Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
In the news toolbox |
---|
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. Nomination steps
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
February 19
February 19, 2022
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Sports
|
RD: Tom Veitch
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Gizmodo GamesRadar CBR BleedingCool
Credits:
- Nominated by Jonas1015119 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: notable comics author, particularly for Dark Empire jonas (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
February 18
February 18, 2022
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Sports
|
Storm Eunice
Blurb: In Europe, ten people are killed in Storm Eunice (pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: In Europe, ten 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:
- Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
- Created by Toonling (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Edl-irishboy (talk · give credit), Pigsonthewing (talk · give credit) and Pohjamadesse1 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
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)
- Support - Certainly an unusual event of this type, and it's in the news.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment What is the need to put a weather record of a specific country in a blurb that mentions a natural disaster at European level? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Adds to the significance of the storm. Higher winds than the Great Storm of 1987! Posting admin is free to amend blurb as they see fit. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Just because we haven't done it before does not mean we should never do it. WaltCip-(talk) 19:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've restored the original blurb and made that an altblurb. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support The original blurb (now alt) is better as focussing purely on the body count is crude. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: original blurb is the one without the windspeed record for UK. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose -- doesn't seem that significant to warrant a blurb. Seems not notable. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Seems significant enough to warrant a blurb. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 02:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The wind speed was the highest ever recorded in England, not the entirety of the UK. Kline | yes? 04:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Unusual weather events are frequently featured. The alt blurb (which I prefer) should be reworded as "In Europe, seven people are killed in Storm Eunice (pictured), a cyclone with gusts of 122 miles per hour (196 km/h), the highest ever recorded in the United Kingdom." — Preceding unsigned comment added by An anonymous username, not my real name (talk • contribs) 04:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Not historically significant and the picture is just clouds to all but diehard meteorology buffs, no prejudice against 2021–2022 European windstorm season in Ongoing. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- The only other image availabe is one showing damage to the O2 Arena. If that is used, (damage to O2 Arena pictured) would be the image caption. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Better, but not enough to save it, especially after realizing how many Europeans have been killed by similar wind since New Year's Day (~62). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- The only other image availabe is one showing damage to the O2 Arena. If that is used, (damage to O2 Arena pictured) would be the image caption. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support unusual event for that part of Europe, article is clearly good enough. Support ALT0. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- BBC says it's "one of" the worst. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- If "worst" means deadliest, it's tied with Storm Malik from three weeks ago (our article doesn't count this true Scotsman). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- "Strongest". InedibleHulk (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose blurb. SN54129 11:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- 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. Jehochman Talk 11:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah obvs. Daily battering? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC) [1]
RD: Boris Nevzorov
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.
Nominator's comments: Russian actor, died of COVID-19. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not Ready Article needs expansion. Only eleven sentences of actual prose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
RD: Jim Hagedorn
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by Kafoxe (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Coltanders (talk · give credit), Jkaharper (talk · give credit) and Brossow (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Incumbent U.S. representative, cancer. Kafoxe (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- 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 · talk 16:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support, marking ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment' some election results tables are unsourced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- "Committee assignments" are unreferenced, too. --PFHLai (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- True. I just added new cn tags. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article looks good. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 02:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
February 17
February 17, 2022
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Martin Tolchin
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American political correspondent for The New York Times. Co-founder of The Hill and Politico. Thriley (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
February 16
February 16, 2022
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Jack Smethurst
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Sky, MEN
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Martinevans123 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit) and Beryl reid fan (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: British actor best known for playing a racist shop steward in the controversial but popular TV sitcom Love Thy Neighbour Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Short but adequate. Referencing is decent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Gail Halvorsen
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Salt Lake Tribune
Credits:
- Nominated by Ryan Reeder (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Renewal6 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Known as the "Berlin Candy Bomber" for his involvement in Operation Little Vittles following World War II; Congressional Gold Medal recipient, among other honors Ryan Reeder (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Solid article and well referenced. Article is justly graded GA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting support Saw this earlier in the news, and confirming the article's quality is good for posting. --Masem (t) 03:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting support Article's subject is notable, article is in good quality. Keep on RD. Not sure about blurb. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
RD: Chennaveera Kanavi
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express
Credits:
- Nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
- Updated by To be updated (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Indian Kannada language poet. Article requires significant work. But, it is worth investing time imo. I will get to it later tonight. Ktin (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not Ready Article needs expansion. Take out the lists and you have a stub with ten sentences of prose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. Ktin (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Yahgan language becomes extinct/dead
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: The Yahgan language becomes extinct following the death of Cristina Calderón as its last native speaker. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Yahgan language becomes dead following the death of Cristina Calderón as its last native speaker.
News source(s): France 24
Credits:
- Nominated by Kiril Simeonovski (talk · give credit)
- Oppose on quality as the Yahgan language is orange-tagged with multiple issues, because it needs a lot more sourcing. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The Yaghan language isn't an extinct language, but rather is a dead language (as defined in the article) as of Calderon's death. An extinct language is a language with no longer any speakers, and given that there are people who are speaking Yaghan thanks to Calderon's tireless work, including Calderon's daughters, however not as a their native language, thus making it a dead language instead. The article itself does not refer to the language, nor even the culture, as dead, due to Calderon's hard work in preserving the Yagan language and cultural traditions. Ornithoptera (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- That also raises the issue of the France24 article listed does not say that the language is extinct following her death, so that raises an additional concern. The conclusion is garnered from something that is indirectly gleaned from reading between the lines rather than something explicitly stated by the news article being used as its source. Ornithoptera (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've proposed an alternative blurb to specify it's a language death.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- That also raises the issue of the France24 article listed does not say that the language is extinct following her death, so that raises an additional concern. The conclusion is garnered from something that is indirectly gleaned from reading between the lines rather than something explicitly stated by the news article being used as its source. Ornithoptera (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral - It's a bit of a wobbly nomination given there are no previous examples to this. Personally I would like to support the nomination, but on the basis that there hasn't been any similar ITNs about language-extinctions, I'm abstaining the vote until a consensus has been generally reached. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The category Category:Languages extinct in the 21st century shows that more than 50 languages have gone extinct in just the last twenty years. It does not appear to be as unique of an event even when accounting for the isolate bit. Moreover the article has maintenance tags all over. Gotitbro (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - Orange-tagged article, and I really don't see the lasting significance of this. Kafoxe (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Unclear if it's accurate as written. One anthropologist said,
The younger generation know the language but not to the same degree that Cristina does,
[2] Perhaps it's more nuanced, like she was the last full-blooded, fluent speaker—but that seems too narrow to blurb. RIP.
- Preceding comment posted by Bagumba. – Sca (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ornithoptera, Gotitbro, and Bagumba. Dead rather than extinct takes some of the air out of this, in my opinion, and personally this is kind of like posting a species extinction. They, sadly, happen to a frequent degree, and just the acknowledgement of this is what is news. And, like a species extinction, this is somewhat hypothetical, as in Calderón is the last known native speaker. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Per not that rare and Calderón being posted to RD. Kingsif (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – According to our article, 20 years ago there were 1,685 Yaghan in Chile, a total that by 2017 had declined a bit. Apparently all, or nearly all, have gone to Spanish as their mother tongue. Since that process has been under way for many years, this announcement does not seem to have notable significance or impact, though it may be of interest to ethnologists. Also, not widely covered. – Sca (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- RD This is mostly a recent death. It's weak as a blurb because, currently, there's not much news coverage out there. There has been quite a bit of coverage of the language's fading status in recent years – see Atlas Obscura, for example. Of course, just listing the woman's name in RD doesn't provide any context or clue but that's a general failing of the current RD format. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support A language going extinct sounds like a pretty big deal. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 00:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think, to respond to this, the species extinction comparison is a good one. When white rhinos go extinct, there will be lots of media and lots of people caring because white rhinos are big and beautiful, were pretty common, and humans are a cause of extinction. The language comparison would be French going extinct and a massacre being partially responsible. That would get posted. But lots of species go extinct quite regularly, actually, and when it is microbial life that few humans have ever witnessed, very isolated, and there were only about 1000 examples that just died by natural causes, nobody really cares. That is this. Kingsif (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose -- is a language with no native speakers actually "extinct"? I don't think it is. --RockstoneSend me a message! 00:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on article quality. Referencing is dreadful and will require a great deal of work before this could be seriously considered for posting on the main page. Suggest closing for now as there is no point in even discussing the merits with the article in its current shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Cristina Calderon
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Cristina Calderón, the last native speaker of the Yahgan language, dies at the age of 93. (Post)
News source(s): France 24
Credits:
- Nominated by Ornithoptera (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Last known native speaker of the Yaghan language and last full-blooded Yaghan person, I have been updating and sourcing portions of the article that have been unsourced previously, should be relevant for RD. This is my first RD nomination so if I get something wrong just let me know! Ornithoptera (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Referenced, appropriate depth of coverage. SpencerT•C 00:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Relevant enough for RD. I did update it when she died but there were no news reports at the time and later I could not continue modifying the article. Bedivere (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Solid article and well referenced. Marking as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 03:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Her death marks the extinction of a language. This is perhaps a story for a blurb. As an alternative centred on the language extinction, see the nomination above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Unclear if it's accurate as written. One anthropologist said,
The younger generation know the language but not to the same degree that Cristina does,
[3] Perhaps it's more nuanced, like she was the last full-blooded, fluent speaker—but that seems too narrow to blurb. RIP.—Bagumba (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC) - Oppose blurb While her passing is sad it is not on a level justifying a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Ongoing: Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic
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.
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by DadOfTheYear2022 (talk · give credit)
- Oppose Stop it. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose and snow close Stop it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose the target article is not regularly updated (has almost no content from this month, ongoing demands it would need to be updated daily), one section is orange-tagged, and article lacks sources in places. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support A lot of international daily coverage. - EugεnS¡m¡on 17:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Target article not regularly updated. SpencerT•C 17:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - Regular but stupid thing that happens a lot, but with only major effects right now in Canada CR-1-AB (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- SNOW OPPOSE This has become vexatious. Stop it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I was wondering if someone was going to try and renominate this today. ITN/C never disappoints me.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Closed. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Luigi De Magistris
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): L’Unione Sarda
Credits:
- Nominated by Joseywales1961 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Italian Roman Catholic Cardinal, short but sufficient article for RD Josey Wales Parley 16:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Solid article. Referencing is good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Well referenced, meets RD standards. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- There is a request for citations for an unreferenced paragraph in the Biography section. Please add REFs there. --PFHLai (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- PFHLai taken care of now Josey Wales Parley 08:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the new footnotes there, Joseywales1961. This wikibio is now READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- PFHLai taken care of now Josey Wales Parley 08:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support article looks good and ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
RD: Dorce Gamalama
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4]
Credits:
- Nominated by Nyanardsan (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nyanardsan (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Decent article. Referencing is good. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Well referenced. Seems notable enough. (PenangLion (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC))
- Support Well referenced, article looks good. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 16:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Career section is mostly WP:PROSELINE, and could use some organization and cleanup (e.g. is it important to have "In December 2019, Gamalama had a reunion with Sinta Nuriyah, the widow of former Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid" in that section, and how does that relate to her career?) Filmography is unreferenced. Occupation in infobox says that she was a "singer-songwriter" but career section has no information about her musical career. Rm "ready". SpencerT•C 17:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
RD: Sandy Nelson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5]
Credits:
- Nominated by PeterSelIers (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: 1960s hit drummer. Article seems well sourced with no major issues. peter sellers is my best friend 14:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The Discography section has been tagged for clean-up since 2013 (and has no sources).-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not Ready per Pawnkingthree. Large chunks of the article are unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not Ready per above. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 16:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
RD: Bappi Lahiri
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Indian music composer. Ref issues for awards, discography. Death section is missing Sherenk1 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Looks good enough for RD. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not Ready Significant gaps in referencing. I have tagged the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Death section is added. But the article still has many unreferenced items. Venkat TL (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose as per above. Also lots of links to DAB pages that it'd be good to fix (I fixed a few links, but the rest weren't obvious to me, as I have no subject knowledge and there were many films of the same name). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Article needs work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
2022 Petrópolis floods
Blurb: At least 117 people are killed by mudslides and floods in Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (Post)
News source(s): DW, AP, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Nave do Conhecimento (talk · give credit)
Nave do Conhecimento (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is probably better as a blurb as it appears to be damage and loss of life from the amount if rain over a short 3 hrs, not a prolonged period. Article needs expansion. --Masem (t) 19:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Change made. Nave do Conhecimento (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Article needs work, currently stub Flameperson (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality. Needs a lot of work... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support in principle. Death toll is huge for any standard, but oppose on quality, the article is a stub and needs a lot of work to be ready for MP.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 23:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support in principle, oppose on quality In my eyes, the event is clearly notable enough for a blurb. Article is poor right now, in need of significant expansion; but a simple google search turns up a ton of quality English-language sources, so expanding the article should not be difficult. I'm busy at the moment, but I'll do it myself in a few days if someone else doesn't do it first. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Abstain - Event is supposedly huge enough, but the article says otherwise. More expansions needed. Once it's done, I'll support. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – Fairly widely covered, significant mortality. – Sca (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sadly, this article has not improved since I checked it yesterday, aside from the infobox. I don't want no stubs. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Death toll is high and increasing. ArionEstar (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose solely on article quality. It's a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I have tried to expand , it should be over 5k of readable prose now, but there's surprisingly little about this event in the news that gets into depth. It's covered (eg ticks that box for ITN) but just not the level you'd see if this had happened in the US or UK. --Masem (t) 19:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose too short. expand then maybe. Redoct87 (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
February 15
February 15, 2022
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Peter Merseburger
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Prisma and others
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Grimes2 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: influential German journalist, famous for tv controversies, correspondent from Washington, D.C. and London, biographer of Willy Brandt and others - and had no article until today Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Solid article and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Charles Juravinski
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; The Hamilton Spectator; Global News; McMaster University
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Bloom6132 (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Long enough (600+ words), with enough footnotes and properly formatted, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Short but adequate and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Ronald Lou-Poy
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times Colonist (Victoria); University of Victoria
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Death announced on this date; date of death not specified. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Long enough (almost 500 words), with enough footnotes across the article, and properly formatting, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 06:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Former president of Honduras Juan Orlando Hernández arrested
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: The former president of Honduras Juan Orlando Hernández, who was in office between 2014 and 2022, is arrested on a drug trafficking warrant after the US files a request formally for his extradition. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Honduran police arrest Juan Orlando Hernández, former president of the country between 2014 and 2022, on drug trafficking charges.
News source(s): teleSUR
Credits:
- Nominated by Viva Nicolás (talk · give credit)
- Support A former head of state being arrested, especially on serious charges, seems important enough. Article seems well-referenced. The Kip (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. We usually wait for the final verdict and post if the person is convicted. At this point, we don't know how this is going to end, and it won't be significant if he's acquitted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Wait until more worthwhile developments occur. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kiril. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Strong oppose we don't post arrests, if in the future there is a conviction, then we could post that. But posting now violates WP:BLPCRIME:
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.
Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC) - Oppose – Per Simeonovski, Alsoriano, Joseph. Longstanding and well-founded policy for an online encyclopedia. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: PJ O'Rourke
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6], [7]
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Sunshineisles2 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
– Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Solid article and well referenced. G2G. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support That's sad news. I shall get one of his books down to reread now. Andrew🐉(talk) 01:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support The article looks good. I didn't like the bastard but he made me laugh.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting support One of the few Americans to appeal to the cutting British sense of humour and win. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Deep Sidhu
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NDTV, India Today
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Venkat TL (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Start class and fully sourced Venkat TL (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Looks good and well sourced. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This is ready, what is the hold up? --Venkat TL (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've marked it as ready (as I agree it's ready)- hopefully marking it as ready will mean an admin sees it. It needs an admin to promote to front page, and I guess no admin is around at the moment. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302 I see. Thank you for your action. Venkat TL (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've marked it as ready (as I agree it's ready)- hopefully marking it as ready will mean an admin sees it. It needs an admin to promote to front page, and I guess no admin is around at the moment. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
February 14
February 14, 2022
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
|
(Closed) Canada convoy protest
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Canada invokes the Emergencies Act in response to protests against COVID-19 public health measures in Ottawa and at border crossings with the United States. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Canada invokes the Emergencies Act in response to protests and blockades against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and restrictions.
News source(s): BBC NYT SMH CBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Patar knight (talk · give credit)
- Created by The Cosmonaut (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Oceanflynn (talk · give credit), Ivanvector (talk · give credit), Zanimum (talk · give credit), CaffeinAddict (talk · give credit) and Matt R Austin (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose yet again as covered by the Covid ongoing. Yes, evoking the Emergencies Act is unusual but this is to allow enforcement agencies to put an end to these without violent methods. --Masem (t) 17:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose and speedy close this is the third time this has been nominated, and it's been rejected both other times (for a blurb and ongoing). Right now it's getting repetitive and disruptive to have it nominated again and again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose and speedy close x2 is not difficult to understand: days ago it was clear that it's a no, and today it's again clear that it is another no. Stop. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think the addition of the emergencies act makes it a quicker yes now. CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Provincial, not to mention we've been over this. Might be a fitting Ongoing nom though. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- It was also previously opposed as an ongoing, since many countries are having COVID protests, so why should we focus on just one country's protests? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not provincial anymore. The Federal government has enacted a state of emergency, and there are protests outside of Ontario. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Orbitalbuzzsaw, even if it was "provincial", #Please do not...
oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
– Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not a strictly provincial article anymore, doesn't take much reading to see that. CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Orbitalbuzzsaw, even if it was "provincial", #Please do not...
- Oppose We already closed this debate twice already... DarkSide830 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- If this wasn't about North America, it would have been closed as duplicate by now. But because Canada is next to the US, it's getting special privilege as the only thing allowed to be doscussed for a third time at ITN....... Joseph2302 (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- And the article hasn't been updated properly about this, so also fails article quality. Though as this is a North American nom, I imagine that can be bypassed too.... Joseph2302 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This is different from the other times, the federal Emergencies Act has been invoked. We gave the Capitol Riots a blurb, why not this? Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support because of the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which should be the target article. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support the invocation of the federal emergencies act, for the first time in Canadian history, changes my vote to a support. I had previously opposed because it was a "local" issue, but the federal government has now seized control of the response. The blockade of the border crossings and the discovery of the American funding of the protests also increases this from being a local issue to an international issue. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Per Joseph2302, support is "pending update". NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support at last Justin Trudeau continues the family tradition of overracting to minor domestic issues. Invoking the Emergencies Act is a big deal and opposes which ignore this development and simply state "I opposed this last time" should be ignored for the purpose of evaluating consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I guess you can respect the arguments of others. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- WP:CONSENSUS isn't a vote count people who just read the headline and reacted with "oppose" without considering the new information are making an WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote and should absolutely be ignored. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Do not misrepresent, at no time neither I nor the rest of us who have opposed the repeated nominations in these protests (far from a "civil unrest", by the way) have done so using IDONTLIKEIT, but very clearly you do consider that our oppositions are not valid because "you do not like them". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- When the municipal emergency was nommed, you said, "We will talk about it if it happens at the national level, but I don't think it will come to this end." As a provincial emergency, "Stop wasting our time." National level now, just "another no." InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- The emergency is still reduced to a very specific provincial and local level, even though we are already at a national reaction level. We are not facing a "the whole country is besieged by truckers". In fact, let us not forget that it still has to be authorized by the Parliament. We are dealing with an "invocation", not "approval"/"application". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- With all due respect, you're being oblivious. This invocation of unprecedented power is said to precisely disable targets along the world's largest land border, spanning any and all confederated provinces. The NDP has already signaled parliamentary approval, and willful ignorance of the law holds no weight. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it seems that there are no more problems at the border, for now. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Twitter no longer supports my browser, but if that's only about the Ambassador Bridge, feast your eyes out west. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it seems that there are no more problems at the border, for now. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- With all due respect, you're being oblivious. This invocation of unprecedented power is said to precisely disable targets along the world's largest land border, spanning any and all confederated provinces. The NDP has already signaled parliamentary approval, and willful ignorance of the law holds no weight. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- The emergency is still reduced to a very specific provincial and local level, even though we are already at a national reaction level. We are not facing a "the whole country is besieged by truckers". In fact, let us not forget that it still has to be authorized by the Parliament. We are dealing with an "invocation", not "approval"/"application". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- When the municipal emergency was nommed, you said, "We will talk about it if it happens at the national level, but I don't think it will come to this end." As a provincial emergency, "Stop wasting our time." National level now, just "another no." InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Do not misrepresent, at no time neither I nor the rest of us who have opposed the repeated nominations in these protests (far from a "civil unrest", by the way) have done so using IDONTLIKEIT, but very clearly you do consider that our oppositions are not valid because "you do not like them". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support — Declaring a state of emergency due to civil unrest (not due to a natural disaster) in a developed country is a significant and newsworthy event for ITN. STSC (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Not worthy I think. Are we playing whack a mole? Why does this keep coming back.Venkat TL (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)- I don't have an opinion on this entry and personally don't think that Wikipedia should be pretending to report the news at all, but responding to some of the points: this keeps coming back because it's the top news story basically everywhere across Canada and has been for several weeks. The invocation of the Emergencies Act is significant because the statute that it replaced was viewed retroactively by many scholars as a declaration of martial law, and the new statute is basically unchanged except for compelling an after-the-fact review of the government's actions. As others have said, it is only the second time in Canadian history that such a nationwide suspension of civil liberties has been activated, other than during both world wars. It's difficult and dangerous to draw parallels, but this action is somewhat equivalent to the US President unilaterally suspending the 2nd through 10th amendments to the Constitution. It doesn't mean that Trudeau Jr. is about to send in the tanks like his father did against the FLQ, but he now has the power to do so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Venkat TL (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- He can now quarter troops in your house? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm no expert in constitutional law, but basically yes. The police are basically only bound now by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which does not specifically prohibit quartering troops in citizens' houses. That prohibition comes from a British law that predates Canada by almost 200 years. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support When this was first nominated I certainly believed the article was not ready. Now that the emergencies act has been declared, the highest power the Canadian government can invoke, as well as the fact that the protests are no longer Provincial, and that weapons were seized at the blockade in Alberta and the considerable economic loss (almost $1B CAD), I believe the article is extremely notable. It might be difficult for US-centric editors here to fathom but this is officially a really really big deal and is definitely the Country’s January 6th moment. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. January 6th was considered by a large portion of the population (both at the time and still) as an attempted subversion or perhaps complete overthrow of a democracy. This hardly rises to that level. If it is "Canada's January 6th" than Canada's January 6th shouldn't be posted. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any argument here from you other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I see an argument that DarkSide830 is making; you do not. He is saying that your comparison to January 6 is a false equivalency. January 6 was a movement by supporters of Donald Trump attempting to overthrow the government of the United States, and overturn an election. Freedom Convoy is a bunch of dudes in their trucks blocking a couple bridges. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any argument here from you other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. January 6th was considered by a large portion of the population (both at the time and still) as an attempted subversion or perhaps complete overthrow of a democracy. This hardly rises to that level. If it is "Canada's January 6th" than Canada's January 6th shouldn't be posted. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Opposing this on the grounds that it's covered by COVID-19 Ongoing at this point is silly. It's become a singularly significant event in Canada that happens to have been inspired by COVID-19. We posted the UK "Marbury v Madison" [8] despite objections that it was covered by Brexit Ongoing. 2607:F470:E:22:2C01:FB8D:E209:78A9 (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Even the pandemic is only a provincial and territorial emergency, this stands out (iffy article quality, though). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Would it be possible to get the body of the article to properly contextualize the importance of invoking the Emergencies Act? The body of the target article doesn't mention or elaborate on the historical weight (i.e., that this is the first time it's been invoked since its passing in 1988), even though it states that in the lead without an inline source (there are sources in the article to support it, they're just not attached to the statement in the lead or any such statement in the body). I'm leaning support this time, but I feel like the article should first contextualize why invoking this is historically of weight, which I feel like should also be mentioned in the blurb if possible? This is generally a "pending some better updates". ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- TenTonParasol I've done some work on this. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose with prejudice Four nominations of this article within the last few weeks is bordering on vexatious. Enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- They're four separate events, from four nominators, related to an ongoing movement. Some older votes were just waiting for something federal, unusual or "really dramatic" like this one. Acceptance trumps prejudice? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- As Trudeau stated this was to be a very narrow and tailored application of the E Act as to remove to blockage of roads, this isn't the big bombshell of martial law that some were expecting (or as some conservative news commentators are claiming). It could still go that way, but as noted above trying to compare this to Jan 6 is a huge misstep. --Masem (t) 00:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I compared it to the pandemic in the relevant country, brother. There are levels to emergency here, and this one "goes to eleven", one more. Those few hours in Washington do pale in comparison, even as an alleged insurrection, everything just seems brighter and bigger on American screens. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- As Trudeau stated this was to be a very narrow and tailored application of the E Act as to remove to blockage of roads, this isn't the big bombshell of martial law that some were expecting (or as some conservative news commentators are claiming). It could still go that way, but as noted above trying to compare this to Jan 6 is a huge misstep. --Masem (t) 00:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- They're four separate events, from four nominators, related to an ongoing movement. Some older votes were just waiting for something federal, unusual or "really dramatic" like this one. Acceptance trumps prejudice? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose with prejudice. I don't see why the Canadian protests are particularly notable compared those taking place in other countries around the world. I would be more open to (but would not necessarily support) an ongoing nomination for Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, I agree with Ad Orientem, with four nominations in the past couple of weeks, this is now beyond ridiculous. Chrisclear (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well then perhaps you'll be able to identify in advance the fifth unique person who finds these unprecedented events in Canada newsworthy and warn them ahead of time to not upset your sensibilities. Furthermore, objecting without considering the new information and instead simply stating "I opposed this already" is basically worthless. if you think the first ever invocation of the Emergencies Act in Canada, a NATO member G7 country, is not significant, then please explain otherwise your oppose would be rightly ignored as WP:IDONTLIKEIT by any admin evaluating consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- "The first ever invocation of the Emergencies Act in Canada" is notable in Canada and is notable as a factoid. However, just because Canada did something for the first time doesn't mean it's ITN worthy. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- We posted Justin Trudeau's election and reelection. That's a fun bit of man-on-the-street gotcha trivia: "Name the current Canadian Prime Minister." If this once-in-a-lifetime historic event doesn't make it, I better not see another typical quiet election night result overblown on the main page again! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- My point was just because something was done for the first time doesn't make it ITN level. How does countering with a routine event disprove my point? DarkSide830 (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm saying brand new, manner of government changes in the English world are more newsworthy than routine changes in House seating arrangements. We post the latter, so should definitely post the former. And I forgot to include his 2019 reelection. Remember how it gripped the world? I doubt it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- My point was just because something was done for the first time doesn't make it ITN level. How does countering with a routine event disprove my point? DarkSide830 (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- We posted Justin Trudeau's election and reelection. That's a fun bit of man-on-the-street gotcha trivia: "Name the current Canadian Prime Minister." If this once-in-a-lifetime historic event doesn't make it, I better not see another typical quiet election night result overblown on the main page again! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- "The first ever invocation of the Emergencies Act in Canada" is notable in Canada and is notable as a factoid. However, just because Canada did something for the first time doesn't mean it's ITN worthy. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well then perhaps you'll be able to identify in advance the fifth unique person who finds these unprecedented events in Canada newsworthy and warn them ahead of time to not upset your sensibilities. Furthermore, objecting without considering the new information and instead simply stating "I opposed this already" is basically worthless. if you think the first ever invocation of the Emergencies Act in Canada, a NATO member G7 country, is not significant, then please explain otherwise your oppose would be rightly ignored as WP:IDONTLIKEIT by any admin evaluating consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Leaning Oppose. WP:VNT has tainted this event and it's corresponding article, and highlighting it in my mind goes against the premise of In the News to highlight the best of the encyclopedia, with absolutely no offense intended towards the editors who have kept this article in great shape. - Floydian τ ¢
- Strong oppose - 4th time here. I don't really need to say much when I've already loaded my reasons for the previous 3 nominations. Unless something dramatic occurs, I don't think it needs an ITN. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- What exactly does something dramatic look like to you? Fire? Upturned cruisers? Blood and gore? Tanks? Tearful resignation speech? Broken storefronts? British children's choir? Black helicopters? Suicide bombing? Monsters? Your last three votes have been nothing but acknowledgment of opposition to mentioning the convoy's small beginning (by four people, not including you). That's not heavy/strong/loaded, say more. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Does the protest really differ from any other typical COVID-19 related protests? People are arrested, they're retreating, I repeat the word, retreating. When Trudeau evacuated for safety reasons, people were hyping up like Canada is collapsing. When Trudeau declared "some emergency-powers" people here are panicking like Trudeau is going to start another Tiananmen at Canada.
Let alone there are similar protests in New Zealand. My previous three votes are done without clear elaboration (I sincerely apologize if I did not post a 5 million-word article for my reason) because I don't think I need to elaborate further that my opinions shared the same points made by the people who opposed it. Even if it's important enough, the most critical part of this event is over.- - The comparison regarding January 6 and this event being similar doesn't make sense when one, this protest was made by only a small proportion of people that most Canadians don't even agree with, two, January 6 was the first time in history that people had breached the grounds close to the Capitol. It is considered a coup d'etat, something that hasn't been seen seriously since 1797. Is this a coup? No. Is this going to threaten democracy in Canada? No. It is about some angry people refusing to take vaccines. Using the American bias doesn't make any sense when there are comparable incidents from the States related to this event yet they're not in ITN.
- I sincerely hope nobody nominates this again for the 5th time. It's becoming a recurring joke for desperate nominations. Per Ad Orientem. PenangLion (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- What exactly does something dramatic look like to you? Fire? Upturned cruisers? Blood and gore? Tanks? Tearful resignation speech? Broken storefronts? British children's choir? Black helicopters? Suicide bombing? Monsters? Your last three votes have been nothing but acknowledgment of opposition to mentioning the convoy's small beginning (by four people, not including you). That's not heavy/strong/loaded, say more. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The protests are perhaps not that different from other COVID-19 ones but further developments and the enactment of a wartime act do indicate notability beyond COVID. The already present link in Ongoing to the pandemic might have sufficed but it doesn't even mention this protest (or others) in the linked [main] article. This seems akin to the Kazakhstan protests to me and a blurb or ongoing would seem apt. Gotitbro (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy close per Alsoriano97 and Joseph2302. Enough is enough. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose and close. Already rejected, and nothing fundamental has changed. — Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Raees Mohammad
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPNcricinfo, The News
Credits:
- Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Ainty Painty (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support looks about long enough, well sourced (checked CricketArchive sources and they verify the content) and covers most of the known information about him. Maybe there's more content in offline/pre-Internet/non-English sources, but article looks good enough for RD in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Partial Support Well sourced however dead links need to be removed. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- There's one dead link, which should be fixed, not removed (see WP:DEADLINK). Things behind paywalls are not dead links, I've confirmed they all work. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Dead page links, not ref links. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Needs to be tagged with {{deadlink}}? --PFHLai (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- The one dead reference has been tagged as such. No idea was a "dead page link" is, as that seems like made up terminology. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think they mean "redlinks", which don't need to be removed. User should stop making rules that aren't valid for RD criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- WP:REDLINKS are fine. Let them be, or turn them blue! --PFHLai (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Needs to be tagged with {{deadlink}}? --PFHLai (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- There's one dead link, which should be fixed, not removed (see WP:DEADLINK). Things behind paywalls are not dead links, I've confirmed they all work. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- A little short at 2112 characters (356 words of readable prose), but long enough to qualify. No concerns with footnoting (except for the paywall) and formatting. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
RD: Khayal Zaman Orakzai
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Nation, Dunya News, Pak Observer
Credits:
- Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Ainty Painty (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Bit of a stub but otherwise looks good. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose pending expansion. It's a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose it's a stub, which doesn't meet article quality guidelines (contrary to the first voter's support). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
February 13
February 13, 2022
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Halyna Sevruk
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LB.ua, official announcement from the Sixtiers Museum
Credits:
- Nominated by GGT (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Ukrainian artist. GGT (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Short but adequate. Referencing is acceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Partial Support Article looks good, dead links need to be removed. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I can't see any dead links in the article? --GGT (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hcoder3104, WP:REDLINKS are fine. Let them be, or turn them blue! --PFHLai (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support more than good enough for RD, red links aren't a valid reason for stopping this running (contrary to the user that clearly doesn't know the ITNC rules). Marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Aled Roberts
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Nation Cymru
Credits:
- Nominated by The C of E (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Welsh politician and Welsh language Commissioner The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Partial Support Article is well sourced, however the dead links need to be removed and the "Personal Life and Death" section should be expanded. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 20:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
WeakSupport The subject's death should be reported in the mainstream press/media. One or more better sources would be helpful. And I concur with Hcoder3104 that his personal life section could be expanded. Otherwise, the article appears to be short but adequate and acceptably referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)- @Ad Orientem: Just added a BBC and Wales Online source for the death. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Question: The intro states that in 2019, he was appointed Welsh Language Commissioner. However, the rest of the wikibio does not mention anything he did after the 2016 election -- the following sentence was about his death in 2022. So what happened after 2016? What did he do as Language Commissioner? Did he die in office as Language Commissioner? Coverage of the subject's life appears to be truncated and incomplete. Perhaps that final sentence of the intro should be moved down to become the final sentence of a Career section, unless more about his time working as Language Commissioner can be elaborated. --PFHLai (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- @PFHLai: I have added some more about his Commissioner career and merged the personal life section too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, The C of E. That works. This wikibio is now READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- @PFHLai: I have added some more about his Commissioner career and merged the personal life section too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
RD: Ivan Reitman
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:
- Nominated by TheJoebro64 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit) and CreecregofLife (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Director of many beloved '80s and '90s comedies, most notably Ghostbusters. JOEBRO64 03:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Even if I wasn't a recent editor, this feels like a slam dunk.--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Stop being disruptive. --WaltCip-(talk) 13:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Oppose article is way undersourced- article quality is the only criteria for RD. Also, what's the relevance of the table in "Recurring cast members" section? It lists roles played by many people, not just him, which aren't relevant to a biographical article. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Joseph2302 Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) Super Bowl LVI
Blurb:
Alternative blurb: In American football, the Los Angeles Rams defeat the Cincinnati Bengals in the Super Bowl (MVP Cooper Kupp pictured).
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Bluerules (talk · give credit), Frank Anchor (talk · give credit), ViperSnake151 (talk · give credit), Donnowin1 (talk · give credit) and PCN02WPS (talk · give credit)
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.
– Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Noting that we usually include the player of the game as the image once that is determined. --Masem (t) 03:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not announced yet... waiting. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's Kupp. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Hydrology (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- one of the largest sporting events in the world. Definitely noteworthy. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- This proposal would be better without that comment. It's an ITNR event, so will be posted without people having to hype it up, as soon as article quality is up to scratch. Claiming it to be "one of the largest sporting events in the world" is highly debatable, and one of the reasons we have ITNR. HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Seems like we're inconsistent through the years on whether the blurb provides a Roman numeral lesson or not. For annual events, we typically don't repeat the year of the event.—Bagumba (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've forgotten what's been done in past years and did not check the archives. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Last year we added the roman numeral and the score of the game. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, nevermind - score was quickly removed and roman numerals were removed the following morning. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Struck the original. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, nevermind - score was quickly removed and roman numerals were removed the following morning. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support, annual ITN inclusion. The Kip (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose quality The game summary section seems long, and it turns out to be source solely to a WP:PRIMARY source play-by-play transcript. Secondary sources should be used to pare this down to significant events (and not WP:OR).—Bagumba (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Let’s not delay this ITNR item over minor quibbles. I am not concerned about the claim of WP:OR. The article does not contain any erroneous content. Jehochman Talk 12:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- WP:PRIMARY policy is not a "minor quibble" (emphasis added):
Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them
It's a monotonous wall of play-by-play, which a secondary source is more reliable to use to determine the WP:DUE highlights.—Bagumba (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)- A secondary source covering the game is not going to be at the level of detail that a quarter-by-quarter recap of the game would seem to require - that would likely focus on 3-4 major plays throughout the game and the overall end stats, but not individual drives or the like. Comparing the prose length to past Super Bowls as well as to FIFA World Cup final games, it is perhaps about 25% a bit too long, but no different from how those games are presented or how sources are used in terms of primary recaps being used as the main sourcing. And at least my read of the ESPN recap is that they are adding some analysis indicating which drives were important, so this pulls it to a secondary source in that regards. --Masem (t) 13:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. I am going to review that section again carefully and I also see at least one naked URL references that need to be fixed. When I'm done I might remove the maintenance tag. Jehochman Talk 13:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- A secondary source covering the game is not going to be at the level of detail that a quarter-by-quarter recap of the game would seem to require - that would likely focus on 3-4 major plays throughout the game and the overall end stats, but not individual drives or the like. Comparing the prose length to past Super Bowls as well as to FIFA World Cup final games, it is perhaps about 25% a bit too long, but no different from how those games are presented or how sources are used in terms of primary recaps being used as the main sourcing. And at least my read of the ESPN recap is that they are adding some analysis indicating which drives were important, so this pulls it to a secondary source in that regards. --Masem (t) 13:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- WP:PRIMARY policy is not a "minor quibble" (emphasis added):
- Comment Besides the poor referencing of the game summary, there's nothing about the post-game reactions and ceremonies. The article has some way to go before posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Bagumba Hcoder3104☭ (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Sports Event of only local significance. Not enough global interest. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:10FD:A40C:A28B:8C40 (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not true, and also it's WP:ITNR, so your perceived importance is irrelevant, as it is pre-approved as important enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Bagumba BilledMammal (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose until the article is expanded with more information on the post-game reactions and ceremonies.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support I think it's an important event, like other sports championships that are featured in the news on the home page. However, let's wait a while to, per Kiril Simeonovski, expand the page with other things like reactions and all that stuff. For now, we should not feature it yet. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I had nothing to do with writing up the game summary, but I can replace those refs with better ones this afternoon. "Post-game reactions and ceremonies"? There's a parade today. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support the article is fine. Post-game reacons? Single source match summary? Neither of those made up criteria kept the 2021_Africa_Cup_of_Nations_Final nom off the main page. I've never heard of anyone complain about "too much prose" before. We get it, everyone else in the world hates America and hates what America calls "football". Too god damned bad. The item is ITN/R and the article is in fine shape for posting. Get it up there already. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I did think about that after posting my above comment. Seems like the goal posts (pun intended) are always moving on these. It used to be a game summary is all that's needed, but now it's "post-game reactions and ceremonies"? Why exactly is the ESPN.com play-by-play not a valid source for the game's play-by-play? This article has 29kb prose. It should be enough to post for ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- @LaserLegs: I don’t have animosity towards US or the sport which is called “football” there. The reason for suggesting that information on the post-game reactions and ceremonies should be added is the heed that US media pay to it. If something is really in the news, it should be mentioned in the article at the very least. And comparing this to the recently concluded Africa Cup of Nations isn’t spot on because media weren’t that much interested about post-game reactions. Since you referred to the sport we call “football”, please check 2018 FIFA World Cup Final for how a post-game section can fit well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted - Fuzheado | Talk 17:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Fuzheado: There does not appear to be a consensus to post yet, due to quality concerns. BilledMammal (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- The event is on WP:ITN/R and there are no orange warnings. Policy-wise, there is no requirement for "post game reactions and ceremonies" as LaserLegs has pointed out. And a game summary that is "too long" is not a justification to delay posting. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- But a WP:PRIMARY violation is. The lack of a tag noting this shouldn't be relevant per WP:NOTBURO, but I've added one now to address that concern. BilledMammal (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- BilledMammal, WP:PRIMARY, in part, says
primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia
, so where's the violation? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)- They can, but only in a limited manner; the section is almost entirely sourced to primary sources. There are also several citation needed tags that need to be resolved before this can be posted. BilledMammal (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- The section with primary sourcing is the game summary. It covers what happened on the field, which millions of people were watching, without any scholarly or professional-level analysis of what happened. And yes, there are four (4) citation needed tags, for minor points, and on an article with 151 unique inline citations. Perfection should never be the enemy of the good. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- And I am not suggesting we delete it. However, there is a standard of quality required for ITN, and this article currently fails that, and will continue to fail that until the text is rewritten to incorporate analysis. BilledMammal (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like a primary source to me. It's published by ESPN, which is independent of the Super Bowl organizers. Just because it's a play-by-play guide doesn't mean it lacks the hallmarks of an independent source, and it is commonplace to include such things for the detail of what happened, for example as at 2015 Africa Cup of Nations Final. This is especially true when it's fairly bald statements of fact about what happened. Obviously it would be better to draw the summary from more than one source, and I might insist on that for GA or FA, but I don't see it as necessary for the ITN standard. — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:PRIMARY,
Primary sources may or may not be independent sources
. BilledMammal (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:PRIMARY,
- The section with primary sourcing is the game summary. It covers what happened on the field, which millions of people were watching, without any scholarly or professional-level analysis of what happened. And yes, there are four (4) citation needed tags, for minor points, and on an article with 151 unique inline citations. Perfection should never be the enemy of the good. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- They can, but only in a limited manner; the section is almost entirely sourced to primary sources. There are also several citation needed tags that need to be resolved before this can be posted. BilledMammal (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- BilledMammal, WP:PRIMARY, in part, says
- But a WP:PRIMARY violation is. The lack of a tag noting this shouldn't be relevant per WP:NOTBURO, but I've added one now to address that concern. BilledMammal (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- The event is on WP:ITN/R and there are no orange warnings. Policy-wise, there is no requirement for "post game reactions and ceremonies" as LaserLegs has pointed out. And a game summary that is "too long" is not a justification to delay posting. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Fuzheado: There does not appear to be a consensus to post yet, due to quality concerns. BilledMammal (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I am not suggesting pulling this, I just am surprised at how quickly it was posted, especially when there was apparent legitimate quality questions - and compared to how quickly the Club World Cup nom was closed to discussion, even though some opposes there amount to nothing more than the fallacious "it isn't ITN/R so we can't post". Kingsif (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Fifteen hours after the event is about what we should be shooting for as far as posting time. WaltCip-(talk) 18:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Half the time, items don't even get nominated in that timeframe, but besides that, I very much recall many objections to posting less than ~30 hours after nom (let alone event), especially the "it was posted while America was asleep because the admin knew Americans would oppose" accusations. As said below, a TROUT offence, since we all know it would have eventually (and probably very quickly compared to other items anyway) been posted. Kingsif (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting support - I've always felt that Fuzheado had an itchy trigger finger when it came to ITN posting, but in this case, the article is good enough for volunteer work.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment these ITN articles should be timely. It would be actively harmful to our readers to tie this article up in bureaucratic objections for days and days until it's no longer of interest to the reader. As said above, "Good enough." There is nothing even slightly inaccurate in the article as far as I see, but if you see something inaccurate, please point it out specifically and somebody will fix it right away. Jehochman Talk 18:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- That isn't the criteria for posting on ITN; articles don't get a pass on quality just because some people believe they must be posted. BilledMammal (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sigh, not again User:Fuzheado has a history of making bad calls at ITN and they really need to stop doing this before they get a topic ban from doing so, which frankly I would impose right now. There was no consensus to post this and there is no rush to do so - why not wait until it's fixed? Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well it's up now, and moreover, the ITN picture is of the game's MVP. It would look a bit silly of us to pull it. WaltCip-(talk) 18:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Which is why I haven't suggested pulling it. We really need Fuzheado to stop fucking about with ITN, though. They posted SuperBowl 54 without any consensus either [9] as well as the significant number of other issues. [10] [11] [12] etc. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Your recollection appears to be off. For SuperBowl 54, it was marked as ready by Muboshgu after noting all CN tags were addressed, with pings to the opposers. [13] Pawnkingthree added an additional support. [14] I posted it, and it was immediately post-posting supported by TRM [15]. This is not "without any consensus." - Fuzheado | Talk 19:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- While I agree that the posting was somewhat premature, in that there were clear outstanding opposes and orange tags for missing citations, it was almost there at the time because the article is became "ready" about half an hour after it was posted. As such, I would award a mild WP:TROUT to Fuzheado but nothing more than that in this instance. — Amakuru (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- The missing citations have been added, but the WP:PRIMARY issue has not been resolved. BilledMammal (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- It was not a serious enough issue to hold up posting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- You've been told repeatedly by numerous editors that WP:PRIMARY has not been violated, both here and at the article talk page. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. — Amakuru (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- And numerous editors have disagreed. 1300 words sourced to a single primary source is a clear violation of WP:PRIMARY, particularly since there are secondary sources that we can integrate into the article. BilledMammal (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Given that we allow up to 700 words to be used in summarizing plots of films using the film itself as a source without any problem, using this many words from a third party source is absolutely no way a PROMARY violation as long as no interpretation is done (eg such as suggesting one team dominated the whole game and the other team only scored on a few lucky drives). --Masem (t) 20:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- The exception at MOS:PLOT only applies to fictional works. BilledMammal (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Given that we allow up to 700 words to be used in summarizing plots of films using the film itself as a source without any problem, using this many words from a third party source is absolutely no way a PROMARY violation as long as no interpretation is done (eg such as suggesting one team dominated the whole game and the other team only scored on a few lucky drives). --Masem (t) 20:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- And numerous editors have disagreed. 1300 words sourced to a single primary source is a clear violation of WP:PRIMARY, particularly since there are secondary sources that we can integrate into the article. BilledMammal (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- The missing citations have been added, but the WP:PRIMARY issue has not been resolved. BilledMammal (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- While I agree that the posting was somewhat premature, in that there were clear outstanding opposes and orange tags for missing citations, it was almost there at the time because the article is became "ready" about half an hour after it was posted. As such, I would award a mild WP:TROUT to Fuzheado but nothing more than that in this instance. — Amakuru (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Your recollection appears to be off. For SuperBowl 54, it was marked as ready by Muboshgu after noting all CN tags were addressed, with pings to the opposers. [13] Pawnkingthree added an additional support. [14] I posted it, and it was immediately post-posting supported by TRM [15]. This is not "without any consensus." - Fuzheado | Talk 19:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Which is why I haven't suggested pulling it. We really need Fuzheado to stop fucking about with ITN, though. They posted SuperBowl 54 without any consensus either [9] as well as the significant number of other issues. [10] [11] [12] etc. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, when it comes to ITN, there kind of is a rush. How stupid would it look if we posted the results of a major sporting event two or three days later? It's not even actually "in the news" anymore at that point. Mlb96 (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well it's up now, and moreover, the ITN picture is of the game's MVP. It would look a bit silly of us to pull it. WaltCip-(talk) 18:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Noting the reinstatement of this unsourced paragraph, meaning that we another citation needed issue, in addition to the ones in the international media coverage section, as well as primary sourcing issues. BilledMammal (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's already been fixed. Several of us agree with you on this specific issue. If that text is restored again, please report it as edit warring or tendentious editing. Jehochman Talk 20:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting support Event meets ITNR and is the biggest event of this sport in the world, just wanted to make sure this is consensous. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting support. I think this is alright. Agree with Amakuru in that a WP:TROUT might be in order. That said, I am not really following this WP:PRIMARY argument. In my mind match summaries are like book summaries, right? i.e. MOS:PLOT. Though I can see the Fiction vs Non-fiction argument, the game itself is the source for the summary. I see that that is the same thing that has been done in Super Bowl LV. Where there are additional facts being introduced outside of the match summary e.g. Out of 110 Super Bowl teams, Kansas City became just the third to finish the game without scoring a touchdown, joining the Miami Dolphins in Super Bowl VI and the Los Angeles Rams in Super Bowl LIII. This statement is sourced to a separate source, like it should. I think overall, we are a-ok here. Ktin (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- My main objection per WP:PRIMARY was
be cautious about basing large passages on them.
The earlier SB page that you mentioned had more than play-by-play refs. At some point, maybe I'll add some secondary sources and use their analysis to trim some minutiae.—Bagumba (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- My main objection per WP:PRIMARY was
(Closed) 2022 German presidential election
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Frank Walter Steinmeier is elected for a second term as President of Germany by the Bundesversammlung. (Post)
News source(s): CNBC, Politico
Credits:
- Nominated by Jonas1015119 (talk · give credit)
- Chancellor's ITNR, not the President. —Cryptic 23:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose since not head of government. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 01:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support national-level election in a G7 state, even if not election directly made by voters. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on article quality. Referencing is quite poor and will require considerable work before this could be posted. Weak Support if the bolded article can be brought up to scratch. The presidency in Germany is not a completely powerless and ceremonial office. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Given that we posted the re-election of the president of Italy two weeks ago, which was done under similar circumstances in the parliament, this should be posted once the article is improved. I don't see any reason to set Germany apart from Italy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality article is way too short, needs e.g. some text on the candidates who were most likely to do well, and maybe something on their policies. Results is unsourced, and generally we have some coverage of what happens after the election. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Wait – This seems a routine if humdrum (no pol. change) head-of-state post, but the text of the 2022 German presidential election article hasn't been updated yet. The fact that Steinmeier, 66, has secured a second five-year term is worth noting. (Mug should be cropped from bottom & sides.) – Sca (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. That Italy thing was a mistake, and did not set a precedent. We don't post positions that aren't the head of government unless they have significant power in their own right. — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- The fact that Steinmeier, 66, has secured a second five-year term as head of the most populous (83 milliion) state in Europe is worth noting. [16] [17] [18] – Sca (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't Russia the most populous country in Europe? The continent, spanning to the Urals, is not the EU, in which Germany certainly is the most populous. 91.96.25.198 (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I would think Sca was referring to the fact that Germany is the most populous country that is fully within Europe. Had he not, you would think he would know better than to categorize Germany as the most populous (Turkey and Russia are more populous despite the fact that they both have a minority of their land in Europe. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't Russia the most populous country in Europe? The continent, spanning to the Urals, is not the EU, in which Germany certainly is the most populous. 91.96.25.198 (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- The fact that Steinmeier, 66, has secured a second five-year term as head of the most populous (83 milliion) state in Europe is worth noting. [16] [17] [18] – Sca (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Correct. Seventy-seven percent of Russia's 6.6 million sq. mi.. of territory is in Asia, 23 percent in Europe. (Russia's population distribution is approximately the opposite.) The proportion of Turkey's territory in Europe is miniscule (or minuscule, if you prefer). – Sca (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's completely irrelevant how big is Germany. All sovereign countries should be treated equally.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: I suppose you would also oppose Prince Charles's accession to the powerless British throne.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- But he would also become head of state of 15(?) other countries around the world. So there is a bit of a difference due to that, no? 91.96.25.198 (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- And also monarchies aren't really comparable to this because they have cultural and historical significance, and typically change hands far less frequently than heads-of-state in countries with a parliament style democracy. In either case they are not ITN/R, and are assessed on their own merits. IMHO the merits of this one are lacking, and the position has no real significance beyond some domestic ceremonial duties. Furthermore, the suggestion that we do it because it's Germany, while we wouldn't do the same thing for supposedly "less important" countries is systemic bias. — Amakuru (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I support the election of a head of state of any country in the world. We recently posted the president of Italy, the president of Macedonia in April 2014, the previous president of Italy in January 2015, the president of Austria in May 2016 and so on. It seems like either too many mistakes were committed in the past or it's not true that we don't post the election of ceremonial heads of state. Anyway, there's no systemic bias at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support, Per Kiril Simeonovski, this may be done as was done for re-election of prsident of Italy. Alex-h (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – In addition to its population, Germany's GDP ($4.6 trillion) ranks first in Europe and the EU, ahead of the UK ($3.4 trillion) and France ($3.1 trillion). – Sca (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- To echo Kiril above, the GDP of Germany seems entirely irrelvant to this discussion. 91.96.25.198 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The only thing that makes it slightly more noteworthy to me is that this is 'only' the 4th time a President has been elected for a second term, first time for someone of the social democrats. If it were the first woman elected to the office, it probably would have swayed me though. But the position overall being entirely ceremonial, i don't see this as important enough to post. It will have no effect on anything, within Germany or internationally. The assembly could quite literally elect a sack of rice and it would have the same effect, not to disparage the highest office within one of my home countries. The sack of rice would only need some arms to pin medals and be the final signatory of laws they have no veto power over. Just to illustrate the point. 91.96.25.198 (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- The anonymous IP user immediately above is listed as having contributed four posts, all here and all today. – Sca (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- The registered user above is assuming bad faith for no reason and has no understanding how variable IP adresses work. I have zero contributions every day because my IP changes. 91.96.25.198 (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- In the interest of editorial transparency, I suggest you become a registered user, like most eds active here are. – Sca (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just to be treated like a human being by the likes of you? No thank you. And just to make clear, the IP does not change by my choice, just how my ISP operates. I could also note how you have made 394 edits in 2022, only 10 of which to articles and only one to an article talk page. Or maybe we could both stop irrelevant mudslinging and assuming bad faith, get over our dislike and get back to the matter at hand? 91.96.25.198 (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Such hostile comments are counter-productive. WP:NPA Please consider registering as a user. – Sca (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- They have no obligation to create an account. And claiming NPA when you've called them useless/inexperienced for being an IP is somewhat hypocritical. Especially when all you seem to do is make sarcastic/pointless comments on here. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NPA! – Sca (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a personal attack to say you're committing a personal attack for attacking the IP for being an IP! IP editors are human too! -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Casting unfounded aspersions is very much a personal attack as well. I am not sure if you are aware of the edit count tool, but for someone with that kind of a statiscitc, criticism of others seems a bit rich. And in regards to your posting at ITN, quantifiable evidence does suggest you are doing what Joseph suggests you are doing and i am not sure you want people to look through your contributions in more detail to actually show it in diffs. Folks like you are the exact reason why i do not want to make an account. But rest assured, you are far from the only one to conduct themselves in such a manner. (ec) 91.96.162.242 (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've never said any IP user had an "obligation to create an account." I only suggested that the person at issue "consider registering as a user." No aspersions intended; just a suggestion. Adieu. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, then let us put it off to a misunderstanding. And i personally took no offense at your suggestion to make an account. My issue was you insinuating i was an SPA and my entire purpose of being here was somehow nefarious(i actually voted for Steinmeiers party with my 2nd vote in the last general election, not that it matters), which is usually the implication of being an SPA, no? But if you did not mean to say that, i will take your word for it. If you would allow a suggestion, please be more 'diplomatic' about how you phrase things in future to minimise the chance for misunderstandings. Have a good day anyway. 91.96.162.242 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Fine. And Schönen Tag noch to you as well. – Sca (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, then let us put it off to a misunderstanding. And i personally took no offense at your suggestion to make an account. My issue was you insinuating i was an SPA and my entire purpose of being here was somehow nefarious(i actually voted for Steinmeiers party with my 2nd vote in the last general election, not that it matters), which is usually the implication of being an SPA, no? But if you did not mean to say that, i will take your word for it. If you would allow a suggestion, please be more 'diplomatic' about how you phrase things in future to minimise the chance for misunderstandings. Have a good day anyway. 91.96.162.242 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've never said any IP user had an "obligation to create an account." I only suggested that the person at issue "consider registering as a user." No aspersions intended; just a suggestion. Adieu. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Casting unfounded aspersions is very much a personal attack as well. I am not sure if you are aware of the edit count tool, but for someone with that kind of a statiscitc, criticism of others seems a bit rich. And in regards to your posting at ITN, quantifiable evidence does suggest you are doing what Joseph suggests you are doing and i am not sure you want people to look through your contributions in more detail to actually show it in diffs. Folks like you are the exact reason why i do not want to make an account. But rest assured, you are far from the only one to conduct themselves in such a manner. (ec) 91.96.162.242 (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a personal attack to say you're committing a personal attack for attacking the IP for being an IP! IP editors are human too! -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NPA! – Sca (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- They have no obligation to create an account. And claiming NPA when you've called them useless/inexperienced for being an IP is somewhat hypocritical. Especially when all you seem to do is make sarcastic/pointless comments on here. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Such hostile comments are counter-productive. WP:NPA Please consider registering as a user. – Sca (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just to be treated like a human being by the likes of you? No thank you. And just to make clear, the IP does not change by my choice, just how my ISP operates. I could also note how you have made 394 edits in 2022, only 10 of which to articles and only one to an article talk page. Or maybe we could both stop irrelevant mudslinging and assuming bad faith, get over our dislike and get back to the matter at hand? 91.96.25.198 (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- In the interest of editorial transparency, I suggest you become a registered user, like most eds active here are. – Sca (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- The registered user above is assuming bad faith for no reason and has no understanding how variable IP adresses work. I have zero contributions every day because my IP changes. 91.96.25.198 (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- The anonymous IP user immediately above is listed as having contributed four posts, all here and all today. – Sca (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose ceremonial position elected by a legislative body. Minimal impact to german society. No reason to repeat the mistake of the Italian president. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on Quality - Once the results are sourced, I will support. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – Upon reflection, I concede it's time to lay this one to rest, since this event doesn't pose changes for the German political landscape. And it's starting to get stale. – Sca (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
February 12
February 12, 2022
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Valerie Boyd
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post; Associated Press; Grady College at University of Georgia
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Bloom6132 (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Referenced, good depth of coverage for what the subject was notable for. SpencerT•C 17:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Solid article decently referenced. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- There is a request for citation regarding the subject's involvement in the Alice Walker Literary Society. And three refs are marked as deadlinks. --PFHLai (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- @PFHLai: fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the new ref, Bloom6132. This wikibio is now READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Beryl Vertue
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian; Variety; The Independent
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by MerielGJones (talk · give credit) and Philip Cross (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Bloom6132 (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Solid article. Well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Frank Beckmann
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Detroit Free Press; The Detroit News; WXYZ-TV, WJR-AM
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Bloom6132 (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Solid article and well referenced. G2G. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) 2021 FIFA Club World Cup Final
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: In association football, Chelsea defeats Palmeiras to win the 2021 FIFA Club World Cup. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sports
Credits:
- Nominated by Kacamata (talk · give credit)
- Created by S.A. Julio (talk · give credit)
- Comment not ITNR Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Football_(association) --LaserLegs (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: The match summary is not there yet. --PFHLai (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items#Football (association), seems like we already have enough footy in a year. The last FIFA Club WC nom, also with an English club, was not posted.—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. This may sound like a big deal, but the reality is that the world pays little attention to this, and it has none of the prestige of its feeder competitions such as the Champions League or the Copa Libertadores. — Amakuru (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Adding oppose. There are already many football ITN items and this one is not receiving as much attention as the others. --Tone 10:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, this tournament wouldn’t hold the significance that tournaments like the Champions League and the Copa Libertadores would hold so it’s better not to post. Hamza Ali Shah Talk 11:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support - The two finalists are from UEFA Champions League and Copa Libertadores which are listed in the ITNR. That makes this year Club World Cup Final a particularly significant event. STSC (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Glorified friendly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The fact that the UK sports press were giving more attention to the week's regular season games than this, should suggest it isn't much more than a friendly with a FIFA bauble for the winners. Black Kite (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Hugo Torres Jiménez
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News, Confidencial
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Innisfree987 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Major Sandinista figure, died in prison. Article is thoroughly referenced. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- More than long enough (900+ words), with enough footnotes (AGF'd non-English sources), and with no formatting issues, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support article looks great. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Rahul Bajaj
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NDTV
Credits:
- Nominated by Tube of Light (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Pachu Kannan (talk · give credit), Jkaharper (talk · give credit) and Ktin (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Indian industrialist; article is currently very short but fully cited. Tube·of·Light 14:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Support Good citations, but as you said, the article is too short. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Support per Fakescientist8000. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Article is now 437 words long thanks to the above mentioned updaters. Tube·of·Light 02:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Ongoing: Freedom Convoy 2022
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.
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Le monde (fr), Al Jazeera
Credits:
- Nominated by 力 (talk · give credit)
- Oppose It is covered at least presently by the COVID ongoing. --Masem (t) 01:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Masem: I am open to an alternate proposal of replacing the COVID ongoing with this one. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- COVID remains a danger around the world affecting everyone. Replacing it makes no sense. --Masem (t) 01:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm already at two reverts on this page to try to maintain decor, and can't manage the circus a straight removal proposal would be. I do note that Fire, the heat death of the universe, and falling turtles are dangers worldwide, but are not on the main page. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- COVID remains a danger around the world affecting everyone. Replacing it makes no sense. --Masem (t) 01:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Masem: I am open to an alternate proposal of replacing the COVID ongoing with this one. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think enough has changed for us to be able to find a consensus here, and, per Masem, this is basically covered in ongoing already. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose despite the news coverage, provincial at best. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- To be fair, there are several other such convoys across the globe, but while there are others, they are all relatively small scale events of people with fringe views. --Masem (t) 01:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- To be fair to the so-called Lunatic Fringe, though, most everyone in Canada would have agreed (and still agree we would have once) that the government shouldn't do anything the protestors still agree it shouldn't do to us, up past SARS and only until not even two years ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- To be fair, there are several other such convoys across the globe, but while there are others, they are all relatively small scale events of people with fringe views. --Masem (t) 01:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Will you please understand that this is neither ITN-worthy nor Ongoing-worthy? It was very clear. Don't waste our time. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Heavy oppose - Third time, again? Consensus leans to a no-support, just give up. It's not impactful enough to be ITN-worthy. PenangLion (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Conceding that consensus can change, I am not a big fan of "the voting shall continue until the correct result is obtained." Very little has changed of a really material nature in this story. I supported the earlier nomination, but I think it's time to accept that absent some really dramatic development, consensus to post is unlikely to develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. It continues to amaze me that ITN/C lives in some kind of an alternate relation from the rest of the world. The story has already had a major international impact, including on the auto production in the U.S., and spurring similar trucking protests in other countries, including in Europe. Nsk92 (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't see why the Canadian protests are particularly notable compared those taking place in other countries around the world. I would be more open to (but would not necessarily support) an ongoing nomination for Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Chrisclear (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose we shouldn't be giving special treatment to this just because it's in North America. Many countries are having COVID vaccine related protests, so either post the general article about COVID protests, or nothing at all. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis
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.
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by 力 (talk · give credit)
- Support; has been extremely prominent in the news for an extended period of time, and even if there is no invasion will impact relations between Russia and the rest of the world for decades. However, the previous discussion should be closed before we open a new one. BilledMammal (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, that discussion need not be closed. An ITNC discussion from 3 weeks ago that has been archived for two weeks is implicitly closed as "no consensus". User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with that; I also note that it has been listed at WP:RFCL for over two weeks. BilledMammal (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've removed your pointless close request. ITNC items that are more than a week old are archived. Archives are not edited further. Stephen 05:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- It is relatively common to close archived discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've removed your pointless close request. ITNC items that are more than a week old are archived. Archives are not edited further. Stephen 05:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with that; I also note that it has been listed at WP:RFCL for over two weeks. BilledMammal (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, that discussion need not be closed. An ITNC discussion from 3 weeks ago that has been archived for two weeks is implicitly closed as "no consensus". User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Neutral Nothing has changed since the last discussion. Some say war is imminent. Some think not. Audituri autem estis proelia et opiniones proeliorum videte ne turbemini oportet enim haec fieri sed nondum est finis.. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing seismic has changed since the previous discussion was closed. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- The former discussion was not closed. BilledMammal (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Closed is the wrong way of putting it, I guess, but no one has commented on it for ~2 weeks and there didn't seem to be any consensus. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- The former discussion was not closed. BilledMammal (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Extremely strong support - Most likely will turn into a world war CR-1-AB (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Extremely strong oppose - Most likely will just fade away over time as the international dick rattlers find another game to play. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- 'Extremely strong oppose' = oppose. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Likewise, 'Extremely strong support' = support. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- 'Extremely strong oppose' = oppose. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Despite my involvement in the editing of this article, despite the fact that war is "imminent", I'm not going to support this issue as the critical crises of the incident has generally been over by now. Leaked documents from late January indicated that both sides (Russia and NATO) has not been serious in a military conflict. Given with the circumstances, unless a massive escalation occurs, I'm opposing this nomination. PenangLion (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Wait This clearly could be big, but right now its a lot of preparations for combat and political saber rattling without any actual open hostilities. But should something happen, I fully expect this to either have a story to blurb or drop into ongoing (pending article quality), this is clearly the type of story that would have the type of enduring world effects. --Masem (t) 05:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Why does an international crisis require actual military hostilities to be ITN worthy? Plenty of things have happened already, including UN Security Council meetings, major troop deployments by Russia around Ukraine, U.S. moving some extra troops to Europe, U.S. ordering all its citizens out of Ukraine, and so on. It's simply insane, I repeat, completely insane, that while all major news sources in all counties around the world are covering this crisis as a major story, ITN still pretends that nothing is happening. Nsk92 (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- ITN doesn't pretend things aren't happening by omitting them from Ongoing. Everything except the pandemic is excluded. What sets this real situation apart from every other widely-covered arc? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Why does an international crisis require actual military hostilities to be ITN worthy? Plenty of things have happened already, including UN Security Council meetings, major troop deployments by Russia around Ukraine, U.S. moving some extra troops to Europe, U.S. ordering all its citizens out of Ukraine, and so on. It's simply insane, I repeat, completely insane, that while all major news sources in all counties around the world are covering this crisis as a major story, ITN still pretends that nothing is happening. Nsk92 (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Strong support. It's not that it "could be big", it is already is a huge story and has been so for several months. That's exactly what ITN Ongoing is for. Nsk92 (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ad Orientem. Morgan695 (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support it's an ongoing event that has been in the news almost continuously for weeks, and has had troop deployments and UN discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support — Meets the criteria for ongoing events: newsworthy and updated. No need to wait; later "World War III" may become an ongoing event. STSC (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Strong support per Nsk Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Strong support per Joseph2302 -- HurricaneEdgar 12:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose This turned into a very bizarre game of successive allegations and denials about imminent invasion while nothing has really happened for four months. If we're really nearing an invasion as reported in the media, then let's wait for it to happen and post it then. I don't think we should add a warning about something which may never happen.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support, it meets the criteria for ongoing events: the article is newsworthy and updated. Concerning development. BastianMAT (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support It's been subject to ongoing discussion and constant media attention for weeks; its certainly a lot more widely commented on than many of the natural disasters and sporting events that get covered on ITN.--Llewee (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support I highly doubt there'll be an invasion, but it's been in the news for a long time. Banedon (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nothing has changed since the last nom, and if the community did not see fit to post it at that time, there is no indication that consensus will have changed here.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Question Have we ever posted a similar political/diplomatic crisis before? Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support - not our place to interpret whether this is legitimate potential invasion or a political pissing match, nor to peer into our crystal ball to determine whether or not this will turn to war or have long-lasting geopolitical consequences. This is a global news story and has been for over a month. By simply placing this into ongoing, we can also avoid the need to state the highly fluid current situation on the ticker. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support No matter what the result is, this is most certainly a major story in the news, and will continue to be. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support because the crisis in itself has had far-reaching implications for the security architecture of the world, already. That makes it a highly significant ongoing crisis regardless of whether the final outcome is an outright war or not. Yakikaki (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support It meets the criteria, and is certainly still reported by the news. The article itself actually looks good for an ongoing event. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support A prolonged crisis that has received plenty of attention from RS and world leaders, and is already notable regardless of whether an invasion is pending. Definitely among the most important stories of the year. Davey2116 (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Like last time, more anti-Russia hype anticipating future world war. We're not an allied outlet in this campaign. As of now, just another tense border situation. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- How is it anti-Russia or pro-NATO/Ukraine? - Floydian τ ¢ 19:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Lead says it "generated concerns over a potential invasion". Would you like to be cast as a potential invader? By media friendly to the coalition heavily arming and militarily reinforcing your unfriendly neighbour, under the auspices of "defense"? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Are there sources arguing that Ukraine is arming itself to launch an invasion of Russia? 93 (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, but there are plenty of sources saying Russia "could be" preparing to invade Ukraine in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, etc, and they never did. Banedon (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- There are also sources from those years saying Russia "could be" to blame for American democracy, "could be" behind Eurozone cyberattacks, "could be" punished for punitive polonium poisonings. Others, more sympathetic, see how Russia "could be" seeing the troop and missile battery buildup just outside its backyard as something it might want to think about claiming self-defence over. And the article is clear that it has. Ukraine isn't worth amassing about. But NATO is quite intimidating, even to cold hard Russians, deep down. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Are there sources arguing that Ukraine is arming itself to launch an invasion of Russia? 93 (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Lead says it "generated concerns over a potential invasion". Would you like to be cast as a potential invader? By media friendly to the coalition heavily arming and militarily reinforcing your unfriendly neighbour, under the auspices of "defense"? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- How is it anti-Russia or pro-NATO/Ukraine? - Floydian τ ¢ 19:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Constant, escalating, and prolonged developments about the impending possibility of war between two European countries 93 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support, has been the top international story for a few days. It also doesn't matter if this amounts to nothing, it's in the news now, and can just be removed later if that's the case. Nixinova T C 19:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support per all above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- There are three {Failed verification} tags in this wikiarticle. Can these problem tags be resolved, please? --PFHLai (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support once tags sorted. 82.32.8.87 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Surprised this isn't up there already. The news is hardly talking about anything else, and it is certainly the world's current foremost political crisis across Europe and North America. Continues to be an ongoing standoff. BlackholeWA (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- 'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Things have been heating up, especially within the past few weeks and days. Might as well. Redoct87 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. There's consensus that this is an ongoing high-priority international news topic that warrants posting, whether or not war breaks out. The "failed verification" tags have been addressed as of the posting. Sandstein 08:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Post-Posting Support -- things are getting extraordinarily tense. It definitely deserves to be posted. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 11:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support It's In The News, not In The Things That Will Happen. Headlines in at least English language media for multiple times past few weeks. Would be weird to not at least put it there. Juxlos (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting support – Continues to lead almost every prime RS site, with some offering multiple articles. Today's examples include AP, BBC. The looming question: What's Putin's game? – Sca (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- War is now imminent. See here: "Satellite imagery obtained by CNN shows that a large base at Yelnya, which held Russian tanks, artillery and other armor, has been largely emptied, with the equipment apparently being moved much closer to the frontier in recent days.
Large amounts of weaponry were moved to the base late in 2021 before disappearing -- including some 700 tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and ballistic missile launchers. Social media videos since show some of that equipment on trains and roads much further south in the Bryansk region, which is close to Ukraine."
"Meanwhile, heightened activity in the Kursk and Belgorod Oblasts, which border northeastern Ukraine, has added to concerns. "We are seeing a massive influx of vehicles and personnel in Kursk," Konrad Muzyka, an expert in tracking military movements with Rochan Consulting, warned on Twitter." Count Iblis (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- OTOH, maybe it's just Товарищ Putin's idea of a publicity stunt on steroids. You know, the doping thing. – Sca (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com]
rather than using <ref></ref>
tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref>
tags are being used, here are their contents: