Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Caltraser5 (talk | contribs) at 05:31, 5 March 2022 (→‎Peshawar mosque attack). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

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.

Typhoon Yagi over the South China Sea
Typhoon Yagi over the South China Sea

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

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

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

Nomination steps

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

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

Voicing an opinion on an item

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

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

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

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

Archives

March 5

March 5, 2022 (2022-03-05) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

March 4

March 4, 2022 (2022-03-04) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

Peshawar mosque attack

Article: 2022 Peshawar mosque attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An attack at a mosque in Peshawar, Pakistan, kills at least 56 and injuries 196 people. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes, CNN, AP, AlJazeera
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Article needs expansion to meet minimum size. Masem (t) 15:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Blurb: Shane Warne

Proposed image
Article: Shane Warne (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Australian cricketer Shane Warne (pictured) dies aged 52. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Australian Hall of Fame cricketers Rod Marsh, 74, and Shane Warne (pictured), 52, die of heart attacks.
News source(s): ✓https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/mar/04/shane-warne-australian-cricket-legend-dies-aged-52][1][2]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: One of the most famous cricketers of all time ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment also here to say should be a blurb when up to scratch - one of if not the best cricket bowlers ever, sudden and unexpected/almost unbelievable death. The question might be whether to put Rod Marsh in it as well, if there will be a blurb up anyway? Kingsif (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the blurb, probably the greatest bowler of all time (second highest wicket taker, but played fewer matches than Murali, and played a lot of matches on pitches that didn't suit his bowling style). Just needs people to work on the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's good enough for Deaths in 2022. And if it turns out to be an error, that's why ERRORS exists, and is frequently used. In any case, the coincidence is the neat part, like with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not pull Even CNN (which is in a country where cricket has very little mainstream popularity) has this... And, on top of that, there is absolutely no requirement for the death itself to be notable to support a blurb. We did so for the Apollo 11 astronaut who died last year (Michael Collins (astronaut)), and while Warney might not have walked on the moon [neither did Collins, FWIW], his impact on the sport of cricket and beyond is certainly sufficient for a front page blurb. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Impact considerations should be reserved for the person's death. Abductive (reasoning) 03:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is simply never how RD/blurbs have worked. More examples of people who undoubtedly were significant and whose death was posted despite it not being notable in itself: Desmond Tutu; [[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/December_2013#[Posted]_Nelson_Mandela|Nelson Mandela]]; RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherstuffexists. And it should be how RD blurbs work. Abductive (reasoning) 03:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't just dismiss every comparison as "other stuff exists". Some comparisons are valid. Your personal opinion of "how we should do RD blurbs" is very much at odds with how they are actually done, as the above examples, including Tutu, Collins, and others, (here, one from not very long ago]) show... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is established that death blurbs are decided on a case-by case basis with no firm standards. Consequently, the rationale stated in the two pull votes is as valid as anyone else's. However, it is extremely bad form to request a blurb to be pulled unless there was some error made in the posting. GreatCaesarsGhost 03:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fire breaks out at Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant

Consensus to post will not develop. The fire does not appear to have endangered the reactor and was quickly extinguished. As far as this goes it appears to be just another incident in the ongoing horror story of this war. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Fire breaks out at Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: "...if the plant were to explode, the fallout could be 10 times larger than the Chernobyl disaster." Count Iblis (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL on the nom's comment as it hasn't exploded. Just another thing that Vladolf Putler has ordered as a part of this war. An attack on a nuclear facility starting a fire is just another event in the conflict. Given we have a failed assassination attempt on the president of Ukraine, hospitals being attacked, and alleged war crimes not getting posted, I don't think this should be either. A fire doesn't seem too notable in a warzone. Open to reconsidering if it does explode NoahTalk 02:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait because if it doesn't explode, it shouldn't be a blurb. And hopefully it doesn't explode. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And if it does explode, do you really think there would be much time left to post it before World War III occurs?! Daikido (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Despite this nuclear plant is also in Ukraine, fire damage doesn't mean it's going to explode, and 2. even in the unlikely case it is really going to be completely destructed by fire, it wouldn't mean a nuclear war either. C933103 (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It was a peripheral building (now secured, unexploded). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main article on the battle, Battle of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, should be linked directly, and the focus should not be "Fire", but rather the fact that it power half of the country's demand. C933103 (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — The fire has been extinguished. Amen. STSC (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The BBC's headline currently is "Global outcry after Russia seizes nuclear plant" and so it seems quite significant. The article about the power plant seems to be in reasonable shape and it's interesting to find that this is "the largest nuclear power plant in Europe". ITN's current "nothing to see here" posture is inappropriate as it gives the impression that it is either broken or controlled by Russian censors. (See also Broken Arrow) Andrew🐉(talk) 11:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see an article covering this (and dozens of other Russian acts said to have caused global outcry) linked in bold on ITN. Today, something else in that highly visible article will likely garner outcry in another nomination. Maybe even an actual power outage or large explosion. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sadly just another episode of Putin's disregard for international laws and human lives. The fires were extinguished and nothing major was damaged. I still support having a few articles as an ongoing-box for this war but the box is not large enough to post every atrocity committed in this invasion. Regards SoWhy 10:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and wait - Part of a larger event. The magnitude of the explosion as stated by Kuleba (10 times larger than Chernobyl) is still heavily contested by experts. Wait until further developments occur then we give a much more final decision on this. PenangLion (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Fire's out, per Reuters. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest closure. From the Guardian report, it turns out the fire was in an outlying support building, with no connection to the reactor or power supplies, and was brought under control without loss of life or radiation leak. Shelling a nuclear plant is incredibly irresponsible by Russia, but the lurid headlines and partisan statements from Ukraine made this sound much more dangerous than it was. There was no chance of a second Chernobyl, and no major consequences occurred, just one burnt building. Modest Genius talk 15:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unless it did leak radiation like Chernobyl, "power plant catches fire, extinguished quickly" isn't the most important news story around. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Rod Marsh

Article: Rod Marsh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC Australia, BBC, News.com.au
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Cricket Legend. Craig Andrew1 (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Craig Andrew1: Your signature has the wrong date. Steelkamp (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC) @Steelkamp:  Fixed. Thanks for notifying. Craig Andrew1 (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) 2022 Winter Paralympics

Article: 2022 Winter Paralympics (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Xi Jinping opens the 2022 Winter Paralympics. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The 2022 Winter Paralympics begin in Beijing.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The 2022 Winter Paralympics open in Beijing while Russia and Belarus are banned from participation in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
News source(s): [3], [4], [5], [6]
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Paralympics opening ceremony 11:30 UTC. I guess you could post this on the board once the ceremony begins. Propork3455 (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do that here. ITN operates on reverse chronological order. WaltCip-(talk) 03:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptions can be made, and an exception should be made here - the invasion should be 'pinned' at the top. BilledMammal (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not appropriate at all. ITN is not a newsticker. The Ukraine invasion will fall to ongoing when the blurb drops off. We aren't going to make exceptions here. --Masem (t) 03:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Points have been addressed. STSC (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing has been fixed, but the article is still way too short in general. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

March 3, 2022 (2022-03-03) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

2022 Winter Paralympics

Article: 2022 Winter Paralympics (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russian and Belarusian athletes have been expelled from 2022 Winter Paralympics. (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Expanding Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint (March edition)

Article: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine, leading to international sanctions and a financial crisis in Russia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Russian military forces encounter widespread resistance in their invasion of Ukraine.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Russia encounters widespread resistance in its invasion of Ukraine.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Russia's invasion of Ukraine is condemned by the UN General Assembly 141-5, with 35 abstentions.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ As unprecedented Western sanctions cause an economic crisis in Russia, the country continues its invasion of Ukraine, encountering widespread resistance
News source(s): CNN, Reuters, Guardian, Guardian, AP, DW, AlJazeera

I'll repeat (and slightly modify) my suggestion from February 28. As of right now, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint in the "In the news" section needs elaboration. As it stands, it simply states "Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine", and appears to be equal in significance to the closing of the Winter Olympics. Should it really be that way? I've changed my suggestion from linking to the article about the territories invaded (Occupied territories of Ukraine) to the article about the financial crisis (2022 Russian financial crisis). Thoughts? -- RobLa (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"A mercury sucking a lemon"


  • Comment – The current editorial configuration of Wikipedia may be the techie dream of the ultimate in internet delivery vehicles, but from a reader's point of view it's over-engineered and unnecessarily complicated.
    In a way it reminds me of the Edsel, a design based on tons of brainy market research, but which proved to be the most ill-advised car in U.S. automotive history. – Sca (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC) –→[reply]
  • Portal:Current_events is complex but seems quite effective. For example, today's page was created automatically by a bot and has now been populated by 35 bullet points across a variety of fields including sports, science and the "special military operation". The key difference is that editors are actually allowed to edit it. The problem with ITN is that it is paralysed by protection and so little gets done. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Has there ever been a proposal to have a little "Portal:Current Events • Nominate an article" the way DYK has "Archive • Start a new article • Nominate an article"? I feel like that would help a lot of people actually find this portal, because the sidebar is just such a massively long list of links it sort of just disappears into the visual background noise. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. ITN does currently link to Portal:Current_events but hides the link behind the word Ongoing so most readers will miss it. The link should be surfaced so that readers are given a good alternative when it's so clear that much is missing from ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I... never even noticed "Ongoing" (or "Recent Deaths" for that matter) was a link because there's just so many links in the line and the bolded + browser visited color + blue ITN background combination just for some reason isn't scanning as a link to my brain. But that's on me. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, how about supporting alt1, alt2 or alt3? – Sca (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Echo of Moscow

Article: Echo of Moscow (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Echo of Moscow, the oldest independent Russian radio station, has been closed (Post)
News source(s): The Moscow Times, The Washington Post, Al Jazeera

109.252.212.73 (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - effectively part of an Ongoing event (currently a blurb which will roll down to Ongoing eventualoy), and we don't post every individual update.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
War is one thing and the crackdown on the freedom of speech is another!109.252.212.73 (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. WaltCip-(talk) 13:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
War is what has been going on in Ukraine, for the last week. The crackdown on the freedom of speech in Russia is a different front that has been ongoing for years. Both of which are covered in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Media freedom in Russia. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is not that Wikipedia is a place to right great wrongs, but rather that Russian increasing its suppression domestically is hardly something fully within the scope of the article of Russian invading a foreign country, even though connection is obvious. C933103 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The editor-in-chief is appealing against the closure order, while in Hong Kong the editors were arrested and charged by the police. STSC (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Thermobaric weapon

Consensus is clearly not developing for posting. Part of an event already blurbed. NoahTalk 15:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

Article: Thermobaric weapon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russia have been accused of using thermobaric weapons in their invasion of Ukraine. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

March 2

March 2, 2022 (2022-03-02) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Alan Ladd Jr.

Article: Alan Ladd Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Angeles Times; Associated Press; Variety
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Andrey Sukhovetsky

Article: Andrey Sukhovetsky (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Independent
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Senior Russian general killed in the invasion of Ukraine, aged 47. Article is a stub but will likely be expanded as more sources cover the death. Davey2116 (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question are we really going to create loads of articles on Ukranian generals known mostly for dying in this conflict, and then post them all to RD? This is the third one I've noticed in the last 2-3 days. Either way, too short for now, regardless of the wider issue of notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note The other two were an air force colonel who was shot down, and a combat engineer who sacrified themselves. I would think a general getting killed is quite rare, as there won't be too many 2-star or higher generals, or division commanders around. Also, nobody has really complained (to my knowledge) about the stream of sportspeople who are mundane domestic league players who die all the time (from a variety of sports in different countries) Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Articles meets quality standards. Objections for inclusion on the basis that they are only known for their participation in this conflict have some merit, but should be discussed broadly as the same issue applies to sportspeople among others, and until that discussion produces a consensus our current rules support this. BilledMammal (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Autherine Lucy

Article: Autherine Lucy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Miami Herald
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: The first African-American student at the University of Alabama. Kafoxe (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Shirley Hughes

Article: Shirley Hughes (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News; The Guardian; The Independent
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First reported today (March 2); died on February 25 (i.e. provable gap of at least two days). —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

March 1, 2022 (2022-03-01) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Oleksandr Oksanchenko

Article: Oleksandr Oksanchenko (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Malta Independent
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Ukrainian fighter pilot. Death published 1 March, died on 25 February. TJMSmith (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 70+ Ukrainian soldiers killed in Okhtyrka

Consensus against posting this blurb; no consensus on moving to ongoing. NoahTalk 22:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

Article: Battle of Okhtyrka (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Over 70 Ukrainian soldiers are killed in a Russian airstrike on their base in Okhtyrka. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I have supported a more informative blurb since the beginning; this seems like a big enough single event within the invasion to get its own. Kingsif (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - An airstrike outwith a war is notable, an airstrike during a war is just a (small) part of the war. -- KTC (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per KTC. We usually post natural disasters, explosions and shootings in peaceful regions with a substantial death toll, but airstrikes during wars and shootings in countries where they occur frequently are examples of what we don't post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing There are obviously numerous incidents being reported from the fighting in Ukraine. The way ITN handles news which is generating many and varied reports is to put it into the ongoing section under a suitably broad heading. That's why the COVID-19 pandemic is still there. There has been a war in Ukraine since 2014 and so this is a similar, long-running campaign. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing it's an ongoing event, and putting it on ongoing gives it a proper place on ITN, instead of being bunched in the middle of less important/now well out of the news item. Either that, or sticky the invasion at the top of ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is it possible to replace the blurb, which hasn't rolled off yet, with a sticky?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put to Ongoing There's going to be a lot of events in Ukraine over the next few weeks (or months), and posting every update from the war is going to get make things too crowded on ITN. By placing it on ongoing (like the COVID-19 pandemic) it gives readers a quick and easy access to events going on in Ukraine, without having to constantly update ITN.Canuck89 (Chat with me) 11:47, March 1, 2022 (UTC)
    The relevant article is currently linked on the main page. We can move it to ongoing when it rolls off the blurb list. --Jayron32 11:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this update, but support the wider principle. I do think it would be good to update the blurb with developments in the war, but this airstrike is just one incident in a much wider conflict. Dropping the blurb down to ongoing seems counterproductive. We would be better off adding something to highlight fighting is going on in Kyiv and Kharkiv. Modest Genius talk 13:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

  • Switch to ongoing now - this invasion is going to constantly have updates that are not captured by the current blurb (nor should they be attempted), and the ticker is moving pretty slowly. I say we drop the blurb and move it to ongoing now. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem seems to be that the Ongoing line is buried in the weeds and so lacks appropriate prominence. We should reorganise to put the Ongoing line first when the listed items are major items, as now. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the current blurb is fine if you want this in ongoing then pull the blurb. According to Ukranian propaganda their brave soliders are killing 1000 Russians a day so I don't see the notability of 70+ --LaserLegs (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well no-one seems to want to WP:IAR and keep this at the top of ITN. Or do anything helpful that might actually show that Wikipedia isn't just treating this differently to other blurbs, because it's way more important and has way more longevity and news coverage than anything else on ITN right now (minus the COVID-19 pandemic being in ongoing, which is only kept there by an IAR). We should invoke IAR and add more content on the invasion to ITN, because that is what's in the news worldwide right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing, This is not like a disaster or ..., many things may happen day by say. Alex-h (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I increasingly think a box on the top showing the range of ongoing events in the war makes sense: individual battles, anti-war protests, etc. None are likely to end soon. The anti-war protests in Russia alone come close to meriting an ITN item, for example. Blythwood (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would reject the argument that ongoing is better, worse, or more suited to the event. There seems to be some attitude that the BAU process trivializes important events, which I cannot track. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch to Ongoing. As an IAR case, this seems to make more sense to have it there than looking like we're out of date by having it below other items in the blurb ticker. I oppose constantly putting it back to the top with new updates like the one proposed though.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Casualties are a tragic reality in war. No need to move to ongoing until the current blurb drops off. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This war is currently the biggest ongoing story in the world so I don't see why these events can't be covered more. The destruction of the An-225 or the (possible) destruction of the memorial of the Babi Yar massacre are things that would likely get covered in ITN during normal times so I don't see why the ongoing war should mean we ignore it. It's not like there are a half dozen other items that would get bumped. After all, the Olympics ended more than a week ago. Perhaps a limit could be set of only 2 items related to the war at a time? Anyway, just wanted to say that and now back into the ether I go. -- Scorpion0422 21:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why the ongoing war should mean we ignore it - to put it bluntly, you expect stuff to get destroyed and people killed in wars. And those things happen so frequently in wars that most individual events don't make news, it all blurs into one, and updating on each one would be impossible. I don't completely advocate for this getting a blurb but something needs updating. While ITN is really capturing pageviews and hoping to retain a few as editors, it is also a service ("hey you've seen X in the news and want to find out more? Click here!"), so let's serve. Kingsif (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

February 28

February 28, 2022 (2022-02-28) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Kirk Baily

Article: Kirk Baily (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety, NBC News, Yahoo
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American Actor - died of lung cancer on February 28th. TheNewMinistry (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Kim Jung-ju

Article: Kim Jung-ju (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): GamesIndustry.biz
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Co-founder of the Korean video game publisher Nexon. Died sometime in February, the company only announced it on Feb. 28. A few places need sources but nearly there. Masem (t) 13:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Nominated this, not seeing your nom in this section. I've added sources where needed and added some missing information, such as the corruption scandal he was involved in. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 00:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: David Boggs

Article: David Boggs (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Co-inventor of the Ethernet protocol that most of the Internet is based on. Died on Feb 18th, but the news did not come in major publications until yesterday. Masem (t) 13:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sheila Benson

Article: Sheila Benson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Angeles Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First reported today (February 28); died on February 23 (i.e. provable gap of at least two days). —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Richard C. Blum

Article: Richard C. Blum (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): San Francisco Chronicle
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ad Orientem: & @Bagumba: I've added some neutrality to it and removed some puff from it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The section title "Controversy" remains, which is generally consider WP:POV (WP:CSECTION), isolating negative items into a section instead of integrating tidbits into his career or starting a balanced "Public image" section. All too often, it's just a WP:COATRACK for anything negative, without regard if WP:DUE coverage exists. For example, I randomly looked at the Tutor Perini entry. I don't see those cited sources supporting that this was a major controversy, other than it being brought up that his wife is a politican and the contractor did construction in countries occupied by the U.S. Was there foul play? How "controversial" was this? To what extent did this impact him? No context is indicated in the existing sources.—Bagumba (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bagumba: Should this section be removed? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given how this section is sourced to one source for each bit of controversy, that seems inappropriate for a BLP and would be better removed until more comprehensive sourcing can be made. --Masem (t) 15:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think having a couple of sentences noting the criticism is ok. But in general we try to avoid whole sections labeled as "controversy." -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. to my above; I think the article is acceptable for posting now. Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 11th Emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly

Consensus is against posting that a special session occurred. NoahTalk 22:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

Article: Eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): Politico, Reuters
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: UN link Only 11th time in the history of UN such a session is being held, 9th one was in '82. 2A02:2F0E:DE07:BF00:28EE:4F79:A71B:62CC (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(needs attention) IPCC report

Nominator's comments: The IPCC assessment is released as three separate reports plus a synthesis. We posted part 1, on what, how and why climate change is happening, in August 2021. Today they released part 2, on the impacts of climate change on nature and on humans. Part 3, on mitigation strategies, is due by the end of 2022. I think we should blurb all three parts. The last time the IPCC tackled this topic was the Fifth Assessment in 2013-14. The report was released 2 hours ago and runs to 3675 pages, so the article hasn't been updated yet, but I wanted to get the discussion started on whether we should blurb each part. Modest Genius talk 13:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment We should probably figure out what statistic people are hanging their hats on for the headline on this. "Report was released" even with something like IPCC isn't a great ITN blurb, but "6th IPCC report on impacts of climate change estimate 40% of the world's population is at risk." (scanning from bbc) would be more appropriate, but that's just a first part. And given that part 3 of the 6th IPCC is about mitigation of CC, this second part is likely more important to post than the 3rd. --Masem (t) 13:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind adding an example of the biggest impacts, but it would mean picking one from a smorgasbord of suffering. We also need to be careful about the wording: that 40% figure refers to those considered 'highly vulnerable', with everybody being at risk, just lower risk. Modest Genius talk 13:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was just something I caught in a 5 second scan, obviously any stat should be vetted and carefully and clearly worded. --Masem (t) 14:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The events going on in Ukraine currently do not and should not have any bearing on whether or not we post another blurb on a different topic. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely and completely irrelevant. Climate change is a long-term threat to humanity. The invasion of Ukraine, however grisly, has no bearing on this. WaltCip-(talk) 15:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We posted the first part of this report in August 2021 and we should probably post this as well, but the problem is that the summary of this part is way to short compared to that of the previous one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we posted the first part of this report in August 2021, we shouldn't post all 6 interim reports that are going to come from this as that's just way too much emphasis and POV on it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The assessment consists of three working group reports plus a synthesis document. This is the second report. Where did six come from? If you mean the Sixth Assessment, that's a process which reports every 6-7 years; the Fifth Assessment was in 2014. Modest Genius talk 18:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I read it as the second part of a six part thing, my mistake. Nevertheless, no evidence that this part is significant enough to be ITN worthy, the content in the article about it is way less than the first one. If it's ITN worthy, people should improve the article to demonstrate that. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Yadlapati Venkata Rao

Article: Yadlapati Venkata Rao (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

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

 — DaxServer (t · c) 09:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Expanding Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint

Closing this conversation off; to be continued up in the March 3 section. This Feb 28 seciton was all mixed up (partly due to my lack of recent WP:ITN experience. See #Expanding Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint (March edition) in the #March 3 section for further discussion. -- RobLa (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As of right now, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint in the "In the news" section needs a bit of elaboration. As it stands, it simply states "Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine", and appears to be equal in significance to the closing of the Winter Olympics (which links to three articles: the competition, the closing event, and the city of Beijing). It would seem as though there should be a link to the "Occupied territories of Ukraine" article as well, so my recommendation for new phrasing:
* Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine, and occupies several territories of the nation.
Thoughts? -- RobLa (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of discussion is usually conducted in WP:ERRORS FWIW. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So why not update the ITN blurb itself to eliminate "the static display of old news" – ?? Why force the reader to search for something relevant and informative under the small-type titles "navigation  • Main page  • Contents  • Current events" high on the left side of the page? Continued display of the egregiously outdated RU-Ukraine ITN blurb does not serve readers and is a loathsome lapse in editorial judgement. – Sca (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand your suggestion correctly, the outdated content had already been commented out. I removed the redundant wikitext (with no visible effect) and replaced it with current news which will update itself without constant maintenance. (This comment applies to the portal only. I'm leaving any updates to the main page or its transclusion to others.) Certes (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – It seems that the point being made here is that the Russian invasion should have its significance pointed out. If that's not it, then this edit suggestion is unclear in its objective. Considering that the suggestion being made here is that the Russian invasion should have its significance pointed out, then adding statements like "Russia occupies several territories" or "Russian encounters widespread resistance" is entirely illogical, as they don't state what's being suggested that it should be stated. Honestly and logically, what this suggestion asks to be added is that "Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine, triggering worldwide social repercussions". I mean, essentially that is, "disrupting the world." That's how you honestly speak about its significance, not by making up other fill-up stuff that's not you mean to point out. 85.245.162.134 (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You make an excellent point. However, I would want an article about the "worldwide social repercussions" to link to. Perhaps International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War? Although the consequences and assessment section of that article could use flushing out more. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. OP's suggested blurb seems a good upgrade to current one, and given the current pace of ITN, the war isn't going to be pushed to ongoing anytime "soon" (aka: within one or two days) Flameperson (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Currently all major cities seem to be in Ukrainian hands. In any case, the situation is very fluid amid ongoing Russian–Ukrainian information war and we should be cautious about any claims beyond the current blurb. If the situation changes dramatically based on reliable third-party sources, we can reconsider. Brandmeistertalk 19:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose ITN is not a news ticker, and in the comments you have various proposals of different events to emphasise (effect on Ruble, taking of some cities, experiencing resistance) and it's still early in the proposal -- future comments may emphasise Belarusian involvement, Western sanctions, stock markets crashing, or dozens of other major effects that have already happened or will happen. What if a city gets taken back? What makes any one of these factors more important than the other? I think we got the perfect hook the first time, and it not needing an update is not a problem. The underlying event here is the Russian invasion of Ukraine. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
President ordered Russia's nuclear forces put on high alert

Unless I am mistaking, I think this level of open declaration of threat level has not been done since the Cuban crisis. Even if nothing comes out of it, and even if the USSR did have this level of alert as recently as the 80s, I think this uptick should still be noted in the ITN. 2A02:2F0E:DE07:BF00:B19A:8EBA:F556:7C1B (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this is like a DEFCON1. 2A02:2F0E:DE07:BF00:28EE:4F79:A71B:62CC (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke-saber rattling. – Sca (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please... DarkSide830 (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please? – Sca (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Me? - Floydian τ ¢ 13:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would wait a bit more until it becomes clear. Right now it seems to be just putting nuclear weapons on high alert - until he either drops a nuke in Ukraine or threatens to do so openly, we shouldn’t put anything there. If he starts a global thermonuclear war I think we should just try and not die instead of updating ITN. Juxlos (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think even the ex-KGB commissar now at the Russian helm would stupid enough to start a nuclear war. – Sca (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of us here didn't think he'd seriously invade Ukraine either. WaltCip-(talk) 16:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Russian invasion entry should be updated to include reference to this and possibly the ruble crashing as well. All would be ITN-worthy on their own. Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

February 27

February 27, 2022 (2022-02-27) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

Pakistan Super League final

Article: 2022 Pakistan Super League Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cricket, Lahore Qalandars win their maiden Pakistan Super League title by defeating Multan Sultans in the final. (Post)
News source(s): Sky Sports
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article looks fine and ready to be posted. MasterOfMetaverse (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The league is now a big cricket event and is covered extensively in cricketing world including the ICC itself this time. USaamo (t@lk) 02:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per the comments stated by USaamo. Fade258 (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not ITN worthy, we shouldn't be posting every country's T20 league finals. I'm not a fan of posting IPL which has a way bigger international audience than the PSL. Also article quality is insufficient, match report is poorly aourced and links to lots of dab pages. Infobox violates MOS:FLAG, as "team colours" aren't needed in infobox. Background also needs a copyedit as it has some awkward phrasings. And the league stage section should give a summary of all their matches in the league stage, rather than overdetailed match reports of the two matches they previously played against each other. If article quality is not fixed, then the importance is a moot point, the support votes above don't appear to have considered article quality. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Joseph. Not ITNR, btw. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Doesn't attract the same attention as the IPL, which is the only domestic T20 League I would consider significant enough to post.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not ITNR and shouldn't be. Tradediatalk 18:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sonny Ramadhin

Article: Sonny Ramadhin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Cricketer, Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: International cricketer, but article needs significant work Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Nick Zedd

Article: Nick Zedd (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reforma
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American filmmaker Thriley (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Antonov An-225

Like the An-225, this one is not going to fly. Mjroots (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Antonov An-225 Mriya (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Antonov An-225 Mriya (pictured), the world's largest aircraft, is destroyed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (Post)
News source(s): Radio Free Europe (in Russian, English translation), Dmytro Kuleba, Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs, OSINT Canada
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Per blurb, destruction of world's largest aircraft in service. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - news is spotty if it was destroyed or just damaged, and in the latter case, the potential to restore. Further, this is part of the ongoing invasion blurb. --Masem (t) 16:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even with that confirmation, this effectively part of, and overshadowed by the current invasion blurb. It would be the wrong thing to be focusing on at ITN while there's other invasion stuff still going on. --Masem (t) 16:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2022 eastern Australia floods

Proposed image
Pedestrian tunnel flooding in the suburb of Tanah Merah, in south Brisbane
Article: 2022 eastern Australia floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 16 deaths during the 2022 eastern Australia floods (Post)
News source(s): see article, AP, Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

 --Caltraser5 (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It IS a flood prone region! See 2010–2011 Queensland floods, and 1974 Brisbane flood, and several other articles. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't even know that. Thanks for telling me! Kline | yes? 19:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article quality not quite there yet, but it's important to recognise that this event has pretty much usurped the extended coverage of Ukraine (at least in Australia). JMonkey2006 (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a poorly named article. And a totally over-hyped event. The floods are impacting only a tiny fraction of eastern Australia. They are still restricted to flood plains, which is where floods are supposed to happen. The fact that Queensland, and Brisbane in particular, went through some appalling (non-)planning stages in its history, and allowed a lot of houses to be built on those flood plains might be the more newsworthy aspect of this. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the US many major inland port cities are in floodplains like Saint Louis, Memphis, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Kansas City, New Orleans, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Houston, Miami (okay that one's not inland) and Baton Rouge and the river can get tens of kilometers wide in floods. New Orleans is in a bowl that's below sea level except for the very center. In China they called the Yellow River and/or Yangtze the river in the sky or something like that, the Yellow deposited so much yellow silt that it'd build a natural groove-topped ridge and flow in the groove with the boats higher than the cities and would break out within centuries and kill hundreds of thousands of people each time. So within millennia the river would wiggle around like a snake and flood everything in an extremely flat strip cone of hyperfarmable silt up to hundreds of miles wide. Edit: Except the Shandong Peninsula and nearby high spot were too high so it would always bypass them to the left or right. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A very different situation. Most of the development I am speaking of in Brisbane has occurred in the past 50 years. The dangers were well known, but officially ignored by planners. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked on that claim of 7 deaths. Sourcing in the article is poor. It has separate sources for separate deaths. The claim of 7 is original research, apparently adding up separate claims. My own adding up only gave me 6 deaths. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The floods are impacting only a tiny fraction of eastern Australia. I live in eastern Australia, and it's hardly rained at all here for three months. The title gives a completely false impression. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, it was originally named "2022 South East Queensland flood" before it was moved earlier today in a violation of WP:CRYSTAL: see this diff. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a far more accurate title, so I have moved it back. No idea what that means for this proposal. Do we rename this too? The real point is that this is NOT about as significant event as the old title implies. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hilo you probably live in either Sydney or Melbourne, which is actually west of SEQ/Northern NSW, and we are farther east of you. So title of the article is accurate.--Caltraser5 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we need a better name for that chunk of Australia which is SE Qld and NE NSW. "Eastern Australia" is not a good choice. Are you seriously suggesting Sydney is not in eastern Australia? HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sydney is on the east coast, but to many people from SEQ it is south-west of us, and the area affected by flooding is more than just SEQ, Gympie is not really part of SEQ it's part of the wide-bay burnett region and the northern rivers of NSW often experiences the same weather as SEQ does, and that's definitely not part of SEQ.--Caltraser5 (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're not actually discussing this. I repeat - It seems we need a better name for that chunk of Australia which is SE Qld and NE NSW. "Eastern Australia" is not a good choice. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you come up with a better title--Caltraser5 (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must point out that Caltraser5 has Edit warred over the title of the article being used here, and has not gone near the Talk page to discuss it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

February 26, 2022 (2022-02-26) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Ralph Ahn

Article: Ralph Ahn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety; Rolling Stone; KNBC
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

  1. ^ Antonov [@AntonovCompany] (27 February 2022). "Update on the information of #AN225 "Mriya" aircraft: Currently, until the AN-225 has been inspected by experts, we cannot report on the technical condition of the aircraft. Stay tuned for further official announcement" (Tweet). Archived from the original on 27 February 2022. Retrieved 27 February 2022 – via Twitter.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1075336696"