2600:8802:2718:6700:9f35:65c0:d934:6dc9 (talk) |
|||
Line 259: | Line 259: | ||
*Consensus? Where??? [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 18:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC) |
*Consensus? Where??? [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 18:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:{{up-arrow}}. Consensus does not require unanimity. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 19:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC) |
*:{{up-arrow}}. Consensus does not require unanimity. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 19:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:The tally is 23-10 (give or take) in favor of posting the story, with most of the "yes" votes coming within the past day or so, so a consensus to post has clearly developed. Just because you have a hatred for all news relating to America (as demonstrated by your past behavior on similar stories) doesn't mean you can unilaterally demand a story should be pulled when the community states otherwise. [[Special:Contributions/2600:8802:2718:6700:9F35:65C0:D934:6DC9|2600:8802:2718:6700:9F35:65C0:D934:6DC9]] ([[User talk:2600:8802:2718:6700:9F35:65C0:D934:6DC9|talk]]) 19:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== February 2 == |
== February 2 == |
Revision as of 19:30, 5 February 2023
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
February 5
(Posted RD, blurb discussion ongoing) RD/Blurb:Pervez Musharraf
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf (pictured) dies at the age of 79. ()
News source(s): Reuters, BBC, NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by The Bestagon (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.
The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 07:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support blurb -- given that he was instrumental in effecting the coup. --RockstoneSend me a message! 07:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support blurb - Article in good shape, although some of the tenses still need to be sorted, but that shouldn’t hold anything up. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I think we need to figure this out. Are deaths of former heads of state ITN/R? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- We had this same discussion when Constantine II died, and I don't think we reached a consensus PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Add exile in Dubai to the blurb? Only a suggestion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- RD no blurb A routine death with no special features or update which therefore belongs at RD. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Last living military head of state of the 5th most populous country. Joofjoof (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Old Man Dies of same thing at same age as Antonio Inoki, but without changing the game. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- I was unaware that Inoki had become president of Japan through a coup d'état and was subsequently sentenced to death for treason. How could I not know that! _-_Alsor (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Inoki did things his peers didn't and his industry hadn't. Set new records, affecting the way wrestling is done and MMA is promoted. That's way better than becoming another famous criminal, in my eyes. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, should have told Jon Stewart before the show. Joofjoof (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Inoki did things his peers didn't and his industry hadn't. Set new records, affecting the way wrestling is done and MMA is promoted. That's way better than becoming another famous criminal, in my eyes. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- The article is in a great shape, I am posting RD for the time being. Blurb discussion can continue, I see good reasons for posting. --Tone 12:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Where? In this nom, you see one reason for posting, good or bad. Rockstone said he was instrumental in the coup. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb I'm not seeing any clear indicator in the article to speak of his legacy or impact, nor can read that from the information given - his period of leadership had a lot of turmoil but that doesn't equate to being a major world figure or the like --Masem (t) 14:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support blurb Sui generis major figure. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support Blurb One of the more significant leaders of his country and in the region more broadly. Prominet on the world stage. Article is in good shape for a pleasant change. Referencing is solid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support Blurb, Article is good enough, He was one famous figure in the region. Alex-h (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support Long term dictator, initiated a war with high nuclear tentions, a coup which started his reign of about a decade only ending with the assassination of the first woman prime minsiter of a Muslim country, was sentenced to death (which we did post), but was overturned. All of these are blurbable events, his death naturally should follow. Gotitbro (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
February 4
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
|
RD: Vani Jairam
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Rediff, The Times of India
Credits:
- Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (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: Noted Singer Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Many whole paragraphs and sections of the article (as well as most of the awards) are unsourced and it appears to be written in a very hagiographic manner. Black Kite (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
RD: Sherif Ismail
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): SCMP, MSN
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former Egyptian prime minister. - Indefensible (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support - looks good. Well cited. Crusader1096 (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I think a little more about his political career can be explained. He was for almost three years PM at a turbulent time in the country's recent history. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
São Paulo scuttled
Blurb: The Brazilian aircraft carrier São Paulo is scuttled in the Atlantic after ports refused to accept the hazard of scrapping it ()
News source(s): CBC; Reuters; Al Jazeera; Guardian; NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · )
- Updated by FelipeFritschF (talk · )
Article updated
Nominator's comments: The sinking of a capital ship of 32,000 tons is significant and the pollution aspect adds to this. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support - ITN worth, plus we posted the sinking of the HTMS Sukhothai a month and a half ago. Crusader1096 (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- We posted Sukhothai due to the death toll, no one died here, just a routine decomissioning of a ship. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- This wasn't routine. It was towed around at sea for months, desperately trying to find a scrapyard that would take it. The scuttling was then a last resort to avoid it sinking in an even worse place. The prolonged agony was in the news and now we have the climax. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- We posted Sukhothai due to the death toll, no one died here, just a routine decomissioning of a ship. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - Ship decomissioned, not really a big deal. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- I really want you to explain why this is significant, because I'm just not seeing it.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support Capital ships sinking, whether planned or unplanned, isn’t something that happens often. The Kip (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Insignificant. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Intentional sinking of a decommissioned ship with very little impact. If the ports actually accepted it and it got scrapped like intended this most likely wouldn't have been nominated for ITN. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Supportthat they try to get rid of a toxic issue by dumping it into the nature where it doesn't bother humans is ITN worthyParadise Chronicle (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose it was already in the works to be scuttled when it was pulled out from port and forced these steps. This tends to happen to all large ships. --Masem (t) 14:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support The noteworthy part is the fact that numerous governments refused to let it dock under pressure from environmental groups, and as a result the Brazilian navy is scuttling the ship despite the presence of substantial toxic materials aboard. The involvement and interface of multiple governments and internationally recognized environmental groups in itself makes this signigicant. The media coverage around this has been extensive and highlights Brazil's failed attempt to recycle the ship sustainably. The noteworthiness argument here isn't about being a planned vs unplanned decommissioning, its about the months long process that @Andrew: mentioned, and the ultimate outcome, which could set a precedent for other ships and the handling of toxic vessels in the South Asian sea. Schwinnspeed (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- It should be pointed out that the reason action was taken is that the last inspection of the hull found holes that were beyond the state of repairs that the ship was going to go down soon, so that forced the end of the process here, (they didn't want it sinking in any port) it was not like they legally exhausted all options, etc. So it would not really be fair to call this a groundsetting outcome. --Masem (t) 16:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Multiple sources state that there is no explanation why the navy did not take the ship back, and its condition deteriorated further as the ship circled as a result. There is media coverage [1] [2] around the argument from environmental groups that Brazil violated international convention. The notability here is in the process itself not the ultimate outcome Schwinnspeed (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- It should be pointed out that the reason action was taken is that the last inspection of the hull found holes that were beyond the state of repairs that the ship was going to go down soon, so that forced the end of the process here, (they didn't want it sinking in any port) it was not like they legally exhausted all options, etc. So it would not really be fair to call this a groundsetting outcome. --Masem (t) 16:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per PrecariousWorlds. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
(Closed as duplicate; see below) 2023 China balloon incident
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: The Pentagon (pictured) alleges that two Chinese surveillance balloons have violated the airspace of the United States, Canada and countries in Latin America. ()
February 3
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
RD: Paco Rabanne
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Mooonswimmer (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: Article needs some cleanup and sourcing work Mooonswimmer 20:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Almost Well-cited and holistic enough for our purposes. There is only one outstanding CN tag in the Eccentricities section; once that is rectified, consider this a support. Curbon7 (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support looks enough for me. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment There's an outstanding tag about the lead's length.—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) The balloons go up
Blurb: A suspicious balloon is tracked across North America ()
Alternative blurb: A suspicious Chinese balloon is tracked across North America and a second balloon is detected in South America
Alternative blurb II: The Pentagon alleges that two Chinese surveillance balloons have violated the airspace of the United States, Canada and countries in Latin America.
Alternative blurb III: A suspected Chinese spy balloon that was flying across Canada and the United States is shot down by US aircraft
Alternative blurb IV: A balloon originating from China suspected of surveillance and espionage is shot down over the coast of South Carolina, causing a diplomatic crisis.
Alternative blurb V: A Chinese surveillance balloon is shot down after overflying Canada and the United States.
News source(s): BBC; CNN; NYT;
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · )
- Created by No Swan So Fine (talk · )
Article updated
Nominator's comments: We like shooting things down but President Biden has been advised not to do this. No-one is quite sure what it is so possibilities include arson, intelligence; invasion; research; rover, weather and more. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Weak support - Mainly supporting this due to the extensive news coverage it has been getting, but at the same time I do think a lot of this has been sensationalised, and I have a feeling this will have no significant impact, and everyone will forget about it in a week's time. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Altblurb II seems to be the most well-written. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support: This is a major diplomatic incident in geopolitics as China and the United States are one of the most powerful countries in the world and any incursion by one onto the other's territory is ITN. If we add Chinese incursions into Kashmir to ITN, we should add this as well. I also support a mix of Altblurbs II and III. Djprasadian (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support It’s been shot down, there’s 2, the Chinese government is denying it which usually means that they did do it and are hiding it. Vriend1917 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support What are we waiting for? This is dominating the headlines everywhere, it's better that we post this global ongoing event instead of waiting around for nothing. Evan224 (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment you guys need to figure this out soon. 🍁🏳️🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️🌈 🍁 (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Unsure about the article yet, I think it will need a bit more work before it's ready. The image doesn't seem appropriate at all: an image of a balloon of the same design might be acceptable, but a WWII Japanese balloon does not work for us here. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- The image (right) is mainly a placeholder as I expect we'll get a free image as and when it gets near a Wikipedian. But also, as an encyclopedia, we have lots of material about historical precedents and it's good to air it on such occasions. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I love that argument and I agree that it would be great. I am worried about lots of implications in comparing this incident with Emperial Japan sending a balloon to the US in the middle of a war. We shouldn't suggest the two incidents are equivalent, I believe. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- It appears that China and the US are engaged in a Second Cold War. See also Chinese espionage in the United States. This also reminds me of the 1960 U-2 incident and it's conceivable that it could have come from Russia. It will be interesting to see if it's captured... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- A cold war is not comparable to a war with a lot of active fighting. This doesn't at all diminish the notability of an incident like this, but comparing espionage with direct attacks can create undue fear. This balloon is not going to drop bombs. The U2 incident might be a better comparison, but that would feel like an even odder image to include. Unless we had a tradition of linking news items back to past events, which would've been nice maybe... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- It appears that the US is working on its own balloons too. Apparently these are to counter hypersonic weapons -- who knew? The plot thickens... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that everyone should come together with these balloons and throw a party PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- It appears that the US is working on its own balloons too. Apparently these are to counter hypersonic weapons -- who knew? The plot thickens... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- And it's interesting to read that "Back then, Eisenhower tried to minimize it at first, ordering the NASA press office, stunningly, to say the U-2 had been conducting “weather research,” and that Powers might just have strayed a trifle off course and wandered over top-secret Soviet military facilities..." History repeats! Andrew🐉(talk) 17:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- This is only barely comparable to the U-2 incident and it’s silly to argue that comparison. A spy plane pilot getting shot down and held as a POW is worlds apart from a spy balloon being spotted.
- If anything, this is just a slightly escalated version of an average spy satellite. The Kip (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- A cold war is not comparable to a war with a lot of active fighting. This doesn't at all diminish the notability of an incident like this, but comparing espionage with direct attacks can create undue fear. This balloon is not going to drop bombs. The U2 incident might be a better comparison, but that would feel like an even odder image to include. Unless we had a tradition of linking news items back to past events, which would've been nice maybe... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Wait
-- unless this actually develops into something, I don't think this is (yet) appropriate for ITN. --RockstoneSend me a message! 10:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC) - Oppose for now it’s anecdotal and, as you well know Andrew, this kind of things are not ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's currently the top read story on the BBC and is apparently all over Chinese social media too. For a European connection which you may appreciate see a favourite song of mine: "The President is on the line..." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Of course this is a newspaper. The offical signaling from the Pentagon makes it clear this is sn important story. I do think we need a closer awareness of journalistic practice on Wikipedia. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's not WP:NOTNP. Btw, the Department of Defense statement reads: "Ryder said the balloon is well above commercial air traffic and doesn't pose a threat to civil aviation. He also said this isn't the first time such a balloon has been seen over the United States", and "Currently, we assess that this balloon has limited additive value from an intelligence collective collection perspective," the official said. "But we are taking steps, nevertheless, to protect against foreign intelligence collection of sensitive information."
- Another case of American overdramatization for everything. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support - official signaling from the Pentagon is probably indicative of this story's noteworthiness. Crusader1096 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Additionally, it has been confirmed that the Biden administration is moving to down the balloon. Crusader1096 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Update: plane was shot down by US aircraft. @Rockstone35 @Alsoriano97 @Modest Genius @Thebiguglyalien @Vriend1917 @Jayron32 @Editor 5426387 @GenevieveDEon @WaltCip @Rsrikanth05 @Masem @The Kip y'all may want to reconsider. Crusader1096 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- so…? _-_Alsor (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- The the highly publicized downing of a balloon, regardless if it was Chinese or not, under a coordinated military operation is unprecedented and I firmly believe that arguing that that this isn't newsworthy is rather foolish. Crusader1096 (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- If a war breaks out, perhaps then. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Is that the threshold for posting to ITN now? [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 13:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- I never said that but this isn't a U-2 being shot down is it? -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Is that the threshold for posting to ITN now? [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 13:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Disappointed I wasn't @'ed
- Regardless, there's still a balloon over South America, and the diplomatic crisis isn't over. But yeah this does start to hurt the notability, we better reach a consensus quick before the story becomes stale. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- • Still Oppose - even if it got shot down, the news is not ITN-worthy unless something MAJOR results, like a war, per above. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- so…? _-_Alsor (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Update: plane was shot down by US aircraft. @Rockstone35 @Alsoriano97 @Modest Genius @Thebiguglyalien @Vriend1917 @Jayron32 @Editor 5426387 @GenevieveDEon @WaltCip @Rsrikanth05 @Masem @The Kip y'all may want to reconsider. Crusader1096 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Additionally, it has been confirmed that the Biden administration is moving to down the balloon. Crusader1096 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. Currently this is just an accusation. No-one has demonstrated that the balloon is Chinese or has any nefarious purpose. Even if they did, it will need to spark a major diplomatic incident to justify posting in ITN. I'm willing to reconsider if this starts having major impacts. Modest Genius talk 12:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Doesn't seem to have any significance at this time. A country detecting the spycraft of another country happens every once in a while, nothing ever comes of it. Even then, I strongly oppose the use of an unrelated image. Might as well use File:Birthday balloons.jpg. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)- Striking my !vote as the story develops. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Wait This story has to develop, its not appropriate for posting, nor closing yet. Vriend1917 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
*Oppose The story is "An balloon of unknown origin is being tracked". The article text says the same thing, but with a lot more words. There's not enough about this story to support a blurb if we don't have anything worthwhile to say. --Jayron32 14:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - per above, and, unless sit actually develops into anything major, the news is not ITN-worthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)]"
- Oppose - This is currently a curiosity, rather than a major incident. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose and close - NYT announced over the wire that China claims it's a civilian balloon. Since it wasn't shot down and there's no contrary evidence, there's nothing left to analyzed. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- It was shot down and we should also take whatever the Chinese government says with a grain of salt. Djprasadian (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- At the time I had !voted, it had not been shot down. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 00:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- It was shot down and we should also take whatever the Chinese government says with a grain of salt. Djprasadian (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Update Checking after a day, I see that it's the top 4 headlines at the NYT starting with "Furor Over Chinese Spy Balloon Leads to a Diplomatic Crisis". And the latest news is that "Diplomatic row between China and US escalates as Pentagon says second 'spy balloon' being tracked". This escalation requires further consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support Everybody loves balloons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Has resulted in the cancellation of Blinken's trip to China, increasing tensions between the two powers. BilledMammal (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support. per Hawkeye7. Alexcalamaro (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't really seem very significant. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Wait until something actually happens. If the balloon is confirmed to be for surveillance purposes, this is a reminder that countries spying on each other is not uncommon, especially between rivals like China and America. If China turns out to be right here and the balloon is not for spying, then yeah... there's no reason to explain why that would not be posted. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 14:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Wait till Monday Now South America has one, too. That needs more weight. A little more Canadian content wouldn't hurt, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose This is the media and politics making a mountain out of a mole hill. This is why we do not follow what the news considered to be most important and instead look for encyclopedic value. --Masem (t) 15:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly.... _-_Alsor (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, it's clear that high levels of multiple governments are concerned by this situation. Let's at least have a little humility: none of us here knows how this story is going to develop. Sometimes these weird little moments do escalate and end up in the history books. The prudent decision for ITN is to wait. Zagalejo (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- The tension between China and the USA also "escalated a lot" with Pelosi's visit to Taiwan and ended in nothing. American noise. And that doesn't make it ITN-worhty. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- It definitely did not end in nothing as you claim. Multiple important lines of communications between America and China were severed after the visit (as far as i know they haven't been restored yet) and it led to an overall deterioration in the relationship which you could argue directly engendered this balloon incident. And this isn't even counting the other consequences of the visit which impacted other nations (Taiwan, Japan) that could have the potential to further escalate tensions between the US and China. I am not sure if the Pelosi incident was posted, but even if it wasn't that doesn't mean this one shouldn't be either. Restflux (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've seen nothing that indicates that US/China relations have been irreparable harmed. This is standard tensions as the Pelosi visit. We absolutely cannot speculate on possible impacts that haven't happened, and every day there are strains on interntaional relationships between various countries, this is nothing new. Masem (t) 17:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- It definitely did not end in nothing as you claim. Multiple important lines of communications between America and China were severed after the visit (as far as i know they haven't been restored yet) and it led to an overall deterioration in the relationship which you could argue directly engendered this balloon incident. And this isn't even counting the other consequences of the visit which impacted other nations (Taiwan, Japan) that could have the potential to further escalate tensions between the US and China. I am not sure if the Pelosi incident was posted, but even if it wasn't that doesn't mean this one shouldn't be either. Restflux (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- The tension between China and the USA also "escalated a lot" with Pelosi's visit to Taiwan and ended in nothing. American noise. And that doesn't make it ITN-worhty. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, it's clear that high levels of multiple governments are concerned by this situation. Let's at least have a little humility: none of us here knows how this story is going to develop. Sometimes these weird little moments do escalate and end up in the history books. The prudent decision for ITN is to wait. Zagalejo (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Masem: What is "encyclopedic value"? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- We are talking topics that have more than a burst of coverage and will be significant 10+ years down the road, which is not what this story currently is and with no evidence of having serious long term effects. If there are breakdowns in diplomacy between countries due to this, then that might be something but that's impossible to read at this point. Masem (t) 21:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am going to stress, in the aftermath of the balloon being shot down, this is a textbook example of a media circus. The only thing that has resulted from it has been some strain on US/China relations and while there may be something down the road with that, this one event is the media and political circles trying to make this seem more important than it actually is. Masem (t) 14:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly.... _-_Alsor (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Would it not be better to wait for confirmation as to their espionage status, perhaps posting then would be better. Gotitbro (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support conditionally, depending on the gravity of any potential additional developments or revelations over the weekend and beyond. If: 1) it's officially revealed that the balloon has ballistics capabilities, 2) the balloon is shot down over the ocean, 3) the balloon is guided down for further analysis, 4) it's officially revealed that the balloon somehow has an active crew aboard, and/or 5) these are confirmed by multiple states as surveillance-oriented and they're dotted all over the globe, as examples, then this qualifies as a next-level world diplomatic event, and should go up immediately. Beyond that, the article as it stands has been tended to very well thus far, and wouldn't need a whole lot of additional work to qualify. If nothing changes and this story peters away, then no need to promote it. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support + alt blurb 4 🍁🏳️🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️🌈 🍁 (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose This has led to a fairly minor diplomatic spat and nothing more. Not ITN-worthy. The Kip (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support - international story that's had legs --TorsodogTalk 20:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support – Per The New York Times, the balloon was shot down. DecafPotato (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Ongoing coverage of a developing international incident Tisnec (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support The story definitely has some weight behind it now. Kafoxe (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Fairly Emphatic Wait. To me this looks like a story that, while encyclopedic, will largely be forgotten in a year and will likely be resolved with little real conflict (i.e. the verbal type). Still, I think we may be behooved to wait a bit longer to see if there is indeed tension that comes of this. As things stand, I would quite emphatically be opposed per Masem, but I believe we may wish to let this breathe a bit more. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support: Alt-blurb III is the most well-written, obviously a big news event. I'm not sure the relevance of some of the arguments against, this is a big news story according to a wide variety of Western news outlets.Yeoutie (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Weak support: Yeah, sure. Major coverage, the impact of the event is unclear but this sort of thing isn't a regular event, apparently the first aircraft to be shot down in US airspace since WWII. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- it's not like this happens every day, and it has intentional impact (since, despite the admonition above, people apparently care about that). This will be in the news for some time to come; so it is now a situation that warrants posting. --RockstoneSend me a message! 07:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Wait and leaning oppose. These balloons flew before, just this time it has become a "surveillance balloon".Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Major powers possibly spying on each other? What a shocking revelation! Khuft (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's superpowers, brother, and they're shooting on each other. Well, one side's shooting. But even if it's the one you'd expect to blow something foreign up, it hasn't happened domestically in a long time. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support now it's been shot down, and disregard immediately these opposing !votes based on, err, "it hasn't been shot down yet". SN54129 14:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support in light of how the incident is developing and not dying away. Banedon (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support given the scale of coverage (this is inarguably 'in the news' currently) 15:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwinnspeed (talk • contribs)
- Support based on continuing news coverage and relative rarity of such an event. -- Kicking222 (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment It’s absolutely laughable that this is gonna get posted. I think ITNR’s “American bias” is usually a silly concept, but it’s genuinely coming in full force here.
- Oh cool, an unmanned spy balloon got spotted then shot down, causing a comparatively small diplomatic spat of a similar level to Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan, which wasn’t posted. Totally ITNR-worthy. The Kip (talk)
- Support given the scale and scope of the coverage in the news. The fact that the incident has a military dimension because it was shot down has implications that I think a lot of the comments+editors here either don't fully understand or aren't appreciating. This is definately much more than just a run-of-the-mill diplomatic spat between the United States and China Restflux (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Posting Consensus favors it, going with a modification of alts 4 and 5. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. As to this being unique, this mentions: "The official said Chinese balloons briefly transited the continental United States at least three times during the prior administration." I guess normally we do not make a big deal about it. If the US somehow sanctions China over this, maybe it will be significant. Maybe. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Consensus? Where??? _-_Alsor (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- ↑. Consensus does not require unanimity. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- The tally is 23-10 (give or take) in favor of posting the story, with most of the "yes" votes coming within the past day or so, so a consensus to post has clearly developed. Just because you have a hatred for all news relating to America (as demonstrated by your past behavior on similar stories) doesn't mean you can unilaterally demand a story should be pulled when the community states otherwise. 2600:8802:2718:6700:9F35:65C0:D934:6DC9 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
February 2
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Paul A. David
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): WSJ
Credits:
- Nominated by Ktin (talk · )
- Updated by To be updated. (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: American economist. Death announced in WP:RS on this date. I will work this article over the weekend if no one gets to it before me. Ktin (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- The article needs a lot of work. Looking forward to checking it out again after your work, Ktin. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
RD: Glória Maria
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): G1 globo
Credits:
- Nominated by Curbon7 (talk · )
- Updated by DanGFSouza (talk · ) and Rkieferbaum (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: Brazilian television personality. Quite close, only some source work is needed. Curbon7 (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
RD: John Zizioulas
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Othodoxia News Agency
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Prominent Greek orthodox theologian and bishop. Source work is needed. Curbon7 (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
RD: Jean-Pierre Jabouille
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Zwerg Nase (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.
Nominator's comments: Formula One racing driver. His engineering expertise helped bring the turbo engine into Formula One with Renault. Two Grand Prix victories. Article needs work though... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Not yet ready The article is practically entirely unreferenced, although at least his stats are referenced. Curbon7 (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
RD: K. Viswanath
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): The Hindu, Indian Express,
Credits:
- Nominated by Strike Eagle (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: Prominent Indian director and recipient of highest Indian cinematic honours. Article looks to be in decent shape. ƬheStrikeΣagle 22:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Looks thoroughly cited. Comprehensive details on his career. One messy line at the end of the "Television" section, hopefully someone will fix that soonish. Tbh, he probably needs a separate filmography page but that's not relevant to RD. e.b. (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support Article seems to be in good shape. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Admin Action Needed: Article is properly sourced and ready to be posted. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 06:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Not yet ready Sourcing on the prose is fine, but the filmography is only about half-sourced. Curbon7 (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
RD: Lanny Poffo
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Wrestling Observer - Figure Four Online, WWE
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Wrestler and brother of the Macho Man. Article needs ref work. The Kip (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Not yet ready As stated by the nom, significant chunks are unsourced. The prose is quite bizarre at spots, but is overall ok, although there seem to be way too many two-sentence sections which may benefit from being condensed. Curbon7 (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Richard Woolcott
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Canberra Times
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article not too good, but at least it is (now) fully referenced Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support Good condition, ready to be posted. Vriend1917 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support A bit rough, but sufficient for our purposes. Article is well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support, well-sourced, good to go. Tails Wx 18:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
February 1
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
RD: Carin Goldberg
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American graphic designer. Death announced 1 February. Thriley (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Prose looks sufficient enough. There is one CN tag in the prose, and the Notable covers is completely uncited, but those appear to be the only issues. Curbon7 (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
(Closed) Tom Brady retires (again)
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: Tom Brady (pictured), retires from American football. ()
News source(s): Tom Brady's Instagram
Credits:
- Support. I'm sure this will be the last time. He said so, for real this time.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- By the way, feel free to add more sources as they come in. Cheers. WimePocy 14:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Fool me once... We
don'tshouldn't post athlete retirements for this exact reason. Curbon7 (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC) - Oppose thus demonstrating the follies of posting sports retirements. --Masem (t) 14:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose for the same reason Brady’s retirement was opposed last time. Retirements often aren’t. Status Quo did their farewell tour in 1984. Humbledaisy (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose (again) :D --Tone 14:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose, though I suppose it might start to get notable if he does it about ten times. Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support As it is obviously for real this time. We do in fact post sports retirements as we have previously posted Alex Ferguson and Sachin Tendulkar. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- As I've said before, as soon as Lionel Messi announces his retirement, WP:ITN will bend over backwards to make sure he's given the picture blurb treatment within hours of the announcement, because "association football is a different beast". ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with WaltCip here. Not that I support (or oppose; I know nothing about American football) this nomination, but oppose !votes that oppose "because we don't post retirements" will most probably support Messi's or Ronaldo's "because they're legendary GOATs of the game." The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 15:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm consistent. When it comes that time, I will still oppose. Curbon7 (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ditto. The only retirement I can remember supporting was Benedict XVI's which was a little different. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm consistent. When it comes that time, I will still oppose. Curbon7 (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with WaltCip here. Not that I support (or oppose; I know nothing about American football) this nomination, but oppose !votes that oppose "because we don't post retirements" will most probably support Messi's or Ronaldo's "because they're legendary GOATs of the game." The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 15:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- You know, just because you screw something up once, doesn't mean you're required to screw it up forever. "We did this before so we must do it every time" is a bad rationale for that reason. --Jayron32 15:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't believe we did "screw up" but you are of course entitled to that opinion. I wanted to correct the assertions above that "we don't do it" in case anyone was misled.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- As I've said before, as soon as Lionel Messi announces his retirement, WP:ITN will bend over backwards to make sure he's given the picture blurb treatment within hours of the announcement, because "association football is a different beast". ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Not the sort of stories we should post in the ITN section. Amounts to inconsequential celebrity gossip. --Jayron32 15:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- • Oppose - he already retired once ... he could come out of retirement again. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. We don't post retirements for a lot of reasons. Case in point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose just no, just no, we all know he'll probably come back. he ain't fooling me again. TomMasterRealTALK 16:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose even as someone who adamantly believes that sports retirements are ITN worthy. I think we made a mistake not posting this last time, un-retirement or not, but per the above "fool me once..." comments, I'm not inclined to believe this one lasts and therefore am not going to die on the hill of a "support" here. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose How can we make sure that this time is for real NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 16:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Sports retirements are ITN-worthy IMO, but a) Brady has "retired" before, and b) the source given doesn't really prove significance. DecafPotato (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per all above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) Comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF)
Blurb: A green comet (pictured) makes its closest approach to the Earth. ()
Alternative blurb: Comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF) (pictured) makes its closest approach to Earth
Alternative blurb II: Green comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF) (pictured) makes its closest approach to the Earth.
News source(s): Guardian; Independent; NYT;BBC;Al Jazeera
Credits:
Article updated
Nominator's comments: It was previously suggested that this should appear at the time of closest approach and that's now. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strong support, post immediately - As consensus has been reached in the previous discussion that we should post now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strong support and support posting immediately due to how time-sensitive this is. Good article, strong coverage today in reliable sources. DFlhb (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. I don't see what has changed since the last nomination a week ago, which ended as no consensus. This comet is not ITNR, it isn't visible to anyone who doesn't have a pair of binoculars (unless they live in an area with no light pollution at all) and knows exactly where to look, and being green isn't unusual. The article is OK but nothing more than that. There has been a bit of media coverage but largely restricted to the science sections. Modest Genius talk 11:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- The previous nomination was not closed; it just scrolled off after there were lots of !votes of "Wait". So, we've waited. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Astronomical items are not required to be ITN/R in order to be newsworthy or ITN-worthy, otherwise nothing would ever get posted except for great comets. It would make for a rather limited pool of science stories. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- @WaltCip: I agree that items don't have to be on ITNR to be posted. I was disagreeing with the 'intr=yes' parameter that was set in the nomination template. Modest Genius talk 17:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- The previous one had a number of people preferring this to be posted on Feb 1, which is today. As one of those people, I strongly support posting immediately. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 12:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Magnitude 5 is pretty bright. It should be visible in the outskirts of major cities, under moonless skies. Perhaps we should include some instructions for viewing in the blurb? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strong support posting immediately because it is the closest approach now. - azpineapple (need help? 12:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral – I suggested a wait last time, but that was also because the quality of the article didn't seem up to par yet, and this hasn't changed since. The lack of bare-eye visibility (0.3 AU is quite far away) makes this a somewhat hard sell. It's probably fine to post but none of this makes me particularly excited. I still approve of the main blurb as the optimal choice. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comets are not near-Earth asteroids, 0.28 AU isn't far if the comet releases enough gas and dust. A comet reached magnitude 3-4 in the 18th century and never even reached 3 AU from Earth or 4 AU from Sun. Halley's Comet would be 4.9 magnitudes brighter than this if both were 1 AU from Sun and observer was thought experimentally on the Sun (the standard apples-to-apples brightness comparison of solar system science because full asteroid is much brighter than thin crescent asteroid and comets obviously get dim very fast as they get further from the Sun (if they get very very close they sometimes even explode and "release all the brightness at once")). And Halley happens every c. 76 years. Hale-Bopp would be even brighter. The 1700s comet would be 13.4 magnitudes brighter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- It is easily visible under moonless skies, with little light pollution. It's at magnitude 5 right now, which, while not incredibly bright, is still just about visible from my location in the outer suburbs of a city of 14 million people.
- Also, I'm pushing for us to diversify the stories we post from just being changes in heads of state or X tragedy kills Y people PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support, though I think the blurb should both say the official comet name and that it is a green comet. I don't think it requires that everyone on earth be able to see it with the naked eye (eg, clearly urban centers have too much background light to do so) but as long as it is some appreciable fraction that have the potential to see it, its a good idea to post. Article appears to be in good shape. --Masem (t) 13:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Proposed alt2. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 14:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support It was a bit silly that it didn't get posted last week, but c'est la vie. Just because an event is not ITN/R doesn't prevent us from posting if it is particularly newsworthy, as this one is. Curbon7 (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support posting immediately, noting that of course if it doesn't get posted today, then there will be no point to posting this as the event will have already come and gone.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - what is the significance of this comet? It has little cultural presence like Halley, etc. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- As @PrecariousWorlds pointed out, we do have to diversify our blurbs a little bit. We haven't had a science-related story at ITN for quite some time now, and this one is receiving pretty good coverage, and the coverage is worldwide for those who love global significance, with sources in the West (CNN BBC) and the Arab World (Alarabiya) reporting on it. The Independent are also covering it live on their website. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 15:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, I guess that's cool. But I do think the blurb needs to do more to establish that this is notable and not just a "diversity candidate" (to appropriate phrasing from the (un)professional world). QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's not just about being a diversity candidate, it's about providing interesting stories that viewers of Wikipedia want to read, apart from Depressing Tragedy no. 352. I think astronomical events like these should be ITN:R, as they are In The News. I think we should also post major infrastructure projects as well. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Bestagon PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, I guess that's cool. But I do think the blurb needs to do more to establish that this is notable and not just a "diversity candidate" (to appropriate phrasing from the (un)professional world). QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- As @PrecariousWorlds pointed out, we do have to diversify our blurbs a little bit. We haven't had a science-related story at ITN for quite some time now, and this one is receiving pretty good coverage, and the coverage is worldwide for those who love global significance, with sources in the West (CNN BBC) and the Arab World (Alarabiya) reporting on it. The Independent are also covering it live on their website. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 15:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- • Support, Posting immediately - per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support: Reasonably significant as far as astronomical news goes and the article is well-cited. Probably should have been posted a few days ago. And while this shouldn't be a factor when considering any individual story, it would be nice to have more science topics at ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: I think alt2 is better here; it mentions both the official name and the fact that it's green. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 15:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- The link is to the article with the full title. I doubt that the majority of our readers will be that worked up over the actual name. It's the green comet thing that is going to get their attention. That said, if there is a consensus to change the blurb, or another admin thinks that alt II is better, go for it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: I think alt2 is better here; it mentions both the official name and the fact that it's green. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 15:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm pleased to see that a consensus was reached and that this has been posted. It provides desperately-needed balance to the current gamut of ITN stories which amount to four disasters and an election. I hope that this reflects a sea change towards lessening our overall significance restrictions.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Post-posting Oppose, numerous astronomical bodies, including comets, pass by the Earth every single day. The visibility of this single one is not specifically notable. I would understand if this was say, a Comet Hale–Bopp type event, where the comet is like that of a great comet. At the moment, I don't see the value in pushing this nomination to diversify the coverage of news stories regarding disasters either. Other folks have brought up the magnitude and distance from the Earth that I concur with.Ornithoptera (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC))
- This is the only comet visible to the naked eye right now, probably for months to come. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Not to make it a number-game, but only two editors have made the argument of diversifying. That is not why 7 others !voted in support. Curbon7 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I never intended diversifying to be my main argument. The main argument was that reliable sources were in fact treating it as a big deal. Diversifying was intended to be a "pushing factor" for those on the fence to lean support. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 04:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- 0.28 AU isn't far if the comet is bright. A comet reached magnitude 3-4 in the 18th century and never even reached 3 AU from Earth or 4 AU from Sun. Halley's Comet would be 4.9 magnitudes brighter than this if both were 1 AU from Sun and observer was thought experimentally on the Sun (the standard apples-to-apples brightness comparison of solar system science because full asteroid is much brighter than thin crescent asteroid and comets obviously get dim very fast as they get further from the Sun (if they get very very close they sometimes even explode and "release all the brightness at once")). And Halley happens every c. 76 years. Hale-Bopp would be even brighter. The 1700s comet would be 13.4 magnitudes brighter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC
- Noting here that there are several comments at WP:ERRORS regarding the "green comet" wording. ansh.666 18:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Switched to Alt II per multiple requests. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I voiced support for alt2, but prefer User:Ravenpuff's newer version: "C/2022 E3 (ZTF) (pictured), a comet with a green coma, makes its closest approach to the Earth".
- It's nice, and the linked term "coma" will certainly stimulate curiosity in our readers, which is what ITN does at its best. I'd be grateful if editors who already posted here would voice support or opposition to Ravenpuff's version. DFlhb (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Concur. Curbon7 (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I support this version, for the record. It sounds much more scientific and interesting. Though it is not entirely clear to me why this event has found its way to the Main Page. There are approximately 10 long-period comets crossing the Earth's orbit every year. --TadejM my talk 19:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- They're usually dimmer. It's also been an unusually long time since the last great comet besides 2006 or 7 (I forgot) which was only naked eye at dusk to most North Hemisphere native English speakers for a few days and not at all after dusk (at least in my extreme light pollution). And I guess some might've also called the magnitude ~2.5 2007 or 2008 comet great, it was naked eye in extreme light pollution but not very impressive there especially if you're not into "faint fuzzy "star" with no naked eye tail". Hale-Bopp of 1997 was the last truly impressive non-twilight one. With that said 22 E3 or better comets seem to happen every few years at worst. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Switched to Alt II per multiple requests. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I Beg you to remove "green comet" from the top. It's a nonsensical moniker applied to it by media that knows nothing about astronomy- as commonly used as it is, it is meaningless at best and misleading at worst. Every comet that has ever graced the sky has been green- saying it's a green comet is like referring to space as "the black space" or the sky as "the blue sky". Sincerely, an actual astronomer. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Is the gas ever greenish cyan/cyanish green? Would that still count as green? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- This ^. We should change the blurb immediately. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Here is what the comet astronomer Matthew Knight says about the comet's color: "The color of C/2022 E3 (ZTF) isn’t unique: Most comets that have higher gas contents tend to yield C2, so they “are generally going to look green to our eye,” Knight says. That said, only a subset of comets happen to make it as close to Earth as C/2022 E3 (ZTF) will get, so it’ll provide an uncommonly good view of a comet’s emerald hue."[1] --TadejM my talk 00:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Meteorologists refer to blue skies all the time. They are much prettier than white or grey skies. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Post-posting Oppose per Ornithoptera. Completely insignificant. — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, shoot, we better pull it and put the more significant Azerbaijani embassy shooting back up. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Your assertion is not backed up by the evidence at hand; reliable sources do discuss the comet in a manner that plainly indicates it is significant. Your assertion doesn't make the sources go away. --Jayron32 17:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Post-posting supportI believe to guide public awareness to an astronomical event is in the interest of wikipedia. This they will remember much longer than most of the resisters we post.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
January 31
RD: Lalitha Chandran
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Indian carnatic singer. One half of the musical duo Bombay Sisters Ktin (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
RD: Angel Alcala
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Manila Bulletin
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Filipino biologist and national scientist. Curbon7 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: David Durenberger
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): [2]
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) 18:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support Well-cited and holistic enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
RD: Shanti Bhushan
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Bar and Bench,India Today
Credits:
- Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (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: Indian Ex Minister and lawyer Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not yet ready A few CN templates. Date/place of birth is uncited, and entire early/non-political life are missing. The prose in political career is bare, but ok enough for our purposes. Prose in the activism section is fine, except for the 2010 contempt charge which needs updating. Curbon7 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
January 30
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
|
RD: Bobby Beathard
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by BeanieFan11 (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: Could use some work. Pro Football Hall of Famer. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Almost I think this article is quite close. I don't know much about football, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the general manager is a fairly minor role compared to the same position in baseball, right? If so, I don't think too much more expansion is needed, as I do note that the article already names some prominent players he scouted. Just a few sentences of what he did while the scout/manager of the Dolphins, Falcons, and Chargers should suffice. Some spots also need sources. Curbon7 (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
RD: Charles Silverstein
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies (Twitter)
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The American psychologist who got homosexuality removed from the DSM. Curbon7 (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
RD: Ann McLaughlin Korologos
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): WashPo
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former U.S. Secretary of Labor. Some source work is needed. Curbon7 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
RD: Ouyang Pingkai
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): qq
Credits:
- Nominated by Curbon7 (talk · )
- Updated by Huangdan2060 (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: Chinese academic and party official. A bit short and over-reliant on one source. Curbon7 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Will Steffen
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Canberra Times
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Climate scientist. Article looks okay to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support Short but adequate and well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support Article is well-cited and holistic enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
RD: Cindy Williams
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): [3]
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: She died on Jan 25, it was just reported today – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- :Support once Filmography section is properly sourced. Mooonswimmer 01:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not Ready Significant gaps in referencing, mostly around the tables. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not ready {{verification}} tag at the top of article, needs some sourcing. Tails Wx 05:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: John Adams (drummer)
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Fox8, Cleveland.com
Credits:
- Nominated by EvergreenFir (talk · )
- Updated by Sunshineisles2 (talk · ), MainPeanut (talk · ) and Curbon7 (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: Known to many who follow American baseball and everyone in Cleveland, Ohio. Is a Good Article. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Well-cited,
but there are significant prose issues. Will give a full breakdown in a bit. Curbon7 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)- I don't want this to seem over-scrupulous, as we of course don't need the articles to be great or even necessarily good for RD; however, they have to meet a basic threshold of quality. The article is mostly fine for holisticity
(wish there was a bit more to his non-superfan life, but it's understandable that sources may not cover this)and sourcing(his date of birth and education are uncited; these are more pressing, as you'll know we can't have uncited material on the main page). The main issue here is the prose. This is far from the (very basic) level of quality we expect and needs to either go through WP:GAR to be delisted or needs a ground-up rewrite. To say the article's tone is very informal is an understatement; the entire thing reads like an article on baseball.wikia. That is to say, it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, it reads like a fan write-up, chock with inside baseball ("making him the only fan for whom the team dedicated a bobble head day"??), weasel words, and general poor phrasing. It is hard to explain because there's not necessarily one specific thing wrong that I can point to, it's kind of just the entire article. Curbon7 (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)- @Curbon7 I have been going through the article and making some edits along the same lines. I think the problem here is that the information in an article is going to be shaped by the information available in the sources, and generally speaking it's going to be Cleveland publications writing about him with a very casual tone. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Most of my concerns have been addressed, and the article is much better now! Just waiting for a source on the DoB. Curbon7 (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support I've swapped out the DoB with his birth year based on age at death (DoB is commented out so it is still available if a source is found). Curbon7 (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've found a source for his birth date and added it back in.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support I've swapped out the DoB with his birth year based on age at death (DoB is commented out so it is still available if a source is found). Curbon7 (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't want this to seem over-scrupulous, as we of course don't need the articles to be great or even necessarily good for RD; however, they have to meet a basic threshold of quality. The article is mostly fine for holisticity
- Support (provided date of birth is correctly cited or removed) – I think the quality of the prose is perfectly fine for a front-page feature like this. It goes into details that other encyclopedic articles are unlikely to contain, and therefore can feel informal or odd, but I think it is acceptable at worst and charming at best. Article is well-cited and beautifully detailed, including his personal life (I'm not sure what else Curbon would want from that section (it lists school, marriage, occupation, volunteer work, and health issues). I think this is a lovely feature! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support This has Good Article status. Have we reached the point of arguing about quality for publishing a Good Article to RD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenmelken (talk • contribs) 13:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Articles have to meet WP:ITNQUALITY, even if they're Good Articles, as you'll know GAs can diminish in quality over time. Curbon7 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Kenmelken, this article was promoted to GA in 2012. Alot of bad writing can happen in 11 years. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- 11 years?! No, no, 2012 was last year, right? :( --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Someone has updated the article after his death to replace Indians with Guardians in many places. I understand the intent, but it is now factually wrong in many places due to the time frame in which he was active. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 05:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 23:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
RD: Bobby Hull
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Chicago Sun-Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Mooonswimmer (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: A lot of work is needed sourcing-wise. Mooonswimmer 15:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support: pbp 20:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not yet ready As stated by the nom, the article is still heavily under-sourced. Curbon7 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) Peshawar mosque bombing
Blurb: A suicide blast in a mosque killed 59 people and more than 170 injured in Peshawar, Pakistan. ()
Alternative blurb: A suicide blast in a mosque kills 59 people and injures more than 170 in Peshawar, Pakistan.
News source(s): Reuters, Al Jazeera, DAWN
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · )
- Updated by The Bestagon (talk · )
Ainty Painty (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not ready – Love an article where 80% of the length is a navigation template. This stub needs a lot of work to become suitable for the frontpage. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Article has been updated and is well referenced. I think it's already fit for ITN. It will continue to be updated as new information arrives. Very sad news. :( MSN12102001 (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. There's a "failed verification" tag that needs fixing, and the article could stand for more expansion. --Jayron32 13:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support Article is ready, definitely significant. Proposing altblurb -Azpineapple (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support per @Azpineapple Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Article is definitely not ready yet, with all of its one-sentence paragraphs, but with how the death count is spiking up I'm fairly certain it will be posted soon. Very big tragedy.. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support - about 2k characters of cited prose is long enough for DYK, and it's also long enough to meet the quality requirements of ITN, IMO. Levivich (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Notability is obvious, given 40+ deaths. I've also expanded the article and I think it's now good enough. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 15:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support because the article is good enough & the death toll is very high. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support article is good, and a lot of deaths. The death count makes it notable. TomMasterRealTALK 16:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support - As per above comments. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb. First blurb is not grammatical. Notable for sure, article quality is good as is. There are a couple things on the article that need citations, but the article is being actively edited so I assume these will be fixed by the time of posting. e.b. (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Question: Do reliable sources provide any indication that this is having national or regional consequences? Has this affected the political climate in Pakistan in any way? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support altblurb The Kip (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Posted Went with a variation on the altblurb. "Suicide blast" sounds sensational and a bit weird. Changed it to the terminology 'in the article' and said "suicide bombing". --Jayron32 18:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
January 29
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Naba Das
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): The Indian Express
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Indian MLA who was killed (possibly assassinated) by a police officer. Prose and sourcing both need significant work. Curbon7 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Gero Storjohann
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): FAZ 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: German politician, member of federal parliament from 2002 until his death (however in intensive care from April 2022), worked for traffic and other matters. Most facts were there, but referencing needed work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support Well-cited, and more-or-less holistic enough for our purposes. A minor point of issue is that Kreisvorsitzender is not defined or linked, but this one point isn't that big a deal in the big picture. Curbon7 (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Please help. It's not linked in German. "Vorsitzender" would literally be president, and "Kreis" means districts. Wiktionary has Kreisverband for the district level of some organisations, here the CDU party. Is there anything comparable in English, and if, should that be used? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support Satis. Grimes2 (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Handball Men's World Cup
Blurb: Denmark wins the World Men's Handball Championship, defeating France in the final. ()
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by The Bestagon (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: Not sure if there is a separate article on the final match. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 12:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Basically a table farm with very little prose. Not really main page ready. --Jayron32 13:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality It's ITNR, but the article is almost entirely tables. The Kip (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not ready. Unfortunately there is no prose on the games whatsoever, not even a description of the final. There needs to be at least a few paragraphs describing what happened at the tournament - tables are not enough. Modest Genius talk 17:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Three days later, there has been no progress with the article. Modest Genius talk 12:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose on qualityParadise Chronicle (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
RD: Masood Sharif Khan Khattak
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): DAWN
Credits:
- Nominated by Ainty Painty (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.
Ainty Painty (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not yet ready A number of CN tags. The other sources need to be spot-checked as well, as I have low confidence in them. Too many section headers, need to be condensed down. Article is almost holistic; expansion is needed on his 1996 imprisonment and his career between 1999 and 2009. If available, details on his army career from 1978 to 1986 and his life from 2009 until his death is desirable, but not necessary, as I understand sources may not cover those details. Curbon7 (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
RD: Barrett Strong
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Soul Tracks
Credits:
- Nominated by TheCorriynial (talk · )
- Updated by MatthewHoobin (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: While the article likely needs editing, Strong is best known for singing Motown Records first hit, Money (That's What I Want). But as a songwriter, also in the Songwriter's Hall of Fame, he co wrote Motown classics I Heard It Through the Grapevine, "War" (The Temptations song), Just My Imagination, and Papa Was A Rollin' Stone. TheCorriynial (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
OpposeNot yet ready – the discography section is tagged for clean up and also needs more references.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Pawnkingthree: I've done some work on the article and added citations. Please take a few minutes to review again. —Matthew - (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Good job! Happy to support now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Pawnkingthree: I've done some work on the article and added citations. Please take a few minutes to review again. —Matthew - (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support as improved. BD2412 T 23:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support Well-cited and holistic. Excellent work! Curbon7 (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Let's Rock / Do The Very Best You Can InedibleHulk (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment @Stephen and Tone: Pinging recently active administrators so that this doesn't get lost in the shuffle. —Matthew / (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
RD: Annie Wersching
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): Deadline
Credits:
- Nominated by Curbon7 (talk · )
- Updated by Sunshineisles2 (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: Significant referencing work is needed. Curbon7 (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
2023 Men's FIH Hockey World Cup
Blurb: In field hockey, Germany defeats Belgium in a penalty shoot-out to win the 2023 Men's FIH Hockey World Cup. ()
News source(s): [4]
Credits:
- Nominated by Rushtheeditor (talk · )
Nominator's comments: - Rushtheeditor talk 11:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose It's not an ITNR so the article should be of high quality, but there's very little prose involved including what is needed for championship finales. --Masem (t) 16:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose on both notability and quality. Not on ITNR, doesn't seem to be excessively popular, and most importantly the article is almost entirely tables with little to no prose. The Kip (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality Just because it's not on ITNR doesn't mean it can't be posted, and as the top event in field hockey, it has at least a claim to significance. That said, as stated above, the entire article is composed almost entirely of tables with little in the way of prose. Curbon7 (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose For above reasons. Needs significant expansion to be on the front page. e.b. (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not ready. There's no point in even discussing the significance when the article has no prose on the games. There need to be a few referenced paragraphs explaining what happened at the tournament - tables are not enough. Modest Genius talk 17:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Three days later, only two sentences have been added - about the official song. Still not ready. Modest Genius talk 12:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- The idea of a film composer scoring a hockey anthem is rather outrageous, though...perhaps even novel. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Three days later, only two sentences have been added - about the official song. Still not ready. Modest Genius talk 12:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose on qualitya well expanded table farm. But prose there is not much.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Hazel McCallion
Recent deaths nomination ()
News source(s): https://www.thestar.com/News/Obituary/2023/01/29/hazel-mccallion-longtime-mississauga-mayor-dies-at-age-101.html
Credits:
- Nominated by Flibirigit (talk · )
- Updated by Bearcat (talk · ), Blairall (talk · ) and Rushtheeditor (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: Notable politician and centenarian. Some citations still needed. Flibirigit (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Article is fine for a notable person. Alex-h (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support, article looks like it should be ready for posting. Ornithoptera (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support, per above. Rushtheeditor (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support - per above. Nfitz (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- A few tagged references needed. Stephen 23:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Rushtheeditor (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Article is now fully cited, but some bare URLs need a template. Flibirigit (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 23:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
2023 Iran drone attacks
Blurb: Iran reported attack in military plant of Isfahan ()
Alternative blurb: Iran reports several drone strikes within its territory
Alternative blurb II: The Iranian defense ministry reports a failed drone attack on an ammunition factory in Isfahan, amidst other explosions and fires in the country.
News source(s): Al Arabiya, United Press International, Fox News and CNN
Credits:
- Created and nominated by LordVoldemort728 (talk · )
Nominator's comments: I know the article is stub but it is a major news. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 03:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wait "A blast recorded in defence ministry which caused minor damage" isn't the clearest English sentence, but it certainly sounds like the opposite of major news to me. The blowback could be huge, especially if bolstered by a video. But you never know how people will react to provocation, the supposed battle to come could also just be one of words. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is a major news because this attack '''can''' start a war between two countries. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 06:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be just two, in theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL. The Kip (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is a major news because this attack '''can''' start a war between two countries. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 06:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wait The impact of the attack, and its consequences, are yet to be seen. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 06:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Already CNN, Fox and Al Arabiya can't agree on which words from IRNA's tweet to replace with which of whose choosing. Are they drones or "small drones"? Them or "the drones"? One was hit by or "struck"? Props to UPI for the relative straight dope, just omitting parts, nice and objective-like. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wait - Per the above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wait - Rumours are flying; solid news is still scarce. It currently seems like both Western world media and Iran want to hohum this. Without solid sources, WP is not going to override that. There doesn't seem to be any article on this in fa.Wikipedia - at least according to Wikidata. Boud (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - Israel did it, it's being reported. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 16:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wait a few days to see if more information is made available, but definite support if further reporting increases in confidence that it's an intentional attack by another country. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wait we do not know the death amount, and damage these drones have done. TomMasterRealTALK 23:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- No dead, no wounded. Both "sides" agree on that. Damage is more subjective, quantitative not qualitative, and making things seem better and worse than they are is inherent in political news...or entertainment news...human interests, overall. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose for want of actual damage. Also, little reporting internationally on this (since, apparently, that's now a criteria). --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Weak support an event of this nature ought to be postable, but news coverage of it appears to be dying down. Banedon (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
2023 Australian Open
Blurb: In tennis, Aryna Sabalenka (pictured) wins the Women's Singles and Novak Djokovic wins the Men's Singles at the Australian Open. ()
News source(s): BBC - Women's singles, BBC - Men's singles
Credits:
- Nominated by 45.112.200.3 (talk · )
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.
45.112.200.3 (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note Prose summaries are needed for the singles finals in the main Open article. Joofjoof (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacks prose for the matches (Hopefull fares better than last year's).—Bagumba (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support once expanded. Individual events need prose descriptions. See the 2021 event for a model. With this win, Djokovic is now tied for the most men's Grand Slam titles and holds the record for most individual titles at the Australian Open (10), perhaps these records could be worked into a blurb? e.b. (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not ready. Neither the main tournament article, nor those on the men's and women's singles, has a prose summary of the events. There need to be a few referenced paragraphs explaining what happened at the tournament - tables are not enough. Modest Genius talk 17:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Article still has not been prose-ified. Curbon7 (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- CommentIf that doesn't make it to ITN I don't know either. One should not only nominate but also work on the article either before or after nominating it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2023 (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: