Adding section for October 11 and archiving October 3. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/ITNCArchiver |
2600:8802:2718:6700:8da6:c79a:c935:90ea (talk) |
||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
*'''Oppose'''. It’s a tit for tat over the bridge, but it’s still part of Ongoing. Although the loss of ten people is obviously a tragedy, the stories coming out of the recently liberated towns and villages are much worse. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:188B:1AD3:9DE0:4825|2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:188B:1AD3:9DE0:4825]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:188B:1AD3:9DE0:4825|talk]]) 23:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose'''. It’s a tit for tat over the bridge, but it’s still part of Ongoing. Although the loss of ten people is obviously a tragedy, the stories coming out of the recently liberated towns and villages are much worse. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:188B:1AD3:9DE0:4825|2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:188B:1AD3:9DE0:4825]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:188B:1AD3:9DE0:4825|talk]]) 23:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' [[Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]] have been the norm for months, and this day's death toll is ''lower'' than those at several recent single sites, hardly an escalation. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 23:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' [[Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]] have been the norm for months, and this day's death toll is ''lower'' than those at several recent single sites, hardly an escalation. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 23:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' Typical attack in a war full of these, and it doesn't have a high death toll (like with the [[Bucha massacre]]) nor is it considered a "milestone" event (like with the [[Sinking of the Moskva|sinking of the first Russian warship since the end of World War II]], or [[2022 Crimean Bridge explosion|the destruction of the largest bridge in Europe]] discussed below) to justify its placement. Seriously, stop with these nothing burger nominations. [[Special:Contributions/2600:8802:2718:6700:8DA6:C79A:C935:90EA|2600:8802:2718:6700:8DA6:C79A:C935:90EA]] ([[User talk:2600:8802:2718:6700:8DA6:C79A:C935:90EA|talk]]) 00:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
====Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences==== |
====Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences==== |
Revision as of 00:10, 11 October 2022
In the news toolbox |
---|
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
|
Glossary
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. Nomination steps
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
October 11
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
October 10
2022 Lesotho general election
Blurb: The RFP wins a plurality of seats in the National Assembly in the Lesotho general election. ()
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: It's election fever around the world it seems! This article will be fine once the infobox is sorted and official results and reactions are added. A little expansion overall would be nice too. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Mass bombing of Ukrainian cities
Blurb: Over 10 people are killed by bombings in multiple Ukrainian cities, including Kiev. ()
News source(s): FT, Guardian
Credits:
Article updated
Nominator's comments: If we consider the Crimea bridge explosion to be worthy of posting as an independent item not covered by ongoing, then I believe this is in the same category. It's one thing in a war when military targets are attacked, but this is a deliberate retaliation against citizens and civilian infrastructure. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I might indeed consider something like this more notable than the bridge explosion, personally. However, I'd rather wait a bit to see the article and events develop. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – Part of the wider picture, as it's "revenge" for the bridge blast. [1] [2] [3] [4] One more bloody chapter in the ongoing Russian war on Ukraine. – Sca (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Per the nom comments this is related to the Crimea explosion, it should then be proposed therein itself as it is still open. If taken as an independent proposal, ongoing exists for a reason. Gotitbro (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- There's just too much information there to cram into the Crimea bombing blurb. In order to express the significance of both items, you'd need to make a very, very large blurb. And then we would have to be careful to state that Russia assigned blame for the bombing on the Ukrainian government, rather than declaring outright that is what happened. And I believe the significance of this - the escalation of hitting civilian targets, especially those in major cities - merits its own independent proposal. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. How about this: "After Ukraine's attack on the Crimean bridge, Russia bombs several Ukrainian cities, killing at least 10 people.". In this way, we're not saying that Russia retaliated against Ukraine's attack on the bridge (although Putin says so, but Ukraine denies it), but we're merely stating the sequence of events that occurred. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Such measures have been common place during this war. Russian troops have bombed maternity wards and schools. Nothing new here.
- NoahTalk 17:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Good grief people. It's a war. People and things get blown up in wars. We have it listed in ongoing. If someone sets off a nuke drop me a line. I'd probably support that. Otherwise, can we please stop with the constant nominations of every significant development? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- While people and things get blown up is normal, such blatant war crimes, designed to target civilians, and create maximum casualties during rush hour is unprecedented, even in this invasion and war. Nfitz (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I am assuming you have a very limited knowledge of the history of war. This is all SOP for Russia and the USSR in its various military campaigns. Wars where international law is respected are the exception, not the rule. This is all fairly mild stuff compared to what went on in WWII. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- While people and things get blown up is normal, such blatant war crimes, designed to target civilians, and create maximum casualties during rush hour is unprecedented, even in this invasion and war. Nfitz (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm on the fence about the bridge, but this is unfortunately just another thing on the list of war crimes committed during the invasion with a death toll and impact that isn't any more significant than the other events. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's more significant than the bridge which killed 3 people. This killed more than 10, all civilians rather than soldiers. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- How many civilian deaths have we not posted from this that have been covered by the ongoing? Its a war, the likely war crimes from Russia a major part of the linked article. We are getting very RGW here to try to generate sympathy for Ukraine which we cannot do as an amoral work. Masem (t) 19:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- The bridge has an unknown cause and was not in what's been regarded as a combat zone. The Kip (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Kiev isn't a combat zone either. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- When the Russian narod overthrow Vlad and his ilk, that will be worth posting. -- Sca (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Virtually the entirety of Ukraine is a combat zone, or at least the parts immediately near the frontlines or borders. What differentiates the bridge attack from this is that we haven't seen any strikes that deep within Russian-controlled territory thus far. The Kip (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Kiev isn't a combat zone either. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's more significant than the bridge which killed 3 people. This killed more than 10, all civilians rather than soldiers. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Combine with the Crimean bridge explosion nom below. nableezy - 19:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think this particular incident is covered by the ongoing - despite the obvious war crimes, far worse than any previous missile attacks. Perhaps if Putin was indicted. Nfitz (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Who would indite him and even if they did would it have made any difference? If it was that easy he would have been in The Hague back in 2000 after ethnically cleansing Grozny en masse. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose covered in ongoing. Either we develop guidelines for what events in the war are nonetheless worth posting, or we flat out decline to post all of them. Banedon (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Does seem to be a major escalation - certainly being treated that way by RS - so deserves a separate blurb in my view. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. It’s a tit for tat over the bridge, but it’s still part of Ongoing. Although the loss of ten people is obviously a tragedy, the stories coming out of the recently liberated towns and villages are much worse. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:188B:1AD3:9DE0:4825 (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine have been the norm for months, and this day's death toll is lower than those at several recent single sites, hardly an escalation. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Typical attack in a war full of these, and it doesn't have a high death toll (like with the Bucha massacre) nor is it considered a "milestone" event (like with the sinking of the first Russian warship since the end of World War II, or the destruction of the largest bridge in Europe discussed below) to justify its placement. Seriously, stop with these nothing burger nominations. 2600:8802:2718:6700:8DA6:C79A:C935:90EA (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
Blurb: The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to Ben Bernanke (pictured), Douglas Diamond and Philip H. Dybvig for their research on banks and financial crises. ()
Credits:
- Nominated by Kiril Simeonovski (talk · )
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: The article on Bernanke is great, the one on Diamond needs minor expansion, while those on Dybvig and this year's prize need more substantial expansion. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not supporting, picture for Bernanke. Facepalm from me that he got the award and no jail term for dereliction of duty as fed chair. Sad state of affairs. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- We're not here to discuss whether he deserves the prize or should be jailed. I'd welcome adding a picture of either Diamond or Dybvig, but I wasn't able to find one under free licence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I understand, I am saying I dont support his picture, and reason for not supporting the picture. Oppose for this overall nomination due to size of the article. Venkat TL (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- We're not here to discuss whether he deserves the prize or should be jailed. I'd welcome adding a picture of either Diamond or Dybvig, but I wasn't able to find one under free licence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to stress again that the individual year articles that have come up a couple times are highly questionable because of the list of possible winners. The Nobel shortlists are not revealed to the public until years after the award is given, so this is just a hypothetical list, even if the sources are types that say "So-and-so should be a frontrunner for the Nobel..." Take away the list, and all you have are details that should be on each bio page or the main list article. --Masem (t) 12:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- That's easily solvable. We can simply link to Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences instead.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – Without the list it's a mere 285 words of narrative text, most of it boring, IMO. – Sca (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Tentative support: Ben Bernanke is good to go. The Awards section for Douglas Diamond is uncited, but that should be an easy fix. Philip H. Dybvig is quite short, but everything is cited and major points are covered, so it's good enough. However, I strongly suggest the removal of the link to 2022 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, replacing it with a link to Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. The yearly articles have been put into question multiple times on this page. Curbon7 (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Mulayam Singh Yadav
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): NDTV Hindu
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Venkat TL (talk · )
- Updated by Aakash Singh India (talk · )
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: C class, good sourcing. Venkat TL (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support. One of the most prominent politicians of India. Article is well sourced. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Article looks good, I am seeing no issues. Seems ready for RD. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support, Article is fine. Aakash Singh India (talk).
- Any prose on the subject's death? Any sources to support the tabulated data in the Electoral performance section? --PFHLai (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- PFHLai, I Added in Personal life section. Natural death. Refs added in electoral performance tables. Marked ready --Venkat TL (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 22:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
October 9
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Anthony M. DeLuca
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): [5]
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.
– Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
RD: Bruno Latour
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): The Guardian
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: Influential French philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist. Thriley (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not ready, the article has a bunch of uncited content. I'm also noticing an inconsistent citation style, which isn't a big deal but might also be good to fix. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
2022 Austrian presidential election
Blurb:
News source(s): UPI, ABC News
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The president of Austria has the power to dissolve the National Council, appoint the Chancellor and, by extension, federal cabinet ministers, Supreme Court justices, military officers, and most major bureaucrats. However not the head of government (that lies with the chancellor) and so in practice a figurehead position; therefore not ITN/R. Article very good though has good potential. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Conditional support A reactions section would be greatly appreciated and some paragraphs need better references, otherwise I support. Tone 20:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose at the moment. So much is unsourced, and there's absolutely nothing regarding reactions. Also, FWIW, "incumbent" isn't needed in the blurb. -- Kicking222 (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Article is far from "very good". Since the election of heads of state without executive powers is not ITNR, and since it's a re-election, I don't think I have any reason to support it. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Amended per above comments. I did not realise there's whole sections uncited further down initially. Still there are many sources in the article, maybe they jyst need to be placed accordingly. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – Absent from main pages of most RS sites. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose—article is not awful but election is for a de facto ceremonial figure by the sounds of it. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) RD: Anton Fier
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.
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): NYT, NME, Pitchfork
Credits:
- Nominated by SusanLesch (talk · )
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.
- Great drummer, but his death was announced on 22 September, so this is unfortunately stale. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
RD:John Duncan
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: well known Scottish football player and manager. Playing career and early managerial career needs citing, but there are enough citations in the article otherwise. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- One of the most poorly referenced bios I've seen here in a while. Stephen 03:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Formula 1
Blurb: In Formula One, Max Verstappen (pictured) wins the 2022 Japanese Grand Prix, winning the 2022 Formula One World Championship. ()
Alternative blurb: In Formula One, Max Verstappen (pictured) wins the 2022 Japanese Grand Prix, becoming the 2022 Formula One season champion.
Alternative blurb II: In motor racing, Max Verstappen (pictured) wins the Formula One World Championship.
News source(s): Sky Sports Formula 1 Twitter
Credits:
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.
Anarchyte (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Great work on the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support content; however, all three blurbs as presented are awkward. Perhaps "In Formula One, Max Verstappen (pictured) wins his second World Championship", or "In Formula One, Max Verstappen (pictured) claims the 2022 Formula One World Championship by winning the 2022 Japanese Grand Prix".~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support ALT2 Common practice for the R item. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support ALT2 Looks good, form is also in line with the other recent motorsport blurbs. Vida0007 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Notable sporting event that has featured prominently in worldwide news. Crecy1346 (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support and ready. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- We usually post sport-season related stories when the season ends, and here there are still a couple of races, even if the winner is known. Just a comment, no strong opposition to posting now. --Tone 14:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think this is true. Generally we post once the champion is known. See [6] for example, where Manchester City were posted as champions on 16 May, despite matches continuing up to 23 May. — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment— This policy was amended in May 2021 as per Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 83#Amendment to Sports ITNR. WP:ITNSPORTS currently reads: "In terms of timing, events are generally posted as soon as a winner is determined". It also existed in precedent anyway—The 2020 F1 Championship was posted on 16 November with three races remaining. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- The Championship article does not mention the Japan race in the mid-season rounds section (which should probably be a closing rounds section?). Stephen 20:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Previously there have been posted ITN articles about the Drivers' Championship being won before the end of the season. For example, Hamilton won in Turkey in 2020 with 3 races afterwards, but it was posted after Turkey. Seems like sticking with precedent and trying to post it in a timely fashion, that Verstappen winning the Drivers' Championship deserves a mention after the race. TartarTorte 23:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Newsworthy event, also per WP: ITNR. Alt2 seems like the least clunky. Fireboltsilver (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Wait – Season summary section must be updated before posting to the main page. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I dont see sourced prose that says that Verstappen is actually the champion.—Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Bagumba. The prose describing the season seems to come to a shuddering halt after the Belgian grand prix, in the "mid-season rounds" section. I assume we're into the late-season rounds by now, and there are four grands prix after Belgium including the one where the title was clinched. — Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Prose in season summary section is incomplete. Last race mentioned is the Belgian Grand Prix, four races ago, held on the 28th of August. If someone who desires this to be posted would fix that, I think this would then be sufficiently ready. --Jayron32 12:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Wait for season summary update as mentioned above, support alt2 thereafter. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
October 8
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
|
RD: Frank Youso
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): [7]
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.
– Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
RD: Grace Glueck
Recent deaths nomination ()
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.
Bloom6132 (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: André Chagnon
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Montreal Gazette (Canadian Press); Le Devoir; La Presse
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) 20:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Faustino López Vargas
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): El Financiero
Credits:
- Nominated by Sammi Brie (talk · )
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: Mexican senator; died in car crash. This is a new article and my first ever contribution to RD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Peter Tobin
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Unknown Temptation (talk · )
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: Scottish serial killer. Article is well sourced. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Seems good to me. --Bedivere (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 00:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
2022 Crimean Bridge explosion
Blurb: A large series of explosions and subsequent fires result in three deaths and major damage to the Crimean Bridge, the only road and rail connection between Russia and Russian-occupied Crimea. ()
Alternative blurb: An explosion heavily damages the Crimean Bridge between Russia and Crimea.
News source(s): [1] CNN, AP, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Certainly notable and should be included in ITN. Article is extremely new and currently a stub, should be posted after expansion and additional references are added. Pacific26 (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support on the merits. While we shouldn't post every step in the war, this seems to be a notable one to call out, once the article is in okay shape. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - seems to ultimately be insignificant. DatGuyTalkContribs 09:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Could you expand on that? I think we would post large explosions that severely damage and partially collapse an iconic bridge like the Golden Gate Bridge or the Øresund Bridge or the Akashi Kaikyo Bridge. The Crimean Bridge is also strategically significant and this incident (irrespective of the cause) is already disrupting supplies to occupied Crimea. Doesn't seem "insignificant" even if this doesn't merit posting. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Russia's stance is that the damage to the bridge would be "promptly restored, since it is not of a serious nature," with independent sources also not differing (note the frequent use of hypotheticals). Unlike Russian cruiser Moskva, this seems like it'll be out of the news rather quickly and the general topic is already covered in ongoing. DatGuyTalkContribs 09:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Could you expand on that? I think we would post large explosions that severely damage and partially collapse an iconic bridge like the Golden Gate Bridge or the Øresund Bridge or the Akashi Kaikyo Bridge. The Crimean Bridge is also strategically significant and this incident (irrespective of the cause) is already disrupting supplies to occupied Crimea. Doesn't seem "insignificant" even if this doesn't merit posting. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support once article is expanded a bit more. I think the actual event is notable enough. Compusolus (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral, but adding a more concise alt blurb. Sandstein 10:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose covered in ongoing. Either we develop guidelines for what events in the war are nonetheless worth posting, or we flat out decline to post all of them. Banedon (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I believe the answer is things that are not expected in the normal course of war. Attacks on roads, rail, & bridges to disrupt supply chains are expected. Incidental civilians deaths are expected, execution of civilians is not. Use a nuclear weapons is not. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support BBC says "it is hard to exaggerate the significance, and symbolism, of seeing the bridge on fire." BBC. --Bruzaholm (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Strong support longest bridge in Europe Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment more than one explosion, so changed nomination blurbs to plural. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Moderate Oppose Another sketchy scenario, covered by Ongoing, death toll understated and dwarfed by those of recent similar explosions in several countries (including this one). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support very significant event, both in terms of military logistics and (arguably more importantly) symbolism. Note that so far, there has been no official claim or accusation of responsibility. Therefore, it seems a bit premature to declare this covered by the ongoing article (in fact, the truck in question came from the Russian side of the bridge). The unclear nature of the explosion (missile, truck bomb, naval sabotage) only adds to the notability of this event. YD407OTZ (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Lean toward support per all above. But the article needs some expansion and I think the blurb should mention the casualties (3 people). --BorgQueen (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Noteable; significant damage to a critical piece of infrastructure; Russia's (and Europe's more broadly) longest bridge.✨ 4 🧚♂am KING 12:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support widely reported in its own right. Juxlos (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Wait – The bridge was only damaged, though ostensibly severely, and Ukraine officials have issued veiled threats to destroy it. Suggest we wait for further developments. So far, this seems more another chapter rather than a game-turner. – Sca (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Covered by the ongoing. This is why we have ongoing, we aren't turning ITN into a Ukraine-Russia news ticker. --Masem (t) 13:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Covered by the Ongoing line item. — Amakuru (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Significant event independent of the war. No sense, IMO, in using the Ongoing defense for opposing when we don't know if it is a direct result of the war or not. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support, I see this as less of a war story (even though it's obviously related), and more of an important-bridge-collapses story, and that is a story that seems ITN worthy despite the ongoing. --TorsodogTalk 14:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Bridge-partially-collapses. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Even if it is not war related and the focus on the bridge collapse, it is readily repairable and not completely destroyed. If the entire bridge was lost, that would be significant infrastructure news, but that this is closely tied to the war and that it is nowhere close to a complete loss of the bridge makes it that more insignificant from that angle. Masem (t) 16:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Significant event. Ongoing does not cover this significant event at length. So I support this posting.BabbaQ (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Ongoing exists for a reason. Gotitbro (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - If Wikipedia existed in 1940 and Charles Huntziger blew the bridges over the Meuse, we wouldn't consider that a postable item. It would necessarily be considered part of an ongoing event. There are plenty of places for readers to go if they want blow-by-blow accounts of what's going on. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Except this isn't just any other bridge that was blown up like nothing. It is the longest bridge in Europe. I would agree with you if we were some house or mall were up for an ITN nom, but not in this case. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Too early to judge the significance. Nigej (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Torsodog. Schierbecker (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Russia doesn't publicly concede that this incident was due to the war, and Ukraine has not admitted responsibility(just some snide remarks), so Ongoing is off base. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support as a major event in the war (although as per 331dot none of the parties concedes this is actually part of the war). --Bedivere (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose the surviving road has already been re-opened and there's no particular reason to think that the rail disruption will be long-term. Teemu08 (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose covered in ongoing, and the BBC is reporting reopened to rail traffic during the day (as well as light road traffic), which calls into question "heavily damages the Crimean Bridge" in the Alternative blurb specified. Rwendland (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- The BBC also states "It is hard to exaggerate the significance, and symbolism, of seeing the bridge - which was opened by President Putin - on fire." [9] 331dot (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- True, but does "significance and symbolism" in any way imply heavily damaged? The BBC expert's comment "The lack of obvious blast / fragmentation damage" seems more pertinent. Though if you look at the video given, it does seem one road carriageway section has collapsed between one pair of pillars. Rwendland (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- If the Ogdensburg–Prescott International Bridge suffered temporary structural failure and two or three people were killed, I don't think we would post that, no matter what the symbolism of it would be. I think it'd be SNOW closed. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 21:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Considering there is another bridge 50 km upstream; it hardly comparable. This is the only road/rail link Crimea has to the rest of Russia, and the longest bridge in Europe period. It is a critical piece of infrastructure that isn’t easily relieved by other infrastructure. ✨ 4 🧚♂am KING 22:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- If the Ogdensburg–Prescott International Bridge suffered temporary structural failure and two or three people were killed, I don't think we would post that, no matter what the symbolism of it would be. I think it'd be SNOW closed. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 21:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- True, but does "significance and symbolism" in any way imply heavily damaged? The BBC expert's comment "The lack of obvious blast / fragmentation damage" seems more pertinent. Though if you look at the video given, it does seem one road carriageway section has collapsed between one pair of pillars. Rwendland (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- The BBC also states "It is hard to exaggerate the significance, and symbolism, of seeing the bridge - which was opened by President Putin - on fire." [9] 331dot (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom, 4iamking, and 331dot. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 20:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Mr Reading Turtle: I gotta get a cool signature like yours! — That Coptic Guy (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support - This bridge is a vital piece of infrastructure that was destroyed for reasons that may or may not be related to the ongoing war. Regardless, I think it deserved a place on ITN given its significance. Supporting also per nom and above. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not destroyed. -- Sca (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, then. "Damaged", "partially collapsed", whatever--doesn't lessen the impact of the event. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not destroyed. -- Sca (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Support the comparison of the longest bridge in Europe to various minor bridges few have heard of, makes it clear that those who oppose this, do not understand the scope of what's happened. Sometimes I feel that if Russia dropped a tactical nuke on the government buildings in Kiev, we'd have someone saying "that's what the ongoing is for" and someone else would be saying "it's not even as big as Nagasaki - so it's not notable". Nfitz (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- War evokes strong emotions, yes it uses colourful exaggeratory language to illustrate a point, but the point itself made is a legitimate one even if one disagrees with it; ITN process can be frustrating although I'd much prefer such rationales weren't made, it needlessly escalates tensions. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why, User:WaltCip, that mentioning the next step in escalation that Russia is talking about, is "one of the most appalling rationales" you've ever seen, User:WaltCip; personally I'd have been less surprised by Russia using tactical nukes in the current theatre, than Ukraine blowing up such massive infrastructure a 100 km inside the front line. Nfitz (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be lowering our level of discourse to that of genocidal warmongering tyrants and psycho-manipulators though. I think the user objected to the general tone, and nonchalantly mulling over the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people if not millions and an armagedon could be seen as insensitive; you could have worded it a lot better to illustrate your point. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- But this has now become a matter of semantics and to trivialize the Nfitz's original point as simply a matter of such is unreasonable. Wording was blunt, but the point regarding the coverage level of Ongoing stands. Ongoing presence is now being invoked to oppose a nom that has not been substantiated as related to the war itself. We can't unilaterally oppose anything related to this war simply because it's in Ongoing. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- The Background, Event and Reactions sections substantiate its relation to the war itself. The sources agree. Without the whole surrounding need for supply lines, provocation and morale boosts, this bridge is just concrete and the innocent victims are "only" a couple of adults. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- But this has now become a matter of semantics and to trivialize the Nfitz's original point as simply a matter of such is unreasonable. Wording was blunt, but the point regarding the coverage level of Ongoing stands. Ongoing presence is now being invoked to oppose a nom that has not been substantiated as related to the war itself. We can't unilaterally oppose anything related to this war simply because it's in Ongoing. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I hadn't previously responded to this, but so far this war has had combat action since 2014 with Ukraine deaths at a little over 4,500 and Russian deaths at around 5,000. A tactical nuke would instantly result in the deaths of tens of thousands of troops within the span of a few seconds. Many people don't understand that the purpose of using a tactical nuke is for total and complete destruction of your enemy, just as it is with a strategic one. To insinuate that those who are opposing this item would also somehow be blind to the consequences and impact of what would be the first nuclear weapon used in combat since 1945 is not only a bad straw man argument, but it's also needlessly callous. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- The assumption that the first use of a tactical nuke, User:Abcmaxx and User:WaltCip, would kill tens of thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands, is unlikely in my mind. I'd think such a use would be in the thousands at most, hopefully less. Russia has tactical nukes that are less than 0.5% of the bombs that the USA used in Japan - and less than 1% of WMDs such as the thermobaric bomb that the USA dropped on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border in 2017 - which had a lot of opposition at ITN, including by WaltCip. We are off-topic, but I certainly wasn't suggesting that anyone would dismiss a nuclear weapon that killed tens of thousands of people; I don't think Russia would start with such a large weapon, at least in an urban area. At the same time, I'm stunned that there'd be opposition at ITN to post the use by the USA of a weapon of mass destruction that was almost as big as the Hiroshima bomb. WaltCip actually referred to the 2017 attack as "Pentagon military propaganda". It makes one wonder if announcement of the 1945 atomic bombings was also "Pentagon military propaganda". Nfitz (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be lowering our level of discourse to that of genocidal warmongering tyrants and psycho-manipulators though. I think the user objected to the general tone, and nonchalantly mulling over the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people if not millions and an armagedon could be seen as insensitive; you could have worded it a lot better to illustrate your point. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why, User:WaltCip, that mentioning the next step in escalation that Russia is talking about, is "one of the most appalling rationales" you've ever seen, User:WaltCip; personally I'd have been less surprised by Russia using tactical nukes in the current theatre, than Ukraine blowing up such massive infrastructure a 100 km inside the front line. Nfitz (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- War evokes strong emotions, yes it uses colourful exaggeratory language to illustrate a point, but the point itself made is a legitimate one even if one disagrees with it; ITN process can be frustrating although I'd much prefer such rationales weren't made, it needlessly escalates tensions. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support per the BBC. BilledMammal (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support - It is not completely out of the ordinary to elevate major stories in an ongoing event to a blurb. We have done it before and we should do now here. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The bridge hasn't been destroyed and had already partially reopened within hours. Have to say that i'm genuinely shocked that people are still supporting this, hours after it became apparent that the bridge was still operational. Effy Midwinter (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support, with the lack of a confirmed cause and Crimea not being an active combat zone I'm not sure if this is truly covered by ongoing. The Kip (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support it is very much "in the news" even now, and directly caused the Zaporizhzhia residential building airstrike in retaliation; I think there will be a lot more consequences to come from this itself.
- I would also add that it is likely the bridge was never meant to be completely destroyed. As Ukraine does not target any civilians (very opposite to Russia) Ukraine's objective is partly to make the Russians leave Crimea and the bridge is their only way out; there are already queues of panicking people trying to leave. Their other objective is to stop the supply of fuel and arms and those are mostly done via train; the train tracks have been destroyed, and nothing more than a normal passenger car will now be able to cross really via road. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support per 331dot, Juxlos, The Kip and Nifitz among others. Not a part of the Ukraine War and all over the news. Obviously notable and the article is in very good shape. Let's post this ITN-worthy blurb. Jusdafax (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Weak oppose – I love the work put into the article, but this type of infrastructure destruction in occupied territories seems (to me) to be an extremely normal aspect of war, and possibly less noteworthy than the capture of a city. I do think our Russian invasion of Ukraine article should cover this event in detail, but to me this hardly reach the top 10 of important Russo-Ukraine war events of this year. But the article looks good so we don't have much to lose featuring this. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – Part of the wider picture, which now includes Russia's vicious missile "revenge" on Ukrainian cities for the bridge blast. [10] [11] [12] [13] – Sca (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support, Significant event. Alex-h (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Covered by ongoing... just another part of the war that has been going on for some time. Regardless of who actually bombed the bridge, this is a warzone. Things of this nature are expected to occur. NoahTalk 17:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Combine with the Russian strikes into one blurb. nableezy - 19:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. It’s already open again (albeit at a reduced capacity), but it’s long-term significance isn’t understood yet (could be massive, could be nothing at all). Ongoing is there for a reason. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:188B:1AD3:9DE0:4825 (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support but agree it should be combined with the blurb on the retaliatory Russian strikes nominated above. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Creeslough explosion
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: An explosion at a petrol station in Creeslough, County Donegal, Ireland, kills ten people and injures eight others. ()
News source(s): The Journal, BBC News, The Guardian, RTÉ
Credits:
Article updated
- Oppose, petrol stations and transports blowing up is somewhat routine (unlike bridges, see above), and the casualty count is not exceptional. Sandstein 10:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support I initially added this to the current events news portal when the story was developing. Reported outside Ireland extensively and also very significant event in the context of the small population and rarirty of such an event in Ireland. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Almost Support Unusually deadly in an uncommon setting, widely covered. Could use an Investigation section, the mystery is strong here. No need to solve it first, though, just get started. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Sandstein. Unfortunate, of course, but not generally significant. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Seems like a unfortunate domestic incident, and the fatalities are not as great. --Masem (t) 13:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support as per above. Edl-irishboy (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support War events should not be a measure for other contemporary events, this is significant on its own considering where it took place. Gotitbro (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose This sort of thing is not common in developed countries. That said, I don't think it is quite on a level justifying attention at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning support - The death toll of this unusual disaster is in that weird median of being in-between significant and insignificant (combined with all other factors, of course). --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- As we used to say, parochial. -- Sca (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- We post a lot of parochial items on ITN, and at times it's not even really clear what the definition of parochial means. That's why it's not listed anywhere in WP:ITNCRIT as a discriminatory factor. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- As we used to say, parochial. -- Sca (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support - WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is met in this instance. — Amakuru (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Support - it's notable because this type of thing happens very rarely within the developed world, and is a freak accident. Rest in Peace to the victims. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is a local event that will be unlikely to garner widespread coverage, or at least enough to justify a front-page story. Definitely tragic for that town but not significant beyond that. Sorry. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
October 7
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Politics and elections
|
RD: Ada Fisher
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): [14]
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.
– Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Charles Bowsher
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): The Washington Post
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: First reported in a reliable source today (October 7); died on September 30. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Short but adequate. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 11:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Warren J. Baker
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): [15]
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.
– Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Short but adequate. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 06:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Lorry I. Lokey
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Stanford University; University of Oregon
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: First reported in a reliable source today (October 7); died on October 1. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Short but adequate. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 03:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Peter Robinson (novelist)
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): CBC News; BBC News; The Guardian; Global News (Canadian 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.
Nominator's comments: First reported in a reliable source today (October 7); died on October 4. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Dave Dryden
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): NHL.com; The Buffalo News; TSN
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: First reported in a reliable source today (October 7); died on October 4. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Nice length and very well cited, very good article in my opinion. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Sara Lee
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article well cited. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Nobel Peace Prize 2022
Blurb: The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to Belarusian activist Ales Bialiatski (pictured) as well as the Russian society "Memorial" and the Center for Civil Liberties in Ukraine. ()
Alternative blurb: The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to Belarusian activist Ales Bialiatski (pictured), and to the Russian society "Memorial" and the Center for Civil Liberties in Ukraine.
Alternative blurb II: The Nobel Peace Prize is jointly awarded to Belarusian activist Ales Bialiatski (pictured), the Russian organisation Memorial, and the Ukrainian Center for Civil Liberties.
News source(s): NYT, AP, Guardian, DW, AlJazeera
Credits:
Article updated
One or both nominated events are 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.
SoWhy 12:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – Very widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- We don't care about breadth of coverage, just that coverage there. --Masem (t) 14:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not to be that guy, but this is a INT/R item so that's more or less assumed, no? DarkSide830 (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Bialiatski's article needs a lot of work, and the Center's article is barely a stub. The Memorial article needs a bit of referencing improvement. --Masem (t) 14:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Not loving any of the blurbs verbatim, is there one prize "jointly" awarded to the 3 recipients; was there 1 prize to a person and 1 prize to 2 organizations jointly, were there 3 prizes, etc? - put up an alt2 to try to clarify that there is 1 prize, with 3 recipients splitting it. — xaosflux Talk 18:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality: Ales Bialiatski#International recognition is mostly unsourced and reads like a CV. Memorial (society) appears OK. Center for Civil Liberties (Ukrainian civil society organization) is essentially a stub. Sandstein 10:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality for the same reasons as others have pointed out already. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – In terms of news, getting stale. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
October 6
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
|
(Posted) RD: Jody Miller
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): The Oklahoman; Associated Press; Toronto Sun (Bang Showbiz)
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) 08:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
RD: Judy Tenuta
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood
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: A few lists need sourcing but its about 75% of the way there. Masem (t) 00:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
RD: Gian Piero Ventrone
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): La Repubblica, BBC, 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.
Dr Salvus 21:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: IMHO, this wikibio could work as an RD if it gets more developed and longer. Right now, it's a little short. Blurbs are more for heads of state while still in office, a world leader or globally-known figure (Einstein, Thatcher, Mandela, QE2, Putin, T'Challa (if real), ... etc.). I don't mean disrespect, but I don't think the subject of this wikibio qualifies for blurbing. --PFHLai (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- PFHLai, have removed the blurb. Dr Salvus 08:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the removal. Can the article be expanded a bit more? Not everyone thinks 249 words is long enough. There isn't a strict cut-off number, but when DYK is asking for 300 minimum, ITN/RD shouldn't be too far off. -- PFHLai (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Couldn't find else but this one. However, it contains only unencyclopedic content. I think Quality > Quantity. Dr Salvus 18:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Any info from RS on his upbringing, education, career before joining Juventus in 1994 at age 34? Things like that should take this short article out of stub range. --PFHLai (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Done Dr Salvus 13:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Nice. No longer a stub. 443 words now. --PFHLai (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- If you like it why don't you support it? Dr Salvus 12:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- No objections in four days, why can't it be posted? Dr Salvus 16:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Recent deaths cannot be posted if their article is currently nominated for deletion. DatGuyTalkContribs 16:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- But it is a stupid nomination, it currently has 6 keep's against the sole nominator. Everyone could close it. Dr Salvus 16:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- The AfD nomination is trending towards being kept. The ITN nomination has a few days until it goes stale. Assuming the AfD continues this way for the next few days, I think we can close it a little early, after its run for six days or so, and post it for ITN before it goes stale. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- But it is a stupid nomination, it currently has 6 keep's against the sole nominator. Everyone could close it. Dr Salvus 16:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Recent deaths cannot be posted if their article is currently nominated for deletion. DatGuyTalkContribs 16:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- No objections in four days, why can't it be posted? Dr Salvus 16:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- If you like it why don't you support it? Dr Salvus 12:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Nice. No longer a stub. 443 words now. --PFHLai (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Done Dr Salvus 13:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Any info from RS on his upbringing, education, career before joining Juventus in 1994 at age 34? Things like that should take this short article out of stub range. --PFHLai (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Couldn't find else but this one. However, it contains only unencyclopedic content. I think Quality > Quantity. Dr Salvus 18:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the removal. Can the article be expanded a bit more? Not everyone thinks 249 words is long enough. There isn't a strict cut-off number, but when DYK is asking for 300 minimum, ITN/RD shouldn't be too far off. -- PFHLai (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- PFHLai, have removed the blurb. Dr Salvus 08:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support RD It's a better blurb than most we see, for giving a cause, but it's a natural cause. Famous as T'Challa or not, that's never much of a story. Article is short, but not glaringly inaccurate (unless an Italian reader can point out what proves me wrong on that). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Notice: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gian Piero Ventrone is in progress. --PFHLai (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) Nobel Prize in Literature
Blurb: Annie Ernaux is awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. ()
News source(s): ABC News, CNN, AP, BBC, France24
Credits:
Article needs updating
One or both nominated events are 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.
Davey2116 (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose for now For the usual reason. Annie Ernaux has a couple prose spots that need citations and almost the entire Awards section is unsourced. Nobel Prize in Literature should not be bolded, but if it is, that adds more problems, as there are several uncited paragraphs. Curbon7 (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Opoose Ernaux's page lacks a sufficient update per WP:ITNCRIT:
—Bagumba (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable.
- Another stupid, pointless rule. Toss it out. There is no need for an article to be updated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- So you think we should have posted this article even if it hadn't been updated to note that she won the Nobel Prize? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- That could have been accomplished with a one-sentence update. If someone with a featured article dies, like say Buzz Aldrin, we don't want people adding five sentences just to warrant a blurb. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- We're not a news website. The entire purpose of ITN is to feature writing that is recently updated. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- That could have been accomplished with a one-sentence update. If someone with a featured article dies, like say Buzz Aldrin, we don't want people adding five sentences just to warrant a blurb. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- So you think we should have posted this article even if it hadn't been updated to note that she won the Nobel Prize? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Another stupid, pointless rule. Toss it out. There is no need for an article to be updated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support blurb Looks pretty good. One citation required left. @Trappist the monk: Can you tell me what the issue is with fn 19? It looks okay to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Is the help text linked from the error message insufficient? If so, what is not clear and why?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Ernaux's article is missing citations at several places. --Masem (t) 02:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality just needs citations on Eranux page and maybe some expansion in certain places. Maybe use 2022 Nobel Prize in Literature instead of Nobel Prize in Literature as it has other information not found on Eranux's page. echidnaLives (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ready to post with the laureate's name in bold in the blurb (I haven't even looked at the other article). I've gone through and referenced everything that needs a reference. This is based on the assumption that the section "Works" does not need referencing. Quite a bit of content has been posted since she was awarded the Nobel Prize, including about the prize itself and reactions to it. Schwede66 08:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ready to support The ISBN/source is missing for the last seven books included in the "Works" section. I'm concerned that we are falling behind in Nobel Prize nominations this year. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'd still like to see a general reference if not ISBN for those books, then ready to post. Tone 15:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support cited now. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Not overlong, but looks adequate. – Sca (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. Sandstein 17:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) Nong Bua Lamphu attack
Blurb: At least 36 people are killed during a mass shooting in Na Klang district, Thailand. ()
Alternative blurb: At least 36 people are killed in a mass shooting at a nursery in Nong Bua Lamphu Province, Thailand.
Alternative blurb II: At least 37 people are killed in a mass shooting at a nursery in northern Thailand.
Alternative blurb III: At least 37 people – including 24 young children – are killed in a mass shooting in northern Thailand.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Reuters, AlJazeera
Credits:
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · )
- Created by Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · )
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Last one happened in 2020 as it is rare. Article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support blurb Per nom. Article looks to be in good shape. aeromachinator (talk to me here) 09:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Currently still a stub, but I expect to support this as the article gets expanded. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support at a nursery, bloody hell. Juxlos (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support because it's easily notable enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The article is written as if the named suspect (not yet convicted from what we have in the article) did it; the attack section should be "The shooter did this" type language. --Masem (t) 12:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- There isn't any doubt as to who did it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Until that person's convicted, we assume innocent, per BLPCRIME. Yes, it seems unlikely anyone else could have done it, etc. but until the dust has settled, most such attack articles leave the identity of the shooter/attack vague until the conviction is secured. Masem (t) 12:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- They shot and killed themself, so there won't be any trials. —Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- "You can't libel the dead." -- Old saying in the news biz. -- Sca (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- You can libel the dead's family. They're a suspect during this period. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- "Police identified the suspect as 34-year-old former police officer Panya Kamrap." -- AP
- "Police named the attacker as Panya Kamrab." "Police say he ... killed himself and his family." -- BBC
- "The gunman [was] named as ... Panya Khamrab." — "... before killing himself and his family." -- AlJazeera
– Sca (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)- Identifying the suspect is different from reporting the crime using their name directly. Even in these suicide attacks we try to avoid naming the person in the description of events until an investigation is complete to assure that the suspect actually did it. Masem (t) 13:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- when the 2022 cetinje shooting was posted, it looked like this, and also named the only suspect as the perpetrator. i don't know how far into the suspect's family wp:suspect reaches, but the suspect also apparently killed his wife and children. dying (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't recall that at ITNC (not that it was here, just don't remember it) but I would have had the same issue there with thst, that until police close the investigation, the description of the event should not explicitly name the suspect. We can identify who the police have named, but avoid using that name is the breakdown of the event until police have settled that as fact with their invesyigation. Masem (t) 13:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- when the 2022 cetinje shooting was posted, it looked like this, and also named the only suspect as the perpetrator. i don't know how far into the suspect's family wp:suspect reaches, but the suspect also apparently killed his wife and children. dying (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Identifying the suspect is different from reporting the crime using their name directly. Even in these suicide attacks we try to avoid naming the person in the description of events until an investigation is complete to assure that the suspect actually did it. Masem (t) 13:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- You can libel the dead's family. They're a suspect during this period. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- "You can't libel the dead." -- Old saying in the news biz. -- Sca (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- They shot and killed themself, so there won't be any trials. —Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Until that person's convicted, we assume innocent, per BLPCRIME. Yes, it seems unlikely anyone else could have done it, etc. but until the dust has settled, most such attack articles leave the identity of the shooter/attack vague until the conviction is secured. Masem (t) 12:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- There isn't any doubt as to who did it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support ... pending development, cleanup of article. Significance dubious as it's another act of an apparent wacko, but the toll – 37, including 24 children – can't be ignored. Widely covered. Favor Alt2 or Alt3 because outside Thailand very few English-speakers will recognize the name of the province, either. — Sca (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support for reasons stated above. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Also, if the Robb Elementary School shooting stayed on ITN for days then there isn't a reason to exclude this one. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- That's a specious argument. The length of time any blurb spends on ITN is entirely a factor of other items being posted. It says nothing about the significance of the item itself. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Also, if the Robb Elementary School shooting stayed on ITN for days then there isn't a reason to exclude this one. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem. All of the articles cited appropriately use the "police claim" language, so we certainly do not want to put the BLP's guilt in Wikipedia's voice. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Horrific crime. Concerns over BLP don't appear to be a major issue as all of the local authorities are identifying the perpetrator without any qualification and the subject is deceased so there is no possibility of a trial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- BLP update I removed the person's name from the shooting description. He's identified in a later section, which resolve BLP concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Alt blurb comment Nursery is mentioned in most headlines. I've added a new alt blurb. Also the district seems too low of a level to be recognizable, even for most Thais. I'd suggest using the province.—Bagumba (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support alt Meets quality criteria. Various circumstances should (hopefully) avoid the usual shooting posting objections.—Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- support. deadliest mass shooting ever in thailand. article quality exceeds minimum requirements. would it make sense to mention that it largely occurred in a childcare center, or that the majority of those killed were children? the blurb for the giza church fire mentioned that it had spread to a nursery, and that it had killed 18 children. the altblurb partially addresses this, but is currently slightly inaccurate as he apparently drove home before killing his family. dying (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Lots of casualties, shocking event, this deserves mention.VR talk 14:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support and ready! Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Location in blurb Using "Northern Thailand" in the blurb seems dumbed down and comes off as a Western bias compared to our usual blurbs. Nong Bua Lamphu is in the article's current title, and provides a teaching moment to mention it in the blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Article looks ready and need not be expanded solely for the purpose of ITN. What a horrible event. I also would go with alternative blurb 1 as it is the most descriptive. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality and this awful event is clearly significant in ITN terms.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Posted alt1 with '37 deaths.' DatGuyTalkContribs 15:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment – The name of the province conveys nothing to most readers of English Wiki. Mentioning the child victims would be much more meaningful. Cf. AP headline: "37 dead, mostly preschoolers, in Thai day care rampage." Not suggesting we use such language as "rampage," only that we say something about the kids. – Sca (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not to harp on specificities here, but I think it's assumed that if the shooting were at a nursery, most victims would, unfortunately, be children. Perhaps Blurb #1 conveys both that children were the primary victims as well as where the province is for those who don't know much about Thailand or its provinces. For example, the recent ITN story about the stadium stampede in Indonesia was a learning moment for me to understand that Indonesia has provinces too. I absolutely see where you're coming from though. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support adding "mostly children"' or similar, but location doesn't require removal. —Bagumba (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
October 5
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
RD: Lenny Lipton
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
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: Wrote the poem Puff the Magic Dragon that was later adapted into the hit song. Was also a 3D Filmmaking Pioneer. Thriley (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Books list needs either a citation or an ISBN, otherwise this has appropriate depth and is referenced otherwise, conditional support. SpencerT•C 02:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Barbara Stamm
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Bavarian Parliament and many others
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · )
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: The "social conscience" of Bavaria, member of parliament from 1976 to 2018, its President (as the first woman in the position) from 2008 to 2018, also minister of health, help for children in Romania, support of University of Würzburg's health department, and many other function. Her article so far was a shame, and in a way still is, but I need a break. More could be found in some external links, and more organizations are commented out because I could not find a ref yet. —-Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support I read "Bavaria" as "Bolivia" and so was surprised to see a German politician. Looks to be sourced and in good shape to post, AGF on German language. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Raymond Allen (scriptwriter)
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): The Guardian; Radio Times; British Comedy Guide
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: First reported in a reliable source today (October 5); died on October 2. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article is in good shape. Looks ready to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Tommy Boggs
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): [16]
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.
– Muboshgu (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Another short and well-referenced article. Looks good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 05:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Nobel Prize in Chemistry
Blurb: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is awarded to Carolyn Bertozzi (pictured), Karl Barry Sharpless and Morten P. Meldal for their work on click chemistry and bioorthogonal chemistry. ()
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Alsoriano97 (talk · )
Article updated
One or both nominated events are 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: Meldal's article needs some work and there's an orange-tagged subsection in Bertozzi's. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support. But I suggest putting the image of Barry Sharpless, for now he is part of the select list of five individuals with two Nobel Prizes. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support, Article is fine for a Nobel prize winner, Alex-h (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose for now, Karl Barry Sharpless is almost good to go, there are just two easily fixable cn tags. Carolyn R. Bertozzi has more problems: several awards are uncited and so is a big chunk of the Personal life section. Morten P. Meldal has the biggest problems of the bunch: the entire achievements sections and almost the entire awards section is unsourced. Curbon7 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. @Masem: -- remind me, was it you who had helped create a composite image with all the prize winners combined into a single image the last time? If so, please can you do that this year as well? Ktin (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support I've boldly commented out paragraphs or whole article sections that were poorly cited or without any citations. That makes the Morten P. Meldal article look much more sparse but it's still a valid bio. I suggest that in their current form, the three articles make the cut. Schwede66 00:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Meldal's page still has lots of unsourced text. They all seem to only have one sentence updates, failing WP:ITNCRIT:
—Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable.
- Support We are almost a week after the fact, this is becoming embarrassing. Even if the individual pages just say "is a chemist", the names of the winners are still more than newsworthy. complainer 22:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
October 4
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: César Mascetti
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Buenos Aires Times; Página 12; Clarín
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) 06:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Shigeki Tanaka
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Yomiuri (in Japanese)
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (talk · )
- Updated by Normantas Bataitis (talk · )
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Japanese long-distance runner Dumelow (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Appears well-sourced; no issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 04:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Jerry Vainisi
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): [17]
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.
– Muboshgu (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support I've referenced the only unsourced part. Good to go now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Joan Hotchkis
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Variety; The Hollywood Reporter; Deadline Hollywood
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: First reported in a reliable source today (October 4); died on September 27. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article is in good shape for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Aaron Judge's 62nd Home Run
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: Aaron Judge hits his 62nd home run of the season breaking Roger Maris's record, set in 1961, of 61 home runs for most hit in a single American League season. ()
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:
- Nominated by TartarTorte (talk · )
- Created by Yankees10 (talk · )
- Oppose Look, I'm a huge baseball fan, and a Yankees fan. Even though Judge is my favorite player since Jeter, I can't support this. The MLB record is 73, set by Barry Bonds. As much as we might like to overlook the steroid champion, we can't. Great for Judge, bad for the Yankees if he signs elsewhere as a free agent. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Confused What, exactly, has been achieved here? The article linked is behind a paywall or wants me to sign up, so I looked elsewhere and found this. It shows this achievement at seventh place among the MLB all-time single-season home run list. Do American League players not hit as many home runs? (SIGNED: A non-American interested in baseball.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- There were some records for single-season home run leader, then Babe Ruth came and broke them all. His personal best was 60 in the 1927 season. Then, Roger Maris hit 61 in 1961. Those were both in the American League. Then, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa both broke Maris' record in 1998 while playing in the National League. And Barry Bonds also surpassed it. The issue at play, and the only reason we're talking about the "American League record", is because McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs. So, many don't see their records as "genuine", and are putting Judge's accomplishment this season ahead of the steroided seasons. But, MLB still recognizes 73 as the single-season home run record for MLB. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll think about this. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Roger Maris Jr. has been pushing the idea that his father is still the "legit" record holder. Surely he's biased. I am so, so biased in favor of Judge and the Yankees myself, and Judge is having an amazing season. But, Bonds is still the record holder. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll think about this. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is one of the biggest records in baseball. The 3 guys you saw were all in peak steroid era (1998-2001, though the steroid era extended deeper into the 90s and 2000s then they started drug testing). The American League actually has slightly more home runs but by luck the 3 highest dopers were in the other sub-league of the top league. Unlike the Olympics major league baseball doesn't revoke accomplishments for cheating (the Houston team literally won the yearly world championship while cheating a few years ago and was punished but they didn't revoke their win). In cricket terms a home run is a six (each bounce boundary only causes a bit under 1 run on average, a bigger dropoff than 6 vs 4 in cricket) but there's only c. 1 home run per game per team on average and they cause 1.something (1.7-1.8 I think) out of 4.3 runs per game per team on average so they're actually rarer than soccer World Cup goals and about as valuable. In baseball you can fail to score even if you safely run 90 yards before fielders can get the ball to you, but just hit it over the boundary (300 to 400 feet away) and your team's guaranteed 1-4 runs (4 if you have 3 "batting partners"). Average c. 27 wickets and 140 deliveries per team in a Twenty20-length game and only 1 homer and 4-5 runs. 5 in the steroid and human growth hormone era. The recordholder literally injected etc so much of those drugs his skull visibly grew and he set it pimply-backed and muscular like a Greek god at age 36 after being skinny as a young man. Our roided up role models also got the side effect of small testicles and low ball testosterone, higher body fat, heart risk etc. Some of this damage is permanent. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- The National League was always better at small ball. Levivich (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- There were some records for single-season home run leader, then Babe Ruth came and broke them all. His personal best was 60 in the 1927 season. Then, Roger Maris hit 61 in 1961. Those were both in the American League. Then, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa both broke Maris' record in 1998 while playing in the National League. And Barry Bonds also surpassed it. The issue at play, and the only reason we're talking about the "American League record", is because McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs. So, many don't see their records as "genuine", and are putting Judge's accomplishment this season ahead of the steroided seasons. But, MLB still recognizes 73 as the single-season home run record for MLB. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, regrettably. Many people regard this as the real record, but sadly it is only officially the AL record. IMO AL/NL records are not ITN worthy (and very possibly not MLB records as a whole, but that may be a topic for another day). DarkSide830 (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose As pointed out, this is not the MLB record, just the AL record. --Masem (t) 02:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose This is literally inside baseball. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
RD: Loretta Lynn
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): NYTimes, AP, BBC, France24, Stereogum
Credits:
- Nominated by ElijahPepe (talk · )
- Updated by Thriley (talk · )
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.
elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support blurb when ready. Being the most awarded female country artist in history and the article calling out "her groundbreaking role" certainly lean Lynn being transformative in her field. rawmustard (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment just don't forget to evaluate the quality of the article. I remain neutral on blurb, because country music is a genre that generally has popularity in a very specific country, so we are hardly in front of a singer massively popular worldwide. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Lots of sections without sources. Needs a lot of work just to get to RD. Not against a urb, but the quality isn't yet there for it. --Masem (t) 16:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not Ready for the usual reason. Will likely support a blurb if the article can be brought up to scratch. Subject was a titan in the country music genre. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb I don’t agree that she was so influential in the history of country music. A great singer yes, but no contribution at all in popularising country music worldwide, which is what would make her transformative. She was definitely not of the same stature as Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Kenny Rogers or Dolly Parton.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- If that's that's the company we're talking about, Rolling Stone [18] ranked them: 49.Rogers, 8.Parton, 6.Nelson, 4.Lynn, 3.Cash. Wide Open Country has Lynn, Cash, Parton, & Nelson among the 30 greatest. Bilboard [19] has 25.Rogers, 9.Lynn 5.Parton, 3.Nelson, 2.Cash GreatCaesarsGhost 19:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t say it. I’d rather argue that Hank Williams was perhaps the most influential country singer of all time but can’t include him because he died literally before all these four began their careers. Cash made a global tour to popularise country, Rogers and Parton did popularise it through their crossover music, but Lynn did not succeed in popularising it in any way. Country isn’t a mainstream music genre worldwide so that we can post a blurb for many singers. There must be something else other than a good voice that makes someone transformative.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- You are welcome to whatever criteria you'd like to apply, but "transformative" was removed from the criteria for death blurbs some time ago. [20]GreatCaesarsGhost 20:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t say it. I’d rather argue that Hank Williams was perhaps the most influential country singer of all time but can’t include him because he died literally before all these four began their careers. Cash made a global tour to popularise country, Rogers and Parton did popularise it through their crossover music, but Lynn did not succeed in popularising it in any way. Country isn’t a mainstream music genre worldwide so that we can post a blurb for many singers. There must be something else other than a good voice that makes someone transformative.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- If that's that's the company we're talking about, Rolling Stone [18] ranked them: 49.Rogers, 8.Parton, 6.Nelson, 4.Lynn, 3.Cash. Wide Open Country has Lynn, Cash, Parton, & Nelson among the 30 greatest. Bilboard [19] has 25.Rogers, 9.Lynn 5.Parton, 3.Nelson, 2.Cash GreatCaesarsGhost 19:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Blurb subject to sourcing being fixed - perhaps as she was considered old style country rather than the crossover style she didn't appeal to that mass market like Dolly or Kenny, but a huge star and one of the most important country music figures nonetheless. RIP Josey Wales Parley 19:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – Longtime household name among fans of U.S. country music. Widely covered. – Sca (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support more than enough evidence for her to be considered a noteworthy death per above. She may not have crossed over, but the evidence is overwhelming that she was iconic within the genre. If Jeff Carson can be on the front page, so can she.
- Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Jeff Carson was posted to RD only. We’re discussing whether Lynn should get a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose It doesn't matter how important she was when the article is at least 50 citations short of being suitable for the Main Page. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support RD. Article is a long way away, but remember that this woman wrote most of her own material. RIP. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose ...until a lot more citations are found for the article. It is hopelessly under-sourced. And I can't see why a blurb is needed here. There is nothing blurbworthy about her death. She was obviously well known in her country, but I haven't seen blurbs for performers equally well known in other countries. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality. Per HiLo48, Black Kite, et al. I also notice that the article is orange-tagged at the top saying it has “Multiple Issues,” which is usually not the best of signs when it comes to article quality. 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:B043:B00D:FAA5:596E (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Way short on references. (Also oppose a blurb, if it ever gets that far.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- • Support She’s way too influential to be ignored. The quality of the article is fine, but I understand we’re picky. Just a shame such a titan is being ignored… Donignacio (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Donignacio, this is a long section for someone who is allegedly being "ignored". Help us fix the article and it'll be posted sooner. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion on the “nomination” page is not what I meant. The article itself appears in my estimation to be comprehensive, but I’m not picky. At this point, the time has passed, I’m afraid. I just wonder if there’s other motives at play. Donignacio (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Articles that are boldly linked on the main page need to be of high quality to represent WP's best work. Her article may be comprehensive, but its sourcing is presently shoddy and not representative of WP's best. That needs to be fixed before it can be posted. Masem (t) 12:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Why the heck do people expect items to be posted in less than 24 hours? We've had anomalies of items that get posted even faster than that, sure, but it's not the norm around here. I'll never believe that it is. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Just because you don't know how things work at ITN/C does not excuse the lack of good faith you are presuming with that
other motives
crack. Our motive is posting sourced content. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)- I’m making an observation that, in my opinion, there is an injustice. An opportunity to highlight a transformative female figure lost. But sure, I’ll make it my personal mission to improve Loretta Lynn’s Wikipedia article. Donignacio (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- That thing you just sarcastically dismissed- making it your personal mission to improve articles- is our entire purpose in being here. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- I was being serious. I just can’t improve the article at this particular moment. If I wanted to get sarcastic, I’d have brought up all the cricket players who show up on the front page. Donignacio (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- That thing you just sarcastically dismissed- making it your personal mission to improve articles- is our entire purpose in being here. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- I’m making an observation that, in my opinion, there is an injustice. An opportunity to highlight a transformative female figure lost. But sure, I’ll make it my personal mission to improve Loretta Lynn’s Wikipedia article. Donignacio (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion on the “nomination” page is not what I meant. The article itself appears in my estimation to be comprehensive, but I’m not picky. At this point, the time has passed, I’m afraid. I just wonder if there’s other motives at play. Donignacio (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Donignacio, this is a long section for someone who is allegedly being "ignored". Help us fix the article and it'll be posted sooner. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb, RD blurbs should be reserved for cases where sourcing could support a separate article on the death and funeral of the person. This occurs quite often, and is an indicator of how important the person was in the real world, instead of in the minds of those debating here. Abductive (reasoning) 06:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb American country music fans is a pretty niche demographic, kinda like French hip hop fans or something. Not known widely enough for a blurb imo. AryKun (talk)
- Incredible though it may seem to some of us, there are fans of 'American' country music outside the U.S. – Sca (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, Garth Brooks last month sold out an 80,000 capacity stadium in Dublin, Ireland on each of the 5 nights he performed Josey Wales Parley 21:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- As did Michael Bublé and Robbie Williams, who are way more famous. I may enjoy a night in with a Bollywood film, a souvlaki take away, and a game of mahjong, but just as enjoying those things do not make those things any less Indian, Greek and Chinese respectively, neither does the fact people may enjoy country music outside the US make it any less American. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- There are indeed also French hip hop fans outside of the francophone world. Though I would very much love to blurb top-of-their-field people in niche genres, we'll also get Dolly Parton and Bob Dylan as US country blurbs in the future. US country is represented just fine, and Lynn isn't quite up there. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Never mind French hip-hop, we didn't even consider blurbing recently deceased American world hip-hop star Coolio! Abcmaxx (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- I can imagine a few world-famous American hip-hop stars we will certainly blurb when the time comes! Hopefully this won't be for a long time, however, as they're all still quite young ^_^ ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- He was 59. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I can imagine a few world-famous American hip-hop stars we will certainly blurb when the time comes! Hopefully this won't be for a long time, however, as they're all still quite young ^_^ ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Never mind French hip-hop, we didn't even consider blurbing recently deceased American world hip-hop star Coolio! Abcmaxx (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- There are indeed also French hip hop fans outside of the francophone world. Though I would very much love to blurb top-of-their-field people in niche genres, we'll also get Dolly Parton and Bob Dylan as US country blurbs in the future. US country is represented just fine, and Lynn isn't quite up there. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- As did Michael Bublé and Robbie Williams, who are way more famous. I may enjoy a night in with a Bollywood film, a souvlaki take away, and a game of mahjong, but just as enjoying those things do not make those things any less Indian, Greek and Chinese respectively, neither does the fact people may enjoy country music outside the US make it any less American. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, Garth Brooks last month sold out an 80,000 capacity stadium in Dublin, Ireland on each of the 5 nights he performed Josey Wales Parley 21:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Incredible though it may seem to some of us, there are fans of 'American' country music outside the U.S. – Sca (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb It's very US-centric fame and a niche music genre. She may be well known in the US and among fans of country music, but absolutely anonymous outside of that. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Discography is now cited. Thriley (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support RD now. I would ask for what value of X in "Xth best country singer alive" or "Xth best country singer of all time" a blurb is justified. Clearly we're already in a niche genre, so I'm going to say 1st & 5th respectively, and she is not there. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support blurb Subject to the article referencing being fixed up. Loretta Lynn's fame transcends country music - way more famous than the other people who have been mentioned here except Hank Williams (and would not be their opinion if you asked them). She is an important historical figure associated with the women's movement of the 1970s, through singing about topics previously considered taboo, such as birth control, domestic violence and double standards. Sissy Spacek won the Oscar for portraying her in the movie Coal Miner's Daughter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Way more famous than the likes of Johnny Cash and Dolly Parton? I don't think that's likely. Humbledaisy (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Dolly Parton would not agree. Jack White from The White Stripes called her both a "mother figure" and "the greatest female singer-songwriter of the 20th century". "She was such an incredible presence and such a brilliant genius in ways that I think only people who got to work with her might know about. What she did for feminism, women's rights in a time period, in a genre of music that was the hardest to do it in, is just outstanding and will live on for a long time." [21] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Aye, in ways that I think only people who got to work with her might know about. I think a lot of us have lost a co-worker like that, maybe several, great people once you get to know them. As a mainstream music fan who also knows a thing or two about American pop culture until 2006, I'm almost certain Dolly Parton is the female country star. Then there's Shania, Reba and Faith. Loretta's not chopped liver, but neither are Leann, Tanya and Wynonna. Photo RD, when ready, if ever. No blurb for Jack White, either, whenever. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- important historical figure associated with the women's movement of the 1970s - maybe in US and on the country music scene but certainly not beyond it, and I cannot see any mention of her in the Second-wave feminism article. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Aye, in ways that I think only people who got to work with her might know about. I think a lot of us have lost a co-worker like that, maybe several, great people once you get to know them. As a mainstream music fan who also knows a thing or two about American pop culture until 2006, I'm almost certain Dolly Parton is the female country star. Then there's Shania, Reba and Faith. Loretta's not chopped liver, but neither are Leann, Tanya and Wynonna. Photo RD, when ready, if ever. No blurb for Jack White, either, whenever. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Dolly Parton would not agree. Jack White from The White Stripes called her both a "mother figure" and "the greatest female singer-songwriter of the 20th century". "She was such an incredible presence and such a brilliant genius in ways that I think only people who got to work with her might know about. What she did for feminism, women's rights in a time period, in a genre of music that was the hardest to do it in, is just outstanding and will live on for a long time." [21] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Way more famous than the likes of Johnny Cash and Dolly Parton? I don't think that's likely. Humbledaisy (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb – Adding a clearer !vote for the closing admin. I believe US country will be well-represented over time, and Loretta Lynn is just not quite up there. If this were a GA I might've swayed in favor, but all these one-sentence paragraphs just aren't great featuring material anyway. Article doesn't seem quite ready yet for RD either; I hope those citation-neededs will be fixed soon! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose RD on quality Many outstanding Cn tags.—Bagumba (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment I have taken care of most of the cn tags. There are a few more to go. Any help would be appreciated. It would be a real shame if this didn’t make it to RD. Thriley (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Nobel Prize in Physics
Blurb: The Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded to Alain Aspect (pictured), John Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger for their work in quantum mechanics. ()
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:
Article updated
One or both nominated events are 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: Aspect's article is ready to go. Clauser and Zeilinger are about 75% there in terms of sourcing. Masem (t) 12:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Looks good to me(also this is my first time voting, so please tell me if I'm doing anything wrong) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- This comment is totally fine, PrecariousWorlds, and I'm sure everyone here will be happy to have another voice in the discussions here. The three articles indeed look quite decent so this will probably be ready to get featured on ITN in the near future. I'm personally going to wait with my !vote until John Clauser's article is expanded a bit more tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! I hope I can be of help to this project. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- This comment is totally fine, PrecariousWorlds, and I'm sure everyone here will be happy to have another voice in the discussions here. The three articles indeed look quite decent so this will probably be ready to get featured on ITN in the near future. I'm personally going to wait with my !vote until John Clauser's article is expanded a bit more tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support... although Alain Aspect's article has a missing reference ([10]); there needs to be more references of Clauser's article (there's only two, and his entire biographical section only relies on a single source, not enough); at a glance, there are no issues for Zellinger's article. Been some time I made a nomination, hope my viewpoints arent rusty. Cheers, gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- In Zeilinger's article, the awards section is largely unreferenced, this needs fixing before we can post. Tone 14:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Your right. Over 20 awards, and none of them cited. Cheers, gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Are you sure we need to fix this before posting? The news might get stale in the meantime. It happened last year ! Why not just remove the unsourced information and post the news? Varoon2542 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- In Zeilinger's article, the awards section is largely unreferenced, this needs fixing before we can post. Tone 14:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Can someone with the ability try to create a composite image that combines the three awardees into a single picture? Is combining three images a tad difficult? Tagging Masem who iirc has created composite images in the past. Ktin (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support, Nobel prize is a major event and comes in ITN. Alex-h (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not ready I've orange-tagged the articles because they still don't meet the quality requirements as the CN tags they've have not been fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose for now: Alain Aspect has a few inline cn tags that should be easily fixable, but also the entire Awards section is completely unsourced. A big paragraph in John Clauser is also unsourced. Anton Zeilinger is almost catastrophically unsourced: there are around a dozen-and-a-half cn tags, and a huge portion of the Awards section is unsourced.
- Not ready I've boldly commented out uncited sections and two of the bios are ready, but Anton Zeilinger is a show-stopper. Schwede66 00:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but this is getting a bit urgent. Last year, one nobel prize win in science was not posted for similar reasons. Quite shameful. Can't the uncited sections be removed and the blurb published? Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Varoon2542 There are 28 citation needed tags and not everything that is uncited is tagged. So no, this isn't remotely ready and if you removed everything that's uncited, there would not be much left. Major exercise required to fix this. You are welcome to have a go at this, though. Schwede66 06:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I do get your point. I can't have a go at it, I'm not that good. Well, we are moving forward to another year when a Nobel Prize in Science won't be featured on the main page. By the time the article is up to standards, the news will be stale. I remember a time when many complained that there weren't enough editors for sociology articles on wikipedia. Apparently, we don't have enough persons for science articles now. So much so for an universal encyclopaedia. Varoon2542 (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Varoon2542 There are 28 citation needed tags and not everything that is uncited is tagged. So no, this isn't remotely ready and if you removed everything that's uncited, there would not be much left. Major exercise required to fix this. You are welcome to have a go at this, though. Schwede66 06:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but this is getting a bit urgent. Last year, one nobel prize win in science was not posted for similar reasons. Quite shameful. Can't the uncited sections be removed and the blurb published? Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose All currently fail WP:ITNCRIT with only one-line updates to the pages:
—Bagumba (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable.
- Again, what else can you say about winning the Nobel beyond a sentence or two? Common sense has to apply here. Masem (t) 15:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- 2/3 articles are fine. Zeilinger's is still heavily tagged with cn on sections other than Nobel Prize. Tone 15:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- An extra sentence of two—beyond a press release direct quote—on why they won, that is also semi-accessible to a layman. —Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Again, what else can you say about winning the Nobel beyond a sentence or two? Common sense has to apply here. Masem (t) 15:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support We are almost a week after the fact, this is becoming embarrassing. Even if the individual pages just say "is a physicist", the names of the winners are still more than newsworthy. complainer 22:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com]
rather than using <ref></ref>
tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref>
tags are being used, here are their contents: