Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

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

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

Mikhail Mishustin in 2018
Mikhail Mishustin

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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


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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

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


January 21[edit]

January 20[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

2019–20 Lebanese protests[edit]

Article: 2019–20 Lebanese protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After weeks of relative calm, protests in Lebanon escalate to open conflicts between protesters and security forces, with more than 370 people being injured.
News source(s): NBC NEws

Article updated

 --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment In the same article, Al-Jazeera says "dozens" injured and Reuters says "370". Which is it? And how many were trying to reach Martyr’s Square in the first place? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    "dozens" were injured in the protests near Martyr's Square. More than 370 were injured during the whole day. I don't see a discrepancy. The Reuters article was published the day after, so it is not surprising that they have a better handle on the figure. I don't understand what the question "how many were trying to reach Martyr’s Square in the first place?" has to do with the blurb suggested. If you can find out how many, feel free to add it to the article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for your feedback. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

RD: Jaroslav Kubera[edit]

Article: Jaroslav Kubera (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [1] [2]

Nominator's comments: president of the Senate of the Czech Republic, long-serving Czech politician — Draceane talkcontributions 18:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

January 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) as blurb Ongoing: 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus[edit]

Article: 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The outbreak of a new type of coronavirus has been making headlines over the past week or so. The daily update from China shows 139 new cases (compared to a total of 62 up until yesterday), so it's probably going to get even more coverage now. Johndavies837 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support ongoing because there are many case about coronavirus that can be spread into another country. It is highly notable to included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing elderly people dying of pneumonia is hardly unusual, and human to human transmission has not been established. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support it's in the international news right now and is provoking a government response. If it proves to be less worrying than expected, we can always take it off ongoing then. Banedon (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I change my mind, support blurb per Spencer. Banedon (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb only. This is the type of item that would be great for a blurb: posted once and ages off, and then won't be stuck on the template indefinitely. Items like these are hard to pinpoint since it takes time to isolate the virus and there's a lot of looking back to see when the first case started, so I wouldn't have a problem posting a blurb "late" per se. Example wording: A new strain of coronavirus infects over two hundred people in China, killing three. or something like that. Then if it gets drastically worse to an ongoing-level item, then it can roll off the template onto there. SpencerT•C 05:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support its being a public health concern and it seems that have high chances of spreading, even more since cases with people that dont visited the origin place of the virus were confirmed, rasing the chances of concern about human spread, i think that would be good to be on current events area of front page Meganinja202 (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per Spencer. -Zanhe (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
plus Posted. El_C 10:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posted comment I think it is reasonable to posted it as blurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting commentOngoing seems more appropriate at this point. It is in the news [3] [4] [5] but so far fatalities are reported at three. – Sca (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support blurb per above, it's an international story. If it proves to be long-lasting, with daily updates over months, we can move it to ongoing after it slips from the bottom of the blurbs.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

RD: Jimmy Heath[edit]

Article: Jimmy Heath (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NPR

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Influential jazz saxophonist and composer. Prose looks fine, discography could use some references shoy (reactions) 19:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

January 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

2020 Afgooye bombing[edit]

Article: 2020 Afgooye bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A car bombing kills 4 and injures at least 20 others near Afgoye, Somalia.
News source(s): Al Jazeera

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Attack on Turkish aid workers near Mogadishu LaserLegs (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment This article needs some verification and expansion, but i support to it to include in ITN section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose It would need some expansion, but I'm also not certain of the notability as stands. Feel free to ping me for review when the article's expanded. Kingsif (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose if this had been an US School Shooting we wouldn't bother posting, and Somalia is a borderline warzone. Juxlos (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not really notable, especially for a war zone like Somalia. Prism55 (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per two previous. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

January 17[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Bobby Kay[edit]

Article: Bobby Kay (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [6] [7]

Nominator's comments: Canadian professional wrestler; member of the Cormier wrestling family -- one of Canada's best-known wrestling families GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hwang Sun-hui[edit]

Nominator's comments: A North Korean politician. ミラP 02:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment I just oppose it if it have non-english source. I rather support it if there is a English-language source and change it from Korean language source because it would not understand for speakers who use Latin alphabet. Where is English-language source of death of Hwang Sun-hui? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    There's no requirement that mandates article sources to be in English. Naturally someone from North Korean must have majority or even all of sources about them to be in Korean. Sources are not meant for everyone on earth to be able to read them, just that somebody (in this case one who can read Korean) should be able to verify them. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks Okay to me. Well-sourced. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose lead tagged. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is without information on what she did once appointed to any role. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support appears well-sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Although InedibleHulk makes a good point about lack of what she did in her roles (and it being in essence a resume/CV in that respect), it seems that she was notable for her public image (as described in Hwang Sun-hui#Public image. Based on the descriptions there she was more of a propaganda poster child and her role on the committees was "ceremonially important", and goes to a greater depth than a resume-article. Given that it's North Korea and not a politician in a democratic country who has more of a role, I would consider this meeting a minimum standard of coverage for RD. SpencerT•C 06:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - article is well sourced and I agree with Spencer's argument. -Zanhe (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Terence Hallinan[edit]

Article: Terence Hallinan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): KRON

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The DA of SanFran. Neutrality in politics section needs some sorting out ditto some small paragraphs but every paragraph is referenced. ミラP 02:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose tagged per nom. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I have pulled the section tag after review. The article in general and section in question is well-referenced, in my view, and the article is front-page worthy. Jusdafax (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting story, too, especially relative to North Korean "politics". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Glass[edit]

Article: David Glass (businessman) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Kansas City Star

Nominator's comments: He died on January 9, but the death was just announced today. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Bueller? Bueller? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing removal 2019–20 Australian bushfire season[edit]

Article: 2019–20 Australian bushfire season (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: Yes the fires are still ongoing, yes the article is still getting updates. Those "updates" are ref improvements, copy edits, and low grade edit wars. The most recent "new, pertinent information" is a note on January 6th that "Premier Andrews said that bushfires had burnt through 1.2 million hectares" and on the 5th a fire near Voyager Point that was "containing the fire to 60 hectares". Since the 14th of January the only new information I see are a few bits of proseline about international support. What was burning on the 10th? I have no idea because the article has no new information. Same for today. The requirements for ongoing are "continuously updated" not "continuously edited" and the updates simply aren't happening. LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose per OP, who's clearly showed the article is being continuously updated. Banedon (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    • What are you talking about? I carefully explained that the article is being "edited" not "updated" with "new, pertinent information" as stipulated by WP:ITNC#Ongoing_section. Did you read my comments? Or the article? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Australia is a big place, with different climates across the continent. While the bushfire season is easing off now in northern parts, with the expected tropical influence at this time of year, further south things are just warming up. (A semi-deliberate pun.) Historically, the hottest and most severe fire weather in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania comes in February. The two fires with the biggest death tolls in Australia, the Ash Wednesday bushfires and the Black Saturday bushfires, both occurred in February. While this editor is naturally hoping nothing of the kind happens this year, saying this is all over now would be just a little premature. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Think positive, dammit! A natural lack of hope is not enough. We sometimes need to actually want things to end, before they really do. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll think cautiously thanks. The fires in both those earlier events came within about four kilometres of my house, which would be regarded as being in one of Melbourne's (outer) suburbs. I'm still watching out. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
You seem to have picked a good place to live, my upside-down friend. I got smoked by a record-breaking blizzard yesterday, but it only broke records four provinces over. Still turned the sky almost pure white for a few hours, then the deepest, darkest blue after the hydro went out. One witness described it as "Heaven on Earth, but not in a warm way." That old man then prepared to die regretfully, but it turned out alright, because that old man still is me. May you continue to shine on through what clouds you're shown this "summer", because you're unforsaken, too! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hardly. The next ongoing item on the Main Page right now is Impeachment trial of Donald Trump. While it feels to me like that's been going on forever, I know rationally that it will stop at some point. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now It seems like need more update about impact of bushfire itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Meets the definition suggested at WP:ITN#Ongoing for what is "continuously updated". For example as it relates to the fires in Tasmania. Figures are been updated with new totals frequently enough. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove If analysis and reaction are all that's new, that's aftermath for you. Aftermath actually does trickle on forever. We're still learning new things about several mass extinction events that happened before Australia was even a thing, doesn't mean we should alert the general public about these latest geological developments. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still in the news (BBC has quoted authorities saying "bushfires far from over") and readers like me would be interested in this topic. 2401:4900:330D:19A2:E9D:46AF:B0B2:2F16 (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

RD: Derek Fowlds[edit]

Article: Derek Fowlds (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: British entertainer and actor. Minor referencing issues. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

January 16[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime
  • After his escape from Japan, Carlos Ghosn's Japanese lawyer Junichiro Hironaka and seven other members of his defense resign. Hironaka says Ghosn's escape was a "complete surprise". (CNN)
  • The bodies of seven people are found in a mass grave in the indigenous Ngäbe-Buglé region of Panama. Authorities believe a religious sect performed an exorcism on the victims. Police rescued 15 people who had suffered bodily injuries. (BBC)

Politics and elections

(Attention needed) Block of Wikipedia in Turkey lifted[edit]

Article: Block of Wikipedia in Turkey (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Access to Wikipedia in Turkey is restored after a 2.5 year-long ban, following a Constitutional Court ruling that declared the ban unconstitutional.
Alternative blurb: ​In Turkey, access to Wikipedia is restored following a ruling by the Constitutional Court that declared the block unconstitutional.
News source(s): Wikimedia press release and reuters article

Nominator's comments: End of a major and long-lasting block of Wikiepdia, important news to Wikiepdians, and all supporters of free speech. dmartin969 02:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson It's not Wikipedia or a Wikipedia editor righting the wrong, it's the legal process in Turkey, and as WP:RGW notes, "We can record the righting of great wrongs". 331dot (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
But was this a great wrong that is being righted? It's true that it's a step towards transparency, but governments engage in censorship of information and the Internet all the time.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I think reversing the denial of access to a database of general human knowledge is righting a great wrong and a great step for free speech in country not known for free speech. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Was unsuccessfully nominated on 27 December. Stephen 08:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
That was the court decision itself, and at the time it was unknown as to if the government would comply. Now, they have. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – We are not the only ones that consider this important. NYTimes, DW, Al Jazeera, VOA, and Bloomberg all consider this important. A precedent setting decision by a supreme court of a nation is usually a good candidate for ITN. Some times nazel-gazing is unavoidable, if everyone is admiring our navel as well. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support certainly notable and relevant for this platform.--MaoGo (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose same reason as last time, this is likely to be a one-off news event with no follow up. Banedon (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This is not a Wikipedia issue, this is a free speech issue in Turkey. It was notable that the court ruling was made, and also notable that the government complied, given that Turkey is not known for free speech decisions like this one. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Navel gazing and previously rejected. This is not the whole of the Internet aka China's free speech problem, but one website. Ask if this would have support if instead of Wikipedia it was Google or the New York Times or any other single website. Way too much importance on this being about Wikipedia here. --Masem (t) 13:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    Certainly yes if Google was blocked/unblocked. No for the NYTimes. You underestimate the impact of --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    I completely understand we are editing on, so any story with Wikipedia in it may seem of much higher importance. But it is at the end of the day just another website, not the entire Internet. I'm trying to consider how important this story is without placing any special value on WP beyond being an online encyclopedia anyone can edit, and to that point, it is just effectively a wiki. May be the world's most important wiki, yes, but in considering this type of story for ITN, that doesn't give it any more special weight. --Masem (t) 15:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    I would have the same opinion if it was Facebook, Amazon, or Twitter. Are you telling me that if China blocked Amazon tomorrow that would not be major news worthy of ITN? People are these days intricately connected to the internet. Severing/restoring access to a major part of it has far reaching consequences. Even in the most humble of estimates, Wikipedia has far reaching impact. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, its just one website, not the internet. But it were the case of, for example, Turkey dropping a whole firewall to non-Turkey websites, or China deciding to lift its own firewall, that would be major news as that is definitely a free speech issue either way. Lacking access to one website is not the end of the day. --Masem (t) 15:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support because it is free speech issue in a country, not only Wikipedia itself. It is notable to posted. A previous ITN was opposed because only Court decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per C&C. A major story involving Wikipedia would be of higher interest to Wikipedia's audience anyway. -- Tavix (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – A significant development for freedom of information. The fact that it's Wikipedia is not relevant to the basic issue. – Sca (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
PS: French and German Wikis feature it in their ITN sections. – Sca (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Without prejudice to the rest of your argument, what other Wikipedias do has no bearing on what the English Wikipedia ought to do. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
No website is an island, entire of itself. – Sca (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Navel gazing for sure. But even if it was "Number one ranked site Google unblocked in Turkey" it would not merit front page news. Also, it was not a "significant development for the freedom of information." I was in Turkey multiple times during the "block" and it was an open secret that Wikipedia was available on numerous mobile networks and the block was mostly on landlines/wired networks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Sca. Far more important than the Boat Race. Gamaliel (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
More important than the darts championship, too. – Sca (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Or college football.--WaltCip (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Is that a 'support' vote? – Sca (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: This is not an event just for Turkey; Italian Wikipedia supported lifting the ban from their edition. There was a #WeMissTurkey campaign online that has been attended by most wikipedians worldwide.--Joseph (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    • That makes it seem even more like navel gazing, tbh. While it's certainly big news for the WMF and Wikipedians, that doesn't show out-of-Wikipedia significance. We didn't post Framgate on ITN, for example. (Not that I don't think Wikipedia isn't a big deal in the real world; I have tried to put Wikipedia's founding on the January 15 OTD and was thereby introduced to the concept of navel gazing, but not everything Wikipedia is newsworthy.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't think Framgate is a valid comparison. It wasn't headline news in more than a dozen major English-language news outlets and it didn't require a major constitutional court decision on free speech rights.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - per SCA. It was definitely a freedom of information issue that was resolved. OctaviusSlockpit (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Sca. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as much as we take an interest in internet freedom, this is at heart a local domestic story, and there are likely to be many countries around the world that impose or lift restrictions on any website or another at any time or another. The fact that it's Wikipedia shouldn't sway an objective judgement.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2020 (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." 331dot (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Masem. They make a compelling argument. PackMecEng (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I think readers will find this of interest. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - this news has been all over the worlds media. also per established news sources. BabbaQ (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per C&C. Substantial coverage in reliable sources & it was a notable ruling by their top constitutional courts that reversed the ban. Notability is established through coverage in sources, and coverage is not absent. The fact that the website involved is the one we're using is not a factor. To respond to Masem's hypothetical, of course I'd support the nomination if Wikipedia was swapped out with Google, as it's the #1 website in Turkey (and by extension the world), but I would not support if it was swapped out with the NYT because it doesn't even register in the top 50 websites by traffic. Wikipedia does, and it surpasses websites like Yahoo and Amazon. Combine that with the landmark court ruling on free speech online & the sea of English-language outlets covering it and I see no reason to oppose other than the fear of being accused of navel gazing  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Would like the article to be more expanded regarding the impact that unblocking Wikipedia will have on censorship in Turkey in general, connecting this to a wider context. Some reactions to the unblocking would also be useful: is there pushback from the government? IMO that would help with my concerns about navel gazing, and I'm willing to reconsider my position if the article is suitable expanded. SpencerT•C 02:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely worth posting, this is not just about Wikipedia/Wikimedia issue, it is about freedom of information access in general. The Verge noted here that this is the "tightest Wikipedia ban in the world" as apparently it was the entire domain they blocked. Lifting the ban after this lengthy period is quite important, and yes more important than many niche topics that we post here. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose not notable and self-referential. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 05:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Of absolutely no international significance. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Please consider 331dot's reply to Amakuru. The fact that the story received significant coverage in English-language outlets is itself demonstration of notability outside of Turkey.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 08:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is about freedom of information and Wikipedia is accidentally the subject of the whole story. The block being lifted after it was ruled unconstitutional in a large country like Turkey is a major news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per navel gazing; it's one website in one country. Other websites and other counties is other stuff. ——SN54129 08:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    I want to reply you that "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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
No website is an island, entire of itself. – Sca (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Although there is rough consensus to post this, the article is not properly updated yet, as other editors have pointed out — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    I returned to this nomination with a view to posting, but there have been no further updates in three days. Are people satisfied with the update to the target article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Navel gazing. Remember when Turkey banned Twitter, then eventually lifted it because the ban was found illegal? Probably not. It had no significant effect, much like this probably won't, and it definitely wasn't worth posting on ITN. Unless we plan to give a blurb to when Turkey decides to kill Pornhub for a few months. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Sca. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – This sort of topic has a short half-life. Unfortunately, this one is getting stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - per C&C. Either post it or close it. Jusdafax (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ban on a single website being lifted in a single country is not news worthy. Amir (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Second call for close whichever way it might be. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Third call for close again per Sca. Post it or don't. But it's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Trump impeachment[edit]

Article: Impeachment of Donald Trump (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): The New York Times

Nominator's comments: With the impeachment articles delivered to the Senate, we can expect this to be in the news for a while. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support in the news, quality article being updated with "new, pertinent information", ticks the actual boxes. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Nom makes the clear case for this inclusion. Davey2116 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This ITN Needs at least one reference to be nominated in ongoing. I oppose to posted this article to ongoing this week but i would support it for next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Banedon: since this is your nom, would you kindly copy/paste one of the myriad of high quality current references in the actual target article and add it to this nom? Also, thanks for nominating. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't own noms. Anyone can edit the nomination (I notice WaltClip has already done so). Banedon (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is a highly consequential ongoing event subject to significant global media attention. Meets all criteria for inclusion. WMSR (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    WMSR, highly inconsequential from now on. Republicans are in majority and as they have stated, they are not convicting their president. So other than political drama, you are not getting anything DBigXray 07:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support It would be better if he gets removed, but there's no reason we can't have both. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There are procedural steps ahead this week (starting with today's impeachment manager and sending the articles updates) and the trial itself is set to start on Tuesday. No reason not to post it now, though I wouldn't say anything if it isn't posted until Tuesday. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support given that now the circus shifts from one house to the other. --Masem (t) 06:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose we should ignore minor inconsequential events such as the case moving from House to Senate. as per Business insider senate could bring it for hearing on 21 thereafter it will have to be seen when it gets next major updates. Also everyone knows Senate Republicans are not going to vote support, so Trump is not getting impeached convicted. So I cannot see the impact of this going forward. DBigXray 07:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Trump is already impeached. The Senate will decide if there is enough to convict him on the terms of impeachment. Even if the Senate votes not to convict, that is still news - it would be the same as a major court case ending with an innocent verdict. --Masem (t) 07:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
      Masem, thanks for correction. As a non American I may have wrongly used few terms. I am talking about the (1)"relevant impact" and (2) the schedule of major events. When is the senate going to vote? Not within a week. The impeachment news was already posted. As of now, all I see is, some signed papers were moved with pomp and show, from one chamber to another. --DBigXray 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose While this is one of the more major events in the process, there's also about a million steps in said process. Ongoing would be a better option in my opinion, but I wouldn't complain if this was posted. -- a lainsane (Channel 2) 07:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted to ongoing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – A pretty obvious 'must' – even though ultimately the Demos won't prevail. – Sca (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post Posting Support It's back in the news and will be for a while. Ongoing is where this belongs until the trial wraps up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support because it is a major political event, and since the trial has started according to the constitution, it is in the news, and should be until the senate delivers the verdict, officially closing the trial. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ongoing only - Oppose blurb until the impeachment process is concluded. That is the time to post a blurb. Mjroots (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We now have a new article for the trial: Impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Can we update the link to this page? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    Updated link — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, but for next week I also want to replace the Impeachment of Donald Trump to Impeachment trial of Donald Trump with more specific in ongoing section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree that's likely the better target article. Banedon (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support there are a billion people starving to death which I guess is not news but this needs to be on the front page even though everyone knows it`s a stacked deck 2600:1702:2340:9470:14B3:A536:533A:AD06 (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christopher Tolkien[edit]

Article: Christopher Tolkien (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Var-Matin

Nominator's comments: British editor, third son of the author J. R. R. Tolkien and editor of much of his father's posthumously published work. Jamez42 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now too much of it is uncited. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose far too soon for use of "fair use" image. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless improved while the topic itself is worth it, the article itself isn't that great. Flalf (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the article is significantly improved This article is missing several citations and ISBNs. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - some work being done on this now. Hopefully there will still be time for this to go up if the improvements are sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I've tidied up the article, adding citations and ISBNs for you guys. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - with thanks to Chiswick Chap for their work on the article. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
plus Posted. El_C 14:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
It's still far too soon to be uploading a fair use image of this individual. It shouldn't be featured on the main page with the image in place. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
TRM is right (and was right to remove it from the article). Let's give this a bit of time. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

January 15[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Ivan Ustinov[edit]

Article: Ivan Ustinov (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):, Komsomolskaya Pravda

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Centenarian military veteran, counterintelligence agent with NKVD, SMERSH Spokoyni (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support and marking ready. Thorough coverage of subject; article fully referenced. SpencerT•C 03:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support well-written article, as usual from the author. -Zanhe (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Russian government resigns[edit]

Articles: Dmitry Medvedev (talk, history) and Vladimir Putin (talk, history)
Blurb: Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev announces his resignation, alongside the rest of the Russian government.
Alternative blurb: Russian president Vladimir Putin accepts prime minister Dmitry Medvedev's resignation, alongside the rest of the Russian government.
Alternative blurb II: Mikhail Mishustin is appointed Prime Minister of Russia following the resignation of Dmitry Medvedev and his cabinet.

Nominator's comments: Top breaking news on multiple outlets. For sources see DW, Russia TodayJuxlos (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. The first bolded article choice has a very short three sentence update which provides no context for the resignation, it merely confirms that it happened. The second bolded article contains even less; a single uncited 8-word sentence. The rest of the article hasn't even been updated to reflect the changes. Some significant work would need to be done on either article before this is ready to be posted to the main page. --Jayron32 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very little happens in the Russian government without Putin's OK. According to CNN the government resigned "after Putin proposed constitutional amendments that would weaken his successor and shift power to the prime minister and parliament". Sounds like he is getting ready to be PM again so he can keep running the show. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Putin is president, not prime minister, and "weaken his successor" (i.e. weaken the future president) means Putin is giving up power. Banedon (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Bandeon Putin is referring to his successor as President. Putin is making the PM job more powerful so he can go back to it in 2024 when his presidential term is up. (He's done this once already) I'm sure the changes he wants will be conveniently timed to take effect in 2024. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
If Putin were a Wikipedia editor, I'd say you were assuming bad faith. Banedon (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, important event, but articles may need improvement. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on notability but prefer that we have an article about the government resignation explaining in more detail what led up to it and what the immediate aftermath is (e.g. who will succeed him? we may not know today, but it would be good to have an article to put that information once the story develops further)  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 17:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but I would want to see in the blurb why. According to CNBC it was to allow for Putin to make sweeping constitutional changes. This might be one to give it a few hours or a day to know exactly where Putin is going with this. --Masem (t) 17:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle per Masem. We need to focus more on Putin consolidating his own power in this. That's the main point of the story. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, but not the current blurb - Let's not pull the wool over our own eyes. The blurb should reflect the actual nature of this power transition, which is to shift power back to Putin.--WaltCip (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb--Abutalub (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: Has anyone who wants to post this blurb done anything to fix the problems already noted in the text of the bolded articles? --Jayron32 19:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. No news is so important as to override quality concerns on BLPs. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: which article is not up to scratch? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    MSGJ, none of them but I am more picky than most. Mikhail Mishustin is the worst of all. Putin has up to 8 [citation needed] tags. Medvedev has about 8 to 13 citations needed --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying. There are some many blurbs proposed, I'm not sure which article we are discussing anymore. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose it is a substantial change and Russia is a great power, but it's internal to Russia and neither of the two targets right now are directly related to the constitutional changes. Banedon (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    Banedon, Putin's machinations clearly extend beyond the borders of Russia. Not that that is required by ITN anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. The story is the resignation of nothing but the Russian government and it's clearly in the news everywhere.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, per above. But both articles have cn tags, and it'd be preferable to have an article about the resignation. Davey2116 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose not even the top story on BBC. Wait to see what the consequences are. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now; Putin is the real power in Russia so Medvedev losing his position as Prime Minister means little in the grand scheme of things. However, news in coming days should tell us the significance of this move, and eventually we may blurb that. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is not significant news for me. Even President putin Announce his resignation, It is not really event important for me. A more important event like this need to include English-speaking country like US or UK. But this event only include single country for example Russia. Is this event related to religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    "Not important" to you does not necessarily mean that it's not notable... we appeal to a worldwide audience. | abequinnfourteen 00:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    Putin is also the head of government of the U.S. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an important development in geopolitics and is all over the news. It is important to cover on Wikipedia. BirdValiant (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly an event with impact. Unlike papers being moved with pomp and show, from one chamber to another. --DBigXray 09:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Yea!! Take that, American editors!--WaltCip (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a major shake-up in one of the most important governments, and has been widely reported. -- Tavix (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I still feel the provided blurbs are not getting the whole story, but then again, I don't think western sources know the whole story yet. Fingers are pointed at Putin, but there's nothing clear that Putin directed this or is jumping on it. If we really don't have an idea on why this happened, then AltII is the best to use to post. --Masem (t) 15:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – From what I've read Gospodin Putin appears to be maneuvering himself into a position of Nachalnik (boss) for Life. In the long term, this may be more significant than the U.S. House passing the impeachment articles, which unlike the surprising Russian changes was long expected anyway. – Sca (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support pbp 23:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, with a preference for alt blurb 2. A significant political development for Riussia, both as a change of government and in terms of adjacent constitutional changes. Nsk92 (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note: there is now sufficient support to post this item, but we are waiting for improvements to the quality and updates on the relevant articles — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed--DBigXray 22:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Second-day reading re Putin's aims: AP, Guardian. – Sca (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support but i prefered Altblurb I and II, because it can change to political development in Russia. But i waiting for improvement of the information — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Still in the news. – Sca (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment MSGJ and other admins, I have already updated these articles with the news, since MSGJ commented here. What is stopping it from getting posted ? Silence by admins is not helpful here.--DBigXray 15:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Marked 'needs attn.' – Sca (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm here following a message on my talk page, and like MSGJ above I can see there's definitely support for this story in principle, but which of the proposed blurbs is favoured and if so, is the linked article of high enough quality? Looking at Dmitry Medvedev I see 12 citation-needed templates, as well as an orange tag on the "Education" section (dated to 2010) because it only has one line in it. Mikhail Mishustin has just two citation-neededs, although the section on the news story in question (him becoming PM) is quite short at the moment and is probably insufficient to represent this story. Vladimir Putin also has numerous citation-neededs and an "update section" orange tag. So, bottom line - I need guidance as to a definite blurb that is agreed upon, and an article that is of sufficient quality and updated suitably. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Concur with Amakuru, rm attention needed. SpencerT•C 22:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Getting stale & no longer in the news. Suggest close.Sca (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed I have fixed all the issues pointed by Amakuru above. I suggest Alt Blurb II as it is the most recent and includes all the updates. User:Spencer, MSGJ , User:Masem --DBigXray 15:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted ALT2 - with thanks to DBigXray for getting the Mikhail Mishustin article up to scratch.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Why is it a picture of the old PM and not the new PM? Levivich 16:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Agree . A picture of the new PM is more actual content. TarzanASG (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
      I will swap the pic as soon as it is protected on Commons (in a few minutes). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
       Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

RD: Rocky Johnson[edit]

Nominator's comments: Was a prominent professional wrestler in the 1970's, as well as the father of one of the most successful actors in the world. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Work needed on referencing.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose under-referenced for BLP. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if the existing parts were cited and corrected, the majority of his career would be conspicuously absent. We can host a reflection of WWE revisionist history, but shouldn't promote it. Even a non-fan can look at the Championships section and wonder what the hell he did to deserve such recognition. Sadly, reliable sources continue to tow the company line, and he's doomed to be remembered as half of an objectively mediocre "black team" instead of a guy who got over everywhere with everyone. For now, I mean; there'll be a docudrama someday, much too late for RD. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bobby Brown[edit]

Article: Bobby Brown (footballer, born 1923) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC Sport, Rangers FC

Nominator's comments: Scottish Football Hall of Fame inductee, Scotland national football team manager (1967–71), Rangers F.C. and Scotland goalkeeper in the late 1940s / early 1950s Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Marking ready. Adequate coverage of subject and referenced. SpencerT•C 22:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD  — Amakuru (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Suggestion Maybe you should disambiguate that its the footballer that passed away. Yall scared the fuck out of me for a second making me think the R&B singer from New Edition died. Thankfully, he didnt, but that scared the hell out of me for a second. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

January 14[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and Elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Liang Jun (tractor driver)[edit]

Article: Liang Jun (tractor driver) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Most notable as China's first female tractor driver (both pre- and post- Communist revolution), but also a national politician for many years. Kingsif (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Microsoft ends support of Windows 7[edit]

Self-closing as not going to be posted. As noted, I was testing the waters, and have a good idea where these types of stories fall with the ITN crowd (generally not desired). --Masem (t) 19:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Windows 7 (talk, history)
Blurb: Microsoft ends extended security support for its operating system Windows 7, still in use by millions of computers worldwide.
News source(s): CNBC, BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I am totally testing the ITNC waters on this, and do not have a problem if this gets snow-closed on opposition. But this is worldwide news as Win7 is known prone to security flaws (MS is issuing one last patch today) and there's concern that the millions of computers still running Win7 will become cybersecurity problems. (One could also consider this a "RD" since this kills Win 7, one of the most successful releases of an operating system by MS). However, I fully recognize this is tech/corporate news, the end of support havng been warned about for a year. This is not so much to get readers to update, but to reflect on the end of an era in MS's operating system here. Masem (t) 19:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I used to have Win 7 (and still use Classic Shell to avoid the outlandish menu design of Win 10), this was expectable sooner or later, just like with previous MS versions superseded by newer ones. Besides, Win 7 will remain functionable without security updates (albeit more vulnerable), just like previous versions. Nostalgia isn't that easy to kill. Brandmeistertalk 20:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nom. Routine business news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem. Products get discontinued all the time, and Microsoft has been known for buggy software since at least Internet Explorer 6 (I know it's just a meme/running gag that derives a lot from its dominant position, but still). – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Appreciate the good faith test here. But really, "McDonald's ends support for the Happy Meal"? Sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    • There is more an argument that the end of Win7 support will increase security risks due to the large # of computers still running the system. McD killing the Happy Meal is nowhere close a major security problem. I normally agree that the end of a product line is rarely ITN news, but the ubiquity of computers is important here. --Masem (t) 02:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
      • With that argument I get the feeling that this would violate at least the spirit of WP:NOT (although I can't put my finger on the exact shortcut - NOTGUIDE, maybe?); while it would be useful as a public service, doing so is not Wikipedia's job. This feels like an issue of PC World rather than a genuinely newsworthy event such as scientists dating the oldest solid material on Earth, for example. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 06:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support pointlessly I know but there is still significant usage of Win7/2k8 so the end of security updates has a good deal of risk. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That millions of users have not purchased a newer version of a product, putting themselves at risk of viruses/hacking, doesn't seem all that unusual. If Windows itself was being discontinued, that would merit posting, but Windows still exists. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the number of people using Windows 7 probably exceeds the population of quite a few countries. If we post news related to those countries, why wouldn't we post this? Banedon (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Sounds like big news to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Martinevans. I must have missed the blurb we ran last year when MS ended all support for XP. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Last I saw was here. Though it does not seem like it was actually posted for some reason. PackMecEng (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, publicity stunt by filthy megacorporation. It is suspected that they will continue support for some time. Abductive (reasoning) 05:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Important new for the second most used OS currently out there. PackMecEng (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose all the speculation as to what might happen now is pure WP:CRYSTAL so post when it becomes an actual issue. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per Martinevans, TRM. It had a 10-year run. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

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

(Closed) Hong Kong protests[edit]

Consensus clearly against posting at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2019–20 Hong Kong protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): Google for "Hong Kong" and sort by news

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This was removed some time ago, but it's clearly still ongoing (see List of January 2020 Hong Kong protests). If people really dislike the 2019-20 Hong Kong protests article, I suppose this could be another target, it just seems weird given that a list would be ongoing. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It may be ongoing, and the subarticles may be getting updates, but it has lost its place as a widely covered event that would make it appropriate for ongoing. It's like the impeaching stuff - its clearly still ongoing but the noise in the media right now about it is only a buzz and not major, so it would not be appropriate to be listed at Ongoing. We're looking for ongoing events where there are significant changes or updates on a near-daily basis that get broad media coverage. --Masem (t) 01:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the last significant protest was Jan 1 with about 60k people, and oppose to featuring a "List of" article on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is a stronger case to post the protests in Iran than in Hong Kong; at least the former is in the news.--WaltCip (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose In the last 50 edits, going back to 10 Jan (4 days), the only new material relates to events in November and October, a couple of sentences about protestors fleeing to Taiwan, and accusations of CIA involvement. The alternative "List of..." article is very much police blotter. I think the best route for this event is to wait for a genuinely notable event as a blurb. (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. There does not appear to be enough recently added material, nor evidence that this is an article which is receiving regular updates, to consider this for ongoing. --Jayron32 14:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose mostly per Masem. I feel as though this article is either nominated to be added to Ongoing or removed from Ongoing every other week... mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) Oldest solid material on Earth discovered[edit]

Articles: Presolar grains (talk, history) and Murchison meteorite (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Research into a meteor finds presolar stardust grains dating older than 5-7 billion years old becoming the oldest solid material found on Earth
Alternative blurb: Stardust in the Murchison meteorite is found to be older than 5-7 billion years old, becoming the oldest solid material found on Earth
Alternative blurb II: Presolar stardust grains in a meteorite are found to be older than 5-7 billion years old, the oldest solid material found on Earth
News source(s): CNN Science News Science Daily

Second article updated, first needs updating

Nominator's comments: Research was done on a meteorite found in 1969 and recent findings are determining it the oldest solid material ever found on earth. It was formed before the Sun was formed. I'm not exactly sure if the cosmic dust page should be featured or presolar grains page or both. I'm also not sure whether or not Oldest dated rocks would be appropriate. Does this count as a rock? Certainly the pages have not been updated at this time. I'm not an expert on this subject so I don't know to what extent this is conclusive but it seemed significant to me. I think this is the Murchison meteorite??? If a page has not been created for this, it might warrant one. I'm also not sure on the terminology whether it be stardust, presolar grains, or presolar stardust grains. Should we mention "older than the sun" anywhere in it? Please feel free to rewrite the blurb if necessary. I'm still new at writing blurbs for ITNR TenorTwelve (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Just noting this is based on a paper from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences so peer-review is there. --Masem (t) 01:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose with regret. The article has not been updated. Indeed as far as I can tell it has not been edited in months, so we don't really have anything on the subject of the blurb in the linked article. Also there are some fairly significant gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support contingent on article update. Strong science news but, as Ad Orientem says, the update needs to be there.--WaltCip (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I would hate to see this miss out because nobody could be bothered updating the article. I'll try to myself, but anyone else could too, rather than pushing this item away while saying it hasn't been updated. HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Murchison meteorite has now been updated with this news. I can't see what else is needed before posting it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb (note that I have modified and truncated the many blurbs in the original nomination). Article is well written and updated. I chose to link pre-solar grains in the blurb instead of stardust, because that would be the most accurate description of the material (although the stardust page is much better overall). Exciting and fascinating find, and the article about the meterorite itself and actually a good portal to other encyclopedic subjects. (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting and newsworthy. Article about subject seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support when updated, as there is one-sentence update at the moment. --Tone 08:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    So, what do you want to see, and what's stopping you putting it there? This nomination isn't owned by anyone. HiLo48 (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    Agree with Tone; the update is not sufficient yet. I heard on the news some details about how they extracted the particles from the meteorite - that would be appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    So why aren't you adding it? HiLo48 (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    On the other hand, why aren't you?--WaltCip (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    Because it wasn't me who "heard (it) on the news". HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not keen on the wording "older than 5-7 billion years old". Either it is "older than 5 billion years old", or it is simply "5-7 billion years old". The article says "7 billion years old" so I'm not sure where the 5 came from? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for original blurb but Support for Altblurb I and II this sentence needs to update as well for many reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Weisberger, Mindy (13 January 2020). "7 Billion-Year-Old Stardust Is Oldest Material Found on Earth - Some of these ancient grains are billions of years older than our sun". Live Science. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
  2. ^ Heck, Philipp R.; et al. (13 January 2020). "Lifetimes of interstellar dust from cosmic ray exposure ages of presolar silicon carbide". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. doi:10.1073/pnas.1904573117. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
  • Murchison meteorite article only has the announcement in the lede and not the body, and the article on presolar grains needs more references. Stephen 01:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Assume next week we'll have an article titled "Youngest solid material on Earth discovered." – Sca (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


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: