Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎RD: Bill Davis: update comment actually
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

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.

Alberto Fujimori in 1991
Alberto Fujimori in 1991

Glossary

  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

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

  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

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.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...

  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives

August 10

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


August 9

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


RD: Bob Jenkins

Article: Bob Jenkins (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): IndyStar
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: IndyCar and NASCAR lap-by-lap announcer. There's several things needing citations. rawmustard (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) IPCC say global warming can be stopped

Article: IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (talk · history · tag)
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 125 thousand 125,000 years.
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 125 thousand 125,000 years, but that we can stop global warming.
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:

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)[reply]
good question - answer is because it is a consensus and has been approved by governments Chidgk1 (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's going to happen. WaltCip-(talk) 10:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have added more so have rerated "start class" Chidgk1 (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
I am sure any blurb you guys agree is fine by me. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I retract - I too now see the flaw in altblurb2 so do not support that one. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now have 2 paras on report content - hope that is enough to start with - expansion continues. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now, striking my length concerns. Modest Genius talk 15:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alt2 looks good to me, better than my own one. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Don't you find that a bit depressing, whereas actions are more likely to cheer readers? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK have added another alt - that is probably enough from me Chidgk1 (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have probably suggested enough blurbs - feel free to suggest one yourself or support one or moreChidgk1 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose as WP:CRYSTAL with elements of WP:RGW. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This report is in the news, that's not CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

(edit conflict)

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong support blurb, Alternative blurb or Alternative blurb II--PJ Geest (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
    @John M Wolfson: Good call. I'm happy with the posted blurb. Modest Genius talk 16:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Have you noticed whether it's in the NEWS?Sca (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Your last three !votes on ITN have all been WP:NOTFORUM violations. Stop it. WaltCip-(talk) 00:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (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)[reply]

August 8

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Najma Chowdhury

Article: Najma Chowdhury (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Daily Star (Bangladesh)
Credits:

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)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jane Withers

Article: Jane Withers (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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)[reply]

RD: Bill Davis

Article: Bill Davis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

RD: Bobby Bowden

Article: Bobby Bowden (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban capture city of Kunduz

Proposed image
Afghan pro-government forces assemble in Jowzjan Province
Article: 2021 Taliban offensive (talk · history · tag)
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:

Article updated

 Count Iblis (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 • TalkContribs 14:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The pic. suggested above doesn't grab me. – Sca (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca maybe File:Afghan National Army in combat during 2021 offensive 1.png cropped? — Berrely • TalkContribs 17:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    When they take Kabul - what if they never do? Never post also? Banedon (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

2021 Lithuanian migrant crisis

Proposed image
Article: 2021 Lithuanian migrant crisis (talk · history · tag)
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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Poland reported only dozens - over 500, but not a good argument anyway (see below). Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Should include a section on migrants fleeing Belarus for Poland. – Sca (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
    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)[reply]
    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]
  • 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)[reply]
    Been going on for years. Belarus is a current political crisis. – Sca (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant; your comment seems to be a case of whataboutism. --Mindaur (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

2020 Summer Olympics closing ceremony

Article: 2020 Summer Olympics closing ceremony (talk · history · tag)
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:
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

August 7

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.


Article: 2021 British & Irish Lions tour to South Africa (talk · history · tag)
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
 219.102.223.134 (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Markie Post

Article: Markie Post (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, NBC News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Night Court, Fall Guy actress of the 80s. Worked up to recently during cancer battle. CoatCheck (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Brad Allan

Article: Brad Allan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Wrap, US Day News, Yahoo (in Mandarim)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Australian 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)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Trevor Moore

Article: Trevor Moore (comedian) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (NYPost), (RollingStone), (Vulture)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Comedian known for The Whitest Kids U' Know. Article has lots of unreferenced claims TatteredSail (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 6

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Herbert Schlosser

Article: Herbert Schlosser (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; Variety; Deadline Hollywood
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(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.


Article: Ralph Gonsalves (talk · history · tag)
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:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: It is breaking news so severity of this attack is not yet known, but significant attacks on heads of state are a rare notable occurrence I would say. Wider significance from anti-vax attacks and ongoing COVID-19 issues all over the globe. Cannot remember the small island nation being in the news ever so it must be fairly significant to make it round the world on front pages. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dixie Fire

Proposed image
Flammagenitus cloud produced by the Dixie Fire near Chico
Article: Dixie Fire (talk · history · tag)
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:

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)[reply]

(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.


Article: Natalia Gavrilița (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Parliament of Moldova approves Natalia Gavrilița as new Prime Minister. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, Reuters, Interfax
Credits:
 Andrei (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Does seem pretty much a foregone conclusion. – Sca (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 5

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

  • Apple Inc. announces that it will begin to continuously scan its smartphone and tablet devices for child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Before an image is stored on the iCloud, the new system will search for matches of already known CSAM. The company claims the system has an "extremely high level of accuracy", and will be included in iOS and iPadOS updates later this year. (BBC News)

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.


Article: Lionel Messi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Lionel Messi leaves Barcelona after 21 years at the club (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Messi is leaving Barcelona for spending his career of 21 years there and is one world greatest footballers. This is global news not a normal transfer. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Richard Trumka

Article: Richard Trumka (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times CNBC Politico
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American labor leader, President of the AFL-CIO Hans van Mol 16:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brian Henderson (television presenter)

Article: Brian Henderson (television presenter) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Veteran Australian newsreader, needs work. Stephen 05:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

(Posted) RD: R. Aravamudan

Article: R. Aravamudan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WION India
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: 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)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Karl Heinz Bohrer

Article: Karl Heinz Bohrer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Spiegel, FAZ + others
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Thought-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)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bobby Eaton

Article: Bobby Eaton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TSN, The Independent, NBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Good singles babyface, great tag heel, Featured Article. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: J. R. Richard

Article: J. R. Richard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [9]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Featured article – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(Posted) 400m hurdles world record, update

Article: Sydney McLaughlin (talk · history · tag)
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:

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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).
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)[reply]
Why did you not nominate it then?BabbaQ (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(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.


Proposed image
Article: Milavče train crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Three people are killed when two trains crash head-on (locomotive involved pictured) at Milavče, Czech Republic (Post)
News source(s): (BBC)
Credits:

Article updated
 Mjroots (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Oh, that happened in 1962 anyway. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(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.


Article: Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics (talk · history · tag)
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
Nominator's comments: Very similar levels of hype to those in response to Warholm's run; if that really is the way we are going (promoting one sport's records to ITN, totally disregarding historical achievements in others), then it seems only consistent to do this as well. Kevin McE (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I came here to propose exactly what Masem just suggested. --LukeSurl t c 14:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't that a suggestion at ITN talk, and completely shot down? Kingsif (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ah, well, I'm sure that would be a separate ongoing nom. Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 3

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports


(Posted) Ongoing: 2020 Olympics

Article: 2020 Summer Olympics (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

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)[reply]

Yes, I foam at the mouth, on cue, at the sight of an 8-ball. – Sca (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]


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)[reply]

(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.


Nominator's comments: There have been world records established in many sports, not just one. Kevin McE (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I was talking about rowing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
People always die and elections always have results too. Kevin McE (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sure, as long as we can still argue there aren't enough sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Sportspeople win medals at a big event". A lot simpler, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, take a break now Martin, maybe a week or two. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted, 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.


Proposed image
Articles: Karsten Warholm (talk · history · tag) and Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 400 metres hurdles (talk · history · tag)
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
Nominator's comments: New outlets use "smashes" "decimates" "pulverizes" "destroys" "crushes" "blazing" to describe the new achievement. This record is 0.76 sec faster than the previous 46 second one, some 1.6% improvement -- equivalent to 0.15 sec improvement to Bolt's 100m dash. The silver medal guy also smashed the previous record. A month ago same guy broke the 29-year old record, but I don't recall that being posted. Should be able to merge this into the existing athletics WR blurb which was "only" a 1% improvement. 2A02:2F0E:D519:8B00:B55E:38C2:4BD5:B678 (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fine. Oppose withdrawn. Support double blurb though.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Ongoing: 2021 Taliban offensive

Article: 2021 Taliban offensive (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Ongoing, look to capture major cities. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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: