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.

Krystsina Tsimanouskaya in 2019
Krystsina Tsimanouskaya

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]

August 5[edit]

Current events of August 5, 2021 (2021-08-05) (Thursday)
edithistorywatch

Health and environment

August 4[edit]

Current events of August 4, 2021 (2021-08-04) (Wednesday)
edithistorywatch

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

(Posted) 400m hurdles world record, update[edit]

Article: Sydney McLaughlin (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​New world records are set in men's and women's 400 metres hurdles by Norwegian Karsten Warholm and American Sydney McLaughlin. (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Wow, since Kevin is fundamentally against people doing the almost-certain at ITN and making a header clearer, proposing a better alt, on something he nominated, let's go for a decent blurb here.
Now, as noted below, this wasn't a particularly impressive record break, but on the other hand, it's 2 for 2 on 400m hurdles records. Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Adding a new article requires people to check that article for ITN criteria. No error, no "simple" change. Kingsif (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - But I do not support this blurb. Just add MacLaughlin into the current blurb and add her image and make it a trio.BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • At current that would be a bit long. Feel free to propose alts that don't take up half (if not more) of the box. Kingsif (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted by adding to the existing blurb. I will repeat what I said in my edit summary - this entire blurb is somewhat arbitrarily (and perhaps unfairly) putting a spotlight on athletics and ignoring the other world records in other sports, so I question the entire approach of putting Olympic world records in this ITN box. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • PULL How was this allowed to go AND get posted when it's a copy-paste of a nom below with 2 opposes? 188.27.36.191 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    While your observations are interesting and may even be valid, without a preponderance of reliable sources discounting the world records, it would amount to original research to make a judgment to consider these world records as requiring special treatment in ITN. Now as to whether we should be taking this much blurb space at all for arbitrarily highlighting these world records, but not the ones in swimming or cycling, that is indeed a valid issue to bring up. For now, it is only logical and fair that either all three folks should be gone from the ITN box, or all three should exist. Putting only 2 of the 3 athletics world records, as it was previously, just doesn't make sense. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Not a copy-paste when it's a different proposal with different scope. (And actually following ITN.) Fuzheado posted a variation on the blurb that has been discussed below; posting admin's prerogative is to assimilate responses, don't tell me you have issue with that. Importantly, discussion here was/is focused on the merit of adding McLaughlin, the point of the nom, rather than a debate on WR blurbs, which literally prefaced the nom below from a nominator who made it clear he didn't want article or blurb discussion to occur. But you knew that. Kingsif (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
For reference nobody seems to have addressed any issues here: Seems that this new record was set WITH the "super spikes" that are reportedly a 1-1.5% bump over the old ones. Since this new decrease of .44 sec is by less than 1% of the old record (compared to the 1.6% for the men's one) and it is done WITH the new technology, this is definitely significantly less notable. The magnitude of the men's hurdles one was the notability there, and the long-jump one was the age of the record, neither of which apply in this case. Had this record been set outside of a competition with many records, this should have been posted, but can be skipped now. Alternatively, can add the records article to the ongoing link on the bottom of ITN (alongside medal table one).
  • More @Fuzheado: has anybody checked the linked article for quality updates? There are 2 sentences in the intro with ZILCH coverage in the body of the BLP. 188.27.36.191 (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    The quality of the article was considered and it is fine. It could benefit from more additions but nothing is a show stopper. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Milavče train collision[edit]

Article: Milavče train crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Three people are killed when two trains crash head-on at Milavče, Czech Republic (Post)
News source(s): (BBC)
Credits:

Article updated

 Mjroots (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Wait Stub article that also somewhat contradicts itself: it suggests there is a definite cause for the collision, but also that an investigation has just been opened. We should wait for it be clear which of those is true (do they know why, or are they looking into it?) RS should hopefully clarify with a few more hours. Kingsif (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there's a criminal investigation, this isn't notable enough to be posted. Jim Michael (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) More world records[edit]

Otherwise covered by Fuzheado's posting of combined blurb above. Redundant, limited, discussion. (non-admin closure) Kingsif (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
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: Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In Olympic athletics, Venezuelan Yulimar Rojas breaks a 26-year-old world record in the women's triple jump, and Norwegian Karsten Warholm and American Sydney McLaughlin set world records in the men's and women's 400 metre hurdles respectively. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, Reuters, Guardian, [1] SI[2][3]
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Very similar levels of hype to those in response to Warholm's run; if that really is the way we are going (promoting one sport's records to ITN, totally disregarding historical achievements in others), then it seems only consistent to do this as well. Kevin McE (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment/suggestion: Can we have a cap on the number of these new records in the same blurb at the same time, please? Perhaps the most recent three? Just to avoid putting up bloated bullet-points on ITN. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment May I suggest bumping Rojas out (back to individual blurb?) and having the 400m hurdlers in the same blurb. Kingsif (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that it's better to combine the world records in 400 m hurdles in one blurb and keep Rojas in a separate one. We should also consider a new montage of Warholm's and McLaughlin's photos.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Kevin McE Users unrelated to the nominator are allowed to propose alt blurbs; nominations are not the property of the nominator and unalterable by others, and adding an alt blurb does not suggest support by the nominator. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
How then can it be allowed to appear without accreditation or being marked as distinct from my proposal in a section that has my name, and my name alone, attached to it? Kevin McE (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Users have proposed alt blurbs on the nominations of others for years and this is the first objection I've seen to it. Often discussions lead to such things and it is assumed that alt blurbs were not necessarily written by the nominator. My suggestion, if you are concerned that others will interpret the addition of an alt blurb as your suggestion, is that you make a statement saying that you do not support any suggested alt blurbs. Perhaps the nomination template can be tinkered with as well. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Simple: it's not your proposal. The nominator's name is only there to give credit for bringing attention to the item, which is what gets the bulk of pure !votes, with blurb wording always open to improvement, sometimes (often) even changed by the posting admin without discussion at all. Kingsif (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Patent nonsense, a proposal made by me, in my name, is my proposal. Why the incredibly rude tone from you on this page? Kevin McE (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
That's not true, and I've not been rude. ITN isn't a series of mini-autocracies, and I have merely tried to elucidate that. Wordily and firm, probably. You're making incorrect generalizations of a process you evidently don't understand and now are trying to "win" by saying I'm not nice to you. It's embarrassing. Kingsif (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems that this new record was set WITH the "super spikes" that are reportedly a 1-1.5% bump over the old ones. Since this new decrease of .44 sec is by less than 1% of the old record (compared to the 1.6% for the men's one) and it is done WITH the new technology, this is definitely significantly less notable. The magnitude of the men's hurdles one was the notability there, and the long-jump one was the age of the record, neither of which apply in this case. Had this record been set outside of a competition with many records, this should have been posted, but can be skipped now. Alternatively, can add the records article to the ongoing link on the bottom of ITN (alongside medal table one). 188.27.36.191 (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm going to suggest that for the purposes of the rest of the games that we do not try to suggest more WRs, and instead add a link to World and Olympic records set at the 2020 Summer Olympics in the ongoing line (eg "Olympics (medal table, world records)") That article seems to be reasonable sourced and in good shape. That will avoid this issue of us not featuring every WR set. --Masem (t) 13:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
And removing those already there? And acknowledge that sports other than athletics exist? Radical: I like it. Kevin McE (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we should think about posting a box with links to multiple articles about the Olympics as we did for the COVID-19 pandemic last year. It's clear that the Summer Olympics are the main ongoing event in the world and the ongoing section cannot properly accommodate multiple links.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The box for COVID was more as a attention-getting highlight because of its severity and that we felt the need that we wanted to do something to alert the readers of a global issue. Olympics is not of that severity, but we can add extra links to what are likely articles of high interest, which I agree include the medal table and WRs. I would propose a similar approach for any other ongoing where there is a subpage or two that would be a reasonable target article associated with the main ongoing event where that information isn't on the target page (eg when World Cup comes round, the tourney bracket structure if its not on the Cup's main page could be a possible target like this). --Masem (t) 14:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I came here to propose exactly what Masem just suggested. --LukeSurl t c 14:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Wasn't that a suggestion at ITN talk, and completely shot down? Kingsif (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
There was a suggestion to have sports icons alongside the Olympics to point to every single major event. That was shot down. But having a couple side links is completely reasonable given that we already have one (the medal table). --Masem (t) 14:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah, well, I'm sure that would be a separate ongoing nom. Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and, frankly, suggest close. Massively overloaded blurb, and the nominator has made it very clear that t(his) nom is for that blurb wording alone, rather than for the item (i.e. event, i.e. bold article) - which ITN noms are supposed to be. I suggest Kevin, who also stuck this nom outside the date template until I fixed it, actually learn the ITN rules before trying it again. The rules which also say that items have to be nommed to get posted, so nobody is actively saying swimming and cycling can't be posted and he should stop whining about it. Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2021 (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.

August 3[edit]

Current events of August 3, 2021 (2021-08-03) (Tuesday)
edithistorywatch

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

(Posted) Ongoing: 2020 Olympics[edit]

Article: 2020 Summer Olympics (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Its now out of ITN, and I think it should be listed in some way. My proposal would be 2020 Summer Olympics (medal table). I agree with the criticism of the Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics article on this page, but linking to the medal table seems reasonable. Something similar should probably be standard procedure for future games, once the opening ceremony is no longer the top ITN item. jonas (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - Seems like a good suggestion in my opinion.BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape and we're already late. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Long overdue - this should have been updated last week. There's no excuse or any valid argument against including this on the Ongoing section.
  • Strong Support Such a major, worldwide, once-in-four(five)-years event should be added to Ongoing. The 2016 Summer Olympics were posted in Ongoing from the day it began. CosmicLycanroc (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I like Jonas1015119's suggestion of going with 2020 Summer Olympics (medal table). Ktin (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems a very simple solution to days of convoluted debate, accusation and and recrimination. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Such a shame that all the convoluted debate, accusation and recrimination couldn't have been answered with simple factual responses rather than endless and hopeless snide comments, but glad we got to a result that now re-shapes Ongoing. I assume that Stephen, having posted this, will now update ITNR to account for this anomaly. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull a couple of HOURS AGO it was made clear that the original potential item: Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics had been fixed up. This is a proper ONGOING item, and it's sad it's taken this long for all those complainants to fix it up, but it looks good enough now, and much more suitable that the article posted which is barely updated. Change the target, good job someone here is doing the job of the whining massive, shout out to NormalPerson7, sadly surrounded by pseudo-comedians and users who literally do nothing here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    You want a fact? The 2020 Summer Olympics are ongoing and the In The News box should state it as such. It really is that simple.
    Please replace this curious smorgasbord of links (neither of which has consensus) with the timeline, which at least has some kind of ITNR pedigree. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    I promise to do nothing here, as long as I can be called a pseudo-comedian. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    I'm just glad I'm not a sports fan (except for snooker, of course). – Sca (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    No Martin, not a comedian at all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    No, he's not is he. Poor SCA. You can still be a snooker-pseud though. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Please Martin, take a break, stop responding to everything I post. It's bordering on bullying now. I'm sure you can find something better to do than continually harass me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Sca, even the World Snooker Championship doesn't have the global impact of the Olympics, so it'll never get an "ongoing" slot. And I'm sure you're a real snooker fan, not a pseudo one as I suggested. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics is now well-referenced and ready for posting. That's the standard article we always post to document ongoing Olympics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support 2020 Summer Olympics, strong oppose the chronology page. The Olympics themselves are ongoing, while the chronology is just fluff.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    So let's change the ongoing criteria? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Not really. Just treat this as a special case. It does get its own mention at WP:ITNSPORTS after all, and we already have COVID-19 pandemic as a perennial Ongoing item which also isn't updated on a daily basis either.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Actually, to be accurate, the ITNSPORTS link says it was the timeline which was accepted for 2016. The Covid article is a different matter altogether, it's not been updated properly and should be removed, but that's a red herring for this discussion. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    I think what I'm saying here is that this is an appropriate case for WP:IAR to apply. The Olympics page isn't being updated daily (although actually it should be, but that's another matter) but it's the page that readers most want to see, by a significant margin.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Reinstating the pull as we have an ongoing timeline article which is properly updated and sourced. Unless we're setting a new precedent here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I am extremely certain it is not standard procedure for one unhappy editor to put "PULL" in a heading because they don't like something. If it's an actual error you should ask for it to be pulled at WP:ERRORS, otherwise you really must wait for at least one editor to agree with you, no? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
      • No, you don't get it. There's no evidence this article meets the Ongoing update criterion. We have timeline article (noted at WP:ITNR) which should go into ongoing, now it's been updated. This article is not appropriate for "Ongoing". I think you all know that. Whether you are "extremely certain" or not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
        • The "evidence" is the 8 editors above who have supported this. I don't know or care what the Ongoing criterion are; there's certainly consensus that something about the Olympics should go there. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
          • Yes, correct. So the Ongoing criterion is now superseded. You don't care about it, but fuck that guideline. Glad the article which receives almost literally NO updates is now in the "Ongoing" section where "updates" are "continually" required. Well played. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is definitively not what the ongoing targets were supposed to be about. There's literally NOTHING in the target article about the ongoing events in the Olympic Games. The choice of two articles, one about the games, and a repeat, the medal table, is utterly shambolic. Neither give any indication as to the ongoing events and this project should be ashamed of this second-class choice, particularly in light of the work done on the timeline article. Embarrassing and pointed, this is junk and sets a clear precedent for literally any event to be added to Ongoing without any kind of substantial or useful update to our readers. Well done everyone, a proud moment. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose quite conflicted here, as I appreciate the epic troll y'all are running on Rambling Man. But we shouldn't burn the whole project to the ground to do it. Just make fun of Thatcher or something. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • May I make the suggestion that we add Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics to the Ongoing section just as well as the Medal table. They are all three part of the Olympics. I see no reason to Pull neither of the other two articles part of the Ongoing section though. BabbaQ (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • There is zero reason to pull this, if we want to alter what is posted, we can do so. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Post the timeline (per ITNR). Last chance saloon for me. This has dramatically changed my view on what the community believes "Ongoing" is for. We can now post things like the World Cup or the Euros because there's literally no updates to the articles in question, but "they're a big tournament". We will remember. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Sounds great! Glad we reached this solution.


In my opinion that article should be added to Ongoing as well, along with the Medal table with the 2020 Summer Olympics as the main article. This is the biggest Sporting event in the world. So having three articles at Ongoing for a few more days would make sense. BabbaQ (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Swap medal table for chronology. I'm not generally a fan of chronology articles (there's a very good reason the other item is COVID-19 pandemic, not Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic), but the chronology article here includes the winners of all the events, which is relevant in the newsy sense. I think the general Olympics article is the target readers more expect, though, so I would very much oppose removing that. Including two Olympics links is fine, but I wouldn't want to see more than that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article has a continually updated medal table. Will China win? Stay tuned! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The ongoing section was originally created for having a link the Olympics and then was built up since then. Appropriate to continue having a link since various events are on subpages that can be reached by the existing link. Has a clear starting and end point, unlike the vast majority of other events on Ongoing. SpencerT•C 03:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Horrible choice to now instead cram two Olympic items to ongoing because the original proposal failed because Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics, the single link typically posted, is now a bloated set of tables and an egregious violation of MOS:COLLAPSE. I'm not a slave to the "Olympic spirit" marketing machine to WP:IAR this (though I am updating 2020 United States men's Olympic basketball team).—Bagumba (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Time to Close this nom. There will be no consensus to remove or add anything. Now only some bickering remains.BabbaQ (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull not choice for me. 114.125.233.94 (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull chronological article only not choice for me but it must only main article can be posted as ongoing. 116.206.35.25 (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull Unless there are unexpected reasons to be posted it. 202.67.42.35 (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Surprised this hasn't been changed already given that the current situation goes against established policy. Effy Midwinter (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) World records[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 03:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
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.
Nominator's comments: There have been world records established in many sports, not just one. Kevin McE (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose lots of the cycling records are unreferenced. The article lacks a suitable introduction. Also, is the intention to extend this if records are beaten in other disciplines, to the point where it becomes the only news story in the ITN template? Also, rowing (for example) lists them as "world best" not "world records", this nuance doesn't come across in the blurb, so it's misleading. Either these are world records or they're not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
The official weightlifting records are all from 2018+, pre-2018.5 records became historical interest-only with a weight class rearrangement. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I was talking about rowing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Lengthen the blurb some more with World records are set in weightlifting, cycling, swimming, shooting and athletics at the Tokyo Olympics, along with world bests in rowing.? Why not alphabetical order? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not really news that new world records are set during Summer Olympics because that always happens. The real news is when a world record is broken after a long period of time or by a significant margin.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
People always die and elections always have results too. Kevin McE (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
So we no longer need RD because we can post a blurb that links to deaths in 2021 as a target article. Don't we?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Sure, as long as we can still argue there aren't enough sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if a nomination with a proposed blurb "Sportspeople win medals at the 2020 Summer Olympics." arrives. And all such nominations come as a result of the reluctance to post the Olympics to ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
"Sportspeople win medals at a big event". A lot simpler, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Yep, take a break now Martin, maybe a week or two. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose too vague to be meaningful. An "ongoing" for the Olympics is one thing, this is just silly. What's next? "Football matches occur in England, Germany, Spain, and France"? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    What? Football matches occur is not equivalent to world records are set. I don't know, perhaps you're just testing us, this is patently absurd. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:56, 3 August 2021 (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, Closed) 400m hurdles world record[edit]

Also closing this, based on further developments being covered - and blurb updated - in nom(s) above. Any blurb discussions can be had there, and WR ongoing and pull requests should get their own new noms. Kingsif (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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.
Proposed image
Articles: Karsten Warholm (talk · history · tag) and Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 400 metres hurdles (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In athletics, Karsten Warholm sets a new world record in men's 400 meter hurdles (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics, Yulimar Rojas breaks a 26-year-old world record in the women's triple jump and Karsten Warholm sets a new world record in men's 400 metres hurdles (both pictured).
Alternative blurb II: ​In athletics, Norwegian Karsten Warholm sets a new world record in men's 400 meter hurdles
News source(s): NYT, Reuters, Guardian, [4] SI
Article updated
Nominator's comments: New outlets use "smashes" "decimates" "pulverizes" "destroys" "crushes" "blazing" to describe the new achievement. This record is 0.76 sec faster than the previous 46 second one, some 1.6% improvement -- equivalent to 0.15 sec improvement to Bolt's 100m dash. The silver medal guy also smashed the previous record. A month ago same guy broke the 29-year old record, but I don't recall that being posted. Should be able to merge this into the existing athletics WR blurb which was "only" a 1% improvement. 2A02:2F0E:D519:8B00:B55E:38C2:4BD5:B678 (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd support merging the two athletics world records, it even gives us the opportunity to have a direct link to the Olympics in the blurb. --Tone 08:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support simply because this is perhaps one of the most outstanding results in the history of athletics. It's extremely rare to see a race in which the first two athletes have run way better than the world record and 0.76 seconds in 400 m is really a huge margin.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment agree with support rationale above. Just noting a few of the results in the table are unsourced (but happy to try and find some). Also not sure if this would get subsumed by the proposed "on-going" nomination (if that succeeds). Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - we've already set a precedent by posting the triple jump, although I still think this is ridiculously unfair on the swimmers who set world records and weren't posted. So probably, as Tone says, let's fold this in to the triple jump story. And preferably add the swimming records too. That said, I don't think this is as surprising as the margin or the hyperbole above would suggest. Of course, the athletes today are strong, but comparing their times to those of the past is apples to oranges, as a result of changes in the spikes used on their boots.[5]  — Amakuru (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure the swimmers don't use spiked boots. Maybe just the diving? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Perhaps some spiked goggles though? [6]  — Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see world records in other sports being posted but the problem is that no-one nominates them.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Amakuru The winner didn't use the new spikes (the 2nd place guy did). Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Black Kite: Ah OK, my bad then. That certainly makes the new record seem more spectacular.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: i am reclutant to support it to be posted unless the blurb can be considered ITNR. But, the article is a good shape. 36.77.94.77 (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support and fold it in to the other WR. This does need to be posted, though, because it's an astonishing destruction of the previous record. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support New World Record. And a great one. Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support good record, great from Warholm. No opinion on combining the athletics records into one blurb, but someone could montage their photos if that gets support. Kingsif (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There have been many records set, in swimming, rowing, cycling and probably other sports as well: if we do not have the equanimity to mention all of them, mention none (i.e., pull triple jump too). Otherwise we are declaring the POV that one Olympic sport is more important than others.Kevin McE (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Would we also mention "records", set for the first time, at new events e.g. Mixed Triathlon Relay and Freestyle BMX? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • If it's an event that has history, like BMX (X-games), then that could get posted posted. New to Olympics doesn't matter, right? But setting a record in a new event shouldn't. I think I heard that the new triathlon event has been trialled before, but I don't know if that time was used to set the record? Kingsif (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable. The GB time of 1:23:41 for the Mixed Triathlon Relay is, of course, the current Olympic record. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This is like claiming that not posting every death in RD is saying some people were more important than others when, simply, nobody nominated RDs that would have been posted. If you want to see every new record posted, it's on you to nominate them all. Of course, some record breaks are seen as more newsworthy (i.e. actually ITN) than others: long-held records, those broken by a big margin, and those in sports like track and field which are contested by people from lots of countries, are generally in the news much more than someone taking 0.001 second off their own record in a sport only their nation cares about. Kingsif (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Would that be in track and field or some new summer biathlon, I wonder. Kingsif (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, as this world record is newsworthy. If you feel other world records being set are also newsworthy, feel free to nominate those, but don't oppose this one for that reason.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support and agree with the sentiments above that this is an "overhaul"-standard record-breaking effort. Much like those others which we've posted lately. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment this appears to have significant consensus to post, I marked it a while back but no willing admin yet. Suggest this is dealt with expediently and then we'll see what happens with the plethora of other Olympic nominations, premature or otherwise. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kevin McE. It's the Olympic Games, didn't you all expect the world records to be broken? In the end, that this happens has a lesser impact on society than the personal one of the achiever. If we don't even have the Olympics ongoing, it's nonsense that we have to put on the Main Page every single record that is broken. It's not pragmatic, neither a Sports page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Nobody (other than Kevin) is suggesting we link to every record broken. Just those which are significantly broken, whether that be by a notable margin or from a notable period of time. We don't have to put on the Main Page every single record that is broken, self-evidently that hasn't happened. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • You severely overestimate how many world records are broken at the Olympics, they're not gold medals. There's probably an article somewhere comparing world records and Olympic records. If you want to oppose with the argument that breaking a world record is something that is "just personal for the achiever", well, should no awards ever be posted? There's a lot of ITN/R gone... Kingsif (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose the blurb that is proposed currently. The most notable and important thing about this event is that both the gold and silver medallist set a time that was quicker than the existing world record. This a very rare occurence and that is what the blurb should deal with.Tvx1 17:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • That makes this world record more outstanding but I disagree that a blurb should mention it. The second fastest time, albeit significantly better than the previous world record, is not a world record itself. I prefer including the exact margin in the blurb instead of this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I don’t care about the individual merits of the second time. It’s about the event as whole. If you want to highlight this sport event in the in the news section, than it needs to convey the key elements why it is notable. And both the winner and the runner-up setting a time quicker than the existing world record is a key element of this event.Tvx1 19:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I understand your point but the news is the world record and that's what should be included in the blurb. The results of the other athletes, including the time of the runner-up and the total of six national records set, should find their place in the race summary, which is indeed the case because the summary is very well written and captures all relevant details about the race.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The nom isn't for "400 m hurdles event". And even if it were, a blurb cannot mention every notable aspect of the event. Compare it to awards ceremonies: merely happening is deemed blurbworthy, and by tradition our blurbs mention the top result, even if something interesting happened in a different part. Kingsif (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Again, I don’t care about the unique merits of the other athletes. I’m referring to the combined achievement of the first two. It’s that unique achievement which is actually in the news. It’s not some detail and did not happen in a different part of the race. It’s the most important event of it.Tvx1 10:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Changing my stance to strong support. This is indeed an "overhaul"-standard record-breaking effort. BabbaQ (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I would be ok with merging it into the triple jump story, but oppose a separate blurb, as with the Olympics looking set to be added to Ongoing as well, that's enough representation of the games on ITN I think. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment still confused as to why this hasn't been posted. It has community consensus to do so. Are admins now making personal choices on what to promote, based on the fact that a newer item has been posted since this was ready to go? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We have the Olympics Ongoing handle now to cover all the twists and turns. Pull the triple jump too. As Kevin McE says (and I said below) there are numerous records being set, and we shouldn't editorialise which ones we post.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
We literally "editorialize" everything we post. Why one plane crash and not another? Why one death and not another? Are they all nommed, and after the nom, it's a democracy, people vote. If they vote for one record and not another with sensible reasoning, so be it. If this is in the news and not another record, all the more reason to "editorialize", a word you're incorrectly using in place of "fulfilling the ITN goals". Kingsif (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Fine. Oppose withdrawn. Support double blurb though.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    @Stephen: OK why? There's no consensus here whatsoever. Please pull.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    I'd say there's strong support for posting this. What did I miss? The oppose seems to be "meh, stop posting world records", the support seems to be "wow, highly publicised world record smash which is strongly in the news and for which we have an article". What did I miss? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    That there’s no consensus on what the blurb should contain.Tvx1 10:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Stephen: Comments seem to indicate a preference for a double-blurb; in any case, discussion should continue on that even though it's been posted. Kingsif (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2021 (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) Ongoing: 2021 Taliban offensive[edit]

Article: 2021 Taliban offensive (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Ongoing, look to capture major cities. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment I nominated this article two weeks ago and it didn't go anywhere. The nomination will probably have more support after one of the provincial capitals falls Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose proseline, wall of reactions. Nominate for a blurb when something significant happens. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – UN says 40 killed in fighting over Lashkargah. – Sca (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment the news seems to think that the bulk of fighting is in Lashkar Gah and it's getting bad. If they take Helmand province, that would be the blurb. Pending article update, of course. Kingsif (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Well, these place names don't mean much to most English speakers, I'm afraid, so I guess we'd be back (at least partly) to weighing the death toll. BTW, that BBC story did say 40 civilians killed. – Sca (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait. I am convinced that this will be blurb-worthy when the Taliban take Kandahar city (or Kabul, but that seems further away). Re-nominate for a blurb when that happens. Modest Genius talk 15:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Maybe. Kandahar (pop.: 650,000) is at least somewhat more familiar to English speakers. – Sca (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose We posted the "peace agreement" which was understood by all as ceding the country to the Taliban. I have no objection to a second blurb when the job is done, but we don't need to post each territorial gain any more than we need to cite that the sky is blue. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It's a process, clearly ongoing, citations look adequate (and I know these places from 25 years of exclusively English news, for whatever that's worth). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The Taliban now control the majority of Afghanistan. They attacked Kabul on 3 Aug. Jim Michael (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I imagine that by 21 July, half of Afghanistan was under Taliban control qualifies as "something significant". And of course all this on the back of the US and other nations announcing they will be withdrawing their forces from NATO's involvement there. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support As it's not a blurb, the minimal update for August seems satisfactory. Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2[edit]

Current events of August 2, 2021 (2021-08-02) (Monday)
edithistorywatch

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: George Forss[edit]

Article: George Forss (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.

Nominator's comments: Only reported today (August 2); died on July 17. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics[edit]

Another article has been selected for this ongoing event. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
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: Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Nominating to continue the bureaucratically closed discussion from below. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as before, target article is poorly cited, missing dozens if not scores of references. Nothing appears to have changed since the first nomination which was closed with consensus against this. This re-nomination without any attempt to resolve the previous issues is decidedly a failure of WP:POINT and I am (not) shocked that an admin would stoop to this. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    The previous discussion (just prior to closure) can be found here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment the Olympics really needs to be in ongoing. If not this article, something else needs to go up. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    Ongoing articles need to be updated as the event progresses (indeed, per the ITN instructions, The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article...). The timeline was used for the 2016 games as it was the only one summarising the events. This article is currently not fit for the main page (as per the community consensus discussion last time round, a week or so back, sadly nothing has changed). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Even if we can't post the article that was mistakenly posted before, I agree with NorthernFalcon above, and invite others to make other suggestions here. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    For an Ongoing entry, it must comply with the requirements noted above. The only 2020 Olympics article to do that is the one you yourself have nominated for Ongoing. I assume you knew that when you made the nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for your comments. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    I'm astounded that the Tokyo Olympics still isn't listed as "Ongoing". This must be fixed. I think it should simply say "2020 Summer Olympics" and link to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Summer_Olympics . I don't see a single reason why that should not be implemented.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.7.130 (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    No single reason other than completely ignoring the criterion for Ongoing items as noted above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    Forgive my ignorance - where is the criterion? Having trouble finding it. I'm just in disbelief that a consensus hasn't been reached when such a simple, uncontroversial, objectively correct implementation is right in front of us.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.7.130 (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    Well, the relevant text is noted above, but see WP:ITN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks - I think the article checks out, as the medal table is regularly getting updated. In any case, it is objectively correct to state that "2020 Summer Olympics" is ongoing and it would confuse or upset absolutely nobody to have it included in the box.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.7.130 (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose We cannot be seriously considering this in the current state. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I opened this because I felt the discussion below was closed prematurely; there is clearly a desire to post something. It doesn't have to be this, there's good reasons to not post this as it is now; an IP user made a suggestion above. But we are missing the boat here and should do something. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Incorrect. The discussion below had served its purpose to remove a sub-standard article without consensus from the main page. You then prematurely re-opened this nomination with the same article in the same sub-standard condition. "Do something" == fix the poor state of the article you have nominated, and feel free to do that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose putting the chronological summary as Ongoing, both per above qualify concerns, and also because it's the wrong article to be showcasing. As evidenced by page view statistics,[7] the page that readers are seeking is the main Olympics page, not a poorly structured data dump which receives 50 times fewer hits than its parent. Currently, 2020 Summer Olympics has some orange tags and has not been fully updated with latest info, but I wouldn't be opposed in principle to posting that one to ongoing if someone sorts it out. Not the chronological summary though.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose that article, just put 2020 Summer Olympics up there, its currently a glaring omission.  Nixinova   T   C   07:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment for those requesting 2020 Summer Olympics to be posted as Ongoing, can they demonstrate what aspects of that article (currently maintenance-tagged) beyond the medal table are being regularly updated to comply with the basic requirement of Ongoing items? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Question Is that "needs additional citations" template, in the "Sports" section, in the right place? That section looks very well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I assume it relates to the latter part of that section which is entirely unreferenced. And what part of this article meets the Ongoing requirement? Just the medal table? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • But only the "Number of athletes by National Olympic Committee" subsection is "entirely unreferenced"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • That's what I said. But no-one's answering the question on what's being updated here for it to qualify as an "ongoing" event. If we want to remove the requirement for continual updates, that's another debate. The medal table? Amaze. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The medal table is sourced to this. Are you saying that's inappropriate, or just amazing? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • You can read for yourself. I'm still waiting for an answer to the question "what aspect of the article is receiving updates that complies with the basic requirement of "Ongoing""? I guess if we're now down to just the medal table, this will impact future "ongoing" nominations where just a "number of deaths" (for example) will need to be updated to keep something in there. If that's what the consensus agrees, fine by me, meanwhile I still oppose this nomination (as a woefully under-referenced article is being knowingly proposed) and the alt-"nomination" (which has practically zero updates being applied). Now feel free to find something else to do. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not "woefully under-referenced." That template seems unjustified. I'm also unclear what it means for an article to be "continually updated". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm no longer clear which article you're talking about. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I am saying the following without any prejudice to quality concerns, but I am under the impression that if the opening ceremony has occurred and the closing ceremony hasn't concluded yet, then the Olympics are considered "ongoing" and therefore common sense prevails there. Therefore, the article for the 2020 Summer Olympics is sufficient for ongoing during its occurrence after the opening ceremony rolls off. This should have been a precedent for at least 15 years now, sheesh. We're doing the same thing with the COVID pandemic article, albeit indefinitely. At least the Olympics is a two week span. So its obviously ongoing and is a major news spectacle. DrewieStewie (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Okay that's fine. The only question is, what aspects of the article (beyond the medal table) are being updated as the event progresses, or do we not need to do that for this one special event? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    The Rambling Man, I think the real thing regarding the olympics is that unlike other “ongoing” candidates, it’s a recurring sports item that lasts two weeks every 2 years and is international in scope. This poses unique circumstances as there aren’t any (at least to my knowledge) comparable events that end up on ongoing. It’s not like we do that for the World Series, Stanley Cup, or NBA Finals. So the Olympics is an outlier, and as it’s subject to consensus, my opinion is that for this one special event, the medal table being updated and it being within the dates is sufficient to signify ongoing. DrewieStewie (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Ok, and thank you for being the first person here out of everyone (including the nominator!) to answer my question. If the community are happy with an updated medal table, and the unreferenced material can be referenced, then sure thing. We'll need another footnote at ITNR describing yet another exception for this edition of the Olympics of course, but that's easy enough. I don't believe that, given we have a "timeline" article which is being updated but not referenced, that we should just cop-out and post an article which provides almost literally no detail on the ongoing events, and will still oppose, but thanks for at least explaining the rationale behind your own support, I appreciate it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    DrewieStewie what about Winter Olympic Games, FIFA World Cup, Euros, etc? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Martinevans123, I included the Winter Games in my argument (2 weeks every 2 years is inclusive of winter games). As for World Cup and Euros, I suppose they work too. It probably would be easier to gain consensus on a World Cup as that is global rather than continental, though the Euros shouldn’t have much trouble either. The olympics seemed to be a more sure bet given it’s scope and it being inclusive of various sports, but the futbol World Cup and euros should do too. I am not opposed to those either. DrewieStewie (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Cool beans. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment It might be too late now (given 2020 Summer Olympics is being discussed), but I have added references for everything on Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics, so that article no longer has references problems. I don't have an opinion on which one of the two articles is the better main page candidate. — NormalPerson7 (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Very well done, NormalPerson7. A good outcome, even if nothing gets posted. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support great work NormalPerson7, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:07, 3 August 2021 (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.

(Removed) Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics[edit]

Error corrected. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
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: Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
 The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This has been added with the "roll-off" of the opening ceremony but the discussion to include this as an "ongoing" item ended with opposition. If I missed the community consensus agreeing to adding this very poor article to the main page once the opening ceremony rolled off, could I be pointed to it please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I guess I remembered it wrong or didn't follow that particular discussion, I thought this was non-controversial. I leave it to the community to decide whether to keep it or pull it. --Tone 18:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    You should revert your edit. I've given you the evidence of the community discussion on this matter above. There was no consensus anywhere at any point that when the opening ceremony rolled off we should post the timeline as ongoing. Not a shred. Please do the right thing now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • What's the criterion for a "very poor article"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    Amongst other things, one where a considerable portion of the information is unverified. I think you know that, having seen your work on RDs with discographies where all entries are required to be cited. As you can clearly see, this article has dozens of results without citation. Hope that clears thing up for you. Thanks. Also, there was no consensus anywhere to post this after the opening ceremony rolled off. As you know. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, RD seems to need to have everything cited, not just a considerable portion. Perhaps they just start off as "poor". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    Whatever, the standard is to not target articles which aren't pretty much comprehensively verifiable. Anyway, this is irrelevant. The previous attempt to nominate this very article for ongoing ended in a consensus against it. Of course, as you're so keen, re-nominate it and, as you note, you could always fill in the missing hundred or so references. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for the offer of all that help. Perhaps you think there is a more suitable target article? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    No, there isn't. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Removed for the time being. Let's have a discussion instead whether we should have it or not. --Tone 18:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
As noted, that will need to be a new "ongoing" nomination which will supersede (or concur with) the previous ongoing nomination where there was consensus directly against posting this subs-standard article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, a good idea. Looks like the ideal candidate. Perhaps people will help to improve it. Radical thought, I know. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Tone Thanks for addressing the honest mistake. I don't think there is a bureaucratic need for a separate nomination, it can be discussed here. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    No, a new heading needs to be used, this is a "removal" nomination. Good grief. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Looks like it's time to close this one, as it's been "pulled" and marked as such. Who needs bureaucracy when you can have pedantic bureaucracy. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2021 (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.

August 1[edit]

Current events of August 1, 2021 (2021-08-01) (Sunday)
edithistorywatch

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Kazimierz Kowalski[edit]

Article: Kazimierz Kowalski (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): polishnews.co.uk + many in Polish
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: Polish opera and entertainment singer, manager of the Lodz Opera, radio and tv presenter, founder of a festival and a chamber opera, - and had no article until today. - Many more Polish sources in the Polish version, if someone has time. Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Support length ok, sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

RD: Paul Cotton[edit]

Article: Paul Cotton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WCMY; Ultimate Classic Rock; Legacy.com
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) 03:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak support Slim but referenced and meets minimum standards. SpencerT•C 03:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

RD: Eddie Presland[edit]

Article: Eddie Presland (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): West Ham United
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: West Ham football defender and Essex cricketer Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Triple jump world record[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Yulimar Rojas (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In athletics, Yulimar Rojas sets a world record in triple jump at 15.67 m. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In athletics, Yulimar Rojas sets a world record in women's triple jump at 15.67 m.
Alternative blurb II: ​In athletics, Yulimar Rojas sets a world record in women's triple jump at 15.67 m, taking gold in the event.
Alternative blurb III: ​In athletics, Yulimar Rojas sets a world record in women's triple jump at 15.67 m, taking gold in the event.
Alternative blurb IV: ​In athletics, Yulimar Rojas breaks a 26-year old world record in women's triple jump
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC, olympics.com, Eurosport
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Here we go, breaking of a world record that has stood since 1995. ITNR. There is also a dedicated event article, Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's triple jump, but I am not sure how to write a blurb with all the links and avoid easter eggs. Tone 18:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment The athletics article is a bit messy and is written like emphatic commentary, but I've been updating Rojas' article since the win. A bit of ref clean-up and it should be really good. I'll probably check back with a support when I'm done. Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC) To add: disappointed to see objections solely based on users' personal views that triple jump isn't as important as 100m, an argument that wouldn't hold water in other noms. Kingsif (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Question. Where is this listed in ITNR? 331dot (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything like this at WP:ITN/R. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I thought we didn't post world records during the Olympics because there are too many of them. This isn't as newsworthy as a 2-hour marathon or a 100-meter-dash world record would be, so I will probably oppose on newsworthiness. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    Not at all, and frankly absurd, if someone took 0.2 seconds off the 100m sprint we wouldn't post it because it's the Olympics? Honestly. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    My intended point was that we would post if the 100m dash fell by that much. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    So we should post this, a 26-year-old record beaten. This is a weird objection, I'm not clear what you're talking about. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    Let me get this right, you'd post the minor break of a recent world record, but not a 17cm improvement on a 26-year-old record that was probably illegitimate anyway? And in the same overall discipline (athletics)? That's simply triple jump prejudice, plain and simple, which makes no sense. We've posted Duplantis beating the pole vault, another jumping event, so is it because of the hopping involved or are you not impressed with one of the best record improvements this century? Kingsif (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not ITN/R, and I don't think the triple jump world record is significant enough. Personally I think Elaine Thompson-Herah running the second fastest ever women's 100 is more notable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • And by Brits you mean Europeans. GDPR is a European law, and yes, sites are completely walled, only the url can tell you where you were supposed to go. Honestly, feel free to nominate those records, it wasn't sarcasm. Kingsif (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Kingsif: Yes, I'm aware of how old it is - I watched Inessa Kravets set the previous world record in 1995. My personal view is that breaking a world record is not intrinsically more significant than winning a World or Olympic title, and we don't post those individually. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Well then oppose on that basis, rather than saying triple jump records aren't notable. Though it would be a limited oppose given ITN's history of posting records. Kingsif (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I opposed those as well. And until it's ITN/R, they are discussed on a case-by-case basis. And as for the blurb itself, talk about burying the lead. It doesn't even mention the Olympic gold medal, which is what she came for.Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree we should consider Thompson's Olympic record, beating FloJo's 1988 record, as a ITN candidate. The 100m is the most famous (or one of the most famous) track and field and in general Olympic events. Wqwt (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support be consistent. Either these records are worth posting or not. There's no intrinsic difference between the one we posted a month or so ago, and this one. And this one was amazing to be fair. She beat a record which had stood for 26 years. But then, female ethnic athlete, whatever. Wikipedia continues to disappoint its regulars. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think this is one of the marquee records that is followed by the public at large, like the 100m run record. This isn't top line news(and no sources are offered). 331dot (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, but I still think this record is not highly followed. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Indeed, she's not American, but she's highly notable and her record is all over the news. This is top line news. Sad to claim otherwise. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support because four stories on ITN are over a week old and it's a reasonable story to include on ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Obvs. Also, when was the last time an Olympic gold medal was shared? Just sayin'. And, of course, what we really need, is a whole separate ITN box on the Main page for all those latest Olympic records!! --Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, as it is a major track and field world record being broken. Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I think the blurb should be about the age rather than about the exact value, alt4. The caveat is that likely this is a WR cause triple jump women was not an olympic thing during the 80s testosterone era that still has half of women's athletics WRs. 2A02:2F0E:D519:8B00:C9CC:5655:DF34:665B (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Please add American distance numbers to the blurb as well as meters for reader understandability, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose 26 years is nothing special because this is around the average for such field events – see The Economist's detailed analysis. And lots of other records are being broken at the Olympics. As there are two other Olympic blurbs currently, we should shift all this to a single ongoing entry. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    The numerous weightlifting records is fake as they raised the weight classes in 2019 for fairness and set the minimum to count as an Olympic record low enough that it usually happens at least once per record (3 records per weight class, the snatch,clean and jerk and the sum which is the one that determines who won). There is also a mixed team fad going on now in multiple sports, the extreme newness of these events will make it very easy to get an Olympic record in them until at least 2024. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, the Opening Ceremony is still ongoing isn't it, judging by that bold link.... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • No, that's how ITN blurbs are written. For example, the triple jump world record is not being continually broken is it? And please be careful not to disrupt other's signatures. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • What's your point? Oh, there isn't one. You tried this at ERRORS yesterday and it got nowhere. Those looking for an "ongoing" Olympics article should nominate a suitable candidate (for the second time) instead of just complaining about it (repeatedly). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Andrew suggested moving "all this to a single ongoing entry." I don't see what's "ongoing" about the triple jump record/ gold medal. And as far as I can see, neither do you. And please be careful not to describe other editor's contributions as pointless. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sure it is. But there you go, the discussion is linked and you can see for yourself what the proposed target articles would be for an ongoing. I'm sure Andrew has an opinion, but this is Wikipedia and we go by community consensus. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Paging @Andrew Davidson:. Is there an Andrew Day Vidson in da house? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot. Incremental record, and the Olympics always has quite a few records as that's the nature of the beast. This is why we have an Ongoing entry, we don't post every twist and turn.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    Other records set at this Olypmics include four in the shooting competitions and in swimming, the men's 100 metre butterfly, women's 200 metre breaststroke, as well as two swimming relays. Why is the triple jump seen as more important than any of those?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    My guess is (a) it's a long-standing record (26 years) and (b) it's a large increase in the record and (c) it was all in the news, unlike the shooting and swimming records. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not sure where I sit on this posting, but claims like "it was all in the news, unlike the shooting and swimming records" don't work for me. Where I live, the swimming records topped the news. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    Sure, local news will focus on local notability. Apart from Peaty, swimming is barely mentioned where I live. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    Where I live swimming medals were plastered all over BBC radio and television news. Well, Team GB ones anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    But this is about the world records, not the local winners. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    Where I live swimming events were not only part of every news bulletin, but swimmers appear at every single commercial break. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • support - It is a world record and a quite old one as well. I support the posting.BabbaQ (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Marvelous jump and great achievement. She broke a world record that was set before she was born. That tells everything.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
That she was born too late? – Sca (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Krystsina Tsimanouskaya / Belarusian athlete defections[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Krystsina Tsimanouskaya (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Belarusian sprinter Krystsina Tsimanouskaya declares that she was forcibly taken to Haneda Airport by the National Olympic Committee in order to deport her to Belarus. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Belarusian sprinter Krystsina Tsimanouskaya travels to Poland on a humanitarian visa after attempts by the Belarus Olympic Committee to repatriate her against her will.
Alternative blurb II: ​Belarusian sprinter Krystsina Tsimanouskaya flies to Poland following a diplomatic stand-off with the Belarus Olympic Committee.
Alternative blurb III: ​Three Belarusian athletes defect following a diplomatic incident involving sprinter Krystsina Tsimanouskaya and the Belarus Olympic Committee.
News source(s): Guardian/Reuters, ITV
Credits:

Article updated
  • Oppose. This isn't quite as brazen as forcing a passenger aircraft to land, and there is a plausible reason for this on each side. Maybe if more develops(such as Japanese police arresting someone). 331dot (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
What "plausible reason" do you mean? This incident is the main topic on the websites of Reuters, BBC, DailyMail, France24 and dozens of others media outlets.--KastusK (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I mean that both the athlete and the team have plausible explanations for this incident. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
No, the team did not give an explanation for the deportation at all.--KastusK (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
It's not a deportation since Japan did not kick her out of the country. Abduction, maybe. Reuters: "The Belarusian Olympic Committee said in a statement that coaches had decided to withdraw Tsimanouskaya from the Games on doctors' advice about her "emotional, psychological state"." I'm not saying they are correct, but that is their answer. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but this supposed "emotional, psychological state" only arose after she criticised Belarusian authorities on Instagram, "for entering her for the 4x400 relay despite her never previously racing the event." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – The travails of individual Olympic athletes usually don't pose general significance. This one seems part of the continuing Belarus story. – Sca (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's certainly news, but not so prominent or impactful to justify a front-page posting. At least not yet. Maybe add it to the Current Events portal? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Important news, but just not important enough for the main page.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Taken to airport but not deported. SpencerT•C 05:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just a trivial event. Maybe it's her tactic to gain refugee status. STSC (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's her tactic to avoid being "disappeared" by a brutal authoritarian regime? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • She has now voiced fears for her own safety and has said that it may not be safe for her to return to Belarus for five or ten years: [8] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Ms. Tsimanouskaya (Tee-man-oooss'-skee-yah -??) has been granted a "compassionate visa" by Poland, [9] [10] [11] which apparently amounts to provisional asylum status. This seems to make her case more interesting and significant. – Sca (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Tim-an-off-ski-ya, I believe. Kingsif (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Ціманоўская / Тимановская – Where does the 'F' come from? (Not that I'm any expert.) – Sca (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
The thing that looks like a B in Cyrillic is an F. And that pseudo-U at the start is a T. The funny y is a semi-vowel, which I'm not sure how to attempt, they appear in Welsh but those accents are quite different. Kingsif (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, in Russian anyway a B is a V, as in Moskva (Москва) – Moscow to us. – Sca (talk)
Non-Belarussian diversion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Eh?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
There are two vowels in Betws, but you'll probably only hear one. That's about all I know. Kingsif (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Lol. If you go to Betws, I can assure you that you'll hear two. In fact you will at any of them, even this one! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
See now, I was just thinking of the common noun, (it was read from the day prayers in a church I visited (chapel, it seems). The w barely sounded voiced?) don't come here with your geography *gasp* Kingsif (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see, you meant 'betws. I only came here with geography in answer to a geographical example. *gasp* But I guess you mean Short U (Cyrillic), for the voiced labial–velar approximant /w/, which can occur in Welsh? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
... Yes. Yes, that's what I was thinking short U voice labia approximate. Am I saying that right? Kingsif (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait Until it is less "developing story" to decide. Kingsif (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Unique and important, we have an obligation here at this international website to highlight human rights abuses. More importantly, its in the news all over the world, which is what this vote supposed to represent also. 212.74.201.233 (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
No, actually we are not here to right great wrongs. Please use social media to publicize human rights issues. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This is clearly evolving into a significant story that is remaining in the news. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – in principle, but suggest we wait until Ms. T. actually gets to Poland. AFAIK she's still in Japan. – Sca (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • She's also been given a Japanese visa, so it looks like she can just stay in Tokyo now. Kingsif (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – Story was not a one day thing. Has continued to be published in all major media today. Has become an international story. BabbaQ (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Three supports don't constitute consensus. Premature "Ready" tag removed. – Sca (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support And added Japanese visa alt: an Olympic host basically sheltering an athlete is news, and the media is treating it as very big news. Also a story about the Belarusian "last dictatorship in Europe", too. Kingsif (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Except for the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. – Sca (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – getting closer: – As of 12:00 Wednesday Tsimanouskaya was on a plane from Tokyo to Vienna. [12] [13] [14] – Sca (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    Vienna arrival – Plane carrying Ms. Tsimanouskaya lands at 13:00 in Vienna, [15] [16], from which she's expected to journey to Warsaw today. – Sca (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Vienna departure - Took off to Warsaw shortly after arriving. [17] Kingsif (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • We need a scrolling line, duh. Kingsif (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The only scrolling any self-respecting encyclopaedia needs are these. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Update Suggested alt4 with a different 'hook' after two other athletes say they won't go back to Belarus. Kingsif (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    Warsaw arrival – A plane carrying Ms. Tsimanouskaya landed at Warsaw Chopin Airport Wednesday evening, and she was taken to a private terminal where she was greeted by Polish officials and Belarussian expatriates. [18] [19] [20] – Sca (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – When dully updated with Warsaw arrival. No. 1 story worldwide today. Great political significance. – Sca (talk)
    PS: IMO, it would be best not to complicate this spot news by combining the item with stories about other Beloarussian refusenik athletes. She was first. – Sca (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Dziękuję, Polska. — Sca (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, at least we know she's alive. Surely can think of five more altblurbs? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Not enough room, won't let ya' Kingsif (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I also support one of these blurbs. Which one is up to you.BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support article updated. Check how much detail you want on the arrival, though, it's one sentence in the saga at the moment. It's a bit of an unravelling story but all blurbs are current, I'd probably go with alt2 but don't mind. Kingsif (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    Well, Alt2 is shorter, but Alt1 tells a bit more of the story and it reads OK, so I'd probably go for that. In any case, let's get it into the box before the day's out. – Sca (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted with Alt1, but if anyone thinks that one of the others is much better, feel free to change it. Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Myanmar military junta[edit]

Article: Min Aung Hlaing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Myanmar's military leader, Min Aung Hlaing, forms a caretaker government and establishes himself as the country's prime minister. (Post)
News source(s): "Myanmar Junta Forms Caretaker Government; Min Aung Hlaing is Prime Minister | Voice of America - English". www.voanews.com., "Myanmar military leader takes new title of prime minister in caretaker government - state media". Reuters., "Myanmar army ruler takes prime minister role, again pledges elections". Reuters., "Top Myanmar General Says Military Rule Will Continue Into 2023". The New York Times., BBC, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

 Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. This seems like it would be ITNR. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    Perhaps, but it's not clear whether this titular grab portends any tangible change on the ground. – Sca (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Major development from the coup back in February and also depicts a new leadership in the region. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Tentative support, but the update related to today's development needs to be longer. --Tone 18:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose respectfully. Smoke and mirrors or window dressing. Call it what you like but nothing substantive has changed. It was a military dictatorship last week and it's still a military dictatorship today. Changing job titles does not fundamentally alter political reality. This is not what ITNR was intending to cover. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    • The change in job title is what is ITN/R, though, not the change in power. We still post the results of elections in countries with rigged elections or in which real power is held by a different individual. We also post when the incumbent wins and when someone takes the relevant job title by law (e.g., VP taking power after President dies), so clearly there doesn't have to be an actual change in power and there doesn't have to be an actual election for it to be ITN/R. Mlb96 (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Legitimization of dictatorship by change in administrative position, ITNR and article looks fine. Gotitbro (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Not ITNR WP:ITNR#Elections and heads of state and government says: "Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government...as listed at List of current heads of state and government." This list shows President of Myanmar to be the executive, not the Prime Minister. Joofjoof (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I see both President and Prime Minister listed in that article for Myanmar. Mlb96 (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Only the President is marked as executive, as mentioned in the key at the top of the article. Joofjoof (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
This just appears to be pedantic, the guideline's purpose is to highlight significant administrative changes. Even if take this into account, the president is clearly not that important in the present regime. This is in the news and the assumption of a different substantive role does appear to fall into that category. Gotitbro (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's not a normal change of head of state. I think article "2021 Myanmar coup d'état" should be included in the blurb. STSC (talk)
  • Comment – Opposition on Monday condemns Min Aung Hlaing's asumption of PM title, calling it a bid to gain legitimacy. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fails ITNR in both fact (the president is the leader) and spirit (a change in leadership has not occurred). GreatCaesarsGhost 22:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - sad situstion but ITN worthy still.BabbaQ (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not ITN/R per GreatCaesarsGhost. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment debate can continue on significance, but I'm untagging as ITNR, as there is too much doubt about if this event is covered. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Turkish wildfires[edit]

Article: 2021 Turkish wildfires (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Wildfires in southern Turkey have killed at least eight people and injured more than 800. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Forest fires in southern Turkey have killed at least eight people and injured more than 800.
News source(s): New York Times, Deutsche Welle, AP, BBC, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

 Ainty Painty (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Article should probably be beefed up a little bit more before posting. As of this comment, the article is only four paragraphs long. Mlb96 (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
OK I hope to add more shortly. I have not done ITN before so please ping me if enough or not right. If/when this is accepted I will cancel my DYK request. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Have added more info - if there is anything else I should do please ping me. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support because the fires are major & the article is of sufficient quality to post. Jim Michael (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Widely covered, affecting many people and prompting seaborne evacuations. Note however that according to Reuters most fires have been contained. – Sca (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
True but 7 are still burning - I don't know how big. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Perhaps I am not reading carefully enough, but I have trouble finding the prose on the nominated wikipage about the "injured more than 400" mentioned in the proposed blurbs. I can see "Non-fatal injuries 410[2]" in the infobox, but the linked news article, dated July 29th, does not mention 410. --PFHLai (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately it is now over 800 - cited Chidgk1 (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to watch just this section - please ping me or write on article talk page if anything needs changing Chidgk1 (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Posted: Thank you for the new refs and updating, Chidgk1. --PFHLai (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

July 31[edit]

Current events of July 31, 2021 (2021-07-31) (Saturday)
edithistorywatch

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Politics and elections

  • 2021 Myanmar protests
    • As the six-month anniversary of the military coup against civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi approaches, protests occur in Mandalay with university students waving flags and saying that there is "no possibility of dialogue" with the junta. The junta says that former civilian leaders are spreading "biased information". (Reuters)
  • Madagascar President Andry Rajoelina calls on the military to take "responsibility for threats to national sovereignty and threats to national security" after a plot to assassinate him was foiled last week. Rajoelina called on the new military graduates to uphold democracy. (Madagascar Tribune)

Sports

(Posted) RD: Jerzy Matuszkiewicz[edit]

Article: Jerzy Matuszkiewicz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): polandin.com + several in Polish
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: Legendary jazz musician in the Polish 1950s when jazz was banned, later film composer. He had a stubby article, and - due to no Polish - I could change that only up to a certain point. His band is also legendary, but has a confused article, and right now I have no more time. Help, especially by someone who reads Polish, highly welcome. Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - Made a new assessment, as Start. As far as I can see this article is RD ready. Thanks to the improvements made.BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 03:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Connor[edit]

Article: Charles Connor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press
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) 07:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Article appears to be sufficiently referenced. rawmustard (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Terry Cooper (footballer, born 1944)[edit]

Article: Terry Cooper (footballer, born 1944) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, Sky Sports
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: English footballer. The article is tagged and missing several refs, but it'll be improved soon. --SirEd Dimmi!!! 00:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose No improvement yet - multiple unsourced paragraphs.Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Women's 100m Olympic record[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
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: Elaine Thompson-Herah (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In track and field, Elaine Thompson-Herah sets an Olympic world record in women's 100 metres with a time of 10.61 seconds, breaking Florence Griffith Joyner's 1988 Olympic record. (Post)
News source(s): CBS, USA Today, ABC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: 100m is a highly prestigious event and breaks a longstanding record. The name should be spelled with a hyphen I believe. (Also first time nominating so the blurb may be too wordy. Please forgive any mistakes.) Wqwt (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. This record is more prestigious and followed more than the triple jump record that we posted. If we are going to have more than one record posted, though, we'll have to figure out what to do here. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, I misread this. Agree with PrimeHunter. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's an Olympic record, not a World record. The Olympics are only held every four years and always have many Olympic records, 8 in 2016 in List of Olympic records in athletics. This one was old in a high-profile event but not ITN material during two weeks full of Olympic news. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    Yes you are correct it is officially an Olympic record. I will note that 100m is arguably the most prestigious event in the entire Olympics. Wqwt (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose not even a world record. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
It's the oldest Olympic athletics record besides long jump if anyone cares. The IOC probably still has a policy of never having summer at altitude again so the Olympic long jump record might be unbeatable. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Including women (which this was), there are three older records at List of Olympic records in athletics, and seven other from 1988. The men's long jump World record was set at low altitude in 1991. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
My mistake, I must've misremembered the headcanon version where the two 1980 Moscow records are fake cause steroids. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment This is effectively a world record as it is widely accepted now that Flo-Jo's 10.49 was strongly wind-assisted and only added to the record books due to a faulty wind gauge. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
She ran 10.61 the next day so it would be a tied record. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
10.61 but with 4mph easier wind. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
No matter what you feel, the IAAF lists Florence Griffith as the world record holder, so this 2021 time wasn’t a world record.Tvx1 10:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a world record, only an Olympic record at the level of thousandths of a second. Thompson's good, so it'll be even sweeter to post when she does get the world record. Kingsif (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2021 (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.

July 30[edit]

Current events of July 30, 2021 (2021-07-30) (Friday)
edithistorywatch

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Richard Lamm[edit]

Article: Richard Lamm (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CPR, CBS Denver
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: Three-term Governor of Colorado. This wikibio is certainly long enough, but needs more refs (12+ {CN} tags now). His publication list could use some clean-up, too. A viable RD candidate but more work is needed. --PFHLai (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abdul Khaliq Sambhali[edit]

Article: Abdul Khaliq Sambhali (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Baseerat Online Urdu
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: Vice-Rector of Darul Uloom Deoband, famous Islamic seminary. The article is new and updated. I'm working further on the article and hoping to improve it. Everything is well-cited. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - Owais Talk 19:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Rather stubby at 269 words. – Sca (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    I have always followed the DYK standard, the article is 1696 characters, much more than 1500! ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
People read words, not individual characters. – Sca (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I've added few more stuff in the article, and the addition of more content is only possible at the availability of offline resources. I've asked for a book, and would definitely continue expanding the article. BUT in my opinion, the article in its current condition is fine for inclusion on the ITN. I do not agree this being a stub, but a start-class article and has everything sourced. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Up to 360 words and looking quite a bit better. OK for RD. – Sca (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. A little short, but okay. --PFHLai (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Albert Vanhoye[edit]

Article: Albert Vanhoye (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Vatican News (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.

Nominator's comments: At age 98 he was the oldest Cardinal in the College of Cardinals, short article but looks sufficient for RD JW 1961 Talk 10:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  • It's a longer article now, and it uses a better range/mix of sources. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good condition. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Question: Do we need footnotes in the "Selected works" section, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    PFHLai, I added refs to their WorldCat entries, will also look for and add ISBN's if they exist JW 1961 Talk 18:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    ISBN's also added where they exist, hope that's all ok now JW 1961 Talk 18:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thanks for adding the new footnotes so quickly. --PFHLai (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

RD: Thomas Joseph[edit]

Article: Thomas Joseph (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of India
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.

 Pachu Kannan (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose Could use greater depth of coverage: at present, mostly a resume in prose format. Only has 2 paragraphs of prose in the body when traditionally 3 is considered the minimum. SpencerT•C 04:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

July 29[edit]

Current events of July 29, 2021 (2021-07-29) (Thursday)
edithistorywatch

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Jon Lindbergh[edit]

Article: Jon Lindbergh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.tributearchive.com/obituaries/21902369/jon-lindbergh
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: This wikibio looks long enough and clean enough for RD. Does anyone want to beef it up further? --PFHLai (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Posted Stephen 23:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jaime Chamorro Cardenal[edit]

Article: Jaime Chamorro Cardenal (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
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: Publisher of La Prensa, paper of record in Nicaragua. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Looks good for RD, pretty well referenced everywhere JW 1961 Talk 21:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in great shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Gulf of Oman incident[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 01:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
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: 2021 Gulf of Oman incident (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Two people are killed in an attack on the Israeli-operated tanker Mercer Street off the coast of Oman. (Post)
News source(s): Independent, AP, BBC, Reuters
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Unusual for deaths to result from an attack on a large merchant vessel even with the piracy issues previously seen in the industry. Almost certainly a state-backed attack by Iran in retaliation for recent Israeli strikes in Syria. Article needs work - Dumelow (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Notable enough, but article is lacking.38.39.134.247 (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – At 225 words quite stubby. Larger significance doubtful. – Sca (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral A British citizen was killed and Boris Johnson has only just responded. Now he's not great at dealing with Iran, but that suggests to me that it is pretty significant (deaths, political reaction), but not enough to top the news. May become more significant later, at which point a different nom can be discussed. Kingsif (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2021 (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.

RD: Toshihide Maskawa[edit]

Article: Toshihide Maskawa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NHK World-Japan
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.

 Count Iblis (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose References lacking; resume-style position list should ideally be integrated into the prose section about his career with additional details. SpencerT•C 03:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Spencer. It's striking that, being a Nobel laureate, he has so little information about his career. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Hal Wootten[edit]

Article: Hal Wootten (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/memory-hal-wootten-founding-dean-unsw-law-justice
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: This wikibio looks clean enough for RD already. Not an entertainer. Not a sportsman. Not a politician. Died on July 27th, news out on July 29th. --PFHLai (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose Limited depth of coverage for most of his career, such as the University of NSW Faculty of Law and Supreme Court of New South Wales sections; resume in prose format. SpencerT•C 13:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, Spencer. Hopefully, wikieditors from Australia with access to more materials on Dean Wootten can help beef up his wikibio soon. --PFHLai (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Janice Mirikitani[edit]

Article: Janice Mirikitani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; San Francisco Chronicle; KPIX-TV (CBS)
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) 09:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak support Would prefer a little more depth of coverage (e.g. what causes was she an activist for? Article says "activism for Glide Memorial United Methodist Church" but it's unclear what this means), but what's there meets minimum standards. Referenced. SpencerT•C 15:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @PFHLai and Stephen: I think this is ready to go now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carl Levin[edit]

Article: Carl Levin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Crain's Detroit
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: Nearly there, just a few more cn tags left. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC) – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose The article isn't terrible, but it's not main page ready yet IMO. A few of his stances are completely unsourced, and there are huge disorganized swathes of text that probably amount to undue weight. Granted, the latter is probably not a barrier to main page posting. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support article is in decent enough shape to merit posting. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Hanamanteo and Nohomersryan: ready to re-review. I've added citations and commented out some bits I can't find sources for, but are not essential info for the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we have some refs for "Committee assignments", please? Just bullet-points with no prose? Not really sure when he did what there. --PFHLai (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    PFHLai, cited. I'm not sure the exact time on each committee either. Unfortunately this is the standard way we present committee info for members of Congress. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the new footnotes there. IMO, those bullet-points don't tell enough of the story and are better deployed in the infobox. I'd prefer having prose there to tell the whole story. Oh, well... it's okay. Let the "standard way" be. Posting --PFHLai (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mo Hayder[edit]

Article: Mo Hayder (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
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: Article updated and well sourced. Death announced early today. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Posted Stephen 09:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Janet Banana[edit]

Article: Janet Banana (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://news.pindula.co.zw/2021/07/29/former-first-lady-janet-banana-dies-aged-83/
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: This wikibio of the first First Lady of Zimbabwe (1980 ~ 1987) is currently a stub. I hope this can get expanded soon. It would be nice to see a Banana on ITN. :-) --PFHLai (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Support. Sufficiently expanded and thoroughly referenced. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-Posting Comment: Bravo! Bananas.svg Thanks a bunch for the nice expansion. --PFHLai (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
We wouldn't want to slip up on this one. – Sca (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

References[edit]

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1037200228"