Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
| Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
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.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
How to nominate an item[edit]In order to suggest a candidate:
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]
Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]
Please do not...[edit]
|
Archives[edit]
November 20[edit]
|
November 20, 2021 (Saturday)
|
November 19[edit]
|
November 19, 2021 (Friday)
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
Disappearance of Peng Shuai[edit]
Blurb: Chinese tennis player Peng Shuai disappears after accusing a former Chinese Vice Premier of sexual assault. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Blythwood (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Seems to be a forced disappearance. This is a bit unusual, but has been a major news story. Disappearance section seems solid but the rest of the article on her career is less well sourced. The person has disappeared without a trace, so while it cannot be verified that this person person has died or been imprisoned, her disappearance is in itself the notable event. I wonder if this could be treated as something like the equivalent of a recent death. Blythwood (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Article is in good condition and the news is prominent, exceptional, and of great public interest around the world. Jehochman Talk 22:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose and Wait - Article appear in news, but headlines on CBC, CNN, BBC are still focused on Rittenhouse Trial for now, although this may change. Otherwise, the blurb should describe whats happening now (the reactions), that she has not been publicly heard is not ITN as that is a few days old. 99.247.176.90 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - I fail to see how this is any more worthy of ITN than the Rittenhouse trial, which was also not worthy of ITN. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Please don't oppose because you think another nomination should be posted and you don't think this one is as worthy. Judge nomination on its own merit. The two are about completely different things. -- KTC (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think either are worthy of being posted. --RockstoneSend me a message! 01:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Please don't oppose because you think another nomination should be posted and you don't think this one is as worthy. Judge nomination on its own merit. The two are about completely different things. -- KTC (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support per Jehochman. However I'm not quite sure about the term "disappears" here, even if I personally think the Chinese state did exactly that. -- KTC (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support per Jehochman. -- Tavix (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support this is far more notable than "another white American kills black Americans" and regardless of the fact that headlines are currently obsessing over the US proclivity to allow kids to routinely assassinate people without any kind of criminal conviction, Peng's disappearance is genuinely newsworthy and encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Not that it matters to this nomination, but Rittenhouse's victims were white. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- *cough cough* Rittenhouse's victims were white *cough cough* – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Who said he wasn't talking about Young Dolph's routine assassin? We don't know he wasn't white. We don't know if he had other black American victims. Memphis is all about unsolved mysteries! AGF. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality The article needs a lot of work, as there are multiple sections with no inline citations.Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support While this might be unduly implicative of the Chinese state being connected, if RSs are making that connection this definitely belongs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality I would support this if the article has some ref work done. There's sections that are unsourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose this is newsworthy for sure but blurbing that someone "disappeared" after making an accusation seems like a WP:BLPCRIME issue to me. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Completely agree it's an awkward thing to summarise in a way that fits BLP while keeping it clear why the event is notable, I'd welcome suggestions for alternative phrasing. I realise this is a fairly limited action, but for that reason I deliberately didn't link to the person she accused in the proposed blurb. Blythwood (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as per LaserLegs, there's something wrong about posting speculation that someone disappeared straight after they made accusations. With little reliable information, this seems like a BLP issue to post it. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Far too speculative, with overtones of anti-China sentiment, and with too many unknowns. Needs far more clarification before it is posted. And a guarantee that ITN will publish a full We Were Wrong! statement and retraction on the Main page when it is found out she has just eloped with her boyfriend or girlfriend, as the case may be. HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Clearly if China "disappeared" her, that would be a story, but this appears to be Western nations making a demand of China and there's no hard evidence she has been killed or imprisoned or the like. We don't post this type of speculative stories. --Masem (t) 02:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Per wide coverage in RSes. Normchou 💬 03:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) Kyle Rittenhouse verdict[edit]
3-9, consensus will not develop to post at this time. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:27, 19 November 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.
Blurb: After shooting three people and killing two amidst protests surrounding the Shooting of Jacob Blake, Kyle Rittenhouse is found not guilty on all charges. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Support article is comprehensive, updated, and well-referenced. A few WP:PROSELINE-issues, but not enough to downgrade the quality too much. Topic has been, and is being covered extensively by quality, reliable news sources in a way that would indicate this is a significant story. Checks all of the boxes for me. --Jayron32 18:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose to international notability. It won’t be listed on 2021 per previous discussions of it not having international notability. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Elijahandskip, #Please do not...
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.
– Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC) - (edit conflict):*See the instructions above "Please do not...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." "International notability" is not a criteria for posting at ITN, nor has it ever been. --Jayron32 19:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Elijahandskip, #Please do not...
- Well my direct opinion is that it is not notable. My reasoning is the discussion that already took place on the 2021 talk page. I also have previous discussions months ago where things highly notable to one country aren’t included. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is not a discussion of the page 2021. The criteria established for other parts of Wikipedia don't apply here. If you wish to change the criteria used for the ITN box, then start a discussion at WT:ITN. Votes without valid rationales are given little weight. It's fine if you have a useful rationale, but merely "I don't think it's notable enough" does not provide any useful guidance to admins when deciding consensus. I mean, you're allowed to say any silly thing you want, I suppose, but you can't expect anyone to take you seriously if it isn't valid. --Jayron32 19:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well since you don’t like my reasoning, just let me say “no”. People have supported ITN’s in the past without giving a reason, so my “Oppose” in this case will not have a reason. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- As I said, it's a free world. People do nonsensical things all of the time. --Jayron32 19:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, I couldn’t agree more. In reality, my oppose on this comes more to combat American Wikipedia vs English Wikipedia. There is a essay on Wikipedia that I recently read that has that meaning. Not everything that happens in America is notable for Wikipedia/2021/ITN/Portal Current Events, etc….Elijahandskip (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- As I said, it's a free world. People do nonsensical things all of the time. --Jayron32 19:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well since you don’t like my reasoning, just let me say “no”. People have supported ITN’s in the past without giving a reason, so my “Oppose” in this case will not have a reason. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose (at least on news of just the verdict). It was a highly watched case in the U.S., but it was clear early on to many legal experts that are crying foul on judicial behavior. It is very very likely to see an appeal and so this is not the end. This is not like the result from the very public George Floyd protests (which we posted and had ongoing about those, and the verdict). That said, there had been concerns there may be rioting following an acquittal , and while I'm not seeing any immediate news on that, a major riot (akin to the LA riots after King's verdict) would likely be the newsworthy factor here. --Masem (t) 19:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- There literally cannot be any appeal of a not guilty verdict. This is a core principle of how double jeopardy is handled in American jurisprudence. A not guilty jury verdict is basically always final. See [1]. There are some exceedingly rare exceptions to this, but none of them would apply in this case. An ordinary jury verdict of "not guilty" like this one (even in a controversial trial) is treated as basically sacrosanct, and there can be no appeals by the government. --Jayron32 19:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Except for the calls for a mistrial that are being entered now. I know there's complexities with double jeopardy there, but that's still on the books and that itself can be a legal process. --Masem (t) 19:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Um, what? There were calls for a mistrial by Rittenhouse's defense team prior to the jury verdict coming back. Now that the verdict is in their client's favor, I doubt highly they will press forward with these requests. Indeed, articles such as this one note "The verdict also meant that Judge Bruce Schroeder did not have to rule on the defense's motions for a mistrial." --Jayron32 19:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Except for the calls for a mistrial that are being entered now. I know there's complexities with double jeopardy there, but that's still on the books and that itself can be a legal process. --Masem (t) 19:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- There literally cannot be any appeal of a not guilty verdict. This is a core principle of how double jeopardy is handled in American jurisprudence. A not guilty jury verdict is basically always final. See [1]. There are some exceedingly rare exceptions to this, but none of them would apply in this case. An ordinary jury verdict of "not guilty" like this one (even in a controversial trial) is treated as basically sacrosanct, and there can be no appeals by the government. --Jayron32 19:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. If we had to have an American court psychodrama today, the better option from a world-historical perspective would probably be the acquittal of the purported killers of Malcolm X. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose AGF, but this is such a small story in the grand scheme. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wait. It is too early to tell what impact this will have. It could be a Rodney King-like result where acquittal of the accused leads to broad social unrest, or it could pass with a shrug. I expect that we will know within 24 hours. BD2412 T 19:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose and close US-centric nomination, not important enough for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose and renominate once the riots get into full swing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Far from blurb-worthy, lack of deep international coverage and interest. U.S-centric. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Very US centric. It's probably not even the most important news in the US right now, let alone the world. I agree with Piron above that the clearing of Malcom X's killers is more noteworthy in the grand scheme. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is the most important US news event ongoing right now. Every major US news outlet is covering the story and many have been broadcasting portions of the trial for the past several days.XavierGreen (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support certainty an extremely notable event.XavierGreen (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Actually not even sure this is going to be more than a couple days' news in the US. —valereee (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Trial of a decade, widely reported across the world. Even my local news station in Russia reported on the topic. The only reason this is leaning oppose is because the verdict contradicts the biases of the local editors. 5.44.170.26 (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Feels like there's a "Trial of the Decade" going on every other year lately... DarkSide830 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
RD: Edgardo Labella[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2]
Credits:
- Nominated by ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk · give credit)
- Created by Emperork (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jollibinay (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former Mayor of Cebu City. Article looks decent but could warrant some improvements ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest[edit]
Blurb: Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India announces the repeal of 3 farm laws which led to mass protests. (Post)
News source(s): AP, WSJ
Credits:
- Nominated by Indefensible (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Dracophyllum (talk · give credit) and DiplomatTesterMan (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: This article was previously in ongoing, now has a noteworthy update which should bring it towards conclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: One of the major farmers' unions behind the protests, Bharatiya Kisan Union, has promised to continue protesting till the laws are actually repealed (source). I wonder if we should put this blurb up now, or when Parliament repeals them and the farmers go home (don't have strong opinions either way, but I lean towards waiting). If we're going to put it up now, I've uploaded this screengrab of Modi's announcement from his CC-BY YouTube channel; we could use it. Btw Indefensible - Dracophyllum was the only updater, not DiplomatTesterMan. Kind regards, W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 07:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Using the update to put back in ongoing instead of a final blurb would be fine too if preferable. And DiplomatTesterMan did more updates on the article before that, he still deserves some credit too I think. - Indefensible (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose because the article is not sufficiently updated. There is currently a 1 sentence mention in the lead of the repeal of the laws, and no mention of it, nor of any follow-on protests, anywhere in the body of the article. Before this can be posted, the latest developments would need to be added to the article appropriately. --Jayron32 12:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Jayron32 Have you read the repeal section? Dracophyllum 20:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Your response is 8 hours after Jayron32's, Dracophyllum. The section may have not existed when Jayron commented. But then again, I am not going to take the time to check if it did exist at 12:18 PM UTC on 19 Nov 2021. Tube·of·Light 02:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Jayron32 Have you read the repeal section? Dracophyllum 20:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: The announcement by itself has no legal value. Parliament has to repeal the laws, which it will probably do in the coming Winter Session. Also some farmer's unions are continuing protests until the laws are repealed and minimum support prices reconsidered. So it might be better to wait, but no strong opinion either way. --Jose Mathew (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wait and see what the impact of this is. Right now, there isn't enough information on what will happen as a result of this. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose --LaserLegs (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- to international notability. It won’t be listed on 2021 per previous discussions of it not having international notability.
- India-centric nomination, not important enough for ITN
- and renominate once the riots get into full swing.
- per above. Far from blurb-worthy, lack of deep international coverage and interest. India-centric
- Very India centric. It's probably not even the most important news in India right now, let alone the world.
- Actually not even sure this is going to be more than a couple days' news in India
- "Please do not 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." 331dot (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- It's important to remember that 1/7 of the people on this planet are Indians. We don’t post a great deal of India related stories. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Interestingly I didn't see the same PDM feedback from you above for another "country-centric" nomination from the worlds third most populous country. In fact, we do post many India-centric stories here, this one having festered in ongoing for nearly a year. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Invariably it is announcements that get more attention than the actual act, most of the time(we post elections when the result is known, not when the results are official/certified). If Modi renegs, that will likely be newsworthy itself. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - as Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI says, the BKU is still protesting. I would prefer waiting till the laws are actually repealed (and FWIW, these laws are being repealed just before the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly elections and elections in some other states, which are crucial for Modi's political party). Tube·of·Light 02:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 lunar eclipse[edit]
Blurb: The longest partial lunar eclipse in 580 years occurs. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, NBC News, NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by Davey2116 (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: We don't usually post lunar eclipses but this one has gotten more RS coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality the visibility section is two unsourced paragraphs, would need a lot more sourced information about the event (rather than just an endless list of "Related eclipses"). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think we post lunar eclipses, and as Cryptic noted posting them after they're over seems very useless to readers. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Maybe we'll post the next one in 500+ years. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose lunar eclipses are even less interesting than manned spaceflights. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
November 18[edit]
|
November 18, 2021 (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Jimmie Durham[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3]
Credits:
- Nominated by ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk · give credit)
- Created by Infoart (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Strattonsmith (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American sculptor, essayist and poet. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
November 17[edit]
|
November 17, 2021 (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Politics and elections
|
(Closed) Convicted assassins of Malcolm X exonerated[edit]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: The Manhattan District Attorney announces that two men convicted in the assassination of Malcolm X will be exonerated. (Post)
News source(s): Southall, Ashley; Bromwich, Jonah E. (17 November 2021). "2 Men Convicted of Killing Malcolm X Will Be Exonerated After 55 Years". New York Times. Retrieved 17 November 2021., Moghe, Sonia; Sanchez, Ray (November 17, 2021). "New York Times: Two men convicted of killing Malcolm X to be exonerated". CNN.
Credits:
- Nominated by BD2412 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Smallbones (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose this is DYK material. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Good thing this article is DYK eligible. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is, but how often are those convicted in a major assassination exonerated? The assassination itself, of course, would have been ITN-worthy, as would the convictions of the accused. To me, this is on the same level. BD2412 T 21:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Good thing this article is DYK eligible. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Not only would this by DYK material, it's not even eligible per Muboshgu. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Retroactive. Lacks current significance. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Malcolm X is still dead. The two who are being exonerated are not independently notable and were released decades ago, so the actual impact is minimal. Modest Genius talk 13:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support This is receiving a fair amount of coverage (main headline in the NYT and Daily News) and it looks like a decent article, just one cite tag that I can see.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose While likely an important move for proper justice, not really that significant in the long run. --Masem (t) 14:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support. If it was found that John Wilkes Booth did not assassinate Lincoln, or that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate JFK, it would be posted, and I don't see how this is different. The history books are not often changed in such a manner. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – per Modest Genius. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Young Dolph[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4], The Guardian, CNN, The New York Times, Fox News
Credits:
- Nominated by ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk · give credit)
- Created by Christopher Boyd Jr (talk · give credit)
- Updated by WMrapids (talk · give credit) and Spencer (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American rapper. Article appears to be in good shape. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose most of the prose is text version of the releases of each piece of music, not much meaningful prose, especially for such a young death which one imagines isn't coincidental to his line of work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man I have since added more detail to the article, would you take another look? Thanks, SpencerT•C 23:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Have added more info about his life and career. SpencerT•C 23:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Death covered by many notable and reliable sources. Article seems to be improved as well.--WMrapids (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 Pacific Northwest floods[edit]
Article: November 2021 Pacific Northwest floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A series of floods in British Columbia and Washington leaves at least two dead and thousands in B.C. without electricity. (Post)
News source(s): CBC News, CNN, CTV News, AP, BBC, Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Cyrobyte (talk · give credit)
- Created by Canuck85 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: B.C. Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure called the storm "unpresedented" Cyrobyte (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Not ITN Worthy ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose With one dead this is clearly not ITN-worthy and not notable. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose no internet for a handful of people? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Support in addition the flooding, given Canada's geography now cuts off Vancouver by land from the rest of Canada.[5] CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Vancouver is floating apart? Where will it end up? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose not important enough for ITN. If it wasn't in North America, something this unimportant wouldn't have even been nominated. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Perhaps the blurb can mention the evacuation of thousands of residents and the destruction of infrastructure. Power outage and a small death toll won't cut it. --PFHLai (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - this is quite a significant event in Canada, with reports that it could become the most expensive natural disaster in Canadian history [6], the death toll is expected to rise, along with wide ranging effects on supply chains and transportation networks. If I recall correctly, I think we did post the 2013 Alberta floods, for precedent. Connormah (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- I guess "could be" is key here. If it does become the most expensive natural disaster after electing Trudeau in the history of Canada, then it's well placed for a blurb. Maybe now is premature. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wait Living through this, it's a pretty devastating disaster, with all road access cut off to and from the Port of Vancouver, which is having a major impact on supply chains across Western Canada. But I don't think this meets the standard previously set for ITN just yet, although there are reports that the death toll is expected to rise. There's also reports of an imminent dike breach into a large city. As such, I'd suggest that we wait. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Lots of damage & dislocation but so far only one fatal. – Sca (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wait If this gets worse and deadlier, then I will support. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wait per NorthernFalcon & Sca. Modest Genius talk 13:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
November 16[edit]
|
November 16, 2021 (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) Kosmos 1408[edit]
Blurb: Russia shoots down Kosmos 1408 with an anti-satellite weapon creating dangerous space debris. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Russia shoots down Kosmos 1408 with an anti-satellite weapon, creating a field of space debris.
Alternative blurb II: Kosmos 1408 is destroyed by a Russian anti-satellite weapon and turned into a stream of space debris.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Reuters, Guardian, Bloomberg
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Created by Mike Peel (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Smeagol 17 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: We have some real news about the ISS now as the crew have to take shelter from a shower of debris created by a Russian missile test. And the Kessler syndrome advances another notch. What we're mainly missing is a good picture but we might use something generic like this. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support
in principle, as this is a significant event for the space industry (more so than Crew-3 that we already have on the template). However the article is pretty lightweight and could use some expansion. It also needs a source for the claim that Russia was responsible for the test - we can't claim something in the blurb that isn't cited in the article. I would also remove 'dangerous' from the blurb as that's quite a strong accusation. Modest Genius talk 13:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)- Article seems fine now, though as I was one of the users updating it an independent assessment would be welcome. Modest Genius talk 18:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support on the merits; the use of an anti-satellite weapon(even as a test) is rare and few countries possess such technology. Russia isn't denying it. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- @331dot: Yes, the use is rare and few countries possess such technology. Yet, I remember a similar test from India a couple of years ago was rejected as the technology "has been around for a while." If I recall correctly, there had been significant debate about debris back then too. 2405:201:4013:8087:A828:E291:B9B5:4B09 (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support in principle though article needs to include that Russia shot it down (right now, the article just says it broke up). And other cn tags in article would need fixing. Though I agree, this is way more important/notable/covered in news sources than Crew-3. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I started putting this through DYK earlier today, see Template:Did you know nominations/Kosmos 1408, since I haven't enjoyed participating in previous ITN discussions. But if you want this here, then the DYK can be withdrawn. I've updated the template above, since I started the article yesterday. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- One option would be to merge this into the existing Crew-3 ISS mission blurb. If Kosmos 1408 is not bolded then it can still be a DYK too. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose merging those blurbs - these are separate events. Modest Genius talk 14:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I also oppose merging- they're separate events, and this one is more important, so shouldn't be stuck on the end of some less important and newswirthy article that's only on the front page because it was alledgedly ITNR (even though that ITNR criteria was demonstrated to be unfit for purpose). And if this does reach front page, then DYK would no longer be eligible, but until that point, don't see a need to withdraw the DYK nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- We could remove the Crew-3 blurb and replace it with this one when this is ready to go (assuming Crew-3 is still on ITN). Yeah, it doesn't get its "full time" there, but I agree that it doesn't make sense to merge, but having two ISS-related things could be seen as overwhelming the box. --Masem (t) 14:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I also oppose merging- they're separate events, and this one is more important, so shouldn't be stuck on the end of some less important and newswirthy article that's only on the front page because it was alledgedly ITNR (even though that ITNR criteria was demonstrated to be unfit for purpose). And if this does reach front page, then DYK would no longer be eligible, but until that point, don't see a need to withdraw the DYK nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose merging those blurbs - these are separate events. Modest Genius talk 14:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Fairly widely covered, but broader significance of a "threat" to the ISS isn't so apparent. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support in principle. This is very significant news and an interesting story of high encyclopedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support in principle per above, just needs better fleshing out of the article. --Masem (t) 13:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Upon reflection, it seems to be a serious threat all right, but ... can we post something that hasn't had a tangible effect ... yet? – Sca (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- The way I'm reading it, the story is more that Russia has appeared to have violated a treaty related to space-bound weapons, in addition to this being a story of interest to space exploration (the potential of damage to the ISS that forced the crew to shelter for at least two orbits as it passed through the debris field). --Masem (t) 14:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- From our article on the Outer Space Treaty: "Although it forbids establishing military bases, testing weapons and conducting military maneuvers on celestial bodies, the treaty does not expressly ban all military activities in space, nor the establishment of military space forces or the placement of conventional weapons in space". Testing an anti-satellite weapon on your own target is not against any treaty, just regarded as irresponsible. Note that the US, China and India have all conducted similar tests with no legal repercussions or UN censure. Modest Genius talk 15:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose no longer fresh, not really in the news, rolled off a while ago and probably better suited for DYK. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- What's your time frame for "no longer fresh"? The BBC article is only 12 hours old and the event itself occurred yesterday. It's certainly a newer event than anything currently in the ITN box... --Jayron32 16:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The BBC published two more articles about this story in just the last hour [7] [8]. That seems pretty fresh. Modest Genius talk 16:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- It happened yesterday, and is very much still in the news. Much more so than the posted blurbs, such as the NYC Marathon on 7 November for example. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- OH sure, you can dig into websites and find more analysis, but it's not headline news and hasn't been for most of the day now. Even the article makes it clear that the "main event" has passed. Biggest headlines in the UK are now that Johnson is proposing to prevent MPs from getting paid consultancy jobs. This story is no longer even on the BBC News homepage. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- It happened yesterday, and is very much still in the news. Much more so than the posted blurbs, such as the NYC Marathon on 7 November for example. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article is short, but sufficient; it seems to have developed some since the earlier notes. Topic is being covered by reliable news sources. --Jayron32 16:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose ... for now. Article text comprises 340 words, of which 115 are background, leaving a mere 230 words about the current threat. IMO, too thin for MP promotion. Second, we shouldn't blurb something that hasn't had an impact (yet). – Sca (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wait is there a real danger debris hits other satellites soon, or is this just "an abundance of caution"? Will there be significant geo-political ramifications from the test? Until one of those is "yes", I think we should wait. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Everywhere is at risk for disaster, but this info is nothing like disaster actually happening. Political story, and involving two countries who always bicker. Could change if the ISS is destroyed or something stronger than words breaks out. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Is this an RD nom for the destruction of Kosmos 1408? If so, its "career section" needs an expansion to describe how it was used while still in orbit and operational.--PFHLai (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Questionable significance as far as potential impacts, especially given at the moment it is just predictive. I would assume that the test itself is not sufficient for ITN, so I'm on the "Oppose" side here. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support even if nothing happens to the ISS, ASAT weapon tests don't happen every day, or even every year. Banedon (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Certainly magnitudes more important than the multitude of launches posted every now and then on ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support significant, made the news and the article Kosmos 1408 is short but adequate. Given the military nature of this satellite and its destruction, we can't expect to know that many details. Of the proposed blurbs, only alt 1 is good. --LukeSurl t c 10:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support in principle this is a significant story BUT it simply cannot be posted with a blurb of this quality. Its language is misleading and makes it sound as if a functional satellite was attacked, but rather a defunct satellite was destroyed as part of a weapons test... slightly different. Possibly also include the name of the missile system, if known, and replace "Russia" with the actual agency overseeing the test. JMonkey2006 (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Feel free to propose a different blurb. Or we could simply add 'defunct' before the name of the satellite. Modest Genius talk 11:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Absent from main RS sites on Wednesday; no longer in the news. Seems a minor issue without tangible effects. Neither target article is really about this event. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support in principle per JMonkey. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support. The Kessler syndrome may have been triggered: "The Kessler syndrome is troublesome because of the domino effect and feedback runaway wherein impacts between objects of sizable mass spall off debris from the force of the collision. The fragments can then hit other objects, producing even more space debris: if a large enough collision or explosion were to occur, such as between a space station and a defunct satellite, or as the result of hostile actions in space, then the resulting debris cascade could make prospects for long-term viability of satellites in particular low Earth orbits extremely low." Count Iblis (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Russia is weaponizing space. Whether or not they were the first to do it - and presumably they weren't - this is an indication of a change in global affairs when it comes to outer space.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you didn't know (see anti-satellite weapon), the first ASAT test was in 1959, and was conducted by the US. Banedon (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment any admins around here to post this? I oppose its inclusion as it's already stale in my opinion, but there's a pretty clear consensus here and the longer it's left unposted, the staler it becomes.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Posted altblurb2. --PFHLai (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
November 15[edit]
|
November 15, 2021 (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
RD: Katarina Blagojević[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Telegraf
Credits:
- Nominated by TJMSmith (talk · give credit)
- Created by Uldis s (talk · give credit)
- Updated by 93.86.229.111 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Serbian chess player. TJMSmith (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: IMO, an RD nom should include in the prose at least one sentence, footnoted, of course, about when/where/how the subject died. --PFHLai (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
RD: Dzifa Attivor[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ghanaweb
Credits:
- Nominated by TJMSmith (talk · give credit)
- Created by Natsubee (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ampimd (talk · give credit) and Mrkokgh (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Ghanaian politician and businesswoman. TJMSmith (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Weak support Would like to see some more info about her role as Minister of Transport but everything else in the article meets minimum standards and looks okay. SpencerT•C 03:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support just about enough in the article for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Julio Lugo[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Boston Globe MLB.com ESPN.com
Credits:
- Nominated by ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk · give credit)
- Created by 68.227.39.47 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ackru (talk · give credit), Nohomersryan (talk · give credit), Dmoore5556 (talk · give credit) and Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former Major League Baseball player. Article could be slightly improved. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment lots of cn tags at the moment, which would need to be resolved. Also, a lot of headings, seems way too many to me (as lots of sections are 1-2 sentences saying he signed for someone and then played a few or no games, then left). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I can try to address the noted items tonight (US eastern timezone) and will leave a note here once updated. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I finished sourcing the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Along with sourcing added by Muboshgu (thank you) I've added relevant details about Lugo's baseball career; the article looks to be in good shape now. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Marking ready. SpencerT•C 04:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Posted. Proud to have put another LUGO on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
RD: Clarissa Eden[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph
Credits:
- Nominated by TJMSmith (talk · give credit)
- Created by MartinCollin (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Neveselbert (talk · give credit), RedRumRomanus (talk · give credit) and IXIA (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: British countess, memoirist, and centenarian. Still needs some citations. TJMSmith (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) 2021 Bulgarian general election[edit]
Blurb: In the Bulgarian general election, We Continue the Change (co-leader Kiril Petkov pictured) wins the most seats. (Post)
Alternative blurb: We Continue the Change wins the most seats in the Bulgarian general election.
News source(s): FT Euronews, Balkan Insight, Sofia Globe, Reuters, DW, Spiegel (In German)
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by BastianMAT (talk · give credit)
- Updated by FellowMellow (talk · give credit), PLATEL (talk · give credit), Aréat (talk · give credit) and Braganza (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Second election held yesterday, ITNR, being a general election. The election comission has announced that We Continue the Change has won most seats, so therefore such a nomination can now be made. As we have posted the winner in the previous elections, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2021#(Posted)_Bulgarian_parliamentary_election. They are a new party too, so surprising. I have added a result synopsis and started the aftermath. Good article, have spent a lot of time on it myself with a few others. BastianMAT (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article has minimum of prose describing the leadup, results, and aftermath. More writing would be nice, but it's passable for the main page. Everything is referenced and it has prose, which is more than can be said for many of the nominations of this type. --Jayron32 12:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Is it time to start the English wikibio for the other co-leader of We Continue the Change, Asen Vasilev? The coalition has two leaders, not just Petkov. Do we want to wait till a government is formed? --PFHLai (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I guess yeah, he deserves one too, but Petkov is the primary focus here as he is the one seeking to become prime minister (per https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/14/bulgarian-elections-newly-formed-pp-party-neck-and-neck-with-right-wing-gerb-party). The truth is we don't even know yet if they will be successful forming a goverment, but we posted both the Czech party SPOLU and the last Bulgarian election when ITN won the most seats as the election itself is ITNR, so going by that this nomination/blurb should be suitable to make it out to the front page.BastianMAT (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article is in great shape. I think the easiest way to solve what PFHLai exposes is to put in the blurb that Petkov is the "co-leader", thus making it understood that he is not the only one leading the coalition. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- How about not mentioning either co-leaders in the blurb? (See alt1) I'm not sure about using the proposed photo of Petkov on MainPage, anyway. --PFHLai (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- We can do that too if there are any issues with the image, no problem. BastianMAT (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- How about not mentioning either co-leaders in the blurb? (See alt1) I'm not sure about using the proposed photo of Petkov on MainPage, anyway. --PFHLai (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support altblurb1 Just updated the numbers of the results, the article is well-written --Vacant0 (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support article looks good enough, would say this is ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Posted altblurb1. --PFHLai (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
2021 Argentinian Midterm Election[edit]
Blurb: In the Argentine legislative election, Juntos por el Cambio wins the most seats as Frente de Todos lose their majority in the Chamber of Deputies and Senate. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In the Argentine legislative election, Juntos por el Cambio wins the most seats as Frente de Todos lose their majority in the Chamber of Deputies and Senate for the first time since 1983.
Alternative blurb II: In the Argentine legislative election, Juntos por el Cambio wins the most seats.
Alternative blurb III: In the Argentine legislative election, Frente de Todos loses its majority in both chambers for the first time since 1983.
News source(s): Reuters AP News Express News Aljazzera Dw News BBC Yahoo
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by BastianMAT (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Dainshku (talk · give credit), PLATEL (talk · give credit) and Aréat (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: It is ITNR, big news as the opposition won the legislative elections/midterm elections and the ruling party have lost both majorities in the chamber of deputies and the senate for the first time since 1983. BastianMAT (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose As of now, there is no prose synopsis of the results of the main election. There is only a prose synopsis of the primaries. If that is fixed, this can be posted. --Jayron32 14:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Have added an synopsis now. BastianMAT (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support as and when the article gets cleaned up a bit This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support when the article is cleaned up a bit. Remember, go for it!. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I wanted to nominate this but hasitated. Are these midterms considered general elections? Half of the seats in the lower chamber and 1/3 of the upper chamber are up for election and our article defines general elections as "elections in which all or most members of a political body are chosen." Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I half-wondered if such "mid-term" elections were covered by ITNR. If they are, perhaps that should also be explicitly noted at ITNR. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, mid terms elections are part of it, it is notable too as the ruling party have lost their majority. Here is the US one that was also posted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/November_2018#(Posted)_2018_US_Midterm_Elections.BastianMAT (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- But that was mainly because it involved "all or most members of a political body are chosen". This doesn't appear to be the case here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- It depends on how you see on it. The mid term senate elections in US only feature 34 members up running for election. In Argentina it was half of the congress and enough for an significant change in both political bodies (ruling party losing control of both the house and the senate).BastianMAT (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well it doesn't matter what happened in the US, how does this meet the requirements at ITNR? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- From what I understand, in the US midterms all House seats+1/3 of Senate seats were up for election so that would be considered as "most members of an electoral body" but here it's only half. Does that still count as general elections? If so it's ITN/R, if not who knows. Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I agree, it is arguable for both sides. At least based on this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midterm_election, Argentina[1] (legislative and local election) falls under the heading General elections (which makes it ITNR) alongside the United States (legislative and local election) which was posted.BastianMAT (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it is arguable here, it doesn't meet the definition in ITNR and it's a mid-term, not a general election by any normal definition (despite what "Wikipedia" might say). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I agree, it is arguable for both sides. At least based on this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midterm_election, Argentina[1] (legislative and local election) falls under the heading General elections (which makes it ITNR) alongside the United States (legislative and local election) which was posted.BastianMAT (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- From what I understand, in the US midterms all House seats+1/3 of Senate seats were up for election so that would be considered as "most members of an electoral body" but here it's only half. Does that still count as general elections? If so it's ITN/R, if not who knows. Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – First four grafs back into the results and seem needlessly complex. – Sca (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment the table in the infobox violates MOS:COLHEAD by having column headers in the middle of the table. And we shouldn't consider putting this on front page until the results are complete, as a minimum. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Blurbs are needlessly complex. Would support if blurb was simpler. Pyramids09 (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Added AltBlurb 3 as a simplified version of AltBlurb 1, which was the better of the prior three for highlighting the historical significance of the results. Let me know what you think. Mount Patagonia (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
November 14[edit]
|
November 14, 2021 (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Politics and elections
|
(Closed) Liverpool Women's Hospital bombing[edit]
trending oppose, unlikely to develop consensus to post at this point. --Jayron32 15:43, 18 November 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.
Blurb: A taxi carrying a bomber is blown up at Liverpool Women's Hospital, killing the perpetrator. (Post)
Alternative blurb: An attempted terrorist bombing at Liverpool Women's Hospital in Liverpool, England, kills the perpetrator and injures another man.
Alternative blurb II: An explosion, which killed the alleged bomber and injured another man at Liverpool Women's Hospital in Liverpool, England, is declared a terror incident.
News source(s): "Liverpool hospital taxi explosion: what we know so far". The Guardian. 15 November 2021. Retrieved 15 November 2021.
"Liverpool Women's Hospital explosion declared a terror incident". BBC News. 15 November 2021. Retrieved 15 November 2021.
Credits:
- Nominated by AFreshStart (talk · give credit)
- Created by Serial Number 54129 (talk · give credit)
- Support this has been declared a terrorist incident, and is generating lots of news (it's prominent on the BBC News site still). I believe it's the first bombing in England since 2017 Manchester Arena one, and caused the UK terror threat level to be increased. Article itself is good enough quality. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support given that they have assigned terrorist motives to this now. My attempt at a more concise/ITN-style altblurb given, please edit as needed. --Masem (t) 17:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- "Police said the motivation for the attack was unclear but it had been declared as a terrorist incident." InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient length and quality, properly referenced, and item is in the news currently. No objections here. --Jayron32 17:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Has also been nominated at DYK.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support alt still in the news. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose This was a minor terrorist attack that caused only one casualty. Now we are not concerned about the number of victims? Certainly "is in the news", but I don't think it has the same relevance as other terrorist incidents that have occurred that have not been approved to be on Main Page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- The perpetrator was killed and the taxi driver was hospitalised. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Failed attack which caused one injury and killed the attacker. It's not clear what the target was or who it was supposed to terrorise. If this hadn't been declared a terrorist incident it would be minor local news. I encourage the existing DYK nom instead. Modest Genius talk 19:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Regardless of terrorism tag, I suspect this would have been national news. But of course, we will never know. The fact is it is big national news. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- But it was declared a terrorist attack, which adds notability to the incident. Jbvann05 20:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Not really, it just grants the police additional powers and generates more headlines. The actual event doesn't become any worse. Modest Genius talk 13:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support alt Notable, now declared a terrorist incident, article in decent shape. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 19:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Terrorism need not have a high death count in order to be notable and newsworthy; we have posted terrorist incidents on ITN that have had a death toll of zero.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I find it very interesting how many of those who support this nomination refused to publish the terrorist attack in Auckland in September, whose consequences were almost the same as in this case. Any clarification? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean "refused to publish"? They didn't !vote there. Apart from Modest Genius, who is opposed here also? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer because clearly I've realized that I have not expressed myself well. I mean that at the time, the reason why I've opposed was the same used by other users (who have not participated in this debate, except Modest Genius) to not support the cited nomination in September. That is why I am frankly surprised. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- BLP Caution One suspect is dead, but four others are arrested in connection; might want to attribute this "attempted terrorist bombing" instead of stating it as a fact Wikipedia knows (a "declaration" from police is still an allegation). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Counter Terrorism Police Caution: all four have been released: [9]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- OK, nevermind then. Can't go wrong speaking ill of the dead. At least by Wikipedian norms. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- No need to get personal, if you don't mind. Norman Butkiss 123 (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. I will admit to perhaps being more jaded to bomb stories than some other nationalities may be, but even with that notwithstanding, I don't believe we'd be considering an attack which killed no victims and injured one if it took place elsewhere (we recently didn't post, for example, an attack that targeted but didn't kill a head of state). That isn't necessarily to say there's any deliberate bias here but it's important to remember that England has a well-developed media sphere and any regional story will have a lot of domestic coverage, but we are not necessarily beholden to repeat their biases. For reference, even the BBC have displaced this story in favour of the latest update in a racism dispute in county cricket. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support major incident, leading news story, article decent. Polyamorph (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support (Alt 2). UK terror threat level raised from substantial to severe pushes it over the edge. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose As suicide in Britain goes, it was unusually public and explosive, but lacks too much death and destruction next to the general public suicide bombings (a similar story from Strathroy-Caradoc#History isn't even an article, for context). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose -- it's already stopped being news, it seems. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 02:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Questionable significance since nothing major [fortunately] did not take place. Gotitbro (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as the investigation has not been completed and it has not been confirmed yet whether it was terrorism, whether the detonation was intentional or accidental, or who the intended victim or victims might to have been. The current article contains too much opinion, innuendo, and speculation portrayed as fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- By all means mark any "opinion, innuendo, and speculation portrayed as fact" and/or take to the talk page. Opinion is generally permitted if it's clearly attributed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Very Strong Oppose Per WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be an encyclopedia, and we are NOT supposed to be a dangerous free publicity machine for every murderous suicidal nutter, still less for every would-be terrorist and every terrorist organisation. So a terrorist incident should be truly exceptional and notable before appearing on our front page, all the more so as it is often liable to remain there giving dangerous free publicity (and thus in practice encouragement) to terrorists and other murderous nutters long after it has disappeared from the front pages of other mainstream Western news outlets (as many terrorists probably already realize, even if many editors around here seemingly don't). There is NOTHING in this incident that gives it the required exceptionality and notability to justify the danger this poses to innocent people, as well as the damage it might (rightly in my view) do to our reputation. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Your diatribe is interesting, but nothing to do with ITNC, otherwise we'd never publish another mass shooting in the US ever again. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose No lasting effect plus terrible disjointed article means it's a No from me, Bob. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The story stopped trending yesterday, and the death/injury toll is very low (luckily). If attacks of this kind were rare in the UK I would be willing to overlook these factors, but (unfortunately) there's been a seemingly-steady uptick in the last couple of years, so there's nothing about this that makes it stand out. Mount Patagonia (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- But the satellite blow-up stopped trending 36 hours ago and no-one died. Terror attacks where bombs are ignited on Remembrance Day are few and far between, I'm sure you can point me to the last time that happened, right? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- I was referencing upticks in UK-based terror attacks in general, not ones falling on Rememberance Day. If terror attacks that fell on special occasions were automatic shoe-ins, then last year's Christmas bombing in Nashville would have been posted, but it wasn't for the same reasons I'm opposing posting this story. For the Russian satellite, take it up with the people for voted for it because I had no involvement in that decision. Mount Patagonia (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- But the satellite blow-up stopped trending 36 hours ago and no-one died. Terror attacks where bombs are ignited on Remembrance Day are few and far between, I'm sure you can point me to the last time that happened, right? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, terror attacks often happen on supposedly significant days or dates (sometimes perhaps coincidentally, sometimes perhaps as part of an attempt to increase the attack's psychological impact, or perhaps sometimes for quasi-religious reasons). Not only do we not use this as an excuse to put it into ITN, we sometimes leave it out of the article as well. For instance it was 5 years before Wikipedia mentioned that the Bataclan attacks occurred on Friday the 13th and there is still no link from it to the article about the superstition, presumably because RS don't mention such a link (perhaps to avoid making vulnerable people more fearful or otherwise psychologically distressed or harmed whenever 'significant' dates approach). Tlhslobus (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment we don't need to name the perp in any of the blurbs. That's totally undue. Get a grip people. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- I've been bold and removed the name of the perp. We don't need that, even if this isn't posted, anywhere near this encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- The name of the perpetrator is encyclopedic and should be in the article; but I agree that it should not be posted in ITN regardless. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose No victims and unclear / unorganised motive. Belugsump (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Limited significance. No longer in the news. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Better suited to DYK. — Amakuru (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
T20 World Cup[edit]
Blurb: In cricket, the T20 World Cup concludes with Australia defeating New Zealand in the final (Post)
News source(s): BBC Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Modest Genius (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Chandraach (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: I'm not keen on T20, but this is ITNR. Prose summaries of both innings are present though are currently unreferenced. It doesn't seem at all controversial though, so should be easy to source from a few match reports (such as those linked above). Modest Genius talk 12:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment the table in "Road to the final" section is ugly- couldn't this just be done in a paragraph of text, as in 2016 article? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. It's also not compliant with MOS:ACCESS since it contains nested tables. This should be fixed before it's posted on the main page. — Amakuru (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:DTAB is a laudable goal, but not one of the WP:ITNCRIT. It's probably moot though, as no improvements to the article have been made in the last 3 days. Modest Genius talk 11:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
While articles on topics such as sporting events and economics lend themselves to tables of numbers, updates must be at least in part written in prose to qualify for ITN consideration.
That isn't the case here, as the section in question is using ugly nested tables rather than prose (like I suggested doing days ago). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:DTAB is a laudable goal, but not one of the WP:ITNCRIT. It's probably moot though, as no improvements to the article have been made in the last 3 days. Modest Genius talk 11:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. It's also not compliant with MOS:ACCESS since it contains nested tables. This should be fixed before it's posted on the main page. — Amakuru (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
RD: Etel Adnan[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:
- Nominated by TJMSmith (talk · give credit)
- Created by Distingué Traces (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Tuckerlieberman (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Lebanese-American poet, essayist, and visual artist TJMSmith (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose A number of cite tags need to be fixed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Bertie Auld[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Joseywales1961 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former Celtic, Birmingham and Scotland player and European Cup winner in 1967 with Celtic. Needs some citations which I’ll try and sort in the morning (if someone wants to fix in the meantime please do) JW 1961 Talk 20:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Missing citations added now, should be ok JW 1961 Talk 08:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ref 10 (FitbaStats) is a reliable source. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Bloom6132, it's not listed at Deprecated Sources or Perennial Sources, neither does Cite Highlighter mark it red and so I would assume it's ok (I'm of course open to correction) JW 1961 Talk 14:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Update Reference the fitbastats ref (as of now number 16) and which references his overall Celtic honours - I have supplemented this with individual cites for the trophies/competitions so it is now really redundant JW 1961 Talk 23:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) Indigo Partners orders 255 Airbus A321 jets[edit]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Indigo Partners orders 255 Airbus A321 jets. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Count Iblis (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Comment Good for Airbus, but what makes this an ITN story? --Tone 17:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Suggest snow close. This is barely even 'news' 2405:201:4013:815B:A828:E291:B9B5:4B09 (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose one of the less ITN-worthy nominations of this nominator. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Below the radar. – Sca (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Newsworthiness aside, a single-sentence update to a stub won't be enough for ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
November 13[edit]
|
November 13, 2021 (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Ed Bullins[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by AleatoryPonderings (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Needs more sourcing work which I may be able to get to in the next 24–36 hours. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's basically ready. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Looks fully sourced.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
RD: Joanna Semel Rose[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Legacy
Credits:
- Nominated by TJMSmith (talk · give credit)
- Created by Yorker (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American art patron and collector, publisher, and philanthropist. TJMSmith (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Please add more references. A few paragraphs have no footnotes at all! BTW, please be reminded to nominate this new article for DYK while it is still young enough to qualify. --PFHLai (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
RD: Petra Mayer[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by TJMSmith (talk · give credit)
- Created by MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Isabelle Belato (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American book review editor and journalist. TJMSmith (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- This stubby wikibio is 1482 characters long. Any more to add? --PFHLai (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose 1491 characters is too short to be on the front page. Surely there's more that can be said about her? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Dubious This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
RD: Sam Huff[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/sam-huff-dead/2021/11/13/493c542c-2e8e-11e6-b5db-e9bc84a2c8e4_story.html
Credits:
- Updated by Dylan620 (talk · give credit) and Dissident93 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American football hall-of-famer. Could use more footnotes, but almost ready for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
RD: Wilbur Smith[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Stephen (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Stephen 03:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support – Very widely covered. Comprehensive article looks good. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Well-documented novelist. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. I am concerned about the sourcing. Lots of references to "wilbursmithbooks.com", lots of references to his autobio On Leopard Rock without corresponding secondary sources, tons of references to other books he's written. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see as many cites to the website (now?) but I do agree that his writing career section is a bit too heavily reliant on his autobio. It is reasonable for a writer like Smith to use his autobio to fill in gaps from other reliable sourcing, but it shouldn't be as heavily used for the "First Novels" section, for example. --Masem (t) 22:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- This wikibio has about 20 {cn} tags. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Glasgow Climate Pact[edit]
Blurb: Governments agree to the Glasgow Climate Pact at COP26, which includes a "phase-down" of coal. (Post)
Alternative blurb: 197 countries and territories agree to the Glasgow Climate Pact at COP26.
Alternative blurb II: The Glasgow Climate Pact is agreed at COP26 to attempt to limit the rise in global temperatures by 1.5°C.
News source(s): BBC, NYT, ABC, AP, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by JMonkey2006 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: The Paris Agreement was posted after COP21 concluded. This agreement is the same, if not more important for global climate action. JMonkey2006 (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Glasgow Climate Pact obviously isn't remotely close to being front-page quality, and 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference doesn't say what happened either. Once this is updated, I will probably support on importance. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose there's at least enough article to vote. Article still has issues; the "Pledges" section is describing things agreed at the conference that don't appear to be specifically part of the "Glasgow Climate Pact", and the link to Wikisource isn't broken. As far as importance ... we posted the conference once, and the biggest news is that there are plans to decrease coal usage ... this isn't worth posting again. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support – in principle ... pending updating and succinct revision of 2021 climate conference article. It would be very odd not to blurb this universally covered confab, now over. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment That we already posted the COP26 earlier, and that the general impression of the Glasgow Pact that I get from sources is that it is far less as a milestone compared to the Paris Agreements (since it basically affirms commitment to them) makes me wonder if this is really that significant to post a second time. --Masem (t) 14:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Au contraire. Despite disappointments, 'world leaders' said to "broadly welcome" the climate deal, which "for the first time targeted fossil fuels." At least they did something. Prominently covered by every major RS site. – Sca (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- That sentence wasn't over. First time targeting fossil fuels "as the key driver of global warming". Whatever that means. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Au contraire. Despite disappointments, 'world leaders' said to "broadly welcome" the climate deal, which "for the first time targeted fossil fuels." At least they did something. Prominently covered by every major RS site. – Sca (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Resistance is futile. "In asking nations to set tougher targets by next year for cutting climate-warming emissions, the agreement effectively acknowledged that commitments were still inadequate. National pledges currently have the world on track for about 2.4C of warming." The article quality outlook is also dire. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- We're not here to judge the work of the conferees. We're here to take note a very heavily covered, extended international conference that was widely and prominently covered. Do I think the so-called climate pact will solve global warming? No (although it might be a move in the right direction). What you or I think of it doesn't matter. What matters is, it was/is very much in the news, and the topic is hugely significant. – Sca (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- The work of the conferees is the topic. If the news reports the commitments made therein as inadequate, it's not hugely significant in the broader and more newsworthy topic area of global warming prevention. This running conference is just in the news because it was long expected to end today somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Nope. Even if they had done nothing it would be significant for reasons outlined above. – Sca (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- If we hadn't posted the COP26 thing earlier, I would have been fine with posting this as an ending point as generally the overall conference was in the news. But given that we already did and this new piece is not a major piece of environmental commitment compared to the Paris Agreement, double posting this is just not appropriate. --Masem (t) 22:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Nope. Even if they had done nothing it would be significant for reasons outlined above. – Sca (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- The work of the conferees is the topic. If the news reports the commitments made therein as inadequate, it's not hugely significant in the broader and more newsworthy topic area of global warming prevention. This running conference is just in the news because it was long expected to end today somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- We're not here to judge the work of the conferees. We're here to take note a very heavily covered, extended international conference that was widely and prominently covered. Do I think the so-called climate pact will solve global warming? No (although it might be a move in the right direction). What you or I think of it doesn't matter. What matters is, it was/is very much in the news, and the topic is hugely significant. – Sca (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose article is short and unsourced in places. Also, given the Paris Agreement exists, it seems the impact of this is minimal (limited only to reducing coal). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support on the merits; it's unusual for 197 countries to agree to any single document, even if largely a statement of principles or desires. But agree it is not yet suitable for posting. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support original blurb in principle, oppose on quality. The pact is a bit of a damp squib, far less ambitious than expected or required. However we're not here to judge the outcome, just whether it meets the ITN criteria. This is certainly in the news, at or near the top of every quality media outlet. However the pact article is barely a start class and needs some major TLC before being postable. I considered bolding the COP26 article again, but its 'outcomes' section is in even worse state. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Conspicuous omission from ITN blurb box. – Sca (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sca As several users have noted, there are quality issues preventing posting. If you want to see it posted, you are welcome to fix those issues. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Sca In what sense? The article is not good enough for front page quality (as ITN isn't OTD, which likes to post poorly sourced articles), and there's no consensus to post it anyway, as they don't seem to have all agreed anything (as different countries signed different agreements). If you want news pushed out as fast as possible, use a news website. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sca As several users have noted, there are quality issues preventing posting. If you want to see it posted, you are welcome to fix those issues. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - given that we already posted the COP26 once, and the headline agreement doesn't appear to be a huge step forward, I don't see a need to post it again. Maybe next time we can hold off posting the opening of such events so that we can capture a one-time interesting headline for readers. — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:11, 19 November 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: