Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 36.76.226.238 - "→‎Brexit: comment"
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 78: Line 78:
*There's been only 6 "declarations" by WHO since 2009. I think this is the stuff of ITNR autoposting level. [[Special:Contributions/205.175.106.117|205.175.106.117]] ([[User talk:205.175.106.117|talk]]) 00:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
*There's been only 6 "declarations" by WHO since 2009. I think this is the stuff of ITNR autoposting level. [[Special:Contributions/205.175.106.117|205.175.106.117]] ([[User talk:205.175.106.117|talk]]) 00:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]], and in deference to [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2019|Ebola PHEIC ITN]] on 17 July 2019 [[User:PotentPotables|PotentPotables]] ([[User talk:PotentPotables|talk]]) 00:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]], and in deference to [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2019|Ebola PHEIC ITN]] on 17 July 2019 [[User:PotentPotables|PotentPotables]] ([[User talk:PotentPotables|talk]]) 00:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Strongly support''' per LaserLegs and many other editors in reference to significance of world events. It is also be historic for health history.


==== Spitzer Space Telescope ====
==== Spitzer Space Telescope ====

Revision as of 00:50, 31 January 2020

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.

Hossein Amir-Abdollahian in 2023
Hossein Amir-Abdollahian

Glossary

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

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

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

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

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

Voicing an opinion on an item

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

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

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

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

Archives

January 31

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • The Royal Solomon Islands Police Force stop searching for nine people who disappeared at sea on January 15 when their boat capsized. Five men, two women and two children are now presumed dead. (RNZ)

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime
  • In Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh, India, a man is shot and killed by police after taking more than 20 children as hostages for more than 10 hours. Angry locals later beat the hostage-taker's widow to death. It is unknown whether she was involved in her husband's plan. (BBC News)

Politics and elections

Brexit

Article: Brexit (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Kingdom formally withdraws from the European Union. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC), (Vox)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Well, after almost four years the day has finally come. For those not in the know, one of the most powerful nations is leaving one of the largest and most powerful supranational organizations on Earth, and it is the first time the procedure for leaving has been carried out in full. It has cause a lot of political and economic turmoil at home and abroad in the past, and will assuredly continue to do so in the near future. The article itself has been put in the ITN section in the past, is generally in good shape, and is being continuously updated. The reason I'm nomming it now is, barring a really freaky event, it is certain to happen at this point. Mount Patagonia (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Old news. Just kidding! But there are better targets - Brexit withdrawal agreement, e.g. There's already been some discussion on the talk page. Also, I'd prefer we wait until 23:00 to post. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yeah I didn't know there was a discussion on the article to link (this is my first time nominating for ITN). If there is a clear preference for a different article, we can swap them out (if it works that way). I also wasn't expecting for this to be posted immediately, just to have enough consensus to post when it actually does happen. Sorry for any inconvenience. Mount Patagonia (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Only affects one nation </sarcasm> Clearly this was going to be posted once official and this day is it. --Masem (t) 00:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I Oppose because it only related to single country, not like Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, which has related to multiple countries, but I Support it for significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

WHO Public Health Emergency of International Concern declaration on novel coronavirus

Nominator's comments: I know we've just had an item on this, but we have generally run PHEIC declarations in the past. Article is being continuously updated. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support this had always been my threshold for ongoing. Suggest removing from OG, blurb this milestone and let it drop back into OG when it ages off. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We've already run the coronavirus story. Ongoing is there to precisely to deal with the issue of new and more severe updates being made. We rarely run the same story again because a new development has occurred,even where individual steps seem quite momentous.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose This is a significant development but the article has already been blurbed and is currently at ongoing. I think that's enough for now. If this turns into a pandemic or something obviously more serious than where we are now, I may reconsider. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport per LaserLegs. Add this blurb and once it drops, readd 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak to ongoing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 23:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's been only 6 "declarations" by WHO since 2009. I think this is the stuff of ITNR autoposting level. 205.175.106.117 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per LaserLegs, and in deference to Ebola PHEIC ITN on 17 July 2019 PotentPotables (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support per LaserLegs and many other editors in reference to significance of world events. It is also be historic for health history.

Spitzer Space Telescope

Article: Spitzer Space Telescope (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ After extending its original 5-year mission to 16 years, NASA terminates the Spitzer Space Telescope program. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Spitzer Space Telescope is retired after 16 years of infrared observations
News source(s): CBS News Science
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The actual command to end the mission will happen within the next 24hr (probably daytime in Houston) tiiiiny chance it will not happen. Masem (t) 04:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd support this -- it needs a lot of refs --LaserLegs (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentShutting down a technical device seems rather, er, anticlimactic. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the fact that Spitzer is in the orbit around the Sun, there will be no spectacular reentry, such was the case of the Mir space station, for example. So, this is the end. Support when the references are addressed. --Tone 14:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, though oppose on the referencing (which needs a lot of work). We also need to wait for confirmation that the off switch has been flicked and an update added to the article. This is the end of a highly productive mission. Adding altblurb and another source. Modest Genius talk 14:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Large gaps in referencing. The history section is already tagged as such, and there are several other places where referencing is spotty as well. Fix that and I will change my vote. --Jayron32 15:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Tagged article is not of high enough quality to appear on the main page. It has little referencing in the History section.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see the international significance of such an event. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 23:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

(Closed) Northwestern Syria offensive

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: Northwestern Syria offensive (November 2019–present) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Syrian government forces retake the strategic town of Maaret al-Numan in the Northwestern Syria offensive (November 2019–present) (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Syrian government forces retake the strategic town of Maaret al-Numan in the Northwestern Syria offensive.
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Article is orange-tagged. I leave it to someone else to delete the tag and make it postable. Banedon (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment proposed Alt1, which eliminates disambig "(November 2019–present)" and adds a full stop. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose tagged articles should not be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I feel like this blurb is trying to imply something ("strategic town") without stating it outright in a way that can be debated. If the argument is that this is the beginning of the end, I'd say we passed that point when the Turks moved in last year (which we posted). GreatCaesarsGhost 17:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might want to check the article on the town. I quote, "As the Syrian Civil War followed, the town's strategic position on the road between Damascus and Aleppo made it a significant prize." Banedon (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...and Gettysburg was a significant prize in the summer of '63; not so much in '65. Given the current state of the war, this doesn't really change anything. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for a long protracted conflict, I'd expect we'd only post the point that most sources would consider to be the "end" of the conflict (less the skimishes and cleanup that often follow). This doesn't seem be treated that way. --Masem (t) 18:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Another day in Idlib. – Sca (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Offensive is still ongoing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 04:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Would have supported this as an ongoing link, however, article quality is simply not good enough for the main page. Clean it up, and I'll change my vote. --Jayron32 12:49, 30 January 2020 (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.

January 28

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Paul Farnes

Article: Paul Farnes (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Last surviving RAF fighter ace from the Battle of Britain. Only two other pilots survive. Article looks to be in reasonably good shape. [Memory eternal.] Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Yang Xiaobo

Article: Yang Xiaobo (Hubei politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Paper, Radio France
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former mayor of Huangshi, a major city near Wuhan. Probably the first notable death of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Death announced on this date (actual date not yet disclosed). Zanhe (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Short but adequate and decently referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is sourced and recently expanded. TJMSmith (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD  — Amakuru (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Harriet Frank Jr.

Article: Harriet Frank Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Is a GA and looks generally good to me, although I don't think some of the awards are directly cited in the body? Could maybe use another set of eyes. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose Awards and filmography need cites. Otherwise looks good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref'd those sections. Only thing I can't corroborate is that Edgar Award, so it might be worth removing. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to go. The one CN is not enough to hold up posting given the otherwise solid article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Lexii Alijai

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: Lexii Alijai (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Died on January 1, 2020 but was widely reported today (COD). TJMSmith (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This death wasn't recent. It occurred nearly a month ago, where recent deaths are usually people who died within a few days prior. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2020 (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.
  • Only adding to affirm the death was widely reported when her body was found UPI, so this definitely is stale for RD. --Masem (t) 03:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Nicholas Parsons

Article: Nicholas Parsons (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Needs work... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support An amazing entertainer who was still working until not long before his death at 96. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 11:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see if somebody can fix the fact tags without hesitation, repetition or deviation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article has now been cleaned up sufficiently. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ongoing: 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak

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: 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The blurb fell off the Main Page earlier, and I added it to ongoing as there was a prior consensus on the original nomination. Adding a procedural ongong nomination here, and if there is any dissent to it being in ongoing we can remove it. Stephen 03:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support clearly still ongoing and being updated. No issues. --Masem (t) 03:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support This has to stay as Ongoing because it is ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the logical thing to do. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post Posting Endorse Filing this under WP:COMMONSENSE. No need to jump through the bureaucratic hoops all over again. It's still front page news more or less daily and likely to remain so for a while. The article is still in good shape. Good call. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting endorse clearly the right call. Lepricavark (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • PP Support – Still very much in the news, more than any other ongoing item we've put in recently.  Nixinova  T  C   07:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clearly still in the news, and likely to be so for a while. Hard to get an edit in edgewise in the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support posting as ongoing The story just keeps getting bigger. Nsk92 (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear consensus in favour so just tagging as posted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automatically support the story is being update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment – With the toll in China at 106 132 and some cases confirmed elsewhere, we should keep a close watch on this for possible new blurb. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there was consensus for OG in the original nom, good call from Stephen to post. This is going to be in the box for a year... --LaserLegs (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2020 (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.

January 27

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

2020 Brazilian floods and mudslides

Proposed image
Article: 2020 Brazilian floods and mudslides (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Floods and landslides hit southeastern Brazil, killing at least 50 people and leaving thousands outside their homes. (Post)
News source(s): FOX News BBC Al Jazeera
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Large number of deaths. ArionEstar (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose until significantly expanded. Currently it is a micro-stub consisting of two sentences and a total of 41 words (including numbers). -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality: Two sentences and two refs isn't nearly enough for the main page.  Nixinova  T  C   07:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem and Nixinova, the article is not nearly long enough for the main page at this point. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability; oppose on quality. Clearly undeniable deserving of ITN, but it urgently needs improvement. MSN12102001 (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - significant event. I have tried expanding the article as required and it should be a lot better now. Droodkin (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(closed) 2020 United States Air Force E-11A crash

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: 2020 United States Air Force E-11A crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A United States Air Force flight crashes in Dih Yak District, Afghanistan, killing all five on board. (Post)
News source(s): bbc voa, AP
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The BACN is a civilian type (in this case a Bombardier Global Express), it's not a combat aircraft and the Taliban is claiming they shot it down. LaserLegs (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the US says it was shot down. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per 331dot. We don't have enough information right now and most of what we are hearing is coming from the Taliban. It should go w/o saying that they are not a reliable source for the time of day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – While the U.S. has confirmed the crash, no details available. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - whether or not it was shot down, the article isn't in bad shape with all that is known included. Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots It matters if it was shot down or not, as that likely affects coverage of this and the significance of the crash. I haven't seen a great deal of coverage of this- but if the Taliban brought down an aircraft, that's much more notable. Military personnel take on the risk of things like this happening when they sign up(unlike civilian aircraft carrying passengers). 331dot (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it was shot down, or suffered a double engine failure (per forum gossip), it is still the first fatal hull loss for the type. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – U.S. retrieves the remains of two crewmen, the only occupants, and says no indication plane was shot down. – Sca (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose somewhat trivial accident by the sounds of things. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As I suspected, an unfortunate but run of the mill accident that the Taliban is trying to turn into propaganda hay. Good faith nomination given what we knew at the time (which wasn't much) but no thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"an unfortunate but run of the mill accident" describes the vast majority of these disaster articles we post, and as mjroots points out this is the first hull loss for the type. Still, I see this nom is toast. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First fatal hull loss. Mjroots (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Caspian Airlines Flight 6936

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Proposed image
Article: Caspian Airlines Flight 6936 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ All 144 people on board Caspian Airlines Flight 6936 (aircraft pictured) survive when the aircraft overruns the runway on landing at Mahshahr Airport, Iran. (Post)
News source(s): Mehr News
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Let's get some good news up for a change. Mjroots (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless this has wider news coverage- which may not happen for a simple overrunning of the runway, where the chances of casualties are low(unlike say, the Miracle on the Hudson). 331dot (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this certainly is good news but not really notable enough for main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support not every day an aircraft overruns, and the MD-80s were extensively built. Weak because the article is still kind of disaster-stubby. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can only work with what is available. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, I'm not judging contributors just reading it that's my sense of it. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – although it's very good news, I don't see this as being notable enough for the main page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per 331dot, TRM. Glad they all survived. – Sca (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's possible the newsworthiness of this item might be inflated due to the previous airline "accident" that took place in Iran. Still, we generally don't post no-casualty accidents on ITN, as morbid as that principle seems.--WaltCip (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN was a different kettle of fish back then.--WaltCip (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree that such a large over-run is unusual, as is the under-carriage being ripped from an aircraft full of passengers and it coming to rest on a public road. However, the aircraft seems to have survived as well as anyone could have hoped, and there are only two injuries. A dramatic near-miss certainly, but not significant enough for an ITN blurb. It should be possible to expand the article enough to qualify for DYK. Modest Genius talk 15:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We generally don't post near-misses: it would have to be an event like US Airways Flight 1549 ("Miracle on the Hudson") where there was significant attention to the rescue efforts/etc. And even then, not an assurance. --Masem (t) 16:01, 27 January 2020 (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.

January 26

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Politics and elections

(Posted) Grammys

Proposed image
Article: 62nd Annual Grammy Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the Grammy Awards, Billie Eilish's "Bad Guy" and When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? win Record and Album of the Year, respectively. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At the Grammy Awards, Billie Eilish wins Best New Artist as well as for Song, Record, and Album of the Year for "Bad Guy" and When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?, the second time in the history of the awards.
Alternative blurb II: ​ At the Grammy Awards, Billie Eilish wins Best New Artist as well as for Song, Record, and Album of the Year, the second time in the history of the awards.
Alternative blurb III: ​ At the Grammy Awards, Billie Eilish wins Best New Artist as well as for Song, Record, and Album of the Year.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ At the Grammy Awards, Billie Eilish wins all four major categories with her song "Bad Guy" and album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?.
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:

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: There probably could be more on viewership, and perhaps mention that the tribute to Bryant was a last minute thing. However, the rest seem updated better than past years. Masem (t) 04:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, but comment - She also won Song of the Year and Best New Artist. Maybe those two should be incorporated. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - Article needs a bit more prose, and I've tried to add a bit where I can. Of note, Eilish is the first artist to win Album, Song, Record and New Artist in the same year since 1981, and that was the only other time this has ever happened. That could also be mentioned in the blurb too instead of just the two awards. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 05:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing my vote to a full Support now that there is sufficient prose in this article (For once!). For the blurbs, personal preference is for either alt2 or alt3, but any of them would do. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 21:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The "Nominations" section is an eyesore and I'd like to see some prose outside of the lead, but thank you all who worked on this article for doing it this year, and staving off the otherwise inevitable ITN/R removal threads. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose original blurb with suggestions I would Support altblurbs because they not only awarding one awards, but also two awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for the sake of brevity can the blurb just say "Billie Eilish wins record of the year and album of the year"? We barely fit 4 blurbs in the box these days ... --LaserLegs (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominations section seems to be completely unreferenced — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. History made! MSN12102001 (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support – nominations section is largely, if not entirely, unreferenced; while I don't doubt the accuracy of the information, I think references would be of benefit. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and proposing Alt III and Alt IV. No need for trivia in ITN. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 13:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC); Edited 16:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I updated the article to expand on the pre-existing controversy and the tribute to Kobe Bryant. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 16:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment History made indeed. This might be the first time in like five or six years that we've been able to post the ITN/R Grammys on ITN. Thanks, Billie Eilish!--WaltCip (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no prose outside the lead and also maintenance-tagged. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That was an inappropriate "too many wikilinks" tag that has now been removed.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too little prose. The article is also clearly trying to evade the controversies leading up to the ceremony, which should be mentioned. Teemu08 (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Teemu08: I've tried to update the article to address these concerns. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 17:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that looks better. Willing to support now. Good work. Teemu08 (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb as it is focused on Billie Elilish alone, instead of the grammys as a whole. I would support a blurb that is a bit broader. --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The normal blurb we use for the Grammys is to cover the Album and Record of the year (this is what the first blurb had done) and nothing else. But Elilish "swept" the top awards, a fact that is clearly important by the RSes, so while the trivia (2nd time its happened) can go, naming the 4 major ones she won is fully reasonable. --Masem (t) 16:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Masem. The four awards we would conceivably put in the blurb were all won Eilish. Removing her from the blurb also removes the major news story about the awards. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sufficient prose now. Alt3 is fine. Looks like this ITN/R might actually get posted for once :)-- P-K3 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt2, though the others are fine as well. Morgan695 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 00:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to see this up. :) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 01:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John Altobelli

Article: John Altobelli (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Died in the 2020 Calabasas helicopter crashTJMSmith (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Jeez, that is some impressive work. GreatCaesarsGhost 03:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How would other editors feel about adding his article to Kobe’s blurb? Nonstopmaximum (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best to keep it just to Bryant, like when Soleimani was killed. Juxlos (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tom Railsback

Article: Tom Railsback (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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

 Neutralitytalk 23:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support Refs are fine, but the Political career section could benefit from a pronoun. Every sentence calls the man Ralisback. GreatCaesarsGhost 03:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a few pronouns scattered around now, and article is ok. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Posted. This was stale actually, but I sneaked it in at the bottom because the death was only reported on Jan 22 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Kobe Bryant

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: Kobe Bryant (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American former basketball player Kobe Bryant (pictured) dies at 41 in a helicopter crash. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ American former basketball player Kobe Bryant (pictured), age 41, and four others die in a helicopter crash.
Alternative blurb II: ​ American former basketball player Kobe Bryant (pictured) and four others die in a helicopter crash near Calabasas, California.
Alternative blurb III: ​ American former basketball player Kobe Bryant (pictured), his daughter Gianna, and three others die in a helicopter crash near Calabasas, California.
News source(s): New York Post, ESPN The Guardian, L.A. Times, AP
Credits:
 PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Wikipedia is experiencing an explosion of traffic right now so I apologize if this ECs anyone. Information is still coming in but if true, this should be considered for a blurb. He is retired but only recently, and this is extraordinarily unusual.--WaltCip (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. Bryant was tops in his field(even if just retired) and the manner of his death is unusual. I don't know if the other four casualties should be mentioned. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: World news and extremely notable former athlete, but lets wait for more details to update the article. MX () 20:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, pitching altblurb 1 The fact that four others died in this crash is also noteworthy. —BLZ · talk 20:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All over the place at the moment. If needed here is another source ABC. PackMecEng (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt1 I think the fact that this nuked Wikipedia's servers is pretty good evidence of blurb notability. At a glance the article looks in fairly good shape and I don't think it is too big of an issue for the main page. Yes, it needs a little tuning, but that will be challenging until the news dies down. I'm willing to IAR a little here given the unique circumstance of his article being for all intents and purposes uneditable right now. Agree that the others in the crash should be mentioned Teemu08 (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Both blurbs looks good to me (the four other can be mentioned, but the noteworthy event is Bryant’s death rather than the crash itself) but this should be posted after the WP outage dies down. — MarkH21talk 20:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a Wikinotable person has been killed in an aviation accident, a stand-alone article on the accident is justifiable. The aircraft in question was a Sikorsky S-76B, which is a large helicopter. Am being affected by the reported issues accessing Wikipedia in Europe at the moment by only getting intermittent access, otherwise I'd start the article myself. Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for blurb, but strongly support for RD It is very good, well reference and notable. But i would willing for support it posted for RD because his death.
  • Support blurb3 - Top of field, unusual death, article is of good quality.  Nixinova  T  C   20:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on completely unsourced tables. There are a handful of sentences that could use a cite but I can overlook those given the generally decent condition of the rest of the article. But all of the stats tables are unsourced. That needs to be fixed before this can be posted. [Note: The servers are barely functioning under the weight of all the traffic, so I'm having trouble refreshing pages and this oppose may already have been resolved by time I get it posted.] Support blurb once these issues are resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tables now sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb, with the third being my preference. The article has 447 citations and is almost entirely sourced. Kees08 (Talk) 20:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb sources are saying it's his four daughters who have also died.... needs to go into the blurb. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hearing conflicting information on that. It's not mentioned in the ESPN article.--WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that they're saying it was one of his daughters, not all four. But it hasn't been confirmed (or denied) yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the four daughters info from ABC has since been deleted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (multiple times EC) We have a consensus for a blurb. The article is loading super slow so it will take it a while to expand the updates but the basics are there. Posting. --Tone 20:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec × ∞) Support Kobe's death is why servers are on the fritz? Oh. A world-class athlete dying at 41 (the kind of death that makes me exclaim "HOLY SHIT" and drop my phone when I first saw), is much different than a septuagenarian comedian with dementia. This will be reflected in the press as writers put out their thinkpieces in the coming hours. The death is news, rather than merely being in the news. Article quality is great. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Blurb two time MVP winner doesn't strike me as "transformative world leader" in his field and he doesn't pass the "Mandela/Thatcher" test for me. Still the media circus probably justifies. Awards section in the infobox needs refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing that merits a death a blurb is if the death itself is a notable event, not just the career of the deceased person. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
🏆 Five-time NBA champion
🏅 2008 NBA MVP
🏅 Two-time NBA Finals MVP
🏅 Two-time NBA scoring champion
🏅 Two-time Olympic champion
🏆 2018 Academy Award winner
The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict × 2)Support His death broke Wikipedia. What more do we need? The article itself isn't accessible right now, so I can't really look through it, though. Gestrid (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're the second person to attribute the availability issues to Bryants death. Is there some RS reporting the same? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2)Not that I know of, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. TMZ's site also went down when they broke the news. Gestrid (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like a planned upgrade caused a spike in CPU usage and response times -- not Bryants death. Just wanted to close the loop on that one doesn't affect support for blurb at all. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT1 preferred; the other four people deserve some recognition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I couldn’t even so much as fix a typo because a billion people came to Wikipedia at the same time. (I for one didn’t believe it was really Kobe Bryant. I thought there was another Kobe Bryant who was a basketball player and Oscar winner too. Then I thought, maybe it was his dad. Absolute disbelief.) Hopefully, the page is stable enough to actually be a recent death notice. ⌚️ (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record, it's a little premature to say his death "broke Wikipedia". The site has been having problems all day. Wikipedia tweeted about it at 11:20 PT. TMZ broke the news about Kobe Bryant's death at 11:24. Surachit (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would we be able to remove the word "former"? I don't think it's necessary. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take it up at WP:ERRORS.  Nixinova  T  C   21:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      No, this is the place to discuss wording changes, not ERRORS, but in any case the word "former" has already been removed. Thx  — Amakuru (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I've raised this at ERRORS. He wasn't a ball player when he died, so he was a former player. It's an important distinction that needs reinstating. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment image needs to be replaced. And yes, it wasn't this death which broke Wikipedia, it's been a bit broken all day. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ESPN now saying that one of Kobe's daughters died in the crash.--WaltCip (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment image should be replaced with one of kobe. Bohbye (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Comment’’’ As WaltCip mentioned above, add daughters death to the blurb. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Comment TMZ corroborates this report about his daughter, and it's currently in the Wikipedia article. Was apparently told to TMZ by a rep for Kobe. https://twitter.com/TMZ/status/1221533868433592320 Gestrid (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentL.A. Times says "and four others" but doesn't mention daughter (filed abt 2130 UTC). Mercury-News says "unclear" if family members on board. – Sca (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are literally dozens of other RS saying as much. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Calif. sources. – Sca (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Say wut? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know you were from Kentucky. Sca (talk)
AP quotes 'source' saying daughter Gianna also killed (filed 2145 UTC). – Sca (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave professional scrutiny to the professionals. If the majority of reliable sources are corroborating Gianna's death, then we go with that.--WaltCip (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but bear in mind the AP is the world's largest news-gathering organization. – Sca (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we'll stick with RS, this is Wikipedia, not Reuters or the BBC. Vast majority of sources now stating that his daughter was with him when they perished. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While deeply tragic, his daughter Gianna is not independently notable and I am not seeing any reason to name her in the blurb unless we are going to name all of the other people who also died. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in a high-profile case like this it could be argued that she's notable by virtue of being his daughter and also being killed. It's a judgment call. – Sca (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I think it's a case of us all being human beings, it's simple to appreciate that the loss of Bryant and his daughter is worthy of note. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
L.A. now confirms Gianna as victim. – Sca (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the link I posted a while ago... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She wasn't there when I first looked at it, but now she is. – Sca (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added his daughter to the blurb.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NYT confirms Gianna. – Sca (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of RS have confirmed this for at least an hour, I don't think it's necessary now to continue to add more when it was made clear to you some time back. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NYT is the most respected U.S. newspaper with the largest staff. I was a bit uneasy until they confirmed it. – Sca (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - 9 people in total now confirmed dead. Blurb should be updated to reflect this. Andise1 (talk)
  • Post-posting blurb support This is exactly the scenario that, in terms of RD guidance, would be taken as an "unusual death", and also with fair consideration of how significant Bryant was (If it was some random 2nd string from a NBA team, that likely would have just been RD, no blurb). This is ITNC RD processing working as intended. --Masem (t) 23:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose blurb per LaserLegs. One could say Kobe Bryant has won lots of titles, but so have other players. What makes his death more notable then - an unnatural manner of death hardly seems convincing. Banedon (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kobe Bryant is the most accomplished player in the 21st century in a sport labeled as "global" by at least one person in WT:ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • An unnatural manner of death and at a relatively young age is an accepted and explicit factor for posting a person's death as a blurb, not even factoring in Kobe Bryant's phenomenal status in sports.--WaltCip (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support blurb one of the greatest basketball players ever + a sudden death that absolutely stuns millions of Americans = a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Not a good look for ITN." – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment Oh FFS, it's posted. OK? Can the rabid fans with their post-posting comments please move on to other more useful tasks? There are always nominations needing more work. Your love for Bryant and for basketball won't help that. It just highlights the US-centrism of this place. HiLo48 (talk)
Editors obsessing over one person while ignoring lots of other things to be done for ITN is rude. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's mine. I've made my point. You clearly don't get it. I give up. Bye. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not appreciate being referred to as a 'rabid fan'. In reality, I was indifferent to Kobe Bryant even during his playing days. Spiteful comments like the above are unhelpful and have no place in a collaborative environment. Even if you had a point (which you don't), there would have been a better way to make it. Lepricavark (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you join five other editors with unnecessary, almost identical post-posting comments? It's not a good look for ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Might be time to close this whole thread up. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That has been my point all along. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe just stop talking. I'm sure we'd all be very happy with that. Lepricavark (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't give HiLo48 what he wants. 72.208.178.248 (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2020 (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.

January 25

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Science and technology

(Closed) Boeing 777X

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Proposed image
Article: Boeing 777X (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Boeing 777X (pictured), the world's largest twinjet airliner, makes its maiden flight. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC News Online)
Credits:
 Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I want to support this, but I don't see where the article has a paragraph about the test flight (it should be in production?). The whole production section has tense issues which need adjustment (this happens when you build an article from news stories). Consider "the GE9X first flight has been delayed ... but the slip should not change the engine certification schedule". That was two years ago. Did it change the schedule or not? I don't care enough about the subject to fix the article, but reading through it felt like a 4 year summary of press releases. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support incremental change but article is good and it's in the news. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The test flight of a new design doesn't seem sufficiently significant. – Sca (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I think it's okay. 70.138.211.34 (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • non-rhetorical question - what is the value of a superlative "world's largest twinjet" when the world has quadjets? GreatCaesarsGhost 03:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GreatCaesarsGhost: Quadjets are being phased out. The A380 program ended, the A340 is long over, the 747 is on life-support. Tri and quad jets almost exclusively predate ETOPS certification so there is some notability in the evolution of very large and very long range twin jets. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a derivative of an existing model (although a larger derivative than others). Even a newly designed aircraft with no prior derivatives failed to garner enough support for inclusion on ITN and I don't see why Boeing 777X should be any different (other than having the word "Boeing" attached to it). OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was 7 years ago .... we're not doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions: it's unclear to me how much this differs from existing variants of the 777. If we posted this, would it set a precedent for every minor modification of a major airliner? And would it not be better to wait until the aircraft enters service (2021 if all goes to plan)? Modest Genius talk 16:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • They added four frames to stretch it out. The big question is if it will require a new type certificate or not. If it's the former it may not be that noteworthy but if the latter then it's functionally a new aircraft. Now is when it's most likely to be in the news ... we post 8 to 14 air crashes a year, personally I feel like we can do one new aircraft variant every two years but that's just me. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - How a TEST FLIGHT notable enough to be in "In the News?" --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this winds up posted, it'll be rather contradictory, considering Microsoft terminating support for Windows 7 wasn't posted and both Windows 7 & the Boeing 777X are the products of certain companies. Banedon (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, does not seem notable enough for the main page considering the flight itself, the subject of the blurb, does not even have its own page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Jordan Sinnott

Article: Jordan Sinnott (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian; BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Died 25 January Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've just added that - it only needed a sentence, to be honest. 'Support and marked Ready. Black Kite (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 24

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Pete Stark

Article: Pete Stark (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): L A Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: He served in the US House of Representatives for 40 years. A few citations are needed, but it's otherwise an okay shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Rob Rensenbrink

Article: Rob Rensenbrink (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBCWashington Post
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Renowned Dutch footballer. Death announced today (26th). Have updated article with his death but it needs a lot more work. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Yuri Viktorovich Kuznetsov

Article: Yuri Viktorovich Kuznetsov (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rossiyskaya Gazeta, RIA Novosti
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Military leader, Hero of the Soviet Union, local/regional politician Spokoyni (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 Elazığ earthquake

Article: 2020 Elazığ earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A major earthquake strikes Eastern Anatolia, causing 22 deaths and more than a thousand injuries (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A 6.7 Mw earthquake in Elazığ, Turkey, kills at least 22 people and injures more than a thousand.
News source(s): CNN, BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major damaging earthquake, still a little short on details Mikenorton (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, but may need further update. Added altblurb. Brandmeistertalk 12:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. The "Tectonic setting" is basically filler and you're left with three sentences describing the technicals of the quake and one about the damage caused. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. But need updates. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ... in principle, pending expansion of thin existing article. (Three sources added above.)Sca (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lookin' better. – Sca (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Clayton Christensen

Article: Clayton Christensen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): HBR, WSJ
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Influential Harvard Business School professor and author died of cancer. Natureium (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - He was notable in the business world and a popular author. - Indefensible (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose On balance, the sourcing here is very problematic. Lots of missing citations or primary sources. Also lots of LDS-alligned stuff that, while not junk, cannot be the foundation of an encyclopedia article. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not adequately cited. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support there's nothing wrong with religiously-based sources (that document his role in church institutions) that are reliable. --Varavour (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is something wrong with posting BLPs with [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just the point - they're not reliable (go check RSN if you don't trust me). We wouldn't publish an article about a priest that is entirely cited to the Catholic church. A few in a long article is okay, but of the 28 citations currently in the article, 7 are to the Deseret News and 6 more are written by the subject himself. I've no doubt Christensen has seen broad and sustained coverage in reliable sources; but they are not cited here. GreatCaesarsGhost 05:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - how does the citing for Christensen compare to Seamus Mallon? If Christensen meets the threshold for notability and his citing is at the same standard or better, then he should be posted. - Indefensible (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    About as well as Boris Johnson compares to Usain Bolt in the 100 meter. GreatCaesarsGhost 05:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly? There are articles referenced from The Economist, WSJ, Bloomberg, HBS, and Forbes--those are all respectable sources. Christensen's article is actually rated better than Mallon's: C-class vs start-class. - Indefensible (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not sufficient to have some material cited to reliable sources, but rather "any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged [must be cited] to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The bulk of this article is not cited to reliable sources. This is not the place to discuss Mallon - if you have concerns, you may note them in that nomination or in the Errors page.GreatCaesarsGhost 17:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point isn't that Mallon's article isn't post-worthy, it's that Christensen's article is rated higher than Mallon's [and should thus similarly be posted]. There are more citations for Christensen than for Mallon and only a couple places where the {citation needed} tag is used--if that is really the issue, the affected statements can just be removed. - Indefensible (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so none of that is of any relevance to getting Christensen's article posted, which is the matter currently being discussed. Separately, but just as important, my comments do not prevent the article from being posted; they only draw an admin's eye to issues. They will sustain or reject my concerns. If you think those concerns are unjustified, the admin may agree. If my concerns are valid, someone will need to fix the article before it can be posted. In any case, there is no need to engage with me whatsoever. GreatCaesarsGhost 03:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) March for Life

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: March for Life (Washington, D.C.) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The March for Life, an annual anti-abortion protest, is held in Washington, D.C. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ U.S. President Donald Trump attends the March for Life in Washington, D.C., an annual anti-abortion protest.
News source(s): USA Today, Fox News, CNN
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The March for Life, a pro-life protest, was held today, drawing around 100,000 people. It usually doesn't get too much attention from the mainstream media (besides Fox, of course), but this year it's different because Trump actually attended it in person. JOEBRO64 20:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the 2020 march had a few paragraphs of prose including preparations, speakers, police, counter-marches, etc all that good stuff I could support it. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the main hook here is that Trump personally attended, that should be in the blurb. Otherwise I don't see much reason for posting this annual protest, held to commemorate Roe v. Wade. While 100,000 is a large crowd, it isn't a big newsmaker(as noted by the nominator). 331dot (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not internationally significant and at best, a bipartisan flashpoint for American politics. Droodkin (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Brand news. The president spoke there. MSN12102001 (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So add something to HIS article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Happens every year. Trump did attend for the first time, but it's still a regular event. On top of that, the relevant section about the 2020 March for Life is literally one sentence. Master of Time (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Recurring annual protest lacking the kind of significance we generally look for in order to post such things at ITN. Trump's presence does not alter that reality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose {removed personal opinion}--WaltCip (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WaltCip: That is way out of line and I strongly advise you to strike or better, simply delete the comment. See also FORUM, NPA and BLP. I'm INVOLVED, so this is not an admin warning but you should know better. This is not borderline or questionable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Politicians attend rallies all the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Life doesn't need support. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Politicians attend rallies to hopefully convince those attending they are nice people. There is no news here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The March is a routine event - only if it drew massive crowds after the event would we post. And every time a Trump association is added we should ask "Would we do the same if we were talking Obama? Or Bush? Or Clinton? Or Bush Sr.?" and I hope obviously here the answer is no. Trump is an extremely divisfy figure but we have to be very wary of how much attention the media makes of tracking him. We are not in that position. --Masem (t) 02:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Seamus Mallon

Article: Seamus Mallon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RTÉ ITV
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: An important figure in the Northern Ireland peace process. Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland from 1998 to 2001 and Deputy Leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party from 1979 to 2001. Sheila1988 (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Short article mostly referenced although some dead links need to be fixed Joseywales1961 (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment added a few CN tags, most aren't a big deal but his position on NRA violence and police reform need strong refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    References added throughout including those 2 specified by LaserLegs Joseywales1961 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • LGTM marked Ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: