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 28
December 28, 2020
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
December 27
December 27, 2020
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
December 26
December 26, 2020
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Robin Jackman
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Cricinfo
Credits:
- Updated and 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-born English and South-African cricketer. Much loved for his commentary. Article was in a very good condition. Needs sourcing across the board, which I will work on in the next couple of hours. Sourcing is complete. Did not have to do any content edits. If someone wants any other edits incorporated, please let me know. RIP. Thanks for all the memories. Ktin
(Posted) RD: Phil Niekro
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
– Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support sourcing looks good thanks to Muboshgu's efforts. The fourteen navboxes at the bottom are silly, but not a reason to oppose this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support A bit wacky his photo has him as a Yankee, but (unfortunately) that's not a barrier for posting. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nohomersryan, don't hate on the best franchise in sports. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support adequate for ITN. Good to go! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Brodie Lee
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Jerusalem Post, ESPN
Credits:
- Nominated by GaryColemanFan (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: Professional wrestler (real name Jon Huber) with two of the biggest promotions in the United States. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - One cn tag, but very good article. I'm ready to change it to support as soon as this small issue is resolved.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 03:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I believe I've dealt with these. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Too damn young to burn up, but too damn good to fade away. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. BD2412 T 05:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support, you know what that means. starship.paint (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support good to go, probably one of the best wrestling bios I've seen nominated here. Consider nominating for WP:GA. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Support per all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 10:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Stephen could you check Shamsur Rahman Faruqi & George Blake as they were marked good to go as well but appear to have been overlooked? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Jim McLean
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Jmorrison230582 (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: Successful manager of Dundee United; led them to a Scottish league championship (1982–83) and an appearance in the 1987 UEFA Cup Final. Inducted to the Scottish Football Hall of Fame in 2005. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Quite a lot uncited in there as of now, will check back later. RIP, a great manager! JW 1961 Talk 21:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Weak opposea few unreferenced sentences in there, but otherwise in good condition. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)- Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Added a couple of refs for the awards. I can’t see anything contentious now.yorkshiresky (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 11:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: George Blake
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by Bruzaholm (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Black Kite (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.
Bruzaholm (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC))
Oppose a few cn tags and unreferenced paragraphsScaramouche33 (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)- it's good to go Scaramouche33 (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support All pretty much sourced now, I think. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Far, far better than many RDs, and it looks sourced to me. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support article looks incredibly sourced and incredibly written. Good work as always, Bruzaholm. Tuck (come say hi!) — Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support good enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 11:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
December 25
December 25, 2020
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Sports
|
RD: Tony Rice
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: Leading bluegrass musician. Article is not in good shape, needing a lot of sourcing. Masem (t) 05:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, per nom. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose long way to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
RD: Barry Lopez
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian (AP report)
Credits:
- Nominated by AleatoryPonderings (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American nature writer. Not very long, but not a stub. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Weak opposea handful of citations needed (in the bibliography section) but the rest is decent. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- The going requirement at ITN for citations for the mere existence of a book (not its awards) strikes me as overkill, especially when {{authority control}} exists. I'll try to find some, but really—the existence of a book, which can be quickly verified by the simplest of Google searches, is not something that requires {{cn}}. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. And I didn't add all the tags. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, Well, in any event, they're now addressed. And I know that's not how it works—I said "the going requirement". I disagree with "how it works", because I think encouraging editors to add citations to Worldcat is very silly indeed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't. Do you think our readers know what "Authority control" means?? Good work on the article. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Posting-Admins, please consider expanding the carousel count to 7 when posting this article on WP:ITNRD the article that will be popping off has been there for ~7 hours. Ktin (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Shamsur Rahman Faruqi
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express
Credits:
- Nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Indian Urdu poet. Padma Shri awardee. Article can do with a good amount of edits. I will work in it later tonight. Edits and article expansion done. Solid C-class biography. Meets hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Everything's referenced Scaramouche33 (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support looks just about fine. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 11:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
RD: Danny Hodge
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WWE Figure Four Wrestling
Credits:
- Nominated by GaryColemanFan (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: Olympic wrestler and medal winner. Professional wrestler enshrined in numerous halls of fame. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose death not covered in prose. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support added "death" section to article (could use expansion if someone has source for cause of death etc) JW 1961 Talk 21:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- There's an explanation of COD in the source you added. So you're admitting that you didn't bother to read it? See my comment below about formatting puffery, yet another example of the fraud committed around here in the name of "article quality". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- RadioKAOS, The source I added specifically states "While the cause of death isn't known yet"! Yes I did read it or I wouldn't have asked for further explanations. Please don't accuse other editors of fraud! JW 1961 Talk 17:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- RadioKAOS, I agree with JW's statement above. Perhaps not my place to be saying, but, please be polite to your fellow editors. I would also recommend that you apologize to JW on their talk page. Ktin (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- There's an explanation of COD in the source you added. So you're admitting that you didn't bother to read it? See my comment below about formatting puffery, yet another example of the fraud committed around here in the name of "article quality". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose As usual, folks appear to be judging this solely on account of formatting puffery. As a biography, it's quite incomplete and chronologically all over the place. It reads like a semi-random collection of facts which just happen to be backed by sources. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Missing a considerable amount about his government work, infobox photo and "Other" classification beg a few questions. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
RD: Soumaïla Cissé
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters Le Monde
Credits:
- Nominated by Alsoriano97 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Opposition leader of Mali. Article needs work. Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- oppose for now. Two cn tags. Personal life could use a little expansion, also more info on his abduction and release would be nice. Scaramouche33 (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
RD: K. C. Jones
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (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: Needs sourcing – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose still under-referenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
RD: Michael Alig
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Daily News
Credits:
- Nominated by UncomfortablySmug (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: The Club Kid Killer. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 6:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose a couple of unref'd claims in there. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Armenia protests
Blurb: 2020 Armenian protests grow again calling for the resignation Nikol Pashinyan. (Post)
News source(s): NBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by 2A02:2A57:173D:0:3C22:E327:9689:F0F2 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: There was a link here, but it's gone. It should be back as the protests have been the largest yet this week. Not to mention all that noise I hear :) 2A02:2A57:173D:0:A880:FE7:F406:82D3 (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC) 2A02:2A57:173D:0:3C22:E327:9689:F0F2 (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- @2A02:2A57:173D:0:A880:FE7:F406:82D3: Please fix your nomination, the instructions on how to properly nominate an article are given on this page above. Gotitbro (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The article kind of updated to this week. I've not edited much here, but post on the Talk page,can someone help to update?2A02:2A57:173D:0:3C22:E327:9689:F0F2 (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC) I did a little update and posted in the talk page the links. The part about Nikol rejecting I didn't find, but I didn't look hard enough.2A02:2A57:173D:0:3C22:E327:9689:F0F2 (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Nashville bombing
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: A vehicle explosion in downtown Nashville, Tennessee is characterized as an intentional act and leaves at least one person dead. (Post)
News source(s): NBC News, AP (new), Guardian, Tennessean (new)
Credits:
- Nominated by UncomfortablySmug (talk · give credit)
- Oppose.
No article. Even if there was, this were no fatalities. Thankfully only 3 injuries and property damage.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)- I am still not convinced this rises to level of what we usually post at ITN. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Closed per WP:SNOW WaltCip (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support and reopened. There is an article and there is clearly at least one death so far. While it might not reach consensus, to WP:SNOW is pre-mature. Also at this point the oppose is also based on assertions which have changed. Albertaont (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support. This is in the news and the article is in good shape. -- Tavix (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. The only reason this is in the news is because it happened in the US. Had this happened in say, Germany, everyone would have ignored it. Only 3 people were injured, and to the best of our knowledge, there are no confirmed fatalities so far. This is not important on an international scale, and should be put under WP:SNOW. The Image Editor (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- We have had a lively debate on ITN when similar attacks happened in France and Austria a few months ago, I dont recall what the final outcome was, but to say "Had this happened in say, Germany, everyone would have ignored it." is not correct if we just look back at ITN. Albertaont (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Those discussions ended in no consensus, and were not posted. That gives even more reason for this to NOT post this onto ITN. I will admit, that the Germany comparison was in bad faith, but I still think that this doesn’t even approach the threshold of international news. If this somehow gets posted, I would argue that it would dramatically lower the standard of what is ITN worthy. But then again, who am I to judge. The Image Editor (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- We have had a lively debate on ITN when similar attacks happened in France and Austria a few months ago, I dont recall what the final outcome was, but to say "Had this happened in say, Germany, everyone would have ignored it." is not correct if we just look back at ITN. Albertaont (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support: definitely on the front pages of many news agencies, even outside the US. Singapore, UK, Germany, Brazil. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 01:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support: The building collapse makes it front page worthy. Unknown-Tree (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wait: Too much is unknown at present, such as whether there were any fatalities. TompaDompa (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This is still being considered as a domestic situation, and there is at most one possible death, typically far lower than what we would post. --Masem (t) 04:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose We don't have enough information currently to judge the significance of the attack and so far it seems like a small-scale incident. Plus, if we were to post this, then we would be setting the bar too low for these types of events Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wait until we know if people were killed & if it was a bombing by a terrorist group. If it was a lone-wolf attack in which there were no deaths or only one, it's not important enough for ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose trivia. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Wait– Puzzling & mysterious, thus interesting, but lacking in general significance – though that could change if the investigation uncovers evidence of terrorism. – Sca (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)- Comment – Law enforcement seeks "person of interest." [2] [3] – Sca (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I got it right the first time. WaltCip-(talk) 02:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Is it in the news? Yes, globally (per links posted above). Are readers interested in it? Yes: nearly 80,000 page views on day 1 of the article [4]. Is the article of sufficient quality? Yes. Therefore: post it. It doesn't matter what country it happened in. BTW, the significance is in the mysteriousness of the incident, the size of the bomb, and the widespread AT&T telecom outage, which is now in its second day. I would suggest maybe an alternate blurb like "A vehicle explosion in downtown Nashville, Tennessee results in three injuries and widespread damage and outages." Levivich harass/hound 04:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- It does matter where it happened. This is the US, and I apologize to the rest of the world but we're basically idiots here when it comes to gun ownership and stuff like this. This is stuff that happens far too frequently here that, unless we're taking major death and destruction, we skip over these topics because they are "routine" for the US. Now, sure , maybe there's something in the investigation thta proves out something far more sinister than what currently seems as a typical US whack job to prove worthwhile to post, but this isn't anything damaging like the Boston Marathon bombings. --Masem (t) 06:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is nothing routine about this RV full of explosives that detonated in downtown Nashville after blaring a siren and audio warning to evacuate the area. The US hasn't had a vehicle bomb attack like this in ... I don't remember the last one. There is nothing routine about grounded flights, 911 being down, mobile phones, and landlines being down, in a three-state area, for two days. The US hasn't had an outage like that in ... even the California wildfires didn't produce outages of that scale; I don't remember the last time all communications were down in such a large area. An attack doesn't have to be the Boston Marathon bombings--the second-worst terrorist attack in US history, probably--in order to be worthy of ITN. And honestly, editors' subjective personal opinions about the importance of the event should not matter at all; 80,000 readers are interested, but a dozen Wikipedia editors think it's routine, so we don't list it? How does that make sense? The only things that should matter are: (1) Do readers want the information? (2) Do we have the information? Levivich harass/hound 07:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is only of trivial interest because it happened in the US. It has no long-term impact, it is of extremely limited notability, and is only making news because besides Covid, there's nothing else for the US press to get on top of, since Trump has at last become a boring sideshow. This is almost unencyclopedic. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- To add, the latest story on this is that the person of interest, believed to be the person that died in the incident, had paranoia over 5G (not unlike what we've already seen previously in the UK with 5G towers being burned down) and may have specifically targetted the local AT&T building because of that paranoia, and not so much as a "act of terrorism". [5] Making this even less of an appropriate story to post here. --Masem (t) 16:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is only of trivial interest because it happened in the US. It has no long-term impact, it is of extremely limited notability, and is only making news because besides Covid, there's nothing else for the US press to get on top of, since Trump has at last become a boring sideshow. This is almost unencyclopedic. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- It does matter where it happened. This is the US, and I apologize to the rest of the world but we're basically idiots here when it comes to gun ownership and stuff like this. This is stuff that happens far too frequently here that, unless we're taking major death and destruction, we skip over these topics because they are "routine" for the US. Now, sure , maybe there's something in the investigation thta proves out something far more sinister than what currently seems as a typical US whack job to prove worthwhile to post, but this isn't anything damaging like the Boston Marathon bombings. --Masem (t) 06:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose If my memory of unprecedented developing crimes serves me faithfully (and I've seen dozens), our editors can't handle the information! Not just kidding, either. Wikipedia is historically inaccurate (often prejudicially so) while investigations continue. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose there's lots of facets to this particular posting debate that have already been hashed out above, and in my view, the mysteriousness doesn't add to notability here. It's not an impactful mystery like missing people or backwards trials, it's "why did a bomb go off with nobody around", and the confusion over who and what and why in this case makes it less (not more) notable. We don't know what's happening, we don't know what the blurb really should be to be accurate. If the AT&T outages last any longer, because 911 is still down the last I heard, then we could consider posting that: "large parts of Tennessee and Kentucky are without cellular power or 911 access after bla bla bla" is an unusual and newsworthy blurb with widespread human impact. Kingsif (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – for now — Starting to look as though a solitary IT person, one Anthony Q. Warner, blew himself up. – Sca (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Metekel massacre
Blurb: The Ethiopian National Defense Force clashes with armed bandits involved in Metekel massacre, killing 42 of them and seizing weapons. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Ethiopian National Defense Force responds to the Metekel massacre of 100 people by killing 42 suspects and arresting seven officials.
News source(s): Al Arabiya English
Credits:
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Jim Michael (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Boud (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Sherenk1 (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose on quality way too many red links,plus a cn tag. Weak oppose otherwise, the death toll is pretty high, but the Tigray conflict is already in the ongoing section and if the massacre is part of the conflict,then I don't think a separate blurb is neededScaramouche33 (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed:
red links,cn. The sources mostly describe this as independent of the Tigray conflict. Geographically and politically, it's a zone of a separate region. Boud (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- In that case, weak support. I still think that the article is too short for a blurb,but hopefully it will expanded in the next few days Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed:
- Support, but the blurb needs to be changed. The massacre, with a death toll of around 100, is significantly more important than the army's response. Jim Michael (talk) 12:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agree on changing the blurb. I've proposed an Alternative blurb above. The federal army's response is significant. We (sources on en.Wikipedia articles) have absolutely no information so far as to whether the 42 killings by the ENDF were necessary defence or extrajudicial executions (revenge). There are strongly opposing media narratives in the Ethiopian situation right now so including "both" sides is the most NPOV. Boud (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The much bigger massacre earlier did not go through mostly on the grounds of poor article quality and the main topic already being in ongoing. Seeing similar issues in here as well especially with the article as a barebones stub. Gotitbro (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- The Metekel conflict & Metekel massacre are both very new articles which have neither been nominated before, nor been in ongoing. Are you thinking of the Tigray conflict & one of the massacres that's part of that? Jim Michael (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am talking about the Mai Kadra massacre that was nominated some time ago. Gotitbro (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's part of the Tigray conflict & happened several weeks earlier in a different region of Ethiopia. The Tigray conflict being in ongoing isn't relevant to this nomination, because the Mekelle conflict has never been in ongoing. Jim Michael (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am talking about the Mai Kadra massacre that was nominated some time ago. Gotitbro (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- The Metekel conflict & Metekel massacre are both very new articles which have neither been nominated before, nor been in ongoing. Are you thinking of the Tigray conflict & one of the massacres that's part of that? Jim Michael (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support It's a large-scale massacre and the current version of Metekel massacre is sufficiently developed to encourage new editors to contribute. Warning: as attention to the article grows, it's very likely to be (temporarily) vandalised or POVed, based on the last few weeks' experience with Tigray conflict and Mai Kadra massacre. Several editors (mostly IPs, but not only), are absolutely sure that the perpetrators are X and the victims are Y (or vice versa) and anything that is nuanced and matches sources is false news written by naive editors. See this Ethiopian media analysis for a likely explanation. Boud (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose An encyclopedia article needs some degree of organization and flow. This reads like a twitter feed. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
RD: John Edrich
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Black Kite (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: England international cricketer. Article needs work. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose for now. As you said, the article needs a lot of referencing. It is a good contender though. Tuck (talk page) — Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
RD: Ivry Gitlis
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Israeli virtuoso violinist. Lots of ref issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – FYI, Ger. Wiki RD: "Ivry Gitlis (98), israelisch-französischer Violinist († 24. Dezember)." Also listed in Fr. WP's Nécrologie section. – Sca (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, neither of those Wikipedia's bother with referencing, so hardly good examples. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
RD: Reginald Foster
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times Vatican News
Credits:
- Nominated by Schoen (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: Latinist to four popes, pioneer of living Latin education. Schoen (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
December 24
December 24, 2020
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
UK-EU trade deal
Blurb: The trade negotiation following Brexit agrees the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, NYTimes, AP, Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Rich Farmbrough (talk · give credit), Daran755 (talk · give credit), ChefBear01 (talk · give credit), Kaihsu (talk · give credit) and L.tak (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Statements have been made by all the major parties. There will be lots of relief at getting this done by Christmas. I've added a suitable picture of lorries at Dover but no doubt there are other possibilities. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose update insufficient and unreferenced. What exactly does the deal entail? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Documents such as this EU draft of 440 pages indicate that the details cover hundreds of pages, as one would expect. We can't expect to cover the fine print and the minutiae of ratification and implementation. The key point that is all over the news now is that the deal has been agreed at last. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Of course not, but we do reasonably expect some degree of high-level agreement points, stuff that I expect that the BBC and other good sources will have summarized in the next few hours. (this is similar to how we have summarizies of the key points of the massive spending bill in the US Congress in the press some hours after it was first published). We can wait for WP to be updated with that. --Masem (t) 16:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't recall asking for "fine print and minutiae", but when I looked at the article, it said (unreferenced) "a deal had been agreed", but gave no insight whatsoever as to the nature of the deal. Hardly encyclopedic, is it? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've been watching the news coverage and it seems clear that there will be over a thousand pages of dense legal text which will be gone through now by teams of lawyers, lobbyists and politicians. They will then give their various opinions and Laura Kuenssberg just said that "a tally of the wins and losses may take years to settle". For example, while we've heard a lot about fish, it turns out that chips are big deal for some too. Or is that really just small potatoes? Anyway, the part which I enjoyed most was Larry's ferocious rush at a deal of his own! Andrew🐉(talk) 20:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose only that we should have details of what has been agreed to in the deal at this point in the article, as per the sources, this isn't the end stage and more negotiations are still to come on less critical matters, but this prevents pending severe issues that were to have occurred if no deal at all had been reached by 1 Jan. --Masem (t) 16:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's best to wait until the specifics about the trade deal are released to the public so that the article can be properly updated. However, I think creating a separate article would be better Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks like this isn't exactly final yet, let's wait till it is actually signed. Gotitbro (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The article may need a little more cooking, but I think the agreement is news today. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC).
- I agree the news is notable right now, but with a single-sentence update which makes no real mention of the overall themes in the agreement, it's far from an encyclopedic update to post to the main page. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wait until it has actually been ratified and we know it will actually enter into force. Yakikaki (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Guys, if the last four years of news have taught us anything, it's that an agreement isn't final until it's final. No one has a damn clue what this deal means yet. Can we not wait until we at least get said clue? WaltCip-(talk) 22:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I also find the proposed image highly unsuitable; the recent traffic jams are due to corona restrictions and have nothing to do with this article. Yakikaki (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's not true. There were massive queues before the borders were closed down as hauliers rushed to get jobs done before a potential no-deal Brexit scuppered things. But the image is not appropriate because it conflates two separate stories. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support in principle, this is a huge deal in terms of scope and absolute numbers. I don't feel it appropriate to wait for formal ratification in this instance since it it expected to be put into operation on a provisional basis ahead of that. OTOH the text of the deal has not yet been released, all we have now are some headline summaries of some key issues. In the absence of actual details just yet I can't see how a true substantive update can be made, there are bound to be controversies that emerge once to text is in the public domain. 3142 (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Summary versions of the deal are online here and here and these seem to be the main primary sources for press analysis and comment so far. As we're locked down, I may spend some time today looking through them but, right now, I'm going out for some exercise. Brr... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support – in principle, pending expansion of article (by homebound Brits?). Coverage abundant, significance obvious. Alas, the fact that today is Christmas may retard editorial progress. Cheers! – Sca (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ninety-two footnotes, 4,200 words as of 22:30. – Sca (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support I don't see why this isn't obviously ITN material. It's in the news, it was in the news before it happened and will be in the news for some time longer. Banedon (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Because the update comprises "On 24 December, the parties announced that a deal had been reached.[81]" and the article still says "This section summarises the sides' statements of their respective positions at the beginning of negotiations. It may be that these will change in a final agreement (if concluded)." so supporting an article that is clearly inadequately updated is the reason why this obviously isn't ITN material at this time. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Coverage continues – two current sources added above. – Sca (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Coverage and notability are not being questioned here. The paucity of the "update" is the issue. The article hasn't even been properly updated for the passage of events and yet people are still supporting it?! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Compris. – Sca (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- For example, BBC has a quick summary points that would be an excellent way to start off a section to get it ready to be posted without having to read any of the actual trade deal itself or engage in OR of what's important. Took 2 minutes to find that when looking. --Masem (t) 14:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe it's figgy-pudding-lag? – Sca (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Brexitapathy. I don't think most of us really care, it's a deal which won't suit a single person, so no-one can be arsed to actually even bother to update the article. But there you go, it still gets support despite that. Perhaps ITN is even more borked than we all think. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- P'r'aps we're all borking up the wrong tree here. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Brexitapathy. I don't think most of us really care, it's a deal which won't suit a single person, so no-one can be arsed to actually even bother to update the article. But there you go, it still gets support despite that. Perhaps ITN is even more borked than we all think. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe it's figgy-pudding-lag? – Sca (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- For example, BBC has a quick summary points that would be an excellent way to start off a section to get it ready to be posted without having to read any of the actual trade deal itself or engage in OR of what's important. Took 2 minutes to find that when looking. --Masem (t) 14:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Compris. – Sca (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Coverage and notability are not being questioned here. The paucity of the "update" is the issue. The article hasn't even been properly updated for the passage of events and yet people are still supporting it?! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Coverage continues – two current sources added above. – Sca (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Update Many news sources report that the full text has been published now but few of them provide a link. But I've chased that down and here's the relevant page at the European Commission. I find that we have a page specifically for the agreement and editors have been busy updating that today. I have accordingly updated the nomination, expanding the blurb to link to the agreement as the highlighted article. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Kudos to @Daran755, ChefBear01, Kaihsu, and L.tak: who seem to be the main editors working on this currently. Perhaps they can comment on what more there is to do and whether there are other important links. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- It needs ratifying by the EU nations and the U.K Parliament, the EU are meeting to agree a provisional application so that it can come into force on 1st January which will happen in the EU Parliament on 31st December and the U.K parliament are meeting to vote on implementing the agreement on the 30 December.
- Treaty Links
- See the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement
- (Under external links)
- The article has been updated to reflect the current status.
- Support — It's in the news, the article is of sufficient quality, and while it doesn't get any pageviews, that's because it's new and barely linked. However, the spike in pageviews of Brexit [6] demonstrates reader interest. So, it fulfills ITN's purposes. Post it. Levivich harass/hound 04:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't fulfil ITN's purpose of providing information readers will be looking for, i.e. it just says a deal has been done. Even the more specific article just highlights which topics were covered in the agreement, but fundamentally not how each of those topics were resolved and agreed upon which is precisely the information readers want to read. That "a deal has been done" is all very well, but as an encyclopedia, we should be capable of summarising the key aspects of the deal (the EU managed to do that within a couple of hours of the agreement). In other words: no-one is looking to Wikipedia to see if a deal has been done, we all know that. We want to know what the deal means. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment It's great that an actual article was made for the agreement, however, currently the article only mentions areas covered by the agreement. I'm assuming that our readers will mostly be interested in the specifics. So a basic overview for each area would be a nice edition. But the document itself is 1200 pages!! Doesn't any news outlet actually talk about the specifics of the agreement so that editors can use them instead? Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Be careful what you wish for. Once you get into the weeds of the detail, you find that there is indeed hundreds of pages of it. I took a look at the fisheries detail, for example. The press and politicians talk of a headline figure of 25% but that doesn't seem to appear in the document or its annexes. Instead, you have a huge table of quotas by species and year. So, for example, the quota for the Blue Shark goes 99.9% to the EU. Why does the UK get only 0.1% and how was that figure arrived at? It's not clear. What about other sharks like the Great White Shark? Are they included in the category "Deep-sea sharks" which goes 100% to the EU? It's not clear. What about whales? It doesn't say. What about scallops, which actually caused a minor war in 2012? It doesn't say. My impression is that it's mostly business as usual with a new fudge factor being added to the spreadsheet that is used by the bureaucrats that try to control the quotas. That's the main take-home message – that there won't be a massive no-deal shock to the system on January 1 – just lots of fiddly adjustments. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- No, the EU released a three-page summary of changes a few days ago, it was quite straight forward, however no-one can be bothered to update even the new article to reflect this. Frankly the article as it stands is not helpful at all as all we know is "a deal was done" and it covered "a lot of things" but we have absolutely no idea of the impact of the agreement on those "lots of things". All we have is "Brexit deal was done" and that's not helpful to any of our readers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
December 23
December 23, 2020
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
RD: Rebecca Luker
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by PCN02WPS (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Tenacioussquirrel (talk · give credit) and Sunshineisles2 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good to me; I just added a {{cn}} to one paragraph without citations, but none of it's controversial so I'm not too worried. Would be nice to have a bit more critical commentary on her performances, but that's not going to prevent me from supporting this. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose.
Awards,filmography, and discography still need sources. IMDb, Discogs, and Broadwayworld.com are considered unreliable. Joofjoof (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)- Thanks Hanif Al Husaini for fixing the awards section. Joofjoof (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Seeing a lot of citation and maintenance tags that need to be fixed. Gotitbro (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
RD: Leslie West
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Chicago Tribune, Rolling Stone
Credits:
- Nominated by A lad insane (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Keneckert (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: From Mountain and West, Bruce and Laing. The article isn't great. -- a lad insane (channel two) 23:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. A lot of referencing is needed. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose A lot of info is uncited, including entire paras and most of the discography. Gotitbro (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) South African COVID strain causing severe illness in young people has spread to Britain
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: South African COVID strain causing severe illness in young people has spread to Britain (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Count Iblis (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
- Snow close on so many levels: (i) we already have COVID in the infobox, (ii) the evidence in anecdotal and (iii) its migration to the UK is not particularly important to the rest of the world. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose while it is actually somewhat notable, its duplicated. --Hurricane Tracker 495 21:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Kernowite
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: A newly-discovered mineral (pictured) is named Kernowite, after the Cornish name for Cornwall (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
- Created by Pontificalibus (talk · give credit)
- Strong support on notability, Strong oppose on quality. While this is a rare occurrence and normally would be ITN worthy, the article in question has 57 words and only two references. The article is a stub if I’ve ever seen one and honestly, I don’t see it getting up to scratch. The Image Editor (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure on the significance. I don't have any knowledge of mineralology but this November 2020 International Mineralogical Association list seems to show 43 new minerals discovered in 2020 and 110 in 2019? - Dumelow (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment struck, apparently not as rare as I thought. Have requested expert assistance at the relevant WP. Often a nomination leads to improvement in article quality. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Minerals, unlike elements, are a dime a dozen (see Category:Minerals by element for example). Small variations in chemical make up and crystalline structure are sufficient for a "new" mineral, where as elements are very limited to what allowable organization of protons, neutrals and electrons can be sustained/stable for at least a few seconds. --Masem (t) 17:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Masem. We did not report the equally publicized discovery of Petrovite in Russia last month (1) and do not even have an article for it. It's worth noting that the Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names approved 121 new minerals in 2015 alone. Literally the only ITN claim here would be based on the fact that British geology is better studied than most. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Basically an "and finally" article.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. It's a cute story that would make a fun DYK if expansion to their minimum size were warranted by the sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose How many new minerals are discovered every year? a dozen? a hundred? CoronaOneLove (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Sugathakumari
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The News Minute
Credits:
- Nominated by The Image Editor (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Malayala Sahityam (talk · give credit) and Ktin (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Indian poet and feminist activist. News of death is still coming out right now. The Image Editor (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose couple of unsourced sentences or paragraphs. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Joseph2302, greetings! Please can I request you to have a relook for this one? Happy to make any edits if still pending. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support everything is now sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Joseph2302, greetings! Please can I request you to have a relook for this one? Happy to make any edits if still pending. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose too much unreferenced including numerous awards. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, greetings! Please can I request you to have a relook? Happy to make any edits if still pending referencing. Ktin (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man:, pardon the intrusion. Please can you have a look when you have a moment. This article is ready to go to the homepage / RD imo. Ktin (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, greetings! Please can I request you to have a relook? Happy to make any edits if still pending referencing. Ktin (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I went in and filled the CN tags and removed the yellow boxes. If folks see any other missing ref / citation, let me know and I will have this covered later tonight. Trimmed the awards in the infobox. This is good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Circling back on this one. I think this is good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Not checked the sourcing but on a quick glance the tone needs work in places (esp. her death, the Abhaya material) and it's not been updated for tense throughout. The details on her notable relatives could do with pruning a bit. The awards in the infobox need pruning to the most important. Need to go offline now but will try to work on this later. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've hacked at some of this. The lead needs to discuss her writing (which I assume is her primary source of notability?) The awards still appear all over the place and need rationalising, with only the most notable in the lead and infobox. Dates for the works that don't have them would be useful. I've requested a source, but still not done any sources check. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Stephen, Dumelow, Black Kite, Amakuru, and MSGJ:, pardon the intrusion. I believe this is good to go to homepage / RD. Please can you have a look and help assist. No reason why this article should wait to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Stephen, Dumelow, Black Kite, Amakuru, and MSGJ:, pardon the persistent intrusion. Edits have been completed for over 70 hours now (~ 3 days). Ktin (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 10:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
December 22
December 22, 2020
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: Karima Baloch
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by DiplomatTesterMan (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: Pakistani human rights activist found dead in Canada. Sherenk1 (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Weak support. It's sort of unclear to me what her activism is about—and since that's what she was notable for, it seems not that helpful to post an RD about her without identifying the nature of her work? Was she only/primarily an advocate for the independence of Balochistan? Or is there something else I'm missing? If that's clarified, I would move to a full-throated support. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- AleatoryPonderings, please have another look. I know the improvements aren't great, but I hope it gives some context. DTM (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support. A solid C-class biography at the moment, very well sourced. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment.
Pretty much a stub at the moment, limited biographical detail aside from the death. I note it was created from a redirect with news of her death, and has been changing rapidly.Espresso Addict (talk) 06:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Espresso Addict, please have another look. Is this anywhere close to passing RD criteria? Thanks. DTM (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Looks much improved, though I am still not seeing a source for the birth year. We have a storm and my internet is going in and out so I haven't succeeded in checking the new sources; I have marked it as needing attention. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Espresso Addict: According to the BBC 100 Women and this source from 2016, she is 31, which means that her birth year is 2016-31=1985. I added it but it was removed by @DiplomatTesterMan:. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- The problem with the birth date is that, as I recall, Guardian and other sources give her age at death as 37, which conflicts. I don't think this should hold the article up, though -- I'm more concerned about the, to my mind, unencyclopedic speculation over her cause of death. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Espresso Addict, I have reduced the speculation and tried to increase the encyclopedic tone of the section in consideration. (More copyediting can be done if needed.) I have no issues with her birth date; if there is any confusion it can be left vacant. DTM (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- The problem with the birth date is that, as I recall, Guardian and other sources give her age at death as 37, which conflicts. I don't think this should hold the article up, though -- I'm more concerned about the, to my mind, unencyclopedic speculation over her cause of death. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Espresso Addict: According to the BBC 100 Women and this source from 2016, she is 31, which means that her birth year is 2016-31=1985. I added it but it was removed by @DiplomatTesterMan:. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Jack Lenor Larsen
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:
- Updated and 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: Textile design artist. I will work on the article later tonight unless someone wants to get to it before me. Ktin (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Not checked in detail but one problem with this is the dependence on the LongHouse site (currently Ref 3), which appears to be Larsen's personal site, and is decidedly promotional. The lead needs expanding, and there's no personal life (spouse, children?). Espresso Addict (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Espresso Addict, following up on this one. Do you have the pen on this one? Ktin (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Ktin: Sorry, what do you mean by "Do you have the pen on this one?" Espresso Addict (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Espresso Addict, Sorry, are you working on these edits? Looking at the content, nothing egregious there that should prevent this article to go to homepage / RD. If you are working on the edits, we can continue to wait, but, if no one is working on edits, this is good to go to homepage / RD as it stands. Ktin (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- No, not working on this at the moment. Given the number of RD candidates, my long-term strategy here is to point out flaws and hope that others fix them. Beyond minor copy edits, I only work on articles where I have sources easily available (usually Brits), where I generally edit in the area (scientists, writers, classical musicians), or where the notability is high and posting would increase ITN's diversity (basically everything except white male Anglophones). Other admins should feel free to make their own assessments. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Espresso Addict, sounds good. I did not mean to imply that you should work on all article improvements. I am happy to lend a hand as well. However, having this one wait to go to homepage / RD pending personal life (spouse, children) etc. is harsh. Imo, this is good to go as it stands. Ktin (talk) 02:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- No worries. I'll take another look at this when I've been through Minoru Makihara. My primary concern on this one was the reliance on the biased LongHouse site source, and also the micro-lead, not the lack of personal life. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Espresso Addict, sounds good. I did not mean to imply that you should work on all article improvements. I am happy to lend a hand as well. However, having this one wait to go to homepage / RD pending personal life (spouse, children) etc. is harsh. Imo, this is good to go as it stands. Ktin (talk) 02:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- No, not working on this at the moment. Given the number of RD candidates, my long-term strategy here is to point out flaws and hope that others fix them. Beyond minor copy edits, I only work on articles where I have sources easily available (usually Brits), where I generally edit in the area (scientists, writers, classical musicians), or where the notability is high and posting would increase ITN's diversity (basically everything except white male Anglophones). Other admins should feel free to make their own assessments. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Espresso Addict, Sorry, are you working on these edits? Looking at the content, nothing egregious there that should prevent this article to go to homepage / RD. If you are working on the edits, we can continue to wait, but, if no one is working on edits, this is good to go to homepage / RD as it stands. Ktin (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Ktin: Sorry, what do you mean by "Do you have the pen on this one?" Espresso Addict (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. The referencing can be improved but largely ok for an RD. Gotitbro (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Folks, I request a second opinion on this article. I have made the necessary updates and there is no reason to hold this article back from homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Stephen, Dumelow, Black Kite, Dumelow, Amakuru, and MSGJ:, pardon the intrusion. I believe this is good to go to homepage / RD. Please can you have a look and help assist. No reason why this article should wait to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted. My concerns have now been adequately addressed. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Stella Tennant
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Pawnkingthree (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.
P-K3 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. There's a source needed for her place of birth, which seems disputed (I've seen Scotland and Chatsworth) and feeds into her nationality (British vs Scottish). It would be nice if someone could crop the image. Otherwise, looking surprisingly ok. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- She was born in Hammersmith, London. Trillfendi (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks okay to me. @Espresso Addict: the birthplace has been cited now. Gotitbro (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Muhammad Mustafa Mero
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Orient News (in Arabic)
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Tognella99 (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: I've not done anything apart from post this article here, but it looks OK. Perhaps a little short - Dumelow (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Everything seems referenced. But it could use a little expansion Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Dates for education would be nice. The lead needs expanding. Information on his life after retirement and his personal life (spouse, children?) would be useful. Dumelow, can you read Arabic enough to confirm at least the fact of the death? Espresso Addict (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Alas, I have no grasp of Arabic. I'll keep my eyes open for an English-language report/obituary - Dumelow (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- There wasn't anything coming up in Google news when I checked earlier. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Alas, I have no grasp of Arabic. I'll keep my eyes open for an English-language report/obituary - Dumelow (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks fine for an RD. Gotitbro (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
December 21
December 21, 2020
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: Minoru Makihara
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:
- Created and 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: Japanese business executive; former CEO of Mitsubishi credited with the group's turnaround in the 1990s. Death was announced on this date i.e. December 21, 2020. Article updates done. Ready for a pair of eyes before going to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. On a quick glance, looking reasonably ok, but there's a lot of opinion sourced to an alumni site (current Ref. 4) that could do with higher-quality sourcing; also perhaps some rephrasing as the two are a little too similar in wording. I'd remove the Kennedy/Updike name checks, as they appear irrelevant. Was his wife the granddaughter or great-granddaughter of Iwasaki Yatarō, as Ref. 4 states? Espresso Addict (talk) 04:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Espresso Addict:, Thanks for the catch. Updated to great-granddaughter. Again, will need you to be specific regarding any concerns with #4's sourcing. As it stands the article is good to go to homepage / RD in its current state. I am ambivalent to removing the Kennedy / Updike references. But, otherwise -- no reason to hold this article back. Ktin (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't generally edit in the area of business, but imo alumnus articles are usually essentially puff pieces. If the university is decent, one can usually rely on them for basic facts, but anything laudatory isn't 100% reliable. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Espresso Addict, I am not disputing that. None of the WP:PUFF text has been brought into the article. Please point a sentence that is WP:PUFF and has been brought in from ref: 4 and I will be the first one to delete it, alternately, go ahead and delete it yourself. This very generic statement holding up articles from progressing does no good to anyone, nor to the backlog that is piling up. Ktin (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't generally edit in the area of business, but imo alumnus articles are usually essentially puff pieces. If the university is decent, one can usually rely on them for basic facts, but anything laudatory isn't 100% reliable. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Espresso Addict:, Thanks for the catch. Updated to great-granddaughter. Again, will need you to be specific regarding any concerns with #4's sourcing. As it stands the article is good to go to homepage / RD in its current state. I am ambivalent to removing the Kennedy / Updike references. But, otherwise -- no reason to hold this article back. Ktin (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good to me — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Thanks Martin. Folks, can I request one more pair of eyes on this one. I believe this is good to go to homepage / RD as it stands. Ktin (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Further note. This article has been in mainspace for less than 24 hours over a public holiday, and all content has been provided by a single editor (Ktin). For clarity, I am in no way saying this precludes posting but it would, in my opinion, be wise to wait for potential input by others interested in this area. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Espresso Addict:, I frankly am not following the insinuation here. But, I will WP:AGF. There is no reason to cast aspersions on the article just because I am the lone / major contributor to the article nor the fact that it is relatively new. If there are genuine article improvement notes that you have to provide, and please be specific with those, I am 100% available to have those incorporated. This lack of specificity is frankly very difficult to work with. Ktin (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Folks, please can I ask for one more pair of eyes on this one? I personally do not see a reason why this should wait to go to homepage. Ktin (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Stephen, Amakuru, Dumelow, and Black Kite:, pardon the persistence on this one. I think this one is ready to go to the homepage. No reason why this should wait any longer. Ktin (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support looks alright. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: John Fitzpatrick
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Scotsman
Credits:
- Nominated by Joseywales1961 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Retired Scottish footballer (Manchester United), short enough article but reasonably well referenced JW 1961 Talk 09:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Quite short, but more than enough well sourced content for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak support a citation required. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, I removed that sentence as sources I found says match on 22 Nov 1969 3-1 to Man Utd scorers Charlton (2) and Burns JW 1961 Talk 21:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Short but okay. Gotitbro (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Is there any info about family or cause of death? Also, there is a bare url in the references. Joofjoof (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Seems brief but adequate, but there's no source I can see for his precise date of birth (The Scotsman just gives the year). I've expanded a source (possibly the one Joofjoof mentions?) and replaced a deadlink. Agree with Joofjoof that further expansion would be ideal but the online sources listed do not give further details. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I removed the date of birth to year of birth. i.e. retained only 1946 (which is currently cited). The date of birth can be reintroduced if citation is found. No reason to hold this article back. Good to go to homepage / RD. Joseywales1961, JW - any additional edits you are working on? Else, this is good to go. Ktin (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ktin, Thank you, thats about all that's available JW 1961 Talk 11:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Kevin Greene
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
– Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- pretty good shape. A few refs needed, and the "career notes" section does need to go. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- GreatCaesarsGhost, "Career notes" section is gone. I think all the refs are present now, but let me know if I missed any. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- There are two CN tags on there, one regarding salary and a quote. I can't find anything reliable to cite them. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- GreatCaesarsGhost, "Career notes" section is gone. I think all the refs are present now, but let me know if I missed any. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks good for RD now JW 1961 Talk 09:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. A couple of citation needed tags still need resolving. — Amakuru (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Right now, the big problem is the pro wrestling section. There were sources there earlier, but no more. I guess they weren't reliable? I don't know these wrestling-specific sources, and have requested aid from WP:PW. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support I've reworked some of the wrestling section, striking some material which was uncited and UNDUE with the detail level. I think we're good now. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Right now, the big problem is the pro wrestling section. There were sources there earlier, but no more. I guess they weren't reliable? I don't know these wrestling-specific sources, and have requested aid from WP:PW. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to go now.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) Great conjunction
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 closest visible great conjunction since the year 1226 occurs on December 21st (UTC). (Post)
Alternative blurb: The closest visible great conjunction since the year 1226 occurs on December 21st.
Alternative blurb II: The closest great conjunction since the year 1623 occurs on December 21st.
Alternative blurb III: The closest great conjunction, between Jupiter and Saturn, since the year 1623 occurs on December 21st.
News source(s): Guardian Forbes (soft paywall) NPR Rice University (very interesting if you like to geek out with orbital math
Credits:
- Nominated by Sagittarian Milky Way (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Extended content
|
---|
- Support in principle There's a lot of hype around the event in every astronomical community that I'm familiar with. While I'm not sure how famous the event is to the average Joe,it's nevertheless being reported in major news outlets and given the rarity of the event, I think it deserves a blurb.
However, the target article has a lot of problems so oppose until that's fixed.Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)- The article is in much better shape now Scaramouche33 (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support per Scaramouche33. But don't use the term win; we're not winning anything there. Several of my blurbs get rejected in the past and I don't consider it as a loss, just stale. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 07:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose
tagged. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)- Still oppose, much better suited to the trivia section of the main page. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, despite being an astronomer myself. Although the event is underway, closest approach doesn't happen until 21 Dec. It's also pretty unimpressive to see and has zero scientific interest or value. Some amateur astronomy organisations are promoting it, but there's little-to-no interest among professionals. For the general public it's less impressive to look at than the Geminid meteor shower that's also happening right now. Whilst I like to see astronomy stories in ITN, I think general readers would see that blurb, think it was something dramatic like an eclipse, then be hugely disappointed to realise what's actually visible. We certainly shouldn't be promoting the pseudoscience of astrology on the Main Page. Modest Genius talk 11:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's great to have an actual astronomer here, it really helps us differentiate the important stuff from the trivia Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- To be honest I don't know at what point 2 points of light are close and similar enough to be visually impressive. If this was Venus (brightness about minus 4) and Jupiter (about minus 2) several arcminutes apart it would definitely be visually impressive, this is 6 arcminutes apart and only about magnitude 0 and minus 2. I won't guess if they will be or won't be close enough to impress the general public in a good telescope. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support. The claims made above are incorrect. The event will be impressive to see; both planets will be visible in the same field of view in a telescope (only the second time this has happened since the invention of the telescope). Another close conjunction won't happen again until 2080 so this is a very rare event, and it is important as it has been given significant prominence in many astronomical almanacs/year books/magazines. The event is also of some scientific value: I know of some astronomers who are are using this event to study Jupiter's magnetosphere as Saturn passes through it as seen from Earth. However, I do agree that the article should be improved (help would be appreciated), the mentions of astrology removed (as unimportant), and the blurb reworded a bit something like "The planets Jupiter and Saturn appeared at their closest together in the sky for almost 400 years on 21 December, in an event known as a great conjunction (explaining what it is rather than just mentioning it).
- To be honest I don't know at what point 2 points of light are close and similar enough to be visually impressive. If this was Venus (brightness about minus 4) and Jupiter (about minus 2) several arcminutes apart it would definitely be visually impressive, this is 6 arcminutes apart and only about magnitude 0 and minus 2. I won't guess if they will be or won't be close enough to impress the general public in a good telescope. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's great to have an actual astronomer here, it really helps us differentiate the important stuff from the trivia Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
QuantumPulsar2002 (talk) 17:32 (edited 23:03), 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Huh you're right, I hadn't thought of that. Jupiter is I believe the only planet in the solar system who's magnetic field is long enough to "touch" another planet. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support I saw this covered on The Sky at Night yesterday and it looked quite special. I looked at the planets earlier in the year when out late observing the comet, which we blurbed. The planets were a lot brighter than the comet then and this conjunction will make them even more prominent. Unlike Brexit and other human affairs, this is quite a sure thing and it is good to give people advance notice so they have a chance to see it themselves.
- Note also that we have had Nana Akufo-Addo as the picture blurb for an entire week now and it's embarassing to have such a low-impact story as our lead for so long. Like the comet, the conjunction will have plenty of good pictures for us to highlight and so we should make the most of them.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 13:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – How does this affect anyone on Earth? – Sca (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- People on earth are learning about it because media are covering it, and they are likely to be interested in a quality Wikipedia article on the topic. --Jayron32 13:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Answer: it doesn't. It's almost embarrassing to consider it encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Of course it doesn't, nothing really does except a direct hit by an asteroid. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Depends on where it lands.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Lol. Unless it's an even rarer huge one. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- ASTEROID STRIKES THE US, THOUSANDS CONFIRMED DEAD "Us centric" Gex4pls (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Lol. Unless it's an even rarer huge one. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Depends on where it lands.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Of course it doesn't, nothing really does except a direct hit by an asteroid. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's U.S. – otherwise it reads as 'us' — Cf., "We have met the enemy and he is us." – Sca (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose in deference to Modest Genius and his credentials.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Modest. Not of general significance or impact. – Sca (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Is there a precedence of garden-variety total lunar eclipse nominations not being posted, that might help clarify minimum visual impressiveness for events that science has already learned all it could from as TLEs impress kids but are "eh I'll look but that's it" at best to astronomy PhDs and people who've had an astronomy hobby for long enough. I recommend collecting photographs of lunar eclipses with different skyscrapers or mountains or whatever to cure those repetitive doldrums. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sagittarian Milky Way, Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2018#(Posted)_Longest_lunar_eclipse_of_the_21st_century appears to be the last time we posted a lunar eclipse. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support. It's an interesting and rare event. While it has no scientific value, that's also true for almost all other news stories. Count Iblis (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support per above. 108.41.121.223 (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose appears to be of astrological, rather than astronomical, importance per Modest. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not quite, it's important in astrological mumbo jumbo but it's still the 2 most visually impressive planets in a telescope being unusually close (less than or about 10 Jupiter or Saturn diameters). They're only in the same telescope field of view once every few decades much less this close. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, although I stand by my oppose as it doesn't seem as significant as, say, an eclipse. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not quite, it's important in astrological mumbo jumbo but it's still the 2 most visually impressive planets in a telescope being unusually close (less than or about 10 Jupiter or Saturn diameters). They're only in the same telescope field of view once every few decades much less this close. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose deferring to expertise of Modest Genius This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Modest and others. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support pending improvements to quality and appropriate update. This is both in the news and of general interest to our readers. We should not be so pompous to reject this as not being scientifically important. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- There's hardly anything pompous about scientific importance, especially compared to other ITN/R topics such as award shows or horse-racing.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. This is not pomposity, it's just a rejection that in general (per the nomination) this is "very interesting if you like to geek out with orbital math". Enough said. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Science may have had its last significant discoveries about conjunctions with Tycho's measurement advances, Kepler's elliptical orbits and Galileo's work 4 centuries ago but it would still be new and interesting to some readers. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. This is not pomposity, it's just a rejection that in general (per the nomination) this is "very interesting if you like to geek out with orbital math". Enough said. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- There's hardly anything pompous about scientific importance, especially compared to other ITN/R topics such as award shows or horse-racing.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nominator and Andrew. Visible worldwide with significant media coverage. Opposers fail to convince that this is not an ITN-worthy blurb. Tagged section can be edited down or removed to the article Talk page for discussion as needed. Jusdafax (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- "... Tagged section can be edited down or removed ..."!! That's two-thirds of this shoddy article... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose on article quality.Weak Support I’m still not sure about notability, but article quality has improved drastically. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 17:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)- Oppose due to article quality; parts are unsourced, much that is sourced depends on a reference that is someone's private webpage, half of it is astrological nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Am I at least halfway done with bringing article to minimum quality? There is less pseudoscience and more positional astronomy now. And anything of that pseudoscience that might generously be called history has been moved to new section called in history Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment There's a lot more astronomy bytes in the article now and a lot less astrology and more sourcing and no tags. I note that a planetary science Ph.D. (U. of Arizona) who's been full professor at Rice University since 2007 has cared enough to write these detailed articles on great conjunctions: [8] [9], making 3,000 and 20,000* year lists and writing about the cyclical mathematics and so on, one astronomy PhD not finding this interesting wouldn't mean they all don't. Those institutions aren't bad, University of Arizona's astronomy program is rated 5th to 24th in America depending on metric and their planetary science is 6th to 33rd. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Scaramouche33, User:The Rambling Man, User:Modest Genius, User:Sca, User:WaltCip, User:John M Wolfson,User:Orbitalbuzzsaw, User:Ammarpad, User:Destroyeraa & User:Black Kite article quality is much improved now, all tags removed arguably justifiably and another editor has added a sourced section informing me that the close event of 1563 was an important part of the history of science. Apparently the extreme inaccuracy of planet position tables by "Earth is center of solar system" believers compared to Copernican heliocentrism convinced (at least) Cracow Academy and an Italian that the then new Sun theory was true — long before Galileo was imprisoned for saying it. Interesting connection with the modern day I'd say. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's still a no from me. That this might have been important in the history of science has no bearing on its current relevance to science; if we were to post anything related to astronomy or the history of science here, we wouldn't be posting anything else, and I don't think this clears the bar. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support – This Great Conjunction is more than notable enough in Astronomical circles to warrant an ITN mention. Additionally, the article quality, the main sticking point of many opposers above, has significantly improved in just the past few days alone. As such, I support this ITN candidate. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Removing the "Ready?" as there's clearly more than enough opposed on significance to question posting. --Masem (t) 15:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with Masem's removal of the ready tag. The worldwide significance and substantial notability of this highly visible conjunction is well-established, the article is improved markedly in the past few days, and a potential posting admin should take those factors into account. In my view the opposers on significance are not making a decent case. At least one opposer on article quality has changed to a weak support, and other opposers on quality have done so many days ago and not weighed in since. The blurb should be now marked Ready, and an admin should post it. Jayron 32 says it well above: "People on earth are learning about it because media are covering it, and they are likely to be interested in a quality Wikipedia article on the topic." As I see it, remaining objections to posting this blurb simply boil down to "I don't like it," aka WP:IDLI. We are now one day away from this historic planetary conjunction. Is there one admin present willing to post? Cheers, Jusdafax (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- You mean is there an admin willing to post against consensus? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with Masem's removal of the ready tag. The worldwide significance and substantial notability of this highly visible conjunction is well-established, the article is improved markedly in the past few days, and a potential posting admin should take those factors into account. In my view the opposers on significance are not making a decent case. At least one opposer on article quality has changed to a weak support, and other opposers on quality have done so many days ago and not weighed in since. The blurb should be now marked Ready, and an admin should post it. Jayron 32 says it well above: "People on earth are learning about it because media are covering it, and they are likely to be interested in a quality Wikipedia article on the topic." As I see it, remaining objections to posting this blurb simply boil down to "I don't like it," aka WP:IDLI. We are now one day away from this historic planetary conjunction. Is there one admin present willing to post? Cheers, Jusdafax (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support on notability. The conjunction itself is a once in 20 year event, which is quite rare and interesting in itself. But the proximity, a one in 400 year event, between the two largest planets in our solar system, makes this a no brainer for posting. I'm not particularly an astronomer, but I have been tracking the convergence of these things in the sky all year. Bottom line, if eclipses which are commonplace and almost annual, are deemed to be ITN/R, then this should highly unusual occurrence should be too. No comment on quality as I haven't looked at the article yet, will have a deco a bit later. — Amakuru (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose The longest night of 2020 is vaguely apocalyptic enough without reminding the masses that a "great conjunction" is upon us. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose, but this is rather silly IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- I also oppose because the actuality of this coincidence (two dots in the sky are briefly closer from Earth's POV than they've seemed for a while) is a silly thing to get excited about. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- The transit of Venus was also a dot closer to something from Earth's POV than it's been for a while (120 years) and that dot was posted without even having rings. Heck a total solar eclipse is something that's briefly closer to something else than it's been in awhile (average: 2 minutes every 360 years) (yes I know that one's much, much more impressive) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- I also oppose because the actuality of this coincidence (two dots in the sky are briefly closer from Earth's POV than they've seemed for a while) is a silly thing to get excited about. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose, but this is rather silly IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support something unusual and interesting—Wikipedia's perfect niche. Moreover, we currently have material from more than two weeks ago (Hayabusa2) in ITN. We may not be a news ticker, but it's time to rotate it with something or else we're not serving our readers. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- The fact that the news cycle is pretty slow right now (presumably due to a certain thing in a certain banner) is not an argument to post something that is otherwise not notable, and it would be an OR violation to do so. That said, the rest of your support is fine and I have no issue with it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Support. This is a one in a generation event that’s also perfectly suited to Wikipedia’s strengths: unusual anomalies. The news cycle has been pretty slow also, and overall this just seems like a pretty strong event for ITN. The Image Editor (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Unprecedented" recently became the English world's Word of the Year, per Dictionary.com, narrowly defeating "apocalyptic". First time ever. We could improve and blurb that article. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's funny. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Once again,
the news cycle has been pretty slow
is not an argument to post. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)- And reasonable people can disagree with that essay. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Unprecedented" recently became the English world's Word of the Year, per Dictionary.com, narrowly defeating "apocalyptic". First time ever. We could improve and blurb that article. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. The article has improved enormously but the astrology section is still unreferenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just delete that section. It's rubbish anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Well,today's the day! Great work on the article, it's much better referenced than it was a few days ago and the new images are a nice edition as well. I agree with HiLo48 that it's best to remove the astrology section if we can't find any sources for it Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think that is possible now as the astrology section has been mostly copy-pasted to the astrology article. It's only a few sentences now which don't really matter in the article. QuantumPulsar2002 (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC).
Update: astrology section now removed as there was nothing left in it that wasn't covered in the astrology conjunction page. QuantumPulsar2002 (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)- I've added the Shakespeare reference (a 30 page thing soley on the 1603 "fire trigon") which surely has such basic in-universe canon. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think that is possible now as the astrology section has been mostly copy-pasted to the astrology article. It's only a few sentences now which don't really matter in the article. QuantumPulsar2002 (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC).
- Comment With somehow mixed support here (the arguments agains due to poor article shape have been resolved), an alternative would be to run it on On this day box. Since ... you know ... it's on this day :) --Tone 08:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- That could be an interesting compromise Scaramouche33 (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support on notability. If there doesn't end up being a consensus to post to ITN, we certainly should post this somewhere else. We already post similar phenomenon (e.g. solar eclipses) but those occur quite frequently compared to this. To say that this is a once in a lifetime event is quite an understatement; this is a once in a millennium event. I can't think of anything else that we can say that about. Vanilla Wizard 💙 09:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support The last nom might have been premature but the general significance and interest in this event is now widely being reported for this to be on ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This feels like Joey's identical hand scheme from Friends - there's no THERE there. It is a function of planetary motion that sometimes they'll be closer to each other than other times. There is nothing remotely noteworthy about the occasions on which it happens. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- That is what an eclipse is, when they're closer than an average of a sixtieth of a Moon width somewhere on Earth and the Moon height is slightly under the average miles you get total solar eclipses. Nothing more special than that, the separations in miles are still completely unremarkable but they're still posted cause they look cool. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- How are eclipses unremarkable? People can't STOP remarking on them. You know how many remarks I heard about the last total solar eclipse? I want to say it was 1000x more than remarked on the great conjunction, but 1000x zero is still zero. Eclipses "looking cool" is still something, and something is more than nothing. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- The separation in miles is unremarkable and there's no closeness actually there (I haven't seen the episode). And you don't think the pic looks cool if you click on it? Nothing beats a total solar eclipse, if that's the minimum eye candyness standard then no one should ever post other astronomical events again but they have i.e. the longest annular eclipse of the millennium and a featureless circle of 0.03 Sun widths crossing the Sun (which I thought was cool too but I'm biased) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- How are eclipses unremarkable? People can't STOP remarking on them. You know how many remarks I heard about the last total solar eclipse? I want to say it was 1000x more than remarked on the great conjunction, but 1000x zero is still zero. Eclipses "looking cool" is still something, and something is more than nothing. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- That is what an eclipse is, when they're closer than an average of a sixtieth of a Moon width somewhere on Earth and the Moon height is slightly under the average miles you get total solar eclipses. Nothing more special than that, the separations in miles are still completely unremarkable but they're still posted cause they look cool. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Pop science inspires people! People who don’t normally care astronomy are talking about this and getting excited. Zagalejo^^^ 13:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not any more excited today than usual. I don't feel any effects at all from this great event, but then at the moment it's cloudy where I live. Nevertheless, this conjunction seems suboptimally impactful. – Sca (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- But modern astrologers feel something. If a drug ever runs out we should just scam them with fake drugs and they won't feel the difference. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Modern astrologer" – an oxymoron? – Sca (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- "person of unusual confirmation bias", "person who swallowed the in-universe stuff", "astrologer who happens to still be alive", "differently worldviewed". The differently worldviewed take offense at your dismissal of things like geocentrism, ghosts, flat earthism, terrorism and global cooling" and would prefer that you call them "heterodox realitists" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Modern astrologer" – an oxymoron? – Sca (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- But modern astrologers feel something. If a drug ever runs out we should just scam them with fake drugs and they won't feel the difference. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not exciting as baseball's older cousin but so what... Howard the Duck (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- There have been people so unexcited about the only local total solar eclipse in >150 years future and past that they didn't bother to step into the darkness for a moment to see. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not any more excited today than usual. I don't feel any effects at all from this great event, but then at the moment it's cloudy where I live. Nevertheless, this conjunction seems suboptimally impactful. – Sca (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Count Iblis (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- And that proves what exactly? Are you aware of just how many Google Doodles there are? I'm not opposed to this nomination, but if "subject of a Google Doodle" were a criterion we'd also have blurbed "Zinaida Serebriakova's 136th birthday", "Remembering Sudan, the last male northern white rhino", "Bahrain National Day 2020", "Marie Popelin’s 174th birthday" and "the unification of Transylvania, Banat, Crișana, and Maramureș with the Romanian Kingdom on this date in 1918" this month alone. The existence of a Google Doodle isn't any kind of mark of significance, it's Google's equivalent of our Featured Articles section and just means that some Google employee took an interest in the topic. ‑ Iridescent 15:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- True, though Sudan was posted as an RD Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sudan was posted as RD when he died in March 2018. The Google Doodle marking the event was yesterday. ‑ Iridescent 16:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- The Google Doodle is itself international news, being featured in multiple sources [10]; [11]. Besides the great conjunction, these stories also highlight the fact that this is the winter solstice and make something of the Christmas Star aspect too. These points are all timely and are clearly what's actually in the news. Meanwhile, our blurbs are stale astronomical items, being from 5 days and 16 days ago. ITN is failing while Google is succeeding. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Good point. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- True, though Sudan was posted as an RD Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- And that proves what exactly? Are you aware of just how many Google Doodles there are? I'm not opposed to this nomination, but if "subject of a Google Doodle" were a criterion we'd also have blurbed "Zinaida Serebriakova's 136th birthday", "Remembering Sudan, the last male northern white rhino", "Bahrain National Day 2020", "Marie Popelin’s 174th birthday" and "the unification of Transylvania, Banat, Crișana, and Maramureș with the Romanian Kingdom on this date in 1918" this month alone. The existence of a Google Doodle isn't any kind of mark of significance, it's Google's equivalent of our Featured Articles section and just means that some Google employee took an interest in the topic. ‑ Iridescent 15:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak support on the basis that we have sources like the BBC, NASA, and CBS News covering the event as a rare astronomical (not astrological) thing, last visible just under 400 years ago, and something that should be possible to see w/ naked eye under clear skies. As long as we're not treating it like as astrological event but the rarer astronomical one, that's fine. Article seems ready. --Masem (t) 15:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Of course. Astrology shouldn't be mentioned. Cape Verde or Mauritania and "parts of Oceania" were apparently the best places to go if one wanted to try to see it with the Great Red Spot on closest day. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment So far I've counted 16 supports and 10 opposes, How much do we need for a concesus? Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'd have thought that was enough but I'm no longer in a position to judge, having !voted myself. Despite the claims above that it's an "uninteresting" event for professional astronomers, I find that opposition generally weak. It is certainly in the news, across the world, it's a very rare event and although the event has no impact on the bodies themselves, neither do the frequently occurring eclipses yet we post them without hesitation. — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Professionals only get paid to extend the boundary of current knowledge, and don't look through telescopes with eyes anymore and use false color infrared/radio etc a lot, and things eyes can't see like extreme physics from outside the solar system and cosmology and exoplanets are big right now so it's not surprising that some professionals don't have a looking with their eyes hobby anymore. Stuff eyes can see has been studied to death already. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'd have thought that was enough but I'm no longer in a position to judge, having !voted myself. Despite the claims above that it's an "uninteresting" event for professional astronomers, I find that opposition generally weak. It is certainly in the news, across the world, it's a very rare event and although the event has no impact on the bodies themselves, neither do the frequently occurring eclipses yet we post them without hesitation. — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Interesting and unusual, as others have said. My reservation was the astrology nonsense, but now that section has been removed from the article I'll support.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Jeeeeeeez admins have posted dead American dudes that have more opposition than this one. Where's a rogue admin when you need one? Or does someone have to tagged this as ready and we'd wait for another day? Howard the Duck (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Notable, all over the news, and we've got a decent article as well. Davey2116 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Posted. I think there's a rough consensus to post this; some proportion (exact proportion impossible to guess) of opposes were to quality which seems to no longer be an issue, and to astrology nonsense that has now been removed. Also, oldest hook is over 2 weeks old, ITN needed some fresh air. No one expressed an opinion about which blurb to use,
so I went with Alt 2, because Alt 3 was too long(someone else changed to Alt 3, which seems to me to be about 2% worse, so meh), and I don't think "easily visible" is quantifiable enough. Not sure if this is actually photogenic or not; if anyone finds a free image that isn't two dots of light, the image could stand to be updated too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC) - Post-posting support - been in the news cycle for a week or two, easily visible to the naked eye (although it was more impressive IMO watching them get closer and closer over the past 6 months). I'm not sure why the scientific value is relevant seeing as we post eclipses that hold next to zero scientific value today. As for image, NASA imagery is public domain is it not? Their webpage on the conjunction. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the image above; it is basically illegible at all resolutions and on all screens unless you click on it to expand; we tend to not include such images in the ITN box, for similar reasons why maps are usually not included on main page posts. It looks like a black rectangle with some random smudges on it. If there's an image of the conjunction at better resolution that lets us see the planets and identify them at scale, that would be great. But dim smudges on a black rectangle isn't really helping our readers. --Jayron32 19:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Is it too small to crop? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- No joke - can we run the Kepler sketch? GreatCaesarsGhost 00:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sure why not, it's just drawing lines between consecutive conjunctions with the "ruler" being the plane of Earth's orbit and even people who didn't believe in astrology measured in signs degrees minutes seconds back then, like a 12 30 60 60 version of British money. I might be remembering some other early to mid 1600s quote but I think it was Kepler who told the non-believing members of his profession to keep their mouth shut cause astrology is the teat of astronomy or something like that (meaning astrology paid the bills so they could afford to research and eat and making horoscopes for hire was something they were almost uniquely qualified for, no other job would need their skills). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- No joke - can we run the Kepler sketch? GreatCaesarsGhost 00:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Is it too small to crop? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the image above; it is basically illegible at all resolutions and on all screens unless you click on it to expand; we tend to not include such images in the ITN box, for similar reasons why maps are usually not included on main page posts. It looks like a black rectangle with some random smudges on it. If there's an image of the conjunction at better resolution that lets us see the planets and identify them at scale, that would be great. But dim smudges on a black rectangle isn't really helping our readers. --Jayron32 19:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting declaration Woe is us! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting support Been all over the news for the past week, is unique and interesting, and the article is in good shape. Mlb96 (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Wake me when the 'great' part of the conjunction is over. I don't want to get over-excited.
– Sca (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Different people like different things, it's prominent in the news and not only just in tabloids like the NY Post and Daily News so why not? Also it removed another space item over half month old.Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Stop dealing with Sca. This same guy dismissed the Times as a reference for newsworthiness here. Well, it is not the NY Post and Daily News (or perhaps the Sun) so... perhaps the 36k pageviews yesterday and 192k for December all came from boring people? I dunno. That's certainly a lot more than 50% of those found in WP:ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Could be 40 obsessive astronomers and 40 compulsive astrologers checking for updates 2400 times each. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Stop dealing with Sca. This same guy dismissed the Times as a reference for newsworthiness here. Well, it is not the NY Post and Daily News (or perhaps the Sun) so... perhaps the 36k pageviews yesterday and 192k for December all came from boring people? I dunno. That's certainly a lot more than 50% of those found in WP:ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Different people like different things, it's prominent in the news and not only just in tabloids like the NY Post and Daily News so why not? Also it removed another space item over half month old.Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:45, 21 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: