Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
![]() | Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
![]() |
---|
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 24
March 24, 2020
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Science and technology
Sports
|
(Pulled) 2020 Summer Olympics postponed
Blurb: The 2020 Summer Olympics will be postponed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The International Olympic Committee announce that the Olympic Games planned for this summer will be postponed for one year
News source(s): Guardian BBC IOC
Credits:
- Nominated by RockinJack18 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Pretty major sporting event, worldwide. I remember someone saying that this should be the only event that should be ITN if postponed. --Rockin 19:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Wait only because (after searching for confirmation) this is one IOC member saying this. Wait until the official IOC statement. --Masem (t) 19:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- To be clear, as from the BBC story [1] "The International Olympic Committee has given itself four weeks to decide on the future of this summer's Games, but veteran IOC member Pound says a decision will be announced soon. "It will come in stages," he said. "We will postpone this and begin to deal with all the ramifications of moving this, which are immense." So just wait for the "stage 1" announcement. --Masem (t) 19:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Wait for a statement from the IOC, this is just one member(who may certainly know, but doesn't speak for the group as a whole). 331dot (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Wait as premature per Masem and 331dot. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Just close this now It obviously hasn't happened yet. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Reopened. Now confirmed per sources above. Black Kite (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Japan'sPM confirmed it. Starzoner (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Now it's official. Let's get it up there. Quick, quick, hurry!!--WaltCip (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've written a present-tense blurb that avoids calling it the 2020 Games, as this will now be the 2021 Games. --LukeSurl t c 12:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Article has not been updated sufficiently as of right now. Fix the article and its lead to actually reflect the latest information, and then I can support this. --Jayron32 12:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support but only if the blurb also links to Dick Pound for some cheap laughs in these bleak times. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I've
made an edit request to updateupdated the page. Kingsif (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC) - Comment Given the official confirmation I have gone ahead and lowered the protection level to semi-PP x 48 hrs. The article can now be edited by anyone who is auto-confirmed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think the IOC have said anything yet but obviously the Japan PM announcing it is good enough. This is the one sporting postponement that is worth posting in my view. Once the article has been updated take this as a support.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Posted. --Tone 13:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The "2020 Summer Olympics" should be bolded --Rockin 13:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Pull While I support in principle, far too many of the tables are poorly referenced. I would also note that there does not appear to have been a discernible consensus to post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Pull per aO. Also questioning the "consensus"—excluding the nom, only two support votes, Tone?!? ——SN54129 13:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Official statement. Yes, this was posted too early but there's no question now. --Masem (t) 13:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Pull until consensus is reached per aO and Serial. Rockin 14:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep/Support. Fix the tables or remove them for the time being. The ITN process makes it take too long to pull a blurb and then have it reposted. Though consensus was weak, there's no doubt that this was going to be significant enough to post. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Pull until quality is fixed for BOTH of the problems noted above (sufficient update, referencing issues) UNLESS Nice4What (talk · contribs) or someone else fixes those problems before an admin gets to removing it. This should not have been posted in the state it was in. --Jayron32 14:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Pulled per the above comments. Consensus does not appear to be reached yet and some referencing improvements needed. — Amakuru (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – For whenever the article issues are addressed, I'd just like to go on record saying the alt-blurb seems more appropriate. The format of the initial blurb doesn't seem to mesh well with other ITN headlines. Master of Time (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Re-post - I hate the practice of posting then pulling events of paramount importance. Let's post it and then improve it.--WaltCip (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Main page is too important to post sub-par articles and expect them to get improved. And Olympics - which were still 3months out - are not of "paramount importance" at this point. --Masem (t) 14:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
RD: Manu Dibango
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Fram (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: Famous saxophone player, died today (from Covid-19). Article has been updated extensivley by a number of editors already (not me!), not clear who best to give credit. Fram (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose several citations needed and as usual, an unreferenced discography, worse than normal because many items not even linked. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
RD: Albert Uderzo
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Le Monde, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Fram (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: Recent death of one of the most popular comics artists ever, artist (for over 50 years) and writer (for more than 20 years) of Asterix, known worldwide. Perhaps not quite at blurb level (though I wouldn't oppose one), but of the 10 most translated french language authors, he was the only one who still lived (see here). Fram (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose not seeing any prose update and some referencing required. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Some prose update has been added since. Which parts need referencing? Fram (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support. CNN, Hollywood Reporter, The Times, AP, The Guardian, Independent, BBC, DW, Variety, RT, Euronews. There should be enough content in there for a blurb. If not, definitely belongs in RD. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:8458:7FA8:68FF:52B7 (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
March 23
March 23, 2020
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
March 22
March 22, 2020
(Sunday)
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
Sports
|
2020 Zagreb earthquake
Blurb: Croatia experiences its largest earthquake since 1880. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC ABC.net.au, Al Jazeera
Credits:
- Nominated by Indefensible (talk · give credit)
- Created by Tone (talk · give credit)
- Updated by IndexAccount (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Largest earthquake to hit Croatia in 100+ years, widely reported on and tangentially related to the coronavirus. - Indefensible (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose No casualties, and sub 6.0 scale. Not significant in the larger scale (Consider there was a similar magnitude in Utah a few days ago but outside of a power outage, wasn't much news either)... --Masem (t) 04:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not true that there were no casualties, also not sure if verified but at least one death was reported. UPI, Macau Business - Indefensible (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- There was an initial report of 1 dead but was later corrected. As I suspect this will not get a sufficient support to get to ITN, I already nominated it for DYK. --Tone 07:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- I would otherwise support ITN, however, since I am the one who started the article, I will not take any admin actions. --Tone 09:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- There was an initial report of 1 dead but was later corrected. As I suspect this will not get a sufficient support to get to ITN, I already nominated it for DYK. --Tone 07:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- I lean towards supporting. Significant damage and impact on the country. Judging significance from magnitude is, in my opinion, misleading, because damage depends on seismic readiness. Similar quakes have caused numerous deaths in India, and a slightly more powerful one in El Salvador caused thousands of casualties. Conversely, a 5.7 in Tokyo, the most-prepared capital, would be largely a yawner. I feel if an equivalent quake hit the capital of a more-populous country, such as D.C. or London, it would probably be posted. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Zagreb is a major European city and there was significant damage to the old city centre and many historic buildings such as churches and museums (e.g. [2][3][4]). The city's cathedral, which symbolises the city symbol as much as the Temple in aforementioned SLC, lost a spire (ref). There were also power and gas outages in parts of city, and other problems that go hand in hand with a major earthquake in a rarely affected region (ref), cf. Utah where the return period is 10 years (ref). Additionally, the strength still has to be ascertained for sure. Montenegro's seismological service estimates it at ML 6.0 (ref). Apologies for some non-English refs, am in a bit of a hurry. Daß Wölf 09:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - a day later, this is still on the front page of the BBC site, it's major news. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Certainly unusual for Zagreb, but we can't post every <6M earthquake that kills no-one. See List of earthquakes in 2020 for the large number of bigger earthquakes we didn't post just in the last three months. The article is well-suited for DYK though. Modest Genius talk 10:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- A death has been confirmed. [5] Daß Wölf 20:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Modest Genius. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I'm not opposed to posting earthquakes that are minor if they cause major damage to historic sites, but it doesn't seem to be quite at that level. Blythwood (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Genius, Masem. Lacks broader significance. – Sca (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - DYK is a better fit.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support Yes, it's a series of quakes with no deaths but if we marry together the rarity of the tremor in the area, the occurrence amidst the coronavirus pandemic and the damage it caused to many old buildings in the city, it's sensible to make an argument for. The main news in the Croatian media after this happened revolve around the fear of how letting people go out to prevent from potential aftershocks might impact pandemic's spread in the country. At the end, while the death toll is an important indicator for evaluating significance, it shouldn't rule out outright every similar story under unusual circumstances.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Same issue with the Utah quake - several historical buildings damanged [6] several aftershocks, concerns on the impact re COVID, but no deaths. I would agree there is a good chance of a major disaster that could strike somewhere in the world where there is a shelter-in-place or a massive medical response where the disaster would worsen the COVID spread or impact the medical response to the treatment, even if the disaster itself resulted in no deaths, but this one does not appear to be it - the articles suggest that everyone remained calm and after the initial shakes, stayed indoors as ordered. So I don't see that a story to post yet, especially if we're not posting the Utah quake story which was essentially of the same scope. --Masem (t) 16:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- I get your point and this is not far from what you consider postable. The Clinical Centre for Pulmonary Diseases at the University Hospital Centre was evacuated because of the building's high seismic risk. Unlike the Utah quake that you're referring to, this one shaked a national capital where people from the entire country and the surrounding area are frequently admitted to hospital these days. The apparent disruption of this process is a big deal and seems to be of a much larger scope compared to the impact it made on the response to the pandemic in Salt Lake City.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Same issue with the Utah quake - several historical buildings damanged [6] several aftershocks, concerns on the impact re COVID, but no deaths. I would agree there is a good chance of a major disaster that could strike somewhere in the world where there is a shelter-in-place or a massive medical response where the disaster would worsen the COVID spread or impact the medical response to the treatment, even if the disaster itself resulted in no deaths, but this one does not appear to be it - the articles suggest that everyone remained calm and after the initial shakes, stayed indoors as ordered. So I don't see that a story to post yet, especially if we're not posting the Utah quake story which was essentially of the same scope. --Masem (t) 16:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Weak support seems to be a damaging and disruptive earthquake in a national capital. WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is meaningless. Weak because the article is stubby. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support once the tag is fixed. Kingsif (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Canada withdraws from the 2020 Tokyo Olympics
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Canada withdraws from the Tokyo Olympics if the Olympics are not postponed to next year (Post)
News source(s): CBCAlerts
Credits:
- Nominated by Count Iblis (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Comment. Australia has effectively done the same, I imagine a host of other countries are in the same boat without making formal announcements. Probably best to hold off until the inevitable postponement announcement. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose It will be if/when the critical mass of countries pull from the Olympics or the IOC announce they will postpone that we will post that story. Otherwise, this still all under the banner of COVID-19 events. The Olympics being postponed/cancelled would be "important" enough to be a blurb as its own compared to anything else that otherwise gets filed under COVID. --Masem (t) 04:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose since the withdrawal is COVID-19 driven and the COVID-19 banner is still in ITN. robertsky (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Wait for the inevitable cancellation/postponement. Modest Genius talk 10:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose more newsworthy to find something that hasn't been withdrawn or cancelled as a result of the virus. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose the above comments have it right. Blythwood (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I would only consider the Olympics being called off altogether to be ITN worthy. P-K3 (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
RD: Lorenzo Sanz
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC USA Today CBS Sports Le Monde) (La Repubblica) (The New York Times)
Credits:
- Nominated by Alsoriano97 (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 president of Real Madrid whose death had an international coverage. Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose inadequate referencing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Article is not ready yet, needs improvement before posting. - Indefensible (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Yokohama Northwest Route
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: The 7.1-kilometer-long (4.4 mi) Yokohama Northwest Route of the Shuto Expressway system opens in Yokohama after its planning was aided by local residents. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The 7.1-kilometer-long (4.4 mi) Yokohama Northwest Route of the Shuto Expressway system opens in Yokohama.
News source(s): [1][2]
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Mccunicano (talk · give credit)
- Oppose It seems like just a regular highway opening to me. Happens all the time. What makes it ITN worthy? --Rockin 03:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose good-faith nom, but this is a very trivial highway opening. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I cannot see what make this special beyond a routine road opening at. --Masem (t) 05:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support It comes with a four-kilometre long tunnel! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Seems like a DYK item. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'd usually put something like this there, but thought I'd offer up something a little less COVID-19 related to put something positive on the ITN section. Oh well, you never know til you try. Mccunicano☕️ 09:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Lacks significance. (The TFA folks seem to like items about highways, tho.) – Sca (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
March 21
March 21, 2020
(Saturday)
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Hellmut Stern
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tagesspiegel, RBB (with audio in German)
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Gerda Arendt (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: Violinist, born in Berlin, fleeing the Nazis to China, Israel, U.S., back to Berlin, principal violinist of the Berlin Philharmonic, and making the impossible possible: bring the orchestra (the former Reichssender) to Israel. - New article. Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Article is short, but seems to meet the minimum requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- I found a book source, added a bit, and more could be added if someone has time. What a life! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Known not only as a concert violinist, but also for educational talks about the Nazi era. – Sca (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Janata Curfew
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: India observes a 14-hour long Janata Curfew (people's curfew) on 22 March 2020 to combat coronavirus pandemic in India (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Titodutta (talk · give credit)
- Created by Netha Hussain (talk · give credit)
- Strong oppose Everywhere is issuing various stay-at-homes, this is nothing special to make ITN that's not covered by the banner. --Masem (t) 19:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment User:Masem. It is a very large scale curfew tomorrow. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem. This is what we have the banner for. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - It is redundant with the coronavirus banner as Masem wrote, even if India is a large country. 14 hours is also not very long or notable. - Indefensible (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- SNOW oppose California is sheltering in place indefinitely. That sure seems bigger than a one time curfew. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose If anything, this would be notable for how short the curfew is. This will probably be snowed out soon. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks, yes, length is an issue as well, until it is fixed, withdrawn. --Titodutta (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
RD: P. K. Banerjee
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Economic Times ESPN
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: Legendary Indian Football player. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose early life and honours sections need referencing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Can you please take a look now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
(Closed pending article improvement) RD/Blurb: Kenny Rogers
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
Blurb: American singer Kenny Rogers dies at the age of 81. (Post)
News source(s): Variety NBC News People.com
Credits:
- Nominated by Ianblair23 (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.
- Oppose for now, given how much is unreferenced. - SchroCat (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb even if the article is perfect. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality for now and I bet someone's going to propose a blurb - I don't know if Wikipedians like country music as much as Star Wars and glam rock but there's a good bit of referencing issues right now. -- a lad insane (channel two) 07:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- The gambler he broke even. Can this referencing be sorted? ——SN54129 08:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose way off. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Wait Editors are still updating the article. Give it some time, a day or two, for the updates to stablise the article first? robertsky (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- No blurb. Come off it - nowhere near meeting blurb criteria. RD when article improved, of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality for now and also oppose blurb. This is a very long way off in terms of referencing unfortunately. And although he's a household name, I don't think it's the level at which we blurb. He's more of a Kirk Douglas than a Nelson Mandela... — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose RD definitely not blurb-level here. He had an interesting trajectory that made him famous but wouldn't consider him top tier of country/western music. Too many sourcing problems for posting RD at this time. --Masem (t) 13:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose On quality. Lots of citations needed and unreferenced material. Iconic and important singer, who at least merits a RD. I fixed lots of the present citations, but the absence of citations on lots of material is glaring. This is another one of those perverse results (long article, lots of good info), but it is an article with a lot of holes. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – A Blurb would be OTT under any circumstances. RD acceptable if myriad quality probs. were fixed in a timely manner. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose -Blurb, Support - RD
- Oppose blurb, fails the Mandela-Thatcher standard. Not the top level of country music despite being a household name, nor a former US President/British PM. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not ready yet, article needs improvement. Oppose blurb as well when the article is ready for posting, should only be a RD link. - Indefensible (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - for now. Until every concern taken care of. Ping me when done and I will change my !vote.BabbaQ (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb - Add to RD list only Mfernflower (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Stats FYI, Kenny Rogers got about 1.5M readers yesterday while the blurb for the Wonderchicken attracted just 13K. This demonstrates what's actually in the news and the extent of ITN's influence. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- That, as always, is very interesting. But if the article is of insufficient quality, being an BLP and all, we shouldn't promote it on the main page. If you think "popular" pages should not be subject to the normal quality requirements of items featured on the main page, or exempt from BLP, that's a different discussion. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Furthermore, note that Kenny Rogers even beat the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, which only got 1.2M yesterday. My position is that we should replace ITN with Topviews as that does a better job of showing people what's in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Did you even read what TRM said? We can't put poor-quality BLPs on the main page.--WaltCip (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) The Kenny Rogers article is rated as B-class and vital while its subject is dead, not living. ITN's top BLP is currently Edwin Catmull which is rated start class and not vital. Kenny Rogers has 58 cited sources while Catmull only has 38. So, we see that not only does ITN not report what's in the news it is also not a fit judge of quality. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Disagree with Andrew, Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia and not a fads tracker. If traffic is going to an article already then it does not need to be posted to get views, as you have shown. Conversely, posting articles that meet the quality threshold that people otherwise would not have noticed is providing education as an encyclopedia should. - Indefensible (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Did you even read what TRM said? We can't put poor-quality BLPs on the main page.--WaltCip (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Furthermore, note that Kenny Rogers even beat the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, which only got 1.2M yesterday. My position is that we should replace ITN with Topviews as that does a better job of showing people what's in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- That, as always, is very interesting. But if the article is of insufficient quality, being an BLP and all, we shouldn't promote it on the main page. If you think "popular" pages should not be subject to the normal quality requirements of items featured on the main page, or exempt from BLP, that's a different discussion. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
RD: Claude Bennett
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): OttawaMatters Ottawa Citizen Twitter - Brian Lilley Twitter - John Fraser Twitter - Lisa MacLeod
Credits:
- Nominated by Fulserish (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: Bennett holds significance as the youngest person to become a member of Ontario's cabinet and was responsible for securing funding for the Rideau Centre and Ottawa Heart Institute among others in Ottawa. Not many news sources are available, although multiple politicians and journalists have commented, listed are a few of those in Twitter messages. Fulserish (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Needs more sources Kees08 (Talk) 04:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose citations needed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
March 20
March 20, 2020
(Friday)
Business and economy
Health and environment
Law and crime
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Willigis Jäger
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BR
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: Quite an interesting person between Catholic spirituality and Zen. I expanded from one line. There could be more, but not now. Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Posted (ps if you know German and can properly translate article titles, that is always appreciated on these articles) Kees08 (Talk) 15:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
2012 Delhi Gang rape
Blurb: India executes four men convicted of the 2012 Delhi gang rape. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Four men were hanged for their involvement related to 2012 Delhi gang rape.
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, AP
Credits:
- Nominated by Abishe (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: This was one of the worst criminal cases happened in India and I acknowledge the fact that this incident is overshadowed by the country's coronavirus pandemic. Abishe (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose criminal sentences, whether being given or carried out, are not considered ITN-worthy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support important news in a significant case of international attention. I think an exception can be made in this case. buidhe 07:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support Logical conclusion to a criminal event. Support on worldwide coverage. The criminal event was posted in Wikipedia's ITN when it had occurred seven years ago. Regards, theTigerKing 10:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support — important news. Justice is finally delivered. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support — Because it was covered by world media. Justice conclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose We posted their conviction in 2013. We don't typically post executions behind that. --Masem (t) 12:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Wolfson-Masem; also oppose "per justice", which is one bizarre argument. ——SN54129 12:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the "justice" arguments, we are not here to right great wrongs. While we may record the righting of great wrongs, this does not suffice to upend our precedent against posting on criminal cases after conviction/acquittal in the absence of any noteworthy issues (of which there weren't any here). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose domestic crime story, uninspiring article. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support This case is at least as significant for India as the Harvey Weinstein case was in the US. Article appears to be in good shape. Beyond which we need some new and non-Covid-19 stories on the main page. This is a good candidate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- With all due respect, we posted the conviction of Weinstein and not his imprisonment, and we posted the sentencing of these people in 2013. Also,
new and non-Covid-19 stories
are not factors in the worth of a given blurb; coronavirus might have been a factor a couple of days ago, but isn't now that we have a couple of non-covid blurbs and a non-covid image, and that presumably all but a few future blurbs will be non-coronavirus with the banner up. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- With all due respect, we posted the conviction of Weinstein and not his imprisonment, and we posted the sentencing of these people in 2013. Also,
- Oppose I'd be okay with ignoring precedent on posting criminal punishment, but not ignoring the precedent on posting the same story twice. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Widely featured on RS sites. Highly significant in India, where many speak Eng. as a 2nd language. More noteworthy than the weak Asteriornis item, which has zero tangible impact on anyone. – Sca (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support Actual execution is more significant than conviction and this issue is highly featured in reliable sources. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support Notable enough. Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 16:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment can someone please read and clean up this mess before it's rushed to the MP? The "Changes to the legal system" section has a whole section about a memorial held in London -- aka not changed to the legal system. Also has this grammar gem "From recordings made by a highway CCTV vehicle, a description of the bus, a white charter bus with a name written on it, was broadcast." among others. If we're going to paste irrelevancies on the main page at the very least lets not let the article be rubbish. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem and Wolfson. robertsky (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as above Kingsif (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- It seems a bit strange that this is called the "2012 Delhi gang rape" case. Is the gang rape or the murder more significant? In a city the size of Delhi, this is probably not the only gang rape case that occurred in 2012; rather I would guess that it is noteworthy for its severity and outcome. However, the article is a Good Article. Since it is a noteworthy event in the news (although not locally for some editors), it may meet the requirements for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- No one is denying it was notable, just that we posted the point when the men were convicted back in 2013. They've obviously been trying to get appeals which have failed and only just now the sentence carried out, but ITN doesn't duplicate posting the conviction and completion of the sentence. --Masem (t) 22:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Where in the posting requirements does it say that repeats are not allowed? If it is just by informal principle or tradition, I would argue that the coronavirus items violate that as well then. - Indefensible (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Generally, we don't provide "updates" on stories, particularly when the status quo is maintained which is the case here. There is a bit of concern with those arguing "justice served" which is a bit...righting great wrongs type of thought. WP wants to stay neutral and we respect appropriate legal punishments derived from fair trials and there's no doubt there was such the case here, but again, that they were executed now doesn't change anything at this point. Status quo is the same. --Masem (t) 23:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- When we get to the Olympics this year, if they do not get cancelled, I would think there would be a blurb for when it begins and when it ends. Would that not be the case? It seems arguable either way on whether the status quo is maintained or not, just based on the scope and how the event is framed. Now I do not feel that strongly about this specific event, but one could consider the difference being that 4 individuals are now dead whereas they were alive before, and the blurb is a sort of RD entry with broader social implications. - Indefensible (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- The 4 sentences are not notable so calling the RD factor is not really appropriate. --Masem (t) 23:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- When we get to the Olympics this year, if they do not get cancelled, I would think there would be a blurb for when it begins and when it ends. Would that not be the case? It seems arguable either way on whether the status quo is maintained or not, just based on the scope and how the event is framed. Now I do not feel that strongly about this specific event, but one could consider the difference being that 4 individuals are now dead whereas they were alive before, and the blurb is a sort of RD entry with broader social implications. - Indefensible (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Generally, we don't provide "updates" on stories, particularly when the status quo is maintained which is the case here. There is a bit of concern with those arguing "justice served" which is a bit...righting great wrongs type of thought. WP wants to stay neutral and we respect appropriate legal punishments derived from fair trials and there's no doubt there was such the case here, but again, that they were executed now doesn't change anything at this point. Status quo is the same. --Masem (t) 23:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Where in the posting requirements does it say that repeats are not allowed? If it is just by informal principle or tradition, I would argue that the coronavirus items violate that as well then. - Indefensible (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- No one is denying it was notable, just that we posted the point when the men were convicted back in 2013. They've obviously been trying to get appeals which have failed and only just now the sentence carried out, but ITN doesn't duplicate posting the conviction and completion of the sentence. --Masem (t) 22:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose posting the same story twice. P-K3 (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose criminals are executed daily across the world for heinous crimes. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man:, It is quite rare that four men at the same time are executed.
Five men have been executed since 1995
[7]. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man:, It is quite rare that four men at the same time are executed.
- Oppose per P-K3 and per TRM. — Amakuru (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per GreatCaesarsGhost. Modest Genius talk 16:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) Igor Matovič
Blurb: Igor Matovič is sworn in as Prime Minister of Slovakia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Igor Matovič becomes Prime Minister of Slovakia following elections in February.
News source(s): The Slovak Spectator, TASR, Yahoo News
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Buidhe (talk · give credit)
- Created by Bastin (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Please run on 21 March when he is sworn in. buidhe 06:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- We generally do not post mere swearing-in/inauguration/coronation of a politician, as it is their choosing that usually considered to be notable(i.e. the election they won). 331dot (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC),
- Support As I don't believe we did post this when he was chosen. I could be wrong, please correct me if I am. Thanks, Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 16:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support as first appearance on main page. ——SN54129 08:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: What do you want, ITN or DYK, because you can't have both. Or do just wait what will get there first? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Weak support – Pro forma as new head of govt. & first mention in ITN. Not very timely, tho. – Sca (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Could be improved further, but meets minimum requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Weak support. I would have preferred us to post 2020 Slovak parliamentary election when the results came in, but we didn't. The article is short but adequate. It might be a good idea to get a link to the election into the blurb anyway, adding altblurb. Modest Genius talk 10:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – If we're going to post this, it should be done today in order to be even minimally timely. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see anything stopping it going up right now - no-one has opposed, the article is updated, and the quality is fine. I'll mark it ready, even though I !voted. Modest Genius talk 16:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Posting. --Tone 16:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- PPC – Suggest switching from Edwin Catmull pic, which has been up there for several days, to this one of Matovič. →
– Sca (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
March 19
March 19, 2020
(Thursday)
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Stephen Schwartz (pathologist)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MSN Seattle Times
Credits:
- Nominated by 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:B502:FA28:F231:1CEB (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: Notable pathologist at the University of Washington. 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:B502:FA28:F231:1CEB (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Article is currently rated as a stub, which is not allowed per the WP:In the News#Article quality requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Indefensible. Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 16:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Article needs work, there seem to be some good sources but a few are Canada-locked? Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – Article seems quite thin. – Sca (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Italy coronavirus deaths top China's
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: The number of deaths from COVID-19 in Italy overtakes the number of deaths from the disease in China. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Kingsif (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
- Oppose We have a banner for COVID stories. This is not the type of thing to add a blurb about. --Masem (t) 17:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem, statistical observations like this are concerning but not so important that they need a separate entry. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 18:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose good faith nom per Masem. Very sad news, but barring a miracle we are going to see a lot of similar stories soon. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- One theory is that it's the belief in miracles that partly got them into this mess, with "holy" water, wafers and wine in churches being a major transmission method. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Glad you find it funny. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 22:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't. I find it sad. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Glad you find it funny. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 22:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- One theory is that it's the belief in miracles that partly got them into this mess, with "holy" water, wafers and wine in churches being a major transmission method. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - redundant with coronavirus banner, but the same is also true for the current WHO pandemic announcement blurb in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Peter Whittingham
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Independent
Credits:
- Nominated by Amakuru (talk · give credit)
- Created by Bobo192 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Indefensible (talk · give credit) and Black Kite (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: Professional footballer, most notably for Cardiff City. It was already nominated a few days ago and turned out he hadn't died, but it is now confirmed. Date of death not certain, most likely today or yesterday but was announced today. — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support CN tags were fixed by Black Kite with previous nom. Hopefully we can find a source that gives a solid date, but it was definitely either the 18th or 19th, as per police statement yesterday. PotentPotables (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment The reference says he died "Thursday" willSupport as per above Joseywales1961 (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)- @Joseywales1961: That's not totally clear - the sentence says "Cardiff City confirmed that the club legend succumbed to his injuries on Thursday in an emotional statement", which is ambiguous - the "on Thursday" could refer to the "confirmed" or to the "succumbed"... The Cardiff statement on Twitter didn't say either way. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've checked the BBC, WalesOnline, Cardiff's statement and none explicitly say when he died. I think c. 19 or "18 or 19 March" is the best we'll get for now. PotentPotables (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, the way I read those. They all suggest the death was overnight having been in critical condition since the accident. I would use "ca. 19 March 2019" only because, with GMT time zone, that's when the sources are reporting it. --Masem (t) 15:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: struck through to support - I will continue looking for sources with a firm date Joseywales1961 (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I doubt there are any sources yet, it looked like all were feeding off the Cardiff City announcement, and that didn't say exactly when. Will probably become clear in due course. It doesn't really affect the nom either way though, we know he died recently and it was announced today, so it is eligbible for RD. — Amakuru (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- That ambiguous Independent article is once again being used to "confirm" the death as the 19th.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I doubt there are any sources yet, it looked like all were feeding off the Cardiff City announcement, and that didn't say exactly when. Will probably become clear in due course. It doesn't really affect the nom either way though, we know he died recently and it was announced today, so it is eligbible for RD. — Amakuru (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: struck through to support - I will continue looking for sources with a firm date Joseywales1961 (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, the way I read those. They all suggest the death was overnight having been in critical condition since the accident. I would use "ca. 19 March 2019" only because, with GMT time zone, that's when the sources are reporting it. --Masem (t) 15:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've checked the BBC, WalesOnline, Cardiff's statement and none explicitly say when he died. I think c. 19 or "18 or 19 March" is the best we'll get for now. PotentPotables (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Joseywales1961: That's not totally clear - the sentence says "Cardiff City confirmed that the club legend succumbed to his injuries on Thursday in an emotional statement", which is ambiguous - the "on Thursday" could refer to the "confirmed" or to the "succumbed"... The Cardiff statement on Twitter didn't say either way. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support good to go once the date of death issue is resolved. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support looks fine. If date of death is widely reported as 19, use that. Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support Well referenced.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Kees08 (Talk) 17:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
March 18
March 18, 2020
(Wednesday)
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Sir John Tooley
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Telegraphy obituary Telegraph death announcement
Credits:
- Nominated by Ad Orientem (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: Longtime director of the Royal Opera House. Article appears to be in decent shape. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - @Ad Orientem: a proper source for his death now exists,[8] so I've reopened this. Decent sourcing, so it looks good to go to me. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Kees08 (Talk) 15:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Catherine Hamlin
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Indefensible (talk · give credit)
- Created by Nevster (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ww2censor (talk · give credit), Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · give credit) and Whiteghost.ink (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: Medical doctor, founded a nonprofit hospital in Ethiopia. - Indefensible (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support. No issues that I can see. Marking as ready. — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Posted (tho the death should be in the prose and not the intro) Kees08 (Talk) 15:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Abel prize
Blurb: The Abel Prize in mathematics is awarded to Hillel Furstenberg (pictured) and Grigory Margulis. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Abel Prize in mathematics is awarded to Hillel Furstenberg (pictured) and Grigory Margulis.
News source(s): NY times
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Fdfexoex (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Per past discussions, we realllly would like the winners to be the target article. I know they're not in great shape, but these are the people we should be featuring. --Masem (t) 14:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, we can't bold-link to an entry in a table. If there's no article about the thing they won it for, the two biographies will need to be brought up to scratch. Unfortunately they're a long way from being postable right now, and probably require the attention of an expert mathematician to sort out. Modest Genius talk 16:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- While we have a couple of images of Margulis, they aren't great in quality compared to what we have of Furstenberg. (no good tight head shot). --Masem (t) 16:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for now unfortunately both peoples' articles are shoddy at the moment. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) Asteriornis maastrichtensis
Blurb: Paleontologists identify the fossilized skull of Asteriornis maastrichtensis, the oldest evidence of modern birds, dating to the Mesozoic era. (Post)
News source(s): Nature article, BBC, The Guardian, CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
- Created by Fanboyphilosopher (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Obviously too short to post now (I will try to expand if no one else does), and yes, just had another paleo. story up, but again, it is widely covered ITN, it is the type of thing we'd usually cover and it's not COVID related. Also please see discussion below related the previous case of the "smallest dinosaur" though I'm not seeing the same doubts here: they've identified the core elements that a bird skull would have (it was found nearly whole), and have carbon-dated it. So it's not like more wild guesing. Masem (t) 01:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose We've had another similar article on here quite recently. Now that the COVID map is no longer the picture and we've had two blurbs unrelated to the pandemic (and presumably all future blurbs barring something like an Olympics cancellation now that the banner's up), "non-coronavirus" is not a reason to post. While I won't strongly object if consensus develops to post this, I still think it's much too early to post another paleontology blurb (and I say that as someone with a background in evolutionary biology). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)- Upon further thought I'll likely support this if we pull the earlier blurb, as this seems less scientifically controversial and more significant. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I am further aware that having topically-similar blurbs at the same time or close together isn't completely unprecedented, mainly happening with stuff like the Nobel prizes. Unlike those instances, however, these aren't deliberately scheduled together. I also know that pulling a blurb for the sake of a better one doesn't have much if any precedent, so I'm essentially relying on IAR there. I still weakly oppose given the scheduling, but I might reiterate that I won't strongly object if this gets consensus. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I can expand this article, it's the oldest undisputed modern-style bird and therefore more scientifically and popularly interesting than a controversial skull in amber.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I did try to figure out if this was some special issue of Nature to happen to warrant to rather similar stories but it seems like these are just coinicidentally two similar stories that were publishers at near similar times. If it were the case this were a special issue, I would agree with focusing on the story with the lease scientific doubt (this one), but that doesn't seem to be the case. --Masem (t) 03:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support now that the smallest dinosaur blurb has been pulled. It is adequately referenced and ready for the main page now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support as a replacement for the Oculudentavis blurb. I've made some substantial expansions, it should be as decent as Oculudentavis as an article. As a news item, it is much better, since the blurb about Oculudentavis being the smallest known dinosaur would be completely misleading if it turned out to be a lizard. From my perspective on the paleontology community's criticisms, that may very well be the case.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Currently the article is supported by a single reference, its Nature paper. Are there any other refs that can be added to support it? While Nature is a respectable source, the other current paleo article also had at least one Nature ref, plus others in addition. From a referencing perspective, the other article seems better supported. - Indefensible (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- There is this, a second article by a different author in the same volume of Nature explaining at a slightly higher level the significance of this discovery (eg placing the start of the modern bird development earlier than previously known). And then using the top level news sources like NYtimes gives some outside quotes from others that also qualify the result (eg the NYTimes says "The Wonderchicken, Dr. Worthy said, “appears to fill that gap.”"). Add articles to flush out what was known before about birds , and what this discovery changes, and you'll have about 6-8 sources I think, 4-6 of those as scientific journals. --Masem (t) 04:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'll get right to it.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have cited eight more papers to elaborate on some of the info brought up within the article. Although the content of the NYT article looks good from what little I've seen of it, I don't have an account with them so I was unsure whether it was worth citing. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Excellent work @Fanboyphilosopher:, I just added a couple things from the NYTimes bit (only to point out the wonderchicken bit for the most part). This should be ready for ITN review. --Masem (t) 14:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have cited eight more papers to elaborate on some of the info brought up within the article. Although the content of the NYT article looks good from what little I've seen of it, I don't have an account with them so I was unsure whether it was worth citing. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'll get right to it.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- There is this, a second article by a different author in the same volume of Nature explaining at a slightly higher level the significance of this discovery (eg placing the start of the modern bird development earlier than previously known). And then using the top level news sources like NYtimes gives some outside quotes from others that also qualify the result (eg the NYTimes says "The Wonderchicken, Dr. Worthy said, “appears to fill that gap.”"). Add articles to flush out what was known before about birds , and what this discovery changes, and you'll have about 6-8 sources I think, 4-6 of those as scientific journals. --Masem (t) 04:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support. A much better replacement for Oculudentavis. The article looks to be in good shape as well (although some discussion of the Valkenburg Member's palaeoecology would be a good addition). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Article looks well-referenced now, good work Fanboyphilosopher. Suggest Wiki linking paleontology again as it is a Good Article. - Indefensible (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment – Arcane and not really in the news. Zero tangible impact on anyone. – Sca (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Alfred Worden
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Florida Today
Credits:
- Nominated by Indefensible (talk · give credit)
- Created by Theon~enwiki (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Kees08 (talk · give credit), Randy Kryn (talk · give credit) and Hawkeye7 (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: Apollo 15 astronaut. A few cn tags, but items can be addressed or removed as needed. - Indefensible (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support I've removed all but last of the "citation required" tags. If necessary, we can comment out this line. Article is a poor tribute to a brave man. A pity Wehwalt never got a round tuit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support Agree with above.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support, we'll have 11 more of these to go. Should probably be a blurb though, only 24 people have been on or orbited the Moon. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure a blurb is warranted despite the notability. Maybe at the unfortunate event of the last Apollo astronaut's death? - Indefensible (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- At least the four remaining Moon walkers would deserve a blurb (hopefully many years away) and as many of the others as possible. Thanks for the nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure a blurb is warranted despite the notability. Maybe at the unfortunate event of the last Apollo astronaut's death? - Indefensible (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 03:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Eurovision Song Contest cancelled
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: The EBU cancels the Eurovision Song Contest for the first time ever because of the coronavirus outbreak. (Post)
News source(s): [9],[10], [11]
Credits:
- Nominated by BabbaQ (talk · give credit)
- Oppose To be honest, everything is going to get cancelled soon. Also, List of major events affected by the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is linked from the "Impact" link in the COVID19 box. Black Kite (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose As I've noted below, probably the only major event that would get into ITN if cancelled or postponed at this point would be the Olympics. --Masem (t) 15:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Black Kite. Mark E. Smith must be loving it. Leave the Capitol! ——SN54129 15:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose As sad as this is, the 50th anniversary Glastonbury Festival also got cancelled today, which seems perhaps more noteworthy based on that. And, yes, wait for the Olympics. I feel this would be an obvious one to post in any other situation, but now... everything being cancelled is the norm, only the most globally significant gets posted -
- Unless we argue that anything that would be ITN/R but is cancelled should get a blurb anyway... Kingsif (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose more newsworthy to post the events are still going ahead. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for reasons above. Even if the Olympics is cancelled I would still oppose. Juxlos (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support The event is ITN/R, where do the guidelines say that it's only ITN/R if it takes place? Article is pretty good too. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose At the moment every event should be assumed cancelled until they say otherwise. This is just one cancellation among many. However, maybe "cancellations" could be added to the banner? Nixinova T C 21:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) Turing Award
Blurb: Edwin Catmull (pictured) and Pat Hanrahan are awarded the Turing Award for their pioneering work on computer-generated imagery. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
Article updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: I will be updating about the Turing in both articles immediately after this. Catmull's needs a bit more sourcing. Masem (t) 13:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - looks like both articles are in decent shape. --LukeSurl t c 14:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Catmull's is undersourced, but it should not be that hard. --Masem (t) 15:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support, nice nomination, important topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Edwin Catmull's article in particular needs improvement as noted above before posting. - Indefensible (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support in principle, especially with the image, but Catmull's article has many CN tags. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me! Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 23:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment in case it's not clear, Catmull's article needs much better referencing. Stephen 23:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Update Catmull's article no longer has any CN tags. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Looks good now, still missing a ref or two but meets requirements for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Posted good work, thank you. Stephen 01:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Has the image been switched to Hanrahan? Catmull has had a couple days now, for the architecture prize I believe both winners had their image shown on different days. - Indefensible (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
(Pulled) Smallest known dinosaur discovered
Blurb: Scientists discover the amber-preserved skull of the smallest known dinosaur Oculudentavis, comparable in size to the bee hummingbird. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Paleontologists discover Oculudentavis, the smallest non-avian dinosaur known thus far.
Alternative blurb II: Paleontologists discover Oculudentavis, the smallest dinosaur of the Mesozoic.
Alternative blurb III: Scientists discover Oculudentavis, the smallest known dinosaur of the Mesozoic era.
News source(s): NBC News, Nature paper
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Tisquesusa (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Both something that would get into ITN on some days, but also a need to fill blurbs due to the news otherwise being dominated by covid-19 stuff. (eg avoiding just news for news sake to be added). Article is in good shape. Masem (t) 04:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support Satis, and while not a reason for posting in of itself it's nice to have something not coronavirus-related. 05:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Bee hummingbird is not quite up to the frontpage standard in my opinion, can that phrase be dropped from the blurb? - Indefensible (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- None bolded links are not required to be up to main page standards. --Masem (t) 05:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Added an altblurb to this effect; even if it is not required, paleontology is a good article and dinosaur is a featured article, so this would be preferable I think. - Indefensible (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keeping Bee hummingbird, linked, seems very important and encyclopedic because it is the smallest known living dinosaur. This also calls the "headline" into question, as the bee hummingbird, being a dinosaur, is equally the smallest known dinosaur. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The suggested blurbs are dubious. Birds are dinosaurs and, moreover, this one was an avialan dinosaur. That said, the bee hummingbird is taxonomically the smallest dinosaur and it's unclear if this was definitely smaller. Additionally, the paper published in Nature points out that it represents the smallest dinosaur of the Mesozoic era, while NBC News have apparently generalised the context of the discovery in their news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Re birds are dinosaurs, taxonomically that might be the case but in common parlance "dinosaur" is usually a paraphyletic group that excludes Aves, much like the Fish and Monkey categories tend to exclude humans from their definitions. If you can find a way to phrase this to make it unambiguous, please go ahead, but I don't think it should stop the nom. — Amakuru (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it should always deal with complete scientific accuracy as such, so arguments revolving around "common parlance" are not welcome here (Monkeys and humans have very recent common ancestor but belong to distinct subfamilies of the primates order. Humans are apes and have never been excluded from that subfamily.). The common notion of dinosaurs as extinct species of gigantic lizards as presented in many illustrated books and animated films has proven to be false and Wikipedia is the right place to break this misconception. I've suggested another blurb that clarifies it was the smallest dinosaur species of the Mesozoic era as indicated in the paper.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of the scientific situation, but your point "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is exactly why we don't publish things in the same way as a scientific paper would. Using commonly recognised names rather than overly technical ones is enshrined in our policy. And let's be honest, even scientists don't regard humans as fish, and wouldn't find it useful to do so. Referring to the "mesozoic" is unnecessary detail, and dilutes the significance of this find. Using the standard term "non-avian dinosaurs" or similar might work though. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Birds, being dinosaurs, include the smallest known, the bee hummingbird. Saying that this new dinosaur skull is the smallest known should include clarification that the bee hummingbird is equally small. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- As someone with a background in evolutionary biology, I have to agree with Amakuru that Wikipedia, being a general-purpose encyclopedia, is targeted towards a general audience and as such should stick to the common understanding of "dinosaur" excluding birds, especially on the Main Page. The comparison to a bee hummingbird can remain in the blurb, but should not be referred to as a dinosaur. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Birds, being dinosaurs, include the smallest known, the bee hummingbird. Saying that this new dinosaur skull is the smallest known should include clarification that the bee hummingbird is equally small. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of the scientific situation, but your point "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is exactly why we don't publish things in the same way as a scientific paper would. Using commonly recognised names rather than overly technical ones is enshrined in our policy. And let's be honest, even scientists don't regard humans as fish, and wouldn't find it useful to do so. Referring to the "mesozoic" is unnecessary detail, and dilutes the significance of this find. Using the standard term "non-avian dinosaurs" or similar might work though. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it should always deal with complete scientific accuracy as such, so arguments revolving around "common parlance" are not welcome here (Monkeys and humans have very recent common ancestor but belong to distinct subfamilies of the primates order. Humans are apes and have never been excluded from that subfamily.). The common notion of dinosaurs as extinct species of gigantic lizards as presented in many illustrated books and animated films has proven to be false and Wikipedia is the right place to break this misconception. I've suggested another blurb that clarifies it was the smallest dinosaur species of the Mesozoic era as indicated in the paper.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Re birds are dinosaurs, taxonomically that might be the case but in common parlance "dinosaur" is usually a paraphyletic group that excludes Aves, much like the Fish and Monkey categories tend to exclude humans from their definitions. If you can find a way to phrase this to make it unambiguous, please go ahead, but I don't think it should stop the nom. — Amakuru (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - not corona related, thanks. I personally think this article is ITN ready. BabbaQ (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support, I think alt 1 is the best of the blurbs but I'm not opposed to any of them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Obvious support -- Very happy to see this. I was ready to nominate this myself when news first broke but gave up halfway through filling the form, because [excuses]. I have added a slightly adjusted version of Alt II as Alt III (Too many wikilinks and missing "known", IMO). I would also prefer "Mesozoic dinosaur" to "dinosaur of the Mesozoic era" if it's okay to have two consecutive wikilinks. Finally, I do agree we need to be precise with the blurb even at the risk of losing other desirable attributes. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Stale I recall reading about this several days ago and indeed both sources given are dated the 11th. At the very least this should be re-filed under the correct date where it is about to fall off the tracker. 3142 (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is newer than any of the other blurbs currently in the board. We need something to fill space. --Masem (t) 13:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Add to the blurb "...bee hummingbird, the smallest known living dinosaur." for accuracy and informational data. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I would oppose that: I have no interest in debating the merits of that point other that to say you will have a hard time convincing most that a bird is a dinosaur. Regardless, an ITN blurb is not the place to start grinding that particular axe. 3142 (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- ? There is no debate, birds are dinosaurs and are accurately called dinosaurs on Wikipedia. The blurb is essentially inaccurate in not pointing that out. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- The alternatives mentioning the Mesozoic would be preferable in this case, as it's factually accurate without needing to confuse people with true but not widely known taxonomy. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 14:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- ? There is no debate, birds are dinosaurs and are accurately called dinosaurs on Wikipedia. The blurb is essentially inaccurate in not pointing that out. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I would oppose that: I have no interest in debating the merits of that point other that to say you will have a hard time convincing most that a bird is a dinosaur. Regardless, an ITN blurb is not the place to start grinding that particular axe. 3142 (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support Nice piece of news, article good to go. Kingsif (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Interesting item to add. Rlendog (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Rather minor and arcane for ITN. That it's "not coronavirus-related" (per John Wolfson) should not be a factor. – Sca (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- In these unique times, I think it may very well be from now on.--WaltCip (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Posted using alt1 which seems to be the least argued against blurb. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Black Kite, the present use is inaccurate, which is why nobody argued against it. The smallest known dinosaur is the Bee hummingbird. Saying this new discovery is the smallest known dinosaur is encyclopedically not correct. Please add that it "and the bee hummingbird, are the smallest known dinosaurs" or some such language, but what we have up there now is not only inadequate but misleading. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Propose changing the blurb to state "the smallest known prehistoric dinosaur." - Indefensible (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- The best thing to do would be to say "non-avian dinosaur" if we absolutely must make such a modification; it is correct and the least awkward of the options. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Propose changing the blurb to state "the smallest known prehistoric dinosaur." - Indefensible (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Black Kite, the present use is inaccurate, which is why nobody argued against it. The smallest known dinosaur is the Bee hummingbird. Saying this new discovery is the smallest known dinosaur is encyclopedically not correct. Please add that it "and the bee hummingbird, are the smallest known dinosaurs" or some such language, but what we have up there now is not only inadequate but misleading. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Weak pull. It’s not even clear from the article whether this discovery is a dinosaur, a lizard, or a bird. The blurb is unequivocal that it’s a dinosaur. 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:B9B7:3132:6C2D:910 (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Implicitly we recognize its a theory by those that wrote the paper, its not an absolute and will never be able to be proven but we are relying on the fact it was published in Nature a top-level peer-review journal that the conclusion that it likely was in the dinosaur group to be a reasonably accepted theory. --Masem (t) 20:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- As an editor from the dinosaur project, I have no strong objections to this wording (since it is, after all, the reported conclusion of the paper, and the controversy cannot be summarized in one sentence). However, I disagree with your reasoning, Masem. To quote palaeontologist Mike Taylor, "the venue of its publication tells us nothing useful about the quality of a paper". One only needs to look to Andrew Wakefield's Lancet paper for a clear example. Even in the domain of palaeontology, the majority of text written for Nature and Science articles gets dumped into the online supplementary information, which is reviewed much less rigorously. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. I created the article and I have to say that the identification of the skull as avialan (bird) is very questionable. Many paleontologists have argued for an interpretation of the skull as a lizard both informally and formally, in the case of researchers at the IVPP in Beijing. The academic integrity of the primary author is also under scrutiny. We should not advertise a work as controversial as this on the front page. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Misleading blurb. Pavlor (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Pulled with regret as there seems to be agreement that the blurb is misleading. Please discuss if it can be reposted with a different blurb — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Please note that there is now a preprint (not yet peer-reviewed) of a scientific paper formally rejecting an avian identity for Oculudentavis: [12] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) 2020 stock market crash
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: At least one benchmark stock market index in each of the G7 and in 14 of the G20 have fallen into bear markets as part a global stock market crash that began on 20 February 2020. (Post)
News source(s): Asia-Pacific3-16-2020 Europe3-16-2020 U.S.
Credits:
- Nominated by CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk · give credit)
- Created by Foxterria (talk · give credit)
- Updated by User:CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Previously I would have supported this, but now it is indirectly covered by the "Impact" link in the coronavirus box I think. There are also 2 Closed nominations visible below related to this same article. - Indefensible (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Euro Cup and Copa America has been postponed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: The UEFA Euro 2020 and the 2020 Copa America football tournaments have been postponed until summer of 2021 amid COVID-19 fears. (Post)
News source(s): Euro 2020 postponed for a year by Uefa because of coronavirus crisis
- Oppose The NBA postponement failed and this appears roughly equivalent. In any event we have the coronavirus banner and this doesn't appear to warrant its own blurb. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose The only sporting event at this point that would be news if postponed would be the Olympics as the top event across multiple sports and countries representing the scale of the issue. --Masem (t) 04:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose + a couple of comments Too narrow a perspective, in commenting on just one sport. But at least, unlike the NBA, this is international competition. And to the OP, "summer" is a bad descriptor of a calendar time. Several of the Copa America teams come from places in the southern hemisphere, where summer runs from December to March. I doubt that's what you meant. HiLo48 (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose probably more newsworthy to find an international tournament that hasn't been affected by Covid-19. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
March 17
March 17, 2020
(Tuesday)
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
Sophie Wilmès
Blurb: Belgium forms a government led by caretaker prime minister Sophie Wilmès (pictured), the country's first female head of government. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Indefensible (talk · give credit)
- Created by Pyrusca (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ivar the Boneful (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Notable change of government leadership. Article is a bit short, but may be good enough for posting as-is. - Indefensible (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The day after that she was sworn in.
is uncited but otherwise I support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- She's been prime minister for nearly half a year...? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- You are right, I think the difference is that she was only a caretaker previously but now is not just a caretaker. Might still be notable enough to post, would probably need to update the blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Updated the blurb per the above. - Indefensible (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- You are right, I think the difference is that she was only a caretaker previously but now is not just a caretaker. Might still be notable enough to post, would probably need to update the blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Betty Williams
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Indefensible (talk · give credit)
- Created by Ed Poor (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ghmyrtle (talk · give credit) and TDKR Chicago 101 (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: 1976 Nobel Peace Prize winner. Article currently has an orange banner and could use light cleanup / a couple more refs, but is close to post-worthy I think. Nominating for visibility to improve & post. - Indefensible (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per nom Kees08 (Talk) 17:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Article updated, left a single cn tag but should meet the requirements now. Kees08 (Talk), please review again. - Indefensible (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Posted though one citation needed tag was added, if any of @Indefensible, Ghmyrtle, and TDKR Chicago 101: are able to take a look. Additionally, the Bush comment comes out of nowhere and should probably be expanded or deleted per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP policies. Also not sure if the Declaration of the Peace People text would be considered a copyvio; my instinct says yes but perhaps there is an exception I am not thinking of. If it is give me a ping on the talk and I can revdel as needed. Kees08 (Talk) 19:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Early human mammoth bone structure
Blurb: Archaeologists discover evidence of one of the largest structures made by early humans ca. 40,000 years ago from the bones of about 60 woolly mammoths at the Kostyonki-Borshchyovo archaeological complex. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes, Antiquity (peer reviewed paper)
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This could be expaned upon more in the target article, but it is definitely is in the news with the journal publication. Masem (t) 15:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The History section is currently orange-tagged. Brandmeistertalk 19:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, this has been known about for years. In fact, they've had time to build a museum on top of it. Also, since nobody knows why the structure was made, it is hard to see how it has any "impact" on the field of archeology or anything else. It is in the news only because it turns out to be older then they thought before. Abductive (reasoning) 00:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose rather trivial and not as important as the oldest modern bird. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Thai Thanh
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tuoi Tre
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bumbubookworm (talk · give credit)
- Created by In ictu oculi (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: 20th century Vietnamese singer. One of the foremost singers of the 'New Music' period (WWII onwards). I am expanding it further Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support looks alright. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD — Amakuru (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
RD: Eduard Limonov
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters,New York Times, RFE/RL, RT
Credits:
- Nominated by VanHelsing.16 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Isomorphic (talk · give credit)
- Updated by SankyaF1 (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: Prominent Russian writer and controversary politician. VanHelsing.16 (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose needs plenty more referencing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've added a number of references and removed some unsourced statements. The article still leaves much to be desired, but I believe it is satisfactory VanHelsing.16 (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Controversial but notable person. Support. TarzanASG (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- For example Kommersant says: "Obituaries are supposed to tell about the biography of the deceased — but the life of Eduard Limonov is already known to every Russian person". [13] TarzanASG (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Literary work needs citations, and the 'ographies. Also BLP information needs cited in Jail and protest activities, 2001–2013. Could be others, that is a lot of work. Kees08 (Talk) 19:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) RD: Peter Whittingham
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): EuroWeekly News
Credits:
- Nominated by Indefensible (talk · give credit)
- Created by Bobo192 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Inter&anthro (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.
- Wait. There is no confirmation of this on BBC Sport's Cardiff City page, on Cardiff City's website or social media, or any local press. Just a minor English-diaspora newspaper in Spain citing tweets. This is completely unacceptable, and if I had a confirmed account I'd revert the news of his "death". 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:A121:F6B1:502B:6CB1 (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Until there's any news here, don't believe it [14] 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:A121:F6B1:502B:6CB1 (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- This seems like the right direction, did not realize there was an issue with the source. Thank you for pointing out the issue. Recommend registering for a Wiki account regardless. - Indefensible (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Wait I haven't reverted this yet because I believe EWN to be a reasonably reliable source (and for other reasons). If true, then Support (I've fixed all the CN tags in the article). Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing the cn tags Black Kite. The article should be good to go quality-wise if there is confirmation I think, although hopefully the subject will be able to say that the news is greatly exaggerated. - Indefensible (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hm. The Wales Online story has disappeared. I am guessing that this is sadly true but is waiting for family to be informed before being released, but for the time being I have reverted (and semi-protected) the article. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2020 (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:
- ^ "首都高 横浜北西線22日開通" [Metropolitan Expressway Yokohama Northwest Route opening on the 22nd]. NHK (in Japanese). 20 March 2020. Retrieved 22 March 2020.
- ^ "住民の反対ゼロ 変わる高速道路建設、その新たな手法" [Zero opposition from residents: changing expressway construction, a new approach] (in Japanese). 28 June 2015. Retrieved 22 March 2020.