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
March 10
March 10, 2022
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Mario Terán
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Tiempos
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Krisgabwoosh (talk · give credit)
- Created by Fake God20 (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: Bolivian warrant officer who carried out the execution of Che Guevara in 1967. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Far too much of the article centers on Che's exploits that have nothing to do with Terán. I understand we've completely abandoned WP:1E, but BLPs still should be about the person in the title. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
RD: Kimberley Kitching
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Anarchyte (talk · give credit)
- Created by Callanecc (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: Australian Senator for the Labor Party. Died suddenly of a heart attack. Anarchyte (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Decent article and well referenced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
March 9
March 9, 2022
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
RD: Inge Deutschkron
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tagesspiegel
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (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: German and Isreali journalist, 99, eyewitness of the Holocaust and activist for not forgetting. The article was basically there, I only distributed the existing refs more. There's more material if needed. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Short but adequate. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Referenced. Meets requirements. Grimes2 (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: David Wheeler
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Montgomery Advertiser
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Kafoxe (talk · give credit)
- Created by Connormah (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: Incumbent state representative from Alabama. Kafoxe (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Short but adequate. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
RD: Tomás Boy
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN MARCA
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: Mexican football manager and former player. Captained the Mexican national football team at the 1986 FIFA World Cup. Won two Primera División titles with Tigres UANL. Managed several Liga MX teams in a managing career that spanned three decades. --2806:109F:1:1A1E:4040:1912:AAD9:6AE2 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not Ready for the usual reason. The first half or so of the article is actually decently referenced. Unfortunately, after that it goes downhill quickly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Presidential election in South Korea
Blurb: A presidential election is held in South Korea. (Post)
Alternative blurb: South Koreans head to the polls to elect their next president.
Alternative blurb II: Yoon Suk-yeol (pictured) is elected president of South Korea.
News source(s): Reuters The New York Times South China Morning Post, AP, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Blurengo (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.
Blurengo (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wait Well, this is quite a close result as of an hour ago. Omnifalcon (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Wait Article is fine, I'm pretty certain its going to be Yoon who wins, but very few outlets have called it just yet, it would be preferred if we put the victor of the election. Until that is called, I think we should wait. Ornithoptera (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)- Wait per above. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Seems like news outlets are more or less comfortably calling Yoon the winner by now, so I've proposed a blurb to reflect that.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The picture in use on Yoon's page and the election page seems to be from the election commission, and is probably a public license but I'm not sure. As a backup I added an image that is acceptable but it's got some image resolution quality issues. Also there's plenty of unsourced text on the page, but we do have a concession and race calls. Omnifalcon (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb 2 The results have now been announced so I see no problem in posting this. Hamza Ali Shah 00:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support ALT2 As per above, with Lee conceding there's little uncertainty left as to who the winner is by now. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support The result is decided as Yoon's victory. Reiro (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality the election article is tagged for needing copy editing. Once done, consider this a support. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Joseph. The results section lacks more prose than there is and also lacks a section on "reactions" or "aftermath". Otherwise the article is quite good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support — I would suggest to include the description "Conservative candidate" in the blurb. STSC (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Alt 2. No need to label conservative. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support alt2 Article looks fine. Flameperson (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) RD: David Bennett
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.
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Phinbart (talk · give credit) and 20chances (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.
- A biography that only covers the last three months of his life? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's the notable part. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Then how does this article not fail WP:BIO1E?
The general rule is to cover the event, not the person.
– Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC) - I see this was kept at AfD. I'll just walk away from this, nothing good will come of my involvement here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Then how does this article not fail WP:BIO1E?
- That's the notable part. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per concerns raised by Muboshgu. This does not appear to be a complete biographical article and the subject likely fails WP:1E. I took a look at the AfD and all I can say is that the discussion is embarrassing in its near complete refusal to address policy and guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. It isn't a biography at all, it's an article about a pig organ transplant under the wrong title. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, not a biography and shouldn't even exist Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Ukrainian refugee 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.
Blurb: Millions of people flee the Russo-Ukrainian War. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.reuters.com/world/flow-refugees-ukraine-rises-2-million-people-unhcr-head-says-2022-03-08/
Credits:
- Nominated by Chidgk1 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose and close this was discussed as recently as yesterday. Chidgk1 this is your fifth nomination of Ukraine/Russia events in the last 24 hours, and none have been anywhere near getting a consensus to post. Please stop, as this is getting disruptive now. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose and stop. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Discovery of the Endurance
Blurb: The wreck of the Endurance, the ship sunk during Ernest Shackleton's Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition, is found. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In Antarctica, an expedition locates the wreck of the ship Endurance, sunk in 1915 during Ernest Shackleton's Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition
News source(s): The New York Times, BBC, Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Sdkb (talk · give credit)
- Updated by 37.111.41.176 (talk · give credit) and Pietadè (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Arguably the biggest maritime discovery since that of the Titanic. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support, especially like the white dinner plates left by the crew on her deck (at 1st took them/these for some marine creatures, shame on me), in 3,008 meters below...☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 07:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- And, willy-nilly, instead of writing here, every pro/contra letter inserted here, if inserted into improvement of the article, would make more (useful/productive) sense, IMHO☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 21:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support on notability. The article is poorly referenced and a lot of work is required, though.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Both Ernest Shackleton and Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition are FAs. Linking Endurance (1912 ship) is probably the more honest main article, though. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose the entire paragraphs are sourced to a single source at the end of the sections, so sources likely are there already and just need to be polished. Support when this is done. --Tone 08:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Both Ernest Shackleton and Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition are FAs. Linking Endurance (1912 ship) is probably the more honest main article, though. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality woefully undersourced. Support in principle if fixed. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support because people need a little good news amongst the bad Chidgk1 (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support was about to nominate this myself. It is the kind of thing I can imagine people wanting to look up to read further. Update is still thin but will get there in short order looking at updates already applied. 3142 (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Both encyclopedic and newsworthy. Note that it's the top read story on the BBC which reports a significant detail: "This past month has seen the lowest extent of Antarctic sea-ice ever recorded during the satellite era ... The conditions were unexpectedly favourable.". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support, when sufficient citations have been added to the article to meet quality standards. BilledMammal (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I prefer ALT1 over the original blurb, when this article is of sufficient quality to post. BilledMammal (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support in principle, article needs sufficient citations; encyclopedic and notable. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support in principle, oppose on quality. Impressive discovery and we have good encyclopaedic content on the topic. The article on the expedition is an FA, but couldn't be the bold link. The article on the ship is woefully short of citations - there are multiple paragraphs of text with just one reference at the end. I've added an altblurb, which avoids the long clause before 'is found'. Modest Genius talk 12:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thinking about it, does the ship's article even need all that content about the final voyage? That information is already present - and much better cited - in the expedition article. Modest Genius talk 12:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with one reference per paragraph. It may well be that all the text in that paragraph comes from just one reference. Mjroots (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's debatable. Regardless, my concern was e.g. the 'ownership' section has four paragraphs and just one citation, at the end of the final paragraph. That's definitely not acceptable. Modest Genius talk 12:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with one reference per paragraph. It may well be that all the text in that paragraph comes from just one reference. Mjroots (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thinking about it, does the ship's article even need all that content about the final voyage? That information is already present - and much better cited - in the expedition article. Modest Genius talk 12:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not to knock something we want to post, but are these types of discoveries something affirmed in peer reviewd publications (as the case for centuries-old ruins when things like carbon-dating etc come into play) or is it taken for granted that finding ship placards and the like sufficient for this purpose? Just making sure we're posting at the right point. --Masem (t) 13:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- That is a reasonable concern and I strongly advocate for awaiting peer-reviewed publications for science stories. However, a) this isn't science, it's exploration. It's unclear whether it would even be written up for a journal. b) No sophisticated analysis is required to identify the ship. The footage is incontrovertible. c) The media reports are quoting independent experts who are fully convinced by the discovery.
Ruins are debatable precisely because they haven't been fully preserved so require a combination of scientific data and subjective interpretation to identify. This ship just requires watching the 50 second video. Modest Genius talk 13:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- That is a reasonable concern and I strongly advocate for awaiting peer-reviewed publications for science stories. However, a) this isn't science, it's exploration. It's unclear whether it would even be written up for a journal. b) No sophisticated analysis is required to identify the ship. The footage is incontrovertible. c) The media reports are quoting independent experts who are fully convinced by the discovery.
- Support once the article is a bit better per the notes above. Definitely notable enough. — {{u|Bsoyka}} talk 13:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I couldn't believe my eyes when i saw this blurb. It's definitely a notable discovery. PenangLion (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support ... per Modest, Bsoyka – pending article development. Found sunken ships always are of high reader interest. Fairly widely covered. Good art of wreck might become avail. Color
ized1915 photo above doesn't really tell the story. This might be a more appropriate pic. →
– Sca (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The nominated picture was not colorized; it was taken with the Paget process. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Aha. Interesting. – Sca (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The nominated picture was not colorized; it was taken with the Paget process. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on article quality as noted above. Referencing is extremely poor and will require some work to get this up to scratch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support after article improved Flameperson (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support, Article needs some work but the title is encyclopedic and notable.Alex-h (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wait a bit to see if the article quality improves; if it does, I would give strong support. But tags need to be addressed and reliable sources added. Yakikaki (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agree, partially, let's wait for the ice becoming thinner and thinner, no need to wait some teenager to point our attention to it; read the article too, eventually (1st attention to the subject was drawn by the empty dish plates presented by BBC), and, it indeed, the piece needs some (strong?) author's touch to rise higher (btw, Mrs., male cats, mesdames, odd...)☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 21:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I would support in principle - the update is just about long enough - but it's kind of academic as the rest of the article is so undersourced.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Besides, in about 6 hrs the coverage has widened/improved, so, not a 60 meters run on win...☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 21:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose just to point out that most of the comments that say Support are actually Opposes. C'mon, folks. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was hoping someone would point this out. No one here seems to think this thing is actually ready to post yet. WaltCip-(talk) 21:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – A quick glance, which is all I have time for at the moment, shows it's certainly long and presumably detailed enough. – Sca (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sadly many of the early sections of the article are orange tagged with needs of refs. This isn't just a few missed CNs we can ignore. --Masem (t) 23:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose — Orange tagged. STSC (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support on notability once improved - This isn't an article I could update myself, especially not currently, but if anyone is willing it should really be an ITN item. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
March 8
March 8, 2022
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
|
(Posted) RD: Conrad Janis
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
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: First reported today (March 8); died on March 1 (i.e. provable gap of at least two days). —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support looks fine. Can find no earlier reports in RS. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article in good quality; no orange tags or cn tags to be seen. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article is vastly improved from when I looked at it last. Another great job from the OP. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support, Good article for a notable person Alex-h (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Russian invasion
Proposal: Change Russia's '''[[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|invasion]]''' of Ukraine
to '''[[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|Russia's invasion of Ukraine]]'''
.--Hildeoc (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support as no evidence of Belarus soldiers yet Chidgk1 (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Maybe Belarus doesn’t actively participate with military forces but Donetsk and Lugansk do, so it’s practically not only Russia and thus replacing “Russian” with “Russia’s” would be incorrect.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- oh I misread - and misled you as nothing to do with Belarus - support as more obvious link Chidgk1 (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- This only proposes hyperlinking additional words. The blurb already says "Russia's". DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I see. The blurb probably highlights the condemnation of Russia’s involvement. Anyway, I don’t think the blurb should begin with an emboldened word and this is extremely minor thing so that WP:EGG applies.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support, per WP:EGG, and wonder why Belarus even matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – Unnecessary. – Sca (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I am periodically dragooned into rearranging the furniture in my house. I am not interested in doing that here. The damned chair can stay in the corner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- You get the coveted CVU (Creative Verb Use) award for this week. – Sca (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Bikeshedding Same argument, but no oppose, just asking editors to consider a minimum threshold of impact before proposing or voting on a proposal. TZubiri (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per InedibleHulk. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per InedibleHulk. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The result of this nom would be this monstrosity: "Russia's invasion of Ukraine is condemned by the United Nations General Assembly." GreatCaesarsGhost 20:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- There was never a consensus to add the UN trivia in any case, so we've made that rod for our own backs. Stephen 22:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per GreatCaesarsGhost -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound 21:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose This month's theme is going to be about rearranging furniture on a certain doomed vessel I guess. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Thank you, User:Hildeoc for leading this discussion. As I alluded to in the discussion under #March 3 on this page (this one: "#(Posted) Expanding Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint (March edition)"), the link to Russia's invasion of Ukraine needs to be more prominent than the link to Shane Warne. A blurb change to reflect the changing situation may also be sensible, since this isn't an isolated bombing that can be pinpointed to a single day (or hour, or even month), but rather a series of bombings over a series of very notable cities. It may be worth noting that "
The Biden administration bans imports of Russian oil, gas and coal to the United States.(CBS) (Politico)
" rather than highlighting older news about United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1 (on March 2), which seems as though it's due to roll out of the "WP:ITN" anyway. -- RobLa (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC) - Comment (OP) – Of course, I'd be fine with
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is ...
as well.--Hildeoc (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Move Russian invasion of Ukraine to ongoing
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: No blurb specified (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Chidgk1 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Support for same reasons I supported it before, it's an ongoing event, so should be on ongoing. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose for the umpteenth time. It's a major event that is currently blurbed. It will drop off the ITN blurb list when the next news item gets approved and then it will go to ongoing. I don't think we will even need a nomination for that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's not an actual rule, no matter how many times people try and invoke it. This event should be on ongoing, as it's an ongoing event. The blurb for it is stale- like most of the ITN box. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wait But fasttrack the next dead "legend", old or not, we need closure. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Conditional Support - not while it has a blurb, and I don't think we should pull the blurb early. Assuming the invasion is still ongoing when the blurb will be other wise pushed off, then I support it to ongoing. — xaosflux Talk 15:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Question Can we at least go back to four items while we wait for a fresher legend than Dino the Popcorn Man? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – Comrade Putin's attempt to turn the clock back to 1939 remains far & away the No. 1 story worldwide. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I'm sure Vlad the Invader et al. would be only too pleased to see it relegated from the Main Page "headlines" to the comparative obscurity of Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- My reason for proposing this is to be able to add one of the consequences of war rejected below. I may propose one of them again tomorrow - meanwhile I hope some industrious Americans will improve them as I sleep. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Putin is a capitalist and has no intention on bringing back the Soviet Union. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- It was an ostensible capitalist who invaded a neighboring country in 1939. The other guy went along for the ride. – Sca (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support, if not today, then make sure that it happens as soon as it is pushed off of ITN by more recent events. The eyes of the world are on this situation. Side note - Speculation about Putin's motivations or worldviews are not pertinent to whether or not this is a story appropriate to categorize as "Ongoing". Thanks to all for their contributions. KConWiki (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose and close as no reason has been provided to reopen this settled discussion. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Will major future developments in the war be considered for blurbs, or will nothing other than its conclusion be considered important enough for that? Jim Michael (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, major incidents and developments will always be considered. Stephen 22:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
To make room for other news items
? My understanding is that it rolls off ITN as soon as new blurbs are posted, just like any other hook. As such, it's literally impossible for a hook to be 'blocking' the ability to have more news items, unless editors oppose any other reasonable nomination on the basis that this hook stays up (in which case, evidence?). Otherwise you're just advocating pulling a blurb that is actually in the news, because ... ? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Russia in the European energy sector
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: Europe considers stopping buying Russian oil. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Russia threatens to cut gas supply to Europe.
Alternative blurb II: Prices increase as oil and gas flows from Russia to Europe are disrupted.
News source(s): [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
Credits:
- Nominated by Chidgk1 (talk · give credit)
- Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL; The gas flow to Europe hasn't stopped yet. Might be newsworthy if it actually is cut, however currently everything is just speculation. DNVIC (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is already newsworthy enough for the major news companies linked above. Although it seems unlikely that Germany will boycott Russian oil they have done several unlikely things over the past week already. The guideline you link to includes "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur". The gas flow has not completely stopped and may not, but according to the DW source one pipeline has stopped already. That and the speculation of more has increased many people's gas or petrol bills - maybe even yours. Some people are interested in news which is already increasing their bills. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose as WP:SPECULATION. If most/all of Europe cuts off their gas supply from Russia, that would be big news. But it hasn't happened yet. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose So, Europe considers stopping its purchase or Russia threatens to cut supplies? Let's first wait to see which one of these two happens and then re-consider it for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL
and WP:SPECULATION. This hasn't happened yet: and when it does, then we will reconsider it. I suggest close. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)- Slashed WP:SPECULATION as I have just learned they are the same thing. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - Incremental development of an ongoing news story -- and WP:CRYSTAL to boot.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Food prices
Article: Food prices (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Food prices increase due to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Prices of food, gold and oil increase substantially due to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
News source(s): https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/3/7/soaring-food-prices-threaten-emerging-market-currencies
https://www.just-food.com/news/world-food-prices-reach-new-heights-with-ukraine-conflict-not-yet-fully-factored/
Credits:
- Nominated by Chidgk1 (talk · give credit)
- Oppose and close we don't need two nominations for very similar things. Food prices increase all the time. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose and speedy close per Joseph2302. This is a normal thing; maybe not for the normal reasons, but inflation happens literally all the time. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support altblurb. Expand to include major price increases of other things, including gold & oil - the latter of which on Sunday night spiked to its highest level since 2008. Put all of this in one blurb. Perhaps merge this nom with the one above. Jim Michael (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a part of the invasion. There are well documented reasons why both food and gas prices have jumped due to the invasion. --Masem (t) 13:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - Incremental development of an ongoing news story.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Ukrainian refugee crisis
Blurb: Millions of people flee the Russo-Ukrainian War. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.reuters.com/world/flow-refugees-ukraine-rises-2-million-people-unhcr-head-says-2022-03-08/
Credits:
- Nominated by Chidgk1 (talk · give credit)
- Question The war is obviously a crisis, but is the refugee situation itself a crisis yet? I see a quote in the article that it could become one, but currently it seems neighbouring countries had prepared for this many and are handling it about as well as such things go. That's not to diminish the alleged unequal treatment, but I think "crisis" might be a bit much, this soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have an opinion on the name of the article - anyway it is not used in the blurb Chidgk1 (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm more worried about linking to an inaccurate article, by any pipe. It's not just the title. The situation is described as a crisis throughout, alongside several ways these refugees have it easier than past refugees under new regulations. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Edited article to add official cite for "crisis" https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-exodus-is-fastest-growing-refugee-crisis-europe-since-ww2-unhcr-chief-2022-03-06 Chidgk1 (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- A solid tweet, carry on. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Edited article to add official cite for "crisis" https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-exodus-is-fastest-growing-refugee-crisis-europe-since-ww2-unhcr-chief-2022-03-06 Chidgk1 (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm more worried about linking to an inaccurate article, by any pipe. It's not just the title. The situation is described as a crisis throughout, alongside several ways these refugees have it easier than past refugees under new regulations. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have an opinion on the name of the article - anyway it is not used in the blurb Chidgk1 (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- This should probably be posted when it becomes the "biggest migration crisis (in Europe) since WW2", passing the peak 1.3 million migrants in 2015. 188.27.42.181 (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's apparently reached 2 million, according to a UN report: [13] (also noted by BBC in their live ticker [14]). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Although according to our List of largest refugee crises, there are 3 ongoing refugee crises that are larger than this. The biggest one being the Refugees of the Syrian civil war. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- That says fastest, not biggest, totally different superlative. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
So everyone, if your questions have been answered, do you support or oppose? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Some good stuff here, but also much misleading, speculative and opinionated stuff, mostly covered by the invasion article. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at the invasion article you are right the section there needs trimming now this article exists - I will take a look. Please could you tag exactly where the problems in this article are so people can fix them.Chidgk1 (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Too many places. From "largest" to multiple "could", "would" and "will" to "grave" and "phenomenal". Just look around. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have now deleted the detail from 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Refugees as you suggested. If you could tag exactly where the most serious problems are with this article I suspect they will be fixed quickly by other editors. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's not what I suggested. Williams' "quote" and suggestion of IDPs isn't in the citation. That's serious enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out - I think the editor who added it cited the "live" section of the newspaper which has since been updated - replaced with a stable cite. If there are other problems could you possibly tag exactly where on the article itself rather than here in case I am not available to fix them - there seem to be a lot of editors actively improving it. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's not what I suggested. Williams' "quote" and suggestion of IDPs isn't in the citation. That's serious enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have now deleted the detail from 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Refugees as you suggested. If you could tag exactly where the most serious problems are with this article I suspect they will be fixed quickly by other editors. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Too many places. From "largest" to multiple "could", "would" and "will" to "grave" and "phenomenal". Just look around. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at the invasion article you are right the section there needs trimming now this article exists - I will take a look. Please could you tag exactly where the problems in this article are so people can fix them.Chidgk1 (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality as the article has tag for needs to be updated, and the "Alleged unequal treatment at the borders" is massively WP:UNDUE as it's about half the article text. I'm not convinced that even if the article is fixed, then it should be posted (I'm neutral, leaning oppose on this)- there have been many mass migrations, and we wouldn't even consider posting this if it weren't in Europe (we didn't post the Syrian one after all). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- You are right that section was a bit too large - have trimmed. I suspect most "in the news" articles need update as the news develops - I only tagged it a few hours ago but if no one updates it I will delete the Netherlands section as it only has one reliable source. I did not know about "in the news" at the time but as I live in the country with the most Syrian refugees I would have strongly supported it. There are several other editors on this article so if you could tag exactly where the most serious remaining problems are I expect they will be fixed quickly. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Will be part of the invasion ongoing. --Masem (t) 13:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry I don't quite understand - could you explain more fully? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - Incremental development of an ongoing news story.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
March 7
March 7, 2022
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
RD: Nadungamuwa Raja
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
- Updated by To be updated. (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Indian elephant. Sacred in Sri Lanka. I have not gotten to working the article yet. But, will do so and share an update. If someone wants to work this before me, please feel free to join-in. Ktin (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
RD: Vasily Astafyev
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 59
Credits:
- Nominated by DadOfTheYear2022 (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: Recipient of the Hero of the Soviet Union award. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not Quite Ready Awards section needs to be properly referenced. Otherwise the article looks to be in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Lynda Baron
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Evening Standard
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by 90.243.179.12 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by The C of E (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.
90.243.179.12 (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article is well lengthed and sourced. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Short but adequate. Referencing is ok. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. English actress, comedian, and singer. Well-sourced, although exact date of death seems not to have yet been published. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former President of Pakistan Muhammad Rafiq Tarar dies at the age of 92. (Post)
News source(s): Radio Rakistan, GeoTV
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 ninth President of Pakistan. This wikibio is obviously long enough (1000+ words), but it could use more footnotes and maybe some tidying up. PFHLai (talk) 11:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Former world leader, doesn't this get a blurb? Castro and H.W., among many others, got one. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not every former head of state is blurb worthy. Tarir held the role for just 3 years, whereas Castro held it for 46 years. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- So did Gerald Ford, we gave him a blurb. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- That was in 2006 (if we did blurb it, there don't seem to be any easy to find ITN archives for that far back), and shouldn't reflect on how we run things 15 years later. Tarar has been out of the public eye for many years, I don't see him as important enough for a blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- That was before RD started on ITN. Ford's death actually reached ITN before discussions on ITN/C. Those were the days! .... Very different rules back then. --PFHLai (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- So did Gerald Ford, we gave him a blurb. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not every former head of state is blurb worthy. Tarir held the role for just 3 years, whereas Castro held it for 46 years. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Support RD / No Blurb Article length meets the minimum standards for RD but I am not impressed with the level of coverage for the head of state for a country like Pakistan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb figurehead chief of state while a military junta was in place Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Weak support RD, oppose blurb just about enough content to post at RD, though if there's anything that could be added on what he did since 2001, that would be good. Oppose blurb for reasons I mentioned above. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- EXTREMELY strong support RD, could go either way on blurb Pakistan is the 5th largest country in the world by population, its population is about two-thirds that of the USA. This may not be the best article but it does meet minimum RD requirements, and even if Tarar wasn't the most influential Pakistani leader in history, he was still leader of the fifth-largest country. 1779Days (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- My goodness, I was considering !voting to support this RD, but now that someone has given an EXTREMELY strong support, it doesn't seem necessary.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's about equal to 10 supports, I'd say. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support RD, strongly oppose blurb it meets the minimum requirement for RD but definitely doesn’t deserve a blurb, article quality isn’t to blurb standard. He was really just a figurehead and didn’t do anything significant to deserve a blurb. He should be given a RD though. Hamza Ali Shah Talk 14:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Proposed blurb.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 04:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Regarding the blurb: Editors seem to be confused as to the significance of the President/head of state's role in here (as I was). In many parliamentary countries that position is different from the head of government and the President/head of state is merely a ceremonial figure/figurehead (as opposed to cases where the role is amalgamated like in the US).
- As President of Pakistan notes: "The president of Pakistan, officially the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is the ceremonial head of state of Pakistan and the commander-in-chief of the Pakistan Armed Forces"; though the position of the President in Pakistan has been significant but only under dictators such as Pervez Musharraf. The Prime Minister has been the main executive in Pakistan (the only breaks being under dictator presidents) and was somewhat semi-presidential but that was further devolved into parliamentary/premiership under Nawaz Sharif in the 1990s. The last non-dictator/civilian presidents of note were Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Asif Ali Zardari (the latter still alive who even further dissolved the presidency) with prime-ministers of note being Sharif and Yousaf Raza Gillani. Half of Tarar's ceremonial presidency (1998–2001) was during the military dictatorship of Musharraf (1999–2008) when the latter served as the effective head of state. I doubt we have/would post blurbs for figureheads unless quite notable themselves (e.g. Queen Elizabeth II). Gotitbro (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
March 6
March 6, 2022
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
RD: Frank O'Farrell
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (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: Former Leicester and Manchester United manager Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Solid article and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Frank O'Farrell#Honours could use a couple more footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC) BTW, the 1976 Asian Cup is not mentioned in the prose. If this accomplishment can be verified, please add this to the prose. If not, this should be removed from #Honours. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
March 5
March 5, 2022
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
|
March 4
March 4, 2022
(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
|
(Posted) RD: Anne Beaumanoir
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [15] [16]
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Hawkeye7 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jkaharper (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: Comminist, resistance fighter, righteous among nations Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Short but adequate and decently referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Iwan Edwards
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; Montreal Gazette; CTV News
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) 14:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Solid article and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) Peshawar mosque attack
Blurb: An attack at a mosque in Peshawar, Pakistan, kills at least 61 and injuries 196 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Islamic State kill over 60 people at a mosque in Peshawar, Pakistan.
News source(s): NYTimes, CNN, AP, AlJazeera
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Article needs expansion to meet minimum size. Masem (t) 15:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wait ... pending expansion of article, a 75-word stub in terms of info. Although internecine bombings are common in Pakistan, the death toll seems noteworthy. – Sca (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support — ...in principle. Let's see further improvement on the main article. STSC (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality micro stub article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support in principle, oppose on quality. Still need further expansion and the article is still a stub. There's also unresolved merge discussion, both article has essentially same content. Nyanardsan (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb Islamic State have claimed responsibility for this attack, whose death toll is over 60; the most deadly attack in Pakistan since 2018. The article is over 15,000 bytes and good enough to post. Jim Michael (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wait Per Sca. details will inevitably come in in the next few hours/day for a proper page. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose If the 2022 eastern Australia floods was opposed to be in the news, then I don't see why this article is any different. It seems nothing else other than the Russo-Ukraine war is allowed to be on the news hub now.--Caltraser5 (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- I apologize first, but this is a bad argument to be made for opposing a nomination. I dont think opposing other nominations because of personal grudge is helpful in any way. Please maintain good faith. Nyanardsan (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Really? Please read WP:POINT. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 08:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- You all saw fit to discredit that article, so I fail to see by your own logic why this article would not also be treated the same.--Caltraser5 (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems nothing else other than the Russo-Ukraine war is allowed to be on the news hub now.
This is literally the opposite of true. There have been many failed nomination for more content on ITN about Russia/Ukraine, and we have posted 2 other things in the last few hours: the opening of the 2022 Winter Paralympics and the death of Shane Warne. If you're going to assume bad faith about things (which you shouldn't do), at least try and get your facts right. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)- Also, 2022 eastern Australia floods was similar in importance (maybe less widely covered) than Storm Dennis in Western Europe, which didn't get consensus to post either. But 2022 Peshawar mosque attack is more significant, at least in the short term, because of the higher numbers of deaths. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose impact is way lower than the European floods that weren't posted. So not ITN worthy - talk You contradict your own comments, 'not ITN worthy" now you say that this event "is more significant". We're not talking about this article, it was in reference to the Sumatran earthquake which was granted news headline, THAT was what my comments were in relation to. Which you promptly ignored and stated "not ITN worthy". You can't have it both ways, you ignored the context of my initial statement and then word-twisted it to be about the Russo-Ukraine war which I merely made as a passing comment, but ignored my actual statement.--Caltraser5 (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's sensible to compare 2 natural disasters, it's not sensible to compare a natural disaster with an act of terrorism. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose impact is way lower than the European floods that weren't posted. So not ITN worthy - talk You contradict your own comments, 'not ITN worthy" now you say that this event "is more significant". We're not talking about this article, it was in reference to the Sumatran earthquake which was granted news headline, THAT was what my comments were in relation to. Which you promptly ignored and stated "not ITN worthy". You can't have it both ways, you ignored the context of my initial statement and then word-twisted it to be about the Russo-Ukraine war which I merely made as a passing comment, but ignored my actual statement.--Caltraser5 (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also, 2022 eastern Australia floods was similar in importance (maybe less widely covered) than Storm Dennis in Western Europe, which didn't get consensus to post either. But 2022 Peshawar mosque attack is more significant, at least in the short term, because of the higher numbers of deaths. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – Continued coverage Friday, but article remains thin. [17] [18] – Sca (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- What does the article need that it doesn't currently include? Jim Michael (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- More text. Narrative prose still amounts to about 170 words. – Sca (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Anything specific? If says what happened. It has a reactions article. It's a lot longer than 170 words - do you mean the length of the Attack section only? Jim Michael (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's a stub. Period. – Sca (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't - it's well into start class. Jim Michael (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- One hundred and seventy-four words of narrative text (minus contents and 75 words of background) is a STUB. – Sca (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't - it's well into start class. Jim Michael (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Why the f'ing f is the reaction article separate????????? Seriously????? --Masem (t) 16:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- You'd have to ask the creator, although I guess it's because there have been many reactions. Jim Michael (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've boldly merged the reactions into the main attack article, which then resolves the size issue. --Masem (t) 18:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- There are six sentences on the attack itself and aftermath, that is not enough to be considered a good enough quality article. You can add as many reactions as you want, but reactions aren't article content that demonstrates a decent enough article quality. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've boldly merged the reactions into the main attack article, which then resolves the size issue. --Masem (t) 18:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- You'd have to ask the creator, although I guess it's because there have been many reactions. Jim Michael (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's a stub. Period. – Sca (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Anything specific? If says what happened. It has a reactions article. It's a lot longer than 170 words - do you mean the length of the Attack section only? Jim Michael (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- More text. Narrative prose still amounts to about 170 words. – Sca (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- What does the article need that it doesn't currently include? Jim Michael (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality per Joseph2302 ("There are six sentences on the attack itself and aftermath, that is not enough to be considered a good enough quality article.") Tradediatalk 20:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Theres a whole section that says there were two attackers, followed by a footnote that says there might have only been one. There are unsourced sentences and fragments, and the quality of prose is poor and/or ungrammatical in places. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Besides all that, this is yet another in a long line of screwy articles that intentionally conflates Amaq News Agency, an IS affiliate, with IS itself. The intent is based in the belief that we should make the same mistakes our sources do, same as facts, paying no editorial mind to any internal contradictions that create reasonable doubt, just shut up and copy the headline, "ISIS claims responsibility". An arguably solid stance, but still screwy. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- How else can we say which attacks IS claims? Amaq is how they make such statements. Jim Michael (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's the standard excuse, but it's as screwy as the first time I read it. Amaq makes the claim, citing "sources", speaking of the Caliphate and its soldier in the third person, nothing about "we", "us" or "I". But Rita Katz sells it as is, and the "reliable" sources inevitably twist it into something a Wikipedian like you feels OK in using to unwittingly corrupt another article. I hate this game. But not its players, especially those who honestly know not what they do. But maybe attribute the claim to the same outlet CNN does, without misrepresenting it as them? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- How else can we say which attacks IS claims? Amaq is how they make such statements. Jim Michael (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, page contains 'Reactions' section with an unencyclopedic flag salad list. Abductive (reasoning) 02:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- The flags represent the countries' governments, so they're valid. You're all welcome to improve the article. Jim Michael (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- They know that. The "reactions" flag salad is a systemic issue with the way INT articles get built. These are readily available in news accounts, so they often come to overwhelm articles with less substantive detail available. A properly written encyclopedia article would not mention the PR statements of other nations, much less be dominated by them. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- While I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly, that's an issue with the format of event-related articles and not with this specific article's inclusion in ITN. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- They know that. The "reactions" flag salad is a systemic issue with the way INT articles get built. These are readily available in news accounts, so they often come to overwhelm articles with less substantive detail available. A properly written encyclopedia article would not mention the PR statements of other nations, much less be dominated by them. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- The flags represent the countries' governments, so they're valid. You're all welcome to improve the article. Jim Michael (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. I have done the best I can with my limited familiarity with the subject matter. I very much urge those with a greater familiarity with how this should be presented and the nuances of writing about such events look over it. Also, currently, there is one sentence in background missing a citation. I cannot spent more time on this article than I already have due to personal deadlines I'm ignoring. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted article has been improved suffienctly to appease those opposing on quality grounds. Stephen 05:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm no happier about my problem with it, but that didn't stop a dozen or so other Amaq-related stories, so there's no reason to pull now. Just saying, for the record. I do like the improvements! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment An image would be appreciated to override the current one. If someone knows of an image and can post it to the article, that would be a good first step.--TZubiri (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) Blurb: Shane Warne
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): [19][20][21]
Credits:
- Nominated by ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Eviolite (talk · give credit), Abishe (talk · give credit), Lugnuts (talk · give credit), Solipsism 101 (talk · give credit) and KingKlaus07 (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: One of the most famous cricketers of all time ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment needs a lot more sources. Also worth considering a blurb for this- he is one of the greatest cricketers of all time. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Saw the news pop up on Twitter, thinking it was a hoax. Sad day for Australian cricket. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely a blurb should be considered. An unexpected death of one of the most famous and successful cricketers ever.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- This definitely deserves a blurb, if the article gets up to scratch. Steelkamp (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Second highest wicket taker in Test match history. An icon, A legend. Definitely deserves a blurb. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- The equivalent of Lou Gehrig or Babe Ruth passing away today. Definitely blurb worthy.2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:A4F7:A763:4009:B28D (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- This is one of the rare cases where I think a blurb is justified - 700 Test wickets at an average of 25 is among the best in history, and his death was certainly unexpected. Unfortunately the article has patchy quality - much of it is fine, but there are parts without references or that mix his sporting accomplishments with his turbulent personal life. I think we can overlook a handful of {{cn}} tags, but not entire paragraphs/sections without references. Needs some tidying up before posting. Modest Genius talk 15:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Update: I oppose alt1. Marsh was not as significant a figure and would not merit a blurb on his own. Modest Genius talk 17:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not Ready for the usual reason. Would support a blurb once the article is up to standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Though Marsh was older and not as legendary, I have added an altblurb proposal mentioning both. Kingsif (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support the original blurb but oppose the alternative blurb. I don't think Marsh deserves a blurb and there's no reason to let him sponge on Warne's fame.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support original blurb One of the most influential cricketers in history (and I say that as an Englishman). Certainly notable enough for a blurb and article appears ready. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support original blurb absolutely 100%. A globally recognizable and accomplished sportsman was Warne.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Alt The coincidence is unusual, but each natural death of a famous person is pretty much like the other, double or nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- The alt is not verified, as Warne's is a suspected heart attack. 100% we should not be claiming a cause of death that is unproved, and currently only suspected. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Well then Deaths in 2022 needs to sort out its verifiability, and avoid WP:SPECULATION. Because every source lists it as a "suspected heart attack" and so it is WP:SPECULATION to suggest that the cause of death has been confirmed when it hasn't. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe you're right. But most sources also mention Marsh. The blurb should explain why Warne was better than Marsh (or just among the best). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support original blurb Legendary leg spinner and second greatest spinner of all time in test cricket. He played in the greatest ever Australian team. Two tragic deaths related to Australian cricket on a same day. Abishe (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support original blurb once the article is ready. Truly shocking news. RIP. Ktin (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support original blurb when the article is up to scratch. There are not many sportspeople who I feel deserve a blurb, but Warne was truly one of the greatest cricketers of all time. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Support and IAR post right now. A middle aged cricketer who retired 15 years ago and is one of 106 people in the Cricket Hall of Fame is super important and needs to get a blurb in the box ASAP. This will still be making headlines a week from now so it makes sense to use a blurb for this. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- I know you're being sarcastic but he is not being proposed for a blurb for his membership of the Cricket Hall of Fame but for the way he revolutionized spin bowling. Certainly top of his field.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support I do not have any concern about the quality of the article at this time; and the significance of this is very clear. Truly shocking. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support, A notable and famous person in cricket. Alex-h (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support ALT0 article is good enough now, so this looks ready to me now. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support original blurb One of the greatest cricketers in history (and I too say that as an Englishman). Easily notable enough for a blurb. (Marsh should not be included in the blurb because although he too was a great cricketer he was not on the same level as Warne.)--A bit iffy (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Marked as ready. Consensus is strongly in favor of the original blurb and the article looks OK. Calidum 17:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support original blurb. Arguably meets both the "major figure" and "death is the story" criteria.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- If there's a story, the blurb should tell it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Shorthand for exceptional news coverage. Most RD candidates don't have live news blogs accompanying them.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- "Major figures" do. A story is events, a setting and consequences. This is a job description and age. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Shorthand for exceptional news coverage. Most RD candidates don't have live news blogs accompanying them.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- If there's a story, the blurb should tell it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- NOT READY I have removed the ready, there are TONS of CNs still in the article, in "Playing style and influence" and the section below. --Masem (t) 18:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose blurbNeutral - I highly doubt that if Tom Brady died of a heart attack in a decade, he would be posted with a blurb. This appears around the same benchmark level. Not sure what is so special here when he's not an active player. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- If Tom Brady dies in 10 years, I would support posting, for exactly the same reason: he's one of the greatest ever in his sport. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hmmm, true. I'm going to strike my oppose. After second thought, I'd hope someone like Wayne Gretzky would get a blurb when he dies, no matter the circumstance or age. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The quantity of missing references is significant at the moment. No need to rush it. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support original blurb It's likely that Warne is more famous than Tom Brady in the English-speaking world. His record-breaking performances were top sports news to about 2 billion people (the population of English-speaking countries that played with or against him), six times the US population. For another comparison, try Pelé (may he live long).82.14.95.59 (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support (original blurb) and marked ready again I think that's all the CN tags done. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support blurb: unexpected, top of his field, and definitely a transformative figure. I supported the blurb for Tom Brady so it would be wrong if I opposed this. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 20:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted blurb - quality seems to have been sorted out, and I see a broad consensus for blurbing. — Amakuru (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Pull per WP:GORDIEHOWE. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- That was six years ago though. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 08:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- That was pulled because the posting admin had voted in support. Black Kite (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wow. I hadn't seen that Gordie Howe discussion before today. What an embarrassment. The #2 great in a sport played around the world. Pulling his blurb was an alarming display of ignorance by the Wikipedia community. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's a bit off-topic, but I think the main reason Howe got pulled was because of the failure to blurb the death of Johan Cruyff three months earlier. I think people felt that it was a double standard. Of course, both of them should have been posted really. Effy Midwinter (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Here's the Cruyff discussion, if anyone's interested in seeing how badly ITN/C can go wrong. Effy Midwinter (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Pull, only people whose death/funeral could support a standalone article should get a blurb. Otherwise its an embarrassment to the Front Page. Abductive (reasoning) 01:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is no Death of Desmond Tutu or Death of Sidney Poitier or Death of Betty White or Death of Thích Nhất Hạnh or Death of Lata Mangeshkar. Steelkamp (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- But there could have been. Abductive (reasoning) 03:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- None of them would justify an article about their deaths. However, I don't think we should have an inclusion bar that high for blurbs. Jim Michael (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Impact considerations should be reserved for the person's death. Abductive (reasoning) 03:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Otherstuffexists. And it should be how RD blurbs work. Abductive (reasoning) 03:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Otherstuffexists. And it should be how RD blurbs work. Abductive (reasoning) 03:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Impact considerations should be reserved for the person's death. Abductive (reasoning) 03:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Seems that only Americans typically get pulled.—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Specifically, Americans posted while Europeans were asleep:) Here there was plenty of time for all corners of the globe to weigh in and I don't think there's any question there was consensus to post. (Also one of the two Pull votes was from an editor who had previously voted "Strong Support"...) Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Seems that only Americans typically get pulled.—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support original blurb and posting per all the above (but as a Global Citizen and subject of none). Also noting that, surely, one of the supports was gentle trolling...? SN54129 13:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – Shane Warne's photo as currently paginated looks startlingly overlarge for a mug in the context of our quite small ITN box. (A war pic. from Ukraine would be much more appropriate given the ITN's contents today.) – Sca (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- ITN is not a newsticker, we do not give preference to any specific story. Having a pic for the current top blurb is standard practice. --Masem (t) 16:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but please explain why it has to be so big. The same pic could simply be reduced in px (picas). →
As presently paginated, it violates the Looks Funny rule. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)- It looks the same as any other portrait photo used on ITN, at least for me. "Looks funny" is subjective and also likely depends on the device, browser and version of Wikipedia (desktop, app, mobile) being used. Not sure there's anything actionable here? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but please explain why it has to be so big. The same pic could simply be reduced in px (picas). →
- Well, it's not subjective if you're laying out the item – you go by the number of picas after jpg|thumb (or just jpg| if it's not taking a caption/nameline, which this one isn't).
Since ordinary users can't edit the main page, I can't tell how wide the mug actually is. But if as you say it's just the usual, then I guess it's my imagination. Still, to me it seems somehow to dominate the box and almost the main page itself. Maybe it's his ruddy complexion? Oh well. – Sca (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it's not subjective if you're laying out the item – you go by the number of picas after jpg|thumb (or just jpg| if it's not taking a caption/nameline, which this one isn't).
(Closed) Fire breaks out at Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant
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: Fire breaks out at Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Count Iblis (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose It was a peripheral building (now secured, unexploded). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose — The fire has been extinguished. Amen. STSC (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose – Fire's out, per Reuters. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
(Posted) RD: Rod Marsh
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC Australia, BBC, News.com.au
Credits:
- Nominated by Craig Andrew1 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Abishe (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: Cricket Legend. Craig Andrew1 (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- @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)
Wait Just a few sentences uncited. Otherwise, the article is good. Steelkamp (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)- Support Article is fully sourced now. Steelkamp (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I have expanded a bit and added references. Looks set now. Abishe (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support great job sourcing the article, as it was woefully undersourced at the time his death was announced, and now is well sourced (just 9 hours later). More than good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support article is well sourced now. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) 2022 Winter Paralympics
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): [22], [23], [24], [25]
Credits:
- Nominated by Propork3455 (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.
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)
- Support, but move "Russia invades Ukraine" to the top position. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- We don't do that here. ITN operates on reverse chronological order. WaltCip-(talk) 03:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- We don't do that here. ITN operates on reverse chronological order. WaltCip-(talk) 03:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Original unconditionally. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose First we are not sure whether XJP is going to be appear in the opening ceremony and "open" it, second there are considerable aspects of this paralympic that are more notable than XJP opening it even if he do (See my nomination below). C933103 (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support - An ITN/R event and the article meets the minimum quality requirement. STSC (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wait until it happens. Then update the article. Also mention the fact Russia(n Olympic Committee) and Belarus have been kicked out. Kingsif (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality the biggest amount of text in the article is on Russia and Belarus, not the Games itself. And mascot section is poorly sourced. Wait until opening ceremony happens, and then add a summary to that section (which is currently 1 sentence), before posting. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Points have been addressed. STSC (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- The sourcing has been fixed, but the article is still way too short in general. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also, ALT1 is our normal blurb style for this event, and ALT2 seems fine too. ALT0 is unsourced in the article (no source there says that Xi is opening it). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Points have been addressed. STSC (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - The Neutral Paralympic Athletes article (the Russian delegation) may be redirected/deleted, as that's being discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#Belarus_and_Russia, so in that case both delegation links in blurb II would be redirects. - Simeon (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The event hasn't happened yet and, in these "special" circumstances, it may not go to schedule so WP:CRYSTAL applies. And the similar case of the 2022 Winter Olympics closing ceremony shows that quality updates cannot be relied upon. That event is two weeks old but its article is still in a dire state with muddled tenses, ungrammatical language, empty sections, unsourced sections and more. But we're still linking to it on the main page and running it day after day. It's embarrassing to be highlighting such junk while we're ignoring the real news. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Highly notable sports event that started today.BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support alt2 Now the opening ceremony has happened, the bold main article in alt2 has a sufficient update on this, and is sourced. Also suggest closing the below nomination as it is covered by this one. Kingsif (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support, An important and notable sport event and good article. Alex-h (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb 1 Important global sports event. Alt 2 is certainly newsworthy; I wonder if it is undue though maybe it could be added. -TenorTwelve (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support alt 2, the exclusion of Russia and Belarus is noteworthy and merits a mention in the blurb. Nsk92 (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support alt 1 as the usual way this is announced. Blurbs are best when they are short and sweet, and the details about Russia and Belarus are better covered in the article than by making the blurb too long. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 06:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
March 3
March 3, 2022
(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
|
(Posted) RD: Tim Considine
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; Associated Press; The Hollywood Reporter
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) 02:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Length (700+ words of prose) Formatting Deployment of Footnotes Coverage . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Solid article and well referenced. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Brian Fawcett
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Prince George Citizen; Prince George Daily News
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: First reported today (March 3); died on February 27 (i.e. provable gap of at least two days). —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Length (600+ words of prose) Formatting Deployment of Footnotes Coverage . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 23:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
RD: Valeriy Chybineyev
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [26]
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by TJMSmith (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 sniper who served as commander of the sniper battalion in the 79th Air Assault Brigade. Died in the battle of Hostomel. TJMSmith (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. AGF foreign language sources. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Needs More Pronouns "Chybineyev" is a ten-letter word. We get it, means he himself in English. Some info on what killed him would be good, too, if known (and an entry at Deaths in 2022, if feeling ambitious). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- I worked on the pronouns. I've added what I saw in sources about his death. Not sure if the exact manner is known (publicly or otherwise) at this point. TJMSmith (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Everything seems to be in order here. Notable war death. Yakikaki (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Length (almost 400 words of prose) Formatting Deployment of Footnotes Coverage . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Walter Mears
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press
Credits:
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Doc Strange (talk · give credit) and Sunshineisles2 (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 journalist and author. Pulitzer Prize winner. Thriley (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Could use some work on referencing, particularly the Personal life section (he got married 4 times!). --PFHLai (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like referencing issues have been fixed. Thriley (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. Deployment of Footnotes . Length (1000+ words of prose) . Coverage . Formatting . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) 2022 Winter Paralympics
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: Russian and Belarusian athletes have been expelled from 2022 Winter Paralympics. (Post)
News source(s): CNN
- Oppose lots of similar events have happened, and I don't see why we should single this one out. Besides, it's all part of the wider story of the invasion, which is already on ITN. Banedon (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Russia and Belarus have been expelled from loads of sports events, and this one is generating a similar amount of coverage to any other (e.g. Russia, including all its club teams, being banned from all UEFA/FIFA football matches has generated more coverage). So not sure why it's more newsworthy/ITN-worthy. On the other hand, it's much more news than the Winter Olympics closing on 20 February (but the crap and outdatedness of other ITN stories isn't a reason to post this). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Comment Perhaps we can include this in the blurb on tomorrow's opening ceremony.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support This is the first time in history when IOC unilaterally expelled a country from the olympics over a non-sports related issue (i.e. an issue that wasn't related to doping or financing the olympics), right? If so, this is a huge precedent and a 180 degree turnaround to the previous policy of keeping politics out of sport. Hence, my support Daikido (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Daiko. Also, as much as I hate the invasion, this is incredibly unfair to the atheletes. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose There have been many unprecedented decisions, in the last week. The specifics of Russia/Belarus being banned are more components of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and 2022 Winter Paralympics, respectively, which will likely both be included, by Friday, when the Paralympics start. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose — Unnecessary content fork. STSC (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Requesting a pin at the "Ongoing" tab, i.e. Russian Invasion of Ukraine as an ongoing act, as seen by conflict dating back to 2014.--1233 ( T / C) 17:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe we can simplify this and simply say "The 2022 Winter Paralympics have begun in Beijing." Propork3455 (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support - unprecedented. BilledMammal (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment this nomination seems redundant to today's ITN post for the Paralympics above (which is an ITNR event, and will get posted). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) Expanding Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint (March edition)
Blurb: Russia continues their 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, BBC
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)
- Support – Event is significant enough to warant a large blurb. – Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment It's a major news event and there's undoubtedly a lot to it, but it is a link to the full page, which has all of the information, rather than a slightly-extended blurb. If it's going to be extended, what do you include and leave out? — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment What are we doing? Are we updating the blurb and bumping it back to the top of the ticker? Or are we just amending it?--WaltCip-(talk) 14:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- And why do we need to repeat a section from Feb 28 that is still open?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- I just closed discussion of the "#(Closed) Expanding Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint" down below #February 28. This can be the discussion location for the blurb. -- RobLa (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- And why do we need to repeat a section from Feb 28 that is still open?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support and bump this back to the top, replacing the other Ukraine/Russia blurb. This is the most in the news of the items featured, so should have the most prominent position in the ITN box. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC
- Support blurb although I think the best possible blurb would the blurb mixed with altblurb2. Restating my original support from February 28. Flameperson (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would also like to state that I oppose any bumping to the back of ITN. If that happens I would support the article going straight to Ongoing Flameperson (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support blurb per User:Flameperson 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose We are not a newsticker, and there is little to really update on this or give extra weight to. This will be in ongoing when it is time so readers will still see it. --Masem (t) 15:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Why not update the ITN blurb itself rather than forcing the reader to search for something relevant and informative among the small-type headings on the left side of the page? Our continued display of the obviously outdated (and boring) ITN blurb does not serve readers one bit. – Sca (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- First we are not a newspaper and readers coming here to find news of the invasion are going to the wrong place. Second, a short phrase in ongoing will standout more that this long blurb if readers are scanning the ITN box for this. --Masem (t) 16:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Why not update the ITN blurb itself rather than forcing the reader to search for something relevant and informative among the small-type headings on the left side of the page? Our continued display of the obviously outdated (and boring) ITN blurb does not serve readers one bit. – Sca (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Tentatively support But I don't think we should set the precedent of posting the same blurb (russia invades ukraine) twice, hence, I propose the following blurb: As unprecedented Western sanctions cause an economic crisis in Russia, the country continues it's invasion of Ukraine, encountering widespread resistance Daikido (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support altblurb4 added by Daikido due to previous statements made by me in this section Flameperson (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support original blurb - the first proposed blurb above is the best worded blurb, easy to understand and to the point. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ongoing every single day we're considering one more mor changes to this blurb just pull the blurb and park it in ongoing and move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose — The ITN blurb points to the event; just read the related articles for any updates. STSC (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The blurb is fine as it is, and where it is. We are not a news ticker.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Partial support I think the first suggested blurb and altblurb3 is fine because they relate to things that have clearly happened and probably aren't going to change any time soon (western sanctions, UN condemnation, Russian economic crisis). The other blurb's all seem to be getting to wrapped up in the details of the conflict on the ground which could quickly become out of date.Llewee (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per STSC & Pawnkingthree. The current blurb is succinct and to the point. Anyone wanting further information can go to the linked article. While I fully share the near universal indignation over these events, it must be remembered that we are not a news ticker nor are we to use the project to channel our (fully justified) outrage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agree here. We probably all agree what's happening to Ukraine is inhumane and there is justified outrage over it but this is still an encyclopedia with a strong neutrality function, and trying to give excessive coverage of this conflict, compared to numerous ones in Africa, the Middle East,, or elsewhere, shows our bias. We know this will go to a blurb and stay for a while, no need to be upset.over it not getting more ITN coverage. --Masem (t) 20:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Alternative blurb IV. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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) –→
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose IV which frame the issue as West vs Russia. C933103 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. In my opinion, the Sumatran earthquake currently has undue weight, with the top bullet, 12 words, and a photo. In my opinion, the Ukraine invasion is clearly the bigger news item. I support any attempts to increase the weight of the Ukraine invasion by adding words, adding photos, or moving it to the top bullet. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Blurbs are always given in reverse chrono order to avoid any bias. --Masem (t) 20:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose IV under any circumstances - Dreadful non-neutral blurb. Wikipedia should not be a mouthpiece for editorial outrage.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- So, how about supporting alt1, alt2 or alt3? – Sca (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support blurb Much better blurb than the one we have now. I prefer the first one. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose change to blurb. How many times do we have to keep arguing the same thing? The blurb will roll down the page until it hits ongoing. Or we can also move it to ongoing now, if that's preferred. What we should not do, and what we have never done for any blurb ever - even Covid - is to keep revamping it and tweaking it to update for the daily changes in the situation. That's exactly what ongoing is for, and this war, while tragic for all concerned, is not so far elevated above all the other wars and events in the world that we need to carve out a brand new rule for it. I suggest we start speedy closing these nominations soon because they are generating more heat than light. — Amakuru (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Pull, Commence Ongoing Put it in front of COVID. Or after COVID. Either way, it'll have the prominence it so apparently needs. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Move to Ongoing As much as it's not a normal move as things stand the current format of the Ukrainian Invasion piece is going to be way too contentious as far as people requesting several and frequent changes. I think a move to Ongoing right now is the best way to handle this. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- How Panglossian of you. Clearly, "all is for the best" in the "best of all possible worlds."
Furthermore, as has long been widely known, "Whatever is, is right." – Sca (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- How Panglossian of you. Clearly, "all is for the best" in the "best of all possible worlds."
- Support any of the proposed blurbs, with a preference for the first. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support any proposed blurb, and bump this back to the top. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 05:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose IV per WaltCip and others - not only does the blurb look like a Russia vs West war, the sentence structure kind of suggests Western sanctions are the reason Russia invaded Ukraine. And with so much gp confusion over Putin's motives, you never know who'll believe it. Kingsif (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Altblurb III. The other altblurbs editorialize too much ("West vs. Russia!" despite this conflict being more complicated, "widespread resistance!" despite widespread, though costly, Russian advances). Altblurb 3 is a factual, representative of a worldwide view, since it is the UN General Assembly, while also providing somewhat of an update. According to Emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly, these special sessions are relatively rare, with the first 9 being between 1956 and 1982, the 10th, having 17 passed resolutions between 1997 and 2018, though with a nearly 10-year gap between 1998 and 2018. However, a link to the resolution itself, United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1 and/or the session article Eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly should be added. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done – Sca (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support – The No. 1 story worldwide. The old ITN blurb is egregiously outdated. Favor alt3 as the most informative, but alt1 or alt2 would be fine. too. – Sca (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support alt3. Per previous discussions, I do think we need to update the blurb, as the war has moved on from the initial invasion. The UN resolution is the biggest of the diplomatic responses, and it's hard to pick out an individual military event to highlight, so that seems to be the best option for a blurb update. Oppose the other suggestions as WP:EDITORIAL. Modest Genius talk 15:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- In this instance I have to disagree with my modest friend. Alt1 and alt2 aren't editorializing. There's nothing POV about "widespread" – it's meant purely as a descriptive geographic term. Of course it has military or political ramifications, but that's simply a result of what has actually taken place on the ground in the last 10 days. – Sca (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support ALT3, and marking as ready. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support any of the blurbs, per above. We have many MP-ready articles related to the invasion article and we should link at least one of them. Davey2116 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support I'd prefer ALT3 but any of these blurbs is fine. Blythwood (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. Alt blurb III seemed like the least controversial. -- RobLa (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Photo? -- I've added a suggested photo from the Battle of Kyiv (2022) article. My condolenses to Shane Warne's friends, family, and fans; however, it seems to me that his death shouldn't overshadow this invasion. I may not have chosen the best photo with File:Russian bombardment of telecommunications antennas in Kiev.jpg, but I think one of the better photos we have should be used. -- RobLa (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:ITNPICT, the picture is generally associated with the top-most blurb, and blurbs are listed chronogically. Both Warne and the Paralympics are the same date.—Bagumba (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- The Warne pic. as currently paginated is way too big for an ITN mug. And obviously, a Ukraine war photo would be of greater interest than a mere mug anyway. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:ITNPICT, the picture is generally associated with the top-most blurb, and blurbs are listed chronogically. Both Warne and the Paralympics are the same date.—Bagumba (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks to all who helped make the updated blurb possible. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this have bumped the item to the top, over Warne? - Floydian τ ¢ 15:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- The condemnation is from March 2, fresher than the February 24 invasion, but still staler than both March 4 events. It's not about what's hotter. Never has been. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Given some of my earliest edits to the pages that became Portal:Current events, I would appreciate not being lectured by relative newcomers like you (User:InedibleHulk) nor User:Masem about the history of how current events have been handled on English Wikipedia, and I certainly don't think that any of the three of us are qualified to know what the 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 people (or bots or whatever) who currently load "Main page" of English Wikipedia into their browser each day in 2022, per the stats on "Main Page". It could be that thousands (if not millions) of them use it as a news ticker. Certainly, I'll glance at the "In the news" box from time-to-time to see what's going on the world. As User:TZubiri is suggesting, "Screen real estate is important", and we should consider what is important to feature on the homepage of English Wikipedia. What are people visiting Wikipedia to learn? -- RobLa (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't remember even talking to you before, and have no interest in lecturing you now. I don't know why people come here, you're right. Carry on! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- My apologies for my cranky tone, User:InedibleHulk, and sorry for accusing you specifically for "lecturing" me. The topic of how we should deliver Current events has long been a subject of debate (since well before the advent of Wikinews). When you stated "It's not about what's hotter. Never has been", that got under my skin a little bit (especially after User:Masem's comment below). In my mind, the "In The News" section seems to have been about drawing people to the most important articles about current events, and taking advantage of the fact that both editors and readers of Wikipedia are bound to be suddenly drawn to important news. However, like I said, every one of those 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 pageviews (per day) is for a different reason, and it's hard to know why. -- RobLa (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- No worries, RobLa, nice to memorably meet you. I also think that's the point here, important current events. But variety is cool, too, and some people find Shane Warne's death and the Paralympics important. Maybe over three million, maybe fewer, but some. A number of others are almost 100% tuned into the war, day in and day out, and that's a fine choice. I don't think a portrait of an Australian is going to overshadow the favoured link for these people, only maybe temporarily distract them. A second later, they'll have literally more info on the Ukraine deal than they can digest. Did you see it got a video clip here earlier? I'll never say "never" again, but I don't remember anything else getting that special shine since 2013 (or whenever the cat dragged me in). Besides, this time, the UN resolution is the event, and (in my opinion) if you've seen one assembly hall or non-binding document, you've "seen them all". See you around! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- My apologies for my cranky tone, User:InedibleHulk, and sorry for accusing you specifically for "lecturing" me. The topic of how we should deliver Current events has long been a subject of debate (since well before the advent of Wikinews). When you stated "It's not about what's hotter. Never has been", that got under my skin a little bit (especially after User:Masem's comment below). In my mind, the "In The News" section seems to have been about drawing people to the most important articles about current events, and taking advantage of the fact that both editors and readers of Wikipedia are bound to be suddenly drawn to important news. However, like I said, every one of those 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 pageviews (per day) is for a different reason, and it's hard to know why. -- RobLa (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't remember even talking to you before, and have no interest in lecturing you now. I don't know why people come here, you're right. Carry on! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Given some of my earliest edits to the pages that became Portal:Current events, I would appreciate not being lectured by relative newcomers like you (User:InedibleHulk) nor User:Masem about the history of how current events have been handled on English Wikipedia, and I certainly don't think that any of the three of us are qualified to know what the 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 people (or bots or whatever) who currently load "Main page" of English Wikipedia into their browser each day in 2022, per the stats on "Main Page". It could be that thousands (if not millions) of them use it as a news ticker. Certainly, I'll glance at the "In the news" box from time-to-time to see what's going on the world. As User:TZubiri is suggesting, "Screen real estate is important", and we should consider what is important to feature on the homepage of English Wikipedia. What are people visiting Wikipedia to learn? -- RobLa (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- The condemnation is from March 2, fresher than the February 24 invasion, but still staler than both March 4 events. It's not about what's hotter. Never has been. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this have bumped the item to the top, over Warne? - Floydian τ ¢ 15:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Suggested as error - by User:TZubiri at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. I'm confused by the changes proposed there, and disinclined to move the discussion over to that page. Given that many more Ukrainians have died in combat since Shane Warne's death, I'm also disappointed in the process that led to his picture overshadowing the events in Ukraine. -- RobLa (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- ITN is not a newsticker, again. We are not posting important news story, but instead featuring articles that are in the news that are also representative of high quality articles. --Masem (t) 02:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- As I suggested in my cranky comment above, we don't know why English Wikipedia gets 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 pageviews per day on the homepage. But can be reasonably sure it's less than the 10,000,000+ pageviews per day that it used to get. Can we please make sure that the "In The News" section stays relevant to English speakers all over the world, so that the number doesn't continue to decline, and Wikipedia fade into irrelevance? -- RobLa (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- ITN is not a newsticker, again. We are not posting important news story, but instead featuring articles that are in the news that are also representative of high quality articles. --Masem (t) 02:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Screen real estate is important. But in order to avoid conflict with the rejected proposal to include the UN General assembly I propose the next most popular blurb, the original one. I think the other page is more appropriate because consensus has already been successfully established, now it's just a matter of implementing that consensus (a legislative to executive division if you will)--TZubiri (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Per this BBC report, the invasion is still on going (as of the 6th of March UTC). I'm going to follow User:TZubiri's suggestion and switch back to a very minor modification to my original blurb "Russia continues their invasion of Ukraine, leading to international sanctions and a financial crisis in Russia." I modified the "
blurb=
" parameter of the "ITN candidate" template accordingly. -- RobLa (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)- I've undone your unilateral change. There is no consensus to bump the blurb, and no consensus to alter the blurb any further. Stephen 08:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Reverted by User:Stephen, who seems to believe there was no consensus, and that I acted unilaterally (despite following User:TZubiri's suggestion). -- RobLa (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done Perhaps they saw a problem in the order of the events? Whatever I'm backing off here, a good attempt was made at following the will of the votes, but with so many hands and votes it's not always perfect, it seems sensible to stick with what was originally published, it is the stable version after all, and there was some support for that blurb. It'll be changed by another proposal eventually, hopefully another event or a transition to the ongoing section. --TZubiri (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Echo of Moscow
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: Echo of Moscow, the oldest independent Russian radio station, has been closed (Post)
News source(s): The Moscow Times, The Washington Post, Al Jazeera
- 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)
- 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)
- Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. WaltCip-(talk) 13:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. WaltCip-(talk) 13:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support We've posted it when Russia closed the Memorial. Echo is so much bigger in Russia. Most people havent even heard of the memorial until the closure, but Echo is a household name. They were also pretty much the last major domestic oppositionary media operating in the country. Hence, my support. Daikido (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Amakuru. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose In the context of what has been going on, i.e. Kyiv TV Tower being hit by a missile as part of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Echo of Moscow being blocked from the air and closing, as has happened to numerous stations, is not quite the same. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose — Insignificant event. STSC (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support We posted "the closing of Stand News of Hong Kong". We also posted "the closing of Citizen News of Hong Kong". This event here is just as important.Tradediatalk 20:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support for Tradedia Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Tradedia. BilledMammal (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Tradedia. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 05:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Tradedia. C933103 (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Tradedia. Thriley (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Amakuru. Characteristic of the repressive autocracy of Kim Jong Putin's Russia, but just a footnote to the larger war story. – Sca (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose of the five most recent Russia/Ukraine ITN nominations, this is the one that is the least ITN-worthy. The other noms are about a country being invaded, one radio station closing is nothing in comparison to this. In Hong Kong, it was one of the most noteworthy events at that time, but that is certainly not the case here. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Thermobaric weapon
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: Russia have been accused of using thermobaric weapons in their invasion of Ukraine. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
- Oppose as WP:SPECULATION. They've been accused, but it's not been confirmed, and certainly not clear what the impact and newsworthiness of this is. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose even if confirmed - since from the article it's hardly the first time thermobaric weapons have been used in war. Banedon (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose I am unsure if we should have posted this even if this was somehow 100% confirmed (is this the first time this type of weapon has been used in combat?; i'm pretty sure the US used them against the Taliban in afghanistan). but this is not 100%, not by any stretch. We can't just post speculation, no matter how good it makes us feel about ourselves. Daikido (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Alleged, and insignificant. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose In the context of highlighting it, while there are many other more widespread facets of the invasion, I think it's less noteworthy on its own (if it is confirmed/verifed). — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:22, 3 March 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: