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
December 7
December 7, 2020
(Monday)
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Dick Allen
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS News
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: MLB player, was an All-Star for multiple teams. Dralwik|Have a Chat 22:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Seeing a lot of uncited info in the career. Gotitbro (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
RD: Natalie Desselle-Reid
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Daily Beast
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: Actress probably best known for her work on UPN.
- Oppose unreferenced stub. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per The Rambling Man. I tried to help by adding citations to the "Filmography" section, but I may have done more harm than good. Either way, it is a stub and would need to be expanded. Aoba47 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Too short and still missing references. Gotitbro (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
2020 Venezuelan parliamentary election
Blurb: In Venezuela, the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela wins an absolute majority in the parliamentary elections. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In Venezuela, the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela wins an absolute majority in the parliamentary elections despite boycotts from opposition parties.
News source(s): AP The Washington Post France 24
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Cyfraw (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: Latest election event in the country, as well as in South America. Waiting for the final update of the election. Election had a 31% turnout rate with the ruling party winning 67% of the election. cyrfaw (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Surprise! – Sca (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why are we using <small> here? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- 'Cuz it's an aside. – Sca (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why are we using <small> here? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Surprise! – Sca (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support As with any other election in a major country, article appears well sourced. Albertaont (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support for main blurb, as it is customary for this type of election. I'd suggest more information from the introduction is reflected, such as the rejection of the results by other countries, but this is probably one of the most neutral and non-controversial blurbs, so it should do. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Not really big on venezuelan politics, but this seems important enough and controversial. Gex4pls (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Support on quality but shouldn't we like include in the blurb a mention that the election was illegitimate? I genuinely don't know post elections from for example North Korea, but we don't post them as is, right? CoronaOneLove (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- We don't post judgements about the legitimacy of the election. The current President of the United States and his supporters say the 2020 election he lost is illegitimate. We post rigged Russian elections. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- [citation needed]
- But that it was boycotted is not a judg(e)ment, it's a fact, from the RS stories I've read. So it should somehow be included in the blurb, IMO. – Sca (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- [citation needed]
- We don't post judgements about the legitimacy of the election. The current President of the United States and his supporters say the 2020 election he lost is illegitimate. We post rigged Russian elections. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose results section is tagged as unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Rambling, need sources there. Also, seeing two blurbs here not really sure which one is better. Gotitbro (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
December 6
December 6, 2020
(Sunday)
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Soedardjat Nataatmadja
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Jeromi Mikhael (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: Held various offices in Indonesia's regional government. The highest person in office in Bogor, 2nd highest person in Papua, 3rd in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and served as an MP. He died the same day after I finished his article. RIP. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 15:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article is in good shape, all paragraphs cited. Yoninah (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Paul Sarbanes
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Baltimore Sun
Credits:
- Nominated by 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: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Very good nom, the table might need some width fixes though. Gotitbro (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good. Here's the NYT obit with more info which might be an useful source as well. Regards SoWhy 13:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Seems well-written. – Sca (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Well sourced and ready to go. Gex4pls (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
RD: Peter Alliss
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by The Rambling Man (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: Decent golfer but legendary broadcaster. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose There's a large amount of uncited content in the prose and the tables also need citations. P-K3 (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose All stats are unsourced along with some uncited sentences here and there. Gotitbro (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Yet another rd nom in need of some better sourcing (I'm too lazy and too terrible at this to do it myself, so kudos to whoever can clean it up) Gex4pls (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Definitely, I'm no golf aficionado so it was just because it popped up on my news feed and I have know Alliss commentating on golf for almost my entire adult life. Shame golf editors (especially UK ones) can't help out. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
(Withdrawn) Juliari Batubara
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: Minister of Social Affairs Juliari Batubara faces death sentence on charges of COVID-19 funds embezzlement. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Minister of Social Affairs Juliari Batubara under arrest on charges of COVID-19 funds embezzlement.
Alternative blurb II: Joko Widodo's minister Juliari Batubara under arrest on charges of COVID-19 funds embezzlement.
Alternative blurb III: Joko Widodo's minister Juliari Batubara faces death sentence on charges of COVID-19 funds embezzlement.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, SCMP, CNA, IndiaToday, Straits Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Jeromi Mikhael (talk · give credit)
- Created by Simeon (talk · give credit)
- Updated by SiberianCat (talk · give credit)
- Oppose – Country (Indonesia) not ID'd in blurbs. Juliari "could face life imprisonment or the death penalty if convicted." Posting might be appropriate if convicted & sentenced. – Sca (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose on principle - he has only been arrested, no trial has yet been held. It would be different if we were talking the sitting PM of India or the like. --Masem (t) 14:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Masem: I think you meant Indonesia in your comment above. Gotitbro (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Gotitbro: We don't have one. The last time we had a prime minister was about 54 years ago. Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 23:46, 6 December 2020
- @Jeromi Mikhael: I see, but my comment was in the context that Masem probably confused the Indonesian nom for Indian. And please sign your comment above. Gotitbro (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Gotitbro: Thanks for reminding me. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 10:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- NO, I think Masem was implying that if this "event" had been the PM of India it would have been more notable. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well I guess an Indonesian example (like its president) would've been more apt then. Gotitbro (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- NO, I think Masem was implying that if this "event" had been the PM of India it would have been more notable. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Gotitbro: We don't have one. The last time we had a prime minister was about 54 years ago. Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 23:46, 6 December 2020
(Posted) 2020 World Rally Championship
Blurb: Sébastien Ogier (pictured) and Julien Ingrassia win the World Rally Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Frenchmen Sébastien Ogier (pictured) and Julien Ingrassia win the World Rally Championship.
Alternative blurb II: In motorsport, Frenchmen Sébastien Ogier (pictured) and Julien Ingrassia win the World Rally Championship.
Alternative blurb III: In motorsport, Frenchmen Sébastien Ogier (pictured) and Julien Ingrassia win the World Rally Championship, while Hyundai win the manufacturers' title.
Alternative blurb IV: In motorsport, Frenchmen Sébastien Ogier (pictured) and Julien Ingrassia win their World Rally Championship, while Hyundai claim the manufacturers' title for the second straight year.
News source(s): WRC.com Autosport
Credits:
- Nominated by Unnamelessness (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: will update asap. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support alt-blurb 3 Largely okay, needs more sources in the results section though. Gotitbro (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Added sources from the FIA. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support slow week This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment two things, we don't need "in rallying" because the sport is in the title of the award, and second we don't put year in the title of the award, so something like ""Sébastien Ogier (pictured) and Julien Ingrassia win the World Rally Championship while Hyundai win the manufacturers' title." But since we already have about three hundred blurb options, I thought I'd just toss in one that was properly formed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Made some tweaks. Unnamelessness (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Marked as ready as they were no real oppositions for the last 24 hours. Would suggest ALT III personally. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Tabaré Vázquez
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): El País Uruguay Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Alsoriano97 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (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: Oncologist and President of Uruguay for two non-consecutive terms for a total of ten years. His article needs a lot of work. As a former leader, maybe a blurb is better. Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, article has vast swathes of unreferenced material. A lot of work will be needed to get this mainpage-ready - Dumelow (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD after excellent referencing work by TDKR Chicago 101 - Dumelow (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Referencing issues all over.Gotitbro (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also, Oppose blurb just not seeing blurb worthy significance here. Gotitbro (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Gotitbro Dumelow: Comment, I would not oppose that he wouldn't be posted as blurb, even though he was a transformative Uruguayan president. The article is a mess but until the middle of next week I will not have the time that I would like to dedicate to improve it, so I would be grateful if someone could give me a helping hand, to me and some who are doing some specific editions. Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD Looks fine now. Gotitbro (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Alsoriano97: Challenge accepted and accomplished (hopefully). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @TDKR Chicago 101: You did a great job! Thank you very much!! I'm trying to improve it in my little free time, so I will try to keep improving it. Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb because I'm not seeing the regional or international significance necessary. Oppose RD as well, because the article is missing a ton of citations, and furthermore says virtually nothing about his second term in office. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD tag Made ref improvements. @Dumelow:, @Gotitbro:, @NorthernFalcon:: Made article improvements for RD tag approval. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC
- Support after ref improvements. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support good work cleaning up article, looks fine for RD now JW 1961 Talk 14:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Like it was never even unreffed Gex4pls (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
December 5
December 5, 2020
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: Belinda Bozzoli
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): News 24
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (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: South African academic and politician. I gave it a quick once over but it wasn't too bad to start with - Dumelow (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Too short on political career. Gotitbro (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not much time to edit today but I have expanded a little more here - Dumelow (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support It is now long enough for RD. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks ok for RD now following improvements JW 1961 Talk 14:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Short but decent article, well sourced and well written. Gex4pls (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Well done to all who worked on the article. Lefcentreright Talk | Contribs | Global 15:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) Hayabusa2
Blurb: Hayabusa2 successfully returns to Earth after collecting samples from asteroid 162173 Ryugu. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Hayabusa2 successfully returns samples collected from asteroid 162173 Ryugu to Earth.
News source(s): Science Alert, NYTimes, AP, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (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: Successful end of a six year mission. We know the capsule w/ sample had landed in Australia and just a matter of recovery. (And this is a prelude to the assumed posting of Chang'e 5 next weekish. Masem (t) 19:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I see a couple of uncited paragraphs in the "Rovers" section. Mlb96 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Not many sample returns in history. Albertaont (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Seems like the perfect science achievement to put ITN, though from a cursory glance appears to have some referencing problems. Gex4pls (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality due to various unreferenced paragraphs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above, would support if referencing is fixed. A nitpick but "Science Alert" shouldn't be up there. Gotitbro (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Hayabusa2 has not returned to earth and its mission has been extended. The sample return capsule has returned. The blurb needs changes. Support in principle but few paragraphs needs references. -Nizil (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've added altblurb to indicate that the original parameters (returning samples to earth) is complete. If they do extend the mission, we're not talking about destinations until 2026 or 2031, so well beyond the current issue. --Masem (t) 07:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nizil makes an excellent point. Hayabusa2 still has about half its fuel left and it appears that it will continue to explore the solar system, visiting other bodies such as Venus, until the fuel runs out. As the nomination seems confused about this, we should not rush at this until the details and outcome are clear. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- There was one original mission for this craft: go to the asteroid, get samples, go back to earth, and deliver sample. That they found they have more fuel left over to possibly do it again is great (a similar story of the Mars rovers) but the original mission has been completed, and if these extended missions are taken, it would be years before any "success" is determine. --Masem (t) 14:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nizil makes an excellent point. Hayabusa2 still has about half its fuel left and it appears that it will continue to explore the solar system, visiting other bodies such as Venus, until the fuel runs out. As the nomination seems confused about this, we should not rush at this until the details and outcome are clear. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've added altblurb to indicate that the original parameters (returning samples to earth) is complete. If they do extend the mission, we're not talking about destinations until 2026 or 2031, so well beyond the current issue. --Masem (t) 07:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support alblurb ITNR and no serious quality issues now. Brandmeistertalk 16:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support per Brandmeister — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbitalbuzzsaw (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – Blurb should say it's Japanese. – Sca (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support alt, important mission. There are a few paragraphs needing refs, though. Nixinova T C 04:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support alt, per nom.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
December 4
December 4, 2020
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: James Odongo
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Independent (Uganda)
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (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: Ugandan Roman Catholic archbishop. Could be expanded perhaps, but I found this is reasonably good condition - Dumelow (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Just passes basic RD-needs, would like to see more info about his activities as a Bishop though. Gotitbro (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support ok for RD JW 1961 Talk 12:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Ferenc Tóth (politician)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TEOL (Hungarian)
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (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: Hungarian engineer and politician. I've tidied up the text and fixed a ref but was otherwise pleasantly surprised with the conditin of this article, though it it a little on the short side - Dumelow (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support A bit short but RD-passable. Gotitbro (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
RD: David Lander
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (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: Aka "Squiggy" from Laverne & Shirley. Article needs a lot of sourcing fixes. Masem (t) 20:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Basically a mostly uncited mess ATM. Gotitbro (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Sadly about 40% uncited. Gex4pls (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
RD: Jayant Meghani
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India
Credits:
- Nominated by Gazal world (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Indian editor, translator and book publisher. Gazal world (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose practically a stub. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per TRM. Bio section = 90 words. – Sca (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose While notability is not necessarily a criteria, this person's page was created for the purposes of RD and is less than a day old. Albertaont (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Albertaont, there is a subtle difference. It is not true that notability is NOT a criteria for WP:ITNRD. It is assumed that anyone by virtue of having a Wikipedia article (obviously non PRODed or non AFDed) is inherently notable. Now, with this being stated, imo, it does not matter if the article was recently created as long as it meets the notability guidelines to exist as an article within WP. Hope this helps. Ktin (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think there is an issue about notability. --Gazal world (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Albertaont, there is a subtle difference. It is not true that notability is NOT a criteria for WP:ITNRD. It is assumed that anyone by virtue of having a Wikipedia article (obviously non PRODed or non AFDed) is inherently notable. Now, with this being stated, imo, it does not matter if the article was recently created as long as it meets the notability guidelines to exist as an article within WP. Hope this helps. Ktin (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support The article covers enough basic info about a person and his works (300+ words). It is a start-class article in my opinion. I will try to add additional info. -Nizil (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. There's no issue with an article being created posthumously, RD rules still apply. But that said, it is currently effectively a stub. The "Works" section is really just a list, formatted to look like prose. More info on his life and work is needed in the bio section. — Amakuru (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Support Bsrely long enough, could use some more expansion. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Narinder Singh Kapany
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Tribune
Credits:
- Nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Indian American Physicist. CN tags fixed. Seems alright. Can make any additional edits as required. Ktin (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks generally okay to me. Gotitbro (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Mostly fine. The artist section is not fully supported by the single reference provided. As near as I can tell, he was not a serious artist, so I wonder if that should be stricken from the lede. We could certainly call him an art patron. GreatCaesarsGhost 03:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- GreatCaesarsGhost, done. Removed artist from the lede. Agree, primary focus should be on the physicist portion. Added another source as well. Ktin (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support looks alright to me. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support good to go. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) Montenegrin PM
Blurb: Zdravko Krivokapić takes office as Prime Minister of Montenegro, becoming the first independent Prime Minister to hold the post, after 30 years of Democratic Party of Socialists rule in the country. (Post)
News source(s): Government of Montenegro, Radio Free Europe, BBC, Al Jazeera, RTCG, Vijesti, Pobjeda, N1, Reuters (Eng.), AFP via RFI (Eng.)
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by WalterII (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Elserbio00 (talk · give credit) and Vacant0 (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.
WalterII (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for now, the personal article needs more references, the PM of of Montenegro article has only 1 reference (to an article on the PM of Kosovo) JW 1961 Talk 16:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think that this news is important enough for publication, also i think that the main article is more informative, as well more referenced than the recently published article on the new Lithuanian PM, for example. -WalterII (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes of course it is important enough. It was the article sourcing quality I had reservations about. The article on Zdravko Krivokapić is now improved enough for the main page, but, I would still have concerns that the PM article has only a single source JW 1961 Talk 15:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think that this news is important enough for publication, also i think that the main article is more informative, as well more referenced than the recently published article on the new Lithuanian PM, for example. -WalterII (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Since this is not a normal electoral change, it should be explained in the blurb how he came to power; also an uncommon acronym (DPS) shouldn't be in there. Gotitbro (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Now that the referencing issues have been fixed, would still to see an alternate blurb though. Gotitbro (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I support the idea of a blurb, once the issues Joseywales1961 raised have been resolved. I also agree with Gotitbro's comment on the potential blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support All citation needed tags have been resolved. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose we already featured the elections, but it's a slow week This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support This is a significant news about regime change by a democratically election. --Tensa Februari (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Changes of heads of state/government (whoever holds actual power) are (such as this one) WP:ITN/R , i.e., their significance is already known only the article quality needs to be fine. Also, this particular change was not through an election but internal parliament shuffling. Gotitbro (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- The new PM and his cabinet were formally voted in the parliament, following the results of the 30 August parliamentary election (negotiations on the formation of the new government lasted for three months), which resulted in fall from power of the DPS of Milo Đukanović, which had ruled the country since the introduction of the multi-party system in 1990. -WalterII (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support This information is of merit considering that the former ruling party firmly ruled for 30 years, that is, from the very start of multi-party system in Montenegro. Additionally, the article has been updated and it looks better now. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose from read of the article, does not seem like an "independent" in the regular sense, could support if WP:NPOV. Albertaont (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support - The article has been significantly improved, and the news is important due to the overthrow of the authoritarian regime after 30 years.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Per comment above this one Elserbio00 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted. I removed Prime Minister from the latter portion of the blurb as posted as it seemed redundant, and I left off the last portion of the proposed blurb as it seemed unnecessary if we are stating that he's the first independent. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
December 3
December 3, 2020
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: Maria Fyfe
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Scotsman
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (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: Scottish politician. I've tidied the article a little, adding some stuff, removing some uncited material etc. It's short but probably OK - Dumelow (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak support seems brief but what's there is ok. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Taut but RD passable. Gotitbro (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- So taut it's thin. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Alison Lurie
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP News
Credits:
- Nominated by Neverbuffed (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: 1984 Pulitzer Prize winner, famous novelist Neverbuffed (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - The sourcing is very bad. There are entire sections without a single ref. This article needs a lot of work to be ready for posting.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 01:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with comment above, sources needed for 3 sections, as well as numerous statements throughout article. Not to mention an orange tag. Gex4pls (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above and could also do well with MOS:LAYOUT edits. Gotitbro (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I have added citations to the "Awards" section and changed the "Selected novels" section to a "Bibliography" one with further citations. Apologies if these edits are not constructive as I usually do not edit these types of articles. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Weak support. It's been massively improved (thanks Aoba47), but still not sufficiently comprehensive as to her literary impact. I've added what I could but more is needed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I would do more, but I am not familiar with how this kind of article should be structured. I agree with you that it is not comprehensive with her literary impact (or writing career in general). Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think there's enough in there now about her life and work for a full-throated support. (Not to toot my own horn re: the additions, of course :) ) Important, Pulitzer-winning novelist with obits in all major English-language papers, and would be a nice corrective the pretty egregious male dominance of RD these days. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- support - seems ready after improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Bill Fitsell
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Sudbury Star The Whig
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Flibirigit (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Connormah (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 and article update Flibirigit (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Jutta Lampe
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FAZ
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Grimes2 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Legendary stage actress of the Schaubühne, and had a stub for an article. Much more in the sources, if someone wants to help. A translation of the praise by Botho Strauß would be great! Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support good enough for RD. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support This one looks good to go for RD JW 1961 Talk 00:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is good enough. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Fine for an RD. Gotitbro (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Betsy Wade
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by Valereee (talk · give credit)
- Created by Angshah (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Lopifalko (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: Article is a bit thin but otherwise in good shape. —valereee (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks fine for an RD, though could do well with an infobox. Gotitbro (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak support just about adequate. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. The career section, particularly the bottom half, suffers from WP:PROSELINE. In 1972...., In 1974 ...., In 1987 ...... A round of copy-edits would be good. Also, the 'Spencer' test -- currently, the article has a lot of positions, and some notable firsts, which is good. But, the article should add some of Ms Wade's works as well. E.g. what notable news topics did she cover? Some elaboration of her Pultizer winning work? I think the article is almost there, but, needs some work to get it to homepage / RD. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Support Running a bit thin on sources and some grammatical issues per above, but it seems passable. Gex4pls (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support I was going to nominate this article just now! Article is in good condition, great length and sourcing is good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Dharampal Gulati
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Fylindfotberserk (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Indian entrepreneur, founder and CEO of MDH Spices. Edits done. Clean Start-class biography. Good for homepage. Ktin (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Name as called out in WP:RS vs Honorific claim
|
---|
|
- Support Seems fine. Ref spot check is good.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Decently referenced article, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 11:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) Ongoing: 2020 Indian farmers' protest
Blurb: In India, a quarter of a billion strike for 24 hours and 100,000 continue with a farmers' siege of New Delhi. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In India, a nation-wide general strike occurs and 100,000 continue with the farmers' protests surrounding New Delhi.
News source(s): BBC, AP, India Today (Bharat Bandh = India-wide strike), Al Jazeera English,
Credits:
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by SangrurUser (talk · give credit), DiplomatTesterMan (talk · give credit) and KyloRen3 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Ongoing. Updates being posted. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support The article is light on the scale of the protests (no mention of number of protesters), but its definitely in non-indian news as well over the past week. There are sympathy protests with the farmers outside of India, to a lesser extent. Albertaont (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Number of protestors added. DTM (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support on significance, Wait due to grammar issues. The article could use a thorough grammar and MOS cleanup. 45.251.33.78 (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- One round of copyediting complete. DTM (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Could use some more cleaning. "Awards return", "announced to return his award" and "Chief minister of Punjab" not being properly capitalised are 3 grammar/MOS issues in just the last 2 lines of the article and a subsection's title. The article may need some editors who focus on grammar and MOS. 45.251.33.78 (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- One round of copyediting complete. DTM (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support in principle, oppose on quality what exactly are the provisions/policies in the bills that cause concern, and what specifically are the demands? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have listed the demands in its own section 2020 Indian farmers' protest#List_of_farmer_demands. The provisions are elaborated in the clearly linked parent article Indian farm reforms 2020. However as the demands show, the demands encompass more than just the three new laws. Nevertheless, changes can be made as you said. DTM (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – RS coverage seems slight, although AP carried a photo series with brief descriptions of protest conditions. – Sca (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- "RS coverage seems slight" — seriously? DTM (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- One source listed above. – Sca (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- "RS coverage seems slight" — seriously? DTM (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support once MOS issues have been fixed because... yikes This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article quality seems to have improved; it's not perfect and I encourage continued work, but it looks passable. It is very well referenced, and seems to cover well all of the main issues. Seems like a good target for an Ongoing link. --Jayron32 15:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support I was going to oppose this yesterday as "tens of thousands" is not a high percentage in India and the quality of the article wasn't there, but after separately reading that these were in the 100k's of ppl now and seeing that incorporated into this article as well as the further expansion, this is clearly significant with the events from last weekend (road blockages, etc.) --Masem (t) 15:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality grounds. The article may be well-referenced, but it is poorly written. One of the purposes of ITN is "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events," and I do not believe the article meets that standard. -- Calidum 15:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I think I've fixed most of the writing and grammar issues; there were a number of them. Black Kite (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: don't we usually blurb first and then consider ongoing later? Could a blurb be proposed for this item? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- The protests have been going on since August so a blurb would be "stale" but they have ramped up over last weekend. There is no requirement for a ongoing to start with a blurb. --Masem (t) 14:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- This was my thought as well. Usually if something is newsworthy enough for Ongoing, it starts with a blurb. Readers won't necessarily know what this is about, but if we give them a headline story first, then bump it down to Ongoing once that's rolled off, it's much better. — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support - the protests follow the 26 November 24-hour strike by 250 million people (= 25 crore) according to trade unions' estimates (Deccan Herald; Tribune (Chandigarh)). Without a police (or BJP) counterclaim, the estimate so far appears to be unchallenged. This does sound like a world record. The Delhi ongoing blockade is gradually attracting more and more worldwide media attention. I did a bit of tidying in the article. Boud (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Clarification - I see that there are two separate articles Indian general strike of 2020 and 2020 Indian farmers' protest. I only saw Indian general strike of 2020 up to now. The ongoing action is that of 2020 Indian farmers' protest. I support 2020 Indian farmers' protest for the reasons I stated, but "did a bit of tidying" applies to the strike article, not to the farmers' protest article. Boud (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - please could a blurb be proposed, as per MSGJ above. It should be blurbed before it goes to Ongoing. — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blurb1 proposal:
- In India, a quarter of a billion strike for 24 hours and 100,000 continue with a farmers' siege of New Delhi.
- Boud (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comments - since the BBC says "hundreds of thousands", we could put 200,000, following the minimal literal interpretation policy that seems to be the preferred en.Wikipedia standard. But this is not the place to dispute numbers, so 100,000 would seem safer to me. A tricky thing for the blurb is the historical ambiguity in the word "Indians" - people of India versus Native Americans, which is why I avoided the word. Boud (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I fixed the typo (seige/siege) and posted the blurb above, and removed 'add' from the 'ongoing' parameter since otherwise the blurb would not display. Boud (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Journalism rule: Never assume anything. We definitely should not guess at the number of protesting farmers. (And the blurb is sensationalized in this respect.) Topic getting stale. – Sca (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've no idea what "assume" is supposed to apply to - these numbers are from the sources. India Today says 200-300,000 farmers have besieged Delhi. As for "stale", the next national strike is planned for 8 December. There's no sign of the farmers giving up. Boud (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Journalism rule: Never assume anything. We definitely should not guess at the number of protesting farmers. (And the blurb is sensationalized in this respect.) Topic getting stale. – Sca (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Is there a reason this hasnt been posted? We have gone straight to on-going in the past, and a blurb just belabors the point since it would just be an attempt to capture what is going on today. Added altblurb 2 if blurb seems sensational. Albertaont (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Whether with a blurb or directly to Ongoing, this should be posted. There seems to be a last-minute objection from Sca, but the objection lacks explanation and is difficult to understand in comparison to the article. Boud (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Suggest you rewind your watch. – Sca (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Let's quote the source(s) on "hundreds of thousands," then. Let's not pull a number out of the air, however reasonable it might seem. – Sca (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- India Today
Hundreds of thousands of farmers marching from Punjab have laid siege ... The agitation has seen an estimated 200,000-300,000 farmers converging at various entry points to Delhi.
- BBC News
Hundreds of thousands of farmers have laid siege to Delhi for the past few days, choking almost all the entry points to the national capital.
- Business Standard
As per police estimates, the number of protesters belonging to the Left-leaning union BKU Ekta-Ugrahan could be between 1.5 to 2 lakh with sizeable number of youngsters and women.
1.5 to 2 lakh = 150,000 to 200,000.
- India Today
- Boud (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment This is an ongoing siege of the government of the biggest democracy in the world, it's well-covered in en.Wikipedia by the usual criteria, and we have a strong (not perfect) consensus to post. Boud (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb – It seems very appropriate for Ongoing, but not for a blurb. Factors include lack of reported casualties and its essentially parochial character, regardless of whatever numbers may be guessed at – and the lack of general RS confirmation. – Sca (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Whether this is posted with a blurb or immediately as Ongoing is a minor issue. Regarding deaths or injuries ("casualties"): Wikipedia ITN is not intended to be a tabloid where blood is required for coverage. Regarding "parochial" - India is the world's biggest democracy. There are plenty of sources: claiming otherwise won't make them disappear. This is not the USopedia or UKopedia. Boud (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- The world's most populous democracy. – Sca (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Are we missing something right here? There doesn't seem to be opposition (the only oppose was for quality issues that had long been fixed). Do we have conflicts of interest which prevent this from being posted? Albertaont (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted altblurb — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Pull The article seems to be quite poor quality. I just read it to understand the issue, as it had not appeared in any news report that I'd read or seen, unlike Brexit say, which is all over the news. The article kept talking about the "mandi" system as a key demand of the farmers but doesn't explain it and we don't have an article. After some research, I find a source which explains that these mandis are local markets for produce – the sort of topic that we might cover under a English title like marketplace or agricultural marketing. The word seems to be Hindi but this is the English-language Wikipedia. The article uses other foreign words like Gherao, Dharna and Raasta roko which will likewise be incomprehensible to our English-language readership.
- Now, this may not just be a matter of language. While searching the BBC for this topic, the main article I found was India farmers: Misleading content shared about the protests from the BBC Reality Check unit. This explains that misinformation about this matter is being spread deliberately online. As we therefore need to be extra vigilant, we should not be promoting the topic on our main page without more scrutiny. Getting it all written in English would be a start.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 20:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Pull – Per previous and my posts above, this one time I support pulling the blurb. This smacks of an overblown cause celebre. The AP photo series of three days ago was very good at illustrating the event(s) but not really informative at all. – Sca (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Don't pull. I see little wrong with the article myself, and this is clearly a very major deal and ongoing headline news in India. — Amakuru (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
December 2
December 2, 2020
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
|
RD: Rafer Johnson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times, CNN, CBS News.
Credits:
- Nominated by SirEdimon (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 decathlete and film actor. --SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 01:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Way to many unsourced statements. Gex4pls (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Half the article is unreferenced. Gotitbro (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article references have been improved - looks good to go. Joofjoof (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Amakuru and MSGJ: could you check this? Joofjoof (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Joofjoof yeah, it kind of looks OK now, but unfortunately I think the boat has probably sailed on this one. His death was on December 2, but the oldest RD entry currently on the main page is dated December 4. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oh well, that happens. Thanks anyway. Joofjoof (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Amakuru and MSGJ: could you check this? Joofjoof (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
(Blurb posted) RD: Valéry Giscard d'Estaing
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: Former President of France Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (pictured) dies at the age of 94. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Former President of France Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (pictured) dies of COVID-19 at the age of 94.
News source(s): Europe1 BFM BBCDaily TelegraphLe MondeNYTLA Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Johndavies837 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Support This may be blurb worthy, had massive impact on European politics. Albertaont (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- The article needs some more references. I added CN tags at honors but I see there are more unsourced paragraphs throughout the article. A blurb is possible, indeed, once the article is fixed. --Tone 23:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Tone: I've added sources and the article should be looking good for a blurb right now.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose for now, way too many uncited sentences and paragraphs. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302:: I've added the sources and made sure everything is cited. Should be good for a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb, not enough coverage/impact of death and funeral. Contrast with Diego Maradona's death which now has doctors' offices being raided by the police. Abductive (reasoning) 01:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb Recognized for his pro-European stance, but criticized for his aloofness. (He died of covid-19 complications.) Mathsci (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
OpposeWould support blurb on significance (not every death has to be of Maradona standard) but the article and its referencing is just too poor, whole paras and sections are missing any cites at all. Gotitbro (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Gotitbro:: Fixed all the issues and article should be looking good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb now. Gotitbro (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- RD is for deaths that aren't important enough for blurbs, such as this one. Importance means; a stand-alone article on the person's death and/or funeral could be supported. Note the distinguishing between the person and their death. Abductive (reasoning) 07:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Abductive: I think you put your reply in the wrong place. Gotitbro (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb subject to quality standards being met. Important French politician of the 60s and 70s. Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose never going to be satisfactory. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: How about now? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Splendid work so I can support for RD without hesitation. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: How about now? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Also Oppose even for RD until citing is improved, way too much uncited in there now. JW 1961 Talk 11:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Good job on the fixing @TDKR Chicago 101:, post posting blurb Support JW 1961 Talk 14:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Joseywales1961:: Fixed it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb Former president of a major country, gaining significant coverage and I will work on the article to make it up to date. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb Former president of a permanent member state of the United Nations Security Council should merit a blurb in principle. There are people who become transformative because of their work and people who are made transformative because of their office. He belongs to the latter.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that makes no sense; by that logic Gordon Brown or François Hollande would warrant a blurb when their time comes. Holding a notable job doesn't confer automatic notability on the holder, it just puts the holder into a position in which they're potentially able to do notable things. ‑ Iridescent 13:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- After posting blurbs for the deaths of some office-holders in the United States just because it's a large and powerful country, I don't see a reason why the death of a former leader of another large and powerful country should be omitted. I was one of the fiercest opposers to lowering the bar for death blurbs when we introduced RD and I still have relatively high criteria but it's simply not equitable to apply double standards given the mistakes made in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Per Kiril and it is also important to mention Giscard d'Estaing's works for the European Union and his presidency during France's modernizing shift as the NYT remembered him. Also worth mentioning Chirac's RD blurb was only largely opposed based on article quality and when India's PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee died in 2018, he also had a blurb posted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agree, ITNC has a bias towards American officeholders. He is more notable than many American non-President officeholders that have been given a blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Per Kiril and it is also important to mention Giscard d'Estaing's works for the European Union and his presidency during France's modernizing shift as the NYT remembered him. Also worth mentioning Chirac's RD blurb was only largely opposed based on article quality and when India's PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee died in 2018, he also had a blurb posted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- After posting blurbs for the deaths of some office-holders in the United States just because it's a large and powerful country, I don't see a reason why the death of a former leader of another large and powerful country should be omitted. I was one of the fiercest opposers to lowering the bar for death blurbs when we introduced RD and I still have relatively high criteria but it's simply not equitable to apply double standards given the mistakes made in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that makes no sense; by that logic Gordon Brown or François Hollande would warrant a blurb when their time comes. Holding a notable job doesn't confer automatic notability on the holder, it just puts the holder into a position in which they're potentially able to do notable things. ‑ Iridescent 13:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb agree with reasons above, and article is well sourced now. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support article quality is sufficient. Agnostic on blurb/RD. --Jayron32 13:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD only Not one of those rare cases where a blurb is necessary. This is what RD is for.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment blurb has already been posted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment @MSGJ: Should the discussion be closed soon as it may lead to unconstructive arguments? Just curious. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not at all. Consensus may swing the other way and people have a right to express their opinions — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Gotcha I just wanted to know the ropes here when it comes to closing discussions because I've seen some discussions close the moment something's posted. Good to know! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's actually never happened. Discussions have only been closed once people stop being useful and start to focus on defeating people they don't like. --Jayron32 15:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment @MSGJ: Should the discussion be closed soon as it may lead to unconstructive arguments? Just curious. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment – A familiar name, but Giscard seems not widely remembered for his policies. At 2,800 words, his article is modest – and since he died at 94, albeit of Covid, the death isn't surprising. If our main reason for the blurb was to counter a perceived U.S. bias, that's not valid. But I'm NOT for pulling it; we've taken the plunge. – Sca (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- I will note that the only time anyone mentioned a U.S. bias, it was you, right now. --Jayron32 15:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not correct, the first mention of bias was me at 13:00 UTC today. But I think the right outcome has emerged- an important head of state should have a blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- I will note that the only time anyone mentioned a U.S. bias, it was you, right now. --Jayron32 15:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed: "ITNC has a bias towards American officeholders." Anyway, some users have alleged such here in the past. – Sca (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Strong post-posting blurb support Household name in Europe. We posted some literalwho American judge who was like a 100-years old when she died, and people are opposing the blurb about the last president of France under whom the country actually meant something on the world stage? Cringe.
Also, proposing an alt-blurb that mentions Covid-19. CoronaOneLove (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC) - Support blurb regardless of being a household name or not, I think blurb posting for any former leader of the G7/8/20 countries is a no-brainer (as long as the rest of the ITN requirements are met). --Masem (t) 17:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Zafarullah Khan Jamali
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Zafarullah Khan Jamali dies at the age of 76. (Post)
News source(s): ABC News Association Press
Credits:
- Nominated by Alsoriano97 (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: 15th Prime Minister of Pakistan. Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Just needs a couple of citations in the first two sentences of "Prime Minister of Pakistan" section JW 1961 Talk 21:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose poor quality PROSELINE and inadequate sourcing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Support definitely worse RDs out there (although we may need to revisit RDs). Albertaont (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Two unsourced statements, and could use a few more than 26 sources. Gex4pls (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Lead needs reworking and some unreferenced statements here and there in the article. Gotitbro (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb - marked it ready as the article is now fully referenced. At least a photo must be posted along with the RD, if not a blurb. Otherwise it will cement the perception of biasness here with the French guy getting a blurb. Depressed Desi (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Amakuru and MSGJ: this needs attention. Depressed Desi (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD - looks like referencing issues were sorted. There isn't a consensus for blurbing right now, but people can continue discussing that if they wish. Not sure he's really comparable to Giscard, as he was only in office for 1.5 years. Also we wouldn't put a pic if he remains only at RD. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Walter E. Williams
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WSJ
Credits:
- Nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Arbor to SJ (talk · give credit) and Gunbirddriver (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 Economist. Article looks in good shape. Picked the article up from Deaths in 2020. Did not have to make any major edits. RIP. Ktin (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support good article, would encourage Arbor to SJ to take it to WP:GAN after expanding the lead a little. This is good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support looks good to go JW 1961 Talk 21:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article looks very good, nice find, and previous work by editors. Gotitbro (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
RD: Pat Patterson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by spman (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: French Canadian Professional Wrestler, fairly transcendent in his field - (talk)Spman (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose multiple unreferenced paragraphs. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Seeing a lot of unreferenced paras in there. Gotitbro (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Full of unreferenced and citation needed tagged sentences. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for article quality, but want to remind people that being a gay wrestler is like maybe 10% of his transformative effect on the WWF (and thereby the whole damn industry). If it was a good article, I'd blurb it for sure. If I booked this promotion, I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Mohamed Abarhoun
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): <Morocco World News
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Mrsmiis (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: Moroccan footballer, career cut short by cancer. Not much information out there but I've fleshed out the article a bit - Dumelow (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Weak opposeit's still marked as a stub and excluding the lead we've got fewer than 1500 characters. Not convinced this is all there is to say about a player who admittedly died young but still managed more than 200 professional appearances. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Fair point, I'll see if I can find something more on his career. It'll probably be tomorrow - Dumelow (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi The Rambling Man, I've fleshed out the club career section a bit more now - Dumelow (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support good work. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi The Rambling Man, I've fleshed out the club career section a bit more now - Dumelow (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Fair point, I'll see if I can find something more on his career. It'll probably be tomorrow - Dumelow (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks okay now but can still be expanded. Gotitbro (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Still ready almost 13 hours later and not been posted. Any admins out there? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
(Banner updated) BNT162b2
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 United Kingdom becomes the first country to approve the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine for emergency authorisation. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine is approved for emergency authorisation in the United Kingdom.
Alternative blurb II:
Alternative blurb III: The United Kingdom approves BNT162b2 for emergency authorisation, becoming the first country to approve a COVID-19 vaccine after large-scale testing.
Alternative blurb IV: The United Kingdom approves the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine for emergency authorisation, becoming the first country to approve an mRNA vaccine.
Alternative blurb V: The BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine becomes the first mRNA vaccine to be approved in a country after gaining emergency authorization in the United Kingdom.
News source(s):
- Roberts, Michelle (2 December 2020). "Covid Pfizer vaccine approved for use next week in UK". BBC. Retrieved 2 December 2020.
- Mueller, Benjamin (2 December 2020). "U.K. Approves Pfizer Coronavirus Vaccine, a First in the West". New York Times. Retrieved 2 December 2020.
- Pancevski, Bojan; Strasburg, Jenny; Hopkins, Jared S. (2 December 2020). "Pfizer and BioNTech's Covid-19 Vaccine Wins U.K. Authorization". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2 December 2020.
Credits:
- Nominated by MarkH21 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Bluerasberry (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Noxoug1 (talk · give credit) and MarkH21 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Western countryapproving mass COVID-19 vaccination (after China and Russia's approval of two other vaccines) and the first country to approve this specific vaccine. There are many different ways to word either statement and there are other possible details to include (e.g. adding Pfizer/BioNTech, mentioning that it is an emergency authorization, or linking COVID-19 instead of COVID-19 vaccine), so feel free to suggest better wordings. — MarkH21talk 10:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not being pointy/obtuse here, I just think we need to say it: why is first in the West worth making note of? 75.188.224.208 (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose it’s moreso the level of testing for BNT162b2 than the UK being in the West:
No country until Wednesday had authorized a fully tested coronavirus vaccine; Russia and China approved vaccines without waiting for large-scale efficacy tests
(NYT). It's also the first time that an mRNA vaccine has been approved. — MarkH21talk 13:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)- Support Alt 3 in that case. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose it’s moreso the level of testing for BNT162b2 than the UK being in the West:
- Support: Its an important step towards beating Covid-19, regardless if its the first western country to approve of a vaccine. Any move forward is a good move forward. Fusioncore21 (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Update Banner
OpposeIs this not already covered by the banner? Is there some reason that we should focus on this vaccine over ones from Russia (widely available, released earlier), China (available in large numbers, released earlier), or even more niche vaccines that have been used previously?130.233.213.199 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- In light of comments below, I think we should make COVID-19 vaccine a link in the banner. It's already there in many of the links, but we might as well put it directly.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Well first off, its not wide-spread approval, its Emergency Use Authorization. Second off, other countries like United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have also approved a COVID-19 vaccine and the ruler of Dubai himself already got the injection. Not exactly sure why this becomes notable, unless you wish to say "The United Kingdom approves BNT162b2 for widespread use, becoming the first G7 country to approve a COVID-19 vaccine. Albertaont (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- UAE ran Phase III trials with 31,000 volunteers, and Bahrain with 7,000 volunteers. (Reuters) (CNBC).Albertaont (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Stop directly changing the nomination.Emergency Use Authorization is an article about an FDA authority, not the authorisation in the UK.ALT3 is directly from the NYT:
No country until Wednesday had authorized a fully tested coronavirus vaccine
, while the Bahrain/UAE approval is for the aformentioned Chinese vaccine that was approvedwithout waiting for large-scale efficacy tests
.This is also notable for being the first approved mRNA vaccine of any kind (ALT4), as mentioned in the NYT, BBC, and WSJ articles. — MarkH21talk 14:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)- The very same NYT article said approval in UK is for emergency use. It says it in the very first sentence. Albertaont (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- If you look at the article Emergency Use Authorization, it is strictly about the FDA in the United States. That article should not be linked here. — MarkH21talk 14:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- The very same NYT article said approval in UK is for emergency use. It says it in the very first sentence. Albertaont (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Strong oppose for two reasons. Firstly, this should already be covered with the banner and, if not, the update should be done there. Secondly, we didn't post the approval of Gam-COVID-Vac in Russia, so this is not the first country in the world to approve a COVID-19 vaccine (And before coming to contest this view, please provide scientific evidence that this vaccine is better and more efficient). I also don't think that the clarifications 'first Western country' and 'after large-scale testing' in the proposed blurbs make a lot of sense (yet the fact it's the first mRNA vaccine is noteworthy). Let's wait until the World Health Organisation approves its production and distribution, and then discuss posting it as the first widely approved vaccine. Nonetheless, this nomination is a timely warning that the banner should be updated with a link to COVID-19 vaccine.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- A "strong oppose" carries no more weight than an "oppose." – Sca (talk)
- @Sca: I know. But when you see that people continue to nominate COVID-related items for a blurb while the banner is still on the top and, more importantly, it can benefit from the nomination, you need to react somehow and that's a good sign to use an intensifier.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- We should rely on the sagacity of our comments to persuade our colleagues. "Strong" seems to imply an emotional commitment more than a reasoned argument, IMO. – Sca (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sca: I know. But when you see that people continue to nominate COVID-related items for a blurb while the banner is still on the top and, more importantly, it can benefit from the nomination, you need to react somehow and that's a good sign to use an intensifier.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- A "strong oppose" carries no more weight than an "oppose." – Sca (talk)
- Comment: the comment about it being the first in the West is a bit of a red herring, the point is it's the first that has completed clinical trials and been demonstrated to be effective. Modest Genius talk 15:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- It has not "completed trials", because otherwise it wouldn't have been given emergency authorization. Volunteers continue to be monitored, and its not like those in the placebo group are now authorized to take the full vaccine as the study has closed. Albertaont (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – In widespread RS coverage, the vaccine is generally referred to as "the vaccine from American drugmaker Pfizer and Germany’s BioNTech (AP) or simply "the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (Guardian). For Wikipedia's audience, there's no point in calling it "the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine." Why force readers to follow a linked jargony acronym only to read in the first sentence that it's a vaccine "developed by BioNTech and Pfizer" – ?? This is pure techie obfuscation – and it doesn't read well either. – Sca (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- A rename or pipe to a more common / descriptive name would be pretty reasonable! Something like
BNT162b2
->the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine
ora vaccine from Pfizer/BioNTech
? — MarkH21talk 20:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- A rename or pipe to a more common / descriptive name would be pretty reasonable! Something like
- Support and/or Update banner As Kiril Simeonovski notes, there is no reason why we shouldn't have a link to COVID-19 vaccine in the banner since that is the main focus of news coverage at this stage. I'm not opposed to posting this story in lieu of that, however. Teemu08 (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to the COVID-19 vaccine link, just to the BNT162b2 one – which BTW makes a very clumsy title for an article.
– Sca (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)- I also thought that the article title is clumsy and not intuitive, but it turns out that is the convention per WP:NCMED:
The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)
. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 20:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)- WP:IAR – Our loyalty should be to the readers, not to to the multifarious Rule Book. – Sca (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I also thought that the article title is clumsy and not intuitive, but it turns out that is the convention per WP:NCMED:
- I'm not opposed to the COVID-19 vaccine link, just to the BNT162b2 one – which BTW makes a very clumsy title for an article.
- Update banner seems reasonable. Its one of the most popular pages on wiki right now, outside of temporary news. Albertaont (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Big news no matter how you look at it. It's a vaccine for one of the worst pandemics in human history, released in an extremely protracted time period.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I want to oppose based on the fact that no matter how we phrase the blurb it is necessarily going to sound like it's the UK making an important step, rather than being the quickest to rush emergency authorization of an international vaccine. Even without that fact, we can't have a blurb that sounds celebratory of a certain country/it's government. If we could update banner to highlight the vaccine, that would be suitable. I might bring it up at the portal whether to create a new box on the emergency use, too. Great news for a small part of the British population, though! Kingsif (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Update Banner and if not Oppose per Kingsif Thanks, SixulaTalk 22:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Update Banner Covid news is supposed to be covered by banner, unless it's a major, major development. Gex4pls (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1. Well written article. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose We have a banner for a reason. And if we are going top be blurbing about COVID (which has been avoided like the disease itself on here) make it generic (about vaccines, other advancements etc.) not about news specific to a country. Gotitbro (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Update banner – told you so. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Banner updated with link to COVID-19 vaccine — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
December 1
December 1, 2020
(Tuesday)
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: Hugh Keays-Byrne
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Entertainment Weekly, Deadline, Hollywood Reporter
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Joofjoof (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 actor. Played the main antagonist in Mad Max (1979) and Mad Max: Fury Road (2015). Joofjoof (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Clean and well referenced article, somewhere between a Start-class and a C-class biography, though Rater.js suggests B. Good to go to the homepage. Ktin (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: George Ross Anderson Jr.
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Greenville News
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Dumelow (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 judge. I've expanded a bit and hopefully can get some more done - Dumelow (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
OpposeArticle is fine except for a single cn tag in there. @Dumelow: Please fix it. Gotitbro (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)- Support now. Gotitbro (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support @Gotitbro: I have fixed the CN tag. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Maria Itkina
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Queen Athletics (Italian)
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (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: Societ Olympic sprinter. I'm adding some stuff but article is OK - Dumelow (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks okay to me. Gotitbro (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Article is start class or better. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Seems fine for RD JW 1961 Talk 21:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Brian Kerr, Baron Kerr of Tonaghmore
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Armagh I
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (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: Recently retired Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Not got time at the moment to improve it much but its in pretty good shape already - Dumelow (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Agree, its a short but well sourced piece that covers all his his roles JW 1961 Talk 22:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Good enough.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 01:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks okay to me. Gotitbro (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I don't like "Selected cases" and I don't like one of them not being linked/referenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Good point, there was no criteria for selection. I've removed the section and added those not mentioned in the text to "see also" - Dumelow (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Arecibo observatory
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: Arecibo Observatory — for 50 years the world's largest single aperture radio telescope — collapsed. (Post)
News source(s): "Giant Arecibo radio telescope collapses in Puerto Rico". The Guardian. Associated Press. 1 December 2020. Retrieved 1 December 2020. Coto, DÁNICA (December 1, 2020). "Huge Puerto Rico radio telescope, already damaged, collapses". Associated Press. Retrieved December 1, 2020 – via Yahoo!.
Credits:
- Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (talk · give credit)
- Created by Bryan Derksen (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Comment didn't we already post the closure of this? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose it was closed because of the same issues that caused the collapse, and there was no reason to believe it would be saved. Ergo, the collapse is not sufficiently distinct from the closure decision to be posted as a separate item. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Are you sure that this was posted before? In any event, this is analogous to a death. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Closure was on ITN from 20 Nov to 25 Nov. Just answering the question, no opinion on adding a new blurb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose We already posted this, so recently that I think it was the last blurb to roll off the main page. --Jayron32 17:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose (Yes we posted the decommissioning already). They knew that if this wasn't decommissioned in a controlled manner soon, it was going to collapse, the question of how disasterous the collapse. While this has destroys the dish and receiver, ending the telescope's "life", the damage from it was not as bad as they had feared (no injuries, some structural damage to remaining buildings), so while a sad event, I think most were already prepared back on Nov 19 when the decommissioning was announced. --Masem (t) 17:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: we posted that it was being decommissioned already. It was being decommissioned because it was old and on the verge of collapse. Now it collapsed. Not really unexpected or newsworthy. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 19:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per previous. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Chang'e 5 Landing
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: Chang'e 5 lands on the moon, becoming the first lunar sample-return mission since Luna 24 in 1976. (Post)
News source(s): (New York Times), (The Verge)
Credits:
- Nominated by Albertaont (talk · give credit)
- Created by Python eggs (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.
- Oppose I think we want to affirm it returns to Earth, which should be in two weeks, IIRC. That would mark the successful mission. (It hasn't made the return so its not really a full sample-return mission yet). --Masem (t) 17:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem. The spacecraft has not yet reached its destination, which is Earth. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's quite frankly ridiculous. If you go on holiday to X. Your holiday distination is X, not your home despite knowing you would be returning with souvenirs. -- KTC (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it matches the ITNR, but the fact that its return would also be an ITNR means we'd probably want to wait for the latter since it will be very very soon. If this was a return-sample mission to Mars where the return would take several months, that would be different as we'd not have to worry about piggybacking stories on the same thing. --Masem (t) 18:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, I tried to reduce the number of space exploration (wouldn't have affected this one) on ITNR, those that supported on here didn't comment, a number of those that commented objected to it there. They suggested that if people bothered to update the articles, it should be posted. So here we are, an article that has sufficient details, meets ITNR, so post it. -- KTC (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- It is not listed as ITNR on return to earth, only on reaching the moon. There is no ITNR for returning to earth in the criteria. Albertaont (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, I tried to reduce the number of space exploration (wouldn't have affected this one) on ITNR, those that supported on here didn't comment, a number of those that commented objected to it there. They suggested that if people bothered to update the articles, it should be posted. So here we are, an article that has sufficient details, meets ITNR, so post it. -- KTC (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Don't be so obtuse. A destination is the end of a journey. I go on a journey to my holiday destination, at which point the journey is over. The trip home is a separate journey. Has Chang'e reached the end of its journey? No. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it matches the ITNR, but the fact that its return would also be an ITNR means we'd probably want to wait for the latter since it will be very very soon. If this was a return-sample mission to Mars where the return would take several months, that would be different as we'd not have to worry about piggybacking stories on the same thing. --Masem (t) 18:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's quite frankly ridiculous. If you go on holiday to X. Your holiday distination is X, not your home despite knowing you would be returning with souvenirs. -- KTC (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- GreatCaesarsGhost I can equally argue that Chang'e has reached the end of it's "first" journey but that's not what's important. What's important is whether this meets the ITNR criteria, and it does, when applying the criteria as it was intended. Also: the point of the mission is to go to the moon AND come back, NOT only coming back. Had Chang' e not landed on the moon, this mission would have been useless. 74.101.118.65 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Correct - you could argue either way; my position is not "ridiculous" as another editor rudely opined. You say the distinction is unimportant because this is ITNR, but the distinction defines if it is ITNR. Given that the key objective of the mission is to return specimens, the return to Earth would seem to be plainly more significant than the craft reaching the moon. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support - it's a spacecraft, it has arrived at a destination in lunar orbit and beyond, don't quickly see a problem with the article itself. -- KTC (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support per KTC. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support per KTC. It's a moon mission, not an Earth mission. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support - notable space mission, regardless if it gets back to Earth or not.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is an unmanned space probe. Success is defined by whether or not it is able to return samples to Earth. If it doesn't make it back to Earth, it's a failed mission and would get posted on ITN either way under ITN/R rules.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Success or failure of the mission is not part of the criteria of WP:ITN/R for spacecraft, if there was an intent to use it as a criteria, then it would be there already. The only mention of failure in the criteria is "launch failure" which this is clearly not. The criteria of arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) is very clearly stated. WP:ITN/R does not say a return to earth would qualify, only that it reaches lunar orbit or beyond. Albertaont (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would actually go so far as to say that none of the existing ITN/R criteria cleanly cover this particular mission, particularly the "lunar orbit and beyond" criteria, mostly because a mission of this particular kind hasn't been done since the 1970s (predating Wikipedia, let alone ITN/R). The mission's goal is sample return and that should be when a posting is made.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- We have had a few comet missions which are also in sample return category, how were they treated? Might provide precedent. Albertaont (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is not a lunar crasher. The spacecraft made a soft landing which means the objective is to return with physical samples. WaltCip-(talk) 03:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- We have had a few comet missions which are also in sample return category, how were they treated? Might provide precedent. Albertaont (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would actually go so far as to say that none of the existing ITN/R criteria cleanly cover this particular mission, particularly the "lunar orbit and beyond" criteria, mostly because a mission of this particular kind hasn't been done since the 1970s (predating Wikipedia, let alone ITN/R). The mission's goal is sample return and that should be when a posting is made.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Success or failure of the mission is not part of the criteria of WP:ITN/R for spacecraft, if there was an intent to use it as a criteria, then it would be there already. The only mention of failure in the criteria is "launch failure" which this is clearly not. The criteria of arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) is very clearly stated. WP:ITN/R does not say a return to earth would qualify, only that it reaches lunar orbit or beyond. Albertaont (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support ITNR and article quality is good. 74.101.118.65 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support An ITNR that a an aacceptable article JW 1961 Talk 22:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Same as the last nom for this. Are we going to post when it reaches (or fails to reach) Earth, yes?, then we needn't post the same thing multiple times. It might be ITNR but we can better use our own judgement here. On a side note is mentioning Luna in the blurb necessary/relevant? Gotitbro (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Finally, something worth putting up This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose While I'm all for posting science milestones, this specific mission is not complete yet, and I say we wait until the sample returns to earth. Gex4pls (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wait. It returns in two weeks. When we post multiple blurbs about a single space mission, they are typically months or even years apart. --Tone 08:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- This exactly, posting multiple blurbs about the same thing in such close time-frames doesn't seem right. Gotitbro (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Don't count your chickens before they hatch. In any case, we posted OSIRIS-REx THREE times already and it doesn't even return until 2023. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Because the events are months/years apart. The only issue here is that if we post now, then by the usual ITN posting timing, a few days after this falls out from other stories being posted, the rocket will have returned to Earth and mark the successful end of mission and we'd want to post again. We can wait the couple weeks. If the return was a month out, I won't be as worried about the double post. --Masem (t) 14:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Masem, the oldest item now is from Nov. 23 (9 days ago). This is the slow season. It is likely that it won't roll off at all and we can simply update it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- But what if it does roll off? Then people would want to readd it, and then we get to a situation like the Arecibo Observatory (where a second event that was known to be coming in a few weeks wasn't posted because it was expected). It is simply better to wait for the return to Earth at this point to minimize problems. --Masem (t) 15:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Masem, the oldest item now is from Nov. 23 (9 days ago). This is the slow season. It is likely that it won't roll off at all and we can simply update it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Because the events are months/years apart. The only issue here is that if we post now, then by the usual ITN posting timing, a few days after this falls out from other stories being posted, the rocket will have returned to Earth and mark the successful end of mission and we'd want to post again. We can wait the couple weeks. If the return was a month out, I won't be as worried about the double post. --Masem (t) 14:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Don't count your chickens before they hatch. In any case, we posted OSIRIS-REx THREE times already and it doesn't even return until 2023. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- This exactly, posting multiple blurbs about the same thing in such close time-frames doesn't seem right. Gotitbro (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Waiting seems sensible, as returning to Earth is part of the mission.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support – This is ITNR and a major achievement. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wait for sample return to Earth, which is only a fortnight away. That's the final destination of the mission - getting to the Moon is a major step along the way, but not the actual goal. I agree with Masem that we could have posted those stages separately if they were months or years apart, but it makes little sense when they're only a few days. See also the discussion a few days ago on the launch, where we agreed to wait for sample return. Modest Genius talk 15:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wait – Per Modest, P-K3, et al. – Sca (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wait - it seems preferable to report on it completing its successful mission. Obviously if something goes wrong before it returns to Earth, we would report that as well. — Amakuru (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- To add, it has appeared to lifted off safely from the moon, so very extraordinary chance of not being able to complete the main mission by the 15th-16th. --Masem (t) 14:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support now it's only the 3rd successful lander since the 70s. The other two were also Chinese, but there have been more successful landings on Mars in the last decade alone. It's weird to see this bias on ITN. 2601:602:9200:1310:FC9F:418A:1BFE:3AE0 (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Mahara prison riot
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: Eight prison inmates were killed and 71 injured during a prison riot in Mahara in Sri Lanka. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Deadly clashes between prisoners and police officials resulted in killing of eight prisoners at the Mahara Prison in Sri Lanka
News source(s): CNN, Reuters, The Guardian, Al Jazeera
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Abishe (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Comment I have done a full article CE. Coverage is global and the article is well composed and referenced. The lede is too long, and the parts dealing with the riot should be broken off into their own section. It is odd to find an article with only sections named Background and Aftermath. Perhaps Riot and fire is needed in between. A few details don't make sense to me; was the "fire from the Mahara fire" a secondary fire, and is "succumbed" used to mean "died" (the 8 prisoners) or "subdued" (in the whole prison population)? Will support once these are done.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose For now, too short ATM. Also this seems to be connected with COVID, which is being avoided for blurbs unless especially notable (the blurb should also reflect the COVID relation which is the reason for its coverage in news). Gotitbro (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Not widely covered in media, lede is much longer than body, among other general quality concerns with the article. Albertaont (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Not widely covered, article is not great This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Article is stubby, and event seems a bit too local for ITN (though if death toll rises past say, 30, I'd support) Gex4pls (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment While I agree that the article quality needs to improve, what's the objection to coverage? CNN (sourced from Reuters), Guardian (apparently independently sourced), and Al Jazeera (sourced from AFP). That's at least 5 sources representing 3 languages and 3 continents, just taking the links in the nom.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
November 30
November 30, 2020
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: Hella Brock
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LVZ (in German subscription)
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
- Created by LouisAlain (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: Musicologist, internationally known as Grieg scholar, 101. The article was basically there, translated in May, I just made an external link to a ref and added 2 obits. More may come. Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support. A decent article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support, I added a few ISBN's looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 23:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 01:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Irina Antonova
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Meduza (Russian edition)
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew_J.Kurbiko (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: Added some references to the article, seems to have no major issues --Andrei (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Appears stubby, can do well with an ib and some expansion (see the ruwiki article). Gotitbro (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Added more text from Russian --Andrei (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article looks fine now. @Andrew J.Kurbiko: Please also add an infobox to the article. Gotitbro (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Added --Andrei (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article looks fine now. @Andrew J.Kurbiko: Please also add an infobox to the article. Gotitbro (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Added more text from Russian --Andrei (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose missing some citations and no mention in the article of her death. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Added more references --Andrei (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support The article is now much better. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Andrei can you add a sentence about her death if you have sources? should be good for RD when that is added. When that is done count this as Support JW 1961 Talk 21:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is one already. Can you clarify what else is needed? --Andrei (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 00:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Ben Bova
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tor.com, SFWA
Credits:
- Nominated by Eddie891 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Schazjmd (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: Myself and Schazjmd worked to ud the page, they got the formal 'update' edit in Eddie891 Talk Work 21:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support - looks in good enough shape to me. — Amakuru (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not thrilled that for such a short bio, the biblography was previously shuffled off to a separate article. Yes, 100+ works is long, but I feel it would be better for that to be included in the bio page, and which would only need to add the necessary ISBNs for published works to complete referencing there. I won't oppose posting if that's not done here, but I just feel it's better overall if there's no reasonable way to expand the present article. --Masem (t) 01:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would say the exact opposite. Articles that are mostly bibliography, compared to the amount of text, are a eyesore, and this seems like a neat way to have resolved that issue, with a summary remaining at the parent. Few will be interested in that great long list of works, but for the few that are, they now have a page to visit. — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support, a giant in his field. On the afternoon when the first images from the Viking 1 Mars lander were printed in the newspapers in 1976 I showed him a front page (he hadn't seen the TV relay). Bova immediately said "Looks like New Jersey". Randy Kryn (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article looks fine for an RD even without the bibliography. Gotitbro (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted - Dumelow (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
(Attention Needed) AlphaFold
Blurb: DeepMind's AlphaFold achieves results in protein structure prediction comparable to laboratory determination techniques at CASP 2020 (Post)
Alternative blurb: DeepMind's AlphaFold breaks a significant barrier in solving the protein folding problem; a grand challenge in computational biology.
Alternative blurb II: DeepMind's AlphaFold AI breaks a significant barrier in solving the protein folding problem.
Alternative blurb III:
News source(s): Nature New Scientist The Times Science Bloomberg Economist CASP press release Guardian BBC NY Times DeepMind blog
Credits:
- Nominated by Jheald (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ktin (talk · give credit) and Jheald (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Article on DeepMind's Alpha Fold needs a lot of development, but this looks like a very big deal.
John Moult, organiser of CASP: "This is an enormous breakthrough. A 50-year-old grand challenge in computer science has been to a large degree solved." (Times). Andrei Lupas: "It’s a game changer. This will change medicine. It will change research. It will change bioengineering. It will change everything." (Nature). Venki Ramakrishnan 'said the achievement was stunning. “It has occurred decades before many people in the field would have predicted... it will fundamentally change biological research." (Times) The Times has been running this as top story on its website. Jheald (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support.
Comment. I wrote up a little bit about AlphaFold which you can use as the target article.It is currently a start-class article, but, will definitely require someone more knowledgeable to help expand before it can get to homepage levels. I can lend a hand later tonight.Edits and expansion to the article is completed. Article has shaped up well to a C-class article. I feel pretty good about it. Now, if folks can hash out news-readiness and the blurb, I think this is good to go :) Ktin (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC) - Comment - Can we get a source from a reputable science journal that's NOT some pop science press release bullshit? If it's as groundbreaking as the scientists say it is, then they can get a peer reviewer to state that.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- @WaltCip: Nature and Science are pretty much the top of the tree, as science news reporting goes. Venki Ramakrishnan is President of the Royal Society, a structural molecular biologist himself with a Nobel prize to prove it, and unaffiliated to both DeepMind and the competition. What speaks for AlphaFold are its results -- see eg the schematic from the article in Science for a sense of the degree to which AlphaFold has scored way better than has ever been achieved before, and done it across the full range of hundred or so structures that entrants were asked to try to solve. Also impressive is Lupas's testimony of how he gave AlphaFold one more sequence, which his team had been trying to understand for 10 years. Half an hour later came back a structure, which explained all the data they had been struggling with. The CASP conference continues until Thursday, so expect more comment and information and assesment to come. Automated structure prediction really has been seen as the 'holy grail' of structural biology for 50 years. CASP is a reputable competition and collaborative conference, the benchmark in the field, which has witnessed steady but slow improvements for 20 years. But this year AlphaFold has "annihilated" the challenges. That is why this news is getting such a reaction. Jheald (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Notability seems there, but the blurb needs some tweaking to be more understandable. Nixinova T C 22:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's ελληνική to me. – Sca (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Added. Nixinova and Sca, please see if Altblurb and Altblurb2 are helpful :) Ktin (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've changed the link in the alt-blurbs from protein folding problem to protein folding, as the latter gives a better general way in. Jheald (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Clearly notable for an encyclopedia. I'd prefer the first blurb. --bender235 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support on article quality + significance but I yearn for a slightly more usable blurb (even with alt2). Its unfortunate these problems aren't as famous as the various math challenges where we could just name and point to them. But that's my only issue otherwise, article's been improved when I first peaked at it. --Masem (t) 01:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support a variant of alt 2. Nixinova T C 03:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb The original one that is. The target article could use some multimedia and expansion but is okayish. Gotitbro (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Big scientific news. I think Alt-2 is the best option. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I won't oppose this, but we should be clear that this is a rather incremental improvement. It is marginally more accurate (against a curated database of empirical data) than previous computational approaches, while still not being able to solve all of the problems in the curated database, and certainly not all problems that arise outside of curation. The lede in the article gets this point across, but the blurb should do so as well, in a way that doesn't just handwave terms like "significant barrier".130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- No. This builds on what has gone before, but it is more than just an "incremental improvement". Understand the scoring system here. 2018's score of 45 means that 45% of atoms were in more-or-less the right place. Which meant that 55% weren't. Which meant the 2018 predictions weren't accurate enough to be biologically useful. In contrast a score of 85-90 means that all but 10 to 15% of atoms are placed just where they should be. (And some of that remaining 10-15% may not have a stable position - in reality it may be a bit that flaps about). AlphaFold 2 is predicting structures accurately and robustly enough (and with well-calibrated estimates of local confidence), that its predictions are reliable enough to meaningfully understand the biological structure of the protein. That has never been consistently achieved before -- and AlphaFold is managing this across the full range of sequences it was presented with (with, as I understand it, just a single exception in the whole of the CASP test set). This is beyond a tipping point, it is revolutionary. In context: 90% position accuracy on this metric is as good as you can get from structures 'solved' with the best available experimental data. (For which people win prizes). And AlphaFold 2 is consistent achieving this, or getting damn close, across the board. Jheald (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- People win those prizes because they are doing something truely novel: they are solving previously unknown structures. This is solving a subset of those already-solved structures, again, in the hopes that it might one day solve an unknown structure. The field has moved onto complex interactions and macrocomplexes, and single molecule folding has become a purely academic interest. Which isn't bad or disqualifying, it will have impacts regarding time and scale of certain projects, but "revolutionary" it is not. I have added an altblurb to reflect the meat and bones of the current news.130.233.3.185 (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- The algorithm didn't know the structures had been solved, nor did it use any of the information from those solutions. The whole point of the CASP test set is that it is designed to be a typical cross-section of proteins that is representative of proteins for which we have sequence data but no 3d structure. So solving a CASP protein is expected to be as difficult as solving a typical unknown sequence. Currently there are 200 million known protein sequences, with 30 million new sequences being added every year, compared to about 170,000 proteins with known structures. Typically it currently takes an entire PhD to solve one sequence, if you can get the experiments to work and if you can get the protein to crystallise and if you can make sense of the results - none of which are guaranteed. There was a protein (without a known structure) that Lupas's team gave as an 'extra' to AlphaFold, that they had been trying to understand for ten years. AlphaFold came back with a prediction that they were able to confirm explained their experimental data, and which they were able to tweak in 30 minutes to give a final structure. So AlphaFold has in fact already been used to solve completely unknown proteins. Yes, of course one wants to know the proteins interact with other molecules, how they function as molecular machines. But getting a structure is an essential prerequisite for this -- it is anything but a "purely academic interest".
- Secondly to say that AlphaFold has "successfully doubled the accuracy of computationally-predicted protein folding" is to profoundly misinterpret the significance of what the AlphaFlow team has achieved. More relevant is that they have reduced the mismatch between the prediction and what experiment can reliably determine from almost half the protein to between nought and five percent. That is a step forward of truly huge significance. Previously predictions were not reliable or precise enough to inform biological understanding of the protein. Now, on the strength of the CASP competition results, they are. That is a sea change, as well as an extraordinary intellectual achievement. Jheald (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- People win those prizes because they are doing something truely novel: they are solving previously unknown structures. This is solving a subset of those already-solved structures, again, in the hopes that it might one day solve an unknown structure. The field has moved onto complex interactions and macrocomplexes, and single molecule folding has become a purely academic interest. Which isn't bad or disqualifying, it will have impacts regarding time and scale of certain projects, but "revolutionary" it is not. I have added an altblurb to reflect the meat and bones of the current news.130.233.3.185 (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- No. This builds on what has gone before, but it is more than just an "incremental improvement". Understand the scoring system here. 2018's score of 45 means that 45% of atoms were in more-or-less the right place. Which meant that 55% weren't. Which meant the 2018 predictions weren't accurate enough to be biologically useful. In contrast a score of 85-90 means that all but 10 to 15% of atoms are placed just where they should be. (And some of that remaining 10-15% may not have a stable position - in reality it may be a bit that flaps about). AlphaFold 2 is predicting structures accurately and robustly enough (and with well-calibrated estimates of local confidence), that its predictions are reliable enough to meaningfully understand the biological structure of the protein. That has never been consistently achieved before -- and AlphaFold is managing this across the full range of sequences it was presented with (with, as I understand it, just a single exception in the whole of the CASP test set). This is beyond a tipping point, it is revolutionary. In context: 90% position accuracy on this metric is as good as you can get from structures 'solved' with the best available experimental data. (For which people win prizes). And AlphaFold 2 is consistent achieving this, or getting damn close, across the board. Jheald (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per IP above. It sounds like the popular press has over-blown the significance of this. If Alt3 is correct, then it doesn't look like the sort of major breakthrough that would warrant ITN. Also, none of the Hooks give any indication of why this is important, to a nonspecialist. — Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru, definitely respect your views. But, as a layperson, this is how I read it. Proteins -- linear structures of amino acids -- fold into 3D shapes and structures -- which eventually what causes them to express themselves and have the intended effects -- good / bad etc. So, for biologists to explore drug discovery / disease research etc -- they need the final structure that proteins take shape. But, the only way currently to do it accurately is via laboratory examinations. These lab examinations -- are time consuming and expensive. So, computational algorithms can do that. But, until now their accuracy levels were not up there. Now, accuracy levels have reached upwards of a score of 90 (lets say 90% just for this conversation, though there are some more nuances). Now suddenly, the algorithms become valuable as a way to determine these protein structures sans experimentation (x-ray crystallography etc.). So, the barrier between when algorithms become accurate enough to be truly valuable has been breached. Hence, this is important.
- PS: The above explanation is quite simplistic. But, this is the gist of what I have learnt as a layperson. Ktin (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not an expert in AI or protein folding, but I know enough to realise that this is a major advance if the claims are true, definitely worth an ITN blurb. The issue is whether now is the right moment. I'm a bit hesitant that the researchers haven't published their results in a peer-reviewed paper, which is usually our threshold for science stories, but I suppose they were part of the community annual testing process so have at least had some scrutiny by experts. However they haven't publicly described the methods used yet, or released the algorithm. It's undeniably in the news now though. I'm therefore torn and refraining from !voting. Modest Genius talk 12:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- PS. If we do post this, the blurb should link to Protein structure prediction, which is specifically about the computational problem, not protein folding which is about the natural process. Modest Genius talk 15:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Obscure and arcane. It may be significant, but will be understood only by a specialized niche audience. Most readers won't have a clue about what "protein folding" is, much less what this development may signify. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Front page of The Times newspaper this morning with photo [1], plus two inside pages and leader. Do they really have such a higher opinion of their readers than we do of ours? And aren't encyclopedias here to inform people? Jheald (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see it here at the moment. Anyway, the hoi polloi don't read The Times of London. – Sca (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Pardon my French, but this is an asinine argument. Protein folding is the premier problem in computational biology. People unaware of its significance or implications can read the respective articles. As I wrote above, this achievement is clearly relevant for an encyclopedia, just as gravitational wave detection or the black hole image was before (both of which we featured on ITN). The number of readers who at the time knew what a gravitational wave was was probably hardly bigger than the ones you suspect knowing of protein folding now. --bender235 (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Front page of The Times newspaper this morning with photo [1], plus two inside pages and leader. Do they really have such a higher opinion of their readers than we do of ours? And aren't encyclopedias here to inform people? Jheald (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Most scientific discovery is incremental. To the extent that we ever see advancement quickly enough to qualify here, this nom is as good as it gets. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Amakuru. Also, the body of the article hasn't been updated properly beside a small 3-line paragraph about the, uhh, "breakthrough". Also, also, I've also counted 7 yays and 4 nays as of right now, with nays becoming more frequent as time goes by, so I'm removing the ready tag for now. CoronaOneLove (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- @CoronaOneLove: we're not counting votes on Wikipedia. The embarrassingly uninformed statements of people unaware of the significance of this breakthrough can be safely ignored. This is easily the most important methodological discovery in biology since CRISPR gene editing a decade ago (and which won a Nobel just this year). --bender235 (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yet again, CRISPR and others win prizes because what they are doing is novel. This is partially solving, to a better degree than previously, already-solved problems. It's an extended machine learning training. I have a nearly-full career of "we've finally solved the protein folding problem" behind me; I don't make uninformed statements here, so you can kindly unstrike my alt blurb relating to the mathematical scoring of this competition.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Calling this merely an "improvement on an already-solved problem" is like saying AlphaGo beating Lee Sedol was only slightly better than beating a random 6-yr old at Go. And your claim isn't even plausible. If achieving 92% accuracy was that easy, why hasn't it occurred in the past 26 years of CASP already? --bender235 (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yet again, CRISPR and others win prizes because what they are doing is novel. This is partially solving, to a better degree than previously, already-solved problems. It's an extended machine learning training. I have a nearly-full career of "we've finally solved the protein folding problem" behind me; I don't make uninformed statements here, so you can kindly unstrike my alt blurb relating to the mathematical scoring of this competition.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @CoronaOneLove: we're not counting votes on Wikipedia. The embarrassingly uninformed statements of people unaware of the significance of this breakthrough can be safely ignored. This is easily the most important methodological discovery in biology since CRISPR gene editing a decade ago (and which won a Nobel just this year). --bender235 (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support per above. This is a major breakthrough with huge implications to all bio-related sciences. This is akin in significance to CRISPR (which won the noble prize, and which was posted). Also, all the blurbs have links too, and links are meant to be read. 74.101.118.65 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Equivalent to a press release. Absolute support once peer-review comes out. Albertaont (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Albertaont:. Please, notice that this is more than a press release. The results have been shown during the CASP meeting, solving previous unknown protein foldings with 90% accuracy. Even, an unknown folding, that a research group has been battling for ten years, has been solved as an "extrawork". All the results has been "peer reviewed", in a way by the jury, formed by top field experts. Also, this groundbreaking work is already In the news, as in Nature and Science, etc. Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: how long does it take to sort this thing out? This is getting embarrassing for Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Agreeing with bender235 here. Everything else for November 30th has already been posted - how has one of the most important scientific advancements since the discovery of CRISPR not been posted yet? -- Glencoe2004 (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Maybe we could ping to some biology related administrators, as @Keilana, TimVickers, Protonk, Evercat, and Vanamonde93: Could you please, take a look at this ITN proposal ? Thanks. Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Protein folding is far from my specialty but that said, this is a huge breakthrough that has implications for every branch of the life sciences, especially medicine. The computational challenge of protein folding has hindered advancement in a myriad of fields for years and winning CASP is newsworthy in and of itself, imo. Keilana (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Another comment: a week later and still no decision? What in the world is going on here? What an embarrassment. --bender235 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 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: