Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
*'''Oppose on quality''' "Route to the Final" section is a mess to read, and should be converted to text. And needs a background section, as well as some match summary. See [[2017 Women's Cricket World Cup Final]] for idea on how much content there should be. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#000000">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 09:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose on quality''' "Route to the Final" section is a mess to read, and should be converted to text. And needs a background section, as well as some match summary. See [[2017 Women's Cricket World Cup Final]] for idea on how much content there should be. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#000000">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 09:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' Updated blurb. Healy is also player of the series. [[User:Joofjoof|Joofjoof]] ([[User talk:Joofjoof|talk]]) 09:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' Updated blurb. Healy is also player of the series. [[User:Joofjoof|Joofjoof]] ([[User talk:Joofjoof|talk]]) 09:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' I am only seeing tables in the article. 09:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== April 2 == |
== April 2 == |
Revision as of 09:55, 3 April 2022
![]() | Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
![]() |
---|
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. Nomination steps
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
April 3
April 3, 2022
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports |
No-confidence motion against Imran Khan
Blurb:
Alternative blurb: In Pakistan, a no-confidence motion moved by Pakistan Democratic Movement against Prime Minister Imran Khan fails.
Alternative blurb II: In Pakistan, a no-confidence motion by the Pakistan Democratic Movement against Prime Minister Imran Khan is dismissed.
News source(s): Dawn
Credits:
- Nominated by MasterOfMetaverse (talk · give credit)
- Created by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Elminster Aumar (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: The National Assembly will be in session shortly and the article will be updated as it concludes. MasterOfMetaverse (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wait for Successor, like usual (alternatively, Oppose Failure). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Update: the motion has apparently failed, Pakistan will have elections in 3 months. Tube·of·Light 09:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb 1 is incorrect information, the motion has been rejected by the speaker as it has been declared unconstitutional. As for Blurb 2, I don’t think the fact that it was unsuccessful is notable enough to post. Hamza Ali Shah 09:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Per the previous time this was nominated, only a successful vote/change of govt would have raised this to ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
2022 Women's Cricket World Cup Final
Blurb: In cricket, Australia defeat England in the final (player of the match Alyssa Healy pictured) to win the Women's World Cup. (Post)
Alternative blurb:
News source(s): ESPNcricinfo
Credits:
- Nominated by MasterOfMetaverse (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
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 of right now, the match is still ongoing thus the article will be updated with a match summary once it finishes. MasterOfMetaverse (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The main final article needs a LOT of work as of typing this (it's essentially a stub), while as the main tournament article has been updated fully by myself. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality "Route to the Final" section is a mess to read, and should be converted to text. And needs a background section, as well as some match summary. See 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup Final for idea on how much content there should be. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Updated blurb. Healy is also player of the series. Joofjoof (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I am only seeing tables in the article. 09:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
April 2
April 2, 2022
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
|
RD: Estelle Harris
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
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: Needs a bit more sourcing work before it can be posted Masem (t) 03:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is that including or excluding the filmography? Or is the obit doing enough lifting for it? CreecregofLife (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Clarification may be needed on her exact date of birth: the article says she was born on April 4, 1928, but the linked Deadline obit says she was born on April 22, 1928. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
RD: Vance Amory
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.thestkittsnevisobserver.com/former-premier-of-nevis-has-passed/
Credits:
- Updated by Normantas Bataitis (talk · give credit)
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: Two-term Premier of Nevis. Could use more coverage on both his cricket and his premiership, not to mention details on his passing. --PFHLai (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
2022 Sri Lankan protests
Blurb: Sri Lanka has declared a state of emergency in the wake of violent street protests against the economic crisis. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, The News, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)
Ainty Painty (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wait to see what comes out of this, whether the government will listen, or if the protesters will be squashed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Or quashed, as the case may be. Sca (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- *will, as the case will be. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Or quashed, as the case may be. Sca (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Looks fine, similar to the posting of 2022 Kazakh unrest. Gotitbro (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
April 1
April 1, 2022
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Neil Stevens
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Canadian Press
Credits:
- Updated by Nanerz (talk · give credit)
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: Hall of Fame Canadian sportswriter --PFHLai (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
RD: C. W. McCall
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Best Classic Bands
Credits:
- Nominated by Fakescientist8000 (talk · give credit)
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: Singer/songwriter: real name Bill Fries. Activist/politician who served as mayor of Ouray, Colorado for six years. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- 10-4 good buddy Andrew🐉(talk) 12:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Pope Francis apologizes for the Canadian Indian residential school system
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.
Blurb: Pope Francis apologizes for the Catholic Church's role in the Canadian Indian residential school system. (Post)
News source(s): CBC, WaPo, Guardian, NY Times
Credits:
- Nominated by NorthernFalcon (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Support This is pretty big news regarding this subject. The article is in very good shape. Nothing to complain about. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose An apology is nice and all but that doesn't seem to be anything actionable here or the type of resolve we'd expect on something like this (eg something like a conviction or the like). --Masem (t) 16:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody in their right mind went into this expecting to convict the pope of genocide. The goal was to convince the pope of genocide, and many were surprised to hear him actually plead guilty on behalf of those he understood as evil and contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. I wouldn't call the spiritual leader of 1.3 billion people asking the Creator themself for forgiveness and shamefully asking the victims' pardon "nice and all", unless I was trying to be a sarcastic dick or ignorant atheist about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is still an empty gesture for all purposes, particularly when the articles covering this talk of other things that could be done. --Masem (t) 13:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not all purposes, but yes, no material reclamation yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is still an empty gesture for all purposes, particularly when the articles covering this talk of other things that could be done. --Masem (t) 13:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody in their right mind went into this expecting to convict the pope of genocide. The goal was to convince the pope of genocide, and many were surprised to hear him actually plead guilty on behalf of those he understood as evil and contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. I wouldn't call the spiritual leader of 1.3 billion people asking the Creator themself for forgiveness and shamefully asking the victims' pardon "nice and all", unless I was trying to be a sarcastic dick or ignorant atheist about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose not in the article, also the article says that the Canadian Church apologised in September 2021, so it just seems like an extension of this? Either way, if it's not in the article, we cannot post it, and if it's added to the article, then I'm sceptical as there isn't that much coverage of this. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note: Both rationales for opposing above seem to have been ameliorated. The article is updated with April 1 news, and I've added more sources regarding coverage. There are also many more independent and reliable sources from many different countries covering this as well. --Jayron32 16:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- No it doesn't, at least for mine. Nothing actionable has happened here; its (hypothetically) if the Russian Catholic church apologized to Ukraine for Putin's invasion - Nothing has changed about the invasion. At least from the CBC there are potentially actionable steps the church could do such as rolling back past policies that would retrify matters. An apology is not really actionable. --Masem (t) 16:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't responding to your rationale, I was responding to the two rationales that Joseph used. Regardless, you don't need to defend yourself to me. Everybody around here already knows how much of a problem I am to the ITN process. You can go back to ignoring me like everyone should. --Jayron32 16:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)It hadn't been updated when I posted. Just because the regular news articles publish it, that doesn't make it ITN worthy. It isn't a front page news story on e.g. BBC News, whereas most ITN-worthy news does usually feature on front pages of most big news websites. This is a valid policy-based oppose, so stop trying to claim otherwise. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't say it wasn't policy based. I said that they had since been ameliorated, which is to say, fixed after the fact. You can vote however you want. It's no skin off my teeth. You don't need to defend yourself to me. Remember, I am the problem around here. Never forget that. --Jayron32 16:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- There is no ITN policy for significance that says anything like what you are saying. The guidelines state that the item must be covered on newsworthy sources (which this is) and that there is a consensus to post. See WP:ITNCRIT. WaltCip-(talk) 18:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- No it doesn't, at least for mine. Nothing actionable has happened here; its (hypothetically) if the Russian Catholic church apologized to Ukraine for Putin's invasion - Nothing has changed about the invasion. At least from the CBC there are potentially actionable steps the church could do such as rolling back past policies that would retrify matters. An apology is not really actionable. --Masem (t) 16:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note: Both rationales for opposing above seem to have been ameliorated. The article is updated with April 1 news, and I've added more sources regarding coverage. There are also many more independent and reliable sources from many different countries covering this as well. --Jayron32 16:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support This is big news. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 16:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article is very good quality, article has been updated, topic is in major news sources. Checks all of the boxes for me! --Jayron32 16:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Masem, Joseph2302. These retroactive apologies for historical misdeeds offered by current heads of historically offending institutions may be mollifying for present-day members of the groups wronged, but beyond that have little effect and IMO lack wider significance. – Sca (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- PS: I find the pope's thinly veiled rebuke today of "potentate" Putin over Ukraine much more consequential. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Nice quality article, significant update from new news, covered by every major news outlet, opposition votes (mentions of the Canadian Church, not being front page on BBC News, and lack of something "actionable") are nitpicky IMHO and far less important to consider than the feelings of the affected:
First Nations’ Chief Gerald Antoine echoed the sentiment, saying Francis recognized the cultural “genocide” that had been inflicted on Indigenous. “Today is a day that we’ve been waiting for. And certainly one that will be uplifted in our history,” he said. “It’s a historical first step, however, only a first step.”[1]
– Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)- And the "action" at least seems to be that Pope Francis will travel to Canada to apologize in person soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I feel like that would be the more appropriate time to post it personally. Would what happened today be considered the "formal apology"? Floydian τ ¢ 19:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- This delegation traveled the same distance, with the same purpose, in greater number. I'd consider it the first apology. The second, if it happens, will be more personal (for the survivors, relatives and peripheral victims who didn't make this trip) but still as formal as any papal visit. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I feel like that would be the more appropriate time to post it personally. Would what happened today be considered the "formal apology"? Floydian τ ¢ 19:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- And the "action" at least seems to be that Pope Francis will travel to Canada to apologize in person soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem and Sca. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - A contextually enormous response from the Catholic Church. We should be in the business of posting high quality articles that are in the news, and that's what this is. --WaltCip-(talk) 18:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment As a Canadian raised part Catholic and part Ojibwe (though mostly secular), I personally feel the goodness and bigness of this apology. I accept it as genuine, historic and alright. But I'm not about to contribute to this schism over whether the general Wikipedian audience needs to know. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. Seems notable, one of the biggest headlines right now below Ukraine. Article in good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: The target article is lengthy and difficult to navigate. If this is posted, it may be necessary to make the update into a separate section in the target article and then link directly to that section in the blurb, instead of making the reader try to locate the update. Alternatively, it might be useful to have an update in the lead of the article.
- Oppose Much as we don't post the 12 country to legalize gay marriage, we shouldn't be post the guy who apologies decades after his peers. As others have stated, this comes with no substantive action (how about dipping into those coffers for reparations?), so posting only serves to praise him for taking an action he stubbornly refused to for a decade. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- The pope's only peers are previous popes, in Roman Catholicism, none of which ever apologized. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Uh, no. The pope's peers are fellow church heads and heads of state. But I do think you are hinting at the issue here: an archaic view of the pope's sway as the titular leader of 1/6 of the world who is seen as infallible. Modern Catholics feel comfortable rejecting anything he says that contradicts their priors. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- More about his papal supremacy than his papal infallibility. Not belittling the Archbishop of Canterbury, either, but Anglicans did have objectively much less to do with this dark chapter in Canadian government. I hear you on his waning influence; per a prophecy I also take somewhat seriously, Francis is the last real pope. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Uh, no. The pope's peers are fellow church heads and heads of state. But I do think you are hinting at the issue here: an archaic view of the pope's sway as the titular leader of 1/6 of the world who is seen as infallible. Modern Catholics feel comfortable rejecting anything he says that contradicts their priors. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- The pope's only peers are previous popes, in Roman Catholicism, none of which ever apologized. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Significance appears to be limited as evidenced by the fact that news item does not rate its own article. Nice gesture though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support This is historic. It's the recognition of a history involving genocide and is major news for the Roman Catholic Church. -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose the pope only apologised for the conduct of some members of the RCC, not for the church as a whole. Stephen 06:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, not all of us tortured generations of people in the hopes of eradicating their way of life. Most Catholics are better than that. The worst I've done is adultery. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Only nine to go then. Stephen 07:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Five left, actually; I said adultery was the worst. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Only nine to go then. Stephen 07:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Significant acknowledgement of the evils done by the Catholic Church. The article is comprehensive and well sourced.Melmann 07:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The lead of the article says nothing about the Catholic church whose role in this seems to have been similar to numerous other Canadian institutions. As a previous pope already expressed his regrets over 10 years ago, this seems to be just more of the same. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose not significant enough for posting. The announcement is an attempt at rehabilitating the Church’s reputation without action to settle the victims’ claims. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Hard no to posting an "apology". Actions speak louder than words, and to anyone who is not a Catholic this means very little or not at all. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I imagine it means quite a bit to the 1-2/3 million aboriginals in Canada, although perhaps still with a similar sentiment (re: actions vs. words). - Floydian τ ¢ 14:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't disagree. There are decent number of combined First Nation individuals and Catholics combined that it would matter too, but I think the lack of progression from words to actions hurts this nom. As also noted above this feels like a face-saving maneuver more than anything. Perhaps not even enough of a "gesture" to call it an "empty gesture". DarkSide830 (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. I obstained on voting because I feel as though the pope coming to the First Nations and apologising is really the epitome of singular events in this ongoing story. This was just an obligated response really. Floydian τ ¢ 17:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't disagree. There are decent number of combined First Nation individuals and Catholics combined that it would matter too, but I think the lack of progression from words to actions hurts this nom. As also noted above this feels like a face-saving maneuver more than anything. Perhaps not even enough of a "gesture" to call it an "empty gesture". DarkSide830 (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I imagine it means quite a bit to the 1-2/3 million aboriginals in Canada, although perhaps still with a similar sentiment (re: actions vs. words). - Floydian τ ¢ 14:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with the above comments that there must be a very strong presumption against posting official apologies which, by definition, are symbolic actions with limited significance. As mentioned above, this also appears to be only one in a range of apologies for this particular issue too. The only point that gave me pause for thought was the quality of the FA target article but on reflection I am not convinced that this status is actually justified on the basis of the article's current state - hugely long and with more space given to the apologies than to the actual subject itself. I think we should pass. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose this is a press release, not a news story. Brazilian man in Italy apologizes for other peoples' actions in Canada. I'm not sure this justifies updating any article, much less front-page coverage. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- He's Argentinian, but whatever. BSMRD (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- He's argentinian, but go off. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- He's also in the Vatican City, not Italy, but apart from that... Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
March 31
March 31, 2022
(Thursday)
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
|
RD: Nancy Milford
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; The Washington Post
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
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)
(Posted) RD: Shirley Burkovich
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MLB.com
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
- Updated by MondayMonday1966 (talk · give credit) and Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support Article is fine. Not amazing, nor terrible. Could use some work, but this article is ready for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Human genome sequencing
Blurb: Scientists perform complete sequencing of human genome. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Science
Credits:
- Nominated by Brandmeister (talk · give credit)
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)
- 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)
- I second that. It's a great science story, and a huge milestone. Tone 13:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Regardless of the 2021 announcement, this is the publishing of the peer-reviewed paper that confirms the results. That's the bare minimum we want for posting any science-bases story. --Masem (t) 15:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Peer review doesn't confirm results; it just sanity checks them (supposedly). Confirmation is done by repeating the experiment but science has been having a lot of trouble with this – see the replication crisis. See also: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter for us. We want "new" science stories to be the result of publication from a peer-review journal, and not because of a press release from a university or news report months prior to that publication. Baring exceptional cases, we do not doubt the reliability of what is published in top-tier peer-reviewed journals like Science in this case. --Masem (t) 16:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, WP:MEDRS advises that "Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable..." And publication in a top-tier journal is no guarantee of correctness. Quite the contrary, as "Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability". Andrew🐉(talk) 14:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter for us. We want "new" science stories to be the result of publication from a peer-review journal, and not because of a press release from a university or news report months prior to that publication. Baring exceptional cases, we do not doubt the reliability of what is published in top-tier peer-reviewed journals like Science in this case. --Masem (t) 16:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Peer review doesn't confirm results; it just sanity checks them (supposedly). Confirmation is done by repeating the experiment but science has been having a lot of trouble with this – see the replication crisis. See also: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Regardless of the 2021 announcement, this is the publishing of the peer-reviewed paper that confirms the results. That's the bare minimum we want for posting any science-bases story. --Masem (t) 15:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- ?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)
- 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)
RD: Moana Jackson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New Zealand Herald Radio New Zealand The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Chocmilk03 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Stuartyeates (talk · give credit), Paora (talk · give credit) and Schwede66 (talk · give credit)
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)
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)
- @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)
- Support. Nice work on the article including the above referencing done by Chocmilk03 as requested by TDKR. Article is good to go. RIP. Ktin (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The quoting is a bit much relative to the article's length. Try restricting the quotes to key phrases, instead of full sentences. Joofjoof (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Joofjoof: Thanks, fair comment! I'm reluctant to remove the block quote from Jacinda Ardern, so I've paraphrased some of the other quotes and also endeavoured to balance the blockquote out a bit by adding more details about his death/memorial service. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: John T. Richardson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support All sources live. Sourced and no stub. Grimes2 (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support agree that it looks fine to me, have marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support I have added a description to this article. Fully cited. This article is ready for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Censorship of Wikipedia
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.
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:
- Nominated by Desertambition (talk · give credit)
- Oppose Technically covered by the ongoing, and we should avoid Wikipedia centric stories as ITN. --Masem (t) 21:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem. Also "threatens to..." is 0.00% ITN-worthy. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A demand to remove unspecified biased material, under penalty of financial hardship, is a common Edit Request here; warn Roskomnadzor twice, then block or topic ban it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Russia has done this sort of thing before. Don't this instance rises to ITN levels. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but Russia has not done this sort of thing before. How far back are we looking, exactly? I'd agree that it's track record is not good. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose good faith nom. Nothing has actually happened beyond a threat. This has all of one sentence of coverage in the target article. The event obviously does not merit its own article which is generally a showstopper for ITN nominations. And then we can go into significance, naval gazing and so on. Suggest Close as there is no chance of consensus developing to post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for all the input, I did not realize these threats were so common. Makes me wonder why they haven't blocked it yet. It sounds like if they were to block it, that would probably be notable enough. Desertambition (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Beyond Jimbo's comfort zone, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- A bunch of pages already are blocked, mostly to do with drugs, suicide and autoerotic you-know-what InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
March 30
March 30, 2022
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Margaret M. McGowan
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; The Times
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Feanor0 (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support Referenced, appropriate depth of coverage. If her doctoral dissertation has a title, it would be worth including that in the prose. SpencerT•C 22:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) Turing Award
Blurb: In computing, Jack Dongarra (pictured) wins the Turing Award for his contributions towards supercomputing. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
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)
- Oppose on quality Reads too much like faculty profile. Explains why it looks like a copyvio; I dont really think it is one, it's just the same bland style of listing of achievements.—Bagumba (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality as Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, so it should be written as an article not a CV/resume. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support We have complaints about celebrity gossip but then they don't want a dry list of achievements either. There's no pleasing some people. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support (in principle): Cn tags need to be fixed, is barely passable for the main page but would like see expansion. Gotitbro (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality In concurrence with Gotit here on the CNs. I'm not as worried about the content though. It does read a bit resume-like, but I think there is good reason for this. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Added sources for all the remaining uncited rewards. The citations are largely press releases or list of recipients from the award-granting organizations; I tried to find third-party articles but couldn't find any, so hopefully these are fine. Please let me know if I did any of the citations wrong, as I'm fairly new to this.Morganfshirley (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is now acceptable. Jehochman Talk 18:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posting. Changing to high-performance computing, since supercomputing is not linked in the article. --Tone 07:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) Farthest known star discovered
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support Support. An important discovery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support This discovery is uncommon. It's nice to have a change of pace in the ITN right now. (PenangLion (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC))
- Strong Support science is important and this is notable Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- 'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support This is major news. Thriley (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- The article is a 4-sentence stub. Stephen 06:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. The story is good, just the article needs to be expanded to at least three time this length. Tone 06:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality the article is 4 sentences long, which is way too short to be on the front page. If that is everything that is known about it, that's not enough for ITN, and if more is known, it should be added. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Question How often do we find a new farthest object? HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- This one was said to likely be the farthest we may ever discover, because of a very particular alignment with gravitational lensing. So, quite exceptional. Tone 08:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/JWST_Telescope_alignment_evaluation_image_labeled.jpg/220px-JWST_Telescope_alignment_evaluation_image_labeled.jpg)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- Oppose Article is not lengthy enough; also, at this point in time, 'furthest known' essentially means 'until we find another further one', which doesn't really feel "in the news". Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
OpposeWait – A 220-word stub, of which 60 are devoted to its name and "astrophysical implications." Scant RS coverage. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)- Strong Support, major news and coverage. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- 'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Banedon (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Not a stub anymore. Reliable sources (as one would expect for a scientific subject). Grimes2 (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think the lenght now is passable. I'll wait for @Drbogdan: to remove the "working" tag first, though. Ping me when ready. --Tone 14:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Article now weighs in at 248 words, of which 60 go to name and "astrophysical implications," leaving 180 words of description. Still stub territory. Also note that NASA says further details "are forthcoming." – Sca (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Length looks good now. Article is referenced as well Sherenk1 (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Done - @Tone: and others - rm {{under construction}} template - WHL0137-LS article now seems ok afaik - at least for starters - more later of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posting. I think all key findings are now in the article, without getting too technical. I'll go with the name, not the designation, because it just looks prettier. --Tone 15:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Still looks like a rush job. Currently the blurb and lead say that it's an "individual star" while the body says that this remains to be determined by the James Webb telescope. It's the usual process of hype in which a discovery is given the interpretation most likely to garner headlines. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Pull per Andrew - After going through the article - it looks more like a RD standard than an ITN standard. Many support !votes are also not standard (e.g. "major news and coverage", "this is major news", or straight up nothing at all.) I would suggest Pulling and continuing consensus. As far as I am aware, WP !votes are not meant to be a numbers game - it is a general consensus amongst editors. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Pull as summed up by two posts above. The blurb is questionable and the article is barely more than a stub still. We are allowed to wait more than 12 hours before posting something... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- How very presumptuous of a mere adjective. – Sca (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Post-posting support Article is short, but sufficiently covers what is known about the star and its discovery, without getting excessive technical. --Jayron32 18:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support While the article is short, it is comprehensive relative to what is currently known. Jehochman Talk 18:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Post-Posting Exclamation Cool! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Post-Posting Exclamation sufficiently covers the star and its discovery. Alex-h (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Post-Posting Exclamation Love to see science on ITN! Davey2116 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Ernie Carroll
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald, News.com.au
Credits:
- Nominated by Fakescientist8000 (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support Big news. Article is in good shape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Tom Parker
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Fabulousbargains (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support Sourced. Quality sufficient. Grimes2 (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Short but well sourced. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) MONUSCO helicopter crash
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.
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:
- Nominated by Elminster Aumar (talk · give credit)
- Oppose we general do not post military crashes with those killed in the line of duty. --Masem (t) 14:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose because it isn't important enough for ITN. Even if proven to be a shootdown, its death toll is in single figures & all those killed were military personnel on duty, doing an inherently dangerous job. Jim Michael (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on Quality Beyond notability concerns, which could be arguable, the article is VERY light at the moment and includes mostly empty sections. The article will need to be improved before we can even debate notability and impact. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per previous posts. Article narrative text is a 145-word stub, plus 90 words of background & reax. – Sca (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per above Oppose !votes. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
March 29
March 29, 2022
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
|
RD: Joyce Fairbairn
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Calgary Herald
Credits:
- Updated by Michael Drew (talk · give credit) and Connormah (talk · give credit)
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)
(Posted) RD: Sara Suleri Goodyear
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT obit
Credits:
- Nominated by GhostRiver (talk · give credit)
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)
- Stale – death on March 20 was actually announced two days later by Yale University and The Times of India (both being reliable sources). Move to close the nom as stale. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- If we are going with March 22 as the reported date then that's still within the 7 day window, at least for a few hours? The article looks fine, quality wise. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 01:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
March 28
March 28, 2022
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Serhiy Kot
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): istpravda.com.ua
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
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)
- Comment One cn tag added. Grimes2 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I found a ref for it, and five other facts on the way, because I can't really search in a language with different character set. There are about ten more facts in the same ref, - still hoping for a native speaker. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support No issues, minimum requirements. Grimes2 (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Grimes2. Nothing big, but good enough. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 02:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Jeff Carson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Not Bigfoot (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TenPoundHammer (talk · give credit) and Grimes2 (talk · give credit)
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)
Not readySeveral cn. Can't find ref for I Fly Proud. Recommend delete. Discography needs some sources. Grimes2 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Mostly
Done Grimes2 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support Mostly
Opposearticle contains blatant copyvio: the image is not freely licenced at all. We shouldn't post articles with any copyvios in them, which includes copyvio images. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Fixed Image removed by Stephen and biography section is cleaned now. Grimes2 (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article is cited and the copyvio image has been removed. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support looks fine now, marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support All issues with the article have now been fixed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Eugene Melnyk
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TSN, Ottawa Senators
Credits:
- Nominated by The Kip (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support. RoyalObserver (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @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)
Not readyRemoved dead refs and added 2 cn, otherwise refs ok. Size ok. Grimes2 (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support cn's
Fixed. ok. Grimes2 (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support cn's
- Still has cn tags. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Seems all have been fixed. The Kip (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Alex-h (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: One more CN tag, then this should be good to go. cc: The Kip SpencerT•C 01:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Fixed remaining CN tags, should be ready to go now. Article could be more comprehensive, but it should meet RD standards. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
March 27
March 27, 2022
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Martin Pope
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support in principle, Strong Oppose per quality The article NEEDS citations. It's a very big shame that such an important man has an article of such poor quality. :( Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:56 (UTC)
- All RDs are support in principle.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The bullet list formatting looks like a CV. It should be converted to prose. Joofjoof (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) 94th Academy Awards
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.
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:
- Nominated by Sdkb (talk · give credit)
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.
- 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)
- Absolutely not. That's a minor controversy, if it was a controversy. --Masem (t) 03:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Absolutely not. That's a minor controversy, if it was a controversy. --Masem (t) 03:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- A note on the first blurb, given that Dune won 6 awards, it seems odd to call out CODA (which is an initialism so that's the proper style)'s 3 wins. If one of those was for best director, sure, we've done in the past. --Masem (t) 03:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- We could tack on
, and Dune wins six.
Only a few extra words. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- We could tack on
- Adding alt2 based on the Deadline article, the first time a film from a streaming service (Apple TV, Netflix, etc.) won Best Picture. --Masem (t) 04:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Good suggestion. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support blurb 1 (or blurb 3 if it specifies that CODA wasn't made by a streaming service) - Technically CODA wasn't produced by a streaming service. It was distributed by a streaming service. Tube·of·Light 04:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- The sources that are calling CODA the first win for a streaming service are not appearing to make that distinction. In fact, in considering when they look at studio win counts, they are looking at distributor, not production side. --Masem (t) 12:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- 2019 comment In 2019, the Best Picture (Green Book) was blurbed along with the movie with most awards (Bohemian Rhapsody), while the best actor was pictured (Malek from Bohemian).[2]—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Added similar as ALTIII.—Bagumba (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Blurb 3 with additonal mention of Will Smith's best actor win/incident with Chris Rock, as it is appearing to overshadow the rest of the event. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support altblurb 3. I think it's important to mention the film that won the most awards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posting alt3. Dune won six, not four. --Tone 07:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Image? Should there be an image for the blurb? We could put CODA writer and director Sian Heder, except she didn't win Best Director. Or CODA's Troy Kotsur for Best Supporting Actor? I'm not sure who would be posted for Dune, as it didn't win the more prominent awards like best actor/actress/director. Or no image?—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- No image seems better to me, as there's not a clearly, directly relevant image for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- If we go with an image, Troy Kotsur is a good choice, this time the distribution of awards was rather interesting. Tone 09:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- No image seems better to me, as there's not a clearly, directly relevant image for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I agree, this is not something to mention in the ITN box. Tone 12:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm currently listening to an extensive item about this on the BBC's World at One. This is what's in the news, not CODA or Dune. See also WP:NOTCENSORED. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Las Tinajas massacre
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:
- Nominated by Sheila1988 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Jim Michael (talk · give credit)
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)
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)
- Weak Oppose for now. Article is not comprehensive enough, barely contains more information than the blurb would. Needs additional expansion. --Jayron32 17:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- What specifically is missing from it? Jim Michael (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per quality. This doesn't feel ITN ready. There's just so little meat in the article that it's basically bare bones. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com]
rather than using <ref></ref>
tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref>
tags are being used, here are their contents: