Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions
JMonkey2006 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
*'''Support''' Certainly magnitudes more important than the multitude of launches posted every now and then on ITN. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 07:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' Certainly magnitudes more important than the multitude of launches posted every now and then on ITN. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 07:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' significant, made the news and the article [[Kosmos 1408]] is short but adequate. Given the military nature of this satellite and its destruction, we can't expect to know that many details. Of the proposed blurbs, only alt 1 is good. --[[User:LukeSurl|LukeSurl]]<sup> [[User Talk:LukeSurl|t]] [[Special:Contributions/LukeSurl|c]]</sup> 10:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' significant, made the news and the article [[Kosmos 1408]] is short but adequate. Given the military nature of this satellite and its destruction, we can't expect to know that many details. Of the proposed blurbs, only alt 1 is good. --[[User:LukeSurl|LukeSurl]]<sup> [[User Talk:LukeSurl|t]] [[Special:Contributions/LukeSurl|c]]</sup> 10:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support in principle''' this is a significant story BUT it simply cannot be posted with a blurb of this quality. Its language is misleading and makes it sound as if a functional satellite was attacked, but rather a defunct satellite was destroyed as part of a weapons test... slightly different. Possibly also include the name of the missile system, if known, and replace "Russia" with the actual agency overseeing the test. [[User:JMonkey2006|JMonkey2006]] ([[User talk:JMonkey2006|talk]]) 11:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== November 15 == |
== November 15 == |
Revision as of 11:10, 17 November 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
November 17
November 17, 2021
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
November 16
November 16, 2021
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Ready) Kosmos 1408
Blurb: Russia shoots down Kosmos 1408 with an anti-satellite weapon creating dangerous space debris. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Russia shoots down Kosmos 1408 with an anti-satellite weapon, creating a field of space debris.
Alternative blurb II: Kosmos 1408 is destroyed by a Russian anti-satellite weapon and turned into a stream of space debris.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Reuters, Guardian, Bloomberg
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Created by Mike Peel (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Smeagol 17 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: We have some real news about the ISS now as the crew have to take shelter from a shower of debris created by a Russian missile test. And the Kessler syndrome advances another notch. What we're mainly missing is a good picture but we might use something generic like this. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support
in principle, as this is a significant event for the space industry (more so than Crew-3 that we already have on the template). However the article is pretty lightweight and could use some expansion. It also needs a source for the claim that Russia was responsible for the test - we can't claim something in the blurb that isn't cited in the article. I would also remove 'dangerous' from the blurb as that's quite a strong accusation. Modest Genius talk 13:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)- Article seems fine now, though as I was one of the users updating it an independent assessment would be welcome. Modest Genius talk 18:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support on the merits; the use of an anti-satellite weapon(even as a test) is rare and few countries possess such technology. Russia isn't denying it. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- @331dot: Yes, the use is rare and few countries possess such technology. Yet, I remember a similar test from India a couple of years ago was rejected as the technology "has been around for a while." If I recall correctly, there had been significant debate about debris back then too. 2405:201:4013:8087:A828:E291:B9B5:4B09 (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I can only comment on the nomination in front of me; I can't speak to past ones at this time. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support in principle though article needs to include that Russia shot it down (right now, the article just says it broke up). And other cn tags in article would need fixing. Though I agree, this is way more important/notable/covered in news sources than Crew-3. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I started putting this through DYK earlier today, see Template:Did you know nominations/Kosmos 1408, since I haven't enjoyed participating in previous ITN discussions. But if you want this here, then the DYK can be withdrawn. I've updated the template above, since I started the article yesterday. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- One option would be to merge this into the existing Crew-3 ISS mission blurb. If Kosmos 1408 is not bolded then it can still be a DYK too. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose merging those blurbs - these are separate events. Modest Genius talk 14:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I also oppose merging- they're separate events, and this one is more important, so shouldn't be stuck on the end of some less important and newswirthy article that's only on the front page because it was alledgedly ITNR (even though that ITNR criteria was demonstrated to be unfit for purpose). And if this does reach front page, then DYK would no longer be eligible, but until that point, don't see a need to withdraw the DYK nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- We could remove the Crew-3 blurb and replace it with this one when this is ready to go (assuming Crew-3 is still on ITN). Yeah, it doesn't get its "full time" there, but I agree that it doesn't make sense to merge, but having two ISS-related things could be seen as overwhelming the box. --Masem (t) 14:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I also oppose merging- they're separate events, and this one is more important, so shouldn't be stuck on the end of some less important and newswirthy article that's only on the front page because it was alledgedly ITNR (even though that ITNR criteria was demonstrated to be unfit for purpose). And if this does reach front page, then DYK would no longer be eligible, but until that point, don't see a need to withdraw the DYK nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose merging those blurbs - these are separate events. Modest Genius talk 14:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Fairly widely covered, but broader significance of a "threat" to the ISS isn't so apparent. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support in principle. This is very significant news and an interesting story of high encyclopedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support in principle per above, just needs better fleshing out of the article. --Masem (t) 13:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Upon reflection, it seems to be a serious threat all right, but ... can we post something that hasn't had a tangible effect ... yet? – Sca (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- PS: My question is, did Putin authorize this stupid 'test' – or was it just an act of heedless military apparatchiks down in the bureaucracy? (Russia is an oligarchy that has a country – a country that has an enormous military.) – Sca (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- The way I'm reading it, the story is more that Russia has appeared to have violated a treaty related to space-bound weapons, in addition to this being a story of interest to space exploration (the potential of damage to the ISS that forced the crew to shelter for at least two orbits as it passed through the debris field). --Masem (t) 14:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Reasonable enough. However, the threat to human lives (including two Russians!) seems more compelling in terms of reader interest. – Sca (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- From our article on the Outer Space Treaty: "Although it forbids establishing military bases, testing weapons and conducting military maneuvers on celestial bodies, the treaty does not expressly ban all military activities in space, nor the establishment of military space forces or the placement of conventional weapons in space". Testing an anti-satellite weapon on your own target is not against any treaty, just regarded as irresponsible. Note that the US, China and India have all conducted similar tests with no legal repercussions or UN censure. Modest Genius talk 15:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose no longer fresh, not really in the news, rolled off a while ago and probably better suited for DYK. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- What's your time frame for "no longer fresh"? The BBC article is only 12 hours old and the event itself occurred yesterday. It's certainly a newer event than anything currently in the ITN box... --Jayron32 16:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The BBC published two more articles about this story in just the last hour [1] [2]. That seems pretty fresh. Modest Genius talk 16:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- It happened yesterday, and is very much still in the news. Much more so than the posted blurbs, such as the NYC Marathon on 7 November for example. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- OH sure, you can dig into websites and find more analysis, but it's not headline news and hasn't been for most of the day now. Even the article makes it clear that the "main event" has passed. Biggest headlines in the UK are now that Johnson is proposing to prevent MPs from getting paid consultancy jobs. This story is no longer even on the BBC News homepage. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- It happened yesterday, and is very much still in the news. Much more so than the posted blurbs, such as the NYC Marathon on 7 November for example. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article is short, but sufficient; it seems to have developed some since the earlier notes. Topic is being covered by reliable news sources. --Jayron32 16:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose ... for now. Article text comprises 340 words, of which 115 are background, leaving a mere 230 words about the current threat. IMO, too thin for MP promotion. Second, we shouldn't blurb something that hasn't had an impact (yet). – Sca (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- PS: Given that the current situation could continue for quite some time, perhaps after a bit we should consider posting this directly to Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Whatever political fallout there has been is pretty much so far just a short but important burst (for blurb posting), but there's no sign this is going to escalate into something further, in comparison to the nuclear submarine sale a few months back. --Masem (t) 19:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- PS: Given that the current situation could continue for quite some time, perhaps after a bit we should consider posting this directly to Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wait is there a real danger debris hits other satellites soon, or is this just "an abundance of caution"? Will there be significant geo-political ramifications from the test? Until one of those is "yes", I think we should wait. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Everywhere is at risk for disaster, but this info is nothing like disaster actually happening. Political story, and involving two countries who always bicker. Could change if the ISS is destroyed or something stronger than words breaks out. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Is this an RD nom for the destruction of Kosmos 1408? If so, its "career section" needs an expansion to describe how it was used while still in orbit and operational.--PFHLai (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Questionable significance as far as potential impacts, especially given at the moment it is just predictive. I would assume that the test itself is not sufficient for ITN, so I'm on the "Oppose" side here. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support even if nothing happens to the ISS, ASAT weapon tests don't happen every day, or even every year. Banedon (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Certainly magnitudes more important than the multitude of launches posted every now and then on ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support significant, made the news and the article Kosmos 1408 is short but adequate. Given the military nature of this satellite and its destruction, we can't expect to know that many details. Of the proposed blurbs, only alt 1 is good. --LukeSurl t c 10:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support in principle this is a significant story BUT it simply cannot be posted with a blurb of this quality. Its language is misleading and makes it sound as if a functional satellite was attacked, but rather a defunct satellite was destroyed as part of a weapons test... slightly different. Possibly also include the name of the missile system, if known, and replace "Russia" with the actual agency overseeing the test. JMonkey2006 (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
November 15
November 15, 2021
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
RD: Katarina Blagojević
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Telegraf
Credits:
- Nominated by TJMSmith (talk · give credit)
- Created by Uldis s (talk · give credit)
- Updated by 93.86.229.111 (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: Serbian chess player. TJMSmith (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
RD: Dzifa Attivor
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ghanaweb
Credits:
- Nominated by TJMSmith (talk · give credit)
- Created by Natsubee (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ampimd (talk · give credit) and Mrkokgh (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: Ghanaian politician and businesswoman. TJMSmith (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
RD: Julio Lugo
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Boston Globe MLB.com ESPN.com
Credits:
- Nominated by ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk · give credit)
- Created by 68.227.39.47 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ackru (talk · give credit), Nohomersryan (talk · give credit), Dmoore5556 (talk · give credit) and 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.
Nominator's comments: Former Major League Baseball player. Article could be slightly improved. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment lots of cn tags at the moment, which would need to be resolved. Also, a lot of headings, seems way too many to me (as lots of sections are 1-2 sentences saying he signed for someone and then played a few or no games, then left). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I can try to address the noted items tonight (US eastern timezone) and will leave a note here once updated. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I finished sourcing the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Along with sourcing added by Muboshgu (thank you) I've added relevant details about Lugo's baseball career; the article looks to be in good shape now. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
RD: Clarissa Eden
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph
Credits:
- Nominated by TJMSmith (talk · give credit)
- Created by MartinCollin (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Neveselbert (talk · give credit), RedRumRomanus (talk · give credit) and IXIA (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: British countess, memoirist, and centenarian. Still needs some citations. TJMSmith (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
2021 Bulgarian general election
Blurb: In the Bulgarian general election, We Continue the Change (co-leader Kiril Petkov pictured) wins the most seats. (Post)
Alternative blurb: We Continue the Change wins the most seats in the Bulgarian general election.
News source(s): FT Euronews, Balkan Insight, Sofia Globe, Reuters, DW, Spiegel (In German)
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by BastianMAT (talk · give credit)
- Updated by FellowMellow (talk · give credit), PLATEL (talk · give credit), Aréat (talk · give credit) and Braganza (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Second election held yesterday, ITNR, being a general election. The election comission has announced that We Continue the Change has won most seats, so therefore such a nomination can now be made. As we have posted the winner in the previous elections, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2021#(Posted)_Bulgarian_parliamentary_election. They are a new party too, so surprising. I have added a result synopsis and started the aftermath. Good article, have spent a lot of time on it myself with a few others. BastianMAT (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article has minimum of prose describing the leadup, results, and aftermath. More writing would be nice, but it's passable for the main page. Everything is referenced and it has prose, which is more than can be said for many of the nominations of this type. --Jayron32 12:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Is it time to start the English wikibio for the other co-leader of We Continue the Change, Asen Vasilev? The coalition has two leaders, not just Petkov. Do we want to wait till a government is formed? --PFHLai (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I guess yeah, he deserves one too, but Petkov is the primary focus here as he is the one seeking to become prime minister (per https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/14/bulgarian-elections-newly-formed-pp-party-neck-and-neck-with-right-wing-gerb-party). The truth is we don't even know yet if they will be successful forming a goverment, but we posted both the Czech party SPOLU and the last Bulgarian election when ITN won the most seats as the election itself is ITNR, so going by that this nomination/blurb should be suitable to make it out to the front page.BastianMAT (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article is in great shape. I think the easiest way to solve what PFHLai exposes is to put in the blurb that Petkov is the "co-leader", thus making it understood that he is not the only one leading the coalition. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- How about not mentioning either co-leaders in the blurb? (See alt1) I'm not sure about using the proposed photo of Petkov on MainPage, anyway. --PFHLai (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support altblurb1 Just updated the numbers of the results, the article is well-written --Vacant0 (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
2021 Argentinian Midterm Election
Blurb: In the Argentine legislative election, Juntos por el Cambio wins the most seats as Frente de Todos lose their majority in the Chamber of Deputies and Senate. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In the Argentine legislative election, Juntos por el Cambio wins the most seats as Frente de Todos lose their majority in the Chamber of Deputies and Senate for the first time since 1983.
Alternative blurb II: In the Argentine legislative election, Juntos por el Cambio wins the most seats.
Alternative blurb III: In the Argentine legislative election, Frente de Todos loses its majority in both chambers for the first time since 1983.
News source(s): Reuters AP News Express News Aljazzera Dw News BBC Yahoo
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by BastianMAT (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Dainshku (talk · give credit), PLATEL (talk · give credit) and Aréat (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: It is ITNR, big news as the opposition won the legislative elections/midterm elections and the ruling party have lost both majorities in the chamber of deputies and the senate for the first time since 1983. BastianMAT (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose As of now, there is no prose synopsis of the results of the main election. There is only a prose synopsis of the primaries. If that is fixed, this can be posted. --Jayron32 14:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Have added an synopsis now. BastianMAT (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Senate section? --Jayron32 17:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support as and when the article gets cleaned up a bit This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support when the article is cleaned up a bit. Remember, go for it!. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I wanted to nominate this but hasitated. Are these midterms considered general elections? Half of the seats in the lower chamber and 1/3 of the upper chamber are up for election and our article defines general elections as "elections in which all or most members of a political body are chosen." Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I half-wondered if such "mid-term" elections were covered by ITNR. If they are, perhaps that should also be explicitly noted at ITNR. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, mid terms elections are part of it, it is notable too as the ruling party have lost their majority. Here is the US one that was also posted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/November_2018#(Posted)_2018_US_Midterm_Elections.BastianMAT (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- But that was mainly because it involved "all or most members of a political body are chosen". This doesn't appear to be the case here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- It depends on how you see on it. The mid term senate elections in US only feature 34 members up running for election. In Argentina it was half of the congress and enough for an significant change in both political bodies (ruling party losing control of both the house and the senate).BastianMAT (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well it doesn't matter what happened in the US, how does this meet the requirements at ITNR? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- From what I understand, in the US midterms all House seats+1/3 of Senate seats were up for election so that would be considered as "most members of an electoral body" but here it's only half. Does that still count as general elections? If so it's ITN/R, if not who knows. Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I agree, it is arguable for both sides. At least based on this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midterm_election, Argentina[1] (legislative and local election) falls under the heading General elections (which makes it ITNR) alongside the United States (legislative and local election) which was posted.BastianMAT (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it is arguable here, it doesn't meet the definition in ITNR and it's a mid-term, not a general election by any normal definition (despite what "Wikipedia" might say). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I agree, it is arguable for both sides. At least based on this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midterm_election, Argentina[1] (legislative and local election) falls under the heading General elections (which makes it ITNR) alongside the United States (legislative and local election) which was posted.BastianMAT (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- From what I understand, in the US midterms all House seats+1/3 of Senate seats were up for election so that would be considered as "most members of an electoral body" but here it's only half. Does that still count as general elections? If so it's ITN/R, if not who knows. Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – First four grafs back into the results and seem needlessly complex. – Sca (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment the table in the infobox violates MOS:COLHEAD by having column headers in the middle of the table. And we shouldn't consider putting this on front page until the results are complete, as a minimum. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Blurbs are needlessly complex. Would support if blurb was simpler. Pyramids09 (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Added AltBlurb 3 as a simplified version of AltBlurb 1, which was the better of the prior three for highlighting the historical significance of the results. Let me know what you think. Mount Patagonia (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
November 14
November 14, 2021
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Politics and elections
|
Liverpool Women's Hospital bombing
Blurb: A taxi carrying bomber Emad Al-Swealmeen arrived at Liverpool Women's Hospital in Liverpool, England. Al-Swealmeen killed himself and injured the driver. (Post)
Alternative blurb: An attempted terrorist bombing by Emad Al-Swealmeen at Liverpool Women's Hospital in Liverpool, England, kills him and injures another man.
Alternative blurb II: An explosion, which killed the alleged bomber and injured another man at Liverpool Women's Hospital in Liverpool, England, is declared a terror incident.
News source(s): "Liverpool hospital taxi explosion: what we know so far". The Guardian. 15 November 2021. Retrieved 15 November 2021.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)"Liverpool Women's Hospital explosion declared a terror incident". BBC News. 15 November 2021. Retrieved 15 November 2021.
Credits:
- Nominated by AFreshStart (talk · give credit)
- Created by Serial Number 54129 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: This is a current event and newsworthy. —AFreshStart (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support this has been declared a terrorist incident, and is generating lots of news (it's prominent on the BBC News site still). I believe it's the first bombing in England since 2017 Manchester Arena one, and caused the UK terror threat level to be increased. Article itself is good enough quality. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support given that they have assigned terrorist motives to this now. My attempt at a more concise/ITN-style altblurb given, please edit as needed. --Masem (t) 17:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- "Police said the motivation for the attack was unclear but it had been declared as a terrorist incident." InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient length and quality, properly referenced, and item is in the news currently. No objections here. --Jayron32 17:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Has also been nominated at DYK.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support alt still in the news. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose This was a minor terrorist attack that caused only one casualty. Now we are not concerned about the number of victims? Certainly "is in the news", but I don't think it has the same relevance as other terrorist incidents that have occurred that have not been approved to be on Main Page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- The perpetrator was killed and the taxi driver was hospitalised. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Failed attack which caused one injury and killed the attacker. It's not clear what the target was or who it was supposed to terrorise. If this hadn't been declared a terrorist incident it would be minor local news. I encourage the existing DYK nom instead. Modest Genius talk 19:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Regardless of terrorism tag, I suspect this would have been national news. But of course, we will never know. The fact is it is big national news. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- But it was declared a terrorist attack, which adds notability to the incident. Jbvann05 20:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support alt Notable, now declared a terrorist incident, article in decent shape. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 19:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Terrorism need not have a high death count in order to be notable and newsworthy; we have posted terrorist incidents on ITN that have had a death toll of zero.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I find it very interesting how many of those who support this nomination refused to publish the terrorist attack in Auckland in September, whose consequences were almost the same as in this case. Any clarification? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean "refused to publish"? They didn't !vote there. Apart from Modest Genius, who is opposed here also? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer because clearly I've realized that I have not expressed myself well. I mean that at the time, the reason why I've opposed was the same used by other users (who have not participated in this debate, except Modest Genius) to not support the cited nomination in September. That is why I am frankly surprised. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- BLP Caution One suspect is dead, but four others are arrested in connection; might want to attribute this "attempted terrorist bombing" instead of stating it as a fact Wikipedia knows (a "declaration" from police is still an allegation). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Counter Terrorism Police Caution: all four have been released: [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- OK, nevermind then. Can't go wrong speaking ill of the dead. At least by Wikipedian norms. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- No need to get personal, if you don't mind. Norman Butkiss 123 (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. I will admit to perhaps being more jaded to bomb stories than some other nationalities may be, but even with that notwithstanding, I don't believe we'd be considering an attack which killed no victims and injured one if it took place elsewhere (we recently didn't post, for example, an attack that targeted but didn't kill a head of state). That isn't necessarily to say there's any deliberate bias here but it's important to remember that England has a well-developed media sphere and any regional story will have a lot of domestic coverage, but we are not necessarily beholden to repeat their biases. For reference, even the BBC have displaced this story in favour of the latest update in a racism dispute in county cricket. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support major incident, leading news story, article decent. Polyamorph (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support (Alt 2). UK terror threat level raised from substantial to severe pushes it over the edge. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose As suicide in Britain goes, it was unusually public and explosive, but lacks too much death and destruction next to the general public suicide bombings (a similar story from Strathroy-Caradoc#History isn't even an article, for context). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose -- it's already stopped being news, it seems. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 02:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Questionable significance since nothing major [fortunately] did not take place. Gotitbro (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as the investigation has not been completed and it has not been confirmed yet whether it was terrorism, whether the detonation was intentional or accidental, or who the intended victim or victims might to have been. The current article contains too much opinion, innuendo, and speculation portrayed as fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
T20 World Cup
Blurb: In cricket, the T20 World Cup concludes with Australia defeating New Zealand in the final (Post)
News source(s): BBC Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Modest Genius (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Chandraach (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: I'm not keen on T20, but this is ITNR. Prose summaries of both innings are present though are currently unreferenced. It doesn't seem at all controversial though, so should be easy to source from a few match reports (such as those linked above). Modest Genius talk 12:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment the table in "Road to the final" section is ugly- couldn't this just be done in a paragraph of text, as in 2016 article? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. It's also not compliant with MOS:ACCESS since it contains nested tables. This should be fixed before it's posted on the main page. — Amakuru (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
RD: Etel Adnan
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:
- Nominated by TJMSmith (talk · give credit)
- Created by Distingué Traces (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Tuckerlieberman (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: Lebanese-American poet, essayist, and visual artist TJMSmith (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose A number of cite tags need to be fixed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Bertie Auld
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Joseywales1961 (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: Former Celtic, Birmingham and Scotland player and European Cup winner in 1967 with Celtic. Needs some citations which I’ll try and sort in the morning (if someone wants to fix in the meantime please do) JW 1961 Talk 20:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Missing citations added now, should be ok JW 1961 Talk 08:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ref 10 (FitbaStats) is a reliable source. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Bloom6132, it's not listed at Deprecated Sources or Perennial Sources, neither does Cite Highlighter mark it red and so I would assume it's ok (I'm of course open to correction) JW 1961 Talk 14:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Update Reference the fitbastats ref (as of now number 16) and which references his overall Celtic honours - I have supplemented this with individual cites for the trophies/competitions so it is now really redundant JW 1961 Talk 23:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) Indigo Partners orders 255 Airbus A321 jets
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: Indigo Partners orders 255 Airbus A321 jets. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Count Iblis (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Comment Good for Airbus, but what makes this an ITN story? --Tone 17:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Suggest snow close. This is barely even 'news' 2405:201:4013:815B:A828:E291:B9B5:4B09 (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose one of the less ITN-worthy nominations of this nominator. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Below the radar. – Sca (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Newsworthiness aside, a single-sentence update to a stub won't be enough for ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
November 13
November 13, 2021
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Ed Bullins
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by AleatoryPonderings (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: Needs more sourcing work which I may be able to get to in the next 24–36 hours. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
RD: Joanna Semel Rose
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Legacy
Credits:
- Nominated by TJMSmith (talk · give credit)
- Created by Yorker (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: American art patron and collector, publisher, and philanthropist. TJMSmith (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
RD: Petra Mayer
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by TJMSmith (talk · give credit)
- Created by MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Isabelle Belato (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: American book review editor and journalist. TJMSmith (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- This stubby wikibio is 1482 characters long. Any more to add? --PFHLai (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose 1491 characters is too short to be on the front page. Surely there's more that can be said about her? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Dubious This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
RD: Sam Huff
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/sam-huff-dead/2021/11/13/493c542c-2e8e-11e6-b5db-e9bc84a2c8e4_story.html
Credits:
- Updated by Dylan620 (talk · give credit) and Dissident93 (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: American football hall-of-famer. Could use more footnotes, but almost ready for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
RD: Wilbur Smith
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Stephen (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.
Stephen 03:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support – Very widely covered. Comprehensive article looks good. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Well-documented novelist. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. I am concerned about the sourcing. Lots of references to "wilbursmithbooks.com", lots of references to his autobio On Leopard Rock without corresponding secondary sources, tons of references to other books he's written. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see as many cites to the website (now?) but I do agree that his writing career section is a bit too heavily reliant on his autobio. It is reasonable for a writer like Smith to use his autobio to fill in gaps from other reliable sourcing, but it shouldn't be as heavily used for the "First Novels" section, for example. --Masem (t) 22:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- This wikibio has about 20 {cn} tags. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Glasgow Climate Pact
Blurb: Governments agree to the Glasgow Climate Pact at COP26, which includes a "phase-down" of coal. (Post)
Alternative blurb: 197 countries and territories agree to the Glasgow Climate Pact at COP26.
Alternative blurb II: The Glasgow Climate Pact is agreed at COP26 to attempt to limit the rise in global temperatures by 1.5°C.
News source(s): BBC, NYT, ABC, AP, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by JMonkey2006 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: The Paris Agreement was posted after COP21 concluded. This agreement is the same, if not more important for global climate action. JMonkey2006 (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Glasgow Climate Pact obviously isn't remotely close to being front-page quality, and 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference doesn't say what happened either. Once this is updated, I will probably support on importance. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose there's at least enough article to vote. Article still has issues; the "Pledges" section is describing things agreed at the conference that don't appear to be specifically part of the "Glasgow Climate Pact", and the link to Wikisource isn't broken. As far as importance ... we posted the conference once, and the biggest news is that there are plans to decrease coal usage ... this isn't worth posting again. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support – in principle ... pending updating and succinct revision of 2021 climate conference article. It would be very odd not to blurb this universally covered confab, now over. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment That we already posted the COP26 earlier, and that the general impression of the Glasgow Pact that I get from sources is that it is far less as a milestone compared to the Paris Agreements (since it basically affirms commitment to them) makes me wonder if this is really that significant to post a second time. --Masem (t) 14:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Au contraire. Despite disappointments, 'world leaders' said to "broadly welcome" the climate deal, which "for the first time targeted fossil fuels." At least they did something. Prominently covered by every major RS site. – Sca (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- That sentence wasn't over. First time targeting fossil fuels "as the key driver of global warming". Whatever that means. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Au contraire. Despite disappointments, 'world leaders' said to "broadly welcome" the climate deal, which "for the first time targeted fossil fuels." At least they did something. Prominently covered by every major RS site. – Sca (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Resistance is futile. "In asking nations to set tougher targets by next year for cutting climate-warming emissions, the agreement effectively acknowledged that commitments were still inadequate. National pledges currently have the world on track for about 2.4C of warming." The article quality outlook is also dire. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- We're not here to judge the work of the conferees. We're here to take note a very heavily covered, extended international conference that was widely and prominently covered. Do I think the so-called climate pact will solve global warming? No (although it might be a move in the right direction). What you or I think of it doesn't matter. What matters is, it was/is very much in the news, and the topic is hugely significant. – Sca (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- The work of the conferees is the topic. If the news reports the commitments made therein as inadequate, it's not hugely significant in the broader and more newsworthy topic area of global warming prevention. This running conference is just in the news because it was long expected to end today somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Nope. Even if they had done nothing it would be significant for reasons outlined above. – Sca (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- If we hadn't posted the COP26 thing earlier, I would have been fine with posting this as an ending point as generally the overall conference was in the news. But given that we already did and this new piece is not a major piece of environmental commitment compared to the Paris Agreement, double posting this is just not appropriate. --Masem (t) 22:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Nope. Even if they had done nothing it would be significant for reasons outlined above. – Sca (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- The work of the conferees is the topic. If the news reports the commitments made therein as inadequate, it's not hugely significant in the broader and more newsworthy topic area of global warming prevention. This running conference is just in the news because it was long expected to end today somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- We're not here to judge the work of the conferees. We're here to take note a very heavily covered, extended international conference that was widely and prominently covered. Do I think the so-called climate pact will solve global warming? No (although it might be a move in the right direction). What you or I think of it doesn't matter. What matters is, it was/is very much in the news, and the topic is hugely significant. – Sca (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose article is short and unsourced in places. Also, given the Paris Agreement exists, it seems the impact of this is minimal (limited only to reducing coal). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support on the merits; it's unusual for 197 countries to agree to any single document, even if largely a statement of principles or desires. But agree it is not yet suitable for posting. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- It should be pointed out that not all 190-some signing countries are committed to the same parts of the document: for example, only 40+ are on board with coal reduction. Hence why this is far less impactful as the Paris Agreements. --Masem (t) 13:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support original blurb in principle, oppose on quality. The pact is a bit of a damp squib, far less ambitious than expected or required. However we're not here to judge the outcome, just whether it meets the ITN criteria. This is certainly in the news, at or near the top of every quality media outlet. However the pact article is barely a start class and needs some major TLC before being postable. I considered bolding the COP26 article again, but its 'outcomes' section is in even worse state. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Conspicuous omission from ITN blurb box. – Sca (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sca As several users have noted, there are quality issues preventing posting. If you want to see it posted, you are welcome to fix those issues. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Sca In what sense? The article is not good enough for front page quality (as ITN isn't OTD, which likes to post poorly sourced articles), and there's no consensus to post it anyway, as they don't seem to have all agreed anything (as different countries signed different agreements). If you want news pushed out as fast as possible, use a news website. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- "likes"? Oh, come on. Be nice to our colleagues and neighbours on MainPage. They are rather understaffed there in SA/OTD. It's more like "less than ideal stuff sneaking through too often". But I'm off-topic... --PFHLai (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Sca In what sense? The article is not good enough for front page quality (as ITN isn't OTD, which likes to post poorly sourced articles), and there's no consensus to post it anyway, as they don't seem to have all agreed anything (as different countries signed different agreements). If you want news pushed out as fast as possible, use a news website. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sca As several users have noted, there are quality issues preventing posting. If you want to see it posted, you are welcome to fix those issues. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - given that we already posted the COP26 once, and the headline agreement doesn't appear to be a huge step forward, I don't see a need to post it again. Maybe next time we can hold off posting the opening of such events so that we can capture a one-time interesting headline for readers. — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
November 12
November 12, 2021
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) Ongoing: Belarus–EU border crisis
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): CNN, AP, BBC, Guiardian, dpa
Credits:
- Nominated by Brandmeister (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: The crisis has reportedly reached a new height recently. November updates are there. Brandmeistertalk 17:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Definitely for Ongoing. Escalating situation.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support – Major story, prominently covered for many days. We shouldn't continue ignoring it.
ProbablyMay be worth a blurb if something decisive happens. Support Ongoing for now. – Sca (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC) - Support ongoing it is an ongoing news story, and contrary to other people, there's no rule that it has to be on blurb before ongoing. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support – Deserved to be in the ongoing section. Major news story as mentioned above and article is more than ready. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support prominent enough (and updating frequently enough) to justify ongoing. I don't see a potential blurb. The article is not perfect, but it is good enough. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Ongoing crisis and definitely receiving major coverage. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support ongoing, lots of coverage JW 1961 Talk 23:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Appears to be a strong consensus for Ongoing. Suggest post there now. – Sca (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Strong Oppose ongoing. It needs a blurb first. It's a headline story in the news this week, so propose one. Then we'll consider ongoing afterwards. How many times do we have to go through this? It's getting ridiculous now. — Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)- Link to the policy page that supports your statement, please? WP:ITN says
Any story may be proposed for an "ongoing" link through the normal use of the nomination page. Generally, these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article.
suggests this nomination is just fine, procedurally. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)- Alright, forget it then, I guess you're right in this instance there isn't a very succinct headline. Oppose Struck. I'll post it for you in a second. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- I originally thought this was a joke and that this was a user, but then I realized that this is unironically stated by an admin. Wow. Wikipedia can be strange sometimes. --180.244.175.172 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Leaving aside your snide comments here, there's no joke I'm afraid. I, along with others, consistently oppose attempts to post stories in Ongoing without giving them a blurb first, because most of the time it's lazy, unnecessary and does a disservice to readers who deserve to be told the reason why a story's important. I made an exception here because it's a rare occasion where there's a big constantly-updated story that doesn't really have one catch-all blurb available. Most of the time we should be blurbing before we put things into Ongoing, that's just common sense given that the stories are big enough to make the news. — Amakuru (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly who are these "others"? And if you think that's the correct thing to do, you and your others could just discuss this to the talk page in order to stop the unnecessary ranting every time someone attempted to get a topic straight to Ongoing. As some users have pointed out (力 above, 331dot, and Indefensible), what you say isn't written anywhere, so it could confuse people. Have a great day. --180.244.175.150 (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Amakuru The way the guidelines are written would seem to suggest that the opposite of your position is true(
Any story may be proposed for an "ongoing" link through the normal use of the nomination page. Generally, these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article.
). If people want to know why something is important, they will read the article. If you would like to work to amend the guidelines to require a blurb first, please start such a discussion. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)- @331dot: you know as well as I do that the guidelines are mostly ignored in ITN discussions, in favour of precedent and unwritten custom. According to our "purpose", we are supposed to "help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" - something we blatantly don't do, because instead we evaluate the significance of everything at ITN/C, under the mantra that we're "not a newsticker". I used to argue the opposite, but at some point you accept the status quo. The same goes here. While the guidelines may suggest that something can go straight to Ongoing, in practice that rarely happens. We blurb stories first and then drop it to Ongoing later, that's simply the way it's always worked. It'd be fantastic if we had a set of proper guidelines that we could follow in all cases, but it would need a bit change in the way the discussions on this page work. — Amakuru (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Throughout my history here I have always worked for the posting of items that I think are in the news and likely to be searched for. This is not 331dot's In The News, it is a community project, and I accept the consensus of what happens here(that's not a criticism of you, but a statement about me.) I do not claim that blurb-ongoing doesn't or shouldn't happen, only that the guidelines do not preclude (and actually encourage) straight-to-Ongoing posting. I would support clarifying that both are possible if there is consensus to do so. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that most (but not all) of the time, stories should be blurbs before ongoing. If we need to discuss more, perhaps this should move to the talk page. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Throughout my history here I have always worked for the posting of items that I think are in the news and likely to be searched for. This is not 331dot's In The News, it is a community project, and I accept the consensus of what happens here(that's not a criticism of you, but a statement about me.) I do not claim that blurb-ongoing doesn't or shouldn't happen, only that the guidelines do not preclude (and actually encourage) straight-to-Ongoing posting. I would support clarifying that both are possible if there is consensus to do so. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- @331dot: you know as well as I do that the guidelines are mostly ignored in ITN discussions, in favour of precedent and unwritten custom. According to our "purpose", we are supposed to "help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" - something we blatantly don't do, because instead we evaluate the significance of everything at ITN/C, under the mantra that we're "not a newsticker". I used to argue the opposite, but at some point you accept the status quo. The same goes here. While the guidelines may suggest that something can go straight to Ongoing, in practice that rarely happens. We blurb stories first and then drop it to Ongoing later, that's simply the way it's always worked. It'd be fantastic if we had a set of proper guidelines that we could follow in all cases, but it would need a bit change in the way the discussions on this page work. — Amakuru (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Amakuru The way the guidelines are written would seem to suggest that the opposite of your position is true(
- Link to the policy page that supports your statement, please? WP:ITN says
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose There are many similar migrant/refugee issues elsewhere. For example, Record high migrant detentions at US-Mexico border; Record number of people cross Channel to UK in small boats; Ocean Viking: Nine-day standoff ends as migrant ship allowed to dock in Sicily; Iran deporting thousands of Afghan refugees. These seem endemic as there's a continuous pressure to move from poor and failed states to more stable and successful ones. It's not clear why this particular border should get attention and how it will stop being an ongoing issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Are you arguing that this is not receiving news coverage right now?(a genuine question) This is an example of refugees being used as a weapon, as the Belarus dictator has openly said he would do. There does not need to be a clear end date for something in order to post it to Ongoing; its removal can be proposed if it drops out of the news. If you feel other such events should be posted, please nominate them, we can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- All of these hotspots are in the news both now and as ongoing for years. To single one out for special attention, there needs to be some special incident and that is best done as a blurb. As an ongoing entry, the linked article should be something more general such as European migrant crisis or List of largest refugee crises. Note that the latter has four entries which extend to the present day. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Are you arguing that this is not receiving news coverage right now?(a genuine question) This is an example of refugees being used as a weapon, as the Belarus dictator has openly said he would do. There does not need to be a clear end date for something in order to post it to Ongoing; its removal can be proposed if it drops out of the news. If you feel other such events should be posted, please nominate them, we can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Weak oppose ongoing, support blurb This seems to be a recent escalation for an ongoing border issue, for which a blurb makes sense IMO. If it's still ongoing by the time it rolls off the template, then it would be fine for ongoing. I know a blurb isn't a specific requirement for items to be added to the ongoing section, but given the inertia common to the ongoing section and the vague timelines that accompany these items (the majority of the time they are removed following lack of regular update for 1-2 weeks), I think encouraging blurbs with roll-over to ongoing should be preferred, and for this item I think makes a lot of sense. SpencerT•C 19:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Then I suggest you make a suggestion for a blurb. Otherwise we are discussing something that does not exist.BabbaQ (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Fifty-some migrants break through into Polish territory, reportedly aided by Belorussian border guards. [4] [5] [6] (in German) – Sca (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- PS: EU parliamentarians denounce Lukashenko regime's "attacks" on EU/Polish border. – Sca (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – EU FMs unanimously agree on new sanctions against Belarus. [7] [8] [9] [10]
– Sca (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Hugh Leatherman
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The State
Credits:
- Nominated by PCN02WPS (talk · give credit)
- Updated by 96.255.245.135 (talk · give credit) and 192.251.46.138 (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: South Carolina state senator for 30 years, died in office. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. By the way, it was 40 years, not 30. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Ron Flowers
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sky, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Joseph2302 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Joseywales1961 (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: Club career section needs more sources, then should be good to go. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support I replaced the citation needed tags with references, looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 21:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
November 11
November 11, 2021
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents Health and environment
International relations
|
RD: Cristiana Lôbo
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Exame
Credits:
- Nominated by TJMSmith (talk · give credit)
- Created by Jvbignacio9 (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: Brazilian journalist. TJMSmith (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- This wikibio is long enough and has footnotes in expected spots. I have to AGF all the non-English refs. The bare URLs in refs need to be dressed, though. Otherwise, this is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Art Stewart
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MLB.com; Associated Press; The Kansas City Star
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Bloom6132 (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Long enough and with footnotes at expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 23:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Lee Ying-yuan
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Taipei Times
Credits:
- Updated by Pachu Kannan (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: Here's another somewhat thin wikibio of a Chinese politician and government official. It should meet the basic hygiene standards, but it would be great if more can be added on what he did as a minister. --PFHLai (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Phyllis Webb
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by AleatoryPonderings (talk · give credit)
- Created by YUL89YYZ (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.
AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Long enough and with footnotes at expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
RD: Graeme Edge
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC etc
Credits:
- Nominated by A lad insane (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: Drummer and only original member of the Moody Blues still in the band. Long shot; article isn't great. -- a lad insane (channel two) 00:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment a couple of referenced pieces in here, and a few CN tags as well. Fix those up and you'll be good to go
Support Good to go. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Please add more references. The orange tags and the {cn} tags asking for more references ought to be addressed before this nom can proceed. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Aga Mikolaj
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): operawire.com and others
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
- Created by LouisAlain (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The article was just created this year. Sad loss (COVID-19, age 51) of a great soprano voice (as the DYK said). Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Well-referenced. Nicely done article. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Winter (dolphin)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tampa Bay Times
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article well sourced and updated. RIP Winter --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support article looks good enough for RD. And animals with an individual article are eligible for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Would be unique to post an animal RD. Heythereimaguy (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- We've had several dogs, cats, horses, and even a tree ;) But, all good here (I removed an unreferenced non-essential sentence), posting. --Tone 16:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- How about Doug, the world's biggest potato, recently exhumed in NZ? – Sca (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) Lundin Energy war crimes indictment
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: Lundin Energy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Two top executives of Lundin Energy are indicted in Sweden for abetting war crimes in Sudan. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters,
Sverirges Radio,
Financial Times,
Credits:
- Nominated by Ugly Ketchup (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose Indicted is not the same as convicted, which is our usually ITN metric. Additionally, this would definitely require more than a single sentence update. --Masem (t) 01:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME, they haven't been convicted. If convicted then maybe then it would be ITN-worthy, but completely inappropriate to post allegations to ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Absent from most RS sites, not generally in the news. – Sca (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose any mere indictment. Modest Genius talk 13:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Lee Maracle
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC
Credits:
- Nominated by AleatoryPonderings (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: Needs some ref work which I can hopefully get to soon-ish. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support meets quality requirements for RD. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
(Blurb posted) RD: F. W. de Klerk
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: F. W. de Klerk, the last apartheid-era President of South Africa, dies at the age of 85. (Post)
Alternative blurb: F. W. de Klerk, the last white President of South Africa, who backed an end to apartheid, dies at age 85.
Alternative blurb II: Former South African President F. W. de Klerk (pictured), who negotiated the end of apartheid with Nelson Mandela, dies at age 85.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters, Al Jazeera
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (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: Last president of apartheid South Africa. Article being updated at present - Dumelow (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- A blurb candidate? --PFHLai (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think an argument for a blurb can be made, that he was a "major figure". 331dot (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- A blurb seems appropriate, a historically important and influential national leader. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that this is blurb-level in significance. --LukeSurl t c 11:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb Clearly a candidate for blurb. The article doesn’t appear to be in bad shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb Transformative leader for South Africa. Even though not all of his views and actions should be glorified, his role in securing a peaceful transition to democracy is undeniable. It wasn't just for symbolism that he got to share the Nobel with Nelson Mandela. Davey2116 (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support he's not Mandela (which seems to be used a lot to oppose blurb postings), but he is still an important figure in moving South Africa to democracy/ending apartheid. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb While early talks began with Botha, the bulk of the negotiations between the ANC and the apartheid regime was through talks between Klerk and Mandela. Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Update I would prefer altblurb2 Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb - prominent SA politician for a long time. Mjroots (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb per Davey2116's and Scaramouche33's comments. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support blub The man who ended apartheid and made it sure that those who use the Mandela excuse, Only can because of the brave thing de Klerk did. Well written article and fully deserves a blurb. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb article in good nick, historically notable individual, good to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support – Transformative. Favor alt1, offered above. – Sca (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Blurb posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Do we need to point out that he was white, especially if a picture is provided? We did not post that Mandela was black, but that he was an anti-apartheid leader. I think mentioning apartheid is more beneficial to readers than just the appearance/race. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Most RS coverage refers to him as the last white president. Since racial apartheid was basically a white-supremacy policy, his race was and is highly relevant. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Also if you don't say 'white' then it may be difficult and/or confusing to avoid awkwardly saying 'apartheid' twice.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- We can switch to alt1 if support is demonstrated here. --PFHLai (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- (Post-Posting) Support Altblurb (ideally altblurb2, but altblurb1 is also OK by me). (Support modified as I've now added Altblurb2, detailed explanation to follow below shortly) I was about to propose an altblurb myself before the current altblurb got suggested, and before the blurb got posted, but ran into edit conflict twice, and I see the proposed altblurb is probably a lot more concise than I could have managed. Our blurb should say as concisely as possible something like that he negotiated the end of apartheid with Mandela (concision may or may not require omitting explicit mention of Mandela, as in the current altblurb). After all, that's why he's really notable and worth a blurb. And if we don't say it explicitly (and our posted blurb doesn't) it arguably makes us look a bit racist to the uninformed, on the basis of 'Why would an Apartheid President deserve a blurb?'. I may or may not try to add one or more other altblurbs shortly, simply to mention Mandela, but I suspect other editors may do a better (more concise) job there than me, as I'm usually not very good at concision. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- But we're impressed with your use of the word "concision." – Sca (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC) ;-)
- And presumably you're even more impressed with the lack of concision in my use of the word "concision." – Tlhslobus (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, appropriately, it was your last word (the 175th). – Sca (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- And presumably you're even more impressed with the lack of concision in my use of the word "concision." – Tlhslobus (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- But we're impressed with your use of the word "concision." – Sca (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC) ;-)
- Not disagreeing on a stronger altblurb, but I would suggest stronger language as he not only backed the end, but (from our article) seemed to actively support steps in dismantling apartheid and making South Africa democratic (obviously he didn't do it alone). Just saying he backed the end seems to be an undercut statement to that point. --Masem (t) 13:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I used "backed" as a slightly shorter version of "supported" (ex-jnlst that I am). – Sca (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I've now added altblurb2, and amended my support to support it as my preferred altblurb, tho altblurb1 is also OK by me. The advantages of altblurb2 (compared to altblurb1) is that it avoids mentioning 'white', avoids saying 'apartheid' twice, mentions Mandela, and is stronger and more precise than merely 'backed', while still being only slightly longer than altblurb1. (I've already mentioned above the advantages of either altblurb compared to our current posted blurb). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- (Altblurb2 just got a little longer as I've added '(pictured)' to show its expected true length).Tlhslobus (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I've deitalicized the situation somewhat. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support altb-2 Better and more holistic than the current blurb, simply stating apartheid doesn't cut it for the average reader. Gotitbro (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Let us not forget that we should not put the blurbs so long if it's not an essential requirement (in this case we would go up to, possibly, six lines in Main Page). In the same way that we should not forget that in most cases we do not specify so much the reason why that person is remarkable. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Consensus for Alt2 has emerged, blurb updated. Stephen 00:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Post-posting blurb support I support the current blurb posted. Is there a way to include his Nobel Prize win. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- It can be done in several ways. Shortest is perhaps "Nobel-Prize-winning former ...". Alternatively "..., who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Nelson Mandela for ending apartheid, ...". But I'm neutral on whether it would be a good idea, for several reasons. On the plus side it's fairly important info. On the minus side, it lengthens the blurb. And I had to omit the date to avoid confusion (the prize was 1993, apartheid ended in 1994). And some might argue that it's unnecessary/unbalanced gilding of the lily, and some might want to balance it with a word such as "controversial" (because of his actual or alleged role/responsibility in some of the worst crimes of apartheid, a seemingly still ongoing debate in today's South Africa). Personally I prefer not to risk getting further involved in such an argument. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
(Closed)(Re-posted) Crew-3 launch
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: SpaceX launches four astronauts on the Crew-3 mission to the International Space Station. (Post)
News source(s): [11]
Credits:
- Nominated by Scaramouche33 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
- Support And you know right. I can’t see any issue in the article. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose To post this when we recently denied Captain Kirk would be partisan boosterism. This just seems to be a routine journey without any special newsworthiness. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, this one actually went into space space. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- This wasn't exactly going boldly as the ISS is only 250 miles up – I drove further than that myself yesterday. The main point that the NYT article makes is that this is now over 600 people in space (and they include the Shatner launch in this too). At some point this is routine, rather than special news. Shatner got attention on account of his remarkable age and his celebrity but this launch doesn't have so much going for it. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, only crewed missions that go into orbit are considered ITN/R whereas the Blue Origin mission was suborbital. Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- It's ITNR so this opposition can be overlooked. We're here to assess the quality of the article only. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- ITNR items do allow to discuss if the specific instance may not be as notable as other elements in broad category (via IAR), though we should not be using ITNC to argue about inclusion of the broad category. (To that end, I have opened a thread at WT:ITN related to removing this ITNR item) --Masem (t) 17:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- This wasn't exactly going boldly as the ISS is only 250 miles up – I drove further than that myself yesterday. The main point that the NYT article makes is that this is now over 600 people in space (and they include the Shatner launch in this too). At some point this is routine, rather than special news. Shatner got attention on account of his remarkable age and his celebrity but this launch doesn't have so much going for it. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, this one actually went into space space. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment although space flights are listed on ITN/R, there no actual link to a discussion on there (whereas almost every other ITN/R item has actually had a discussion). Did people actually ever agree that they should all be ITN/R? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Feel free to make a proposal to establish whether there is still a consensus for these at ITNR. This particular venue is not the appropriate place as the item in question currently is ITNR. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is a direct question about the validity of the ITN/R process to put it on ITNR. Unless someone points to an actual discussion/consensus for space flights being ITN/R, it shouldn't be considered so. That somebody seems to have unilaterally added it many years ago is not a reason to call it ITN/R. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, to question the validity of something listed at ITNR, start a thread at WT:ITN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is a direct question about the validity of the ITN/R process to put it on ITNR. Unless someone points to an actual discussion/consensus for space flights being ITN/R, it shouldn't be considered so. That somebody seems to have unilaterally added it many years ago is not a reason to call it ITN/R. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Feel free to make a proposal to establish whether there is still a consensus for these at ITNR. This particular venue is not the appropriate place as the item in question currently is ITNR. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Someone specifically suggested excluding routine ISS crew rotations over 10 years ago. The discussion just seemed to fizzle out without a conclusion. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- At another similar discussion, someone else said, "As has been noted, this seems to come up every so often, everyone seems in broad agreement that it needs to change when it does so, and then somehow it fizzles out with nothing being done. Therefore I'm going to be bold and change it ...". That discussion wasn't formally closed either and so the ITN/R entry represents a unilateral bold update rather than some considered consensus. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I specifically raised this and proposed modification a year ago after Crew 1. It's no good people complaining when something is nominated in WP:ITNC when they don't say anything when it's raised at the appropriate venue. -- KTC (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- KTC made a good point at ITN/R but there was low attendance at the discussion and no formal close. It seems clear that ITN/R lacks the participation required to establish a solid consensus. ITN/C is the place that gets the attendance because it's linked on the main page. It's therefore ITN/C that should drive the outcomes. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose routine event, and claim of ITN/R is not correct, as the ITN/R for space flights seems to have been added without consensus to do so. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Also, lots of information in the infobox is not sourced anywhere in the article, and there's an over-reliance on tweets, which are primary sources. And the "Mission" section doesn't actually explain what their mission is (for what reason are they just going up to the ISS)? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. Note that the toilet has been fixed, so no diapers were needed this time. Count Iblis (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Shucks, that was what made the last one interesting. – Sca (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose there's no news here, just NASA PR cruft. Should be removed from ITNR. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. – Sca (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support One sentence missing a ref, otherwise its fine. The above opposes are invalid because as of the nomination this is ITNR, full stop. Nixinova T C 20:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support as ITN/R Manned spaceflight, article is fine. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support This event also brings the amount of people ever been to space to above 600, however this is also similar to the denied Captain Kirk proposed story. Rafaelmanman (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, 600. What an unimportant number. -- Kicking222 (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Without it, there'd be absolutely no way from 599 to 601! But yeah, in space travel context, not at all significant. Just something to beef up the lead section, I assume. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, 600. What an unimportant number. -- Kicking222 (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Routine, unexciting launch. IAR. -- Kicking222 (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- I actually don't disagree that this is routine, and have proposed excluding such launches from ITNR(but not total removal)- but there is no consensus to do so yet and I don't see a benefit to the encyclopedia in ignoring this "rule". 331dot (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support good to go, article quality sufficient for this ITNR item. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Not ready on quality almost all the infobox information is not sourced in the article- if not sourced in the infobox, it should be added somewhere in the body of the text with sources. This includes all the "Spacecraft properties" information, "End of mission" proposed dates, "Undocking" dates. And using way too many tweets as primary sources instead of actual reliable sources. Good that everyone has ignored these article quality abominations.... Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Easily the least interesting of recent shuttle stories. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: on one hand, this is (currently) on ITNR and the article is in reasonable shape - the orange tags seem overkill to me. On the other hand, it's a routine crew rotation, I've been arguing those shouldn't be on ITNR for a decade, and the current discussion on WT:ITN seems to have general agreement that ITNR shouldn't cover this sort of flight, even if it doesn't agree on exactly what the new wording should be. I encourage further participation in that discussion. Modest Genius talk 14:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Posting The result of the discussion so far is that the article quality is sufficient and the item is on ITNR. Some editors disagree with the ITNR criteria, which seems like a reasonable position to consider. However, the decision whether to post this ITN item is not sufficiently important to invoke IAR. Those who think ITNR should be altered are invited to go make that change. Until it happens, this item should be posted. Maybe it will be the last routine posting of human orbital flights, or maybe not. Feel free to continue the discussion. Consensus may change. Jehochman Talk 14:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Now on hold for quality because one editor insists on restoring the orange warning template. I suggest editors who want this posted go address the concerns about infobox information needing citations. This should be easy and quick to fix, and then it can be posted. Jehochman Talk 14:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Jehochman Are you kidding me? You've clearly ignored all the unsourced text in the infobox, this fails the article quality threshold. I see you removed the valid tags, ignored this quality discussion and the one on the article talkpage, and want to post this anyway. Try fixing all the cn tags before posting, rather than just removing tags. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- And I raised the quality concerns 22 hours ago, and nobody has even touched them, so don't imagine it'll be fixed anytime soon. Infobox seems like a whole load of WP:SPECULATION to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm trying to find any info on the launch and landing mass, but no luck so far. Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- When the sourced content is crap trivia (or more politely, "NASA PR") like
The first astronauts of this NASA Astronaut Group 22 (nicknamed The Turtles) to fly to space, Raja Chari and Kayla Barron on SpaceX Crew-3 took a stuffed turtle as zero-g indicator, to pay a tribute to their astronaut group. Additionally, to include the other crew members on board, Matthias Maurer and Tom Marshburn, the turtle was named "Pfau", a German word meaning "Peacock" for Matthias Maurer who is German, and for Tom Marshburn who was part of NASA Astronaut Group 19 (nicknamed The Peacock).
I didn't even bother checking for non-sourced content. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)- If you can improve the article, please do. Jehochman Talk 01:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I can't improve it. It is fully sourced and contains all the important information about the event. The problem is that there is so little important information to cover that the article also has to include unimportant information to not be a stub. Also, I agree that per policy this should be posted; it's not worth being brave to early-close the talk page discussion to remove this from ITNR immediately. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- As I've said of ITNR before, it should be that any discussion about the rational for posting the broad categories of events should not be debated at ITNC on the basis there was consensus for the ITNR, but individual ITNR noms can be deemed to be so insignificant as exceptions from the category (as this appears to have qualified) as a type of IAR to the ITNR approach. This is of course in addition to the article quality aspects. ITNR is not a blood pact that we have to post every thing that fits. EG: about a year ago there was that Martian (?) sample collector that was first nom'd when it arrived in orbit (which was ITRN) but we decided to wait until news of the sample collection (the first of its sort) as the more notable event. That's the type of logic that should be behind judging ITNR. --Masem (t) 17:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I can't improve it. It is fully sourced and contains all the important information about the event. The problem is that there is so little important information to cover that the article also has to include unimportant information to not be a stub. Also, I agree that per policy this should be posted; it's not worth being brave to early-close the talk page discussion to remove this from ITNR immediately. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you can improve the article, please do. Jehochman Talk 01:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- The missing citations were fixed. Two uncited facts remained, and I just removed them because if we can't find a source after a full day of looking, that calls those facts into question. I will repost this in a moment. Feel free to continue discussion. Jehochman Talk 01:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Post-posting Comment – It's now the least interesting blurb in the box. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. Now would be a good time to recommend changing the ITNR criteria for human space flight. Jehochman Talk 15:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Post-posting Oppose more people being sent to space for little reason, aside from routine? Why is this “news”? 2A01:4C8:481:753A:912B:C8B8:F206:CFDF (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Post-posting oppose. Routine enough event that it'd never have been approved if it wasn't spaceflight-related. This is systemic bias at work. Jehochman, please reevaluate your determination of consensus here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- It's still ITNR, so all Jehochman has to do is assess article quality, as you well know having just voted on the proposal to remove spaceflight entirely from ITNR. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Pull - Consensus on ITNR is trending heavily against news items of this sort. The right thing to do would be to remove this from ITN.--WaltCip-(talk) 21:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Nah, you can't retrospectively apply a trend. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Where there's a will.... – Sca (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Strikes me as churlish and petty now it's been there a few days. And after all, no actual readers have complained about its presence, just some who are lawyering around the edges of the process. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Where there's a will.... – Sca (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Nah, you can't retrospectively apply a trend. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- WP:NPA – Sca (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Um, you know the P stands for "personal", right? Oh dear. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Churlish and petty are words characterizing personal acts or traits, are they not?. – Sca (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Um, you know the P stands for "personal", right? Oh dear. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- WP:NPA – Sca (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I would oppose any pulling. The discussion on ITN/R about future postings should have no bearing on this one.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose pulling. This was validly posted and should be left alone. If the next one is not under ITNR, fair enough(though I disagree with its total removal) but this one that was validly posted does not need to be removed. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support pulling nobody demonstrated this was important enough for ITN, they just used "it's ITNR" as justification. And the discussion has disproved that justification, as consensus is that it's not important. It was a nomination predicated on an untrue assertion. I would support doing the pull as a replacement when the next ITN blurb is added, so we don't have too little content on ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- That does not change that it was a valid posting when it was made. I don't think we should retroactively change policies. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
November 10
November 10, 2021
(Wednesday)
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
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: