that will not be repeated anytime soon without running afould of CRYSTAL.130.233.2.197 (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see any prose update in the article. The 2019 event just has one line in a data table. Modest Genius 12:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Glad this was reopened. It is a sufficiently rare astronomical event. Definitely encyclopedic. WaltCip (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The specific occurrence doesn't even seem to merit its own article (unlike eclipses, where we generally post the stand-alone article about the event). The information about this transit appears to be confined to a date in a chart. There's just not enough Misplaced Pages content about this event to make it worth posting to the main page. If there were a sizable stand-alone article, or at least a several-paragraph section in a more general article, I could support it. However, there is not enough there there. --Jayron32 13:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – Consensus against on ephemeral nature of (past) event, lack of general visibility and lack of wider significance. Can someone else finally close this tidbit, please? – Sca (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I had to add 36 {{cn|date=November 2019}} tags because I already warned about unsourced information earlier, but it was not fixed. starship.paint (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

But on the plus side, it could be illustrated with this pic. – Sca (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC) →

• Weak oppose I sort of want to see this on the main page since it's not common by any measure, but there's no way an article on this would have enough data, as seen through the linked article not even being specific to the date. Pie3141527182 (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

November 10

RD: Rick Ludwin

• Nominated by Teemu08 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: TV executive best known for his support of Seinfeld Teemu08 (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Spanish general election

• Nominated by SirEdimon (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: PSOE wins most seats but the "hung parliament" situation remains as right-wing parties Vox and PP gains lots of seats --SirEdimon (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose needs a prose update of the results, more citations in the timeline and ideally some more prose here. Also, the opinion polls graph seems to go on into the future - it should be cut down to end in Nov 2019 so we can see the lines. Kingsif (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• We don't typically mention lesser parties in blurbs like this. Suggest altblurb. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Still no prose in results. There is, however, a giant table-dump daughter article listing results by district, and some (poorly sourced) new prose under Aftermath. The content of the latter might be suitable for Results prose.130.233.2.197 (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Resignation of Bolivian gov't; Jeanine Áñez becomes president-designate

• Nominated by CoryGlee (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Zellfire999 (talk · give credit) and Kingsif (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Sources coming soon. --CoryGlee (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support in principle, but Morales's resignation is barely mentioned in the article right now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That's totally true, I am working on it along other users users, but it's as hot as a hot dog. Not much info apart from the military pressure. --CoryGlee (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This is major news. Articles seems ready to be posted. BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support on the merits, should the blurb mention that the VP resigned too(as we don't know who is in charge yet). 331dot (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Generally a change of head of state is regarded as ITNR as well(though, again, we don't know who it is changing to yet). 331dot (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

331dot Hi my friend, as I said, it's so hot the news that it's overwhelming TV, I've just heard that military authorities have ordered the arrest of Morales. Too many changes at any moment. --CoryGlee (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wait until we know who has taken over. Also I'm not wild about the blurb which seems to imply this was a military coup. It should reference the ongoing protests what the hell is going on -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support and added alt. Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif Hi my friend, Jorge Faurie, Foreign Minister of Argentina made it clear on TN (Todo Noticias) TV channel, that Argentina would not grant asylum to Morales. That should be dismissed. :) ----- --CoryGlee (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Whoa! Coup d'état is a very loaded term. We would need very widespread, near unanimous, use of that term in reliable secondary sources to use it in wiki voice. The title of the new article is highly problematic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I never suggested it was a coup. I didn't add that. --CoryGlee (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I only edited the article; it does really depend on who takes over as to whether it's a coup, but since it was the military turning on Morales, it's at least in the ballpark. edit: update to say that sources are citing or openly using the term because of the police action at least; sources added to article. Kingsif (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support I think the blurb should include the fact that Morales resigned under pressure from the military. (Morales says he was not given a choice.) So I prefer the original blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "Coup d'état"? Really? Morales disrespected his people will expressed in the 2016 Bolivian constitutional referendum and then he, mostly likely, frauded the 2019 Bolivian general election according to OEA. Then his own people protested for several days asking for a new election and for resignation and it's called a "coup d'état". The article doesn't show any of these complexities. Also, who called this a "coup d'état"? I don't see any reliable sources calling it a coup. The word "coup" is used in the news articles only when they refer to Morales accusations against the opposition.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

SirEdimon, my original nomination article target was 2019 Bolivian protests. I don't know who changed it and I don't understand it. It's been confirmed that Gen. Williams Kaliman suggested him to resign but not confirmed he launched a coup. --CoryGlee (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. My opinion was about the article 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. If the target article is another one, I don't know exactly what to say. This nomination is quite confusing now. We should clarify things before going ahead.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm going to be BOLD and put this on hold pending more information and article discussions re. coup. The protest page should be fine as a target, but when I saw the coup page had been made, I ran with it. Kingsif (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what "on hold" means - does it mean that no discussion can be allowed? that an item cannot be posted? - and because there is not clear consensus to "hold", I have reverted at this time. If there is consensus to post and an updated article, then an item should be posted. If a new article becomes a better target, then that can be discussed here or in a new nom; I don't see any reason to put a nom on indefinite hold. Best, Spencer 01:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
    • An 'on hold' has been used before, it just means 'don't post even if there appears to be consensus, there's another issue being discussed'. Kingsif (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Blurb needs "why?" Is it because of voter fraud? Because he's native? Bad for business? Corrupt? Sadistic? Progressive? I typically forget which South American country Bolivia is, and I'm not the only one. Can we get a hint of the compelling political forces at play here, experts? Keep it vague, if need be, just some agreed motive. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, November 11, 2019 (UTC)

• Bolivia, a country you think about so little... Davey2116 (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Added Alt3 feat. Jeanine Áñez. Working on her article. Kingsif (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Also, coup title issue sorted.

• Support, with simple blurb Keep it simple, especially since this is a fast moving, current event. I prefer "After weeks of protests, Bolivian president Evo Morales (pictured) and other high-ranking politicians are forced to resign amid accusations of electoral fraud".----ZiaLater (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose alternative blurbs. His call for reelection comes from the OAS while his resignation comes from the coup. --107.77.223.113 (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support blurb - Agree that shorter is better, but I’d go with the alt blurbs too. Article appears to be in good shape. Suggest timely post. Jusdafax (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support on notability. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Posted the first alt-blurb as I think the successor is important. I'm about to put Morales' picture in the queue for protection. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I believe the current blurb reads as if the protesters forced the government to resign. According to all sources this is not the case; the military forced the government to resign. Even as we justifiably agree not to use the term 'coup' as of now, we still cannot avoid the facts of the case. Davey2116 (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: T. N. Seshan

• Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Nizil Shah (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Former Chief Election Commissioner of India who brought significant changes and electoral reforms. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose based on lack of citations. Kees08 (Talk) 03:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: Please reconsider your vote. Article is updated. -Nizil (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support as updater. Article needs some copyediting and some more info in Career section. -Nizil (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

(Ready) Cyclone Bulbul

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Hurricaneboy23 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Very Severe Cyclonic Storm. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for now – A bit too early to tell if this is worth posting. Bangladesh is notorious for catastrophic cyclones, but we don't have enough info at present. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Wait per Cyclonebiscuit. This might turn out to be a massively significant storm, but it isn't one currently. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - 18 have died as of now, updated blurb. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - the storm is now sufficiently significant and the article is in fairly good shape. NorthernFalcon (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - might help people to get information around it at this juncture much . Devopam (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - and good to go now.BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

November 9

Neutro Shorty concert stampede

• Created and nominated by Kingsif (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Not much more to say - lots of teenagers trying to get in early, crushing each other. All deceased age 14. Kingsif (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose trivia. Other sections of the main page may satisfy. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• While I don't challenge the oppose, I guess it's "only" three four deaths, I do want to ask why you think it's trivia. A human stampede on Saturday is certainly news, no? And I can't imagine it serves better at DYK... Kingsif (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• It's a very low loss of life, we've had many many articles about stampedes with higher death tolls that weren't considered particularly newsworthy. Venezuela even had a stampede just last year with many more killed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support This type of events aren't common in Venezuela, with the exception of El Paraíso stampede last year, making the figures noteworthy. Article is in good shape. The incident has received plenty of coverage in the Spanish speaking world (El Mundo, El País, CNN en Español, Infobae, Russia Today and Euronews, just to mention some). --Jamez42 (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not common in Venezuela, but there was one only last year? Hard to judge the significance of your claim, or indeed of this event, without knowing how common human stampedes are worldwide every year? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Article is of sufficient quality to appear on the main page. --Jayron32 13:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I want to warn against systemic bias that tends to take place among !voters when news stories of stampedes start popping up. There's often a subconscious assumption that these happen only in developing countries and that therefore the bar to posting should be much higher for those same countries. That should not distract from how individually newsworthy these events are, or how uncommon they can be in specific regions.--WaltCip (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Newsworthy event and article is in decent shape. There is no reason to assume that stampedes at concerts happen so often that it is trivial to report on it (Category:Human stampedes in 2019 only contains three articles and the other two are not related to musical acts). Other such disasters, such as Love Parade disaster, were featured in ITN as well. As a side note, I'm surprised that a band that is so popular that people trample each other to see it has no article yet. Regards SoWhy 13:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Walt's point is well taken - human stampedes happen everywhere. Note the deaths of 3 in anglophone Ireland this year was not even nominated. If we are not going to post every stampede, it follows that we will post only those with large body counts or larger context (government inaction, etc). This has neither. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• How many are there? Do we have an article that tells us? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Indeed we do. They're frequent enough that I don't think a stampede that kills 4 is blurbable per se. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm unsure that this rises to the scale of ITN. We didn't post the similar one in Ireland not long ago, and the article isn't particularly great either. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 United Kingdom floods

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 LC1829 (talk · give credit)

• Oppose unless this flood gets much worse. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – RS coverage seems scant outside UK or maybe EU. – Sca (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, at least at present. It's causing localised disruption but they're not the worst floods in the UK in the recent past and (so far at least) have only resulted in 1 death. We can revisit this if they go on for a prolonged time and/or get significantly worse. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The flooding has now largely subsided and while the one death is tragic I don’t think the flood is ITN level of significance. The article is still a stub as well. P-K3 (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Didn't reach the level of notoriety for the front page I feel. I wasn't directly affected by the floods but it was more the "shock" value of it that made it newsworthy.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Kartarpur corridor

• Nominated by Guy in the Mall (talk · give credit)
• Created by Amanverma121 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by DiplomatTesterMan (talk · give credit) and Kautilya3 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: This was also nominated in November last year. Guy in the Mall (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support in principle – A welcome change to our usual postings and a marked change to the state of India–Pakistan relations. I am not sure about the wording of the blurb though. Seems one-sided. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The Kartarpur Corridor between Pakistan and India is opened, allowing Indian Sikh pilgrims to visit Gurdwara Darbar Sahib for the first time since partition. How's this for the alternate blurb? If too wordy, we can do The Kartarpur Corridor, connecting two Sikh holy sites between India and Pakistan for the first time, is inaugurated. Mount Patagonia (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

    Support alt 2 3 --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment needs copyedit "Pakistan constructed 4.7 KM of dedicated expressways, including 800 meter bridge over the River Ravi". Nolo on notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Added alt blurb. Article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – Of doubtful general interest. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Even NYT & BBC are carrying the news of this significant development but oppose using Alt2 as the flow of pilgrims is only one-sided. So giving equal weight to both countries would be a total eyewash. Bigfoot Yeti (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  I doubt the word "historic" will ever appear on the Main Page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  What do you think of the other alt blurb I wrote above? It's a bit wordy but I think it addresses this issue. Mount Patagonia (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  Nice. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support alt 3. Banedon (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support alt 3. Important to the international conflict in that region as a positive sign of change. --Masem (t) 03:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Such a goodwill from Imran Khan while the tensions remain high in the region. STSC (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Border corridor between two nuclear nations and undergoing rough diplomatic relations at the same time. Mods please post it now.Regards, theTigerKing  11:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support it is a major news, no problems in the article that can prevent this from mainpage. Added the names of Kautilya3 and DiplomatTesterMan as updaters. Good work guys. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not ready until the article gets a copy edit for grammar. Can't have stuff like "In 2019, Pakistan army placed a bomb on display," or "Pakistan constructed 4.7 km of dedicated expressways, including 800 meter bridge over the River Ravi" linked from the main page. Close, but not ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  Fixed those sentences, I think. Kinda hard to see an issue if you don't explain the issue. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support alt 3-- BoothSift 02:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 02:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ayodhya dispute

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Kautilya3 (talk · give credit) and Vanamonde93 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Long awaited ruling. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wait but leaning oppose There is major concern about violence erupting from the decision (pitting Hindu vs Muslim) and that might be worth posting about. But if the court rules (either way) and the net result is most heating gathers but no significant violence, it won't have much importance to the rest of the world. --Masem (t) 06:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A comment : those that are saying this is an important part of the Hindu/Muslim issue in India, this article does not reflect that importance. Yes, it's a long-disputed site, but nothing expresses how major this affects the larger issue between these two faiths. --Masem (t) 17:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support One of the most important judgement delivered by the Supreme Court of India (which cannot be appealed) since independence and pending since 19th century. The judgment does not change the world politics but brings to an end the history of the dispute. The events surrounding the subject have shaped India's history to this date. Is widely covered by the international media (as it is a significant event). . Regards, theTigerKing  06:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - The case has been going on for decades, and is a major judgement for the SC. But I would oppose it as it won’t influence world politics at all. That is the only thing that can stop this from becoming a blurb, however, so this probably will become a blurb... RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support pending cleanup grammar is actually not horrible, but there are some sentence structure issues that need fixing like "While we have had a mosque bearing an inscription". CN tags need fixing of course and the timeline section isn't backed completely by the massive BBC reference used to source it. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak suppport - While this might not have any bearing on the international scene, it is still a major landmark case for one of the largest nations on Earth, and my understanding is that this case has cast a huge shadow on Hindu-Muslim relations in India for the past two decades. It's also considered a major victory for the current government, whose party has campaigned for decades to build a temple there. There is still a matter of cleaning up the article as mentioned above. Mount Patagonia (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • On a somewhat related note, here's a proposed alternate blurb: In an unanimous decision, the Indian Supreme Court rules the disputed holy site in the northern city of Ayodhya should be given to the Hindus. Mount Patagonia (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support from somebody not coming or related to India. I see some people from the Europe looking for more information today and it should be here on the front page. The importance of this goes way beyond India.  « Saper // @talk »  12:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• support - Seems ready for posting as well.BabbaQ (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – Although the ruling has received RS coverage, its general significance seems questionable. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - There is a new article being worked on. Should that be the target? Sherenk1 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no reason that the verdict should be a separate article. The original article is short enough to include that, and you lose all the context by separating it. --Masem (t) 17:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support - It's one of the more central issues in Hindu–Islamic relations. Connected to this issue are several very important incidents in religious history, such as the Ram Rath Yatra, the Babri Masjid Demolition and the riots that killed over 2000 people in Ayodhya alone. This judgement brings closure to a bunch of pretty key things. Given how Hindu-Islamic relations in general and the relations especially in India in particular are hot topics pretty much worldwide, I think this would be an issue of significant interest to a lot of people worldwide and thus should be in the section. Karan (Theintuitus) (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support, a major political and social development in a country of over a billion people. As NYT has put it, "a historic verdict on a dispute that has roiled the country for decades". Nsk92 (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support alt 3. Banedon (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's just a domestic affair without any global significance. STSC (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. 2409:4071:2015:9D21:87FA:4220:4248:60D (talk)

I don't mind it's relating to one country, my main point is the event has no global significance, nor even regional significance. STSC (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support - A very notable dispute has been solved. Good to go as well.BabbaQ (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support The article is in decent shape and this is international news.Added Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93 as updaters, good work. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not ready until the unreferenced parts of the timeline which are not from the large BBC article have references. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support I think 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute would be a better target, but this seems good to go. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Ready-- BoothSift 02:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 22:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Thich Tri Quang

• Nominated by Bumbubookworm (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Vietnamese monk who led protests in South Vietnam from 1963-66 during which there were many changes in government. Died in the evening of 8 November but this was kept secret until 9 November after the funeral. Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support, the fact that official Vietnamese media can not avoid reporting Thich Tri Quang´s death underlines his notability as a person of major political influence during the war. The article needs some additional info about his early years and his fate after the war. JimRenge (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Added early years and later years Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Looks well referenced.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

November 8

2019 Mauritian general election

 Manish2542 (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Article needs expansion before it can be posted to the main page. At present it's a borderline stub. Will reconsider on improvements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose at present. Not more than a stub and results table is empty.  Nixinova  T / C   03:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. Barely a stub. I mean the results table is still empty. The infobox hasn't even been updated. There is no info regarding the campaign & all the political parties that contested the election. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Robert Freeman

• Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Photographer of several of the Beatles albums and other artists. Article is not too far off in quality, but does need a good amount of sourcing. Masem (t) 23:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose not close to main page quality. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per nom, a lot of work needed on the referencing. P-K3 (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

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 MSN12102001 (talk · give credit)

• Oppose We really don't post the releases of people from prison, even former world leaders. --Masem (t) 23:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose good faith nom, per Masem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ibid. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per all, I don't think a prison release is itself usually notable enough for here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This release is on a technicality as he has not exhausted his appeals yet. If he was exonerated of charges and released, that might be different. 331dot (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Lula (and several other people) was released due to a new constitutional understanding by Brazilian Supreme Court. Lula was not acquitted of any of the crimes he's accused of.--SirEdimon (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Politicians around the world get arrested and released frequently. We don't actually post them. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Joker (2019 film)

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.

• Oppose Entertainment trivia w/o a blurb. It's sunny and 85 here, but I see SNOW in the forecast. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Joker_(2019_film)#Social_commentary trivia indeed /s. 205.175.106.108 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Snow close Hideously shallow trivia doktorb _words 21:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Not really what the Ongoing section is for.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• This is absolutely ridiculous. 30 minutes after nomination is not a suitable timeframe to determine if something should be snow closed.--WaltCip (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  I would agree that the closure is premature. So I'm re-opening, without prejudice. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I can't see how we can support a piece of contemporary media as an ongoing topic. If there were numerous protests specifically surrounding the film going on worldwide that endured for several days, maybe. But that's not the case here. --Masem (t) 00:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support some kind of a blurb, Oppose ongoing. We can post sports records right? We can post the record sale price of some painting right? So we can post this too. Article is excellent. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There are certain sports records that are long-standing points of perfection (eg the four minute mile, or the more recent 2-hr marathon). Random records we don't post unless its part of another story. Same here, especially since we have to add the cavaet of "highest grossing R rated films", in contrast to when Avengers Endgame surpassed all films previously and did not need any clarifying caveats. --Masem (t) 01:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    • We've posted numerous times record auction prices for paintings (maybe other crap). The article is excellent, our WP:READERS will surely be interested. WP:ITN#Purpose seems satisfied to me. I mean ... is it terrible if we push out the blurb for a week old baseball game or a staggeringly irrelevant train accident? Come on.... --LaserLegs (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is nothing to justify ongoing. A blurb could have been considered when it became the highest-grossing R-rated film but that was 24 October (reported 25 October ) so that's old news. The record was also broken in 2016 by Deadpool (film) and 2018 by Deadpool 2 so it wasn't a long-standing record. Joker will probably become the first R-rated film to gross a billion US dollars but a round number in one currency is less relevant in an international encyclopedia (R-rated is also an American rating for American theaters). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for ongoing as this is completely unsuitable for that spot. Oppose blurb per PrimeHunter, it's more significant in the UK as it was reported yesterday that it is now the highest-grossing 15-rated film beating The Full Monty (1997) by £0.2m. However that does indicate how arbitrary the record is when you have to qualify by country and rating. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per PrimeHunter. Let's wait till some film beats Gone with the Wind or Avengers: Endgame. The modifier "R-rated" makes me think this achievement is commonplace and to be expected as the world becomes less prudish. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – Inappropriate destination. Of doubtful significance. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even if The GlittFather had got "a six-figure sum" in royalties for being the co-writer of "Rock and Roll Part 2". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

November 7

(Posted) RD: Nabaneeta Dev Sen

• Nominated by DBigXray (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Nizil Shah (talk · give credit) and RebeccaGreen (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: C Class article with excellent sourcing DBigXrayᗙ 16:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Could use some mild copyediting and some parts of her Career/Literary Career sections are unreferenced. Spencer 16:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose terrifying bullet-point article with many uncited claims. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support. Referencing & formatting concerns have been addressed, though there are still some paragraphs uncited. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment There is quite a lot of unsourced information - I am searching for and adding sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support – She seems quite a significant literary figure. Article has been ausgemistet. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Marked ready. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Article now represents her achievements and has adequate sourcing. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Posted Kees08 (Talk) 16:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margarita Salas

• Nominated by Alsoriano97 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by RebeccaGreen (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Salas has been one of the greatest and very awarded Spanish scientists, as she had a key role in DNA investigations. Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - citations needed for her awards ~mike_gigs _contribs 12:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Thanks @RebeccaGreen:! Everything seems to be sourced now, so changing to support ~mike_gigs _contribs 17:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose not even close. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Citations are needed. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 12:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Article looks good. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 07:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - ping me when improved.BabbaQ (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I am adding citations; there is also other information which could be added (honorary doctorates, editor of scientific journals, etc). I will ping others when I think it's ready. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support @The Rambling Man, Lefcentreright, and BabbaQ: All content is now sourced, and her professional career is more fully covered. The article could be improved and expanded, but I think it is adequate now for RD. Please ping me if you still have concerns. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Let's post. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

November 6

(Posted) Danuvius guggenmosi

• Nominated by Brandmeister (talk · give credit)
• Created by Rowan Forest (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Described as capable of upright bipedal walking, challenging "the accepted idea that bipedal walking evolved much later in the ancestors of modern humans". The paper in Nature appeared yesterday. Currently tagged for further development, however. Brandmeister 21:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: blurb does not give any hints of notability; should include "leading scientists to believe apes started walking upright X years before previously thought" or something like that.  Nixinova  T / C   23:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Obviously encyclopedic topic, and very exciting find! The article is short, but well referenced and gets the information across in an accessible way. Very nice to see something other than political drama and violence for once. I have added an altblurb to address the above comment.130.233.2.47 (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• The blurb(s) need work. Altblurb 1 is ready. This lineage may have evolved bipedalism earlier than our lineage, but split from us long before we evolved it. Danuvius guggenmosi made no genetic contribution to us. This discovery does not challenge any aspect of the out of Africa hypothesis, nor the timing of our evolution of any character traits. Abductive (reasoning) 09:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose apart from the unreferenced category, there's nothing in the article indicating that the description took place around this time. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done Brandmeister 10:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Still some citation needed and disambiguations in there. Looks like a tendency to overlink too, but that's not a major factor. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support despite the typical pro-hominid bias at ITNC. Would we be considering this if it were a ceboidea or (god forbid) a tarsier? GreatCaesarsGhost 13:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It depends. Other sizeable mammals got their chance, olinguito was posted in 2013. Brandmeister 16:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support I think new major primate species should be covered in ITN, and the first bipedal great ape should be covered also, since for human ancestors, this meant some 30% increase in brain capacity. 205.175.106.108 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support – I wish Madelaine Böhme et al was mentioned by name in prose. I hate how our species articles do not document who first described the species. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 23:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

November 5

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump

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.

• Support removal so long as we're willing to revisit this when the public testimony starts (subject to quality article updates) --LaserLegs (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm a little confused. Did the impeachment inquiry end and I just missed it? WaltCip (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal as per above - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal updated now --LaserLegs (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose this remains in the news, although major events seem slow. Banedon (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Remove and add blurb when impeachment happens. Nothing in the interim will be all that important. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal And I suggest that we simply blurb major events if/when they happen. After the Nth "Trump is finished" moment since November 2016, I think we should treat future such moments a little more critically and even-handedly. See: Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory vs. Trump–Ukraine scandal130.233.3.131 (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Removal per others ~mike_gigs _contribs 12:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal nothing to see here at the moment. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – Again weekends! Just yesterday there was a major development with the release of deposition transcripts. I was just considering how to incorporate that into the article. I object to this repeated attempts to remove this item while U.S. is asleep. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Coffeeandcrumbs:, @Banedon: if you want this to stay in the box, just update the article. I agree the release of transcripts (and the looming start of public hearings) are noteworthy events -- just update the article and it'll stay in. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Will do.  Working. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    •  Done. Two more transcripts are expected to drop today; two of the "three amigos". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose removal There is extensive text in the article covering events of last Wednesday and Thursday, as well as Monday of this week (yesterday). The requirement for keeping something on ongoing is regular updates, which needn't be every single day; given that the news cycle often slows down on weekends (non-working days in the US), it is understandable that there will be a lull on those days. We have extensive, multiple paragraph updates about events of three of the last four weekdays. That's certainly often enough. --Jayron32 17:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron32 and Coffeeandcrumbs. We need to take a breath and stop with these regular attempts to remove this from ongoing when it's pretty clear this is a major event that will continue to generate news. Short lulls over weekends are to be expected. Seriously, this is the sort of thing that "ongoing" was intended for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. While it may ebb and flow a bit, it is clearly a major recurring news topic, and I don't see any likelihood that this is really going away soon. Seems silly to remove it now only to put it back in a week when open hearings make another burst of news. Dragons flight (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose removal per above.--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose removal per above. I do not understand the obsession with trying to remove events that are clearly still ongoing, and getting regular updates. Davey2116 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose removal - per Jayron32, Coffeeandcrumbs and Ad Orientem. Since a consensus to remove is unlikely, I suggest closing this. Jusdafax (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone else. The impeachment will likely reach a head around Thanksgiving, and by the end of December, it'll be time to remove it barring something extraordinary. No reason to remove it now. I don't really understand the rush to remove this. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 18:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria

Nominator's comments: Only small changes to the article in the last 5 days. I suggest removal at this moment and a potential renomination later. --Tone 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC) --Tone 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support removal per nom --LaserLegs (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal as per above - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Banedon (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Remove Always felt more like a blurb to me. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal Although the article has been updated somewhat, the details are very mundane for such an event, and if nominated as stand-alone blurbs, they would surely SNOW.130.233.3.131 (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal again per others... lots of clean up today! ~mike_gigs _contribs 12:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Done. Bye Bye Bye. --Jayron32 14:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: 2019 Hong Kong protests

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.

• Oppose - in the first weekend of November we already have fights between police and protesters in malls leading to over 70 injuries, and 325 arrests (just added to article). Sources describe a chaotic weekend of protests, and that the protests show no sign of abating. starship.paint (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Content for November in main article expanded to around 200 words. Jayron32 - you requested an expansion. starship.paint (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support removal Per WP:ITN "In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening". A few lines of prose about a "chaotic weekend" added at the last minute to stave off removal without details about what actually made the weekend chaotic does not make an update. The protests may be "ongoing" but the only time the article gets an update is when someone nominates it for removal. Get it out of the box already. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Let’s be reasonable, LaserLegs. This time, List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests has been continually updated, and it has around 1000 words of content. Editors could easily have put that in the parent article, but possibly refrained from doing so to prevent undue weight on the most recent events. starship.paint (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose that article too then "Six reporters staged a silent protest at a routine press conference held by the police force." yeah that's not ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support removal unless a more detailed update is made to the above article. The current article has only a sentence or two update about recent events. If and when the article is updated to a more substantial description of recent events, I will change my vote. --Jayron32 11:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Keep. Article expansions are sufficient, article is up to date with regular events related to just about every day of the past several weeks. Checks off all of the ongoing boxes. --Jayron32 14:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support removal as per above - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose removal this remains very much in the news. Banedon (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Remove All of life is "ongoing." The continuation of repetitive and predictable events are not even blurbable. Protesters will protest, the "police" will police them. When and if things escalate, we can bring it back. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support removal as it is being updated a bit, but as we move on this ongoing event seems to be becoming the norm for how people spend their weekends in HK ~mike_gigs _contribs 12:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – (keep) – This persistent political phenomenon remains the No. 1 problem for the world's most populous country, a single-party state – with no end in sight. – Sca (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal Yes, the event continues to happen, but it is no longer a major story drawing headlines every day, which is what Ongoing is meant for. Long-winded, simmering stories are not good for Ongoing. Should the situation change, we can re-add it, but right now, its like Brexit and Trump Impeachment - we know these are still happening, but not at the top of the news coverage anymore. --Masem (t) 14:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support (removal) - The anti-government movement maybe ongoing but the current event is not. Just incidents of thuggery and vandalism at weekends would not make the current event as "ongoing", as far as ITN is concerned. STSC (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - (keep) There is indeed much to add as there are planned future protests, and just a few days ago one protester fell off a buidling and got critically injured. The daughter artice of the page is getting constantly edited as well, with more and more content being added to it. It can be seen that the protest might escalate again. There is always something new to add. For yout information, Hong Kong protests still manage to stay in the news. Therefore, I strongly believe that this article can stay in ITN. Asd34567 (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: Constantly being updated, still being one of the biggest crisis ever to have happened in Hong Kong and China. Development of the protests have been extremely volatile and will likely escalate once again if the student falling "some stairs fleeing tear gas" didn't get better from his severe brain injuries. OceanHok (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment this is the third time that this story has been a candidate for removal and only saved when someone updated it after being nominated here -- "The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated" this feels like "punctuated updates" I'm not sure it really qualifies for continued inclusion --LaserLegs (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Dude, again with the "gotcha" comment: Who cares that someone made the article better after it was brought up for removal. We aren't trying to "catch" people doing anything nefarious here. We're trying to make articles better. No one loses because the article was improved when someone brought up the issue here. Maybe you should back off on these objections, and instead congratulate all of the editors who worked diligently to get the article up to standard. What's it to you if the article got better? Isn't that the entire point of this discussion? --Jayron32 17:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose removal again, per above. The article is still being adequately updated. Davey2116 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose removal -- it's still an ongoing event. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 18:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose removal this is very much still in the news, with new events occurring regularly. This continues to make headlines around the world, so I don't see why we should remove it when people are likely going to be coming here looking for answers about it. --PlasmaTwa2 19:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: 2019 Chilean protests

Nominator's comments: Oldest blurb is from 30 October. Since 31 October (5 days), no new information has been added to this article. Some amount of NPOV tag warring. 130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support removal article is stale and not very detailed to begin with --LaserLegs (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support removale Even the stuff from last week is miniscule, the most recent substantive information is almost 2 weeks old. It's stale. --Jayron32 11:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal as per above - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal as few meaningful updates have been made lately ~mike_gigs _contribs 12:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 5 November 2019 (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