Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions
→RD: Bill Davis: update comment actually |
JMonkey2006 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
*:Your last three !votes on ITN have all been [[WP:NOTFORUM]] violations. Stop it. '''[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 00:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC) |
*:Your last three !votes on ITN have all been [[WP:NOTFORUM]] violations. Stop it. '''[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 00:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC) |
||
*:{{ec}} I mean, the blurb just says the report was published, that's already happened. Your crystal ball work in reverse? On to the reason: wow, you have no idea what you're on about, do you? If this particular group of scientists can't be trusted then the moon could be made of cheese. There's skepticism and then there's choosing to push anything that goes against status quo, and you're doing the latter: look at the sources about news rather than blanket oppose because you personally don't like the subject the news deals with. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk:Kingsif|talk]]) 00:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC) |
*:{{ec}} I mean, the blurb just says the report was published, that's already happened. Your crystal ball work in reverse? On to the reason: wow, you have no idea what you're on about, do you? If this particular group of scientists can't be trusted then the moon could be made of cheese. There's skepticism and then there's choosing to push anything that goes against status quo, and you're doing the latter: look at the sources about news rather than blanket oppose because you personally don't like the subject the news deals with. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk:Kingsif|talk]]) 00:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC) |
||
*'''Post-posting support'''* This has continued to be widely covered in the media. There is no need to remove it. [[User:JMonkey2006|JMonkey2006]] ([[User talk:JMonkey2006|talk]]) 00:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== August 8 == |
== August 8 == |
Revision as of 00:48, 10 August 2021
Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
In the news toolbox |
---|
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
August 10
August 10, 2021
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
August 9
August 9, 2021
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
RD: Bob Jenkins
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): IndyStar
Credits:
- Nominated by Rawmustard (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: IndyCar and NASCAR lap-by-lap announcer. There's several things needing citations. rawmustard (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) IPCC say global warming can be stopped
Blurb: The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report says that, if greenhouse gas emissions are halved by 2030 and net zero by 2050, global warming can be stopped. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report says that if immediate action is taken to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050, climate change can be halted.
Alternative blurb II: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report, arguing that greenhouse gas emissions must be halved by 2030.
Alternative blurb III: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report, saying that quickly cutting methane emissions would help limit climate change.
Alternative blurb IV: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report, saying that the world is at its hottest for
Alternative blurb V: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report, saying that the world is at its hottest for
Alternative blurb VI: The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report finds that global warming can stop intensifying at x°C if net greenhouse gas emissions are halved by 2030 and reach zero by 2050.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Reuters, dpa, WaPo, LA Times, NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by Chidgk1 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Comment. Without actually opposing this, this is just a report detailing a possible outcome if certain things occur; sounds like a lot of WP:CRYSTAL to me. Lots of groups have predictions or projections related to climate change, why should this one be given more weight? 331dot (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- good question - answer is because it is a consensus and has been approved by governments Chidgk1 (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Governments do not have to approve UN reports; this is a consensus of those writing the report. There are many reports and predictions out there. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- You are right there are many reports - but for climate change the IPCC ones are by far the most important. The governments approve the summary of each report. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- 331dot now that alternative blurbs have been suggested which are not projections can you support any of them? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- You are right there are many reports - but for climate change the IPCC ones are by far the most important. The governments approve the summary of each report. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Governments do not have to approve UN reports; this is a consensus of those writing the report. There are many reports and predictions out there. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- good question - answer is because it is a consensus and has been approved by governments Chidgk1 (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose looks more like a WP:CRYSTAL prediction for me, which the event either can be happen or not happen. 36.69.55.6 (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am sure there are lots of possible blurbs - I just fancied an optimistic one - please suggest alt blurbs - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's going to happen. WaltCip-(talk) 10:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support - this is a major report, already top of news broadcasts in Europe (understandable, perhaps, given Wildfires in southern Turkey and Greece, recent flooding across Germany and Belgium, etc.) However, I would reformulate the proposed headline, which IMO misses the point, namely that major actions are needed in the next two years or we will not be able to stop climate change. (And it's climate change rather than global warming). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have not managed to download it yet so I am not sure it does say we can stop climate change. But everyone please suggest alternative blurbs. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality article is a stub. If it's that important to be ITN-worthy, there must be much more that can be said about it. Rather than the one line of text suggested for this blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am sure a lot more will be added over the course of the week once the IPCC website manages to cope with the load of people downloading the report. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have added more so have rerated "start class" Chidgk1 (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Joseph2302 Now someone else has improved my version can you support one or more blurbs? If not is there another improvement I can make?Chidgk1 (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have added more so have rerated "start class" Chidgk1 (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am sure a lot more will be added over the course of the week once the IPCC website manages to cope with the load of people downloading the report. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'd propose an alternative blurb, somewhat like: The IPCC releases its Sixth Assessment Report, urging the nations to halve the greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. --Tone 09:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am sure any blurb you guys agree is fine by me. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that, or we'll end up with just "The IPCC releases its Sixth Assessment Report" without any details. WaltCip-(talk) 11:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I retract - I too now see the flaw in altblurb2 so do not support that one. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that, or we'll end up with just "The IPCC releases its Sixth Assessment Report" without any details. WaltCip-(talk) 11:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am sure any blurb you guys agree is fine by me. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Tone's blurb or something along those lines. Make no mistake that this is of incommensurable importance.--WaltCip-(talk) 10:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- And as per below, I'll get behind altblurb2 at this point. WaltCip-(talk) 12:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support
in principle, wait for article content.The article is extremely short and needs at least a couple of paragraphs on what the report actually says.The blurb should be short and neutral - I've added alt2. Modest Genius talk 11:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Now have 2 paras on report content - hope that is enough to start with - expansion continues. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Much better now, striking my length concerns. Modest Genius talk 15:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Alt2 looks good to me, better than my own one. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Now have 2 paras on report content - hope that is enough to start with - expansion continues. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Monday's lead story on most Eng.-lang. RS sites. – Sca (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support either of the first blurbs. The last one is at odds with the role of the IPCC: they don't advice on policy, just on science. They don't argue it must be halved by 2030, but that halving it is in line with internationally agreed warming targets. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Obviously she means she does not support altblurb2 as I have now added a new last one. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Given the infrequencies of the IPCCs, I would support posting something about it, but I disgree with the blurb's focus on future action since this has been a message of all prior IPCCs for the most part. I would instead focus on actual findings, such as the average global temperature rsing ~1 degC higher in the last decade. --Masem (t) 13:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Don't you find that a bit depressing, whereas actions are more likely to cheer readers? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- As others have pointed out, the current blurbs focus on CRYSTAL factors, whereas ITN tends to be grounded in what actually happened. Yes, its more depressing, but its also what is been proven true. Again, I support posting something about IPCC as each iteration has been important. Now, that said, you can work in something like both. "The 6th IPCC reports that the Earth's average global temperature rose 1 degC in the last decade, but asserts climate change can still be halted." --Masem (t) 13:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK have added another alt - that is probably enough from me Chidgk1 (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oh maybe passed blurb limit or I did something wrong as not showing up - anyway you can see by source editing.Chidgk1 (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK have added another alt - that is probably enough from me Chidgk1 (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- As others have pointed out, the current blurbs focus on CRYSTAL factors, whereas ITN tends to be grounded in what actually happened. Yes, its more depressing, but its also what is been proven true. Again, I support posting something about IPCC as each iteration has been important. Now, that said, you can work in something like both. "The 6th IPCC reports that the Earth's average global temperature rose 1 degC in the last decade, but asserts climate change can still be halted." --Masem (t) 13:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Don't you find that a bit depressing, whereas actions are more likely to cheer readers? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support the original blurb most, but support any blurb except altblurb2 Chidgk1 (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- If you're going to put it can be stopped on shouldn't it be worded to make clear that you're still stuck at whatever level it eventually stops at (somewhat above the 2050 level) and it'll take thousands of years to reverse back to normal? Unless the carbon already released is removed by something that doesn't seem to be inventable any time soon or you wait a few thousand years for it to go from air to carbonate seafloor rocks. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have probably suggested enough blurbs - feel free to suggest one yourself or support one or moreChidgk1 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report finds that global warming can stop intensifying at 2 (1.5?)°C if net greenhouse gas emissions are halved by 2030 and reach zero by 2050.? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have probably suggested enough blurbs - feel free to suggest one yourself or support one or moreChidgk1 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support-- I am strongly opposed to altblurb2 -- there is no argument to be had here -- its the global consensus, we should be focused on the action required. Sadads (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- What should be isn't a criterion for news value or impact. We're not crusaders here. – Sca (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support, the release of the report itself is global, headline news. The article may just about be passable now. I don't think we need analysis in the blurb: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report would be adequate by itself. Alternatively The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report detailing the current state of global warming and projections of its future development. --LukeSurl t c 14:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL cautions against making predictions of the future in articles, it does not prohibit discussing notable predictions so long as they are clearly discussed in context - which the target article here clearly does. --LukeSurl t c 14:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL; also, some (though admittedly not all) supports are RGWy, contrary to our purpose and spirit as encyclopedic. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support – On significance. Suggest Alt5: "The Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC declares that Earth is the hottest it's been in 125,000 years." – Sca (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as WP:CRYSTAL with elements of WP:RGW. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support This report is in the news, that's not CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the disagreement is about the report's issuance itself. That's clearly in the news. Its just the focus of the blurb on what is definitely a CRYSTAL prediction, which really doesn't work as ITN items based on past nominations. Just having a blurb that issues a statement of the situation tied to the IPCC is sufficient to avoid this problem and cover the story. The article on the 6th IPCC obviously can talk to this prediction, just that it doesn't work well for ITN blurbs. --Masem (t) 14:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Masem, when top climate scientists issue a report like this, I don't interpret anything that they say as CRYSTAL. I take it as foreknowledge. Posted hook is fine by me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree the hook is a good compromise, but the issue is that we still need to be careful on putting too much weight on forward-thinking steps. Someone brought up RGW and that along with the "if" nature of the statement makes any blurb that said , to an extent "if we took steps now, we can stop climate change" as a bit of scaremongering, which is a bit beyond neutral for ITN. However, a neutral assessment was found with the blurb, noting the changes and that actions to prevent further change have been proposed. --Masem (t) 16:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Masem, when top climate scientists issue a report like this, I don't interpret anything that they say as CRYSTAL. I take it as foreknowledge. Posted hook is fine by me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the disagreement is about the report's issuance itself. That's clearly in the news. Its just the focus of the blurb on what is definitely a CRYSTAL prediction, which really doesn't work as ITN items based on past nominations. Just having a blurb that issues a statement of the situation tied to the IPCC is sufficient to avoid this problem and cover the story. The article on the 6th IPCC obviously can talk to this prediction, just that it doesn't work well for ITN blurbs. --Masem (t) 14:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, the data for the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) is released under a CC license, just not the figures themselves - data is located here [1]. Figure SPM.1(b) is the nice telling image of showing the effect of anthropogenic change on temperature and likely could be recreated to use as a figure/image here. --Masem (t) 14:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think a graph makes a good image, both for readability purposes as well as simply because data doesn't belong as an image on the Main page (except maybe for DYK). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Unbelievable - I can't understand the argument that this is WP:CRYSTAL. These are scientists who have made this their life's work and have come out and said, with all credentials and conviction behind them, that this is what is going to happen. What are you waiting for? Someone to take out a thermometer 10 years from now and say "yep, it got 1.5 degrees hotter"?--WaltCip-(talk) 15:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed. The report is what it is. Whether anyone here agrees with it is totally irrelevant. It's majorly in the news and should go into the box pronto. Period. – Sca (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, this is nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL. For a start, much of the report is organising and synthesising measurements that have already been made. The modelling work is explicitly clear on the range of possible outcomes and where the uncertainties lie. This isn't speculation about the future, it's the most authoritative statement for 8 years (since the previous IPCC report) on what is currently known about climate change . Modest Genius talk 16:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The Czechs have gone for a long one:
Mezivládní panel pro změnu klimatu vydal první část své nové hodnotící zprávy. Uvádí v ní, že lidská činnost prokazatelně způsobila nárůst teploty na Zemi a vedla k menší stabilitě celé planety.
which apparently means:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued the first part of its new assessment report, which states that human activity has demonstrably caused an increase in temperature on Earth and destabilised the entire planet. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support, but I find the blurb misleading. I read the news differently than what the blurb suggests. We cannot avoid global warming, it's too late for that. What is possible is to avoid truly catastrophic climate change if we are able to cut CO2 emissions as mentioned in the blurb. See here: "The new report also makes clear that the warming we've experienced to date has made changes to many of our planetary support systems that are irreversible on timescales of centuries to millennia. The oceans will continue to warm and become more acidic. Mountain and polar glaciers will continue melting for decades or centuries. "The consequences will continue to get worse for every bit of warming," said Prof Hawkins. "And for many of these consequences, there's no going back."" So, it's like the case of a patient who ignored doctor's advice to stay healthy for too long and now has to undergo quite intrusive medical procedures just to save his life. So, the best prognosis for the patient assuming successful medical treatment is that at he'll survive but in a poorer health condition. Count Iblis (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support blurb, Alternative blurb or Alternative blurb II--PJ Geest (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted There appears to be strong consensus for posting this; all of the proposed blurbs, however, seemed rather unencyclopedic for the Main page so I decided to go with one that was more generic, neutral, and hopefully not placing any undue weight on certain sections/findings. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- @John M Wolfson: Good call. I'm happy with the posted blurb. Modest Genius talk 16:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I feel the blurb somewhat misrepresents the report, as this report has been very clear in not framing climate change as a future event but as a current event. We can simplify as "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of its Sixth Assessment Report, detailing the state of knowledge of climate change and describing its effects." FemkeMilene (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- @John M Wolfson: Good call. I'm happy with the posted blurb. Modest Genius talk 16:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment – The blurb strikes me as rather complex. Suggest we shorten and simplify, perhaps as:
- "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of its Sixth Assessment Report, detailing the state of climate change and describing its possible future effects."
– Sca (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Alternative blurb IV, with a typo correction (change "for" to "in"). Alternative II implies that the IPCC is an advocacy organization. Alternative III gives undue weight to methane rather than carbon dioxide. The main blurb and Alternative I say that climate change can be stopped, which is technically correct but probably misleading for the general reader since we are definitely going to get at another approximately .4 degrees of warming. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Do you think blurb IV is better than the currently posted one about possible future effects / the proposed simplification(s). FemkeMilene (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think the current blurb is fine as is, which is why I refused to post any of the originally-propsed blurbs. Alt IV gives undue weight to a specific finding and is borderline alarmist. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think the current blurb is mostly fine and I do understand that other blurbs may have been unduely highlighting some of the findings. This is sort of what the current blurb does too, by only highlighting possible future effect rather than current effects and known future effects. Why not simplify to 'effects'? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, I didn't notice that something had already been posted. The current blurb looks great, better than Alt IV. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Post-posting oppose The complete lack of agreement on what blurb should be used demonstrates the reason why this shouldn't be blurbed. A semi-regular report was released. It doesn't tell us anything new, and doesn't suggest anything new that will happen in the future. For one brief glorious moment, a bunch of academics got a boost to their publication stats. Everyone else will see what they want to see for a day, and move on. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Have you noticed whether it's in the NEWS? – Sca (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- IPCC reports are rare, the top of the field on climate reports and state of the art, they have to be posted, even if no one can agree on a blurb and it has to default to "the report was released". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment So the blurb is essentially a panel on climate change releases a report on climate change. Great work everyone. Stephen 22:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, the final result was a very milquetoast blurb. I'm not very pleased with it. We could have gone with a blurb that succinctly summarized the report and its findings, and that would have been damn well interesting for readers. But Wikipedia is allergic to such bold machinations in the fear that it may fly in the face of WP:NPOV, WP:RGW, WP:NOTADVOCACY, etc.. So we're left with something that basically leaves the average reader questioning what the heck is newsworthy about some stuffy folks in labcoats writing a report about the weather. WaltCip-(talk) 22:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- You're damn right, and especially with such a controversial/politically fraught topic I highly doubt anything else would have flown, certainly none of seven(!) originally proposed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Only controversial in my country full of flat Earthers, Fauci haters, graphene oxide/microscopic tracking chip COVID vaccineists, moon hoaxers, 9/11 truthers, Jewish space lasers and other conspiracy theorists. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Don't forget Canadian brainwave meddling, "we" invented Global Research (the website, not the discipline or way of life). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Only controversial in my country full of flat Earthers, Fauci haters, graphene oxide/microscopic tracking chip COVID vaccineists, moon hoaxers, 9/11 truthers, Jewish space lasers and other conspiracy theorists. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Post-posting oppose WP:CRYSTAL . Given how politically engaged climate science has become in the West, I wouldn't trust this report either. 212.74.201.233 (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Your last three !votes on ITN have all been WP:NOTFORUM violations. Stop it. WaltCip-(talk) 00:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I mean, the blurb just says the report was published, that's already happened. Your crystal ball work in reverse? On to the reason: wow, you have no idea what you're on about, do you? If this particular group of scientists can't be trusted then the moon could be made of cheese. There's skepticism and then there's choosing to push anything that goes against status quo, and you're doing the latter: look at the sources about news rather than blanket oppose because you personally don't like the subject the news deals with. Kingsif (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Post-posting support* This has continued to be widely covered in the media. There is no need to remove it. JMonkey2006 (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
August 8
August 8, 2021
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Najma Chowdhury
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Daily Star (Bangladesh)
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Afifa Afrin (talk · give credit) and Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
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: Bangladeshi Academic. Article is almost there, will require some touches before it can go to homepage / RD. I will work on it later tonight. In case someone wants to get to it before me, please feel free to do so. Edits completed. Article has shaped into a decent C-class biography. Meets hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Jane Withers
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
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 has Good Article status and has been updated. Her death was announced today. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support GA, marking ready. SpencerT•C 02:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Just because something is a GA, doesn't mean it's automatically eligible. The filmography is largely unreferenced at present. — Amakuru (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
RD: Bill Davis
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Floydian (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
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: Premier of Ontario from 1971 to 1985. Article needs significant referencing, but hopefully this will get it some attention. Floydian τ ¢ 16:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment multiple sections lacking in sourcing- which is a shame, as the first half of the article has good sourcing. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Almost the entire article could be sourced to the Steve Paikan book I've been using for the first few sections. Unfortunately the Google books preview only goes up to page 93, so I'm hoping someone might have digital access to a copy. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
RD: Bobby Bowden
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (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.
– Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not seeing sourcing for all that info in the "Head Coaching Record" section at the moment. And "The Bowden Bowl" seems misplaced as a subsection of "Personal life", as it's still related to this football career. Other than that, the article looks good. — Amakuru (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Amakuru, sort of fixed. Sports Reference doesn't include his coaching at Howard or South Georgia State for whatever reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: OK, I think I've sourced the other bits. Good to go now, Support. CHeers — Amakuru (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Amakuru, sort of fixed. Sports Reference doesn't include his coaching at Howard or South Georgia State for whatever reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Taliban capture city of Kunduz
Blurb: Taliban members capture the Afghan city of Kunduz as part of the 2021 Taliban offensive (Post)
Alternative blurb: Islamist Taliban rebels seize Kunduz and four other provincial capitals in northern Afghanistan.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Reuters, Al Jazeera
Credits:
- Nominated by Count Iblis (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Count Iblis (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Maybe a cropped version of File:Afghan government forces in Jowzjan Province during 2021 Taliban offensive.png could also be used as an image? — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support article good enough. Kingsif (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - but would like an improved blub, it doesn't really explain unless you know the contents. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- updated the blurb a bit — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support – if fully updated. Favor Alt1, offered above. Provincial capitals captured include Sar-e-Pul, Sheberghan, Zaranj and Taloqan. – Sca (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- PS: The pic. suggested above doesn't grab me. – Sca (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Sca maybe File:Afghan National Army in combat during 2021 offensive 1.png cropped? — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Somewhat better. Could be cropped a bit. But are there any pix of the Tollyband doing their violent thing? – Sca (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Sca maybe File:Afghan National Army in combat during 2021 offensive 1.png cropped? — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- PS: The pic. suggested above doesn't grab me. – Sca (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose there has been this relentless effort to post the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan. Kunduz is a regional capital 100s of KMs away from Kabul and the media hysteria doesn't make it any less inevitable since Trump surrendered to the Taliban last year. When they take Kabul and assassinate Ghani it'll be time to post. Not now. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Kabul is definitely looking to be the last American stronghold, so I'd support a blurb then. But in a closing ceremony, remove from Ongoing sense. Not because American news likes Kabul better than Kandahar. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- When they take Kabul - what if they never do? Never post also? Banedon (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- If they don't, they've either been defeated or made peace, both blurbable endings. If it turns into another stalemate, we can quietly remove it from Ongoing. But it sure doesn't end here and now, big moment or not, so your vote confuses me. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- When they take Kabul - what if they never do? Never post also? Banedon (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Kabul is definitely looking to be the last American stronghold, so I'd support a blurb then. But in a closing ceremony, remove from Ongoing sense. Not because American news likes Kabul better than Kandahar. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support If a militia captured Miami after taking over several states in just a few days we wouldn't be thinking twice about posting. Just because it's Afghanistan doesn't make it less relevant. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- It does a little bit, in the sense that there has been war there for 20 years so it's not comparable to a non-conflict zone effort of the same size. But I still think this is big enough news to overcome that. Kingsif (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Covered in Ongoing. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose it's already covered in the ongoing section. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I thought the understanding was that items would move out of ongoing when a truly blurb-worthy development occurred, and then moved back. That's what happened with Venezuela last year. Kingsif (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Extraordinary developments can stand alone. But continually taking back territory is the meat and potatoes of this ongoing story. It'd be like saying four cities (or countries) succumbed to COVID complications, during that overall lengthy drama. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Conditionally support AltBlurb The capture of these provincial capitals seems like a significant development. However, the capture of the capitals should be in the article’s intro. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Blurb and remove from ongoing - a notable development. Banedon (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb Major development and article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wait per the previous nominations. I think we should wait until the Taliban capture either Kandahar city or Kabul. It's just a matter of time, so better to wait until the more significant fall of one of those two largest cities (Kunduz is the sixth largest in Afghanistan). Modest Genius talk 11:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Sixth provincial capital, Aibak, seized. [2] BBC headline: "How the Taliban retook half of Afghanistan" [3] Wide coverage. [4] – Sca (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. This story is in Ongoing already, and the whole point of Ongoing is that we don't blurb the individual developments. If they take Kabul, then I'll think differently, but we're not going to blurb all the provincial capitals one by one. — Amakuru (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Amakuru.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
2021 Lithuanian migrant crisis
Blurb: Thousands of migrants surge into the EU from Belarus amidst the 2021 Lithuanian migrant crisis. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Illegal crossings of the Belarus-Lithuania border surge due to the 2021 Lithuanian migrant crisis.
Alternative blurb II: Lithuania is facing a surge of illegal migrants from Belarus as part of the 2021 Lithuanian migrant crisis
News source(s): The Washington Post The Independent Reuters The New York Times BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Mindaur (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: I included the blurb as IMO this certainly deserves to be in the news, but I also propose to consider this item as ongoing. This topic has been appearing in the international news since early July. In addition to the sources listed in the proposal (a few latest and couple older), you can find more in the references of the article or just by searching the news. Also, unfortunately I could not provide a better associative image. There are plenty of good photos in the media showing the events more "in-action", but I couldn't find any free/non-copyrighted which we could upload to Wikimedia. Mindaur (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Is it just Lithuania? Poland says they've been sent migrants from Belarus as retribution for supporting Krystsina Tsimanouskaya. Anyway, the blurb feels back-heavy to me but I can't think of a way to rephrase it? Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think for now it's fair/representative to keep the title as is: the number of illegal crossing to Lithuania is over 4000 in the recent months, while Latvia and Poland reported only dozens, so it's not (yet) a significant increase. However, the situation is still developing and if there will be substantial numbers of migrants reported by other countries, then we will have to re-think the title.. but I think we are just not quite there yet. --Mindaur (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Poland reported only dozens
- over 500, but not a good argument anyway (see below). Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think for now it's fair/representative to keep the title as is: the number of illegal crossing to Lithuania is over 4000 in the recent months, while Latvia and Poland reported only dozens, so it's not (yet) a significant increase. However, the situation is still developing and if there will be substantial numbers of migrants reported by other countries, then we will have to re-think the title.. but I think we are just not quite there yet. --Mindaur (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Should include a section on migrants fleeing Belarus for Poland. – Sca (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- The article contains a section about Poland. I just added a reference with some numbers, but as per my comment above -- they still seem to be significantly below the crossings into Lithuania. --Mindaur (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Reply here also for above: if you want to look at this in terms of absolute numbers, Lithuania's are low compared to other migration and it won't get posted. The story that's in the news, and relevant here, is that the increase (%age) in migrants is an unprecedented surge, and is caused by deteriorating relations with Lukashenko. And the same is also true for Poland. IMO neither or both. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, as I said elsehwere -- it's not about the absolute numbers. It's about an unprecedented state-sponsored human trafficking. I am not very creative with blurbs, but I can propose more alternatives; feel free to beat me on this. --Mindaur (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Reply here also for above: if you want to look at this in terms of absolute numbers, Lithuania's are low compared to other migration and it won't get posted. The story that's in the news, and relevant here, is that the increase (%age) in migrants is an unprecedented surge, and is caused by deteriorating relations with Lukashenko. And the same is also true for Poland. IMO neither or both. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- The article contains a section about Poland. I just added a reference with some numbers, but as per my comment above -- they still seem to be significantly below the crossings into Lithuania. --Mindaur (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Do you even understand how many migrants cross the US-Mexican border every well? How many travel through the mediterrenean every month? Hint: way more than did on this small stretch of Belarussian-lithuanian border 212.74.201.233 (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Been going on for years. Belarus is a current political crisis. – Sca (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Irrelevant; your comment seems to be a case of whataboutism. --Mindaur (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've never ever seen an intelligent person accuse others of whataboutism. Probably because invoking it is in and on itself a logical fallacy. Changing my vote to oppose 212.74.201.233 (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure an oppose doesn't count if it's made because you don't like the fact someone said the word "whataboutism". Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose If it were Belarusians fleeing for Lithuania it might be interesting (the article is a mess though) but it's mostly Iraqis and no one should be surprised that Iraqis are fleeing Iraq. Also, 4000 people in 2021 ... that's basically a weekend on the US-Mexican border. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- The article certainly needs improvements, but did you actually read it? You are comparing very different things: borders and populations of different scale and very different nature of the event. The significance of the article is not the absolute number of the illegal crossings, but the nature of the crisis i.e. it's effectively a state-sponsored human trafficking and a geopolitical/diplomatic conflict. If we have a news item about the Krystsina Tsimanouskaya's humanitarian visa, then I really fail to see how is this less significant? --Mindaur (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sure did, I mean except for the meaningless wall of reactions. Terrible background section that has nothing to do with refugees. The claim that illegal immigration was "weaponized" is actually tagged "citation needed". Seems like your standard "Lukashenko bad" WP:SYNTH disaster article about an issue that's been affecting Europe in one way or another since the invasion of Iraq and the creation of ISIL. In other words, literally nothing at all to see here. Don't worry, it'll be posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- So, improve it. The background section contains two references about the election fraud (and if you need more, there is 2020 Belarusian presidential election with loads of references), but you tagged it in the next section. The "weaponization" claim is referenced in that sentence; moreover, there is another reference in the lead section and more in other paragraphs. It's not WP:SYNTH, it's based on what the referenced articles state, so the events in the backround have a great deal to do with the migrants/refugees. Do we need to improve the narrative and clean it up? Sure. I didn't create the article, by the way, but I am trying to clean it up. Meanwhile, your arguments don't have any substance: "meaningless wall of reactions", "terrible background", "standard 'Lukashenko bad'", false analogies (as already explained by multiple other comments here) -- it's all WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. It's not constructive. --Mindaur (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sure did, I mean except for the meaningless wall of reactions. Terrible background section that has nothing to do with refugees. The claim that illegal immigration was "weaponized" is actually tagged "citation needed". Seems like your standard "Lukashenko bad" WP:SYNTH disaster article about an issue that's been affecting Europe in one way or another since the invasion of Iraq and the creation of ISIL. In other words, literally nothing at all to see here. Don't worry, it'll be posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment and reply Seconded the above, absolutely incomparable. By that logic you'd have to mention the Greek, Maltese, Spanish, UK and Italian migrant crises and routes, except this is a whole completely different scenario and different geo-political impact. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Belarus is shipping in Iraqis, keeping them in horrible conditions, then sending them across the border to countries without good migrant support infrastructure as a political weapon. "Be nice to us or we'll create a strain on your resources, and you'll feel bad because it's human lives". Quite a different situation, and I actually hadn't noticed it had got so bad in Lithuania. Kingsif (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- The article certainly needs improvements, but did you actually read it? You are comparing very different things: borders and populations of different scale and very different nature of the event. The significance of the article is not the absolute number of the illegal crossings, but the nature of the crisis i.e. it's effectively a state-sponsored human trafficking and a geopolitical/diplomatic conflict. If we have a news item about the Krystsina Tsimanouskaya's humanitarian visa, then I really fail to see how is this less significant? --Mindaur (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support ongoing There's no point comparing this to US-Mexico border. The population of Lithuania is similar to that of New Mexico alone, Belarus has less than 7.5% of the Mexican population and the border is only a few kilometers long in comparison. Different situation, different politics, different migrants etc. and this is a new unique development. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support article appears to be well-cited and the story appears to be relevant to global events. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – "Poland reports record number of migrants at Belarusian border." [5] – Sca (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I raise you "Biden imposes sanctions against Belarus' Lukashenko regime" [6] Kingsif (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Actually they are not Belarusian migrants. It's just another human trafficking route to the EU. Nothing unusual here. STSC (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
2020 Summer Olympics closing ceremony
Blurb: The Summer Olympics close in Tokyo, Japan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Summer Olympics close in Tokyo, Japan, with the United States taking home the most gold and total medals.
Alternative blurb II: The Summer Olympics close in Tokyo, Japan, with the United States winning the most gold and total medals.
Credits:
- Nominated by ActuallyNeverHappened02 (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: a la the opening ceremony; in half an hour (again); will definitely need to be updated but after that I think we can post it ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 13:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC) | Alt blurb added by {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support and remove as ongoing the 2020 Summer Olympics is officially close, so it means the article does not longer necessary to continue as ongoing. 180.242.42.147 (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality until "Dignitaries in attendance" and "Anthems" section are either sourced or removed (article is good enough for ITN without them). Definitely removed from ongoing, as the event has finished. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think I fixed the sourcing issue in the dignitaries and anthems sections, so that should be fine now! ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 19:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like a tonne of unsourced content has been added now, so cannot currently support (although I would support it all being removed, as per WP:VERIFY). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I tried to fix most of it, so most prose should be cited now ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 19:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like a tonne of unsourced content has been added now, so cannot currently support (although I would support it all being removed, as per WP:VERIFY). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think I fixed the sourcing issue in the dignitaries and anthems sections, so that should be fine now! ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 19:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support and remove as ongoing The olympics are not going anymore.Pyramids09 (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Blurb. Support removal from ongoing. Nice work @ActuallyNeverHappened02:. There is one more [citation needed] tag remaining in the lede and two more in the Antwerp Ceremony section. Article is good for WP:ITN once those are removed. Ktin (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think I've fixed the citation issue now, the cited prose has either been removed or replaced :) ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 20:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Question, will this still be news tomorrow? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Whether it is or not, it was in the news when it occurred, and as it is ITNR it will be posted when quality is there(it isn't yet). You are free to propose the removal of the closing ceremony from ITNR if you desire. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, this is how ITN words. Maybe I'll propose changing the title to "What was in the news". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Weak support ITNR so only quality is a consideration and I see a couple of [citation needed] tags in there. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Blurb. Support removal from ongoing - Now the closing ceremony should be added.BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb as proposer—the country winning the most medals is a key fact, particularly this Olympics given the competition between the U.S. and China. We have room to include it so we might as well. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Whole paragraphs unreferenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've tried my best to get the citation issue fixed, so most of the prose in the article is now cited properly ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 19:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support the original blurb once the article is improved and strong oppose the alternative blurb per Article 6 in Charter 1 of the Olympic Charter, which states "The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries."--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I guess this means that the whole notion of a medals table is un-Olympic? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- The IOC is free to consider the Olympics what it wishes, but what matters is how RS report on it, and almost all of them report out which country won the most medals and most gold medals, usually in the form of a table. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- The BBC's report on the closing ceremony doesn't even mention which country won the most gold and total medals. So there's no need to load the blurb with superfluous details when it's clear that the closing ceremony is the main news and an ITNR item that should get posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Other than the unencyclopedic term "taking home" (should be "winning" probably) I think it's fine to mention the US as medal table winners. Sources do take major note of that. — Amakuru (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- And let's hear it for the eight countries who shared joint-86th place with one bronze medal each. At least every country got something. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I still think that any outcome of the event is a different story from the closing ceremony and should be dealt with separately. But if we really need an extended blurb documenting achievements from the event, my first choice would be either Caeleb Dressel's five gold medals or Emma McKeon's seven total medals. Their achievements as most successful athletes are covered in RS as much as the US finishing on top of the medal table but the difference is that one such blurb would give more context compared to the blunt message that a country won the most medals.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- The BBC's report on the closing ceremony doesn't even mention which country won the most gold and total medals. So there's no need to load the blurb with superfluous details when it's clear that the closing ceremony is the main news and an ITNR item that should get posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Blurb. Oppose alt blurb I && II. – robertsky (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Some portions of the content are still unsourced. STSC (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
August 7
August 7, 2021
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
|
(Closed) 2021 British & Irish Lions
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: In rugby union, the South Afirica's Springboks defeat the British and Irish Lions to win the test series 2-1. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
- Oppose relatively insignificant sports series. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose not significant enough competition for ITN. News coverage of it in the UK was way lower than e.g. the Six Nations Championship (which does get posted, as it's ITNR). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with the above two comments re significance and also oppose on article quality - mostly a stats page. Only one match has any prose coverage.--Bcp67 (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
RD: Markie Post
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, NBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by CoatCheck (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: Night Court, Fall Guy actress of the 80s. Worked up to recently during cancer battle. CoatCheck (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Almost Support Unsourced filmography, with many minor style errors, TV movies in Film and Television...but otherwise fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
RD: Brad Allan
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Wrap, US Day News, Yahoo (in Mandarim)
Credits:
- Nominated by SirEdimon (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: Australian martial artist, actor, stunt performer and first non-Asian member of the Jackie Chan Stunt Team. News of his death are still coming out. The article needs some work. --SirEd Dimmi!!! 01:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Trevor Moore
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (NYPost), (RollingStone), (Vulture)
Credits:
- Nominated by TatteredSail (talk · give credit)
- Updated by CarciaNullius (talk · give credit) and Nohomersryan (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: Comedian known for The Whitest Kids U' Know. Article has lots of unreferenced claims TatteredSail (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, definitely not ready to post yet. Given the surprise nature of the death, there will be a fair bit that requires updating and pruning, hopefully some of which will be covered in upcoming articles. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've now added references for much of the article. TatteredSail (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- A couple more references needed, but nearly good to post. Stephen 01:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Film + discography are now fully referenced, and CN tags are complete. It should be ready now. TatteredSail (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
August 6
August 6, 2021
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Herbert Schlosser
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; Variety; Deadline Hollywood
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by 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.
Bloom6132 (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Made NBC relevant to the 1970s, short sweet article, woe is us. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) Attack on Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines
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: St. Vincent and the Grenadines Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves is in hospital after a rock was thrown at him by a anti-vaccine protester. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose It can't be pleasant to be hit with a rock, but he doesn't seem seriously injured. No broader impact than that. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Eh, a concussion to be precise[7], so he will be monitored for some weeks. No lasting issues though. Joofjoof (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This has made the regional news: Jamaica Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana. The CARICOM chair also released a statement.[8] Joofjoof (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose One wounded fails MINIMUMDEATHS, and he's far from a major world leader (my queen is his country's head of state). But yes, I've felt his pain, not fun. Stay strong, brother! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Lacks general significance. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Your average Milkshaking, but with a rock. Kingsif (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Dixie Fire
Blurb: The Dixie Fire (fire cloud pictured) burns over 480,000 acres of land in Northern California, destroying the towns of Canyondam and Greenville. (Post)
News source(s): AJ, CBS, CNN, NPR, NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by AllegedlyHuman (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Shannon1 (talk · give credit) and Frank Schulenburg (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Major wildfire, third largest in California's history. Larger than the currently-blurbed 2021 Turkish wildfires by over 4x. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Climate change is destroying towns. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Part of the larger global warming/climate change/U.S. wildfires stories. Doesn't appear to have a larger significance on its own. – Sca (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with Sca. The difference with the Turkish forest fires is that have caused at least 8 victims. In California, two towns with less than 1200 inhabitants combined were burned. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wait Its wildfire season in the US (and elsewhere), and while two towns were destroyed, these aren't very large, and there are yet any reported deaths. The wildfire could get worse before its considered extinguished, and if there are deaths or more severe destruction (acreage of land notwithstanding) then it might be worth posting. --Masem (t) 22:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Should we use units of acres or square kilometres? osunpokeh (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- For U.S. fires only, sq. mi. with sq. km in parens (U.S. media practice). – Sca (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nom. comment Fire is now the "largest single wildfire in California history". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- While that is very much true, we're also talking about an area of the state largely undeveloped and unpopulated, aka "if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?" scenario. Yes, that's still land damage, there's smoke and ash going at least as far as Salt Lake City from what I've heard, etc. But its again, norm for this time of year and no lives have yet to be lost. --Masem (t) 16:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Aye, everyone knows plants and animals were dead when we got here, a barren untouched wasteland. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- While that is very much true, we're also talking about an area of the state largely undeveloped and unpopulated, aka "if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?" scenario. Yes, that's still land damage, there's smoke and ash going at least as far as Salt Lake City from what I've heard, etc. But its again, norm for this time of year and no lives have yet to be lost. --Masem (t) 16:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose big fire, sad fire, not really interesting that it's a "biggest since FOO" fire because there's always one of those. Appears, per Masem, to currently (and merficully) have made little real historical impact. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose It's wildfire season in California, we'll continue to resist setting precedent for posting any and every X in predictable X season unless it's truly unprecedented. Also, I haven't seen this actually in any news (obviously I see the links, I had read about it by going down the local story route, but I mean it's not making headlines so that elusive "average reader" would be surprised to see it headlining Wikipedia alone). Kingsif (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose it's not "news" that California has fires in the summer. This fire has been going for weeks. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) Prime Minister of Moldova
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: Parliament of Moldova approves Natalia Gavrilița as new Prime Minister. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, Reuters, Interfax
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk · give credit)
- Comment: we already posted the results of the election back in July, so this is probably just a formality? --Tone 13:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Tone, this is a duplicate posting; we already posted the election and the results. Occasionally we have posted things like this instead of elections, in cases where we missed the election posting for various reasons, but in general, when the election has already been posted, such formalities like this or like inaugurations and the like are not normally posted. --Jayron32 14:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- I would not call it a formality because in this case, the leader of the winning party does not automatically become a prime minister (in fact, he is the current speaker of the parliament). It is not the Westminster system. Nevertheless, the prime minister in Moldova has more powers than the president, therefore should be important enough to be posted. Also worth noting is the fact that the country has had no government since last December, so this is a formal end of the local political crisis. --Andrei (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Still, according to the election results, it was expected that the new PM would come from a party that has comfortably won the election. We typically reserve the PM posting in cases where there is a prolonged government formation, such as when no party can form a coallition and similar, which was not the case here. --Tone 16:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Per Tone, it is a formality because we knew who the PM was going to be at the election, and nothing strange or unexpected happened between then and now. It was expected, at the time of the election, that what happened above would happen. Had it not, we would have a story to post. Since everything happened according to plan, there's no reason to post such an update. --Jayron32 17:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Still, according to the election results, it was expected that the new PM would come from a party that has comfortably won the election. We typically reserve the PM posting in cases where there is a prolonged government formation, such as when no party can form a coallition and similar, which was not the case here. --Tone 16:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- I would not call it a formality because in this case, the leader of the winning party does not automatically become a prime minister (in fact, he is the current speaker of the parliament). It is not the Westminster system. Nevertheless, the prime minister in Moldova has more powers than the president, therefore should be important enough to be posted. Also worth noting is the fact that the country has had no government since last December, so this is a formal end of the local political crisis. --Andrei (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Does seem pretty much a foregone conclusion. – Sca (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
August 5
August 5, 2021
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
(Closed) Lionel Messi leaves Barcelona
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: Lionel Messi leaves Barcelona after 21 years at the club (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · give credit)
- Strong oppose Sports transactions, no matter who the player is, are not ITN material. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose only blurb Messi gets is if (a) he dies or (b) he signs for Ipswich Town. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sports transactions are not news. We didn't post(and shouldn't have) when Tom Brady went to Tampa Bay. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment it's a "transfer" not a "transaction". And to where, we know not. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Lacks general significance. Suggest snow. Sca (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Soccer is the most important thing in the world. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Richard Trumka
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times CNBC Politico
Credits:
- Nominated by Chsdrummajor07 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Bookworm-ce (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: American labor leader, President of the AFL-CIO Hans van Mol 16:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I think I got the last couple citations in about his work on the U.S. Shell boycott; I would definitely support if so, as it seems everything else is sufficiently referenced. rawmustard (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Looks solid. Teemu08 (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- One citation needed. Stephen 06:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support I just deleted the only unsourced information. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Article looks good for homepage / RD. RIP. Marking Ready. Ktin (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Brian Henderson (television presenter)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Stephen (talk · give credit)
- Updated 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: Veteran Australian newsreader, needs work. Stephen 05:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support – well-referenced; meets minimum ITN requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support – referenced and ready. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support – Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 14:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
August 4
August 4, 2021
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: R. Aravamudan
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WION India
Credits:
- Nominated by Ktin (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: India space scientist and engineer. Article is a start-class biography. Meets basic hygiene for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Though long enough at 405 words, it seems a little thin as a wikibio -- it would be nice to know, apart from writing ISRO: A Personal History, what he has achieved while carrying all those big titles. I am not sure if this is a deficiency that should hold this nom back. Otherwise, this is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support as fully sourced and although a short article it should be sufficient for our RD requirements JW 1961 Talk 12:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Karl Heinz Bohrer
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Spiegel, FAZ + others
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: Thought-provoking intellectual in newspaper, magazine (as publisher and author), university professor in Germany and California, writer of autobiography - had a poor article and would still deserve more. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support But meets already minimum requirements. Grimes2 (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - fully sourced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Bobby Eaton
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TSN, The Independent, NBC
Credits:
- Nominated by InedibleHulk (talk · give credit)
- Updated by McPhail (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: Good singles babyface, great tag heel, Featured Article. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. Looks almost ready for homepage / RD. There are two tags for unreliable sources. @InedibleHulk: please can you look at that? Once that is fixed, this is good to go to homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with Tim Dills in particular, but the fact that Kayfabe Memories trusts him to cover Memphis in such depth speaks to his credibility. Not controversial claims, anyway. Would removing the tags sufficiently fix this? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- MPJ-DK and ImmortalWizard, these tags are your business from two Februaries ago; any lingering doubts? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, pending a reason not to, I've fixed those tags. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - sourced and looks good.BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 06:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: J. R. Richard
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [9]
Credits:
- Nominated by 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.
Nominator's comments: Featured article – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support as per the nomination. rawmustard (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Article looks good. Added a couple of minor CN tags. Muboshgu please can you have them fixed. Should be relatively easy. Once that is done, this is good to go to homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ktin, they're resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: ESPN says he died "Thursday" (Aug 5).[10] However, the article currently says Aug 4 and in a hospital, neither of which is specified in the page's current citation. This should be resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- This source says Wednesday in hospital.[11] Whichever is deemed more reliable, it should at least be consistent with the citation.—Bagumba (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am not too close to the game. But, I did see a few other sources including a statement on MLB.com that referenced Wednesday, August 4th. So, I think the article has the date correct. [12] [13] Ktin (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- This source says Wednesday in hospital.[11] Whichever is deemed more reliable, it should at least be consistent with the citation.—Bagumba (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Bagumba, it also seems to me that Aug 4 is correct and ESPN is incorrect. This source says that the death was reported by the Astros today, though he died last night in a hospital, and I will switch to this source. ESPN is probably taking the day of the report to be the day of death. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) 400m hurdles world record, update
Blurb: New world records are set in men's and women's 400 metres hurdles by Norwegian Karsten Warholm and American Sydney McLaughlin. (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Kingsif (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Wow, since Kevin is fundamentally against people doing the almost-certain at ITN and making a header clearer, proposing a better alt, on something he nominated, let's go for a decent blurb here.
Now, as noted below, this wasn't a particularly impressive record break, but on the other hand, it's 2 for 2 on 400m hurdles records. Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
This should be at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, not here. Suggest speedy close. 108.41.218.218 (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Adding a new article requires people to check that article for ITN criteria. No error, no "simple" change. Kingsif (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - But I do not support this blurb. Just add MacLaughlin into the current blurb and add her image and make it a trio.BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- At current that would be a bit long. Feel free to propose alts that don't take up half (if not more) of the box. Kingsif (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted by adding to the existing blurb. I will repeat what I said in my edit summary - this entire blurb is somewhat arbitrarily (and perhaps unfairly) putting a spotlight on athletics and ignoring the other world records in other sports, so I question the entire approach of putting Olympic world records in this ITN box. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- PULL How was this allowed to go AND get posted when it's a copy-paste of a nom below with 2 opposes? 188.27.36.191 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- While your observations are interesting and may even be valid, without a preponderance of reliable sources discounting the world records, it would amount to original research to make a judgment to consider these world records as requiring special treatment in ITN. Now as to whether we should be taking this much blurb space at all for arbitrarily highlighting these world records, but not the ones in swimming or cycling, that is indeed a valid issue to bring up. For now, it is only logical and fair that either all three folks should be gone from the ITN box, or all three should exist. Putting only 2 of the 3 athletics world records, as it was previously, just doesn't make sense. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not a copy-paste when it's a different proposal with different scope. (And actually following ITN.) Fuzheado posted a variation on the blurb that has been discussed below; posting admin's prerogative is to assimilate responses, don't tell me you have issue with that. Importantly, discussion here was/is focused on the merit of adding McLaughlin, the point of the nom, rather than a debate on WR blurbs, which literally prefaced the nom below from a nominator who made it clear he didn't want article or blurb discussion to occur. But you knew that. Kingsif (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- For reference nobody seems to have addressed any issues here: Seems that this new record was set WITH the "super spikes" that are reportedly a 1-1.5% bump over the old ones. Since this new decrease of .44 sec is by less than 1% of the old record (compared to the 1.6% for the men's one) and it is done WITH the new technology, this is definitely significantly less notable. The magnitude of the men's hurdles one was the notability there, and the long-jump one was the age of the record, neither of which apply in this case. Had this record been set outside of a competition with many records, this should have been posted, but can be skipped now. Alternatively, can add the records article to the ongoing link on the bottom of ITN (alongside medal table one).
- More @Fuzheado: has anybody checked the linked article for quality updates? There are 2 sentences in the intro with ZILCH coverage in the body of the BLP. 188.27.36.191 (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- The quality of the article was considered and it is fine. It could benefit from more additions but nothing is a show stopper. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Post-posting Support Makes sense to add this to the blurb about the other record being broken.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- How many records are broken? Yet the biggest single event in 100m is not posted but 1 support gets posted?2A02:2A57:60AF:0:7931:FDE6:C873:15B2 (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why did you not nominate it then?BabbaQ (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) Milavče train collision
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: Three people are killed when two trains crash head-on (locomotive involved pictured) at Milavče, Czech Republic (Post)
News source(s): (BBC)
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Wait Stub article that also somewhat contradicts itself: it suggests there is a definite cause for the collision, but also that an investigation has just been opened. We should wait for it be clear which of those is true (do they know why, or are they looking into it?) RS should hopefully clarify with a few more hours. Kingsif (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose unless there's a criminal investigation, this isn't notable enough to be posted. Jim Michael (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jim Michael: your wish has been granted. Criminal investigation opened. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support No longer stub and apparently criminal investigations are open now. Cindercat 🐱 (Want to talk?) 05:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Opppose -- it is unclear what significance this has, but it does not appear to be notable enough to be posted. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 06:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Significance - it's a major rail crash in a first world country. ITN getting dominated by Olympics stories. Well developed article with no issues. Mjroots (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem major at all. A major rail crash would be one killing 10-20 or more, which unfortunately would not be unusual in certain countries. – Sca (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps percentage of a country's annual rail death toll would be a better metric for comparison? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem major at all. A major rail crash would be one killing 10-20 or more, which unfortunately would not be unusual in certain countries. – Sca (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Significance - it's a major rail crash in a first world country. ITN getting dominated by Olympics stories. Well developed article with no issues. Mjroots (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment It does seem to have had a fair amount of coverage in English language sources. Not sure it really has that much significance for the wider world. I think the Stonehaven derailment another train related incident with the same number of deaths was rejected from ITN for that reason last year. Llewee (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Stonehaven derailment discussion was closed as "no consensus". But we're straying into the realms of WP:OSE here. As I have said before, there is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for a reason. Each article needs to be assessed on its own merits, at the time it is nominated. Nominating an article in my experience has a twofold purpose. Firstly, it gets more eyes on the article, and generally leads to improvement of said article. Secondly, it might actually get on the main page, which again gets more eyes on the article. If it don't make the second stage, then its not the end of the world. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, that happened in 1962 anyway. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- To be clear, we don't have a WP:MINIMUMDEATHS because an otherwise notable disaster is not completed mitigated by a low death count. However, the death count is often the most prominent factor in a disaster's significance. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I would also prefer we not post multiple Olympics stories, but that's not a legitimate reason to post other stories. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - I do not agree with the Opposing side here. Clear significance, deaths, rare event in the country, has received plenty of international coverage. Article is sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) More world records
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: In Olympic athletics, Venezuelan Yulimar Rojas breaks a 26-year-old world record in the women's triple jump, and Norwegian Karsten Warholm and American Sydney McLaughlin set world records in the men's and women's 400 metre hurdles respectively. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, Reuters, Guardian, [14] SI[15][16]
Article updated
- Comment/suggestion: Can we have a cap on the number of these new records in the same blurb at the same time, please? Perhaps the most recent three? Just to avoid putting up bloated bullet-points on ITN. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment May I suggest bumping Rojas out (back to individual blurb?) and having the 400m hurdlers in the same blurb. Kingsif (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that it's better to combine the world records in 400 m hurdles in one blurb and keep Rojas in a separate one. We should also consider a new montage of Warholm's and McLaughlin's photos.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Kevin McE Users unrelated to the nominator are allowed to propose alt blurbs; nominations are not the property of the nominator and unalterable by others, and adding an alt blurb does not suggest support by the nominator. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- How then can it be allowed to appear without accreditation or being marked as distinct from my proposal in a section that has my name, and my name alone, attached to it? Kevin McE (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Users have proposed alt blurbs on the nominations of others for years and this is the first objection I've seen to it. Often discussions lead to such things and it is assumed that alt blurbs were not necessarily written by the nominator. My suggestion, if you are concerned that others will interpret the addition of an alt blurb as your suggestion, is that you make a statement saying that you do not support any suggested alt blurbs. Perhaps the nomination template can be tinkered with as well. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Simple: it's not your proposal. The nominator's name is only there to give credit for bringing attention to the item, which is what gets the bulk of pure !votes, with blurb wording always open to improvement, sometimes (often) even changed by the posting admin without discussion at all. Kingsif (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Patent nonsense, a proposal made by me, in my name, is my proposal. Why the incredibly rude tone from you on this page? Kevin McE (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- That's not true, and I've not been rude. ITN isn't a series of mini-autocracies, and I have merely tried to elucidate that. Wordily and firm, probably. You're making incorrect generalizations of a process you evidently don't understand and now are trying to "win" by saying I'm not nice to you. It's embarrassing. Kingsif (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Patent nonsense, a proposal made by me, in my name, is my proposal. Why the incredibly rude tone from you on this page? Kevin McE (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Simple: it's not your proposal. The nominator's name is only there to give credit for bringing attention to the item, which is what gets the bulk of pure !votes, with blurb wording always open to improvement, sometimes (often) even changed by the posting admin without discussion at all. Kingsif (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Users have proposed alt blurbs on the nominations of others for years and this is the first objection I've seen to it. Often discussions lead to such things and it is assumed that alt blurbs were not necessarily written by the nominator. My suggestion, if you are concerned that others will interpret the addition of an alt blurb as your suggestion, is that you make a statement saying that you do not support any suggested alt blurbs. Perhaps the nomination template can be tinkered with as well. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- How then can it be allowed to appear without accreditation or being marked as distinct from my proposal in a section that has my name, and my name alone, attached to it? Kevin McE (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Seems that this new record was set WITH the "super spikes" that are reportedly a 1-1.5% bump over the old ones. Since this new decrease of .44 sec is by less than 1% of the old record (compared to the 1.6% for the men's one) and it is done WITH the new technology, this is definitely significantly less notable. The magnitude of the men's hurdles one was the notability there, and the long-jump one was the age of the record, neither of which apply in this case. Had this record been set outside of a competition with many records, this should have been posted, but can be skipped now. Alternatively, can add the records article to the ongoing link on the bottom of ITN (alongside medal table one). 188.27.36.191 (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm going to suggest that for the purposes of the rest of the games that we do not try to suggest more WRs, and instead add a link to World and Olympic records set at the 2020 Summer Olympics in the ongoing line (eg "Olympics (medal table, world records)") That article seems to be reasonable sourced and in good shape. That will avoid this issue of us not featuring every WR set. --Masem (t) 13:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- And removing those already there? And acknowledge that sports other than athletics exist? Radical: I like it. Kevin McE (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe we should think about posting a box with links to multiple articles about the Olympics as we did for the COVID-19 pandemic last year. It's clear that the Summer Olympics are the main ongoing event in the world and the ongoing section cannot properly accommodate multiple links.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- The box for COVID was more as a attention-getting highlight because of its severity and that we felt the need that we wanted to do something to alert the readers of a global issue. Olympics is not of that severity, but we can add extra links to what are likely articles of high interest, which I agree include the medal table and WRs. I would propose a similar approach for any other ongoing where there is a subpage or two that would be a reasonable target article associated with the main ongoing event where that information isn't on the target page (eg when World Cup comes round, the tourney bracket structure if its not on the Cup's main page could be a possible target like this). --Masem (t) 14:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe we should think about posting a box with links to multiple articles about the Olympics as we did for the COVID-19 pandemic last year. It's clear that the Summer Olympics are the main ongoing event in the world and the ongoing section cannot properly accommodate multiple links.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- I came here to propose exactly what Masem just suggested. --LukeSurl t c 14:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- And removing those already there? And acknowledge that sports other than athletics exist? Radical: I like it. Kevin McE (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wasn't that a suggestion at ITN talk, and completely shot down? Kingsif (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- There was a suggestion to have sports icons alongside the Olympics to point to every single major event. That was shot down. But having a couple side links is completely reasonable given that we already have one (the medal table). --Masem (t) 14:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, well, I'm sure that would be a separate ongoing nom. Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- There was a suggestion to have sports icons alongside the Olympics to point to every single major event. That was shot down. But having a couple side links is completely reasonable given that we already have one (the medal table). --Masem (t) 14:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Strong oppose and, frankly, suggest close. Massively overloaded blurb, and the nominator has made it very clear that t(his) nom is for that blurb wording alone, rather than for the item (i.e. event, i.e. bold article) - which ITN noms are supposed to be. I suggest Kevin, who also stuck this nom outside the date template until I fixed it, actually learn the ITN rules before trying it again. The rules which also say that items have to be nommed to get posted, so nobody is actively saying swimming and cycling can't be posted and he should stop whining about it. Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
August 3
August 3, 2021
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
Sports
|
(Posted) Ongoing: 2020 Olympics
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Jonas1015119 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Its now out of ITN, and I think it should be listed in some way. My proposal would be 2020 Summer Olympics (medal table). I agree with the criticism of the Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics article on this page, but linking to the medal table seems reasonable. Something similar should probably be standard procedure for future games, once the opening ceremony is no longer the top ITN item. jonas (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Seems like a good suggestion in my opinion.BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article is in good shape and we're already late. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Support Long overdue - this should have been updated last week. There's no excuse or any valid argument against including this on the Ongoing section.
- Strong Support Such a major, worldwide, once-in-four(five)-years event should be added to Ongoing. The 2016 Summer Olympics were posted in Ongoing from the day it began. CosmicLycanroc (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I like Jonas1015119's suggestion of going with 2020 Summer Olympics (medal table). Ktin (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Seems a very simple solution to days of convoluted debate, accusation and and recrimination. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 21:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Such a shame that all the convoluted debate, accusation and recrimination couldn't have been answered with simple factual responses rather than endless and hopeless snide comments, but glad we got to a result that now re-shapes Ongoing. I assume that Stephen, having posted this, will now update ITNR to account for this anomaly. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Pull a couple of HOURS AGO it was made clear that the original potential item: Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics had been fixed up. This is a proper ONGOING item, and it's sad it's taken this long for all those complainants to fix it up, but it looks good enough now, and much more suitable that the article posted which is barely updated. Change the target, good job someone here is doing the job of the whining massive, shout out to NormalPerson7, sadly surrounded by pseudo-comedians and users who literally do nothing here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- You want a fact? The 2020 Summer Olympics are ongoing and the In The News box should state it as such. It really is that simple.
- Please replace this curious smorgasbord of links (neither of which has consensus) with the timeline, which at least has some kind of ITNR pedigree. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I promise to do nothing here, as long as I can be called a pseudo-comedian. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm just glad I'm not a sports fan (except for snooker, of course). – Sca (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- No Martin, not a comedian at all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, he's not is he. Poor SCA. You can still be a snooker-pseud though. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please Martin, take a break, stop responding to everything I post. It's bordering on bullying now. I'm sure you can find something better to do than continually harass me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, he's not is he. Poor SCA. You can still be a snooker-pseud though. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sca, even the World Snooker Championship doesn't have the global impact of the Olympics, so it'll never get an "ongoing" slot. And I'm sure you're a real snooker fan, not a pseudo one as I suggested. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- No Martin, not a comedian at all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm just glad I'm not a sports fan (except for snooker, of course). – Sca (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I foam at the mouth, on cue, at the sight of an 8-ball. – Sca (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics is now well-referenced and ready for posting. That's the standard article we always post to document ongoing Olympics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support 2020 Summer Olympics, strong oppose the chronology page. The Olympics themselves are ongoing, while the chronology is just fluff. — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- So let's change the ongoing criteria? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not really. Just treat this as a special case. It does get its own mention at WP:ITNSPORTS after all, and we already have COVID-19 pandemic as a perennial Ongoing item which also isn't updated on a daily basis either. — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, to be accurate, the ITNSPORTS link says it was the timeline which was accepted for 2016. The Covid article is a different matter altogether, it's not been updated properly and should be removed, but that's a red herring for this discussion. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think what I'm saying here is that this is an appropriate case for WP:IAR to apply. The Olympics page isn't being updated daily (although actually it should be, but that's another matter) but it's the page that readers most want to see, by a significant margin. — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, to be accurate, the ITNSPORTS link says it was the timeline which was accepted for 2016. The Covid article is a different matter altogether, it's not been updated properly and should be removed, but that's a red herring for this discussion. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not really. Just treat this as a special case. It does get its own mention at WP:ITNSPORTS after all, and we already have COVID-19 pandemic as a perennial Ongoing item which also isn't updated on a daily basis either. — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- So let's change the ongoing criteria? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Reinstating the pull as we have an ongoing timeline article which is properly updated and sourced. Unless we're setting a new precedent here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am extremely certain it is not standard procedure for one unhappy editor to put "PULL" in a heading because they don't like something. If it's an actual error you should ask for it to be pulled at WP:ERRORS, otherwise you really must wait for at least one editor to agree with you, no? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, you don't get it. There's no evidence this article meets the Ongoing update criterion. We have timeline article (noted at WP:ITNR) which should go into ongoing, now it's been updated. This article is not appropriate for "Ongoing". I think you all know that. Whether you are "extremely certain" or not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- The "evidence" is the 8 editors above who have supported this. I don't know or care what the Ongoing criterion are; there's certainly consensus that something about the Olympics should go there. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, correct. So the Ongoing criterion is now superseded. You don't care about it, but fuck that guideline. Glad the article which receives almost literally NO updates is now in the "Ongoing" section where "updates" are "continually" required. Well played. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- The "evidence" is the 8 editors above who have supported this. I don't know or care what the Ongoing criterion are; there's certainly consensus that something about the Olympics should go there. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, you don't get it. There's no evidence this article meets the Ongoing update criterion. We have timeline article (noted at WP:ITNR) which should go into ongoing, now it's been updated. This article is not appropriate for "Ongoing". I think you all know that. Whether you are "extremely certain" or not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am extremely certain it is not standard procedure for one unhappy editor to put "PULL" in a heading because they don't like something. If it's an actual error you should ask for it to be pulled at WP:ERRORS, otherwise you really must wait for at least one editor to agree with you, no? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose this is definitively not what the ongoing targets were supposed to be about. There's literally NOTHING in the target article about the ongoing events in the Olympic Games. The choice of two articles, one about the games, and a repeat, the medal table, is utterly shambolic. Neither give any indication as to the ongoing events and this project should be ashamed of this second-class choice, particularly in light of the work done on the timeline article. Embarrassing and pointed, this is junk and sets a clear precedent for literally any event to be added to Ongoing without any kind of substantial or useful update to our readers. Well done everyone, a proud moment. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right. Full stop.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose quite conflicted here, as I appreciate the epic troll y'all are running on Rambling Man. But we shouldn't burn the whole project to the ground to do it. Just make fun of Thatcher or something. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- May I make the suggestion that we add Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics to the Ongoing section just as well as the Medal table. They are all three part of the Olympics. I see no reason to Pull neither of the other two articles part of the Ongoing section though. BabbaQ (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- There is zero reason to pull this, if we want to alter what is posted, we can do so. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Post the timeline (per ITNR). Last chance saloon for me. This has dramatically changed my view on what the community believes "Ongoing" is for. We can now post things like the World Cup or the Euros because there's literally no updates to the articles in question, but "they're a big tournament". We will remember. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds great! Glad we reached this solution.
- Ignoring everything else, I don't see why 2020 Summer Olympics medal table would be preferred to Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics, and would support swapping that for the second link. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- In my opinion that article should be added to Ongoing as well, along with the Medal table with the 2020 Summer Olympics as the main article. This is the biggest Sporting event in the world. So having three articles at Ongoing for a few more days would make sense. BabbaQ (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Swap medal table for chronology. I'm not generally a fan of chronology articles (there's a very good reason the other item is COVID-19 pandemic, not Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic), but the chronology article here includes the winners of all the events, which is relevant in the newsy sense. I think the general Olympics article is the target readers more expect, though, so I would very much oppose removing that. Including two Olympics links is fine, but I wouldn't want to see more than that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article has a continually updated medal table. Will China win? Stay tuned! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support The ongoing section was originally created for having a link the Olympics and then was built up since then. Appropriate to continue having a link since various events are on subpages that can be reached by the existing link. Has a clear starting and end point, unlike the vast majority of other events on Ongoing. SpencerT•C 03:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Horrible choice to now instead cram two Olympic items to ongoing because the original proposal failed because Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics, the single link typically posted, is now a bloated set of tables and an egregious violation of MOS:COLLAPSE. I'm not a slave to the "Olympic spirit" marketing machine to WP:IAR this (though I am updating 2020 United States men's Olympic basketball team).—Bagumba (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Time to Close this nom. There will be no consensus to remove or add anything. Now only some bickering remains.BabbaQ (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Pull not choice for me. 114.125.233.94 (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)- Pull chronological article only not choice for me but it must only main article can be posted as ongoing. 116.206.35.25 (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Pull Unless there are unexpected reasons to be posted it. 202.67.42.35 (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)- Three IP !votes from the same geoplace. Suspicious.BabbaQ (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- ... and only joint 40th in the medals table? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Now stands unopposed at 46th place! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is absolutely pointless. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Now stands unopposed at 46th place! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- ... and only joint 40th in the medals table? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Three IP !votes from the same geoplace. Suspicious.BabbaQ (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per TRM. Surprised this hasn't been changed already given that the current situation goes against established policy. Effy Midwinter (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Pull not choice for me and please do not strike out my vote. 2600:387:F:4013:0:0:0:8 (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Participants here are invited to join a broader discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news#The next Olympics: Appropriate article target(s) for ongoing items and other questions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) World records
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: New world records are established in weightlifting, cycling, swimming, rowing, shooting and athletics at the Olympic Games in Tokyo. (Post)
- Oppose lots of the cycling records are unreferenced. The article lacks a suitable introduction. Also, is the intention to extend this if records are beaten in other disciplines, to the point where it becomes the only news story in the ITN template? Also, rowing (for example) lists them as "world best" not "world records", this nuance doesn't come across in the blurb, so it's misleading. Either these are world records or they're not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- The official weightlifting records are all from 2018+, pre-2018.5 records became historical interest-only with a weight class rearrangement. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I was talking about rowing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Lengthen the blurb some more with World records are set in weightlifting, cycling, swimming, shooting and athletics at the Tokyo Olympics, along with world bests in rowing.? Why not alphabetical order? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I was talking about rowing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose It's not really news that new world records are set during Summer Olympics because that always happens. The real news is when a world record is broken after a long period of time or by a significant margin.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- People always die and elections always have results too. Kevin McE (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- So we no longer need RD because we can post a blurb that links to deaths in 2021 as a target article. Don't we?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, as long as we can still argue there aren't enough sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be surprised if a nomination with a proposed blurb "Sportspeople win medals at the 2020 Summer Olympics." arrives. And all such nominations come as a result of the reluctance to post the Olympics to ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Sportspeople win medals at a big event". A lot simpler, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, take a break now Martin, maybe a week or two. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Sportspeople win medals at a big event". A lot simpler, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be surprised if a nomination with a proposed blurb "Sportspeople win medals at the 2020 Summer Olympics." arrives. And all such nominations come as a result of the reluctance to post the Olympics to ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, as long as we can still argue there aren't enough sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- So we no longer need RD because we can post a blurb that links to deaths in 2021 as a target article. Don't we?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- People always die and elections always have results too. Kevin McE (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose too vague to be meaningful. An "ongoing" for the Olympics is one thing, this is just silly. What's next? "Football matches occur in England, Germany, Spain, and France"? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- What? Football matches occur is not equivalent to world records are set. I don't know, perhaps you're just testing us, this is patently absurd. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted, Closed) 400m hurdles world record
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: In athletics, Karsten Warholm sets a new world record in men's 400 meter hurdles (Post)
Alternative blurb: In athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics, Yulimar Rojas breaks a 26-year-old world record in the women's triple jump and Karsten Warholm sets a new world record in men's 400 metres hurdles (both pictured).
Alternative blurb II: In athletics, Norwegian Karsten Warholm sets a new world record in men's 400 meter hurdles
News source(s): NYT, Reuters, Guardian, [17] SI
Article updated
- I'd support merging the two athletics world records, it even gives us the opportunity to have a direct link to the Olympics in the blurb. --Tone 08:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support simply because this is perhaps one of the most outstanding results in the history of athletics. It's extremely rare to see a race in which the first two athletes have run way better than the world record and 0.76 seconds in 400 m is really a huge margin.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment agree with support rationale above. Just noting a few of the results in the table are unsourced (but happy to try and find some). Also not sure if this would get subsumed by the proposed "on-going" nomination (if that succeeds). Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - we've already set a precedent by posting the triple jump, although I still think this is ridiculously unfair on the swimmers who set world records and weren't posted. So probably, as Tone says, let's fold this in to the triple jump story. And preferably add the swimming records too. That said, I don't think this is as surprising as the margin or the hyperbole above would suggest. Of course, the athletes today are strong, but comparing their times to those of the past is apples to oranges, as a result of changes in the spikes used on their boots.[18] — Amakuru (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the swimmers don't use spiked boots. Maybe just the diving? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps some spiked goggles though? [19] — Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I thought the pole vault record was the precedent. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to see world records in other sports being posted but the problem is that no-one nominates them.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Amakuru The winner didn't use the new spikes (the 2nd place guy did). Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the swimmers don't use spiked boots. Maybe just the diving? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: Ah OK, my bad then. That certainly makes the new record seem more spectacular. — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: i am reclutant to support it to be posted unless the blurb can be considered ITNR. But, the article is a good shape. 36.77.94.77 (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support and fold it in to the other WR. This does need to be posted, though, because it's an astonishing destruction of the previous record. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support
New World Record. And a great one. Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC) - Support good record, great from Warholm. No opinion on combining the athletics records into one blurb, but someone could montage their photos if that gets support. Kingsif (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose There have been many records set, in swimming, rowing, cycling and probably other sports as well: if we do not have the equanimity to mention all of them, mention none (i.e., pull triple jump too). Otherwise we are declaring the POV that one Olympic sport is more important than others.Kevin McE (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Would we also mention "records", set for the first time, at new events e.g. Mixed Triathlon Relay and Freestyle BMX? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- If it's an event that has history, like BMX (X-games), then that could get posted posted. New to Olympics doesn't matter, right? But setting a record in a new event shouldn't. I think I heard that the new triathlon event has been trialled before, but I don't know if that time was used to set the record? Kingsif (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. The GB time of 1:23:41 for the Mixed Triathlon Relay is, of course, the current Olympic record. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is like claiming that not posting every death in RD is saying some people were more important than others when, simply, nobody nominated RDs that would have been posted. If you want to see every new record posted, it's on you to nominate them all. Of course, some record breaks are seen as more newsworthy (i.e. actually ITN) than others: long-held records, those broken by a big margin, and those in sports like track and field which are contested by people from lots of countries, are generally in the news much more than someone taking 0.001 second off their own record in a sport only their nation cares about. Kingsif (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- There's always hope for 2024, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Would that be in track and field or some new summer biathlon, I wonder. Kingsif (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- In the field, I suspect. Along with the shooting. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support, as this world record is newsworthy. If you feel other world records being set are also newsworthy, feel free to nominate those, but don't oppose this one for that reason.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support and agree with the sentiments above that this is an "overhaul"-standard record-breaking effort. Much like those others which we've posted lately. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment this appears to have significant consensus to post, I marked it a while back but no willing admin yet. Suggest this is dealt with expediently and then we'll see what happens with the plethora of other Olympic nominations, premature or otherwise. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kevin McE. It's the Olympic Games, didn't you all expect the world records to be broken? In the end, that this happens has a lesser impact on society than the personal one of the achiever. If we don't even have the Olympics ongoing, it's nonsense that we have to put on the Main Page every single record that is broken. It's not pragmatic, neither a Sports page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nobody (other than Kevin) is suggesting we link to every record broken. Just those which are significantly broken, whether that be by a notable margin or from a notable period of time. We don't have to put on the Main Page every single record that is broken, self-evidently that hasn't happened. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- You severely overestimate how many world records are broken at the Olympics, they're not gold medals. There's probably an article somewhere comparing world records and Olympic records. If you want to oppose with the argument that breaking a world record is something that is "just personal for the achiever", well, should no awards ever be posted? There's a lot of ITN/R gone... Kingsif (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose the blurb that is proposed currently. The most notable and important thing about this event is that both the gold and silver medallist set a time that was quicker than the existing world record. This a very rare occurence and that is what the blurb should deal with.Tvx1 17:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- That makes this world record more outstanding but I disagree that a blurb should mention it. The second fastest time, albeit significantly better than the previous world record, is not a world record itself. I prefer including the exact margin in the blurb instead of this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t care about the individual merits of the second time. It’s about the event as whole. If you want to highlight this sport event in the in the news section, than it needs to convey the key elements why it is notable. And both the winner and the runner-up setting a time quicker than the existing world record is a key element of this event.Tvx1 19:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I understand your point but the news is the world record and that's what should be included in the blurb. The results of the other athletes, including the time of the runner-up and the total of six national records set, should find their place in the race summary, which is indeed the case because the summary is very well written and captures all relevant details about the race.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- The nom isn't for "400 m hurdles event". And even if it were, a blurb cannot mention every notable aspect of the event. Compare it to awards ceremonies: merely happening is deemed blurbworthy, and by tradition our blurbs mention the top result, even if something interesting happened in a different part. Kingsif (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Again, I don’t care about the unique merits of the other athletes. I’m referring to the combined achievement of the first two. It’s that unique achievement which is actually in the news. It’s not some detail and did not happen in a different part of the race. It’s the most important event of it.Tvx1 10:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Changing my stance to strong support. This is indeed an "overhaul"-standard record-breaking effort. BabbaQ (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I would be ok with merging it into the triple jump story, but oppose a separate blurb, as with the Olympics looking set to be added to Ongoing as well, that's enough representation of the games on ITN I think. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment still confused as to why this hasn't been posted. It has community consensus to do so. Are admins now making personal choices on what to promote, based on the fact that a newer item has been posted since this was ready to go? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. We have the Olympics Ongoing handle now to cover all the twists and turns. Pull the triple jump too. As Kevin McE says (and I said below) there are numerous records being set, and we shouldn't editorialise which ones we post. — Amakuru (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- We literally "editorialize" everything we post. Why one plane crash and not another? Why one death and not another? Are they all nommed, and after the nom, it's a democracy, people vote. If they vote for one record and not another with sensible reasoning, so be it. If this is in the news and not another record, all the more reason to "editorialize", a word you're incorrectly using in place of "fulfilling the ITN goals". Kingsif (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fine. Oppose withdrawn. Support double blurb though. — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- We literally "editorialize" everything we post. Why one plane crash and not another? Why one death and not another? Are they all nommed, and after the nom, it's a democracy, people vote. If they vote for one record and not another with sensible reasoning, so be it. If this is in the news and not another record, all the more reason to "editorialize", a word you're incorrectly using in place of "fulfilling the ITN goals". Kingsif (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 22:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Stephen: OK why? There's no consensus here whatsoever. Please pull. — Amakuru (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)- I'd say there's strong support for posting this. What did I miss? The oppose seems to be "meh, stop posting world records", the support seems to be "wow, highly publicised world record smash which is strongly in the news and for which we have an article". What did I miss? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- That there’s no consensus on what the blurb should contain.Tvx1 10:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'd say there's strong support for posting this. What did I miss? The oppose seems to be "meh, stop posting world records", the support seems to be "wow, highly publicised world record smash which is strongly in the news and for which we have an article". What did I miss? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Stephen: Comments seem to indicate a preference for a double-blurb; in any case, discussion should continue on that even though it's been posted. Kingsif (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment this had strong consensus to post. Not sure how that can be denied. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- A combined blurb would be a better reflection of all the comments here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) Ongoing: 2021 Taliban offensive
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Viewsridge (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Ongoing, look to capture major cities. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I nominated this article two weeks ago and it didn't go anywhere. The nomination will probably have more support after one of the provincial capitals falls Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose proseline, wall of reactions. Nominate for a blurb when something significant happens. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – UN says 40 killed in fighting over Lashkargah. – Sca (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment the news seems to think that the bulk of fighting is in Lashkar Gah and it's getting bad. If they take Helmand province, that would be the blurb. Pending article update, of course. Kingsif (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, these place names don't mean much to most English speakers, I'm afraid, so I guess we'd be back (at least partly) to weighing the death toll. BTW, that BBC story did say 40 civilians killed. – Sca (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wait. I am convinced that this will be blurb-worthy when the Taliban take Kandahar city (or Kabul, but that seems further away). Re-nominate for a blurb when that happens. Modest Genius talk 15:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe. Kandahar (pop.: 650,000) is at least somewhat more familiar to English speakers. – Sca (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose We posted the "peace agreement" which was understood by all as ceding the country to the Taliban. I have no objection to a second blurb when the job is done, but we don't need to post each territorial gain any more than we need to cite that the sky is blue. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support It's a process, clearly ongoing, citations look adequate (and I know these places from 25 years of exclusively English news, for whatever that's worth). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support The Taliban now control the majority of Afghanistan. They attacked Kabul on 3 Aug. Jim Michael (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support I imagine that by 21 July, half of Afghanistan was under Taliban control qualifies as "something significant". And of course all this on the back of the US and other nations announcing they will be withdrawing their forces from NATO's involvement there. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support As it's not a blurb, the minimal update for August seems satisfactory. Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 00:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Stephen: can we keep the COVID-19 link left justified in "ongoing" since it's going to be there for another 2 or 3 years it makes sense to keep it in the same place. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment – Seems to be on the boil, with three key towns taken. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] – Sca (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2021 (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: