Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2022

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

March 31

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Sven Melander

[edit]
Article: Sven Melander (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: One of the most iconic journalists and comedians in Sweden. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Nancy Milford

[edit]
Article: Nancy Milford (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; The Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First reported today (March 31). —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Shirley Burkovich

[edit]
Article: Shirley Burkovich (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MLB.com
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Human genome sequencing

[edit]

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: Human genome (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Scientists perform complete sequencing of human genome. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Science
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The paper was published in Science, so meets our bar in that regard. Looks like this milestone endeavor is finally completed. Brandmeistertalk 10:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The human genome article needs a few cites on some of the later sections. Also would want to see more summarizing the complete sequencing (eg how many encoding there are/etc.). But implicit support on the reported accomplishment. --Masem (t) 12:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I second that. It's a great science story, and a huge milestone. Tone 13:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We've posted human genome sequencing stories before, e.g. Ancient Native American genome sequenced in 2014. The achievement this time seems to be that the sequence is gapless but this was done in 2020 and announced in 2021, nine months ago. This seems to be rather a technicality so any blurb should make the incremental nature of the achievement clear, rather than it being some wholly new thing. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?Support? I was curious and tried to read through the wiki articles but things seem confusing: the Science article publishes a full genome missing chromosome Y, and CNN article says "the scientists were unable to sequence the Y chromosome originally. According to lead author, the team has managed to sequence the Y chromosome using a different set of cells", but that is NOT in the Science article. Seems to be only in a linked database. Just for context, the Science article says it reduced the number of issues by 80% and still seems to have 24 different "contig" which I am unsure if it refers to the number of chromosomes (which should be 23?) versus the 949 that existed before (i.e. now we have 24 chromosomes instead of 23 but previously the picture had 949 chromosomes?). Perhaps someone can tweak the linked article for better clarity. 188.27.42.181 (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the blurb is too vague. It is both confusing and inaccurate as written. And I think the problem is "there isn't much news here", not "we need to re-write the blurb". User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Moana Jackson

[edit]
Article: Moana Jackson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New Zealand Herald Radio New Zealand The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Influential New Zealander. Article has been tidied up by myself and others, happy to make any further improvements if needed. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the past it was required for a bibliography section or in this case the Selected publications section to either have the ISBN numbers next to the listed works or references. If that's still the case, then this article needs that section sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TDKR Chicago 101: Thanks! I'm not really sure myself what the requirements are, but I've added URLs for the journal/conference articles and an ISBN for the book chapter. The listings also include the information that would be included in a full reference anyway (date, volume, page etc). Hope this addresses the point. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John T. Richardson

[edit]
Article: John T. Richardson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Censorship of Wikipedia

[edit]

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: Censorship of Wikipedia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russian media censorship agency Roskomnadzor threatens to fine Wikipedia up to 4 million rubles (about $49,000) if it does not delete information that goes against the Kremlin's official narrative on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. (Post)
News source(s): (Forbes)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Very notable news story, especially for Wikipedia. Desertambition (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

March 30

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


(Posted) RD: Margaret M. McGowan

[edit]
Article: Margaret M. McGowan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; The Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First reported today (March 30); died on March 16. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Turing Award

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Jack Dongarra (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In computing, Jack Dongarra (pictured) wins the Turing Award for his contributions towards supercomputing. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 Masem (t) 00:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Farthest known star discovered

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: WHL0137-LS (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: WHL0137-LS, the farthest known star, is discovered 12.9 billion light-years away from Earth. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Earendel, the farthest known star, is discovered 12.9 billion light-years away from Earth.
News source(s): Nature, NASA, The New York Times+comment, The Washington Post, BBC,
  • Support I guess this is rather interesting and not at all usual, so I tentatively support it (though I still have qualms since this is just the farthest star, not the farthest object, but oh well). The article looks like its in a decent shape though. --5.44.170.26 (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I love the science involved in this stuff, but I don't see what makes this discovery newsworthy. "Furthest known" simply means the next one we find that's a little further away will replace this one. HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a maximum distance however. When we look into the sky we're seeing the past (because light takes time to travel to us), which means there's a maximum limit set by the Big Bang. There are a lot more subtle details, e.g. the universe wasn't transparent till so-called recombination so we will never see right to the Big Bang, the universe is expanding and there's another limit set by how fast the universe expands (see observable universe), etc. Hence the idea that "we'll find something a little further away" is contentious - there might not be another star further away. Banedon (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image of a single star to test the focus of the James Webb Space Telescope
  • Wait Identifying this as a single star seems premature and the suggested image isn't clear. All they have is a faint smear of light with a high red shift. They have been studying it for years but can't yet resolve it to determine whether it's a single star, a binary or more complex. The James Webb telescope is expected to tell us more. BTW, that instrument is starting to produce interesting images to test the alignment of its mirrors. (right). At some point soon, we should publish the nominal "first". That instrument will then produce lots more interesting images and we'll be spoilt for choice. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - As OA of the WHL0137-LS article, I also consider the discovery of star WHL0137-LS major news - my own related published comments in The New York Times is here if interested - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a stub, so needs to be expanded before being listed on ITN. Right now it doesn't meet article quality requirements. No matter how many people post support here, it won't be posted unless significantly expanded. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Joseph2302: and others - Yes - *entirely* agree - article has now been a bit more expanded with further text - further expansion is ongoing currently - additional help in expanding the article from other editors welcome of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact Tone you said you wanted to posted, there was a clear objection to that comment from Sca who raised the continued article quality issue, yet you posted it anyway? That doesn't seem sensible to me... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, the article was brief but it was expanded since the previous time I checked so I felt it met the minimum. I let the others to decide how to continue with this. Tone 17:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's barely a start class article, a clear violation of article quality guidelines. I hope anither admin will pull this if you won't, as we shouldn't be surrendering article quality for haste. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting Support - per the nine other supports. No, I'm not vote counting. The discovery is of global interest and though still brief, is growing. I commend the posting admin for adding the blurb. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting Support - What a nice change of pace from our regularly scheduled disasters, human suffering and politicians winning elections. The discovery was published in Nature, and of course there are a bunch of uncertainty, but such is the nature of astronomy. If the nominator waited for JWST to look at it, I'm sure it would have been called stale. The article is brief, but in line with what is known. Melmann 17:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment – Still quite thin for ITN promotion – abut 250 words. To this user seems rather pro-science undue. (Consensus questionable.) But not in favor of pulling – that would be lame Pushmi-Pullya editing. (And BTW, we're not an online feature magazine and don't need a "change of pace" to sweeten the product.)Sca (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: "The farthest known star" seems ungrammatical. It has to be the farthest from something, e.g. the star known to be farthest from Earth (or something similar). – Sca (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Farthest presumes the speaker or interlocutors, unless indicating otherwise. "From here" is implied, and the use of "farthest" without a referent is common and not ungrammatical. Given that it is the farthest from every person who will be reading it, it doesn't need more specificity. --Jayron32 18:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How very presumptuous of a mere adjective. – Sca (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ernie Carroll

[edit]
Article: Ernie Carroll (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald, News.com.au
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Puppeteer, actor, and entertainer. Best known as the puppeteer for Ossie Ostrich on 'Hey Hey It's Saturday' Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tom Parker

[edit]
Article: Tom Parker (singer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 — User:Fabulousbargains 17:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) MONUSCO helicopter crash

[edit]

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: 2022 MONUSCO helicopter crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A Puma Helicopter, part of MONUSCO belonging to Pakistan Army's aviation division crashed, killing all eight peacekeepers on board in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Eight UN Peacekeepers die in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo after their plane crashed during a reconnaissance mission.
Alternative blurb II: ​ UN Mission's helicopter crashes in a conflict zone in North Kivu, DRC, killing all eight peacekeepers onboard.
News source(s): CNN Deutsche Welle Al Jazeera The News Reuters France 24
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I believe it is not a very big news, however, it has seen sufficient coverage from across different reputed new outlets. Elmisnter! (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

March 29

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: Joyce Fairbairn

[edit]
Article: Joyce Fairbairn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Calgary Herald
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The first woman to serve as the leader of the Government in the Senate. This wikibio could use more elaboration here and there to make it look less like a prosefied CV. --PFHLai (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sara Suleri Goodyear

[edit]
Article: Sara Suleri Goodyear (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT obit
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Subject died on March 20, New York Times obit posted yesterday. — GhostRiver 17:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 28

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Serhiy Kot

[edit]
Article: Serhiy Kot (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): istpravda.com.ua
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Influential Ukrainian historian who cared about the restitution of cultural treasures. I'm also the creator but hope for someone knowing the languages better for expansion, it's a bit of a puzzle so far. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jeff Carson

[edit]
Article: Jeff Carson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: CNN obit published yesterday. Not Bigfoot (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mostly  Done Grimes2 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
30+ edits already on the refs, Grimes2? I'm listing you as an updater for this nom. Thank you for your hard work. --PFHLai (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Image removed by Stephen and biography section is cleaned now. Grimes2 (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Eugene Melnyk

[edit]
Article: Eugene Melnyk (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TSN, Ottawa Senators
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Owner of the NHL's Ottawa Senators, businessman and philanthropist. The Kip (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. RoyalObserver (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoyalObserver: Do you mind explaining? I apologize for nitpicking, but ITN really tries to avoid unexplained !votes (such as yours). Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support cn's  Fixed. ok. Grimes2 (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 27

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Martin Pope

[edit]
Article: Martin Pope (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Scientist whose work led to OLED displays. Sadly article needs lots more sourcing. Masem (t) 04:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 94th Academy Awards

[edit]

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: 94th Academy Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the Academy Awards, CODA wins three awards, including Best Picture. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At the Academy Awards, CODA wins Best Picture.
Alternative blurb II: ​ At the Academy Awards, CODA wins Best Picture, the first such win for a streaming service.
Alternative blurb III: ​ At the Academy Awards, CODA wins Best Picture and Dune wins in four categories.
News source(s): The New York Times, IndieWire, Deadline Hollywood
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: As much as I wish we could include Will Smith's punch, I don't think it qualifies as world-changing haha. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's get it out of the way first: yes or no to including Will Smith and Chris rock in a blurb? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not. That's a minor controversy, if it was a controversy. --Masem (t) 03:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shouldn't we have something about the winners in prose updates then? Will Smith won Best Actor afterwards. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The winners were already selected way before the show, and from what I saw, it seemed to be taken all in humorous jest (audience was laughing throughout). Now, if that becomes of serious controversy over the next few days, that might be something to add, but that's crystal balling to assume it will be needed to add now, given this article currently actually has updated ceremony information (presenters, and even mention of this event). --Masem (t) 03:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          What I meant to say was that the article treats the confrontation as a big deal, it's the last update for the ceremony. There should be prose about who won in the article, just like sports articles need to have prose about the game, not just tables. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          The lede should probably be updated to try to summarize the winners, though as no single film really away with wins, this probably would need to be sustinct. As for prose in the body, this is rarely done as the table does this, though if there is commentary about notable wins (for example, Parasite being the first foreign language film to win Best Picture in 2019) that should be added, but that likely will be information that will develop in the next couple of days from secondary coverage and not immediately available now. Same with other aspects of the broadcast (viewership, commentary on the quality, etc.) Compared to other broadcast award articles like the Grammys, this is in very much ready state (in terms of content, haven't validated sourcing) for posting. --Masem (t) 04:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t have to be world-changing to be an interesting event that has never happened before and has high quality sources… It’s the most talked about aspect of the whole show. Trillfendi (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to the general opinion here, in Britain the BBC regarded the Will Smith incident as being of world importance. It was first headline on the radio news this morning, displacing Ukraine. Thincat (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Smith won best actor, it would work to use him for the picture so we could mention the fracas in the caption. I have added a suggestion to the nomination. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole thing with Smith and Rock is, at least right now, in the realm of celebrity gossip, just stuff that happened (nearly) live to a world audience. We should not be giving it any additional coverage to overshadow the ITNR stuff. --Masem (t) 12:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, this is not something to mention in the ITN box. Tone 12:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, we do not follow to the letter what are the headlining topics in the news, as we are not a news ticker. Second, we're not censoring it - the event is well covered on the ceremony's page - but it is the type of thing that falls under WP:NOT#GOSSIP - it happened, there's a lot of talking-heads aftermath so far but as I've read, no charges are going to be filed, and the Academy's statement says nothing about any action against Smith, so anything more is just rumormongering that we should not cover in excessive depth, and certainly not as an ITN item. --Masem (t) 12:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There was an awards show in the middle of this, but people seem to not be focusing on that. That said, if we posted the Smith-Rock assault as its own ITN item without mentioning the awards show, we'd probably be laughed out of the room. The only reason that particular item of the story is notable is because it took place in a highly public setting with lots of TV cameras and social media feeds. If I had my druthers, we wouldn't be posting anything related to the Academy Awards at all since it's a non-story story, but that's neither here nor there. --WaltCip-(talk) 12:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, the awards show is ITNR, and so that's what we should post (and have done). If people want to add the slap onto ITN, then that would need a clear consensus to do so. I would be against it, as it's only well-covered because it happened at a notable event. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you seriously considering mentioning the Will Smith incident in the blurb? Main Page is not for this sort of thing and it's not a gossip journal. It's anecdotal, however much of a headline it may have made. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just listened to a further extensive analysis of this in the BBC's PM programme. It was quite amusing to hear progressive pundits wrestle with this moral conundrum as they agonise about the forming consensus. And they still weren't talking about Dune or CODA. Pretending that this didn't happen is pathetic – a feeble ducking of the issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can go literally anywhere else to hear about this story. You don't have to go here. WaltCip-(talk) 17:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Stressing again why we are not a news ticket, and instead focus on stories of long term encyclopedic value rather than these short term celebrity gossip news that sadly dominate 24/7 news cycles. --Masem (t) 17:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I led with Smith/Rock last night because it didn't take a crystal ball to see how that slap would dominate the narrative today. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Las Tinajas massacre

[edit]
Article: Las Tinajas massacre (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Mexico, 20 people are murdered at a cockfight, in a mass shooting linked to the Mexican drug war. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Twenty people are killed in a gang-related mass shooting in Las Tinajas, Michoacán, Mexico.
News source(s): BBC Al-Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: 20 people killed in a single attack, biggest massacre in the Mexican drug war since, I think, the Irapuato massacres of 2020. Sheila1988 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support because it's important enough due to its death toll. Though the article is short, it's good enough. Had this happened in the US or Europe, it'd be one of the world's biggest news stories of the week & would have been created, nominated & posted within 24 hours. Jim Michael (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically is missing from it? Jim Michael (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 26

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

  • 65 terabytes of data belonging to the Federal Air Transport Agency (Rosaviation), the Russian airspace regulator, gets lost indefinitely in a hacker attack, which is said to be one of the largest ever. The data lost includes all official documents, files on its servers, the public procurement system of Rosaviation, as well as all emails for the last one and a half years; no backups are available. As a result, the agency is forced to switch to paper-based workflow. (Kommersant) (Aviation24.be)

(Posted) 2022 Maltese general election

[edit]
Article: 2022 Maltese general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Maltese general election, the Labour Party, led by Robert Abela (pictured), wins the most seats. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Labour Party, led by Robert Abela (pictured), wins the most seats in the Maltese general election.
News source(s): Electoral Comission of Malta
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: The results are now official and the article seems to be close to ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More or less ready to post when I see some more support. Tone 09:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another one is available, although he has a mask on. here Vacant0 (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Lee Koppelman

[edit]
Article: Lee Koppelman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: New York Times obit published yesterday. Thriley (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to pqasb.pqarchiver.com URLs? I don't have. Grimes2 (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 25

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: Arthur Riggs (geneticist)

[edit]
Article: Arthur Riggs (geneticist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post; California Institute of Technology
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First reported today (March 25); died on March 23. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Philip Jeck

[edit]
Article: Philip Jeck (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian; Pitchfork
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article is fully cited, although some more information could be useful for his early life. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Any more that can be added? Kinda on the borderline for me with 2 full paragraphs instead of the minimum 3, but there's not really a reason that I can see to split the career section into 2 paragraphs just for the sake of having 3. Additionally, there's info in the introduction (e.g. use of turntables, looping devices) that doesn't appear to be mentioned in the body-- potentially that's where we can have some additional info added. SpencerT•C 14:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted I split that big paragraph in two. The article is short, but long enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article is sufficient, but most of the lead is no summary and should be moved to body. Grimes2 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dirck Halstead

[edit]
Article: Dirck Halstead (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; BBC News; Briscoe Center for American History
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support No cn/orange tags to be seen. Article is long enough. Nothing to complain about. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Could be stronger if his Personal life, Career and Awards were separated somehow; an American photojournalist. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the concerns above look somewhat fixed, sufficient article for RD, well referenced Josey Wales Parley 20:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing at all has changed since I complained. There's still career in the middle of "Biography" and awards lumped into "Career". That's not to complain further, though, I still weakly support it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Organization needs improvement. Why is there a "Biography" section in a biography. Redundant. And one's career is part of a biography, but it's made a separate section somehow. And the "Biography" contains work with Life and UPI that seem part of his career. Also seems contrary to MOS:BLPCHRONO:

    In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise.

    Bagumba (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • PostedBagumba (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Grace Alele-Williams

[edit]
Article: Grace Alele-Williams (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://gazettengr.com/nigerias-first-female-vice-chancellor-grace-alele-williams-is-dead/
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The first Nigerian woman to receive a doctorate. --PFHLai (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Taylor Hawkins

[edit]
Article: Taylor Hawkins (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Drummer for the Foo Fighters. Needs work. Will get it by tomorrow I wager. Too many edit conflicts right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 24

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: Johnny Fripp

[edit]
Article: Johnny Fripp (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ottawa Citizen
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dagny Carlsson

[edit]
Article: Dagny Carlsson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3], [4]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 --BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) North Korea ICBM launch

[edit]

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: Hwasong-17 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ North Korea launches the Hwasong-17, the first ICBM in over 4 years. (Post)
News source(s): Yonhap; NYT
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Not really any doubt it's an ICBM, given that the flight time is one hour (by comparison the flight time for HS-15 was 53 minutes). This is a game-changer because it's their first ICBM launch in over 4 years (the previous two tests were testing subsystems, but this one was the whole thing). 2610:148:1F00:1000:797B:351A:62DE:71F7 (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

March 23

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: Russell Kerr (choreographer)

[edit]
Article: Russell Kerr (choreographer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/arts/128145444/leading-new-zealand-ballet-choreographer-russell-kerr-has-died
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Could use some info on his retirement. --PFHLai (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Barrington Patterson

[edit]
Article: Barrington Patterson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Heart attack; kickboxer/mixed martial artist that was active from 1991 to 2008. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Steve Wilhite

[edit]
Article: Steve Wilhite (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Verge
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Inventor of the GIF; he actually died March 14 but the death is being reported today. rawmustard (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted as RD) RD: Madeleine Albright

[edit]

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: Madeleine Albright (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN The Jerusalem Post Bloomberg BBC Reuters
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
 – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb We should evaluate notability of persons who weren't heads of state on the merits of their achievements while serving the term, not because of being the first person in something or being a representative of a specific country. In this particular case, her greatest achievements are advocating wars, war profiteering and ethnic hatred. That's not what we want for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure it's not our job to decide whether someone has been "good" or "bad", just whether they were particularly noteworthy. Regards SoWhy 08:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think she's particularly noteworthy for a blurb, and the article doesn't seem to convince otherwise. There's a large section on controversies in which she was involved, with some of them being really disgusting and embarrassing for a foreign minister. If she's a highly placed woman in American politics for what she's done during her term, then it's clear that the United States have radically different moral principles than any normal country in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This right here. Being the first for something or a household name is not sufficient for a blurb...it should be clearly demonstrated in article about their influence and legacy for why a blurb makes sense. --Masem (t) 14:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well WP:CSECTION exists and are what make bios look unecyclopedic on here (as opposed to other reference works). This is especially true for politicians and govt officials where in more cases than not controversies take up more space than the actual career, policies et al. Another reason to oppose the blurb, these are better well incorporated in the article itself. And other editors have already noted her significant achievements as well, fickle morality is hardly the shtick here. Gotitbro (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Poor actions are just as notable as good ones. Posting a blurb is not a matter of "supporting" the person or event named in the blurb. If Putin died suddenly during this war would we not post it because of his violations of international law and war crimes? That to me is clear-cut notability, which is what ITN is based in (in conjunction with coverage, which usually goes hand in hand with said notability). DarkSide830 (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DarkSide830: That’s a very bad comparison. Putin is a current head of state and his article is detailed enough so that the reader can easily recognise his notability (not to mention that there are even sub-articles on his life). Albright isn’t a head of state (current or former), so we need to evaluate notability based on what is written in her article, which doesn’t contain anything outstanding compared to the other office-holders other than the controversies. That’s not for a blurb. You’re welcome to expand the article with missing information which really speaks to her notability.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Following precedent from Powell who was and has been more notable, no need to turn back on that just due to further subcategorization. Regardless of where the readers come from (as some have argued above), that should not overlook the merits of individual scrutiny for ITN and I doubt we would be even discussing this if it was another foreign secretary/minister (China, Russia, UK for e.g.). Though I would've supported blurbing Powell this is not it and RD suffices here/was created for this specific purpose. Gotitbro (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can do better than drab blurbs then. Gotitbro (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Powell didn't get a blurb and I think we should follow that rule (Per Gotitbro). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb not every American Secretary of State needs to have a blurb. If they weren't American, they wouldn't be considered. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb "First X to do X" creates far to large a net for our purposes here. We must be more selective; either with less qualifications (first woman SoS anywhere, first woman in any US cabinet post) or with additional achievements. Also, while I support some bias towards anglophone countries, this give too much weight to it happening in the US. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support for blurb – Very, very widely covered, and justly so. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Madeline Albright was 'transformative' not only by being the first woman U.S. secretary of state, but also for her sagacity, firmness and long-term influence. As the BBC notes, Albright oversaw the addition of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to NATO, and pushed for intervention to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. She was obviously not "every American secretary of state."
    I count the votes (including mine and Amakuru's) as 17-8 in favor. This should be posted to ITN. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop pushing this by marking as "needing attention". It only needs admin attention if it has a consensus to post, or a consensus not to post. Right now it has neither. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Sca your counting is wrong. Most of the initial "support" votes are clearly a support for the RD, as the blurb was mentioned after they voted. Claiming they are supports for the blurb is a lie. It's about 50/50 on actual votes for the blurb (rather than the RD). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making anti-American comments. – Sca (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not because she's American, it's because I don't believe she's notable enough, despite everything you posted above. And there clearly isn't a consensus to post. She wasn't a head of state, we usually only post heads of state. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPC WP:AGF
It should have been nominated for a blurb in the first place. Sca (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it wasn't, so you should count not votes for an RD as a vote for a blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She "oversaw" those NATO additions the same way all concerned diplomats did, by looking on and offering their opinions. Javier Solana "wore the pants" in this alliance, as Secretary General. He is not a big name to viewers like us, but by Neptune, he tried his best. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it was her and the US policy under her that pushed for NATO expansions, other 'figures' were well that only. Gotitbro (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how Poland remembers it. Krzysztof Skubiszewski "paid a visit", Manfred Wörner "opened the door", Solana formally invited and Albright just accepted the formal acceptance as a symbol of the meeting going down in Washington instead of Ottawa or Oslo. If any American deserves special applause, it's the congresspeople who legally allowed the US to get with the program. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb per all above, especially for the arguments of TDKR, Joseph, GcG and Kiril. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb The bar for blurbs should not be just high, it should be extremely high. For American political figures outside of former presidents the list is slim in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb per Sdkb "Secretary of State of the U.S. is arguably a bigger deal than e.g. president of a small island nation", Zelkia1101, and Sca. To @Kiril Simeonovski: what matters is not whether person X was 'good' or 'bad'. That is a completely subjective matter, and believing otherwise is a clear violation of WP:BIAS. While I do personally believe that advocating wars, war profiteering and ethnic hatred are truly terrible things, that does not stop one from being considerably noteworthy. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Based on actual impact (or controversy), does not stand out apart from other foreign ministers (I doubt any others would apart from Kissinger) and I don't see why being the first female foreign minister of a specific country should stand out when other countries already had elected female leaders before then (ie Thatcher, B Bhutto, Golda Meir, Indira Nehru/Gandhi etc). And Ruth Bader Ginsburg should never have been blurbed, that was an ILIKEIT stampede, and agree with Joseph that Sca's interpretation of the floor/room is absurd Bumbubookworm (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RBG was a noteworthy person before her death, but her death happening when it did had a bigger impact on American government than most general elections do on their respective countries. Had she lived 5 more months, she probably would not have been blurbed. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I wasn't nearly as active on here when she died as opposed to now, but even then, it all depends on the context of RBG's death. The timing allowed Senate Republicans to push Amy Coney Barrett into her seat and give the conservatives a supermajority on the Supreme Court. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was notable because it was very close to the elections that year and the fact that there were eight members on the court during a lot of notable cases at this time. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While people do point out systematic bias as regards to blurbs in some cases, the readers' and the encyclopedia's Anglophone leanings can't entirely be overlooked (though scrutiny should always exist and be higher for individuals on there). Ginsburg's case and notability at the time was I think, in retrospect, well established even though I had opposed it at the time. Gotitbro (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb When there are debates over whether to blurb all heads of state, secretaries of state shouldn't make the cut. And I can't see anything else that would qualify Albright for a blurb, as important as she was in her day. Kingsif (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can certainly think of US state secretaries who would qualify for a blurb, Kerry and Clinton for e.g. (though they are notable for things other than that as well), Powell should've as well IMO. But I am not seeing the significance here as well. Gotitbro (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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) 2022 Abel Prize

[edit]
Proposed image
Dennis Sullivan
Article: Dennis Sullivan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Mathematician Dennis Sullivan (pictured) is awarded the Abel Prize "for his groundbreaking contributions to topology in its broadest sense, and in particular its algebraic, geometric and dynamical aspects." (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Mathematician Dennis Sullivan (pictured) is awarded the Abel Prize for his work in topology.
News source(s): Abel Prize Website, Quanta Magazine, The New York Times
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: 2022 award of the Abel Prize, "the equivalent of a Nobel in mathematics" (NYT). — MarkH21talk 17:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Somalia attacks

[edit]
Article: March 2022 Somalia attacks (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Somalia, a series of attacks by Al-Shabaab results in the deaths of 48 people, including member of parliament Amina Mohamed Abdi. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Al-Shabaab kill about 50 people in a series of attacks in Mogadishu and Beledweyne, Somalia.
News source(s): AfricaNews France24
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Major attack - car bomb, gun massacre, suicide bombing - causing 48 deaths, including assassination of sitting MP. Sheila1988 (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Jim Michael (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 22

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Mohammad Reyshahri

[edit]
Article: Mohammad Reyshahri (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): IQNA
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Iranian politician and cleric, the first Minister of Intelligence, 1984-1989 --PFHLai (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Elspeth Howe

[edit]
Article: Elspeth Howe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: One of the first People's Peers in the UK. Could use more footnotes, and maybe some elaboration on what she has done to earn her peerage. --PFHLai (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Grimes2 (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Miriam Dell

[edit]
Article: Miriam Dell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NZ herald
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: New Zealand women's advocate and botanist. Could use more footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Solid short adequate article. Sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tom Barrise

[edit]
Article: Tom Barrise (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC Sports; NorthJersey.com; New York Daily News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First reported today (March 22); died on March 18. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Elnardo Webster (basketball)

[edit]
Article: Elnardo Webster (basketball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; USA Today; NJ.com
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support decent article, referenced where it should be Josey Wales Parley 21:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: There are a number of items in the infobox (and in the template at the bottom of the wikipage) that are not mentioned in the prose, i.e., junior college, Barons in 1972-1973 and again in 1975-1976, 1973 CBA championship, Spain, top scorer in Italy. Please expand coverage, if these things in the infobox are real. --PFHLai (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Chris Madden (designer)

[edit]
Article: Chris Madden (designer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First reported today (March 22); died on March 2 (i.e. provable gap of at least two days). —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 2 added. Grimes2 (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Corsica unrest

[edit]
Article: 2022 Corsica unrest (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The murder of Yvan Colonna sparks violent protests across the island of Corsica. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, France 24
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Per the BBC article, France is considering offering autonomy to the island of Corsica in response to the unrest. That makes this seem newsworthy. However, the English language media is only just catching up to the situation now, so the article is not yet ready. For quality, check back in a few hours; for notability, feel free to comment now. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article from The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/16/france-may-offer-corsica-autonomy-struggles-quell-protests) a week ago talks about an extended period of rioting. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 21

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


(Posted) RD: Rosa Gómez de Mejía

[edit]
Article: Rosa Gómez de Mejía (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://dominicantoday.com/dr/local/2022/03/22/former-first-lady-dies-of-heart-failure/
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First Lady of the Dominican Republic, 2000-2004. This start-class wikibio could use more footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Yvan Colonna

[edit]
Article: Yvan Colonna (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC [11]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Procedural split from the "Corsica unrest" nom which is going nowhere. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PFHLai Added. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735 (aircraft pictured) crashes in Guangxi, China, with 132 people on board. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AP, Reuters
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Developing story Davey2116 (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters quotes unnamed "media" saying "there was no sign of survivors." – Sca (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only remaining doubt might be on the numbers of passenger or crew (but it seems there is none). It is 200% obvious that no-one could have survived that impact. It seems unlikely that even the black boxes could have survived. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, claim of it being largest disaster is unsourced (and I assume unverifiable, until actual death numbers are released). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Adriana Hoffmann

[edit]
Article: Adriana Hoffmann (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): La Tercera, CNN Chile
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Soumeylou Boubèye Maïga

[edit]
Article: Soumeylou Boubèye Maïga (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (Jeune Afrique) (Anadolu Agency) (RFI)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: He was the former Prime Minister of Mali, which means this is a notable death. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Closed) 2022 Pakistani political crises

[edit]

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: 2022 Pakistani political crises (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan faces toughest challenge yet from opposition, to oust his government, due to mismanagement of the economy and bad governance. (Post)
News source(s): DW News; South China Morning Post;DAWN
Credits:
 Elmisnter! (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

March 19

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Michail Jurowski

[edit]
Article: Michail Jurowski (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bavarian State Opera and many others but this is in English
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Russian composer who left Russia for Germany in 1990 and conducted worldwide, especially Shostakovich with whom he had played four-hand piano as a boy. The article was not up to his merits and could still grow, but I'm tired. Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Shahabuddin Ahmed

[edit]
Article: Shahabuddin Ahmed (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.newagebd.net/article/165793/former-president-shahabuddin-ahmed-dies
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: President of Bangladesh (1990-1991, 1996-2001). Needs more footnotes and refs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 18

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: John Clayton (sportswriter)

[edit]
Article: John Clayton (sportswriter) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; ESPN; The Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Re-posted) 1915 Çanakkale Bridge

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 1915 Çanakkale Bridge (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Longest suspension bridge 1915 Çanakkale Bridge opens connecting Southern Europe and Asia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Longest suspension bridge Dardanelles Bridge opens.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The 1915 Çanakkale Bridge, the first bridge over the Dardanelles and the longest suspension bridge in the world, opens in Turkey.
News source(s): Yahoo! News, CNN edition, Reuters, RFI
Credits:

 Joseph (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose until improved. The article is missing expected coverage such as planning and construction history. Construction started in 2017, and surely in planning and development long before that, and yet its history starts at 2020? In my mind, this doesn't meet the minimally comprehensive requirement. When that's sorted, I'd support alt2. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle this is important enough for ITN, and the article is (almost) fully sourced, but reading the article it does feel incomplete. Hopefully it will get cleaned up in the next 12-24 hours and then posted. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt 2 The article is sparse but there are no massive issues. A massive infrastructural achievement with wide RS coverage. BSMRD (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Don Young

[edit]
Article: Don Young (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Alaska Public Business Insider, The New York Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Up until his death, he was Dean of the U.S. House of Representatives – Muboshgu (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support article is in decent shape. Much higher-profile than most U.S. Representatives; but probably not quite up to the level of deserving a blurb. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Elli. Article in good condition, although I could see an argument being made for a blurb. That'd probably be shot down, though. Also worth mentioning he was the longest incumbent House rep, serving since 1973. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 02:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also taken the opportunity to add some more sources. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 02:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would definitely never make a blurb. Outside of his eccentricities and half-century tenure, he was not an especially prominent or well-known figure in politics, and his death really doesn't have ramifications considering there's an election this year (and it will probably not be that competitive). Nohomersryan (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This whole "blurb" or "not a blurb" thing has jumped the shark. Do we all remember when Bowie died and it was a major cultural moment in and of itself? Or when Mandela died and the world stopped to honor him? Those are blurbable deaths. Young was a rapscallion with longevity. I'd never suggest this for a blurb, and I nominated it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      For me, a casual Bowie fan and guy who only knew Mandela's claim to fame in a nutshell, no. I remember other deaths feeling like that, one of which (off the top of my head) was blurbed. All entirely subjective, but yes, I'd put anyone I'd previously seen or read about over Don Young on the major figure list (I didn't even know his position existed). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The long tenures of Young and Ted Stevens certainly had long-term detrimental effects on Alaska's political depth chart. However, suggesting that this election won't be competitive is perhaps a little clueless, as this event changes everything. The filing deadline for the primary and general elections is June 1, plus there will be a special election at approximately the same time. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The generation of politicians who began their careers in the 1960s slowly but surely dying off. Article looks ready. Davey2116 (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per above. Against a blurb though, Don Young is not really known to anyone other than American political buffs outside of the US. Ornithoptera (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem: There is not a single footnote in #Committee assignments. #Caucus memberships needs more footnotes, too. Please add REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: As is too often the case with key members of the U.S Congress, the article gives far too much weight to controversies and political positions, and to more recent events of a rather lengthy political career, at the expense of being a balanced biography (article has been tagged with {{Recentism}} for almost a year). Believing that sourcing committee assignments is problematic is actually evidence of the need to change our approach to sourcing; the encyclopedia is already too much a reflection of what people found lying around the web today and not a reflection of the best possible sources. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    RadioKAOS,WP:ITNCRIT asks for (1) updated content, (2) significance (which is moot for RDs of living organisms), and (3) article quality. In (3), it says that it should be minimally comprehensive ... not omitting any major items. Is this lacking any major items that keeps it from being minimally comprehensive? No. RECENTISM is a discussion point for WP:GAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Recentism is certainly a mark against quality, which is what we are here to judge. That said, it's only one mark that should be weighed against other elements that may favor it. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that some commenters at ITN/C take the "quality check" way too far. This is an article with 36kb of prose and over 200 unique inline citations. "Fully comprehensive"? Perhaps not. Minimally? Absolutely. If anyone can point out a "major item" that is missing, I'll recant my criticism. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This article still needs to meet BLP, and the UNDUE focus on controversy is a mark against quality. (This is sadly representative of many political articles today, editors want to make them laundry lists of every negative element they can find). We're not expecting GA quality, but we are expecting something far better than this. --Masem (t) 18:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What UNDUE focus on controversy? I see KAOS's comment about it, but what in this article isn't due? I'm giving it a closer look and so far the only thing I've found is this nonsense from crackpots. At least at GAN, the reviewer will state what they think is UNDUE rather than just throw up a non-actionable comment like that one. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Political positions" section should be not be breaking down the issues to that level of detail or without support of more third-party sources. Citing voting records to identify issues/positions is not really a good way to build this out because it can lead to editors choosing what to include or not which is UNDUE. eg positions including Trump and Biden make little sense. --Masem (t) 19:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    positions including Trump and Biden make little sense welcome to American politics in the 21st century, where support or opposition to Trump and Biden are political positions. Sadly, Don Young congratulating Biden on his victory on November 7, 2020 is noteworthy to include. Otherwise, this is still way too vague for "feedback" and is not actionable. Again, I ask, "what UNDUE focus on controversy?" You say it can lead to editors choosing what to include or not without showing how you actually see that happening in this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All that is around the "righting great wrongs" attitude that permeates politically-heated articles; it is not an approach we'd normally take for a neutral, dispassionate approach for a topic and reflects the RECENTISM tag that the article is labeled with. And its been discussed broadly at other boards about how political position sections should avoid reliance on voting records since that creates original research and UNDUE focus. That's all concrete issues that should have been fixed before posting. --Masem (t) 20:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All you are saying here is that "politically-heated articles" have POV problems, which generally is true, but you are not identifying any POV problems from Young's article. Nobody has identified even a single instance of primary sources based on roll call votes being used to RGW or otherwise violate neutrality. There may be more focus on recent events in this article than older events, but nobody has said that the early career is less than minimally comprehensive as required by WP:ITNCRIT. This is ITN/C, it isn't GAN. Smh. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting off-topic but I will keep it brief: using primary sources like news reports, voting records or press releases from the politician, absent support from secondary coverage (Which is used throughout this article) is similar to using public records on BLPs; it allows editors to cherry pick which issues they want to include and focus on for the politician, and just because the politician may vote against a certain bill doesn't necessarily mean they take a negative position on the bill's topic. Its a mess of NPOV and NOR (see for example Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive271#Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage). Now, when a politician's positions are covered by secondary sources and specific positions on bills are explained, that's fine. It's posted, I think it should have been fixed more, but its not worth the time to force a pull to be fixed, but it worth it to remember that NPOV and NOR is part of our expectations for quality for main page featured articles. --Masem (t) 04:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if most or all ITN participants have chosen not to listen, I've been coming here for years and pointing out that "Why, it looks pretty and happens to have citation tags in all the right places" and/or trying to frame everything solely in terms of the mere presence or absence of citations ≠ "article quality". This began in earnest in 2018 when an article was posted whose sourcing was heavily weighted towards the subject's personal recollections of his career (read: no fact checking going on there). Obviously, some of you are unconcerned about the disparity between the impact of this project area by virtue of the links to the main page and the fact that it's yet another walled garden reflecting the mindset of a miniscule portion of the community. Constantly invoking "our peculiar POV was ratified in a RfC, so bugger off" as a shield only makes things worse. Is such scrutiny what you mean by taking the quality check way too far? Sounds like some people just can't handle scrutiny when it gets in the way of what they want. Anyway, you're really looking for more issues to address? First, there appears to be nearly 200 photos of Young on Commons covering a variety of activities. Why are the photos currently in the article so heavily weighted towards ones of him with U.S. presidents? Second, why does the article have an "Elections" section in prose at one end of the article and an "Electoral history" at the other end, consisting solely of a table? As the table fails to cover all of his elections, it's merely a rehashing of the previous section. Standalone electoral history lists exist for a reason. Regarding his electoral efforts in general, as a source, Our Campaigns is pure garbage when you look at the plethora of high-quality sources that routinely cover U.S. federal elections. Obviously, we have editors out there who are very determined to keep pushing this "source" down everyone's throats. These are concerns which should have been addressed before nominating the article, as a previous comment referred to, as for the most part they've persisted in the article for years. The article's talk page looks pretty quiet to me. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    RadioKAOS, and yet you didn't make specific actionable points until just now. All you did was suggest that Young's article somehow didn't meet WP:ITNCRIT because of reasons. Please show me where your comments on the photos and the way the electoral history is handled are covered by ITNCRIT. Please show me how Our Campaigns, which has accurate election info, fails WP:RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While the noted concerns are valid, this is clearly sufficient. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD per above. The article isn't perfect, but it is good enough for ITN. And when the likes of John McCain and Harry Reid are debated for a blurb, Don Young will obviously not get a blurb. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Solid article and well sourced. Minor reservations (see above) notwithstanding, this is more than adequate for RD. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Ks0stm (TCGE) 20:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Chaim Kanievsky

[edit]
Article: Chaim Kanievsky (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of Israel
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Fully sourced article, updated with details of death --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Posted. Thanks, Grimes2. Yes, confirming about the Hebrew. El_C 18:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Cyclone Gombe

[edit]
Proposed image
Cyclone Gombe
Article: Cyclone Gombe (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Cyclone Gombe (satellite image shown), kills at least 53 people, in Mozambique. (Post)
News source(s): Xihuanet;The Guardian Editor; Reuters; Africa News; Anadolu Agency; CGTN; Yenisafak; Al Jazeera
Credits:

 HurricaneEdgar 01:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Batsirai was posted during the storm season in the same way as we regularly post the tropical storms hitting the Caribbean during the storm season in the northern hemisphere. So, nothing wrong in posting this as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LaserLegs: This is not a competition for the deadliest storm. ITN features weather events all the time, and given how wide coverage in WP:RSes is and how well the article is written, it'd be unfortunate if we failed to feature this story. Melmann 11:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 17

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: Artem Datsyshyn

[edit]
Article: Artem Datsyshyn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood BBC News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Thought I'd try out here! I have somewhat of a pipe dream of seeing this get onto the MP today, 2022 March 23... Gerda pulled most of the legwork on this one, of course, I just touched it up and added some content. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 08:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 08:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Barrie R. Cassileth

[edit]
Article: Barrie R. Cassileth (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; The Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First reported today (March 17); died on February 26 (i.e. provable gap of at least two days). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dru C. Gladney

[edit]
Article: Dru C. Gladney (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Pomona College
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Oksana Shvets

[edit]
Article: Oksana Shvets (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Highly merited actress, killed in war in Kyiv - we don't know much about her, - there's a long list of stage roles in Ukrainian but unfamiliar plays and unfamiliar directors for readers in English. She'd stand for many killed without article. Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Christopher Alexander

[edit]
Article: Christopher Alexander (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNU Journal
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 — ELEKHHT 22:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • needs sources Similar to the Pritzker Prize nom from a few days ago. Joofjoof (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is similar in the sense that unspecified sources are requested. There are 50 references and no contested text. WP:RS is clear that "Wikipedia requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". Maybe if you would indicate specifically with an inline tag where you disagree with the content then someone could add more sources to your satisfaction. Some time ago Wikipedia used to be a collaborative project. --ELEKHHT 22:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiple paragraphs with no citations at all. At the very least, every paragraph needs an inline citation. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this is the established WP ideology. What I'm saying is that I see no significant content that is likely to be contested, and that this quantitative requirement for the number of citations to be >= number of paragraphs has no academic merit. In practice it favours short-termism, that is minor news with broad media coverage now will easily produce short and fully cited articles about tomorrow's nobodies, as opposed to subjects with huge impact over many decades, based on a vast body of literature. --ELEKHHT 10:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the nominator, you presumably wish to get it posted. It will not be with multiple paragraphs lacking inline citations. For a BLP, that's not good enough. I could pepper the article with citation needed tags if you really want me to, but for example, The Nature of Order is " Alexander's most comprehensive and elaborate work." Says who? A Pattern Language "has been especially influential in software engineering where patterns have been used to document collective knowledge in the field." A citation is needed to show its influence.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is useful, so please 'pepper', in the tasty, not the 'over-peppered' sense. I've been away from wiki-editing for a few years, and am concerned how the presumption of pursuit of self-interest has intensified. I nominated the article because I hope it can broaden readers' understanding of things that matter, rather than just feed the hunger for (well referenced) trivia. --ELEKHHT 13:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jean-Pierre Demailly

[edit]
Article: Jean-Pierre Demailly (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): "Décès de Jean-Pierre Demailly". Société mathématique de France (in French). 18 March 2022.
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 — MarkH21talk 08:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Wira Gardiner

[edit]
Article: Wira Gardiner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/300544095/sir-wira-gardiner-veteran-and-dedicated-public-servant-dies-aged-78
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Fully sourced article, updated with details of death MurielMary (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically are you expecting/looking for? All his publications are listed with dates and citations. MurielMary (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The new section about writing looks good enough. For public service, there should be some coverage of what he did as Chairman/Director of these entities. Joofjoof (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Detention of Mark Bernstein

[edit]

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: Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Mark Bernstein is arrested in Belarus for Wikipedia edits on the Russian invasion of Ukraine (Post)
News source(s): the Verge
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Chilling arrest of one of the most prolific editors on Russian Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.56.181.195 (talkcontribs) 08:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be contained as part of the ongoing invasion story. --Masem (t) 12:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As someone who knows Mark personally and spent time discussing interesting topics with him, I'll refrain from voting on this nomination and just note that the biggest absurdity in his case is that he was detained by a security service of one country (Belarus) for allegedly violating a law of another country (Russia).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I note that this is a brand new article and am unconvinced that Bernstein is notable outside BLP1E. I am pretty sure that we would not have created an article for an editor of, say, Reddit - so this is Wikipedia navel-gazing and certainly doesn't rise to the level of an ITN nomination. It's worth a sentence in the relevant article on the invasion, though. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm of the opinion that we should consider ignoring normal rules of ITN and highlight this story, as it involves detention of one of our fellow community members for the very act of editing Wikipedia. Front page has a lot of visibility, and while I'm under no illusion that Putin's lackeys would care about what we have to say, we should still highlight it as a form of protest. Arbitrary detention such as this will have a chilling effect on ruwiki and will ultimately hurt the community's ability to fulfil the objective of this project. Melmann 13:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose obviously WP:BLP1E sent it to AFD where it'll be speedy kept because "Rooooooosha" but still had to try. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose many journalists have been detained, and we shouldn't be prioritising this person due to their connection to this project. Whilst I think the article about the detention is okay, it's not ITN worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Melmann. Alexcalamaro (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Agree we can't make a big deal out of this, per WP:Navel-gazing. However, this user sent a short msg of support to our colleague (although his 'talk' isn't active). – Sca (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The arrest apparently occurred four or five days ago and hasn't been covered by main RS sites. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)(edit conflict)[reply]
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.

@Sandstein and Melmann: Off-topic but can you guide me to where can I find coverage of the Ukraine War + Wikip(m)edia incidents here on Wikipedia. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

[edit]

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: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is released from prison in Iran after serving 6 years on spying charges (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is released and returns to the UK following 6 year detention in Iran
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Long running diplomatic incident between UK and Iran. Blurb needs work, article in pretty good shape. 86.53.241.98 (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As opposed to the profound earth-shattering consequences of The Power of the Dog winning an award? Llewee (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Although fairly widely covered wednesday, especially in the UK, this particular release doesn't appear to pack the impact wallop requisite to ITN. – Sca (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Not quite notable person; not quite significant event. STSC (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This was quite a significant news item (quite possibly even bigger than the BAFTAs which is in the ITN), but I also understand the reasons of those who are opposing it. Anyway, if this gets approved, it should also include Anoosheh Ashoori. The blurb should go like this: "Anoosheh Ashoori and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe return to the United Kingdom after being imprisoned in Iran on spying charges." Vida0007 (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

March 16

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

  • President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev proposes a series of reforms to the national parliament, including re-establishing the Constitutional Court, reducing the membership requirement for establishing political parties from 20,000 to 5,000, reducing the number of parliament deputies appointed by the president, and restoring three regions that were merged during the 1990s. He says that the purpose of these reforms is to move the current political system from "superpresidential" rule to a presidential republic with a strong parliament. (Reuters)

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Ralph Terry

[edit]
Article: Ralph Terry (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; The Kansas City Star; KWCH-DT
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Chris Pfeiffer

[edit]
Article: Chris Pfeiffer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): news.com. au, Fox Sports
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: four time world freestyle biking champion and four time European champion. Abishe (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Merri Dee

[edit]
Article: Merri Dee (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [12]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know!

Two {cn} tags remaining in that paragraph. --PFHLai (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PFHLai: I have fixed that paragraph. Hopefully it should be good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Fakescientist8000. I have made some small tweaks and additions, too. IMO, this wikibio is long enough (1000+ words), carries enough footnotes, shows no formatting problems, and is therefore READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PFHLai and Fakescientist8000: I was hoping to offer a stamp of support on this one, but the tabloid The Sun (see at WP:RSP) is used for quite a bit of content, including direct quotes and statements likely to be challenged. I'm not sure if this is relevant to ITN criteria (i'm from DYK), so let me know if you're not seeing that as a problem. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 23:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, theleekycauldron, if Spencer finds it okay, it's okay. To be honest, I had somehow thought that was the Chicago Sun-Times instead.... --PFHLai (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they were referring to that too. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Fukushima earthquake

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2022 Fukushima earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A 7.3 magnitude earthquake strikes off Fukushima, Japan, triggering tsunami warnings and knocking out power to millions of people in Tokyo. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A 7.3 magnitude earthquake strikes off Fukushima, Japan, killing at least 4 and injuring at least 225.
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

 {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Eugene Parker

[edit]
Article: Eugene Parker (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): University of Chicago NASA
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Solar physicist. Died on 15 March but announced on 16 March. The article is brief but meets our minimum requirements. A few of the awards need references, I'm working on them. All referenced now. Modest Genius talk 15:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Modest Genius talk 15:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) European sandstorm

[edit]

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: 2021–22 European windstorm season (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Storm Celia turns skies orange across Europe (Post)
News source(s): ABC; BBC; The Times;
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I wondered why there was sand everywhere this morning and looked into it. Wikipedia's weather guys don't seem to have done much on this yet but maybe there's more to come. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

March 15

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

  • Intel pledges €33 billion in investments in the European Union factories and research facilities, including €17 billion for building a chip-making plant in Magdeburg, Germany and €12 billion for upgrading the Irish plant; the company promises €80 billion over the next decade for the EU. (ZDNet)

(Posted) RD: Dennis González

[edit]
Article: Dennis González (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Dallas Morning News; KERA (FM); Oak Cliff Advocate
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jean Potvin

[edit]
Article: Jean Potvin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; NHL.com; Edmonton Journal
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Pritzker Prize

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Diébédo Francis Kéré (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Burkinabè architect Diébédo Francis Kéré (pictured) wins the Pritzker Architecture Prize (Post)
News source(s): NYT The Guardian
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: needs citations help (French and German readers/writers/researchers attention could be special help, too) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It is a very long and well-written article, which unfortunately strays wildly from the subject for paragraphs and paragraphs, and is almost entirely unsourced. It could be improved, but I have little optimism for that being timely with the extent of improvements needed. Kingsif (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you see room for cuts to address what you see as straying, would you just do the cuts? That's less to cite. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material should be split, not deleted, but splitting out without references will lead to deletion. I am not invested enough to act as steward for a draft while sources are found. Where the splits should be made, summaries should also be left at the Kéré article, which requires some level of knowledge of the subject and some creativity. So, no, I can't. Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is an important news item, and culture is under-represented in ITN. There are plenty of reliable sources and we also have good images. The text is a bit lengthy and repetitive and can be edited down. I don't see the need to split-out articles. --ELEKHHT 04:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on Quality - per Kingsif. Section after section without a source at time of writing, like nominator indicates, this needs a lot of citation work before it can proceed. It doesn't matter how many reliable sources are cited if there are entire sections without a single one. Best of luck to any and all willing contributors, I hope it can be cleaned up before the nom cycles out. If it can't make it in time, DYK might be a worthwhile pursuit when it finally does meet quality standards. Canadianerk (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the text is unreliable, is just not a good encyclopaedic style, probably by someone who's first language is not English. References back it all up - just need to be inserted. I did what I had time for. If there is none around to improve further that just will be a reflection of the extremely poor representation of architecture on Wikipedia, and the lack of care for the built environment we live in. -- ELEKHHT 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality way too much detail for a biography article. It has entire sections for every building created in Gando- this should be cut to just a summary, as a biography on a person shouldn't have the entire history of a primary school for example. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a note on ways of improvement, creating splits is not required, but moving unneeded or unsourced to the article's talk page can happen (as long as it's not unsourced biog material.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hide the mess in the closet 'till mom's not looking" isn't really a way around article improvements. If you want to legitimately dump text somewhere else to get this onto the main page, make a userspace draft with actual intentions to eventually move text to the village article/create an article on the school complex and summarise the info at Kéré's article. Kingsif (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your bad faith is ridiculous nonsense. 'Editing-out' is regularly article improvement, and it can be one of the hardest things editors do. Actual editing, often means removal. There is also no requirement for any article to keep unsourced or "wildly" off-topic content in an article, per Wikipedia policy, it is subject to immediate removal because such removal is an improvement. As for 'getting-it-on-the-main page', everyone here already knows this topic is capable of being edited to get to the main page (that is why it is ITNR) and there is certainly no requirement to create off-topic drafts in doing so.Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your insistence is ridiculous nonsense. As other editors have noted, too, most of the bio is actually information about a village and buildings in it. That information belongs elsewhere, but do you know where it doesn't belong? Sitting on the bio's talkpage of all places just so someone can rush their article to "clean" without putting in effort to actually improve it. Kingsif (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not making sense. I am fine with removing that content, feel free to remove it at any time. That is what article improvement is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then let me be clearer: you said that the off-topic information did not need to be split but should instead be moved to the talkpage/edited out (with the implication that it would either perish there or be reinstated when the article comes off the main page). That is not a viable solution; it does not actually improve the article, nor does it improve the articles where the information should appear, it just makes the bio seem cleaned-up enough to get on the main page. I suggested that if you really don't want to work on splitting out information and writing subject-relevant summaries in a timely fashion, you could move the information to a draft and work on doing those things over a longer period of time. I am fairly certain Joseph said the same. Basically: your suggestion to hide (or remove rather than split) unsourced and off-topic text, whatever your intention with that plan, is not a good one. Kingsif (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you made poor assumptions. Moving content to talk pages that does not fit in the article is regularly a mode of article improvement. There is no implication that it would be added back into the article, nor in that form. It's been moved because it does not belong in the article, and certainly not in that state. Or it can now or later be used elsewhere in the pedia, when someone finds it is useful. What is an obvious bad plan is splitting of unsourced content into a new article, that goes against basic policy and makes little sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alanscottwalker: I generally agree with your comments here, and would add the caveat that most of the material to be removed relates to the village of Gando, Burkina Faso, and could better be moved to that article's talk page for future sourcing and development. BD2412 T 04:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Yes, indeed (although there are also things other than Gando to deal with). I wish I had the focus and drive to do it at the moment but I have not been able to muster it, and the mostly useless, and worse, stuff above has not helped. It is a bit ironic that were the article a stub to begin, the blank slate likely would have been filled in relatively quickly to get to ITN. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Broad international apeal to important cultural news on high profile architecture award. Text needs refinement, reframing on subject, and more secondary sources . . . but splitting is unnecessary. Certainly a plus that it has quality images, an essential ingreadient for content about visual art and architecture. Cedar777 (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

‎(Posted) 2022 Turkmenistan presidential election, Serdar Berdimuhamedow

[edit]
Proposed image
Serdar Berdimuhamedow
Articles: 2022 Turkmenistan presidential election (talk · history · tag) and Serdar Berdimuhamedow (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Serdar Berdimuhamedow (pictured), the son of Turkmenistan leader Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, is elected president of Turkmenistan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Serdar Berdimuhamedow (pictured) is elected
Alternative blurb II: Serdar Berdimuhamedow (pictured), the son of Turkmenistan leader's Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, is sworn as president of Turkmenistan.
Alternative blurb III: Serdar Berdimuhamedow (pictured), the son of Turkmenistan leader's Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, is elected president of Turkmenistan, in an election widely seen by international observers as neither free nor fair.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ In an election widely seen by international observers as neither free nor fair, Serdar Berdimuhamedow (pictured), the son of Turkmenistan leader's Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, is elected president of Turkmenistan.
News source(s): Al jazzeera; France24;ABC News;New York Times;The Guardian; KSAT; NBC News; DW News; CGTN; TRT World; AP News; WION News Armen Press
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 HurricaneEdgar 12:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is that no concerns have been raised regarding irregularities in the election, so it's more accurate to say that it was non-competitive rather than non-free or non-fair. To put it simply, people in Turkmenistan are used to live with the political system and no-one outside of the country really cares about it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Why do you think the pull is improper? I don't see why a past discussion/consensus on wording for a certain type of event (a discussion I'd be keen to revisit, admittedly) should overrule a plurality of editors here who are concerned about this particular blurb? Jr8825Talk 14:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Past practice is not binding here. The consensus in this discussion is to have a more explantory blurb, if indeed as Sandstein notes there is consensus to post at all, which is dubious.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me that there is a different issue here compared to posting 'sham' elections: with no reliable information about electoral processes in Turkmenistan, it looks like editors are arguing we can't even really be sure an election properly happened (rather than some internal changing of the guard or simple accession). Correct me if I'm wrong, but that then wouldn't make it ITN/R and the options to add more information or not post on lack of notability for this power exchange arise. Kingsif (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RSes I'm seeing (nytimes, cnn, etc) all seem to accept an election happened, though the do quote the results out of the country's election commission, rather straight out as fact. I can't see that being the limiting factor. --Masem (t) 16:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose pull. We've always posted elections for "dubious" elections in the past, and we don't editorialize in the hook. Please reinstate, this is ITN/R and objections on significance are not valid.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR Oppose while I acknowledge prior discussions on this matter, guidance does not trump policy. The word "elect" means choice or selection in both fact and general perception. To describe the process as an "election" is thus non-neutral, as it suggests legitimacy. A neutral solution is to post the succession instead, where no comment is needed. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do have a general question about, like, are articles posted about similar events usually this short? I'm not all that familiar with this type of item so I have no idea what "minimally comprehensive" looks like for it and, currently, it strikes me as like not meeting the minimally comprehensive requirement. This obviously will not assuage most of the opposes on the basis of the wording, but like.... ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment let's have a discussion about ITN/R including authoritarian regimes at Wikipedia talk:In the news#Proposed revision to ITN/R elections – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure why adding some sort of qualifier to the blurb is so controversial. The majority of RS headline the article with some sort of qualifier about him being the son of the previous autrocratic ruler. I don't think adding something like that to the blurb goes against WP:NEUTRAL.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 18:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually required by WP:NEUTRAL. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unnecessasry commentary that appears to be trying to right great wrongs. The article can go in to explain that the election may seem fraudulent, but ITN's purpose is definitely not to even engage in such commentary in the first place. --Masem (t) 04:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Attempting to nuance elections would lead to all sorts of cans of worms that we don't need to deal with. Would the 2000 US presidential eleciton have been similarly nuanced due to the court halting the count and all that stuff? What about other cases where opposition alleges fraud? A bald statement of the result across the board, for all countries, is the only way to guarantee that we ensure equal neutral treatment without needing to get into arguments and what-ifs.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think reporting something as stated in a consensus of RS is RGW. In fact it's not just merely stated, but it's included in the headlines. It's not like it's some fringe idea.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 19:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Blurb" Some places have "free and fair" elections and the rest don't, but they're all still kinds of elections. The ones that concern top executive seats are R, nevermind RGW. The losing candidates aren't complaining and the citizens aren't revolting, this seems like a peaceful transition of power, boring but typically very blurbworthy. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repost Article is good quality and the discussion I opened on ITN/R seems to be developing the consensus that we should still post sham presidential elections. IAR says if a rule gets in the way of "improving or maintaining Wikipedia", ignore it. De-incentivizing editors from working on articles about sham presidential elections probably accomplishes the opposite of that. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repost, per above, I completely agree with Amakuru. BastianMAT (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Sandstein: there seems to be a consensus that we should re-post this, and the current trend in the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Proposed_revision_to_ITN/R_elections is that the previous convention and ITN/R treatment of such elections is not to be amended at this time. Please could you reinstate it?  — Amakuru (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru, because I have also commented in that discussion, I think that another admin should make the call as to whether there is now consensus to post this item. To me, it seems that opinions here remain divided on this issue. As to my own opinion, I oppose (re-)posting the item because I believe that because sham elections in nondemocratic countries do not change the actual power structure of the country, they are substantially less newsworthy than real elections. (Yes, media still cover them, but we at ITN must make our own editorial decisions about what we consider important.) Sandstein 14:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit taken aback by the premature push to treat the outcome of the discussion at Talk:ITN as determined, when it has been open less than 24hrs. The best discussions can often swing in different directions as arguments are made and preceding discussion is considered. There's a lot I'd personally like to say on the inaccuracy/inappropriateness of presuming non-democratic elections are significant events - and the normative irresponsibility of us treating them at face value – but I need time to sit down and write up my argument/views. Jr8825Talk 14:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking the outcome of that discussion as determined, but until such time as it is determined, then we abide by our current convention and rules, which is (per precedence) that ITN/R applies in this instance and that the blurb should be minimal and factual. If the WT:ITN discussion were heading to a snow close to amend the rules, then that would be different, but it isn't so the rules apply. And @Sandstein:, I think as the admin who removed the item from ITN in the first place it should be you to reverse it, since it is fairly clear that the posting is indeed supported by the consensus here in this discussion. With your admin hat on, not with your hat as a contributor to the discussion, you should reverse your action and restore the prior state which was that the item was posted. If anyone else does it, they run the risk of being accused of WP:WHEEL. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hereby absolve any other admin from any WHEEL-related charges. As a person who has now offered an opinion on the merits, I should not be taking any more administrative decisions with respect to this matter. Sandstein 15:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, I still have a concern over whether this article actually meets minimum comprehensiveness per the general criteria. "Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items. [...] Articles which consist solely or mostly of lists and tables, with little narrative prose, are usually not acceptable for the main page." This article is mostly table with less than 500 words including the lede and only about 290 outside of the lede and background section. This feels really under-baked especially for an item that has caused enough excitement to be pulled. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose reposting – No on-again off-again editing by committee, please. Let's leave things as they are – particularly considering the reported nature of this, um, election? – Sca (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and re-post. The article is brief but in good order, opposes based on it being a "sham" election have no standing as there is no criteria to disqualify such things and should be disregarded. As such, the original consensus to post this ITN/R item is valid. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there’s some debate over whether there was an original consensus. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you disregard the invalid opposes due to it being a "sham" election as there is no such criteria then the consensus is easily in favor of posting. The item is ITN/R the only threshold is quality. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the time that this was posted 3 people opposed posting this completely, 4 people supported posting but had varying levels of issues with the blurb and 3 people including the nominator supported the item as written. I have no idea how that discussion could possibly have been read as consensus to post the item in the originally proposed format. While you may disagree with the opposers there are legitimate discussions to be had about the newsworthiness of "elections" where the result is already known in advance and how a blurb describing such an event should be written. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is still covered by ITN/R. As it says in the template above, The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does being on ITNR address the fact that at the point this was posted over half the people who supported posting felt that the blurb needed editing or changing? ITNR only addresses the significance part of the criteria, it doesn't give an excuse to ignore all other feedback and issues raised, hence the lack of consensus to post the item in the originally proposed format. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:CONSENSUS is not a WP:VOTE and their opposes were invalid for the criteria as the item is WP:ITNR and as Muboshgu pointed out a contradiction to Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Please_do_not... #5. If the WP:ITN criteria really exist and this whole thing isn't just a WP:SOAPBOX for POV warriors then it absolutely needs to go back up with the standard election blurb. Our credibility is diminished not posting this. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, how is opposing the blurb related to the ITNR criteria? The ITNR criteria do not specify that a particular blurb has to be used, they only show that the even is assumed to be significant enough to post. The opposition to the blurb do not seem to be based in WP:SOAPBOX type arguments but rather on the basis of how this event is described by other news media and in the article. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only two of the post-posting opposes mentioned the blurb, and opposition to the blurb is not opposition to posting. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So as soon as an item is posted all the feedback left before posting is suddenly irrelevant? I also don't see how you can treat the blurb and the posting as two unrelated things, how on earth are you supposed to post something if people oppose the proposed blurbs? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose due to quality, this is a realy thin article for an election (probably because it wasn't really an election), but if we are going to post it, why not use Alt3 or Alt4? Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I guess it's acceptable to post in two days when he formally takes over, but let's not pretend he was elected fair and square. Calidum 19:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't we post it when the elections actually occur, not when they take office? DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We do indeed. I have no idea what's going on here, but I see absolutely no reason why this is still being withheld. The majority here are in favour, and the rules say we post it. But hey ho.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By my count, there are 9 supports for a plain blurb, 3 supports with qualification of it being a sham, and 10 opposed. That's 9-13 against a plain blurb. I think we could get majority support for a qualified blurb, but it's hard to say where everyone would fall. Also, ITNR is a guideline, not a rule. The rules say we follow consensus, and there is clearly no consensus here. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support First for my opinion regarding the debate that has been opened in Talk page. Second because the quality of the article is sufficient. Third, because it's not necessary to wait for him to take office to be included in MP: the elections are ITNR. And fourthly, because I don't think that the pull, as Amakuru says, was appropriate. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (and support pulling); the article, supported by reliable sources, makes it clear that this an election only in the loosest sense of the word. Indeed, I doubt much of our readership would recognise it as an election at all. In any case, our blurb should reflect what the sources are saying, and they not calling this "election" an exercise in democracy. SN54129 13:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Serdar Berdimuhamedow has take office, so i change the blurb per the reliable source. [17]; [18]; [19]; [20] HurricaneEdgar 09:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we have a blurb that does not mention the election on MainPage?
--PFHLai (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO it's not ideal because the election remains ITNR, but it's a compromise that's better than nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a dealbreaker for me, no standalone oomph, 100% dependent on the standard exception for elections. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the above discussions, the elections page is not getting onto ITN, despite ITNR. So I thought perhaps we can treat the new president's wikibio as a new and separate ITN nom in ALT5. --PFHLai (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's reasonable, I get it. Just not the strongest candidate, either by article greatness or deep analysis. Mostly just AP copies and sheep dog diplomacy. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can post ALT5 on MainPage if there are support votes! posted here. Shall we? --PFHLai (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PFHLai: I would be OK with that, if it's the best compromise available. As per above, I still think we should have kept the original story, but please post the ALT5 as the next best thing. It can be dated 19 March as that's the date he succeeded his dad. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think that's a good enough compromise. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the support for this compromise blurb. Posted without the picture ('coz it's not the top news). --PFHLai (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 14

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Pervis Spann

[edit]
Article: Pervis Spann (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Chicago Sun-Times; WLS-TV (ABC); WBBM-TV (CBS)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mina Swaminathan

[edit]
Article: Mina Swaminathan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Indian researcher. I have not had a chance to work the article yet. If someone wants to join-in and lend a hand, jump straight-in! Ktin (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Scott Hall

[edit]
Article: Scott Hall (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WWE.com
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: WWE Hall of Famer. Known also as Razor Ramon. What a legend. RIP. KingOfAllThings (thou shalt chatter!) 00:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Maureen Howard

[edit]
Article: Maureen Howard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; Publishers Lunch
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: William Hurt

[edit]
Article: William Hurt (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Is anybody up for sourcing a long filmography? Because I'm not. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not close to top of field for blurb territory. A few notable roles but not a long influential career. --Masem (t) 13:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely closed to top of the field. Back-to back lead Oscar noms are indicator of this, as well as career during five decades. And he has numerous memorable roles. He is also far more known then Shane Warne and Dilip Kumar, who were blurbed. One of the reasons to oppose Betty White (she still got blurb) and Peter Bogdanovich was that they were not Oscar winners. He is, and he exceeds standard for usual RD. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is also far more known then Shane Warne and Dilip Kumar needs the qualifier "in America", let's be truthful here. Kingsif (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb as despite the comments above, I don't see them as being absolutely blurb worthy. Not one of the most well known actors of all time, which would be the actual standard for a blurb, wouldn't even be considered if they weren't American.... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • THe headline of Rolling Stone article is literally "These 10 Roles Remind You Why William Hurt Was a Once-in-a-Lifetime Actor" [21] - Cannes Award, BAFTA and Oscar winner. The level coverage is huge, see giant talent. He still had projects in development. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb He was huge, but I do not see him rising above other Oscar winners in terms of reputation (like, we will probably post Daniel Day-Lewis and Robert De Niro, but there are Oscar winners aplenty, there has to be something else than popular and award-winning, likely something more intangible) and in terms of his death, it's old man dies. Do you want to post every major film award winner? This is how you end up with that precedent. Kingsif (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • His reputation was also based on his intellectual roles, and not all Oscar winners have several nominations, and not all are deemed worthy in retrospective. "That was all a lead up to one of the most stunning periods of dominance ever enjoyed by a movie star. From 1986 to 1988, Hurt was nominated for three consecutive best actor Oscars... The commercial and critical success of those films rocketed Hurt to the A-list, but he didn’t seem to relish the celebrity." - From Variety. "Acting Legend" [22]. It was unexpected, he still had projects in pre-production, so here death may be a story, too. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kingsif: While I don't support a blurb in this case either, "in terms of his death, it's old man dies"? He was 71, and until pretty recently a working actor. BD2412 T 19:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless it's beyond dispute that one's career stands out particularly among others in that field, I beg participants in ITN/C to not support or advocate for a blurb for RDs. Anytime one is proposed for a case that's not even borderline, the oppose comments that result generally tend to be unnecessarily denigrating and disrespectful towards the subject. A reasonable person (at least in the U.S.) would not walk up to someone's open casket at a funeral and proclaim "Well, he was okay, but he was no Robin Williams." --WaltCip-(talk) 17:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take this as moral support for your statement. But if someone at that funeral was proclaiming that the decedent was better than Robin Williams, you would probably shut that person up, being realistic isn't always rude. Kingsif (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, I don't necessarily think that's forgivable either. But my point is that we shouldn't even try to initiate this discussion if people have had a day to weigh in on an RD and a consensus never previously developed for a blurb. WaltCip-(talk) 19:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) British Academy Film Awards

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 75th British Academy Film Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the 75th British Academy Film Awards, The Power of the Dog wins Best Film. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At the 75th British Academy Film Awards, The Power of the Dog wins Best Film and Best Director for Jane Campion (pictured).
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Expanded, refs and prose. Can't quite remember the blurb format. Kingsif (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • What? MOS:PLOT exception - refs have not been expected for the In Memoriam to get this (or other awards articles) posted to ITN, that I remember. A video shown during a TV broadcast is, you know, PLOT. Demanding refs gets editors who don't usually touch awards articles jumping in messing the section up, which I just had to fix, too. Kingsif (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The results and noms, no exception, because they are notable whether there is a ceremony or not. But the In Memoriam section is "just a video", that is anticipated and people like to discuss who isn't in it, but still a video exclusive to a television broadcast, not part of the live show or the awards. In word (and in spirit, as I watch it), it is as much PLOT as any other scripted TV video. I did add a ref for it, though - hopefully primary (BBC, not BAFTA: another indication of PLOT, the TV network has it but the awarding body doesn't) source will satisfy? Kingsif (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That never even crossed my mind. Hmm, would you think of calling it SYNTH if the source said in prose "Power of the Dog won Best Picture and Best Director" and the article summarized that as "Power of the Dog won two awards"? Because a list and a table are just easy-to-navigate versions of those. Isn't there some simple math exception to sourcing guides in general anyway? Kingsif (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Routine calculations do not count as original research," per WP:CALC. Calidum 15:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing to make sure is that counting noms and wins is something done (if not fully worked out) by RSes to show that this is not just transporting. As I am pretty sure this happens with most major film awards including BAFTAs this should be fine.--Masem (t) 16:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Brent Renaud

[edit]
Article: Brent Renaud (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American journalist, writer, documentary filmmaker, and photojournalist. TJMSmith (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Timmy Thomas

[edit]
Article: Timmy Thomas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Soultracks
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article updated and seems to be well sourced Humbledaisy (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

[edit]

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: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I am surprised nobody has nominated the ukraine war for Ongoing yet (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 16:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RD: Traci Braxton

[edit]
Article: Traci Braxton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [23] iheart
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 --Riverflat2021 (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rupiah Banda

[edit]
Article: Rupiah Banda (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) India fires missile into Pakistan

[edit]

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: BrahMos (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ India accidentally fires a missile into Pakistan. (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post, The Guardian; India Times;NYT; BBC
Credits:
  • The death of Shane Warne was lead blurb for a week even though there wasn't much to be said about it ("natural causes") and the section about his death still just has two lines. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Masem. Although Pakistan demands investigation, no casualties & not widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending improvements/creation of standalone article - Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. If any other nuclear power (see List of states with nuclear weapons) fired a missile into the territory of another nuclear power (think: U.S., Russia, China, U.K., France, North Korea), this would be posted in a heartbeat, even if it was an accident. It doesn't matter if there are any casualties. It is a significant event in and of itself. There is international news coverage. Also, suggestion for the blurb: "accidentally" is POV as that is India's statement, just like how we did not call the Ukraine invasion a "special military operation" per Russia's statement. 174.3.214.138 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any plausible reason to intentionally fire an unarmed missile at a wall of no strategic value during peacetime? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To test anti-missile defence capabilities (and vulnerabilities) of an adversary. Same reason why countries like Russia make incursions into foreign airspace or territorial waters to see how far they can go before they get a response. 174.3.214.138 (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I could buy into that. I don't think I will. But it's something to ponder. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom per above. No article is usually a showstopper. Yes, there are exceptions, but this aint one of them. If this actually turns into something that generates a real (non-stub) article, I will reconsider. Until then, this is going nowhere. Suggest close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Minor issue, zero casualty. Apparently, there's not even enough story to write a stub article. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

March 11

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Bruce Duffy

[edit]
Article: Bruce Duffy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First reported today (March 11); died on February 10 (i.e. provable gap of at least two days). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2021–22 Major League Baseball lockout

[edit]

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: 2021–22 Major League Baseball lockout (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2021–22 Major League Baseball lockout ends after 99 days (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The Major League Baseball lockout is finally over after 99 days, following the ratification of the CBA by both sides. This was a major labor event, especially for an international sports league. Mannysoloway (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the same reasons this was opposed for when the lockout started. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I like to consider myself a big baseball fan, but I just don't see the significance of this news. Ultimately, this lockout had minimal effects on the average fan's experience. The only noticeable result of the lockout is that the season is going to start about a week later than normal. The rest of the changes are relatively minor rules changes such as universal DH and other labor/contract related stuff that the average fan wouldn't really understand and the long-term effects of which would probably take at least season to understand. Not to mention, it's not even the number one headline on ESPN right now (at least for me).  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 02:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Effectively only a few games of the season have been missed. Not a serious effect. --Masem (t) 02:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't even been missed, just rescheduled. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

March 10

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Bobbie Nelson

[edit]
Article: Bobbie Nelson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; The Dallas Morning News; Los Angeles Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Pretty close. Added 1 CN tag in article body. The lede (2nd paragraph) is a word-for-word copy of the body; lede should either be condensed or the body should be expanded. Support once changes made. SpencerT•C 15:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Yevhen Deidei

[edit]
Article: Yevhen Deidei (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [24]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Ukrainian politician and military officer. TJMSmith (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support article looks pretty good, but I'm not sure that the section on his financial earnings and net worth has much encyclopedic value. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Under sourced (including some contentious claims), a number of parts look like a hit piece, some sources are dubious. Black Kite (talk)

RD: Odalis Pérez

[edit]
Article: Odalis Pérez (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Dominican baseball starting pitcher. The "Personal life" section does not have citations and the section on his death is very short as of now. ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 22:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jürgen Grabowski

[edit]
Article: Jürgen Grabowski (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FAZ
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: German footballer, played for Eintracht Frankfurt. He became European champion in 1972 and world champion in 1974. Grimes2 (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Grimes2 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Emilio Delgado

[edit]
Article: Emilio Delgado (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Long-time actor on Sesame Street as Luis, the fix-it shop owner. Article needs sourcing help. Masem (t) 03:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John Elliott (historian)

[edit]
Article: John Elliott (historian) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Eminent British historian of Early Modern Spain and the Iberian World. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mario Terán

[edit]
Article: Mario Terán (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Tiempos
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Bolivian warrant officer who carried out the execution of Che Guevara in 1967. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Far too much of the article centers on Che's exploits that have nothing to do with Terán. I understand we've completely abandoned WP:1E, but BLPs still should be about the person in the title. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kimberley Kitching

[edit]
Article: Kimberley Kitching (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Australian Senator for the Labor Party. Died suddenly of a heart attack. Anarchyte (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


Mian Channu incident

[edit]
Article: Mian Channu incident (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ India fires a missile that crashes in Mian Channu, Pakistan. (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: 9 March incident that was first reported on 10 March. It had the potential of esclating to a tit-for-tat response between the two nuclear armed neighbors. MasterOfMetaverse (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mary Coombs

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Donald Pinkel

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Inge Deutschkron

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: David Wheeler

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Tomás Boy

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) Presidential election in South Korea

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Template:Strikediv

Template:Ping I have now added references to most of the paragraphs. I couldn’t find any references for one part though (I have added a citations needed there). There might be a source for it in Korean though.  Hamza Ali Shah  10:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: David Bennett

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose per concerns raised by Muboshgu. This does not appear to be a complete biographical article and the subject likely fails WP:1E. I took a look at the AfD and all I can say is that the discussion is embarrassing in its near complete refusal to address policy and guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. It isn't a biography at all, it's an article about a pig organ transplant under the wrong title. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, not a biography and shouldn't even exist Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-opening this, because despite the non-admin closure above, the article was snow kept. RD does not debate notability.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support passes notability, defied an AFD, article is up to scratch, death is "in the news". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the only detail of his life other than the transplant, is a section on his crime and time in jail. As such it seems the article is unduly focused on negative aspects of this guy's life. If some more detail is added about the rest of his life, then I might support. Either he's notable, and we should give him a full bio, or he's not notable, in which case the article should be moved to some other title which focuses on the transplant only.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a reminder, the article was nominated for deletion and was kept. So the "community at large" believe him to have satisfied GNG. As I noted on ITN talk, this has already been subject to IAR. Perhaps it's going to experience a double-IAR: the community believe him to be notable yet ITN don't, so no likey, no posty. What's available about his life seems to be already covered, he's probably got a shit-ton more coverage globally than most of the Indonesian naval officers etc we post combined, but there you go. Wikipedia at its finest. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well far be it from me to question the outcome of the AFD, Ramblo, but really I'm just applying the same standard as I would apply to any other BLP. If there are large gaps in the biographical narrative then I don't consider the article ready for RD. Particularly when the only coverage of the first 99% of his life is focused on a crime he committed. If such coverage is provided, then I might reconsider. Objecting on that ground is not relitigating the AFD, it's simply stating that the article as it stands isn't of sufficient quality as a standalone biography.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Simply not enough information in the article to say it meets the level of a biographical article. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Obvious BLP1E, that AfD has some of the most useless Keep comments I have ever seen (especially the latter ones). Should be a redirect to Xenotransplantation#History where all the actually useful information should be found. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Admin note I'd discount the notability objections in the absence of a new AfD. However, I dont see consensus to post yet either.—Bagumba (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stats I nominated this because he was in the news (again) and that's what we're here for right? But I'm not convinced that there's much point to RD because the entries are just names and so, unless there's some name recognition, most readers won't have a reason to click through. You can see this by checking the readership. Even though he's being snubbed by RD, David Bennett is doing fine compared to most of the RDs. So, clearly our readers are finding their own way to these articles. Only Kimberley Kitching is doing better as her name seems especially distinctive and memorable. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN and RD are not and have not been subordinated to clicks and view counts, otherwise it would just be WP:TOP50 as many here have opined. WaltCip-(talk) 13:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

(Closed) Ukrainian refugee crisis

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

Template:Abot

(Posted) Discovery of the Endurance

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

And, willy-nilly, instead of writing here, every pro/contra letter inserted here, if inserted into improvement of the article, would make more (useful/productive) sense, IMHO☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 21:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endurance sinking


  • Support ... per Modest, Bsoyka – pending article development. Found sunken ships always are of high reader interest. Fairly widely covered. Good art of wreck might become avail. Colorized 1915 photo above doesn't really tell the story. This might be a more appropriate pic. →
    Sca (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated picture was not colorized; it was taken with the Paget process. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Interesting. – Sca (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, partially, let's wait for the ice becoming thinner and thinner, no need to wait some teenager to point our attention to it; read the article too, eventually (1st attention to the subject was drawn by the empty dish plates presented by BBC), and, it indeed, the piece needs some (strong?) author's touch to rise higher (btw, Mrs., male cats, mesdames, odd...)☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 21:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, in about 6 hrs the coverage has widened/improved, so, not a 60 meters run on win...☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 21:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 March 8 Template:Cob


(Posted) RD: Gordon Lee (footballer)

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Leo Marx

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • Comment: This wikibio is currently a 250-word stub. Is there more on him to write about? One must wonder how he got such an impressive list of accolades. BTW, that list needs footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the citation issues. I’ll try to add some information about his work later. Thriley (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Yo Does it look ready now? Thriley (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Template:Yo any thoughts? Thriley (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Nelson W. Aldrich Jr.

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Ron Miles

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Margaret Farrow

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Conrad Janis

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) Russian invasion

[edit]

Template:Atop Proposal: Change Russia's '''[[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|invasion]]''' of Ukraine to '''[[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|Russia's invasion of Ukraine]]'''.--Hildeoc (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh I misread - and misled you as nothing to do with Belarus - support as more obvious link Chidgk1 (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You get the coveted CVU (Creative Verb Use) award for this week. – Sca (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

(Closed) Move Russian invasion of Ukraine to ongoing

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

  • That's not an actual rule, no matter how many times people try and invoke it. This event should be on ongoing, as it's an ongoing event. The blurb for it is stale- like most of the ITN box. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for proposing this is to be able to add one of the consequences of war rejected below. I may propose one of them again tomorrow - meanwhile I hope some industrious Americans will improve them as I sleep. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Freedom Convoy tried that. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Putin is a capitalist and has no intention on bringing back the Soviet Union. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was an ostensible capitalist who invaded a neighboring country in 1939. The other guy went along for the ride. – Sca (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, if not today, then make sure that it happens as soon as it is pushed off of ITN by more recent events. The eyes of the world are on this situation. Side note - Speculation about Putin's motivations or worldviews are not pertinent to whether or not this is a story appropriate to categorize as "Ongoing". Thanks to all for their contributions. KConWiki (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and close as no reason has been provided to reopen this settled discussion. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Will major future developments in the war be considered for blurbs, or will nothing other than its conclusion be considered important enough for that? Jim Michael (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, major incidents and developments will always be considered. Stephen 22:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Template:Tq? My understanding is that it rolls off ITN as soon as new blurbs are posted, just like any other hook. As such, it's literally impossible for a hook to be 'blocking' the ability to have more news items, unless editors oppose any other reasonable nomination on the basis that this hook stays up (in which case, evidence?). Otherwise you're just advocating pulling a blurb that is actually in the news, because ... ? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

(Closed) Russia in the European energy sector

[edit]

Template:Archivetop Template:ITN candidate

It is already newsworthy enough for the major news companies linked above. Although it seems unlikely that Germany will boycott Russian oil they have done several unlikely things over the past week already. The guideline you link to includes "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur". The gas flow has not completely stopped and may not, but according to the DW source one pipeline has stopped already. That and the speculation of more has increased many people's gas or petrol bills - maybe even yours. Some people are interested in news which is already increasing their bills. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Food prices

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) Ukrainian refugee crisis

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • Question The war is obviously a crisis, but is the refugee situation itself a crisis yet? I see a quote in the article that it could become one, but currently it seems neighbouring countries had prepared for this many and are handling it about as well as such things go. That's not to diminish the alleged unequal treatment, but I think "crisis" might be a bit much, this soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on the name of the article - anyway it is not used in the blurb Chidgk1 (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more worried about linking to an inaccurate article, by any pipe. It's not just the title. The situation is described as a crisis throughout, alongside several ways these refugees have it easier than past refugees under new regulations. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edited article to add official cite for "crisis" https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-exodus-is-fastest-growing-refugee-crisis-europe-since-ww2-unhcr-chief-2022-03-06 Chidgk1 (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A solid tweet, carry on. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So everyone, if your questions have been answered, do you support or oppose? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the invasion article you are right the section there needs trimming now this article exists - I will take a look. Please could you tag exactly where the problems in this article are so people can fix them.Chidgk1 (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too many places. From "largest" to multiple "could", "would" and "will" to "grave" and "phenomenal". Just look around. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now deleted the detail from 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Refugees as you suggested. If you could tag exactly where the most serious problems are with this article I suspect they will be fixed quickly by other editors. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I suggested. Williams' "quote" and suggestion of IDPs isn't in the citation. That's serious enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out - I think the editor who added it cited the "live" section of the newspaper which has since been updated - replaced with a stable cite. If there are other problems could you possibly tag exactly where on the article itself rather than here in case I am not available to fix them - there seem to be a lot of editors actively improving it. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality as the article has tag for needs to be updated, and the "Alleged unequal treatment at the borders" is massively WP:UNDUE as it's about half the article text. I'm not convinced that even if the article is fixed, then it should be posted (I'm neutral, leaning oppose on this)- there have been many mass migrations, and we wouldn't even consider posting this if it weren't in Europe (we didn't post the Syrian one after all). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that section was a bit too large - have trimmed. I suspect most "in the news" articles need update as the news develops - I only tagged it a few hours ago but if no one updates it I will delete the Netherlands section as it only has one reliable source. I did not know about "in the news" at the time but as I live in the country with the most Syrian refugees I would have strongly supported it. There are several other editors on this article so if you could tag exactly where the most serious remaining problems are I expect they will be fixed quickly. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't quite understand - could you explain more fully? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivebottom

March 7

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 March 7 Template:Cob


RD: Vitaly Gerasimov

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Nadungamuwa Raja

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Vasily Astafyev

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Lynda Baron

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • Weak Support RD / No Blurb Article length meets the minimum standards for RD but I am not impressed with the level of coverage for the head of state for a country like Pakistan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb figurehead chief of state while a military junta was in place Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support RD, oppose blurb just about enough content to post at RD, though if there's anything that could be added on what he did since 2001, that would be good. Oppose blurb for reasons I mentioned above. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXTREMELY strong support RD, could go either way on blurb Pakistan is the 5th largest country in the world by population, its population is about two-thirds that of the USA. This may not be the best article but it does meet minimum RD requirements, and even if Tarar wasn't the most influential Pakistani leader in history, he was still leader of the fifth-largest country. 1779Days (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, I was considering !voting to support this RD, but now that someone has given an EXTREMELY strong support, it doesn't seem necessary.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's about equal to 10 supports, I'd say. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
As President of Pakistan notes: "The president of Pakistan, officially the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is the ceremonial head of state of Pakistan and the commander-in-chief of the Pakistan Armed Forces"; though the position of the President in Pakistan has been significant but only under dictators such as Pervez Musharraf. The Prime Minister has been the main executive in Pakistan (the only breaks being under dictator presidents) and was somewhat semi-presidential but that was further devolved into parliamentary/premiership under Nawaz Sharif in the 1990s. The last non-dictator/civilian presidents of note were Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Asif Ali Zardari (the latter still alive who even further dissolved the presidency) with prime-ministers of note being Sharif and Yousaf Raza Gillani. Half of Tarar's ceremonial presidency (1998–2001) was during the military dictatorship of Musharraf (1999–2008) when the latter served as the effective head of state. I doubt we have/would post blurbs for figureheads unless quite notable themselves (e.g. Queen Elizabeth II). Gotitbro (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 March 6 Template:Cob


(Posted) RD: Vladimir Zhoga

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Frank O'Farrell

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

March 5

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 March 5 Template:Cob


March 4

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 March 4 Template:Cob


(Posted) RD: Anne Beaumanoir

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Iwan Edwards

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) Peshawar mosque attack

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

You all saw fit to discredit that article, so I fail to see by your own logic why this article would not also be treated the same.--Caltraser5 (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tq This is literally the opposite of true. There have been many failed nomination for more content on ITN about Russia/Ukraine, and we have posted 2 other things in the last few hours: the opening of the 2022 Winter Paralympics and the death of Shane Warne. If you're going to assume bad faith about things (which you shouldn't do), at least try and get your facts right. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, 2022 eastern Australia floods was similar in importance (maybe less widely covered) than Storm Dennis in Western Europe, which didn't get consensus to post either. But 2022 Peshawar mosque attack is more significant, at least in the short term, because of the higher numbers of deaths. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose impact is way lower than the European floods that weren't posted. So not ITN worthy - talk You contradict your own comments, 'not ITN worthy" now you say that this event "is more significant". We're not talking about this article, it was in reference to the Sumatran earthquake which was granted news headline, THAT was what my comments were in relation to. Which you promptly ignored and stated "not ITN worthy". You can't have it both ways, you ignored the context of my initial statement and then word-twisted it to be about the Russo-Ukraine war which I merely made as a passing comment, but ignored my actual statement.--Caltraser5 (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's sensible to compare 2 natural disasters, it's not sensible to compare a natural disaster with an act of terrorism. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does the article need that it doesn't currently include? Jim Michael (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More text. Narrative prose still amounts to about 170 words. – Sca (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anything specific? If says what happened. It has a reactions article. It's a lot longer than 170 words - do you mean the length of the Attack section only? Jim Michael (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a stub. Period. – Sca (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't - it's well into start class. Jim Michael (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One hundred and seventy-four words of narrative text (minus contents and 75 words of background) is a STUB. – Sca (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why the f'ing f is the reaction article separate????????? Seriously????? --Masem (t) 16:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to ask the creator, although I guess it's because there have been many reactions. Jim Michael (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly merged the reactions into the main attack article, which then resolves the size issue. --Masem (t) 18:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are six sentences on the attack itself and aftermath, that is not enough to be considered a good enough quality article. You can add as many reactions as you want, but reactions aren't article content that demonstrates a decent enough article quality. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality per Joseph2302 ("There are six sentences on the attack itself and aftermath, that is not enough to be considered a good enough quality article.") Tradediatalk 20:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Theres a whole section that says there were two attackers, followed by a footnote that says there might have only been one. There are unsourced sentences and fragments, and the quality of prose is poor and/or ungrammatical in places. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Besides all that, this is yet another in a long line of screwy articles that intentionally conflates Amaq News Agency, an IS affiliate, with IS itself. The intent is based in the belief that we should make the same mistakes our sources do, same as facts, paying no editorial mind to any internal contradictions that create reasonable doubt, just shut up and copy the headline, "ISIS claims responsibility". An arguably solid stance, but still screwy. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How else can we say which attacks IS claims? Amaq is how they make such statements. Jim Michael (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the standard excuse, but it's as screwy as the first time I read it. Amaq makes the claim, citing "sources", speaking of the Caliphate and its soldier in the third person, nothing about "we", "us" or "I". But Rita Katz sells it as is, and the "reliable" sources inevitably twist it into something a Wikipedian like you feels OK in using to unwittingly corrupt another article. I hate this game. But not its players, especially those who honestly know not what they do. But maybe attribute the claim to the same outlet CNN does, without misrepresenting it as them? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The flags represent the countries' governments, so they're valid. You're all welcome to improve the article. Jim Michael (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They know that. The "reactions" flag salad is a systemic issue with the way INT articles get built. These are readily available in news accounts, so they often come to overwhelm articles with less substantive detail available. A properly written encyclopedia article would not mention the PR statements of other nations, much less be dominated by them. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly, that's an issue with the format of event-related articles and not with this specific article's inclusion in ITN. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have done the best I can with my limited familiarity with the subject matter. I very much urge those with a greater familiarity with how this should be presented and the nuances of writing about such events look over it. Also, currently, there is one sentence in background missing a citation. I cannot spent more time on this article than I already have due to personal deadlines I'm ignoring. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted article has been improved suffienctly to appease those opposing on quality grounds. Stephen 05:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm no happier about my problem with it, but that didn't stop a dozen or so other Amaq-related stories, so there's no reason to pull now. Just saying, for the record. I do like the improvements! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An image would be appreciated to override the current one. If someone knows of an image and can post it to the article, that would be a good first step.--TZubiri (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Blurb: Shane Warne

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • Comment also here to say should be a blurb when up to scratch - one of if not the best cricket bowlers ever, sudden and unexpected/almost unbelievable death. The question might be whether to put Rod Marsh in it as well, if there will be a blurb up anyway? Kingsif (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the blurb, probably the greatest bowler of all time (second highest wicket taker, but played fewer matches than Murali, and played a lot of matches on pitches that didn't suit his bowling style). Just needs people to work on the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's good enough for Deaths in 2022. And if it turns out to be an error, that's why ERRORS exists, and is frequently used. In any case, the coincidence is the neat part, like with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of them would justify an article about their deaths. However, I don't think we should have an inclusion bar that high for blurbs. Jim Michael (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not pull Even CNN (which is in a country where cricket has very little mainstream popularity) has this... And, on top of that, there is absolutely no requirement for the death itself to be notable to support a blurb. We did so for the Apollo 11 astronaut who died last year (Michael Collins (astronaut)), and while Warney might not have walked on the moon [neither did Collins, FWIW], his impact on the sport of cricket and beyond is certainly sufficient for a front page blurb. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Impact considerations should be reserved for the person's death. Abductive (reasoning) 03:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is simply never how RD/blurbs have worked. More examples of people who undoubtedly were significant and whose death was posted despite it not being notable in itself: Desmond Tutu; [[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/December_2013#[Posted]_Nelson_Mandela|Nelson Mandela]]; RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherstuffexists. And it should be how RD blurbs work. Abductive (reasoning) 03:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't just dismiss every comparison as "other stuff exists". Some comparisons are valid. Your personal opinion of "how we should do RD blurbs" is very much at odds with how they are actually done, as the above examples, including Tutu, Collins, and others, (here, one from not very long ago]) show... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is established that death blurbs are decided on a case-by case basis with no firm standards. Consequently, the rationale stated in the two pull votes is as valid as anyone else's. However, it is extremely bad form to request a blurb to be pulled unless there was some error made in the posting. GreatCaesarsGhost 03:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems that only Americans typically get pulled.—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically, Americans posted while Europeans were asleep:) Here there was plenty of time for all corners of the globe to weigh in and I don't think there's any question there was consensus to post. (Also one of the two Pull votes was from an editor who had previously voted "Strong Support"...) Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original blurb and posting per all the above (but as a Global Citizen and subject of none). Also noting that, surely, one of the supports was gentle trolling...? SN54129 13:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Shane Warne's photo as currently paginated looks startlingly overlarge for a mug in the context of our quite small ITN box. (A war pic. from Ukraine would be much more appropriate given the ITN's contents today.) – Sca (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but please explain why it has to be so big. The same pic could simply be reduced in px (picas). →
    As presently paginated, it violates the Looks Funny rule. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks the same as any other portrait photo used on ITN, at least for me. "Looks funny" is subjective and also likely depends on the device, browser and version of Wikipedia (desktop, app, mobile) being used. Not sure there's anything actionable here? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not subjective if you're laying out the item – you go by the number of picas after jpg|thumb (or just jpg| if it's not taking a caption/nameline, which this one isn't).
Since ordinary users can't edit the main page, I can't tell how wide the mug actually is. But if as you say it's just the usual, then I guess it's my imagination. Still, to me it seems somehow to dominate the box and almost the main page itself. Maybe it's his ruddy complexion? Oh well. – Sca (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Fire breaks out at Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL on the nom's comment as it hasn't exploded. Just another thing that Vladolf Putler has ordered as a part of this war. An attack on a nuclear facility starting a fire is just another event in the conflict. Given we have a failed assassination attempt on the president of Ukraine, hospitals being attacked, and alleged war crimes not getting posted, I don't think this should be either. A fire doesn't seem too notable in a warzone. Open to reconsidering if it does explode NoahTalk 02:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait because if it doesn't explode, it shouldn't be a blurb. And hopefully it doesn't explode. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And if it does explode, do you really think there would be much time left to post it before World War III occurs?! Daikido (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Despite this nuclear plant is also in Ukraine, fire damage doesn't mean it's going to explode, and 2. even in the unlikely case it is really going to be completely destructed by fire, it wouldn't mean a nuclear war either. C933103 (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It was a peripheral building (now secured, unexploded). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main article on the battle, Battle of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, should be linked directly, and the focus should not be "Fire", but rather the fact that it power half of the country's demand. C933103 (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — The fire has been extinguished. Amen. STSC (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The BBC's headline currently is "Global outcry after Russia seizes nuclear plant" and so it seems quite significant. The article about the power plant seems to be in reasonable shape and it's interesting to find that this is "the largest nuclear power plant in Europe". ITN's current "nothing to see here" posture is inappropriate as it gives the impression that it is either broken or controlled by Russian censors. (See also Broken Arrow) Andrew🐉(talk) 11:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see an article covering this (and dozens of other Russian acts said to have caused global outcry) linked in bold on ITN. Today, something else in that highly visible article will likely garner outcry in another nomination. Maybe even an actual power outage or large explosion. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sadly just another episode of Putin's disregard for international laws and human lives. The fires were extinguished and nothing major was damaged. I still support having a few articles as an ongoing-box for this war but the box is not large enough to post every atrocity committed in this invasion. Regards SoWhy 10:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and wait - Part of a larger event. The magnitude of the explosion as stated by Kuleba (10 times larger than Chernobyl) is still heavily contested by experts. Wait until further developments occur then we give a much more final decision on this. PenangLion (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Fire's out, per Reuters. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest closure. From the Guardian report, it turns out the fire was in an outlying support building, with no connection to the reactor or power supplies, and was brought under control without loss of life or radiation leak. Shelling a nuclear plant is incredibly irresponsible by Russia, but the lurid headlines and partisan statements from Ukraine made this sound much more dangerous than it was. There was no chance of a second Chernobyl, and no major consequences occurred, just one burnt building. Modest Genius talk 15:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unless it did leak radiation like Chernobyl, "power plant catches fire, extinguished quickly" isn't the most important news story around. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

(Posted) RD: Rod Marsh

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Template:Ping Your signature has the wrong date. Steelkamp (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Template:Ping Template:Fixed. Thanks for notifying. Craig Andrew1 (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Winter Paralympics

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

We don't do that here. ITN operates on reverse chronological order. WaltCip-(talk) 03:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptions can be made, and an exception should be made here - the invasion should be 'pinned' at the top. BilledMammal (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not appropriate at all. ITN is not a newsticker. The Ukraine invasion will fall to ongoing when the blurb drops off. We aren't going to make exceptions here. --Masem (t) 03:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Points have been addressed. STSC (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing has been fixed, but the article is still way too short in general. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 March 3 Template:Cob


(Posted) RD: Tim Considine

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Brian Fawcett

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Valeriy Chybineyev

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Walter Mears

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) 2022 Winter Paralympics

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

Template:Abot

(Posted) Expanding Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint (March edition)

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate I'll repeat (and slightly modify) my suggestion from February 28. As of right now, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint in the "In the news" section needs elaboration. As it stands, it simply states "Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine", and appears to be equal in significance to the closing of the Winter Olympics. Should it really be that way? I've changed my suggestion from linking to the article about the territories invaded (Occupied territories of Ukraine) to the article about the financial crisis (2022 Russian financial crisis). Thoughts? -- RobLa (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"A mercury sucking a lemon"


  • Comment – The current editorial configuration of Wikipedia may be the techie dream of the ultimate in internet delivery vehicles, but from a reader's point of view it's over-engineered and unnecessarily complicated.
    In a way it reminds me of the Edsel, a design based on tons of brainy market research, but which proved to be the most ill-advised car in U.S. automotive history. – Sca (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC) –→[reply]
  • Portal:Current_events is complex but seems quite effective. For example, today's page was created automatically by a bot and has now been populated by 35 bullet points across a variety of fields including sports, science and the "special military operation". The key difference is that editors are actually allowed to edit it. The problem with ITN is that it is paralysed by protection and so little gets done. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Has there ever been a proposal to have a little "Portal:Current Events • Nominate an article" the way DYK has "Archive • Start a new article • Nominate an article"? I feel like that would help a lot of people actually find this portal, because the sidebar is just such a massively long list of links it sort of just disappears into the visual background noise. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. ITN does currently link to Portal:Current_events but hides the link behind the word Ongoing so most readers will miss it. The link should be surfaced so that readers are given a good alternative when it's so clear that much is missing from ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I... never even noticed "Ongoing" (or "Recent Deaths" for that matter) was a link because there's just so many links in the line and the bolded + browser visited color + blue ITN background combination just for some reason isn't scanning as a link to my brain. But that's on me. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, how about supporting alt1, alt2 or alt3? – Sca (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all who helped make the updated blurb possible. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't this have bumped the item to the top, over Warne? - Floydian τ ¢ 15:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The condemnation is from March 2, fresher than the February 24 invasion, but still staler than both March 4 events. It's not about what's hotter. Never has been. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given some of my earliest edits to the pages that became Portal:Current events, I would appreciate not being lectured by relative newcomers like you (User:InedibleHulk) nor User:Masem about the history of how current events have been handled on English Wikipedia, and I certainly don't think that any of the three of us are qualified to know what the 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 people (or bots or whatever) who currently load "Main page" of English Wikipedia into their browser each day in 2022, per the stats on "Main Page". It could be that thousands (if not millions) of them use it as a news ticker. Certainly, I'll glance at the "In the news" box from time-to-time to see what's going on the world. As User:TZubiri is suggesting, "Screen real estate is important", and we should consider what is important to feature on the homepage of English Wikipedia. What are people visiting Wikipedia to learn? -- RobLa (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't remember even talking to you before, and have no interest in lecturing you now. I don't know why people come here, you're right. Carry on! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for my cranky tone, User:InedibleHulk, and sorry for accusing you specifically for "lecturing" me. The topic of how we should deliver Current events has long been a subject of debate (since well before the advent of Wikinews). When you stated "It's not about what's hotter. Never has been", that got under my skin a little bit (especially after User:Masem's comment below). In my mind, the "In The News" section seems to have been about drawing people to the most important articles about current events, and taking advantage of the fact that both editors and readers of Wikipedia are bound to be suddenly drawn to important news. However, like I said, every one of those 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 pageviews (per day) is for a different reason, and it's hard to know why. -- RobLa (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, Template:U, nice to memorably meet you. I also think that's the point here, important current events. But variety is cool, too, and some people find Shane Warne's death and the Paralympics important. Maybe over three million, maybe fewer, but some. A number of others are almost 100% tuned into the war, day in and day out, and that's a fine choice. I don't think a portrait of an Australian is going to overshadow the favoured link for these people, only maybe temporarily distract them. A second later, they'll have literally more info on the Ukraine deal than they can digest. Did you see it got a video clip here earlier? I'll never say "never" again, but I don't remember anything else getting that special shine since 2013 (or whenever the cat dragged me in). Besides, this time, the UN resolution is the event, and (in my opinion) if you've seen one assembly hall or non-binding document, you've "seen them all". See you around! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggested as error - by User:TZubiri at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. I'm confused by the changes proposed there, and disinclined to move the discussion over to that page. Given that many more Ukrainians have died in combat since Shane Warne's death, I'm also disappointed in the process that led to his picture overshadowing the events in Ukraine. -- RobLa (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ITN is not a newsticker, again. We are not posting important news story, but instead featuring articles that are in the news that are also representative of high quality articles. --Masem (t) 02:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I suggested in my cranky comment above, we don't know why English Wikipedia gets 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 pageviews per day on the homepage. But can be reasonably sure it's less than the 10,000,000+ pageviews per day that it used to get. Can we please make sure that the "In The News" section stays relevant to English speakers all over the world, so that the number doesn't continue to decline, and Wikipedia fade into irrelevance? -- RobLa (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Screen real estate is important. But in order to avoid conflict with the rejected proposal to include the UN General assembly I propose the next most popular blurb, the original one. I think the other page is more appropriate because consensus has already been successfully established, now it's just a matter of implementing that consensus (a legislative to executive division if you will)--TZubiri (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per this BBC report, the invasion is still on going (as of the 6th of March UTC). I'm going to follow User:TZubiri's suggestion and switch back to a very minor modification to my original blurb "Russia continues their invasion of Ukraine, leading to international sanctions and a financial crisis in Russia." I modified the "blurb=" parameter of the "ITN candidate" template accordingly. -- RobLa (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverted by User:Stephen, who seems to believe there was no consensus, and that I acted unilaterally (despite following User:TZubiri's suggestion). -- RobLa (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Perhaps they saw a problem in the order of the events? Whatever I'm backing off here, a good attempt was made at following the will of the votes, but with so many hands and votes it's not always perfect, it seems sensible to stick with what was originally published, it is the stable version after all, and there was some support for that blurb. It'll be changed by another proposal eventually, hopefully another event or a transition to the ongoing section. --TZubiri (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Echo of Moscow

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate109.252.212.73 (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - effectively part of an Ongoing event (currently a blurb which will roll down to Ongoing eventualoy), and we don't post every individual update.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
War is one thing and the crackdown on the freedom of speech is another!109.252.212.73 (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. WaltCip-(talk) 13:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
War is what has been going on in Ukraine, for the last week. The crackdown on the freedom of speech in Russia is a different front that has been ongoing for years. Both of which are covered in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Media freedom in Russia. — Bacon Noodles (talkcontribsuploads) 14:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is not that Wikipedia is a place to right great wrongs, but rather that Russian increasing its suppression domestically is hardly something fully within the scope of the article of Russian invading a foreign country, even though connection is obvious. C933103 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The editor-in-chief is appealing against the closure order, while in Hong Kong the editors were arrested and charged by the police. STSC (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abottom

(Closed) Thermobaric weapon

[edit]

Template:AtopTemplate:ITN candidate

Template:Abottom

March 2

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 March 2 Template:Cob


RD: Kenneth Duberstein

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Farrah Forke

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Alan Ladd Jr.

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Andrey Sukhovetsky

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • Question are we really going to create loads of articles on Ukranian generals known mostly for dying in this conflict, and then post them all to RD? This is the third one I've noticed in the last 2-3 days. Either way, too short for now, regardless of the wider issue of notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note The other two were an air force colonel who was shot down, and a combat engineer who sacrified themselves. I would think a general getting killed is quite rare, as there won't be too many 2-star or higher generals, or division commanders around. Also, nobody has really complained (to my knowledge) about the stream of sportspeople who are mundane domestic league players who die all the time (from a variety of sports in different countries) Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Articles meets quality standards. Objections for inclusion on the basis that they are only known for their participation in this conflict have some merit, but should be discussed broadly as the same issue applies to sportspeople among others, and until that discussion produces a consensus our current rules support this. BilledMammal (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This wikibio has slightly over 300 words, marginally long enough to not be considered a stub. Can more be added? I may be more supportive if there were more to read about him. Referencing seems okay, except that "the most senior Russian officer killed in action to date" needs to be sourced. --PFHLai (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The unreferenced bit about him being "the most senior Russian officer killed in action to date" has been removed from the wikipage. This wikibio is now <300 words long -- in stub territory. --PFHLai (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recent edits have brought this back to 300+ words and this article is now longer than the usual stubs. So length is no longer a concern. Footnotes and other formatting do not appear to be problematic. This wikibio meets the requirements and is therefore READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Autherine Lucy

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Shirley Hughes

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

March 1

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 March 1 Template:Cob


(Posted) RD: Oleksandr Oksanchenko

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Length (378 words) Template:Ok Formatting Template:Ok Deployment of Footnotes Template:Ok (AGF on non-English refs). This wikibio is READY for RD to me. I have added a line on his party affiliation when he served on the Myrhorod City Council. If someone can add info on his constituency (if he had one), that would be nice. --PFHLai (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 70+ Ukrainian soldiers killed in Okhtyrka

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose - An airstrike outwith a war is notable, an airstrike during a war is just a (small) part of the war. -- KTC (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per KTC. We usually post natural disasters, explosions and shootings in peaceful regions with a substantial death toll, but airstrikes during wars and shootings in countries where they occur frequently are examples of what we don't post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing There are obviously numerous incidents being reported from the fighting in Ukraine. The way ITN handles news which is generating many and varied reports is to put it into the ongoing section under a suitably broad heading. That's why the COVID-19 pandemic is still there. There has been a war in Ukraine since 2014 and so this is a similar, long-running campaign. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing it's an ongoing event, and putting it on ongoing gives it a proper place on ITN, instead of being bunched in the middle of less important/now well out of the news item. Either that, or sticky the invasion at the top of ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is it possible to replace the blurb, which hasn't rolled off yet, with a sticky?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put to Ongoing There's going to be a lot of events in Ukraine over the next few weeks (or months), and posting every update from the war is going to get make things too crowded on ITN. By placing it on ongoing (like the COVID-19 pandemic) it gives readers a quick and easy access to events going on in Ukraine, without having to constantly update ITN.Canuck89 (Chat with me) 11:47, March 1, 2022 (UTC)
    The relevant article is currently linked on the main page. We can move it to ongoing when it rolls off the blurb list. --Jayron32 11:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this update, but support the wider principle. I do think it would be good to update the blurb with developments in the war, but this airstrike is just one incident in a much wider conflict. Dropping the blurb down to ongoing seems counterproductive. We would be better off adding something to highlight fighting is going on in Kyiv and Kharkiv. Modest Genius talk 13:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ec

  • Switch to ongoing now - this invasion is going to constantly have updates that are not captured by the current blurb (nor should they be attempted), and the ticker is moving pretty slowly. I say we drop the blurb and move it to ongoing now. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem seems to be that the Ongoing line is buried in the weeds and so lacks appropriate prominence. We should reorganise to put the Ongoing line first when the listed items are major items, as now. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the current blurb is fine if you want this in ongoing then pull the blurb. According to Ukranian propaganda their brave soliders are killing 1000 Russians a day so I don't see the notability of 70+ --LaserLegs (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well no-one seems to want to WP:IAR and keep this at the top of ITN. Or do anything helpful that might actually show that Wikipedia isn't just treating this differently to other blurbs, because it's way more important and has way more longevity and news coverage than anything else on ITN right now (minus the COVID-19 pandemic being in ongoing, which is only kept there by an IAR). We should invoke IAR and add more content on the invasion to ITN, because that is what's in the news worldwide right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing, This is not like a disaster or ..., many things may happen day by say. Alex-h (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I increasingly think a box on the top showing the range of ongoing events in the war makes sense: individual battles, anti-war protests, etc. None are likely to end soon. The anti-war protests in Russia alone come close to meriting an ITN item, for example. Blythwood (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would reject the argument that ongoing is better, worse, or more suited to the event. There seems to be some attitude that the BAU process trivializes important events, which I cannot track. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch to Ongoing. As an IAR case, this seems to make more sense to have it there than looking like we're out of date by having it below other items in the blurb ticker. I oppose constantly putting it back to the top with new updates like the one proposed though.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Casualties are a tragic reality in war. No need to move to ongoing until the current blurb drops off. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This war is currently the biggest ongoing story in the world so I don't see why these events can't be covered more. The destruction of the An-225 or the (possible) destruction of the memorial of the Babi Yar massacre are things that would likely get covered in ITN during normal times so I don't see why the ongoing war should mean we ignore it. It's not like there are a half dozen other items that would get bumped. After all, the Olympics ended more than a week ago. Perhaps a limit could be set of only 2 items related to the war at a time? Anyway, just wanted to say that and now back into the ether I go. -- Scorpion0422 21:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Tq - to put it bluntly, you expect stuff to get destroyed and people killed in wars. And those things happen so frequently in wars that most individual events don't make news, it all blurs into one, and updating on each one would be impossible. I don't completely advocate for this getting a blurb but something needs updating. While ITN is really capturing pageviews and hoping to retain a few as editors, it is also a service ("hey you've seen X in the news and want to find out more? Click here!"), so let's serve. Kingsif (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abottom