Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS. Archives of past nominations can be found here.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

A blurb is a one sentence summary of the news story. An alternate suggestion for the blurb is called an altblurb, and any more suggestions get labelled alt1, alt2, etc. A blurb needs at least one target article, highlighted in bold; reviewers check the quality of that article and whether it is updated, and whether reliable sources demonstrate the significance of the event. Other articles can also be linked. The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time. RD stands for the "recent deaths" line, and can include any living thing whose death was recently announced. In some cases, recent deaths may need additional explanation as provided by a blurb; this is decided by consensus.

Roch Marc Christian Kaboré in 2018
Roch Marc Christian Kaboré

view — page history — related changes — edit

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

  1. add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  3. accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[edit]

January 26[edit]

January 26, 2022 (2022-01-26) (Wednesday)

Health and environment

January 25[edit]

January 25, 2022 (2022-01-25) (Tuesday)

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

RD: Erwin Eisch[edit]

Article: Erwin Eisch (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BR
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: artist in glass from Bavaria who used the material as a means of expression, internationally known - the article was written long ago by a user who left in 2011, many offline sources, the latest refs support the content but many details need to be be believed Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support I've added some ISBN and OCLC. Article ok. Grimes2 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Wim Jansen[edit]

Article: Wim Jansen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Herald Scotland
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Member of the great Dutch football team of the 1970s, later won the Scottish league in his one season as manager of Celtic. I've painstakingly sourced this through English, Dutch and French sources. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:2870:1B66:F076:7A1C (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support No issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support article looks good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Question: Is the table of Club statistics complete? Looks a bit too empty. There should be some figures on each row in the totals column, no? --PFHLai (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: There were huge protests in many cities in the world. This is not referenced on any of the main COVID-related Wikipedia pages, nor is there a separate page for this (though there should be). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • comment/oppose do we really want Wikipedia to be associated with supporting these violent d*mbasses? 5.44.170.26 (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Please name call elsewhere, and keep this civil, thank you. Which of these protests were violent? 331dot (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Are you serious? https://www.politico.eu/article/protest-against-covid-restriction-police-violent-brussels/ 5.44.170.26 (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • You seem to be describing a single event, not an ongoing event. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Technically, we already have the covid pandemic ongoing since early 2020. So the main link covers all topics, including vaccines and protests. --Tone 08:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

January 24[edit]

January 24, 2022 (2022-01-24) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Heidelberg University shooting[edit]

Article: Heidelberg University shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A gunman shoots four people, one fatally, in Germany's Heidelberg University. (Post)
News source(s): BBC France24 CNN Deutsche Welle Times of Israel The Guardian sueddeutsche.de Associated Press Der Spiegel
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Has been making headlines for the past few days, and should be added to the Current events portal, which is shorter than usual today. This seems to be one of the first school shootings in 2022.Dunutubble (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Please note that WP:ITN is separate from Portal:Current events. Your nomination is correct for a nomination to ITN but if it's your intention to have an item added to the current events portal, you should go there. For what it's worth, it looks like this event is already listed on Portal:Current events/2022 January 24. WaltCip-(talk) 14:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the low death toll & because it wasn't motivated by an ideology. However, it's easily notable enough to justify its article & its place on CE. There have been other killings this month which have much higher death tolls & haven't been nominated, let alone posted (although I realise that's because the articles are too short), including Arauca, Dankade, Diyala & Sorong. Jim Michael (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose – "An 18-year-old biology student" who killed himself. Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
He killed one of his victims as well. Jim Michael (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
But evidently not for terroristic reasons. Just another disturbed individual. – Sca (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Sad, but not a significant incident or ideologically motivated. Alex-h (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

James Webb Telescope[edit]

Proposed image
Article: James Webb Space Telescope (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The James Webb Space Telescope reaches its target orbit at the Earth-Sun L2 Lagrange point. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: I am marking this ITNR, but this might be one of those exceptional cases. The probe has reached its destination which is ITNR, but 1) we had posted its launch in Dec, and 2) in 5 months we'd expect to start seeing images from it. So this could be a case of "let's wait those five months", but I'm throwing this out there as a possible ITN. Masem (t) 04:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • It's a spacecraft and it has arrived at its destination, I don't see why it shouldn't be posted now, or why it can't be posted when we get images. Too many postings is not our problem, usually. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer posting once it starts collecting data but I don't oppose posting once more at this point, always good to have science stories on ITN. And the telescope is one of the biggest recent science stories. --Tone 09:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait This craft doesn't really have a destination as it's designed to keep moving. The complex unfurling and alignment is the real challenge and that's not complete yet. Better to wait until it's operational when we will presumably have its first image to show. See Timeline of the James Webb Space Telescope. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
That is incorrect; its destination is the L2 point. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
No, they don't want it to go to that point because it would then be in shadow and its solar panels wouldn't work. And there's literally nothing there. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Animation of Solar and Heliospheric Observatory trajectory - Equatorial view.gif
It would be a permanent ring eclipse so the solar panels would work a little. Entering the quasi-orbit around L2 would be kind of a destination. Complex distant stuff tug-of-war causing quasi-orbits of nothing are pretty cool, L4 and L5 asteroids even need the Coriolis effect to orbit! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Andrew Davidson Then you might want to tell the entire scientific community, NASA, and all RS that say that's where it's going. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait – For coverage with images. – Sca (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support add an image from the article. An orbit around the sun near L2 is a destination. Big news that it made it there in working condition. Article is solid. Jehochman Talk 02:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The SOHO animation which someone has posted (right) shows a different satellite from the 20th century and so seems too confusing to be useful. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, would have to be a James Webb-specific animation. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Let's use the illustration at the top of this section. Jehochman Talk 14:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Sheldon Silver[edit]

Article: Sheldon Silver (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American politician, speaker of the New York state assembly (1994–2015), dies in prison at age 77. Article looks solid. Davey2116 (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment. This reads like an attack page. Someone knowledgeable needs to check the solidity of the sourcing and the appropriate balance. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Well, it is NYS politics... it's messy as hell in Albany. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I've looked at the article and I believe it's ready. The article is well sourced and I do think it is balanced given the criminal biography aspect. He did die in prison, after all (well, seems he was transferred to a hospital, but he was still an inmate). I don't have POV concerns, and I am a native of New York who followed Silver's speakership and criminal proceedings somewhat. That said, another lead paragraph that doesn't mention his crimes could help. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Ayberk Pekcan[edit]

Article: Ayberk Pekcan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SOZCU, The News Int. oyeyeah
Credits:

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

 Ainty Painty (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment. On a very quick look, badly needs some copy edits as well as sourcing for the entire filmography. I suspect when the puffery/repetition is removed it will appear very stubby. I would also strongly prefer that it did not link to the Turkish 'pedia without using the interlanguage link formatting which indicates which language the target is in. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Burkinabé coup d'état[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2022 Burkinabé coup d'état (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In Burkina Faso, a coup d'état led by military officer Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba deposes President Roch Marc Christian Kaboré (pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In Burkina Faso, a coup d'état led by military officer Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba deposes President Roch Marc Christian Kaboré (pictured) and announces the dissolution of the parliament, government and constitution.
News source(s): BBC; Aljazzera; Reuters; France24 APNews
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: A very major event, all RS reporting this, article needs updating and expanding before it is posted. Events might change in the coming hours, so the blurb may be updated accordingly. Honestly concerning like all previous coup d'etats. Update - Kabore deposed, government, parliament and constituion dissolved. [1] An ITNR tag has been added, as there is a ”Change in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government.” BastianMAT (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support - Major event. But article really needs an update. (PenangLion (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC))
  • Oppose Seems like a chaotic situation and the article is similar, e.g. "The mutinying mutinying soldiers". And coups in Africa seem commonplace. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I do agree that the article needs a lot of work. However the news itself is more than noteworthy, and if the coup succeds, it will fall under ITNR. ”Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government.” The article is not ready, we don’t know the clear outcome of the coup yet, however the situation and a government change should be more than noteworthy. We will have to wait and see what happens, and in the meantime improve the article. BastianMAT (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Look at 2015 Burkinabé coup d'état. In that case, the coup didn't stick and the president was reinstated a week later. We're an encyclopedia, not a breaking news service, and will look bad if we post flip-flops. We should allow plenty of time to let the dust settle. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support on significance, Oppose on quality. At the moment the article contains several sentences that don't make sense (e.g. "Although the government denied the ongoing coup in the country."), Unencyclopedic writing, what appears to be several unsourced statements (e.g. The Military are scheduled to make an announcement) and a couple of sections which are either blank or contain a single sentence. With a bit of expansion and copyediting this would be a good thing to post though. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

France24 (most reliable western msm for Africa) says the prez is being held by the mil https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220124-burkina-faso-president-kabore-held-by-mutinying-soldiers-sources-tell-france-24?ref=tw_i

  • That's a live feed and what it actually says currently is "Uncertainty in Burkina Faso over fate of President Kaboré". Andrew🐉(talk) 13:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - In terms of notability, it's clearly a major geopolitical event. The quality of the article is currently lacking but most major media sources are covering it now (as of 8:00 AM EST), so it should improve rapidly over the next day or two. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 13:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality as article needs expansion, and also source checking (the Sputnik Mundo source looks like it's depreciated according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_296#RfC:_Sputnik). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Kaboré held, etc. AP, BBC, France24 – Sca (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. Not ready yet on quality.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as Pikamander2 noted, the article has plenty of potential for improvement. I'll see what I might be able to contribute. Ludicrous (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support because it's important enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - there are two orange tags at the moment, which are usually blockers to posting.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Update - Kabore deposed, government, parliament and constituion dissolved. [2] An ITNR tag has been added, as there is a ”Change in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government.” BastianMAT (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support on significance, as it made NYT push alert. Haven't investigated quality. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support when article is deemed suitable, per above. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support once article is ready to go. Coups are big news. The Kip (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There are two orange tags to expand, one in background and one in the coup section. Please fix this before we can post. --Tone 08:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tone: Fixed it, article seems to be pretty good now, should be ready for a front page.
    • Posting. --Tone 09:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Alright nice, @Tone: can you add the nom to my profile? Thinking of adding a display on my profile of all articles I have contributed and nominated to pretty soon. Cheers and have a great day mate! BastianMAT (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Presenting this as a done deal seems quite improper. Look at what happened last time – ITN rushed to post after just one day but then, a week later, the President was reinstated. The blurb says that the President has been "deposed" but the rebels themselves say that he has been "suspended". The reality seems to be that he's being held prisoner but now the challenge for the rebels is whether they can convince everyone that they are in charge. And can they then establish a functioning administration. A lot will depend on how foreign governments react, especially France.
Remember the march on the Capitol, when the result of the US election was being challenged? In such circumstances, it's a power struggle and the rebels don't always win. We should not rush to declare a winner in such confused and chaotic circumstances.
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
This is not about convincing "everyone that they are in charge". The classic goal of every coup seems to have been achieved - the president is no longer in power. So, as an accomplished coup, this has been duly posted. If things change, the blurb could be bumped higher to reflect those changes. Brandmeistertalk 14:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Any reason why Burkina Faso isn't a wikilink in the posted blurb? As someone unfamiliar with the country I would have appreciated one, as I wasn't initially sure whether it was a country, a province or other territory. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    There is a long-standing convention that nation states are not Wikilinked in ITN as part of the MOS:OVERLINK principle - the idea being that most people have heard of most countries. I guess Burkina Faso is probably close to the bottom of the recognizability stakes for most people, but we apply a level playing field for all. (I went there on holiday once, so I do know a bit more about it myself!)  — Amakuru (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

5G[edit]

Article: 5G (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Activation of 5G in the US is delayed by concerns about aircraft safety (Post)
News source(s): NYT; CNN; Times of India
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This issue seems to have been brewing for some time but has come to a head with flights being cancelled while the FAA and FCC scramble to get on the same page. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Maybe ongoing? There doesn't seem to be a single event to hang our hat on. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The main event was that C band was activated by the networks on 19 Jan but the aviation sector wasn't ready for this and so there's been some pushback. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – A non-event, so far. – Sca (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • support Beside importance, we arguably have a duty to show people why this is being done so that they don't instead jump onto conspiracy theories about 5g spreading covid or whatever 5.44.170.26 (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • we arguably have a duty to show people why this is being done so that they don't instead jump onto conspiracy theories about 5g spreading covid or whatever Wikipedia has no such duty. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality whilst the section on Aviation and this event may be well sourced, the rest of that 5G is awful, orange-tagged in many places. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't want to invoke the "local news" angle, which as we know is not accepted as valid, but even so I'm not sure this is really a major enough story to warrant posting on a global encyclopedia. I know the US is a global superpower and the biggest market for en-wiki, but even so, would we post similar stories relating to the rollout of 5G in other countries such as Brazil, India and Japan? Also, as noted, quality is a long-way off at present.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose as things stand. Notable, but not notable enough on a global or even national scale. Unless this eventually causes real issues for the average person then I don't think this is ITN level. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note that this is only for service using certain frequencies, specifically those in the C band. The blurb as-is is technically correct but prone to misleading the reader. 5G service using other frequencies has already been in use in the U.S. (*looks at phone with "5G" icon in status bar*) Unless it starts causing major disruptions this is kind of "inside baseball" regulatory stuff. Now, a number of these articles would be great for DYK if improved, and they could definitely use improvement. --47.155.96.47 (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, I fail to see the significance at this point of the story. Canadianerk (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Battle of al-Hasakah (2022)[edit]

Article: Battle of al-Hasakah (2022) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In al-Hasakah, Syria, Islamic State attacks the al-Sina'a prison to free captured terrorists. (Post)
News source(s): CBS News, Middle East Eye, Washington Post
Credits:

 Ainty Painty (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support because it's easily important enough & the article is good enough to post. Jim Michael (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Almost all the cites in the article are to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. As far as I've seen, this event has been absent from main RS news sights. More sources would be necessary before posting. – Sca (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
It includes refs from several other sources, including The Daily Telegraph & The Washington Post. Jim Michael (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I notice that our article on Middle East Eye states, "the governments of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain accuse MEE of pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias." – ?? — Sca (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing Would make sense to post this as an item first since it is based around a singular event. SpencerT•C 00:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - added blurb suggestion per Spencer. - Indefensible (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - agreed statement per User:Spencer (PenangLion (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC))

January 23[edit]

January 23, 2022 (2022-01-23) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Politics and elections

RD: R. Nagaswamy[edit]

Article: R. Nagaswamy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Indian archaeologist. Padma Bhushan awardee. Article requires some work to get to homepage levels of hygiene. Ktin (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Thierry Mugler[edit]

Article: Thierry Mugler (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): People
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: French fashion designer Stephen 00:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • You’re missing a source, I took the liberty to add one. Trillfendi (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant death, article is well cited. Morgan695 (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose multiple citation needed tags, and multiple other sentences also need sourcing. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean-Claude Mézières[edit]

Article: Jean-Claude Mézières (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): "Décès de Jean-Claude Mézières, cocréateur de la BD "Valérian et Laureline"". Radio Télévision Suisse (in French). 2022-01-23. Retrieved 2022-01-23.
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Seminal French BD author (Valérian et Laureline).  Sandstein 19:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support. Tagged as "Good Article", so whatever needs to be done should be minimal. Fram (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Four Cn's outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I have removed three of the four CN-tagged bits, and sourced one. Should be good to go now! Fram (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support GA and no outstanding citation needed tags. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Resignation of Armenian President Armen Sarkissian[edit]

Article: Armen Sarkissian (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Armenian President Armen Sarkissian resigns. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Alen Simonyan becomes acting president of Armenia
News source(s): Reuters, Le Figaro
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Resignation of a head of state. Mooonswimmer 17:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Noting that in Armenia the PM is more powerful than the president(and the president cited that as a reason for his resignation). 331dot (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose If the resignation of a prime minister is hardly blurb-worthy, much less so when it's a head of state without executive powers. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Alsoriano. Parochial politix. – Sca (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Along with the aforementioned concerns of notability, the article itself doesn't provide more context than "He resigned on 23 January 2022." Ludicrous (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Not Ready for the usual reason. It would also be desirable to name his successor if possible. That said, this is probably WP:ITNR so once article quality is up to scratch it should be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    It is not ITNR. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    "*Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election."[1] What am I missing? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    List of current heads of state and government says it's the PM that administers the executive. Our own article on President of Armenia calls him a figurehead, in so many words. —Cryptic 03:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment @Cryptic: so in other words, you mean he’s just head of state rather than head of government? Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom could also be seen as a “figurehead,” but would we not post that just as we’d post the succession of their PM? 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:35E6:356B:5DCE:E4E8 (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    It would be posted, but it probably wouldn't be covered under ITNR.--2600:1700:4579:B80:A946:24EB:504C:7E5A (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    Queen Elizabeth is also the head of state of more than one country. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed. She is one of the most recognisable and widely-covered individuals of the past century and would certainly warrant a blurb were she to die or leave office, despite not being ITN/R or having any real power. In fact, we even blurbed her husband's death.
  • Comment I added the altblurb, but don't support or oppose it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    I would note that Simonyan is technically only acting President. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
     Done InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a head of the government, just a ceremonial position.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news&oldid=1017989369#ITNR_heads_of_state_/_government. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

January 22[edit]

January 22, 2022 (2022-01-22) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

RD: Ralph Natale[edit]

Article: Ralph Natale (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3]
Credits:

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

 PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Colm Keane[edit]

Article: Colm Keane (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Irish Independent; Irish Examiner; RTE
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment. Could do with a little pruning of promotion and improvement of the lead. I note a previous version was deleted as promotional and bits of this made me wonder if it had been written by someone connected with the subject, especially the primary sourcing for the degrees. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reads mostly like a resume in prose format with not much depth IMO. Any additional details that can be added in for depth? SpencerT•C 00:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Saada prison airstrike[edit]

Article: Saada prison airstrike (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A Saudi-led coalition airstrike on a prison in Saada, Yemen kills at least 87 people and injures more than 266 others. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​After an attack by Houthis in the UAE, a prison is struck in Yemen.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, The Guardian, BBC, NY Times, Reuters
Credits:

 Ainty Painty (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Still a stub, needs improvement. Yxuibs (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Clearly a significant war crime with between 70-200 people reported dead and has mainstream media coverage. GWA88 (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but it's still a stub. Also, the governor of Saada said that the hospitals were collapsed by corpses and injured? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is not in its best shape. Seems a bit one-sided. Reports indicate at least 70 dead, but anything higher is not sufficiently established. PenangLion (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    So why Support? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    Because of its notability? PenangLion (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    Both notability and article quality are important for posting to ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality probably is important enough for ITN, but the article is barely more than a stub. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support on Principle, Oppose on Quality clearly notable enough for ITN, but the article is just as clearly not ready yet. While the article is improving, nothing in the body of the article talks about what happened during the airstrike. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support because this is easily important enough & the article just about good enough to post. Jim Michael (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not sure what qualifies this for a blurb when the significantly more notable Houthi attack in UAE (with a relatively more in-depth article) directly preceding this was not. This blurb should in the least mention that and be expanded for broader consideration. Gotitbro (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
This has a death toll which is many times higher. Why do you think the 2022 Abu Dhabi attack is more notable? Jim Michael (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Saudi Arabian attacks in Yemen during the ongoing war are not exactly uncommon. But Houthis striking beyond Yemen is, and what received broad coverage in the news including the lead to this retaliatory attack. Gotitbro (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
You could suggest an alternative blurb which includes a mention of the Abu Dhabi attack. Jim Michael (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

January 21[edit]

January 21, 2022 (2022-01-21) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Clark Gillies[edit]

Article: Clark Gillies (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sportsnet.ca
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Hockey Hall of Fame inductee, won Stanley Cup four times with his team in the 1980s. Article should be good to go. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support It is. Let's go Islanders. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Stats, awards and infobox factoids all need references. Stephen 11:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I've added citations in-body for the infobox and awards. The stats table have a citation on their own now. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RD/Blurb (Blurb posted) RD: Thích Nhất Hạnh[edit]

Article: Thích Nhất Hạnh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Vietnamese Thiền Buddhist monk and peace activist Thích Nhất Hạnh dies at age 95. (Post)
News source(s): BBC The New York Times Tricycle: The Buddhist Review Washington PostNY TimesLion's Roar Reuters
Credits:

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

 Thriley (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • This made the NYT push notifications despite being a non-American figure, so definitely a good candidate. Let's get it in shape (if not already there) quickly so it can be posted timely. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. A major international figure in a world religion. BD2412 T 04:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Along the lines of Vietnamese Thiền Buddhist monk and peace activist Thích Nhất Hạnh dies at age 95. No "old man dies" objections, please, he was relevant up to a very late age. BD2412 T 05:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. Added blurb into the nomination box per BD2412's comment above. Ktin (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Certainly a major figure in both religion and peace activism at least on par with Archbishop Tutu. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    On par how? Tutu was an Anglican, and credited with helping end apartheid. Speaking in vain against the war and for vegetarianism puts Hạnh closer to Jane Fonda, in my eyes. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    His impact is more on spreading his teachings to people's personal practices regarding meditation/psychological teachings, and certainly not vegetarianism. Buddhist monks in East Asian Mahayana countries and Vietnam are required to be vegetarian and there are also a large proportion of Theravada monks who are strongly advocate for vegetarianism even though Theravada doesn't require it. He isn't known mainly for raging against the machine in vain. Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for clearing that up. So, in global sports entertainment terms, more of a Diamond Dallas Page. Not identical paths, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Major figure of international significance. Cedar777 (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Major figure whose works have been widely translated and disseminated across the globe, especially in English-speaking countries. I strongly agree that he was relevant and remains to be relevant all the way up to and beyond the date of his death—he still has another book that has yet to be (now posthumously) published! --LumensPerSquareMeter (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Such an enlightening user name! – Sca (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)  ;-)
  • No Blurb Every old man who dies is relevant to something. This one Buddhism. Still absolutely nothing to the blurb that isn't covered by his bio's opening line (unsourced chunks aside). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Wouldn’t be a good death blurb without IH’s “old man dies.” The Kip (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I never say that for good death blurbs. A good death blurb has an actual cause, like a helicopter crash, church stabbing or Afghan earthquake. Merely echoing awareness as tribute to big names beloved in Western progressive circles is the bad kind of cause-based voting. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
        • IH, This sounds a lot like ‘unless someone was worthy of being portrayed in an action adventure film, their death (and their life) was inconsequential.’ Surely the blurb criteria is not this narrow. Cedar777 (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
          • I don't see how you inferred that, but no. If Clint Eastwood or Sylvester Stallone dies tomorrow with nothing to blurb but job description and age, it'd be the same. Stories need hooks. RD is for simple recent deaths in the news. It has nothing to do with life beforehand. That part just determines article creation and content here. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Article does not really support a blurb with a lack of dedicated section to legacy/importance/influence, etc. We shouldn't ask the reader to hunt and peck for why a person was given a blurb over an RD. --Masem (t) 17:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Should add this is something that is fixable in a reasonable span, just that it should be done. --Masem (t) 21:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Abstaining the vote as I'm undecided whether this figure deserves a blurb or not. Admittedly enough, I've never heard of him personally, but the article seems to hint at notability. (PenangLion (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC))
  • Support blurb Internationally recognized activist, author, and teacher of a major world religion for decades. Funcrunch (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – 'Transformative'? Just askin'. – Sca (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Significant figure; (probably) just missed out on a Nobel Peace Prize over a technicality and not because he wasn’t deserving. Schwede66 20:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support blurb or RD. He's been called one of Buddhism's best known second only to the Dalai Lama. Thankfully that hyperbole has been removed from the lead. R.I.P. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support blurb agree that his supranational impact, however lowkey, fulfills the criteria. SN54129 23:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Warning If this passes, it becomes precedent. Anybody for whom "one of the second-best in field" is hyperbolic, anyone who maybe deserved that award they never won and everyone with a Lowkey Supranational Impact rating of However is eligible to join the deluge. You want that? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • This goes to the point I was in trying to make, in that the article does not give a clear reason - that is not buried in prose - of his importance and significance. The ideas for why we should blurb him are in the article but there should absolutely be a standalone section on Legacy or the like so that questions like the one IH is asking are clearly answered. I think this is reasonable for this person, and I don't think it is an issue that he was "second-best", just that it should be crystal clear why we are giving him a blurb. --Masem (t) 01:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Second-best wouldn't be so bad. But one of the second-best, and even a fan calls it a stretch? That's the sort of C-level mediocrity I mean. The Dalai Lama is way different. When that old man dies, a power vacuum opens and a child is reborn, with much ado about something. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
        • The Dalai Lama is also the de-facto head of the exiled Tibetan govt. It is not simply the case of a religious personality, it would be an administrative change which while not exactly ITNR (non-member state) the impact is self-evident and need not be stated. Gotitbro (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
          • Consider it nobly silenced, brother. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
            • Note that Buddhism, according to WP has more than 500m followers and the subject is a type of cross-over religious leader so his meditation teachings were also adopted by people who still identify as other, eg Abrahamic religions. Where is the evidence that the subject is a third-level religious figure? Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
              • I get it, bunch of new age posers. I never claimed to have evidence. Just a message from above strongly suggesting putting him amongst the second-best known is an overstatement ("hyperbole"), rather than a statement or understatement ("bole"/"hypobole"?). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Also there's at least four CNs as I look at it now, meaning its not ready for the bare RD starting point. --Masem (t) 01:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I have resolved half of them by removing the uncited statements, the first being a quote attributed to the subject's organization (not the subject himself), which I was unable to find in a reliable source, and the second being two highly problematic paragraphs purporting to identify notable followers, for which it is not clear that the people named are necessarily notable or followers; those paragraphs I moved to the talk page for discussion. BD2412 T 02:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Work on article appears ongoing to clarify (international, half-century+ of) significance for reader. As someone familiar with the subject, I’m already persuaded. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - article has an orange banner for ref quality, not ready for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Short of the level of death coverage typical of our RD blurbs.—Bagumba (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support blurb One of the two main figures of the 20-21st century in bringing Buddhism to western countries, prolific scholar of Buddhism whether one agrees with his reinterpretations or not, notable activist. And whether one likes it or not, major religious figures and scientists have more impact on society at large than old movie stars and sportspeople Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb article looks more than good enough to be posted on RD (not orange-tagged anymore). However, don't see why his death is important enough for the high standard we have to give someone a blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Certainly Hanh was a major figure in Buddhism and to an extent the international peace movement but his preeminence therein has not been established here nor in the article. There has been push by specific users to get the death of certain personalities onto a blurb regardless of notability/relevance justification (White, Madden (nom) etc. come to mind recently). This should not be setting a precedent for votes=blurb=consensus. Gotitbro (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:SOCK.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose blurb Not sure what Wikipedia‘s obsession is with putting foreign politicians or leaders that no English speaking people have ever heard of in the blurb but not putting notable English speaking people on recent deaths. Put these foreign leaders on the foreign Wikipedia.TomChaplinPoodle (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Come on.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.215.241 (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the National Front advert :D SN54129 18:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Wow! That was really in bad taste! You should really consider retracting the statement. I also see that this is your first comment / post at WP:ITNC so firstly, welcome to this project. Please engage with topics here in a constructive and open-minded manner. I wish you well. Ktin (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Prolific author and teacher, Hanh was not only vital in spreading Buddhist ideology and philosophy to the West; much of the work of his life centered around pacifism and advocating for peaceful diplomacy around the globe. He is certainly notable enough for a blurb. Ludicrous (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • RD Posted but blurb discussion ongoing. --Masem (t) 18:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Not seeing the exceptional level of coverage necessary; RD is sufficient. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Top of his field and I am seeing global coverage. Article in good shape too. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. A Google News search did not come up with an awful lot in English and the subject's death isn't getting much ongoing coverage in the UK, as far as I can see; cf Tutu where his funeral & burial arrangements were covered in detail for much of the week after his death. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I can see full pieces in the BBC, Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, ABC America, CNN, ABC Australia, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 News Australia (a tabloid!), some in India, France24 about his life and times. Also with regards to funeral rites, note that as the article explains, the Vietnamese government does not exactly get along that well with him, and violently raided one of his monasteries a few years ago. So there is not going to be any official fanfare apart from for devotees. Secondly, as the nomination is not made on the grounds of the manner of his demise, but his life impact, having play by play reporting of his funeral is not a relevant consideration Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@Bumbubookworm: Actually now found a few more; I think all the accents were confusing the search. As to funeral coverage, that has been a metric we have frequently used at ITN in the past. In terms of impact of work, I'd suggest that of all the people on this page, David Cox had the greatest real-world impact, but no-one has suggested his article for a blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree that scientists don't get enough recognition and have tried to improve articles on them in the past where I have had time, to no avail in terms of getting a blurb. Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2021#(Posted)_RD/Blurb:_Steven_Weinberg and Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/December_2021#(Posted_RD)_RD/Blurb:_E._O._Wilson, with a lot of opposes from sports-oriented editors. Also sadly in the latter case, there were objections claiming that US scientists were favoured without evidence about their technical merits. While sports/entertainment fans have strongly parochial attitudes in many cases, from my experience this isn't the case for people who actually have studied science, so it was sad to see scientists affected by parochial sports wars Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
For the record, I suggested that David Cox be considered for a blurb. I happened to check the Polish Wikipedia during this period and noticed that their ITN posted his picture. They now have Meat Loaf's picture and so seem to be doing better than the English ITN as our current news picture is now 9 days old. Adding RD pics would give us more choice. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I've always liked the RD image notion but I know there's a lot of opposition to it from regulars here. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment The current vote is 12 for blurb and 5 against blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • ITN does not work on vote count, but on consensus. --Masem (t) 22:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I am expanding the impact section Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Consensus implies discussion and compromise. It's not possible to compromise on a binary outcome. We always count votes, but the margin required is whatever the admin decides in the moment. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb certainly worthy of consideration, but does not seem to meet our normal threshold for blurbs. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb [full disclosure - I am a 30 year+ student of Thich Nhat Hahn and I was ordained by him to be a Dharma Teacher in his tradition] In the Buddhist world Thich Nhat Hanh is of tremendous historical importance. Notwithstanding my personal bias as one of his students, I can guarantee that you can ask *any* scholar of Buddhism and you will get the same assessment. He is a major figure in Chan Buddhism - there is no doubt about that. And he has had a tremendous influence on a large number of westerners, including seminal figures in the mindfulness movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellino (talk • contribs) 04:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:DENY. --WaltCip-(talk) 15:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Strong support blurb Europo/atlanto-centrism is showing up on Wikipedia once again 5.44.170.26 (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I’m not sure if I am allowed to vote as I am the nominator, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an American Supreme Court judge who had relatively little impact beyond the borders of the United States, got a blurb. Thích Nhất Hạnh had a global impact that lasted for many more decades than Ginsburg’s position at the United States Supreme Court and his global impact is arguably far greater and internationally notable than hers. Thriley (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted blurb Consensus in favor of posting as blurb. SpencerT•C 06:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Do I, as the nominator, give myself and those that improved the article credit, or does someone else do that? I am fairly new to this so I am a bit unsure. Thriley (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Spencer:? Thriley (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I tried, but the bot just gave you recognition. The sound of one hand clapping? In any case, I don't blame you for overcoming my "bad vibes", cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Elza Soares[edit]

Article: Elza Soares (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, New York Times, Le Figaro, El Pais, Rolling Stone
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Brazilian cultural icon. Article needs a lot of work, hope a few of you can help me with it! Mooonswimmer 21:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC) -->

RD: Louie Anderson[edit]

Article: Louie Anderson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone, AP, Guardian, Mpls. Star-Trib , St. Paul Pioneer Press
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American comedian and actor Thriley (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • The WP:PROSELINE in the Career section is atrocious. And the filmography is unsourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I have fixed the proseline in the Career section, this should be good to go. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Filmography remains unreferenced. Please add REFs there. --PFHLai (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC) And there are currently about 10 {cn} or {cspan} tags in the prose. --PFHLai (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Meat Loaf[edit]

Article: Meat Loaf (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4]
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 singer. Article needs some updating first with many citations needed in places 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1C95:EB96:47A0:7A39 (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment Also an actor, dead at 74, no blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would post anything for WP, but I wont post that with some unsourced sections and CN tags. But once they're fixed, then yes, post. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • ITN can wait For crying out loud, you know this needs sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - at least 11 un-cited statements still requiring citations. (PenangLion (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC))
  • Two out of three* ain't bad but the referencing could do with work first — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    * notability and newsworthiness, idk
  • Comment – Very widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd do anything for a blurb... Howard the Duck (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    Would you nominate All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship for ITN/R? WaltCip-(talk) 13:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, I don't he's in blurbable territory. A household name and popular, and the usually raft of awards, but didn't really affect or change the music industry (the standard I use being someone like Prince or David Bowie for that). --Masem (t) 14:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I dunno; Bat out of Hell is one of the 10 best-selling albums of all-time. I think it's arguable either way, tbh. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Stop right there, I gotta know right now, before we go any further...did you fix the maintenance tags? There are 9 {{cn}} tags remaining. Can we either cite those things or pull the statements if they are not necessary? Jehochman Talk 13:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Only 11 tags now lol. Probably not Mandelarly "blub-worthy". Editing is so enjoyable with ITN illuminating the main page! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    No loafing around on this one, you meatheads! – Sca (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Stay cool baby, down to 2 cn's! (Support RD). — xaosflux Talk 14:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support with 2 cn tags (after I moved the content with the others to the talk page). Jehochman Talk 15:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to be Captain Buzzkill, but there's still tons of unsourced statements. The last three claims in the "The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1974/75)" paragraph, at least four or five I can see in the next section ("Bat Out of Hell (1977)"), and so on. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Not only multiple cn tags but also an unreferenced filmography.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support once cn tags are fixed up. Once that happens, it's off to RD! Fakescientist8000 (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    There are currently 38 citation needed tags, plus some {{unsourced section}} tags I placed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    Oooo, disheartening. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support RD when ready—others took the words right out of my mouth. He was a hot patootie, and I think that clearing up two out three tags ain't bad. Once the article is ready, let's send him off to paradise (by the dashboard light). I'd lie for you, and that's the truth, and while we'd do anything for the Main Page, we won't do that. Imzadi 1979 → 18:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
And I thought he was a sweet potato. – Sca (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment 38 cn tags (and one could add another half a dozen easily, the Stoney and Meat Loaf (1971) section is 90% unsourced) plus two more completely unsourced sections. Long way to go here. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Way, way, way, too many American -entric stories ITN. Just because English Wikipedia is English, it should still have an international focus. I propose it is listed under "recent deaths" instead. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    It is. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    Well, it is listed as "RD: Meat Loaf". Howard the Duck (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Let me sleep on it. I’ll give you an answer in the morning. (Whaddya mean you gotta know right now?) Still plenty of tags. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support If being the artist that produced the fourth biggest selling album of all time, i.e. Bat Out of Hell, isn't enough to go into ITN, then who is??? SethWhales talk 12:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC) (non American BTW)
    • Seth Whales, the article currently has 43 citation needed tags. That will keep any biography off of ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Echoing the previous comment - he was one of the biggest selling artists in music. This doesn't even warrant a debate, he should obviously be listed in the Recent Deaths - without question. It's an embarrassment for this community that this simple update has not been implemented yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.121.148 (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    It's hardly a "simple update" with the number of unsourced statements in the article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support RD – With 148 footnotes, it can't be all that bad. Very widely covered. – Sca (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    Not going to happen until the citation needed tags are dealt with. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Trim it and move it. Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
That would be absolutely inappropriate for what would need to be trimmed - that's sweeping the mess under the rug, and thus not reflect a quality article. I could see if we did that for one or two unsourced statement, but not the chunk in the article presently. --Masem (t) 16:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Especially given that most of a whole decade currently needs cites. More importantly, I'd also point out that there are quite a lot of primary sources in the article, plus five references to IMDB and five references to YouTube as well, not to mention blogs, Twitter and Facebook. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
That being so, oppose as substandard. – Sca (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I can't believe we, as a group, are so incompetent that we couldn't figure out how to post this. Jehochman Talk 13:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    When Norman Hunter was taken critically ill in 2020, his article looked like this, just 5 sources. Less than two days later it had 43 sources. If I and a few others can do this to a relatively obscure (in global terms) article in 36-odd hours (and see also Trevor Cherry which took even less time), it is somewhat surprising that no-one has stepped up to fix 38 sources on a supposedly high-profile one. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    At one point there were 11 and I zapped 8. Then somebody tagged 60+ more. It's a revolving door. The article has 150+ citations, but that's not enough. Jehochman Talk 21:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Pretty stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Wow, that is quite a surprise. Failed nominations often look quite close to being posted? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm reverting the close; RDs have seven days to be posted. Closing the discussion just means there is even less chance the work will be done. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yawn. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    It's defective! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

January 20[edit]

January 20, 2022 (2022-01-20) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Emil Mangelsdorff[edit]

Article: Emil Mangelsdorff (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FAZ
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Frankfurt Jazz Legend Grimes2 (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  • A bit short but long enough (309 words) and with enough footnotes in expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. AGF'd all non-English sources. --PFHLai (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Goalby[edit]

Article: Bob Goalby (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; PGA Tour; Golf Digest
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support Slim but meets minimum standards, referenced. SpencerT•C 05:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 Bogoso explosion[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2022 Bogoso explosion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​An explosion near Bogoso, Ghana damages 500 buildings (examples pictured) and kills 13 people (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, Reuters, Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Explosion of mining explosives in Ghana kills at least 17 and injures at least 59. Article very short at present, but sure to expand as more sources cover this Dumelow (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment BBC says 500 buildings affected, some destroyed. Al Jazeera, citing same guy, says all 500 destroyed. They can't both be right. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    "Seji Saji Amedonu, deputy director general of the National Disaster Management Organisation (NADMO), said 500 buildings had been destroyed. A regional emergency official told local media he had seen 10 dead bodies." - Al Jazeera. (PenangLion (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)) PenangLion (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    "He said about 500 houses were affected - some of which were completely destroyed - in Appiatse between Bogoso and the village of Bawdie." - BBC. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    Conflicting reports (screams). I guess we need to wait until clearer news reports are made. PenangLion (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait let's get some clarity here. Also, the article is little more than an oversized stub right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The death toll seems to be confirmed at 13, having been revised down from 17, according to the BBC, Rueters and Washington Post. The number of injuries is less clear, BBC say 45 "in hospital", Al Jazeera and CNN: 59 injured, Reuters: 180 injured, Washington Post: 177 injured. Only Al Jazeera are giving a number of buildings destroyed (500), BBC say "many houses flattened" and at least 380 people "without shelter". The BBC and Washington Post articles were updated most recently, then CNN. Al Jazeera is the oldest. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: The death toll seems to have stabilised at 13, the more recent sources state 500 buildings damaged so I have amended the article and blurb. There's a couple of good photographs which seem to have come from a drone flown by a local Open Street Map enthusiast - Dumelow (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support The article is good enough & it's important enough because hundreds of houses were destroyed. Had this happened in the Western world, it'd have been posted within hours. Jim Michael (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bobs Worth[edit]

Article: Bobs Worth (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Horse and Hound
Credits:

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: Irish racehorse, died in a "field accident" PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment Birthday and death age do not agree. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • All thoroughbread horses in the northern hemisphere have birthday on 1 January (and 1 August for southern hemisphere) [5]. So his first birthday would have been 1 January 2006 (when he was 7 months old), and 17th birthday would have been 1 January 2022. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Cox (statistician)[edit]

Article: David Cox (statistician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Nuffield College
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: British statistician with a variety of notable work in the field of statistics and applied probability Engineerchange (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Not Ready Bibliography needs sourcing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I took care of the two {{cn}}. The bibliography really doesn't need sourcing; that's just busywork which will duplicate the {{authority control}}. The real issue is whether he should get a blurb as being at the top of his field – statistics. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Quick qn - Does the bibliography not require sourcing? I have been working all my articles under the assumption that bibliography (as with other 'ography-ies) need to be sourced as well. The only distinction (I think) is that bibliographies can be cited based on the books' ISBN numbers. The only thing that doesn't require additional sourcing as explained to me once is plot sections of books (particularly fiction) where the book itself is considered the source. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
A general source has now been provided from Nuffield College, Oxford. I'd prefer isbns to be provided because it makes the books easier to locate, but I don't think it needs to hold up main-page exposure. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good. I think we are on the same-page. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment If Cox was a top-field statistician, shouldn't his lead reflect that? His lead is rather short in my opinion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not checked in detail but at minimum... The lead needs writing; many readers do not progress any further. The first two bullet points in the Career section need independent sources and the book for bullet point 3 needs page nos. There are numerous apparently unsourced facts eg date of birth, list of students, several of the awards, and most of the bibliography section (including the leading sentences). Espresso Addict (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Are there any accessible obituaries? I'm happy to help improving this but it's a bit thin at the moment. I don't doubt his significance, but the current article does not make a good case for it. On a technical point, it's not clear whether his death is "in the news" given that all the announcements I've seen have been societies or colleges. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. Resolved most, if not all, of comments above: updated lead, cited date of birth, cited doctoral students, cited two bullet points in Career section and page of book for bullet point 3, cited bibliography section (count of books he authored, names of books he authored, books he edited), cited awards. --Engineerchange (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 Barbadian general election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2022 Barbadian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In the Barbadian general election the Barbados Labour Party of Prime Minister Mia Mottley (pictured) wins all the seats in the House of Assembly. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In the Barbadian general election Prime Minister Mia Mottley (pictured) and her Barbados Labour Party win all the seats in the House of Assembly for a second time.
Alternative blurb II: ​In the Barbadian general election, the Barbados Labour Party, led by Prime Minister Mia Mottley (pictured), wins every seat in the House of Assembly.
News source(s): https://www.nationnews.com/2022/01/20/another-30-0/
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Comprehensive victory for the BLP. Article needs constituency-level results and prose on the outcome. LukeSurl t c 14:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support Two consecutive 100% landslides in a liberal democracy is remarkable to say the least. Proposed altblurb. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality would be nice to have constituency results, definitely want some text about the results/reactions to results. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose ... for now. A 200-word text stub with tables. – Sca (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Proposed another altblurb.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now The article doesn't meet the quality requirements to be on the Main Page: less than half of the article has prose, incomplete tables, the results section has no prose and there is no "Aftermath" or "Reactions" section. A lot of work to be done. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Not Ready per Sca. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality as per Joseph2302. Ornithoptera (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, Per above, the article is not ready Alex-h (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose on lack of info for being a stub while the tables were not updated. (PenangLion (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC))

(Posted) Zara Rutherford[edit]

Article: Zara Rutherford (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Belgian-British pilot who is the youngest female pilot to fly solo around the world. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Belgian-British pilot Zara Rutherford becomes the youngest woman to fly solo around the world.
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

Article updated

 Lawrence Ruiz (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support. A very impressive accomplishment and record in aviation. She is also the first women to complete a circumnavigation in a microflight. Yxuibs (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Source coverage looks good at first glance. That said, ITN has not posted circumnavigation attempts since Steve Fossett in 2005. Joofjoof (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb Impressive record for a young person, it's getting global coverage and article is in good shape. I mean flying around the world and making that into a record is pretty internationally notable and significant. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. BD2412 T 06:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - for significance and coverage but the blurb needs to be appropriately rephrased. (PenangLion (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC))
  • I wrote an altblurb. Mlb96 (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support ALT1 article looks good enough, and it is in the news. FYI, I removed a blocked sockpuppet from the updaters list, as we shouldn't be giving them ITN credits, as per WP:DENY. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Although is the image definitely free? I can't see anywhere on the Youtube video that it's taken from that says it's released under CC licence (maybe I'm just missing where it is)? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing this out, Joseph2302. Just removed the pic from MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good morning, America! Let's see what was nom'ed and posted while you were asleep. Oh, look: a Brit set an incremental record with an insignificant gender qualifier! Those always get posted quick. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • More in the news than some of the US-centric stuff that gets posted here.... Joseph2302 (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Bias is not reserved for Americans. We don't rush to post American stories when the Brits are asleep, and the opposite should hold true. There are thousands of stories in the news everyday, but we try to be selective. A younger person did this six months ago but wasn't even nominated, probably because we don't generally post incremental records. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • And look how much trouble that caused! GreatCaesarsGhost 19:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Sad that this got posted while most of the Western Hemisphere was asleep. I thought we were going to do better about that. WaltCip-(talk) 12:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Use the other photo from the article. It has a message that indicates a proper license. Jehochman Talk 12:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    • File:Zara Rutherford 2021-01-18.jpeg also has questionable licencing, as the Permission section of the image seems to imply permission is from a conversation with the person herself- but Rutheerford won't be the photographer, and thus isn't the copyright holder. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
      • How do you know that Rutherford didn't use a timer? How do you know that the media person posting the image wasn't the photographer? I think this is a situation where we should accept the representation that's been made. Jehochman Talk 14:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
        • We don't. Which is why Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries should be followed, especially for an image on the Main Page.—Bagumba (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
          • Okay then. Jehochman Talk 15:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
            Greetings! Any chance we can use one of the images of Ms Rutherford and get the current satellite .gif animation replaced. Has been there for ~5 days and is of a very low quality. Ktin (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
            The license processing for her current lead image is still pending.—Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Anything would be better than the perpetually re-exploding Tonga volcano -- even a pic of her plane. -- Sca (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Bagumba: btw -- not sure where we should be reporting this -- but, the iOS Wikipedia app has had Ms Rutherford's image for three days now. So, if there is an issue, we should be letting them know asap. Ktin (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know who "them" is either. I see you started Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#iOS_Wikipedia_App, which seems as good a place as any. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you see any concern with using
Shark ULL
this image? Seems like this one has permissions etc alright. This is day 10 of the current image (satellite animation) and that can do with a change. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose -- per WaltCip. Should not have been blurbed, but alas. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment The arguments here are irrational. Yes, it might have been problematic to post it without 'waiting' but what arguments would have been raised then is nowhere clearly stated. The second line of argument that a women-specific is not notable should ask themselves why such achievements still make news based on that. Even I am on the borderline about this, but better arguments for non-inclusion should be made. Gotitbro (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    The story is plainly tabloid fodder. Women have done this before, and younger people have done it. If we are too invoke superlatives to make something sound impressive, those most account for some challenge to the accomplishment. Being a woman isn't a handicap in this field; indeed, she is only slightly older than the male record-holder. And she is not so young that her age is any handicap. This is Guinness Record level garbage, and we're better than this. GreatCaesarsGhost 04:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    Does pass the WP:NOTAMERICAN hurdle.—Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    When has there ever been any example of an American parallel to this story being posted on ITN? WaltCip-(talk) 20:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Pull This should never have been posted. These kinds of 'adventures' eg sailing/flying/hot air balloons are not mainstream sports where there is more competition and you can say that a person has surpassed the previous technical standard by improving the world record (eg faster, higher, stronger), it is simply some doing something that has already been done at a younger age. Given that these pursuits are dependent on machinery, and to a large extent the main obstacle in these adventures is not making a mistake and having an accident. However, the equipment is much more automated now and with improved telecommunications it is easier to get external assistance/advice if required so less experienced/situationally aware younger people can pull this off. In no way can a teenager sailing or flying around the world at their own pace be compared to the Olympic/professional sailors or fighter pilots who have to read the conditions and change course every second. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support - Definitely for ITN. Not everythinh have to be big profiled, this is exactly the kind of stories ITN needs from time to time.BabbaQ (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Oppose per Bumbu. The real impact of this is: none. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Oppose Not really seeing ITN level significance. Would have worked better as a DYK. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

January 19[edit]

January 19, 2022 (2022-01-19) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

  • Employees of the STB, Bucharest's largest public transport company, go on strike demanding the resignation of its chairman, Adrian Criț. The city authorities, led by the Save Romania Union-backed mayor Nicușor Dan, condemn the strike, blaming it on the Social Democratic Party-backed trade unionist Vasile Petrariu as an attempt to undermine his authority. (Digi24)

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Politics and elections

(Attention, please.) RD: Gloria McMillan[edit]

Article: Gloria McMillan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ExtraTV
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American actress. 750+ words. Need help with refs for divorce and second marriage. --PFHLai (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC) The sentence with iffy materials on divorce and wedding details have been revised to avoid the need for more citations. No more {cn} tags left. --PFHLai (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support as satisfactory. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

(Attention, please.) RD: Sonya Biddle[edit]

Article: Sonya Biddle (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Montreal Gazette, CTV, CBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Montreal actress and municipal politician. Should be long enough with 550+ words of readable prose. Need help with better refs for her acting career than IMDb. Thanks.[That line has been revised to avoid the use of IMDb as ref. --PFHLai (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)] --PFHLai (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support Looks good assuming all of those offline references are used properly. An infobox would help, but is not required. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hardy Krüger[edit]

Article: Hardy Krüger (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FAZ, Washington Post
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: German actor in international films Grimes2 (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Not Quite Ready A single CN, but it's significant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The sources say, that he was drafted at the age of 16. (ambigious: 1944 or 1945). Text removed. Grimes2 (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gaspard Ulliel[edit]

Article: Gaspard Ulliel (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: French actor who was killed in a skiing accident. The article has been updated but the career section could be better sourced. Calidum 16:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support The article could bear some improvement, but I don'think it's so poor that it should be excluded from ITN — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Article sufficient, decent details on death. Kingsif (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Not Ready Very significant gaps in referencing. The entire filmography is unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Ad Orientem, I have improved the referencing, if you'd mind taking another look. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Top FYI, this was the top read article yesterday. Related articles like Moon Knight are getting lots of traffic too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Article is short but adequate. Referencing is much improved. Marking as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. Article looks a great deal better than when I last checked, but is Rotten Tomatoes really a reliable source? I'd assumed it was on a level with IMDb. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    Espresso Addict, initially I would have assumed the same, but WP:RSP lists it as acceptable, except for reliability of blog articles and critic opinion pages (no consensus) and user reviews (generally unreliable). As far as I can tell, this doesn't fall under either of those categories and should be okay for something like cast members. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(Administrator needed) Ukrainian Crisis[edit]

Article: 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph & etc.
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I've been on the fence as to whether or not this should be on the main page for a while. But I think things have reached a point where it needs to be at least discussed. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support. This has been escalating for quite a bit, at this point I think it's worthy. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing situation with lots of coverage. And the article has been updated for events in the 24 hours. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support no singular event that stated this but let's of little fires that clearly indicate far higher tensions than we expect.--Masem (t) 15:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing - lots of RS coverage, notable, tensions rising between Russia, Ukraine, and NATO. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely for Ongoing. Will likely be in the headlines for a long time.BabbaQ (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Tensions are high, and there is a real possibility of Russia invading Ukraine. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Yep. I think we're there. I've been in the same boat as the nominator. --WaltCip-(talk) 17:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - Though I will say, in addition to my above !vote, that the article feels unreadable. It's just a day-by-day timeline of events as they have progressed and doesn't really give an overall picture of what has precipitated the crisis and why it is persisting. I'm aware this is due to it being a developing story, but we really need to find a way to separate the meat and potatoes from the ice cream. --WaltCip-(talk) 17:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. WP:PROSELINE issues, needs to be rewritten in a more narrative style more appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Agnostic on all other matters, but we can't post this to the main page in the current state. Also, there's only been 3 small sentences of updates in the past week; that's hardly enough to justify ongoing status. If and when the article is rewritten and expanded with more recent events, it will be appropriate for ongoing. It isn't there now. While it is quite likely that there is enough out there in the news so that this is really an ongoing story, the wikipedia article we are recommending people read is NOT reflective of that. That needs to be fixed before it is posted to the main page. --Jayron32 17:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    Go for it yourself, mi amigo. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    I don't particularly want it to be on the main page. If someone else wants it on the main page, I am willing to assess it for appropriateness, and will give my opinion of it belongs or not. Since it is not something I myself want, I don't have any impetus to spend time fixing it up. But if you want it on the main page, then you feel free to fix it yourself, and I will re-assess it. The difference between you and me in this case is you have a desire to see something happen. I'm not particularly interested one way or another. --Jayron32 20:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. There has been a lot of sabre rattling, diplomatic posturing etc. but nothing concrete has happened, either on the ground or in the negotiations. If Russia invades, or some major diplomatic agreement is reached, then I'm willing to reconsider. For the moment it's just a lot of arguing about what might happen. I also agree with WaltCip and Jayron that the article is a mess of PROSELINE. Modest Genius talk 18:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Been a near-constant major news item for most of the last two-three weeks as tensions continue to heighten. The Kip (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. A diplomatic incident does not need "things to happen" to be notable. The key thing is its intangible political effects. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Detailed map of ongoing armed conflicts
  Major wars, 10,000+ deaths in current or past calendar year
  Wars, 1,000–9,999 deaths in current or past calendar year
  Minor conflicts, 100–999 deaths in current or past calendar year
  Skirmishes and clashes, 10–99 deaths in current or past calendar year
  • Oppose In the long list of ongoing armed conflicts (right), this one is deep down the list at #37, where it is classified as "minor". So, it's not clear why it should get priority over all the others. And, as the conflict dates back to 2014, it doesn't seem that it's going to finish any time soon. Perhaps we should just have a permanent link to the list? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Only because it's really overstated that this is something new. The Russo-Ukrainian War has been going on for over seven years now, and this is merely a flashpoint of it. I feel the current troop build-up would be less reported on if news sources acknowledged the war as they should have in the years prior. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support This now sees 100,000 mechanized troops assembled for an unprecedented offensive, mainstream warnings of WW3 (and sober articles saying it’s not that), and has prompted two Biden–Putin summits and a rare meeting of the Russia–NATO Council. —Michael Z. 21:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment The article has been seeing some pretty heavy editing since this was posted. Those who had article quality concerns might want to take another look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    I can't say it looks better. In fact, it's even worse because now it's just way too lengthy. WaltCip-(talk) 00:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support per above. Constant major news item with huge coverage. Very real possibility of escalation (hopefully it would not) Nyanardsan (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
'Very strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, there has been a major escalation of tensions already and we should not wait until the actual invasion to post this story. Nsk92 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - article has a clean-up banner currently which seems like a valid quality concern, and bunch of refs look questionable. - Indefensible (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Background section needs cleanup/subsections, and recent events could use some additional expansion. Oppose until article quality is improved. SpencerT•C 04:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support This is "in the news" for a reason, a major international ongoing diplomatic incident. If it escalates that will only warrant a blurb and further elongation of this on ongoing, escalation should not be a preclusion for this now. Gotitbro (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: This has been in the world news for a while with plenty of articles. The significance of the conflict is great, as it could be the largest war in Europe since World War 2. The article certainly needs improvements, but it's bound to happen with a greater visibility on WP:ITN and hopefully more editors joining the effort. --Mindaur (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong support - It's not looking good, and the context behind the event is terribly significant. Barring from the article quality it's a must-have. True, it is a continuation of Russo-Ukrainian tensions since 2014, but this escalation is distinct. I genuinely fear a war might happen. (PenangLion (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC))
  • Note Article is improving, especially with growing and eliminating the proseline issues, but it still needs a little work. Several of the new sections are lacking for want of proper references. That needs fixing before we can post this. It's getting better, but it's still not main page ready. --Jayron32 13:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait/Oppose Ongooing – There have been anticipatory stories about the likelihood of a Russian attack for weeks. (Thursday's examples: [6] [7] [8] [9].) Let's not jump the gun. It's still a non-event. If there were a Russian attack on Ukraine, it certainly would engender myriad long-term follow-ups that eventually could be moved to Ongoing, which was devised for precisely that sort of news play. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • If you look at the header, you will see that this is an Ongoing nomination. If and when an actual invasion occurs, that will certainly be worthy of a blurb. Nsk92 (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    I was aware of that, and was arguing against sticking it in Ongoing now, because as said above it's still a non-event at this point, no matter how much topical wordage is expended daily. – Sca (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
PS: Keep in mind that it's late afternoon in Ukraine. If the Russians were going to attack today they probably would have done so hours ago. – Sca (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Unless they go in another way, I suppose. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Under Nacht und Nebel? – The Nebel in this scenario being the fog of war. – Sca (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Sca: The article is currently about a "crisis" and that's what's ongoing. It is very notable and unprecedented event as it stands, with some significant implications already, regardless whether there will be an invasion. The fact that it can escalate further shouldn't be relevant (the Cuban Missile Crisis could have also escalated further). --Mindaur (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Late-cycle coverage: "Biden issues new warning to Russia over invading Ukraine" (AP), "US accuses Russia of conspiring to take over Ukraine government" (Guardian). – Sca (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait It still doesn't seem all that more than threats and warnings over recent months and, perhaps more importantly in this case, are there chances that American website Wikipedia saying there's something big happening in Ukraine could actually be seen as some American aggression ("Look, America says we already invaded, that's war of words, they're lying, making us look bad... let's invade")But really, with how angry Venezuela politicians got over Wikipedia I wouldn't be surprised. If/when Russia invade, post that. Kingsif (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would support this seeing how this is an increasingly escalating military/diplomatic tension however the article is in a bad state for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Andrew, Brigade Piron and Kingsif. There are 36 tenser ongoing tensions, with key points that aren't vague intangible posturing. If diplomacy fails and war breaks, post that (assuming the WWW is up). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Major diplomatic crisis, widely covered and is ongoing. Heythereimaguy (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Significant front page coverage in most English-language news, top-ish positions in non English language news. Kinda like the Persian Gulf crisis back in early 2020. Juxlos (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose International dick rattling that just happens to involve a country a lot of our editors love to hate. Much less significant than several other border conflicts that have been ignored for decades by Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – As long as the politicos are still talking the boys aren't fighting. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Ergo, wait. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now for now, as the actions are clear saber-rattling. As we saw in Crimea, Russia is not going to telegraph their plans for months ahead of time if they actually plan to invade. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, It is all politics now, no action has occured. Alex-h (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as an ongoing event/news story. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as this is an ongoing major event and it has the potentiality to evolve in a shooting war. P1221 (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
We don't post potentialities. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
In fairness, I have not nominated a potentiality. I have nominated an ongoing and rapidly evolving diplomatic/military security crisis that has been on the front page of most reputable newspapers and websites for weeks. This is not a hypothetical. It is very real, and it is ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I dispute "most", and suggest that you are in no position to make such a claim. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually, if you google "Ukraine", almost all the results are linked to this crisis... P1221 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems you might not understand how Google works. If YOU Google "Ukraine" you will see very different results from those I will see. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Luckily the rest of the English-speaking world doesn't see what you see. WaltCip-(talk) 17:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Disinformation from a Russian IP address
  • Oppose Another nothingburger just like the russian "collusion" Nothing has happened and most likely nothing will. 5.44.170.26 (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Words? Not really: [23][24][25][26] --Mindaur (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing geopolitical struggle. It doesn't need to have actual shooting to have an impact/destabilise/manipulate others' actions Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Post if some sort of military offensive actually begins, but otherwise it's all speculation and politics, which might run for months.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Thanks to some proactive editors, I can make a note that the article had major improvements and now looks much better! --Mindaur (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Tensions rise. [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] – Sca (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I can't shake the feeling that we are sleepwalking into something terrible. It feels like August. Just not sure if it's 1938 or 1939. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
1938 is done. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a widely reported diplomatic crisis with a lot at stake and mentioning it is probably overdue. – Anne drew 16:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Its an imminent threat to the point that UK and US embassies have been partially evacuated. It's already late for the main page. --Mhhossein talk 17:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Whatever the outcome, this already has significant consequences for the world security order and thus has is of interest here. Yakikaki (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose If Russia invades then this should be posted immediately, but this hasn't actually happened yet (and hopefully it won't). We should only post news after it happens, and not try to do it before. Also, why has a fairly reasonable comment above been hidden away? This appears to have been done solely based on the fact that the poster is Russian. Are Russians not allowed to edit English Wikipedia now? The comment was well within the bounds of this discussion and quite clearly didn't contain any 'disinformation' of any kind. Effy Midwinter (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi, Effy Midwinter. I added the collapse tag (I originally simply removed it, but hey, Wikipedia isn't censored), and I only note the origin of the IP address because the objectively false assertion that the Russian government didn't interfere in the 2016 US election is a common talking point among online Russian propagandists. Feel free to undo this if you feel this objective disinformation adds anything meaningful, let alone constructive, to the conversation. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Fair point about the claims of collusion. I had been thinking more about the claims that the FSB had blackmailed Trump over a sex tape. My mistake. I still think 'disinformation' is a bit strong though. Never mind. Effy Midwinter (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think ongoing would be ok but have there been ongoing items without blurbs first? 2A02:2F0E:D11A:4E00:556:C25E:EBCE:3E2E (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support – Wikipedia is already months late for this. Article is reasonably well-written, and in the event that war isn't imminent (it clearly appears that way), it's at least all the news is talking about even compared to COVID-19, which we've had in 'Ongoing' for over two years now. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Out of 38 !votes, around 63% of editors support this becoming an "Ongoing" event. That is a consensus, but it is up to an admin to bring this to "Ongoing" or not. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Not much going on. [32] [33] [34] [35] – Sca (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    ITN is not a news ticker, but Sca is. WaltCip-(talk) 13:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Remember, Walt: Three bells is an URGENT, five bells is a BULLETIN, and 10 bells is a FLASH, though you and I are unlikely ever to hear the latter in this world. – Sca (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  • Support – Significant developments, mobilization and statements from foreign leaders. Definitely should be posted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    Not aware that anyone has "mobilized" his armed forces. This isn't 1914, when Czar Nicky ordered mobilization, making WWI inevitable due to interrelated alliances. – Sca (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    This is true. Putin is not Hitler, and is not invading countries for purely ideological reasons. He's far more calculating than that. WaltCip-(talk) 19:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait, all that happened so far is talks, warnings, and threats that something might happen. But it did not happen yet.Fulmard (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Suggest Close Consensus to post will not develop absent a direct military attack. In such case it would likely be posted as a blurb. This discussion has run its useful course. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    By my count it's 25 support to 14 wait/oppose (+1 oppose if we want to count that Russian IP address) at this point - while we can continue to argue, I would think consensus is clearly in favour of posting. Canadianerk (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per above. This is a good article which likely wouldn't be posted in the case of an invasion (which would have a standalone article). In my view this is already notable enough without speculating what will happen next and has plenty of coverage by RS and attention by world leaders; undoubtedly one of the most important stories of the year. Davey2116 (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comments - 26 support, 14 wait/oppose. I think in the end the discussion is inconclusive for now, unless major military/diplomatic action occurs. (PenangLion (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC))
How is 26-14 inclonclusive? It’s a pretty clear consensus to post.BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References[edit]

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:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1068071079"