*:It would be very hard to find statistics for clubs which aren't in Europe's top-5 leagues pre-2000s (and, for some countries, even pre-2010s). The article is very well written given that he was active during the 1970s, so I wouldn't be too concerned with the lack of club stats. [[User:Nehme1499|<b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b>]][[User talk:Nehme1499|<sub><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b></sub>]] 19:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
*:It would be very hard to find statistics for clubs which aren't in Europe's top-5 leagues pre-2000s (and, for some countries, even pre-2010s). The article is very well written given that he was active during the 1970s, so I wouldn't be too concerned with the lack of club stats. [[User:Nehme1499|<b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b>]][[User talk:Nehme1499|<sub><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b></sub>]] 19:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
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.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Russian troops enter Sumy and take control of the road leading from Kyiv to Moscow. Battles for strategic cities on the railway to Sumy are also underway. (Novoye Vremya)
Ukrainian PresidentVolodymyr Zelenskyy declares martial law across the country in response to the invasion. Zelenskyy also orders a general military mobilization of fit-to-serve Ukrainian citizens, with men between the ages of 18 and 60 years prohibited from leaving the country. (TASS)(CNN)
Russia says that two Russian civilian ships have been hit by anti-ship missiles in the Sea of Azov, causing multiple deaths. Russia subsequently restricts access for civilian vessels on the Sea of Azov. (Ynet)(Reuters)
Eight poliovaccination workers are killed by unknown gunmen in Kunduz and Takhar, leading to the suspension of the vaccination campaign in the two provinces. The campaign was launched nationwide in November 2021. (VOA)
The National Bank of Ukraine pegs the official hryvnia rate to the US dollar at ₴29.25, bans foreign currency purchases on the interbank market and introduces cash withdrawal limits. The central bank also orders a suspension of all transactions with Russian accounts and introduces unlimited short-term liquidity loans for banks. (National Post)(Ekonomichna Pravda)
Malaysia reports a record 31,199 new COVID-19 cases in the past 24 hours, thereby bringing the nationwide total of confirmed cases to 3.3 million. (The Star)
Singapore suspends a plan to ease and simplify COVID-19-related rules, including home gatherings, which was expected to begin tomorrow due to an increase in new COVID-19 cases. (Bloomberg)
Thailand reports a record 23,557 new COVID-19 cases in the past 24 hours, thereby bringing the nationwide total of confirmed cases to 2.79 million. (Bangkok Post)
The New Zealand government is expected to introduce a package of sanctions against Russia that includes a ban on the entry into and transit through the country of Russian government officials and other people connected to the invasion, as well as a ban on the export of goods to Russian military and security forces. (RNZ)
U.S. PresidentJoe Biden announces sanctions against Russia and vows that additional sanctions could be coming. He also reaffirms that the U.S. will not directly intervene in Ukraine but will continue to defend NATO. (NBC News)(BuzzFeed)
Protesters in Russia are detained as people gather in cities across the country in order to protest Putin's invasion of Ukraine. (The Moscow Times)(Newsweek)
Three former Minneapolis police officers, J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas K. Lane and Tou Thao, are found guilty of violating the civil rights of George Floyd under government authority. (NBC News)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: The invasion of Ukraine is a large topic in the news and the events that are transpiring are being reported on minute-by-minute. Kellis7 (talk) 3:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The invasion blurb is sufficient, and barring and major events to require a new blurb, it would be expected for that to fall off into an ongoing. --Masem (t) 15:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support there's no actual ITN rule that says something cannot have a blurb and also be on ongoing- it's a made up pseudo-rule that people here always try to enforce. It's an ongoing event too, so deserves to be ongoing. Let's not be bureaucratic about it, put it on ongoing now, rather than waiting a week and then making people redo this discussion for the sake of it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that specifically for when a page is a Today's Featured Article or does it apply to all aspects of the main page? And is that a rule or a guideline? WaltCip-(talk)15:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Needless duplication and poor user experience are avoided. It'd be bad experience to have two blurbs in close proximity leading to the same article. And if you argue the sections should link to different articles, that'd be misleading as you're suggesting the ITN section event is different from the Ongoing section one. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The chances of this event and the surrounding circumstances drawing to a denouement by the time this blurb drops off the main page is infinitesimally small.--WaltCip-(talk)15:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, once the event falls off of the ordinary list. I think that a duplicate listing is fine but I think it is better to not list the same event multiple times in the same general area on the front page. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but I would take the supports above to mean that we should automatically put this one into ongoing once the blurb expires off, unless Russia pulls out of Ukraine and we return to the status quo before the blurb ages off. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the war is possibly the most significant event so far this century. Bending our rules to allow two links is appropriate - though I also support updating the blurb as appropriate to keep it on ITN while the war continues. BilledMammal (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is no need to link to the exact same article twice. I'd be open to putting an alternative article under the ongoing section. Calidum20:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing Though I'd rather see it bumped off of the ITN list before it gets added to ongoing Canuck89(Chat with me) 21:04, February 24, 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Nom comment from the AP source: "He said the Russian military operation aims to ensure a “demilitarization” of Ukraine. Putin said that all Ukrainian servicemen who lay down arms will be able to safely leave the zone of combat." Several news outlets are reporting explosions heard around major cities like Kiev and Kharkiv, e.g. CNN. Some others like the New Zealand Herald outright reports it as "Russia declares war on Ukraine". Juxlos (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, this is it. CNN and others are reporting explosions near Kiev and Kharkiv, and Kramatorsk is reported as under attack. The Kip (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Wait Support in principle, but we are in the opening moments of hostilities here. Let's get an idea of what is going on and how reliable sources are characterizing this. If they label it an invasion, so should we. We may also end up with a new article dedicated to the war, as opposed to the current bolded article that is mostly focused on the political aspects of the crisis that is likely transitioning from diplomacy to open war. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enough sources are now characterizing this as a large-scale invasion. The original blurb works for me, again based on a mountain of RS sourcing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for what? CNN is reporting that Ukrainian Interior Ministry says that there are missile strikes in various places, and that the invasion has begun. Nfitz (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not even agencies like AFP and AP know exactly what's going on right now. All they know is that Russia is doing military invasion in Ukraine, where and how is still to be reported. No reason to rush past the agencies. Juxlos (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle Maybe wait a few hours to see how things play out, but definitely a defining moment of 2022, and likely will be upgraded to ongoing in the near future. I think the blurb's bluntness makes it strong enough. JumpytooTalk03:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not post right now, wait - Per everyone above who supports to wait, currently 4 cities are under a series of barrages. Mariupol's case is the worst, the videos provided showed the entire sky being orange. Rumors about Russian forces occupying an airport in Kyiv has spread like wildfire. Uncertainties are everywhere. Do not act hastily. PenangLion (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but suggest waiting a few hours given the large quantity of amateur video footage pouring out of Ukraine right now, I have no objections to posting blurb 1 to ITN now. Oppose blurb 2 as it significantly waters down the facts on the ground. --benlisquareT•C•E03:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with a short delay for the basic facts to become settled. However, modify standard ITN procedure to use a full sized blurb (similar to one used by TFA) so that we can provide an effective summary of the situation rather than having to settle for "Russia invades Ukraine" - the global significance of the situation warrants such a change. BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick reminder that Wikipedia is not a newspaper/ticker. There is no rush here. This is unquestionably going to be posted. Let's get it right and, if possible, maybe something with some substance beyond a screaming headline. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved to support per my above comment near the top. This is clearly a large scale invasion and is being almost universally labeled as such by RS sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've put an alt blurb to state exactly what Putin has said. Yes, most Western sources call this an invasion, but per Ad Orientem above, we've already got part of this story in ITN, lets make sure it is covered neutrally. --Masem (t) 04:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but make sure that the admin is alert. Reports are coming in of Russian landings as far away from Donbass as Odessa ([2], [3]) - that's a full invasion, not a regular military operation. Juxlos (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to lie, the alt blurb is incredibly vague for people with little to no context ("announcing military action" is very different from launching an unprovoked, full-scale military invasion of a sovereign country). It also gives an unnecessary amount of weight to the Russian nationalist narrative (WP:Mandy). Wikipedia is not, and should not be, a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda. Blade Jogger 2049Talk04:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt as the blurb as that's the most direct confirmed info we have, further information can be added in the article as needed. ansh.66604:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose alt as we are not a mouthpiece for propaganda, and independent reliable sources are universally describing this as a Russian unprovoked attack on Ukraine, not the reverse or whatever it was that the Russian delegate was spouting at the UNSC meeting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, we can't jump ahead of RSes to call it an invasion, either. There's not a lot of exactly what's happening yet beyond reports of explosions and gun fire, so whether an invasion has actually occurred (now) is unclear. --Masem (t) 04:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose alt as it reflects Putin's POV, rather than NPOV. This is why I believe a full sized blurb is needed, to provide a complete summary of the situation. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, news sources so far are using "military operation" for the time being so unless you want to call them Russian propaganda outlets. Mellk (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support original blurb. It's succinct and accurate. The argument for waiting is basically "well Putin just said he would invade Ukraine, but all we have now is credible reports of a whole lot of aistrikes and sketchy reports about the amphibious operations in Odessa, so we don't truly know if there's an invasion." In other words, pointless pedantry. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 3) Comment re: alt - it doesn't really matter that it's "Russian propaganda", reliable sources are reporting that that's what Putin said. We aren't claiming in Wikipedia's voice that what is going on is that (much as the news outlets aren't either), just that Russia is claiming that that's what's going on. Besides, the article itself has more than enough context. ansh.66604:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A "military operation" in Ukraine by Russian Armed Forces is, by definition, an invasion. Unless the military operation involves the largest vodka drinking contest in known human history. Juxlos (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very much in the news right now and it is international. Very surprised this hasn't been updated yet. I have seen US "breaking news" be added to ITN faster than this. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle Russia's definitely attacking Ukraine & it looks like it's an invasion. I oppose the 1st alt blurb & have added a 2nd alt blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support NYTimes headline is "Russia attacks Ukraine". LATimes headline is "Putin orders attacks on Ukraine". AP headline is "Putin announces Ukraine military operation, explosions heard". There are plenty of reliable sources for there being an active attack. The current blurb about "deploys troops to the region." is out of date. --GeorgeSonOfJohn (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is some posturing, all. Since yesterday, when it (apparently) became inevitable that this would happen, I have been asking myself what we would have done when Hitler invaded Poland. And, if that would have been a shambles of a response, what we would have liked to have done. I mean, throw out COVID, Russia has outstaged that. Do we hastily post a benign "Russia attacks Ukraine" line and leave it? Do we start a new article, separating the, er, new war from the 2014-present and 2021-present tensions articles, and post that as updates? Do we list the main cities as they fall or repel? Do we start a box? Do we, on the backend, siphon off part of the current events and MILHIST, those dedicated nerds, projects and ask users we trust to basically focus on this coverage for us? I know the mad scramble of current events articles, and am a little terrified of the collision of war and the internet age, where nothing is real until you've updated your status about it (Wikipedia, of course, included). This is, obviously, urgent, but in trying to find a blurb to agree on, nobody seems to have asked what it should say, what the history book headline will be. Kingsif (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is much support for it, but I see it much the same way; a simple short blurb isn't sufficient, and we should instead write a full sized blurb that temporarily replaces the current content of ITN. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I considered leaving the previous blurb on the Russian recognition of the breakaway republics up instead of just updating it as an IAR way to provide context for the invasion blurb, but decided not to break SOP. Of all the things to have two concurrent blurbs/an oversized blurb, full blown war in Europe would be it. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions05:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pater knight and Kingsif: I've proposed an extend blurb above. Will need extensive editing if there is support for posting it, and I don't mind editors doing that; I'm adding content regarding the international reaction now. BilledMammal (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We couldn't even update our one-line blurb without a discussion this big. How on earth do you expect something that long and detailed would remain accurate for so long as an hour? —Cryptic07:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any kind of special intervention needed. The self-organizing military and event projects will do just that, as for "the headline" newspapers will handle that with the historical record justifying which stuck. Gotitbro (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro: Fair, though we are in an unfortunate position where we are outpacing newspapers and users still demand catchy titles - I advocate against coining, of course. What I meant was that there are the most stoic broadsheets that use lines like "Russia invades Ukraine", and the most extreme tabloids that write things like "COMMIE PUTIN personally MURDERS innocent Ukrainians, including WOMEN and CHILDREN, in the worst WAR in all of EUROPE this CENTURY!" and obviously we are not going to get close to that example, but there is a happy medium (skewed broadsheet) that includes some detail without hyperbole, rather than just taking a bland detached position. Kingsif (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AP literally says "Russia attacks Ukraine". Doesn't get any more clear than that. Therefore support current blurb for now. We can update it later if it's needed. Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting support, quite a shocking and surreal turn of events. As per above, I am genuinely mortified that this has occurred. Wishing nothing but the best to Ukrainian Wikipedians, and the Ukrainian people, in this difficult and challenging time. Ornithoptera (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing As I write, the previous blurb about the Donbas has been replaced by "Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine." The trouble with this is that it's not stable. The target article started with an edit war over its very existence and there are still massively disruptive edits like this and so the quality of the article is quite uncertain. The situation seems quite fluid and the launch is obviously just the start of something. But we've had an article, Russo-Ukrainian War, since 2014 and this seems to be the latest phase in this conflict. Our instructions say that "The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time." As we can expect many developments and updates, we should put this back into Ongoing with a link to the broadest article. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This asks for some flexibility and out-of-the-box thinking. I support the blurb, but we can do better. What we need is a box, which not only gives the blurb (with its one link); but with a "for background on this, see: Russo-Ukrainian War for the situation since 2014, 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis for the build-up to the invasion, Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic for the disputed territories, and War in Donbas for the situation prior to the 24 February invasion". Give people easy, direct access to the major articles surrounding this invasion and giving background to it, which is the thing we should be good at (more so than the immediate "what happens now"). Obviously the format and the suggested articles need tweaking, but this is what the readers want right now, and this is what we as an encyclopedia can and should offer them. Fram (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such an approach would be sensible. Looking at the top views indicates that our readership is going to about 20 different articles for this topic. What they are not reading now in significant numbers is our article about the Superbowl as that happened over a week ago. We can give up space from such stale blurbs to give more space to this crisis, as we did for Covid. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need. We don't want or need up to 20 (or more) articles linked from the front page, when our readers can go to one article, and then access whichever others they might want from there.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COVID directly affected every reader, and thus the box was deemed essential to make sure every reader was alerted to it. This event has major impacts but does not directly impact every reader. Making sure that a blurb or ongoing is in ITN is important but a box won't help in the same way. --Masem (t) 13:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support changing image to something related to this blurb, but Oppose other suggestions to do much more at this time. It's currently an important event, hence the need for a related image. But it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume it will be as important as COVID, let alone as Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939. It might of course eventually lead to nuclear Armageddon (in which case nobody will be around to criticize us for inadequate headlines). But that would be an unexpected surprise, given that the West has said its own troops won't be involved. It seems more likely that it will be just the latest of a long series of such Russian or Soviet actions (Finland 1939, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Afghanistan 1979, Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014, and probably many others that I don't remember) and I'm not aware that anybody is saying 'Wow, Wikipedia ITN really messed up in 2008 and 2014 by failing to have banner headlines announcing the start of World War 3". We can leave that sort of thing to other kinds of media. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the blurb as it is currently written. I'm not in favor of taking neutrality to the point of pure ignorance of what is actually happening. WaltCip-(talk)13:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment – Per Nfitz, Davey2116, Juxlos, support Alt4, which says all that needs to be said at this pt. "Launches" is unnecessary, redundant, and seems to inject a vague whiff of uncertainty about whether this is in fact an invasion – which all RS sources say it is. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ukraine announces the mobilization of its military reserves with a maximum service length of one year for reservists between the ages of 18 and 60 years. (The Hill)
Ukraine urges all citizens to leave Russia immediately, following an increase in tensions in the region. (MSN)
Ukraine closes its civilian airspace nationwide due to potential hazards. (Reuters)
Russia closes its airspace in a region to the east of its border with Ukraine. (FlightGlobal)
South Korea reports a record 171,452 new COVID-19 cases in the past 24 hours, thereby bringing the nationwide total of confirmed cases to 2,329,182. (The Straits Times)
Cambodia begins its COVID-19 vaccination rollout for children over the age of three years, becoming the world's first country to administer vaccines for children under the age of five years. (Bangkok Post)
Hong Kong reports a record 8,674 new COVID-19 cases in the past 24 hours, thereby bringing the territory-wide total of confirmed cases to 75,248. (South China Morning Post)
The Canadian government signs an agreement with AstraZeneca to procure 100,000 doses of the Evushield COVID-19 antibody therapy for use in high-risk patients. (CTV News)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Support in principle, oppose quality - article length is 1323 bytes at the time of this message. More background would be needed. Juxlos (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tending to oppose first for quality. Secondly, I don't think it is comparable to the Panama, Paradise and Pandora papers. At least for now the notable people who have been named are not many, not to say remarkable less than five. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article needs expansion, also names are listed in the article but subsequent details are not mentioned in many of the bios which should be added. Gotitbro (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What exactly is the notability of this "story"? As it currently stands, the only proposed blurb, "The Suisse secrets, documents relating to US$108.5 billion of offshore investment, are leaked" is about (1) the existence of bank accounts and (2) the leaking of information about those bank accounts. The fact that rich people have bank accounts in a Swiss Bank is not news. What makes a Swiss bank account more notable than a bank account in other countries? Chrisclear (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The notability is that multiple international criminals and dictators have billions of likely laundered money in this Swiss bank, and that it potentially provides evidence of the Vatican laundering money, which is explained in the first sentence of the first link OP posted. It could be worded better. Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've highlighted three problems with the proposed blurb. (1) The blurb only mentions the existence of bank accounts, and not the allegation of money laundering. (2) As you wrote "likely" laundered money, but not proof. (3) "potentially provides evidence" of money laundering, but not proof. Chrisclear (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other significance is that some whistleblower went and leaked such details, which is why a lot of the previous leaks (especially Paradise Papers, as I recall) were dramatic, too. Kingsif (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right that it's "dramatic", but breaches of privacy are fairly common, and it's unlikely that this story would be posted solely due to the privacy breach. I can't help but notice your use of the word "whistleblower" - yet the blurb as it stands (1) does not contain any specific allegations of wrongdoing by the account holders, nor (2) proof/findings of wrongdoing by account holders. The only wrongdoing contained in the blurb, ironically enough, is the privacy breach by the "whistleblower". Chrisclear (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Comments: This wikipage is tagged with {unreliable sources|date=January 2017}, {anachronism|date=February 2020}, and a few {cn}, too. Please fix. --PFHLai (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam announces a citywide testing campaign due to surge of the cases caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. It is planned to test each citizen three times during the campaign. (ABC News)
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.
Saw ST once whilst very drunk at a festival, but saw him twice with the Gutter Twins and around 4-5 times solo. Last time was the tour with Duke Garwood in 2018. Oh, man. Black Kite (talk)21:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
President Putin addresses the nation and declares that Ukraine is a country with "no tradition of independent statehood and an artificial creation of Soviet Union founder Vladimir Lenin", and that the country has become a "U.S. puppet regime rife with corruption". He also reiterates his claim that Ukraine joining NATO would be a security risk to Russia. (Reuters)(CNN International)(Sputnik)
Russian Armed Forces are deployed to the separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk for a "peacekeeping mission", shortly after Russia recognized the independence of the republics. (Axios)
A senior U.S. official says Russian troops could move into the separatist regions of Ukraine by the end of the day. (CNN)
A large column of military vehicles, including tanks, is reported on the outskirts of Donetsk city hours after Russia formally recognised the self-proclaimed republic as an independent state. (Reuters)
The U.S. says it will impose sanctions on the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic in response to Putin recognizing their independence and sovereignty. (The Guardian)
Hong Kong reports a record 7,533 new COVID-19 cases in the past 24 hours, thereby bringing the total number of confirmed cases in the territory to 60,383. (The Standard)
BritishPrime MinisterBoris Johnson says that he is lifting domestic coronavirus restrictions in England, including the legal requirement for people with COVID-19 to self-isolate, from February 24. As part of the plan, free self-testing will end by April 1. (The Philadelphia Inquirer)
South Africa changes its COVID-19 vaccination rules to allow mixing of vaccines between the Pfizer–BioNTech and Janssen COVID-19 vaccines for second and third doses and also reduces the interval between the second and third doses of the Pfizer vaccine in order to increase the country's vaccination rate. (CNA)
The Constitutional Court decriminalizes abortion in all cases for up to six months of gestation, and removes time limits in cases of rape, fetal defects, or if the mother's life is in danger. (Reuters)
Substantially in agreement with Tone. Support pending improvements to the article. Btw, the proposed image has an error, as the apparent salient on the border of the two oblasts is far from being that deep - it used to be so until February 2015, but when Ukrainian forces lost the battle of Debaltseve, it became much shallower. Use Openstreetmap for reference. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Globally significant news. The next step would be deploying Russian nuke missiles in these republics. Be afraid. STSC (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a de jure Russian invasion of Ukraine. Even though Donetsk and Luhansk have been under DPR and LPR control since 2014, they are still legally part of Ukraine and as such, the presence of Russian forces there is blurb-worthy news. Davey2116 (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle clearly noteworthy news, however a blurb will have to dance that important line of neutrality between the two sides, and simply stating what one side said it did is not neutral. The two altblurbs do an okay job of that. NorthernFalcon (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The title of the nominated article seems tendentious – "International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic..." is not what has happened, is it? It mainly seems to amount to more diplomatic posturing and fist-waving and there's not much change on the ground. There will be much more of this as the other international countries have their say and this could still take years to work out. The current ongoing entry still seems best to cover this latest development. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since we all care so much, we should not be presenting this as a done deal, as the nominated title suggests. This is clearly a disputed and ongoing situation and the final outcome is far from clear. This issue has been ongoing for 8 years now while the latest crisis was the threat of a general invasion of the Ukraine which still has not happened yet. We should await further developments, while maintaining the ongoing entry. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first direct incursion of Russian troops on Ukrainian soil (that we know of) since the invasion of Crimea in 2014. We can update the blurb if necessary, but for now, this is a significant occurrence regardless of the whole situation being unsettled. The Kip (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read Donetsk People's Republic, you'll see that much of the population has been quite integrated with Russia for years now – the people there get Russian passports, pensions, &c. So, this is more of a political development than a military one because the population already considers itself Russian and the Republic already has a functioning government and administration. Here in the UK, we're very used to such separatist and devolution issues in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Brexit, Gibraltar, &c. Life goes on... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's happened now is that the ongoing entry has been moved to a blurb section with some details of the latest escalation. There's a couple of issues with this. One is that the bold linked article has years of history and proseline so it's hard for the reader to pick out the latest developments. And, as the situation is still quite fluid, daily updates are likely to be needed. And that's what ongoing is for. Compare with the Covid-19 ongoing entry. In the UK, the big news is that the Queen has got Covid while the government has announced the ending of all restrictions. These are very much in the news but ITN just lumps it all into the ongoing entry. But, of course, it doesn't much matter because our readers make their own choices regardless. The crisis article is down at #41 in the top read list while numerous other articles are getting more readers – Ukraine (#3); Putin (#6); Donetsk People's Republic (#7); Donbas (#11); &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Probably the most concrete development in this story for a while, also I think the sending in of troops should probably be included. Llewee (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The event is significant, but the headline is very misleading, and plays into Russian propaganda. Something along the line of Russia invades eastern Ukraine or Russian troops enter Ukraine. Surely the invasion of Ukraine is more significant than the legal shenanigans. This is a bit of a moving target though, as the invasion started after the article was nominated. The proposed target seems inappropriate as well - either 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis or Russo-Ukrainian War. Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With rewording and retargeting, I no longer oppose. Though I don't know why the wording is "deploy troops into the region". There's a simple word for deploying troops into a foreign country - invasion. Nfitz (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is where NPOV tone and voice has to be careful; we cannot take sides here, and while most Western gov'ts are considering it an invasion, Russia is calling it something else. We should not take either position, so stating that Russie deployed troops is neutrally worded. The article can go into detail on reactions. --Masem (t) 05:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely "invasion" (or "occupation") is neutral point of view (if it isn't, we need to rewrite some WW2 articles). Non-NPOV would be to "enhance the ethnic cleansing". Nfitz (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"invasion" is the POV term from those countries that have denounced this action like the US and France, but as there is nowhere close to universal outrage over this, we can't use that term in wikivoice. --Masem (t)•
How can it possibly be A POV issue? Russia has illegally occupied sovereign Ukrainian territory, again. Describing it as anything other than an 'invasion' of a sovereign country in total breach of international law has serious NPOV issues in my view. Feel free to disagree of course, But this isn't just about how the US or France views it. 91.96.161.13 (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anywhere in the Anglosphere where there isn't universal outrage? It's far more than 2 countries! Good grief, even the Germans have declared sanctions, despite their reliance on Russian gas. Nfitz (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should be impartial and dispassionate in tone. Calling it an invasion at this point would be favoring one view of the events. Over time, that is how this might come to be seen, but per RECENTISM we should be far more careful on initial language. --Masem (t) 23:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel the target article is not the most appropriate here, though taking into account the mention of the balance between the two sides of the stories. Using that downplays the invasion aspect significantly. Perhaps a second article is needed here. --Masem (t) 00:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support at the very least, this is equivalent to the Crimean annexation in 2014. At worst, this is the start of a full invasion. Juxlos (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support alt 3 albeit not a full invasion yet considering the separatism/quasi-states, Russian troops entering internationally-recognized Ukrainian territory is a significant-enough escalation to merit a blurb. The Kip (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with all these supports, and only 2 opposes (one of which was on technical grounds instead of notability grounds), I'm fairly sure consensus has developed. Juxlos (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This happened overnight so I didn't see it before it was posted. I like the current 'deploys troops' wording, which seems neutral. Well done on settling on appropriate wording. Modest Geniustalk12:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment – I agree with Masem that we must maintain an NPOV tone. However, the phrase "deploys troops to the region" states something that's been going on for months. Granted, "orders its military forces to enter their claimed territory" in Alt2 turns out to have been an overstatement, but perhaps we could go with something like "positions its forces near their claimed territory." – Sca (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. I think the blurb as it stands is fine, and we should remain with that one. It's not inaccurate to say that they deployed troops to the region, that's a factual and neutral way to put it. Bringing in terms like "claimed territory" adds a degree of editorializing in, which as ever should be left to the article... It's near impossible to give all details of a complex situation like this one in a single sentence, so we shouldn't try. — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: In the existing blurb clause "and deploys troops to the region," and erroneously implies that they began sending troops there only after recognizing Donetsk & Luhansk. – Sca (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – FYI, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is quoted in Der Spiegel today as saying, "Russian President Putin is now waiting for a provocation "to provide a pretext, possibly, to occupy the entire Ukraine." This topic isn't fading away. – Sca (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are significant discussions on sanctions. The news will probably be relevant for at least a few months, and again, do we really need to delist the event from Ongoing when a blurb related to this article is posted? Can we do both? PenangLion (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When the current blurb scrolls off, we will likely read it back as ongoing. We just have limited space so avoid duplication of links and stories. --Masem (t) 15:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The presence or otherwise of this story in Ongoing doesn't really affect the overall space, to be fair, since Ongoing exists on its own line anyway. So it's more of a content decision. I can see the argument that it's confusing for readers to have the item there one day and gone the next, just as the situation has heated up. Presumably most will see that it's now a bolded story above, but I do think there is some case for restoring it to Ongoing now. Probably I'm neutral, leaning mild support for that suggestion.
(Unsigned.)
Comment – AP update: "Russian lawmakers on Tuesday authorized President Vladimir Putin to use military force outside the country – a move that could presage a broader attack on Ukraine." – Sca (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the event of any possible arguments over desired changes to the blurb, I'd like to preempt and say I agree with the consensus on the current blurb. This feels like the best way to describe the situation (particularly considering that troop deployments to sympathetic break-away states are different than just outright invasion). DarkSide830 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment I understand why its removed from Ongoing while at the top of ITN, but I think it should be put back as soon as its moved down. If anything the situation has become more relevant. jonas (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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: Was confirmed by Partners in Health; am sure more mainstream news services will add stories shortly and will add those to the nom. updated with news link. Article needs some work with referencing. Have resolved referencing issues. SpencerT•C17:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Weak oppose Limited depth of coverage. Political career section only lists election results without much if any information about what he accomplished in his positions or political views. SpencerT•C17:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Biden has agreed "in principle" to meet with Putin in French-brokered summit talks as long as Russia does not invade Ukraine, the White House says. (CNN)
The United States says it has intelligence indicating orders have been sent to Russian military commanders to proceed with an incursion on Ukraine. (NBC News)
Following the meeting, Biden abruptly cancels plans to go to his home in Delaware for the Presidents' Day holiday. It is a rare occurrence for a U.S. president's travel plans to change in this manner, especially when the plans involve the president leaving Washington, D.C.(CNBC)
Biden speaks with Macron on diplomacy with and deterrence efforts against Russia, after Macron and Putin agreed to work towards a ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine. (Asian News International)
Satellite imagery shows a shift in Russia's military deployment around Ukraine, with several units or troops deployed outside of bases or training grounds and some positioned along tree lines, according to an analysis by Maxar Technologies, who released the imagery. (CNA)
Seven children are killed and five more are injured during a Nigerian Air Forceairstrike in the Maradi region of Niger. The army reported that the airstrike was the result of "a mistake on the border". (Al Jazeera)
The ItalianHealth ministry recommends that severely immunocompromised people should receive a fourth dose of the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine at least 120 days after receiving their previous booster. (U.S. News & World Report)
Rookie Austin Cindric wins the 64th running of the Daytona 500, becoming the ninth driver to score his first career Cup Series victory in the event. (Fox Sports)
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: A worker-priest who created religous exercises not in a retreat but on the streets, and welcomed everybody to live with their spiritual community regardless of nationality, faith and reason, and held public peace prayers. - And had no article yet. - Peace. Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Question@Ktin:: Since you posted "Have not had a chance to work the article. Will get to it later...", there has only been one non-bot edit in the article's edit history. Do you still plan to add more to this wikibio, please? --PFHLai (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Article needs updating One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: The closing ceremony starts in about 20 minutes. I'm unsure about the image of the Beijing National Stadium, which was already posted with the blurb on the opening ceremony. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The stadium picture wasn't previously posted, we had a photo of the opening ceremony. It is a 11-year-old photo though, illuminated for some different event. Stephen12:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination was made before the event had taken place (and the page was started 6 years ago!). Even now, the first section, Theme and Concept, is written in the future tense, has no source and makes a vague prediction that "somewhere during the closing ceremony will re-create a moment...". The blurb errors indicate that the article requires much careful and close checking to avoid such blatant errors. The main point is the Olympics is over but, as ITN has been showing it as ongoing for some time now, it does not seem necessary to do more than remove that entry. And that has been done. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not a reason to oppose the ITNR. If the article can be improved in time, it still qualifies as ITNR. Just that it has a long way to go and if its not improved in a few days, I think it would be pointless to post it with the ongoing already removed. --Masem (t) 17:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the second section, which is just one sentence, "Dancers lightened the emblem as Frank Mortenson's brand new record for the 2022 Olympics, "It's a Lovely Day Tomorrow" written originally in 1938 by Irving Berlin, was played." Again this has no source and I can't find any evidence that it's actually true. The word "lightened" is ungrammatical. And Mortenson is a red link now. If the song was written in 1938, it's not "brand new". There's no quality here; not even close. And the ceremony didn't make any flag-waving point about Norway did it? From what I saw, it was Italy that got most of the attention as the next host country. If we blurb about Norway then that would be misrepresenting what happened at the ceremony. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why as noted below, if we do post, the blurb should just be "The Olmypics closed" and not recognize any record. And yes, the target article is woefully out of shape for posting. No one is disagreeing on that. But if it got into shape, it is an ITNR to be posted. --Masem (t) 17:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I always strive for a brief blurb without mentioning the most successful nation but without any success so far. I, therefore, proposed three different blurbs this time so that everyone is happy and no objections are made on those grounds.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the ceremony in 2018 was not posted due to similar quality issues. There is therefore no guarantee that this will ever meet an acceptable level of quality. As the event was mostly a formality, I reckon that we should move on. The talk has been that Putin has been waiting for the Olympics to end, as the starting gun for his Ukrainian adventure. We may soon have some real news... Andrew🐉(talk) 18:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, the day after the Olympics ends, Putin holds an extraordinary council meeting to agree to violate the Minsk treaty by tearing away two more chunks of Ukrainian territory. This timetable was planned in advance with Macron and Scholz. That's what's in the news now. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checking back on this on the following day, I see that the first two sections are unchanged; still no sources and even the howler of "lightened" is still there. There's a picture though so I checked that out. It appears to be a copyright violation of this! Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mentioning the medal count, this is not a competition in how many medals each nation gets (at least nominally). I've now removed the link from Ongoing. --Tone14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to Article 6 in Charter 1 of the Olympic Charter, which states "The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries.", we shouldn't highlight the achievement of the most successful nation. However, those supporting it have always formed a majority in such discussions and we regularly post an extended blurb, so it'd have been unwise for practical reasons not to propose an extended blurb from the beginning. As for the record, we posted the previous record of 14 gold medals set by Canada at the 2010 Winter Olympics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle but oppose both blurbs, and any blurb listing country with the most medals. We had this debate for the Summer Games last year, and we don't post the country with the most medals, as it is inconsistent with the Olympic charter quoted above. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, perhaps it's more probable to get the most successful nation out of the blurb this time, given that it's not the US and people probably won't fight to get it there in order to show the superiority of their country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle for importance, but the article quality doesn't want itself to be included in the ITN. Time isn't really an essence, maybe the article could be repaired in another 2-3 days. PenangLion (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready. The closing ceremony article is an utter mess. I would prefer bolding 2022 Winter Olympics, which is in much better shape and has some content summarising the actual sporting events that were held. But that needs to expand 2022_Winter_Olympics#Closing_ceremony to a full paragraph, not one sentence. I also strongly prefer alt2 i.e. without stating the medal table in the blurb - the Olympics are a set of contests between athletes in specific sports, not a national ranking. Modest Geniustalk14:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, the event definitely has the significance to be posted but the closing ceremony doesn’t have the best article quality. I would prefer if the 2022 Winter Olympics was the bolded article as mentioned before but it is a little hard to make a good blurb while doing that. If someone can come up with a blurb which has the 2022 Winter Olympics as the bolded article or the closing ceremony can be improved then I think it should be posted. Hamza Ali Shah Talk16:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russia launches an investigation following reports that shells landed inside Rostov Oblast, 2 km from the Russia–Ukraine border. At least one structure on a farm is reportedly destroyed. (Reuters)(TASS)
Ottawa police continue clearing protesters on Parliament Hill. Over 170 people have been arrested since Thursday as part of an effort to end the protests. (NBC News)(India Times)
Freedom Convoy demonstrators admit that the protests are near the end. (The Washington Post)
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.
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.
Pending support - man, two proto-prog legends a week apart. The Career section has a few unsourced statements, and you'll likely get pushback on the discography not being sourced. - Floydianτ¢23:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Floydian, albums all sourced. Singles more tricky, as discogs.com and 45cat.com are deemed "unreliable". It would be very useful if you could tag anything that you think still needs a source. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just one spot left in the first paragraph of the Career section that I stuck a tag on, after which consider me a support. Personally I don't believe discographies need citations because the albums themselves are verifiable by anybody. - Floydianτ¢23:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Instead of having the general COVID-19 pandemic article at ongoing, I think instead we should list specific events that happened during the pandemic like the Canada truck protest. The COVID pandemic article is not updated as often these days. It should be removed and replaced with major events associated with the pandemic. Interstellarity (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alsoriano. COVID is still an ongoing pandemic, and it ravages people daily. It's not like the black death, where 2 people get it every decade; it is an incredibly dangerous virus. I suggest speedy close. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(procedural comment) I have reverted the NAC. With a vote total of 2-4 (considering the close as a supervote) this isn't eligible for a SNOW close, and certainly is not eligible for a SNOW close by a non-admin. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hinted that this might be reasonable a week ago. The Canada protests had consensus not to post then, and they are less notable now, so there is no reason to entertain the notion of a swap. As far as a removal ... soon, but probably not today. No vote as I have taken an administrative action on this topic. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. Public health officials around the world are begining to use the word "endemic". At this point COVID-19 is ongoing the same way climate change, extinction, and the Israel-Palestine conflict are ongoing. It's here to stay, and it could be a decade or more before the WHO "declares" it over but here in planet real-world life has been returning to normal for quite some time. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- COVID-19 is still a serious threat, killing thousands of people daily. Removing it from ongoing makes no sense. I think people asking why others care must have their heads in the sand. -- RockstoneSend me a message!02:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Millions are dying; this is a global event. It is on or near the top of the policy agenda of basically every country in some way, shape, or form. -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong titanic oppose Apologies for me opposing, this is still a thing, it's not like if the news doesn't pick up, the deaths of 6 million are nothing. PenangLion (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsized Olympic Support Not to say it isn't still generally covered everywhere (not just news). It is, so we're not educational, we're redundant in stating the obvious. Things are happening beside protests, including policy changes, new wonderdrugs and marvelous mutations. We should open up and let them in. Mangeshkar died of COVID treatment, and she's still here, minus concurrent coverage. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regular further observation If this was originally intended as a public safety initiative, prevention through awareness and such, that was noble. But it was clearly ineffective. See the ravaged millions in votes above for corroboration of this, if you think I'm lying. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Pandemic is still ongoing, this should be removed when WHO declares it no longer a pandemic. I have suspicions that the nominator is just mad because the Canadian Convey protests weren’t posted to ITN, so they’re trying to get revenge by removing this from ongoing. Likewise if we were to be posting individual posts related to the pandemic, it would virtually clutter up the board. 24.166.251.29 (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This nominator didn't support posting anything about the convoy, so I suspect your suspicions are your own problem. If COVID -related noms were allowed, they'd still be subject to discretion. The important turning points would stand out and be read; better than just telling readers it still matters, for unwritten reasons, and making them click and skim for whatever new info. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Support per additional citations. Comment I am not a fan of the word "allegedly" in the sentence on his suicide unless it is explicitly used by RS sources. It's not our place to be promoting conspiracy theories. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
News outlets can't typically explicitly say that someone has committed suicide without an "allegedly" until it's been officially ruled as such, and in this case, I believe the investigations are still ongoing (though I may be out of date on that). Kafoxe (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have moved on from using "committed suicide" to replace it with "died by suicide". We should use the latter imo. Ktin (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
A UAZ-469 jeep is blown up outside of a building of the Donetsk People's Republic government in Donetsk city. No injuries are reported. (The Jerusalem Post)
Russia confirms that the Druzhba pipeline is on fire in rebel-held Luhansk Oblast after a massive explosion cut off gas to almost a hundred households. Transit supplies to Europe were not affected and continue as usual. (Reuters)
Additional explosions are reported in Luhansk. The Luhansk People's Republic authorities state that a gas station has been blown up. (Metro)(National Post)
The British government relocates its embassy from Kyiv to the western Ukrainian city of Lviv, and again urges its citizens to leave the country while they still can. (Reuters)
Eight Malian soldiers and 57 Islamist militants are killed during a gunfight in the Archam region, after 40 civilians were killed there during terrorist attacks last week. (Al Jazeera)
Israel's Iron Dome fails to intercept a Hezbollah-operated military drone from Lebanon that penetrated seventy kilometers into Israeli airspace. The drone flew for forty minutes before returning to Lebanon. Israeli jets fly at very low altitude over Beirut in response to the incident. (Times of Israel)(ABC News)
South Korea reports a record 109,831 new COVID-19 cases in the past 24 hours, thereby bringing the nationwide total of confirmed cases to 1.75 million. (Al Jazeera)
The Ottawa Police Service makes over 100 arrests, including the arrest of protest organizer Pat King. Police accuse protestors of assaulting officers with one person being arrested after allegedly throwing a bicycle at a horse with a mounted officer on it. (CBC News)(MSN)
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:Storm Eunice (talk·history·tag) Blurb: In Europe, 17 people are killed in Storm Eunice (pictured). (Post) Alternative blurb: In Europe, fifteen people are killed in Storm Eunice (pictured). A windspeed of 122 miles per hour (196 km/h) is the highest ever recorded in England. News source(s):BBC, BBC South Credits:
Nominator's comments: Significant European Windstorm, causing much disruption in Ireland, UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need, honestly and respectfully. I would understand if it was the highest wind gust ever recorded in Europe (although I wouldn't support it either), but not when we are talking about a specific country when it's a natural disaster that affects many more nations. Also I don't recall seeing other blurbs about storms mentioning these types of records. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Worst storm to hit the UK for almost 35 years. Unusual event, though there is a certain lack of international coverage and notability.PenangLion (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage mostly refers to wind speeds and intensity rather than the death toll. In terms of intensity, it is one of (thanks for the correction) the worst since the Storm of 1987. PenangLion (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. Ten deaths in one place would be marginal. It’s a bus crash. Ten deaths scattered over a wide area is no more than routine misfortune on any old Monday. Article is good quality. Praise for the work but it’s not quite an ITN level event. JehochmanTalk11:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not what you mean by "spotty." The storm has been widely covered by reliable sources, as you would expect from the worst storm to hit the UK since 1987. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support original only The wind speed record seems trivial to me, but 15 people died which is surely a significant event. But the secondary blurb mentions this, sorry, didn’t see.12.246.51.130 (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's 15 out of several hundred million survivors, though, not some shared mass tragedy for anywhere in particular, like in events that people remember later. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've not seen that toll on AP, BBC, Guardian or Reuters. Nor do I see where 15 is specifically documented in the article. DW reports nine storm fatalities, two in Germany and seven elsewhere. – Sca (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, as a percentage, it's still 0.00% of those affected, connected only through posthumous world news aggregation, as a number, nothing realer. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The article is in good shape, but the wind speed record is trivia, and is apparently only for England and not even the whole country. [13] Looking at the 2021–22 European windstorm season page, this storm isn't the strongest in terms of pressure difference or fastest in terms of wind speed this season. Compared to the Great storm of 1987 or even other storms this season, the level of fatalities isn't particularly elevated, and damages seem quite limited, to less than half a billion pounds [14] With no other civic indicators (e.g. states of emergency), I don't see the significance for posting, though this could change as the situation develops. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions19:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support in Theory Fairly impactful windstorm, but it seems the article could use some expanding, especially in the Meteorological history section. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Extremely powerful storm for European standards. Here we don't get many fatalities, because here we maintain our infrastructure to be able to deal with rare weather events. Count Iblis (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support rare European storm with an impact and death toll that would get posted almost anywhere. Article quality is fine for ITN. Also, the oldest blurb is 9 days old, about an event that took place 14 days ago. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update The wind hasn't let up but it's called Franklin now. What seems to be happening is that the jetstream has formed a powerful sting jet which is driving a series of Atlantic depressions. This is now another record – three named storms in a week – and there's more to come. See BBC while next up is Gladys with talk of snow and tornadoes... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RD: Boris Nevzorov
Article:Boris Nevzorov (talk·history·tag) Recent deaths nomination (Post) News source(s):TASS 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.
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.
Support, though I note that no official cause of death has been announced (AFAIK). He had stage 4 kidney cancer but was recently admitted to hospital with COVID-19. B.Rossow · talk16:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Panama-flagged car carrier MV Felicity Ace is abandoned approximately 90 nautical miles southwest of the Azores following a severe fire onboard. The ship's entire 22-man crew safely evacuates using lifeboats. (CNN)
British Columbia lifts most of its COVID-19 restrictions, allowing all businesses to reopen and operate at full capacity. Indoor gatherings and organized events are also permitted to operate without occupancy limits. However, provincial mandates requiring the use of vaccine cards for entry into businesses and the use of masks in indoor settings remain in effect. (CBC)
The Dominican Republic ends all COVID-19-related public health measures, including mask wearing mandates and use of vaccine passes in order to enter public places, despite not reaching 70% of its vaccination target. (U.S. News & World Report)
The Kuwaiti Ministers of Defense and the Interior, both members of the ruling Al-Sabah family, resign. The resignations are accepted by the Emir, who appoints a different member of the Al-Sabah family and Mohammad al-Fares, the current Oil Minister, to their respective posts. (Reuters)
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: Indian soccer (football) player. I am working on edits to the article. Edits done. Article is a reasonable start class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. In the meantime if someone has the powers to mark the article patrolled, I would appreciate that since I do not have those rights. Seems patrolled now. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Meets minimum standards; are there domestic league records available for his career statistics? (e.g. goals scored and appearances for each team) SpencerT•C21:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spencer: Trying to find some stats -- is there an ESPNCricinfo kind of stats database for soccer / football? If there are any databases, I am happy to have this information added. Seems like the infobox has space for this information, but, I am having some difficulty in identifying stats databases. Ktin (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robby.is.on: Tagging you here. Just saw your edit on this article. Seems like you might be able to help us here. Would you be able to point us to a trusted database that can help us with Surajit Sengupta's career statistics? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very hard to find statistics for clubs which aren't in Europe's top-5 leagues pre-2000s (and, for some countries, even pre-2010s). The article is very well written given that he was active during the 1970s, so I wouldn't be too concerned with the lack of club stats. Nehme149919:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This wikibio with only 270 words of readable prose seems too stubby for ITN. 40 years at the New York Times summarized with a two-sentence paragraph? Then one sentence each for founding The Hill and Politico? Can more be written about his long career? --PFHLai (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with PFHLai and Sca- for someone with such a long, illustrious career, we have very little detail in this article. As such, I don't think it meets the necessary article quality, as I don't think it meets Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items. (it doesn't seem to be comprehensive at all). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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:
In the news toolbox
_en.png)
.svg)
In progress (cc Ab207) — DaxServer (t · c) 22:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Done with the help of @Ab207. Added Ab207 to updaters list for due credit — DaxServer (t · c) 18:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Footnotes 
