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.

Satellite composite animation of the Hunga Tonga eruption
Hunga Tonga eruption

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 24[edit]

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

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)

Battle of al-Hasakah (2022)[edit]

Article: Battle of al-Hasakah (2022) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS News, Middle East Eye, Washington Post
Credits:

 Ainty Painty (talk) 03:37, 24 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: 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)

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)

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 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: 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)

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)
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)

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 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
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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): [1]
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)

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)

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) [2]. 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)
  • Comment There is a gap in coverage between 2015 and now. Joofjoof (talk) 04:51, 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)
  • 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)

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

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)

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. --PFHLai (talk) 21:24, 22 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)

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: [3] [4] [5] [6].) 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. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] 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)
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)
  • Comment – War of the Words. [16] [17] [18] [19] – Sca (talk) 13:05, 23 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)

January 18[edit]

January 18, 2022 (2022-01-18) (Tuesday)

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

RD: Badal Roy[edit]

Article: Badal Roy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NPR
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 Tabla player. Discography might be an undoing in the attempt to get to mainpage / RD. Let's see if we can work this one. Ktin (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Narayan Debnath[edit]

Article: Narayan Debnath (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express
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: Indian cartoonist. Article requires some attention before going to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: André Leon Talley[edit]

Article: André Leon Talley (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter
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: Needs a few citations (particularly filmography) and overall could stand to be fleshed out but meets minimum length/breadth already. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support. Now thoroughly referenced and content has been expanded as well. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support article looks ready: an in-depth coverage of his career and life and fully sourced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lusia Harris[edit]

Article: Lusia Harris (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
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: Article is a Good Article --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support article is a GA, and everything is sourced (apart from one unsourced sentence which I removed). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per Joseph2302. The article is in good shape, everything is cited. RD ready. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose article contains no information about her death, except an update to the date. I would expect well-referenced text in the body of the article explaining what is known about her death. Simply updating the date of death is not sufficient. If anyone thinks to fix this, then consider this opposition obviated. --Jayron32 13:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Support I added a bit to it as well based on the source material. --Jayron32 13:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support @Jayron32: Sourced sentence on death added.—Bagumba (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Thanks to those who made the GA. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 23:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(Close) New Indonesian capital[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: Nusantara (city) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Parliament of Indonesia approves a bill to change the country's capital from Jakarta to Nusantara. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Indonesia designates a section of Kalimantan as Nusantara, its future capital.
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: The bill to relocate the capital was reportedly passed by eight parliamentary fractions and only one fraction rejecting it. Update is needed (perhaps the country's infobox field should be changed when transition is completed). Brandmeistertalk 15:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits, a sovereign state changing its capital is rare and significant. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose at the moment, the capital is still Jakarta, and it will remain for a while. The news at the moment is that the future capital got its name, which is not the "ITN-level" story yet. It will take years before they move it. --Tone 15:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait. This plan has been advancing for several years now. Today they announced the name of the new city, but it still has to be built before the capital actually moves. That's currently expected to be 2024, which would be a better point for us to post this story. According to our article, the parliamentary bill was approved in September last year, so the blurb is also not news. Modest Genius talk 15:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait until they actually move capital, which sounds like it'll be in years time (as it's not built yet). Before then, it's WP:SPECULATION. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This is another example of where the announcement gets far more attention than the actual event. Furthermore, Jakarta is overcrowded and sinking, the capital is not staying there. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Disagree strongly that this event will get more attention than an actual move. Maybe the move will be spread out, such that there is less of pinpoint moment, but that's not the same thing. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Also the bill for a new capital was approved in September 2021, it's only the name which was announced today, so far as I can see. And I would think this is similar to when Barbados became a republic (which we posted on the day it happened, not the day it was announced). A notable rare event, but today doesn't seem like the right time to post it (either last September or when it becomes the capital would be way more appropriate times). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
According to CNN, the new city won't be finished until 2045. So no, we're not waiting. If we don't post it now, we're not posting it. Mlb96 (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Tone, Modest, Joseph. A non-event at this pt. – Sca (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with Joseph2302. We should post this once they actually build it and complete the ceremony of transferring the capital. Until then it's just a declaration of intent really, which on top of everything isn't new. I've been hearing about this intention for like a decade or so . --5.44.170.26 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support This is a unique, interesting news story from a non-Anglosphere, non-European, non-Commonwealth country which doesn't involve an election, sports, or large amounts of death and destruction. ITN needs more of these kinds of stories, not fewer. The completion of the city won't be a discrete event with news coverage, and even if it is, it will be decades in the future. So if we're going to post this, it has to be now. Mlb96 (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the blurb is inaccurate. We can either blurb the naming of the future capital city, or we can wait until the new city becomes the capital in 2024. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I think moving the capital will concluded in 2045 and starting in 2024 maybe, so why not posted two years later? Additionally, it is non-European story, but not significant impact for me. 180.254.169.24 (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't see in the ITN guidelines where it says events must be personally significant to us to be posted. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak support It's interesting enough, not a disaster or death, and helps reduce systemic bias to post. Lots of the content in the article is background from 2019, so not directly related to this announcement. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose for now. The bill has not even been numbered yet, the construction has not been started and the actual capital is still de facto at Jakarta. Nyanardsan (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Alt News enough, timelier than Poitier, sexier than disaster. Waiting for constructon to end is tricky. Even London is still developing. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Nyanardsan. we shouldn't even have an article on this before any legal product is published. There's currently none now. There could be significant changes behind the scene, or something else happening.
For those who support this in order to counter bias, I'm all for countering bias (I've spent hours creating RD articles for Indonesian figures from scratch). But since we apparently have only a single chance of posting a blurb on this topic, wasting it for the de jure approval seems a bit silly.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait, as per IP 108, until 2045. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Also comment, if this is approved, I suggest to use article Law on State Capitol instead of the "city" article (which doesnt exist yet), primarily because the event was about the law about the new city which was passed in plenary session yesterday, not the new city itself. Nyanardsan (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if it's far down the line, think it makes more sense to post when the change occurs. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now per WP:CRYSTAL. Giving that the bill was only approved by the parliament and the new capital will not commence its operation until 2024, so why not posted two years later? Additionally, the moving to the new capital only begins in 2024 and lasts until 2045. 114.125.252.202 (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Presidents and politicians often make plans and promises which don't actually work out. This particular idea is not new – here's much the same story from over two years ago. We should wait until this is more concrete. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 19 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.

(Posted) Microsoft acquires Activision-Blizzard[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: Activision Blizzard (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Microsoft announces it is acquiring Activision Blizzard for 68.7 billion Dollars (Post)
News source(s): [20]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Monumental deal in gaming. it does raise some antitrust questions but with Biden in charge it's pretty obvious this deals not getting blocked --5.44.170.26 (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose just like we've oppose many companies mergers/renames in the past. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Also, strong oppose on quality as there is only a small amount of content in the target article about the merger, and most of that is unsourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The supporting refs are also used in the second para of the section but on phone, this is not easy to move. --Masem (t) 14:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Also, the "legal disputes" section violates WP:CSECTION: Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. And "is expected to do something in 2023" sounds a lot like WP:SPECULATION. Maybe people should try thinking about article quality rather than just mindlessly shouting support..... Joseph2302 (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    Of course I'm concerned about quality. Rather than ascribing "mindlessness" to voters, which by the way is a near-violation of WP:NPA, why not let the process play out. This news literally just broke this morning. WaltCip-(talk) 15:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support If we oppose this, we might as well never post mergers, period, and create an ITN/NR where we automatically blacklist certain items. This completely changes the video gaming and technological landscape not just in the West but internationally.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, as a side note, I don't think Biden being in office as opposed to Trump would favor the companies in this instance. Trump's opposition to certain mergers and acquisitions was based on personal ideological quibbles with folks like Ted Turner and Jeff Bezos rather than any grounded antitrust precedence.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
To add this now would make MS the third largest video game related company following Yencent and Sony. And given the VG market is estimated around $200B a year, this is a huge amount of money to achieve this --Masem (t) 14:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a big deal for both business and gaming. A common objection to these postings is that this is just an announcement, but this is when it gets the attention, not when the deal is finalized. Any antitrust issues that derail it likely would also merit posting. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Topic is in the news, target article is updated and well referenced. No real issues. --Jayron32 14:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Not well referenced, over half the section on this merger is unsourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per WaltCip. "We opposed mergers in the past" is not in itself a valid rationale unless you can point out opposition to a merger of comparable scale. Regards SoWhy 14:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • We've had many mergers proposed, and none posted. Including Facebook/Meta incorporating WhatsApp, Instagram etc... Which are comparable. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Haven't we passed M&A concerning bananas and an Irish company I forgot about? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Not to my knowledge, but maybe we did. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment To add to this discussion, I do believe the intention of the ITN/R is to post stories that are IN THE NEWS. And this story is certainly in the news worldwide, see the main pages of a variety of media/newspaper organization like: CNN, Le Monde (in French), Vesti (in Russian), O Globo (in Portuguese), et cetera 5.44.170.26 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    Well it's also not even on the front page of BBC News in the UK, so they don't consider it one of the biggest 20 stories at the moment. Just having articles doesn't make it groundbreaking... Joseph2302 (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    For me, it's showing as the 8th story on the BBC News home page. Remember they re-order material based on IP geolocation (I'm in the UK). Modest Genius talk 15:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose There's no logic to these. DuPont/Dow was posted (that was around $130bn) but Kraft/Heinz wasn't (despite being >$100bn). The one that's most relevant, probably, is Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/October_2016#AT&T_buying_Time_Warner which was an $80bn takeover in the same sort of area as this one - that ended as no consensus to post. Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that there is lack of logic to (not) posting mergers and acquisitions at times. I feel we ought to post them more often, because arbitrarily denying certain acquisitions creates dilemmas such as these. "Business" used to be considered a minority topic at ITN, when we still tracked that sort of thing. WaltCip-(talk) 15:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Biggest deal in history of gaming. Now that gaming is the largest entertainment industry, I think it's hard to justify not posting about it. Melmann 15:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The Guardian is reporting this is the "biggest deal in tech history" in terms of cash involved, although it's only about 2% more than the previous record. Certainly a big transaction which further consolidates the industry and sets up Microsoft as as big a games producer as Sony is, complementing their competition on hardware. But I doubt it makes much difference to end users, as games are all made by individual studios that are subsidiaries of the giants anyway, hence the weak support. Article content appears OK, there are now three referenced paragraphs on the deal. Modest Genius talk 15:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I think thd metric to consider for m&a is not just size but impact on market. Eg while Facebook acquiring Instagram or Whatsapp may have involved more money, that fundamental shift (at the time) social media or IT industries. There is almost universal agreement this acquisition is a fundamental shift in the vg industry, though, from RSes. --Masem (t) 15:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Facebook's acquisition of Instagram in 2012 was only $1 billion, but it definitely had a major impact in that industry. Microsoft is valuing Activision Blizzard at about 70 Instagrams (remember well when that was a thing).rawmustard (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
We don't post ITN articles because of what one company thinks another company is worth. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:NERDBIAS, aka the Carrie Fisher rule. This would not have been the largest deal in any of the last nine calendar years. We don't post a lot of mergers, and it's not hard to see why this relatively small one is gaining momentum here. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    >"This would not have been the largest deal" citation needed, name a larger acquisition in the past year or so 5.44.170.26 (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    also whether you like this nerd stuff or not, it's on the main pages of wall street journal, and really any business daily worldwide. And indeed as I've linked above on the main pages of most mainstream news websites in general. So your point is really mute, especially since I highly doubt Fisher was on the main page of WSJ or Le Monde the day she died 5.44.170.26 (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    Here's your citation. I didn't say I don't like nerd stuff, rather I implied the crowd that spends all day editing WP is nerdier than the public at large. We do not, cannot, and never will post every story that appears on the MP of the WSJ. We must exercise discretion. We have actively declined larger, more impactful mergers in the past. Posting one now because it appeals to our personal interest is clear bias. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    Biased though it may be, ITN operates on consensus and participation. I don't think that our failure to post certain stories should be used to deny those other stories that readers would be interested in. Also, if it's discretion from the standpoint of appealing to readership that you are concerned about, we ought to have something to put on the ticker that isn't just deaths and disasters, for a change. I think that's a valid use of discretion. WaltCip-(talk) 17:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    Agree with you 100%. But even if you are casting aside bad precedence, we should be cautious about doing so when it serves WP:ILIKEIT. See the United States' disparate handling of the crack & opioid epidemics. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait – Microsoft announced its intent to acquire Activision Blizzard (my emphasis). No need for breathless Main Page promotion. – Sca (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Both companies' boards have approved the plans. It is now mainly how much worldwide govts will scrutinize the deal. As noted in past merger itncs the time to post is when the news is announced, not at when it completes. --Masem (t) 17:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I fully expect to get overruled here (and wouldn't be that torn up about it), but I just can't support a merger without some concrete policy on what does and what doesn't merit posting. Personally, reasons like "Microsoft is spending a lot of money on this merger" or even more nebulous statements like "this will have a big impact on gaming" (especially with no indicator of why) don't stand as sufficient reasons to post. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support because a) business news is under-represented on ITN. I'd say that extremely large takeovers merit posting on ITN, and at nearly $69 billion this qualifies as "extremely large". b) The quality of the target article is fine for an article of that size. I'll do a quick pass in ten minutes and try to fix the one tag that I see. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support for being a major business story that is certainly in the news. Kafoxe (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support It is in the news and a big business deal. It may not be the biggest, but it is big enough. If we only posted the biggest story in each field when the last story's scale was overtaken, ITN would be incredibly dry. No earthquakes if they are lower in magnitude and death toll than previous ones? Etc. Just because bigger business deals have not been posted, doesn't mean there were not good arguments for them to be posted. Has consensus changed. Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, means nothing to anyone except gaming fans, who are a minority among gamers, who are a minority among Wikipedia readers. No actual indication of impact on anything at all except the flow of money. Abductive (reasoning) 03:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • It's estimated 3 billion people in the world play video games [21] - about 40% of the world population - so calling this minority or niche is misleading. --Masem (t) 04:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
      • But how many billion mostly only really care about the Asian brands? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
        • 40% is a minority, and people who care about the provenance of their games are a tiny, tiny minority. Abductive (reasoning) 11:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
          40% is a damn large minority when you consider that 44% of the world's population are association football fans[22], and even fewer are cricket and basketball fans. It's not all far-fetched to compare video games to sports in terms of popularity. WaltCip-(talk) 13:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Mostly Support I am not a gamer but I recognize that this is major news, especially since this was headline news in many business publications. This is involving the third largest video game company purchasing the fifth largest, with each one generating billions of dollars in revenue annually. Not to mention that Disney's purchase of 21st Century Fox was slightly larger than this acquisition, and it got featured on ITN. The only real reservation that I have is that it might be more appropriate to post it when the acquisition does go through. Mount Patagonia (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, should probably mention that its the biggest aquisition in Gaming (and Entertainment?) history, by a long shot. jonas (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Er… it is not the biggest entertainment acquisition, by a long shot (see: Disney) - but it is the biggest acquisition of anything by Microsoft, and as the second-biggest technology company in the world (behind Apple), it is that which is significant. Kingsif (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I see that Disney-Fox was posted, no reason to hold this back based on those grounds. But we should wait for it to actually go through than jump-in here. Gotitbro (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Gotitbro The announcement of a business deal always gets more attention than when the deal is actually completed. When that happens, the argument is typically that the deal is no longer sufficiently in the news. If the transaction is derailed for some reason, that would likely merit posting. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I see, either way I think this should be posted. I was basing my comment on the WSJ report that has been included herein which says that the deal hasn't been finalized as of yet. Gotitbro (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Gotitbro At what point of the transaction was Disney-Fox posted? Canadianerk (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Here, back in July 2018. Gotitbro (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this has a sufficient support to post. The article is decently updated. Please check the blurb, I am not sure how to format the sum involved but most likely not the way it is written now. --Tone 08:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support (This makes Support 11, to 5 Opposed, for reference) On Disney-Fox precedent. ITN posted the Disney-Fox deal twice, at announcement and at shareholder approval. Hence, I believe precedent indicates there's no need to wait. As currently written, I have no concern about the arguments re: quality, or impact. Sourcing looks fine, and the potential impacts are already implied and/or stated in Prose within the section of the article. Canadianerk (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm posting now, without the sum, which is probably not the key thing here (the acquisition is). Feel free to add the sum. --Tone 12:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support A large number of Wikipedia readers go to articles about this game company and its games. Some of their games have sold tens of millions of copies. This is something significant that many readers will want to read about. Dream Focus 12:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose and pull per above. Run of the mill story, not the sort of thing we post on ITN.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Or run of the million$. – Sca (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Can we not pull a story just hours after it goes up? I know the consensus is a narrow one, but it really makes ITN on the Main Page look downright manic when we get into this habit of posting and pulling stories due to vagaries in consensus. WaltCip-(talk) 13:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think we have the slightest rationale for pulling. The debate was open long enough and consensus was properly judged. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support per the two Disney-Fox ITN blurbs; RSes are catching on, I believe that this is sufficient. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose. Just an announcement, the deal has not yet closed. Sandstein 13:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support There is a sufficient update and it's a big story now (as opposed to when the acquisition is formally closed).Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose nothing definitive. Just an announcement. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose The deal is not final as said above, and I don't think this is that notable overall even as a gamer. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – How do video games affect the world in which we live in? – Sca (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Ten Oscar nominations and no wins. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support as the largest free market business acquisition of the 2020s (so far), leaving out reorganizations to change a company's location. It would have also been one of the 20 largest mergers/acquisitions of the 2010s, even if you adjust for inflation. In addition, and as others have noted, this is when these deals typically get the most press attention. Definitely postable for ITN's purposes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - surprised this was posted, definitely feels like some bias here but not really complaining to see business news. However, note this is simply intent to buy, not the acquisition itself. Would think posting would be more appropriate when the deal actually closes. - Indefensible (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The announcement always gets more attention than when the deal is actually carried out and completed. Now was the right time to post. If we wait, the argument against will then be that it is not in the news. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree that now is the time to post. The key thing here in my view is both boards have approved of this acquisition. I would have suggested a wait if either of the boards were still pending an approval. Ktin (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The deal closing will definitely generate news coverage, I doubt that would be much of an issue for a business deal of this size. Posting an event prior to it occurring and only based on anticipation seems contrary to other entries which receive encyclopedic coverage once they have become historic fact. - Indefensible (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
We post convictions or acquittals in court cases despite the years of appeals that likely follow. We post the election results once asserted by press sources rather than waiting for the official count which can be a month or so later. --Masem (t) 03:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
There is probably a decent argument that your 2 examples are notably different than a case like a business deal being announced. We don't post sports events like the Olympics being scheduled in advance I think. - Indefensible (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually it seems the announcement for 2032 was posted, but 2024 and 2028 were not. Still think it seems questionable, I would have no problem with this getting a blurb at deal closure but feels premature. NVIDIA buying Arm Holdings is another landmark deal I would point to which should get a blurb if closure happens. - Indefensible (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support significant business news with wide international coverage. Jehochman Talk 21:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Significant business news in line with previous ITN acquisition blurbs, and which is currently in the news. Also, I'll note that pulling it would restore the previous ITN blurb to maintain main page balance, which is Sidney Poitier's death nearly two weeks ago, which is very stale. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:03, 20 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.

(Posted) RD: Francisco Gento[edit]

Article: Francisco Gento (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
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: Spanish football legend, one of the greatest of all time. BastianMAT (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose A single sentence on his international career? Needs some real expansion. --Jayron32 14:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Support Looks good now. --Jayron32 16:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I've expanded the international details 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:B922:CE73:626B:C28F (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
      • @Jayron32: Article seems to be in good shape now with the section expanded and most of it backed up by sources. Considering how big of a legend Gento was in football, getting it out on the page should be suitable now. BastianMAT (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added some cn tags, but generally the wikibio is in good condition. Honours sections should have more sources and I think the Legacy section is not very objective. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Alsoriano97: Both seem to be better now, article should be in a good shape to get out on the page now. BastianMAT (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Now looks good. Marking ready. Nice work! _-_Alsoriano97 (tal) 18:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Alsoriano97: No worries, I resolved that. BastianMAT (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Now it’s surely ready. Great job Bastian! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 23:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

January 17[edit]

January 17, 2022 (2022-01-17) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: M. K. Prasad[edit]

Article: M. K. Prasad (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express
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: Indian environmentalist. Article requires some work. I will work on it unless someone wants to join-in and lend a hand. Edits done. Article is a reasonable C-class biography. Ktin (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Long enough (800+ words) and with enough footnotes across the prose, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 18:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Yvette Mimieux[edit]

Article: Yvette Mimieux (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
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) 06:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • There are about 10 {cn} tags in the prose and dozens of unreferenced bullet-points under Filmography, Television work and Recordings. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Gilbert S. Merritt Jr.[edit]

Article: Gilbert S. Merritt Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Tennessean
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) 06:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose Article is mostly a resume in prose format for his legal career: what were major cases he oversaw as a judge? Would be ready with a couple sentences (5-6?) about important cases. SpencerT•C 05:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Bill Jackson[edit]

Article: Bill Jackson (television personality) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WGN Radio
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) 06:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support Good depth of coverage, referenced. SpencerT•C 05:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Question/Request: Ref. #1 is used 7 times in this wikibio. Its link to Chicago Tribune is dead. Can it be updated, please? Is it the same as this, please? I don't have a subscription to verify. --PFHLai (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC) BTW, I should add that I have found no other concerns with this nom. This wikibio is READY for RD. It would be great if the deadlink in Ref. #1 can be updated or replaced before the link goes on MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment PFHLai, thanks for bringing that up; the issue has been resolved. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you for updating the linked reference there, PCN02WPS. I'm marking this nom as 'ready'. --PFHLai (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Jonathan Brown (art historian)[edit]

Article: Jonathan Brown (art historian) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYU
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: Noted American art historian, expert on Diego Velázquez. I can take no credit for updating. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose Looks rather light on referencing, particularly in the Curating and Selected Publications sections. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I'll work on refs. For publications, are Google Books links generally seen as sufficient? Seidenstud (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
      • @Seidenstud: A valid (linked) ISBN is probably better; the ISBN template links to Google Books and other resources. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support In the art history world, the guy was an absolute legend. I'm working on fixing the lightness of refs right now. Seidenstud (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. The refs have been much improved - marking as ready. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • About half of the Selected publications section is unreferenced. Please add more footnotes or make the list more selected. --PFHLai (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@PFHLai:, what exactly is there to be referenced in any "selected publications" section? The books themselves are cited inline, and so meet WP:V. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron:, about half of the bullet-points in Jonathan Brown (art historian)#Selected publications have no footnotes nor ISBN number. For instance, for the first bullet-point, I can't tell if the book Italy and Spain, 1600-1750: Sources and Documents exists, or check if it was co-authored by Enggrass, or verify 1970 as the year of publication. --PFHLai (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I do agree with your other point below, but I doubt very much that the above is anything more that personal preference. Can you point me to the policy or MOS which requires this? —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I just pointed out that half of that section is unreferenced, and you want to talk policy? Sigh... --PFHLai (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:In the news#Recent deaths section, point #3: "Of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page, as determined by a consensus of commenters." If just by eyeballing, half of the section looks unreferenced, you can't really convince me that the quality of sourcing is good enough, can you? Missing one or two bullet-points might be small enough an issue to disregard. We don't need FAs here. Just some decent articles with no glaring issues. The nominated wikibio is almost ready. I have no problems with the prose. --PFHLai (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Another minor issue: Awards listed in the infobox are unreferenced. --PFHLai (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. In addition to the points that PFHLai raises, the biographical material is very thin. Also a reliable independent source is needed for the pioneering nature of his exhibitions. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Karim Ouellet[edit]

Article: Karim Ouellet (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; Montreal Gazette; Le Devoir (in French)
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) 17:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment – A bit thin at 280 words. – Sca (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Long enough (357 words of readable prose) and with enough footnotes, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Birju Maharaj[edit]

Article: Birju Maharaj (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express
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: Indian dancer. Article requires some work. Edits done. Article is a reasonable C-class biography. Good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Wait Current version has him dead at 83 and 84. After that's settled, maybe. It's quite stubby. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @InedibleHulk: Thanks for checking. Edits done. Please have a look. Ktin (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I see you've gone against the source, and with the original birthday math. A road less traveled, but at least it's not internally inconsistent anymore. Weak Support! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Please can I request an editor / admin to have a look at this one. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks to be in good shape. --Jayron32 16:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd support too, but is there still a confusion wrt his age at death? SN54129 16:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    No, Serial_Number_54129 -- I do not believe so. We just used his date of birth which was already available and sourced. Ktin (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support all good, a great addition to the man page. SN54129 23:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Late Reply The birthday alternated between 1938 and 1937 during the last 16 years of his life, no source. After he died and while the author of the current source likely Googled him, the article was on 1937. Citogenesis, I suspect. Randy Savage had the wrong name the same way for a spell. But the source for 83 likely just Googled him when WP said 1938, so it's a draw, weak support still. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Afghanistan earthquake[edit]

Article: 2022 Badghis earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A 5.3 magnitude earthquake in Badghis, Afghanistan kills at least 28 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​28 people are killed by a 5.3. earthquake in Badghis, Afghanistan.
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated

 ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support – 26 deaths and the extent of destruction is easily notable even if the magnitude is smaller than 6.0 Mw. Haven't had an earthquake ITN since that Oct 5.9 in Pakistan which also resulted in a similar extent of damage and casualties. --Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 21:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Afghanistan has earthquakes like some places have rain. Not saying this death and destruction is insignificant. But by Afghan, earthquake and Afghan earthquake standards, it lacks oomph. It was also two earthquakes. Hard to know if the stronger was deadlier. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    I had the same reasoning when opposing this earthquake some time ago.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    I remember. Read it a day or so too late to help, felt kinda bad for having "better" things to do, sorry for your loss. Don't delay, act today, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – A bit thin. Doesn't appear to have been very widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support article is slightly short but covers the essentials and is well-cited. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    It treats a pair of earthquakes as a single earthquake, before and after acknowledging the weaker one happened. Is that fundamentally encyclopedic? I think not. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Article is well referenced and sufficient. Topic is being covered by news sources. --Jayron32 12:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment I made a mistake while writing this blurb, can an admin update the main page? ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
      •  Done No more Qadis on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

RD: Rasheed Naz[edit]

Article: Rasheed Naz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Khaleej Times, DAWN, Geo TV
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.

 Ainty Painty (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Stub – 190 words of text. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Not Ready per Sca. Additionally, the non text sections are completely unreferenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Still a stub with filmography incomplete and unreferenced. Very much under-developed as a wikiarticle. --PFHLai (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Fuel truck explosion in Abu Dhabi[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: 2022 Abu Dhabi attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A fuel truck explosion near Abu Dhabi airport kills three people, and Houthi forces claim responsibility for the attack. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​A fuel truck explosion near Abu Dhabi airport kills three people
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Article needs updating
 wleightond 14:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose not mentioned in article listed. Events that aren't notable enough for their own article won't be notable enough for ITN. And don't currently see lots of news coverage about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Still oppose on quality, as the article is basically a stub. It has 4 sentences on the attack, 4 sentences on actual aftermath, and is then just bloated with reactions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to absence of article, neutral on significance the most significant thing here is that the UAE hasn't seen any terror attacks in years as it's a relatively peaceful country. Heck, I can't recall any terror attacks at this scale that happened there in the last 15 years. Tube·of·Light 15:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Update: according to Gulf News, there was a minor fire at Abu Dhabi Intl Airport that could have been caused by this attack. Tube·of·Light 15:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Update:Oppose due to article length Article has very little information as it is. Tube·of·Light 03:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. We generally do not post events that don't have their own article. Unsure if this even justifies an article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose without standalone article. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Now has standalone article. Ionmars10 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Only if background is added. Looks well-referenced. Notable since first attack of foreign entity on UAE soil. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Apart from 'Reactions,' text is a 150-word stub. – Sca (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Added altblurb, but I don't think that it will help much. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 20:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Three deaths is tragic for those affected, but this is a minor footnote in the Yemeni Civil War (2014–present). It's unusual for the Houthis to attack across the border into the UAE, but it seems unlikely to make much difference to the outcome of the war, or anything else really. Also the blurbs make this sound like an accident, while the article makes it clear it was a deliberate attack. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Not a turning point in the scope of the war, Alex-h (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not significant in the war. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:36, 19 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.

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: