Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2022

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

February 28[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


RD: Kirk Baily[edit]

Article: Kirk Baily (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety, NBC News, Yahoo
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American Actor - died of lung cancer on February 28th. TheNewMinistry (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a couple of {cn} tags in the prose. Many items in the filmography tables lack footnotes. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kim Jung-ju[edit]

Article: Kim Jung-ju (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): GamesIndustry.biz
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: Co-founder of the Korean video game publisher Nexon. Died sometime in February, the company only announced it on Feb. 28. A few places need sources but nearly there. Masem (t) 13:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Nominated this, not seeing your nom in this section. I've added sources where needed and added some missing information, such as the corruption scandal he was involved in. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 00:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks ready for RD. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Philanthropy" section, the sentence "This hospital, which is expected to complete by 2021,..." needs to be updated. Did this hospital open last year? --PFHLai (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PFHLai: I've added a Korean source that says it will open in September 2022. There also seems to be some sort of naming dispute surrounding the hospital, but I don't read Korean so I don't feel confident writing about it. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 20:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the update and new footnote there, Yeeno. It's probably best to keep things simple and leave out things that are uncertain. --PFHLai (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: David Boggs[edit]

Article: David Boggs (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
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: Co-inventor of the Ethernet protocol that most of the Internet is based on. Died on Feb 18th, but the news did not come in major publications until yesterday. Masem (t) 13:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sheila Benson[edit]

Article: Sheila Benson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Angeles 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: First reported today (February 28); died on February 23 (i.e. provable gap of at least two days). —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Don't appear to be any article issues. Kingsif (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Short but adequate. No issues. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Richard C. Blum[edit]

Article: Richard C. Blum (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): San Francisco Chronicle
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ad Orientem: & @Bagumba: I've added some neutrality to it and removed some puff from it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The section title "Controversy" remains, which is generally consider WP:POV (WP:CSECTION), isolating negative items into a section instead of integrating tidbits into his career or starting a balanced "Public image" section. All too often, it's just a WP:COATRACK for anything negative, without regard if WP:DUE coverage exists. For example, I randomly looked at the Tutor Perini entry. I don't see those cited sources supporting that this was a major controversy, other than it being brought up that his wife is a politican and the contractor did construction in countries occupied by the U.S. Was there foul play? How "controversial" was this? To what extent did this impact him? No context is indicated in the existing sources.—Bagumba (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bagumba: Should this section be removed? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given how this section is sourced to one source for each bit of controversy, that seems inappropriate for a BLP and would be better removed until more comprehensive sourcing can be made. --Masem (t) 15:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think having a couple of sentences noting the criticism is ok. But in general we try to avoid whole sections labeled as "controversy." -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. to my above; I think the article is acceptable for posting now. Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 11th Emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: Eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): Politico, Reuters
Credits:
Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: UN link Only 11th time in the history of UN such a session is being held, 9th one was in '82. 2A02:2F0E:DE07:BF00:28EE:4F79:A71B:62CC (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do a proper nomination, then I'll support. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the nomination for them. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depending on the outcome this may be a good reason to change the current blurb on the invasion. But as they are just meeting that itself is not newsworthy, its what they decide that will be important. --Masem (t) 14:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. A meeting in and of itself seems small in regards to the scale of this conflict as a whole. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The meeting is purely symbolic as the general assembly has no actual power other than passing non-binding resolutions. Unfortunately, the League of Nations... err... UN is pretty much just adding to all the hot air in the world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless and until there is a conclusive outcome, such as the creation of a peacekeeper force (which is not likely).--WaltCip-(talk) 15:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see if anything meaningful comes out of this. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing It's interesting to see the details of how this works (or doesn't work). For example, note that the Tenth emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly is still open since 1997, having failed to conclude. It's rather like Wikipedia's procedures – interminable and ineffective – eh? Anyway, it's the sort of thing that should go into a navigational banner or portal, now that there are so many articles about this war. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, This is not about General Assembly, it is a special meeting by GA, so we 'd better wait and see what come out it. Alex-h (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Just a minor event related to the ongoing Ukraine War. STSC (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IPCC report[edit]

Nominator's comments: The IPCC assessment is released as three separate reports plus a synthesis. We posted part 1, on what, how and why climate change is happening, in August 2021. Today they released part 2, on the impacts of climate change on nature and on humans. Part 3, on mitigation strategies, is due by the end of 2022. I think we should blurb all three parts. The last time the IPCC tackled this topic was the Fifth Assessment in 2013-14. The report was released 2 hours ago and runs to 3675 pages, so the article hasn't been updated yet, but I wanted to get the discussion started on whether we should blurb each part. Modest Genius talk 13:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment We should probably figure out what statistic people are hanging their hats on for the headline on this. "Report was released" even with something like IPCC isn't a great ITN blurb, but "6th IPCC report on impacts of climate change estimate 40% of the world's population is at risk." (scanning from bbc) would be more appropriate, but that's just a first part. And given that part 3 of the 6th IPCC is about mitigation of CC, this second part is likely more important to post than the 3rd. --Masem (t) 13:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind adding an example of the biggest impacts, but it would mean picking one from a smorgasbord of suffering. We also need to be careful about the wording: that 40% figure refers to those considered 'highly vulnerable', with everybody being at risk, just lower risk. Modest Genius talk 13:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was just something I caught in a 5 second scan, obviously any stat should be vetted and carefully and clearly worded. --Masem (t) 14:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ... in principle. Panel Co-Chair Pörtner says climate change is "a threat to human well-being." However, article's section on this report contains only 55 words of info.– Sca (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are literal threats of nuclear war while this same conclusion is getting stated for like the 4th time [with extra steps] by the same people. Technically this has already been posted on ITN at least twice, with minimal IRL impact. 2A02:2F0E:DE07:BF00:28EE:4F79:A71B:62CC (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The events going on in Ukraine currently do not and should not have any bearing on whether or not we post another blurb on a different topic. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely and completely irrelevant. Climate change is a long-term threat to humanity. The invasion of Ukraine, however grisly, has no bearing on this. WaltCip-(talk) 15:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We posted the first part of this report in August 2021 and we should probably post this as well, but the problem is that the summary of this part is way to short compared to that of the previous one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we posted the first part of this report in August 2021, we shouldn't post all 6 interim reports that are going to come from this as that's just way too much emphasis and POV on it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The assessment consists of three working group reports plus a synthesis document. This is the second report. Where did six come from? If you mean the Sixth Assessment, that's a process which reports every 6-7 years; the Fifth Assessment was in 2014. Modest Genius talk 18:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I read it as the second part of a six part thing, my mistake. Nevertheless, no evidence that this part is significant enough to be ITN worthy, the content in the article about it is way less than the first one. If it's ITN worthy, people should improve the article to demonstrate that. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the section on the second is way too short. Article quality needs to be as good as for the first report to consider it- if there is that much to actually say on it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add {{convert}} for the Celsius temperatures, some of us prefer the Imperial units. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, have tagged the article as needing this fix. As it's non-compliant in so many places (and can't believe the first report was posted despite lacking conversions). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The table is still Celsius only. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, this article is still in violation of MOS:CONVERT as all tables only use Celsius. We should be using both Celsius and Fahrenheit, rather than being anti-US biased by using Celsius. This should not be posted until this article quality has been fixed for all tables in the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this briefly pushed out headlines on the war. Banedon (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing Climate change should go into ongoing as it never seems to be out of the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose currently, support if updated. If relevant section were its own article it would be a stub. Flameperson (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've had limited time to work on this, but the relevant section is now six referenced paragraphs, which should be enough. Modest Genius talk 16:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- are we going to post each of these? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 05:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is high quality, event is in the news. Checks all boxes. --Jayron32 12:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article quality not fixed still using only Celsius in tables, which violates MOS:CONVERT. Also the images in infobox is a copyvio, as it contains 3 logos, at least 1 of which is copyrighted. We shouldn't be posting articles with copyvios on the front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:CONVERT says, in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so, so I don't believe it is a violation. And the conversions are given in the main text; it seems excessive to demand them in the tables as well.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now after changes. Flameperson (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What was already posted earlier was enough... Tradediatalk 18:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: A news item involving IPCC Sixth Assessment Report was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 August 2021. 2A02:2F01:F117:0:BC8F:6C46:D908:FC3C (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I said in the original nomination that we had posted part 1 of the report. This is part 2 of the report, on a different topic. Please read the original nomination as to why that should be considered a separate event. We could have split them to separate articles but that seemed unnecessary. It appears this is going to go stale before reaching consensus, sigh. Modest Genius talk 20:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also a couple of article quality questions on the article's talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support climate change adaptation extremely important Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Yadlapati Venkata Rao[edit]

Article: Yadlapati Venkata Rao (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
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.

 — DaxServer (t · c) 09:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. No issues with the article, and seems to be a person of somewhat significance. Twistedaxe (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is long enough and adequtely sourced; Copyedited the lead and improved infobox. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I've added you as updater for due credit — DaxServer (t · c) 08:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Ks0stm (TCGE) 13:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Expanding Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


As of right now, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint in the "In the news" section needs a bit of elaboration. As it stands, it simply states "Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine", and appears to be equal in significance to the closing of the Winter Olympics (which links to three articles: the competition, the closing event, and the city of Beijing). It would seem as though there should be a link to the "Occupied territories of Ukraine" article as well, so my recommendation for new phrasing:
* Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine, and occupies several territories of the nation.
Thoughts? -- RobLa (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of discussion is usually conducted in WP:ERRORS FWIW. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if we're talking a major shift of focus of the ITN blurb that should be proposed here as a new blurb. If we're talking a minor update (like death toll) that's usually at ERRORS. Additionally, at least with this specific story, the "occupied" status is very much up in the air, and thus would not be a good aspect to include in the blurb. I expect that the invasion page includes what reliable sources (not just tweets and other armchair reporters) have claimed are occupied territories. --Masem (t) 04:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose linking to Occupied territories of Ukraine as the article is not about territories occupied in the ongoing invasion but refers to a Ukrainian law that lists territories over which the country lost control a couple of years ago.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree in principle that we should update the blurb. And as it's the main event in worldwide news right now, makes sense for it to stay as the top news story on ITN, rather than being pushed below a story on an earthquake that has had 11 deaths. The two events are not comparable in worldwide importance. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN in the past has just "stickied" a blurb to the top of the feed, which may be reasonable for the biggest geopolitical event in a generation - Featous (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the most read articles yesterday, more than half the Top 100 had something to do with the Ukraine invasion. The occupied territory article is not one of them. The top 5, which are each getting around a million daily views, were: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine; Vladimir Putin; Volodymyr Zelenskyy; Ukraine and Russo-Ukrainian War. After that, the readership spreads out across a long tail of more specific articles like the Ghost of Kyiv and Thermobaric weapon. So, this seems to be a good opportunity for a portal but Portal:Ukraine is not keeping up. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've revamped Portal:Ukraine's "In the news" section. The static display of old news had rightly been removed, but it will now keep up with current events. We could do more, such as adding a "Selected current topics" section, if someone is willing and able to maintain it. (WikiProject Ukraine, if they're not too busy with more urgent matters?) Certes (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So why not update the ITN blurb itself to eliminate "the static display of old news" – ?? Why force the reader to search for something relevant and informative under the small-type titles "navigation  • Main page  • Contents  • Current events" high on the left side of the page? Continued display of the egregiously outdated RU-Ukraine ITN blurb does not serve readers and is a loathsome lapse in editorial judgement. – Sca (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand your suggestion correctly, the outdated content had already been commented out. I removed the redundant wikitext (with no visible effect) and replaced it with current news which will update itself without constant maintenance. (This comment applies to the portal only. I'm leaving any updates to the main page or its transclusion to others.) Certes (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportThe No. 1 story worldwide. Blurb needs updating. Suggest something like: "Russian military forces encounter widespread resistence in their invasion of Ukraine" or "Russia encounters widespread resistence in its invasion of Ukraine." AP BBC Guardian Reuters DW AlJazeeraSca (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – It seems that the point being made here is that the Russian invasion should have its significance pointed out. If that's not it, then this edit suggestion is unclear in its objective. Considering that the suggestion being made here is that the Russian invasion should have its significance pointed out, then adding statements like "Russia occupies several territories" or "Russian encounters widespread resistance" is entirely illogical, as they don't state what's being suggested that it should be stated. Honestly and logically, what this suggestion asks to be added is that "Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine, triggering worldwide social repercussions". I mean, essentially that is, "disrupting the world." That's how you honestly speak about its significance, not by making up other fill-up stuff that's not you mean to point out. 85.245.162.134 (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You make an excellent point. However, I would want an article about the "worldwide social repercussions" to link to. Perhaps International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War? Although the consequences and assessment section of that article could use flushing out more. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. OP's suggested blurb seems a good upgrade to current one, and given the current pace of ITN, the war isn't going to be pushed to ongoing anytime "soon" (aka: within one or two days) Flameperson (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Currently all major cities seem to be in Ukrainian hands. In any case, the situation is very fluid amid ongoing Russian–Ukrainian information war and we should be cautious about any claims beyond the current blurb. If the situation changes dramatically based on reliable third-party sources, we can reconsider. Brandmeistertalk 19:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose ITN is not a news ticker, and in the comments you have various proposals of different events to emphasise (effect on Ruble, taking of some cities, experiencing resistance) and it's still early in the proposal -- future comments may emphasise Belarusian involvement, Western sanctions, stock markets crashing, or dozens of other major effects that have already happened or will happen. What if a city gets taken back? What makes any one of these factors more important than the other? I think we got the perfect hook the first time, and it not needing an update is not a problem. The underlying event here is the Russian invasion of Ukraine. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
President ordered Russia's nuclear forces put on high alert[edit]

Unless I am mistaking, I think this level of open declaration of threat level has not been done since the Cuban crisis. Even if nothing comes out of it, and even if the USSR did have this level of alert as recently as the 80s, I think this uptick should still be noted in the ITN. 2A02:2F0E:DE07:BF00:B19A:8EBA:F556:7C1B (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this is like a DEFCON1. 2A02:2F0E:DE07:BF00:28EE:4F79:A71B:62CC (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke-saber rattling. – Sca (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please... DarkSide830 (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please? – Sca (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Me? - Floydian τ ¢ 13:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would wait a bit more until it becomes clear. Right now it seems to be just putting nuclear weapons on high alert - until he either drops a nuke in Ukraine or threatens to do so openly, we shouldn’t put anything there. If he starts a global thermonuclear war I think we should just try and not die instead of updating ITN. Juxlos (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think even the ex-KGB commissar now at the Russian helm would stupid enough to start a nuclear war. – Sca (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of us here didn't think he'd seriously invade Ukraine either. WaltCip-(talk) 16:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Russian invasion entry should be updated to include reference to this and possibly the ruble crashing as well. All would be ITN-worthy on their own. Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

February 27[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


(Closed) Pakistan Super League final[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: 2022 Pakistan Super League Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cricket, Lahore Qalandars win their maiden Pakistan Super League title by defeating Multan Sultans in the final. (Post)
News source(s): Sky Sports
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Article looks fine and ready to be posted. MasterOfMetaverse (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The league is now a big cricket event and is covered extensively in cricketing world including the ICC itself this time. USaamo (t@lk) 02:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per the comments stated by USaamo. Fade258 (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not ITN worthy, we shouldn't be posting every country's T20 league finals. I'm not a fan of posting IPL which has a way bigger international audience than the PSL. Also article quality is insufficient, match report is poorly aourced and links to lots of dab pages. Infobox violates MOS:FLAG, as "team colours" aren't needed in infobox. Background also needs a copyedit as it has some awkward phrasings. And the league stage section should give a summary of all their matches in the league stage, rather than overdetailed match reports of the two matches they previously played against each other. If article quality is not fixed, then the importance is a moot point, the support votes above don't appear to have considered article quality. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Joseph. Not ITNR, btw. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Doesn't attract the same attention as the IPL, which is the only domestic T20 League I would consider significant enough to post.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not ITNR and shouldn't be. Tradediatalk 18:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Sonny Ramadhin[edit]

Article: Sonny Ramadhin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Cricketer, Guardian
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: International cricketer, but article needs significant work Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I expanded the article by adding more sources. I think its ok for now. Abishe (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good now thanks (I support posting this now). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Filled a minor ref. Article looks good for homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Nick Zedd[edit]

Article: Nick Zedd (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reforma
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American filmmaker Thriley (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a database of films that can be used as a reliable source for Zedd’s films? I know IMDB isn’t ever used, but is there something similar? It may be difficult to find sources for every film of his otherwise. Thriley (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the prose unreferenced (Zero footnotes in 'Early life' and 'Personal life and death' sections. Even his death is unsourced for an RD nom?!Now, there is a footnote, with a {bare URL}, though. Oh, well... --PFHLai (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)). The long, unreferenced list in the filmography section may need to be trimmed down to keep only those items that are verifiable (Selected Filmography). --PFHLai (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Antonov An-225[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Proposed image
Article: Antonov An-225 Mriya (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Antonov An-225 Mriya (pictured), the world's largest aircraft, is destroyed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (Post)
News source(s): Radio Free Europe (in Russian, English translation), Dmytro Kuleba, Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs, OSINT Canada
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Per blurb, destruction of world's largest aircraft in service. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - news is spotty if it was destroyed or just damaged, and in the latter case, the potential to restore. Further, this is part of the ongoing invasion blurb. --Masem (t) 16:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even with that confirmation, this effectively part of, and overshadowed by the current invasion blurb. It would be the wrong thing to be focusing on at ITN while there's other invasion stuff still going on. --Masem (t) 16:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Doesn't seem especially significant in the big picture of this war. If not already done, it could be mentioned in the main article on the war. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Tiny part of a bigger story. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would feel better if Antonov came out with a statement confirming it.[1] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ITN material. Not terribly impactful in the grand scope of things if we are honest. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose seems insensitive to focus on a plane when there's a refugee crisis and a brutal war. Jr8825Talk 05:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) 2022 eastern Australia floods[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Proposed image
Pedestrian tunnel flooding in the suburb of Tanah Merah, in south Brisbane
Article: 2022 eastern Australia floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 16 deaths during the 2022 eastern Australia floods (Post)
News source(s): see article, AP, Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
 --Caltraser5 (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose too short and doesn't look very notable in terms of ITN at this time. NoahTalk 13:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A major world city crippled is not notable?--Caltraser5 (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ... for now, pending expansion of 160-word stub. – Sca (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Like the Sumatra earthquake, it’s not a major disaster with a notorious number of casualties. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, oppose quality This is a quite small article that will need to be improved on to make it on the front page. 7 deaths in a region that is not usually prone to floods is a big deal. Kline | yes? 15:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It IS a flood prone region! See 2010–2011 Queensland floods, and 1974 Brisbane flood, and several other articles. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't even know that. Thanks for telling me! Kline | yes? 19:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article quality not quite there yet, but it's important to recognise that this event has pretty much usurped the extended coverage of Ukraine (at least in Australia). JMonkey2006 (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a poorly named article. And a totally over-hyped event. The floods are impacting only a tiny fraction of eastern Australia. They are still restricted to flood plains, which is where floods are supposed to happen. The fact that Queensland, and Brisbane in particular, went through some appalling (non-)planning stages in its history, and allowed a lot of houses to be built on those flood plains might be the more newsworthy aspect of this. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the US many major inland port cities are in floodplains like Saint Louis, Memphis, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Kansas City, New Orleans, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Houston, Miami (okay that one's not inland) and Baton Rouge and the river can get tens of kilometers wide in floods. New Orleans is in a bowl that's below sea level except for the very center. In China they called the Yellow River and/or Yangtze the river in the sky or something like that, the Yellow deposited so much yellow silt that it'd build a natural groove-topped ridge and flow in the groove with the boats higher than the cities and would break out within centuries and kill hundreds of thousands of people each time. So within millennia the river would wiggle around like a snake and flood everything in an extremely flat strip cone of hyperfarmable silt up to hundreds of miles wide. Edit: Except the Shandong Peninsula and nearby high spot were too high so it would always bypass them to the left or right. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A very different situation. Most of the development I am speaking of in Brisbane has occurred in the past 50 years. The dangers were well known, but officially ignored by planners. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked on that claim of 7 deaths. Sourcing in the article is poor. It has separate sources for separate deaths. The claim of 7 is original research, apparently adding up separate claims. My own adding up only gave me 6 deaths. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong with the title? It looks similar to other articles on floods. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The floods are impacting only a tiny fraction of eastern Australia. I live in eastern Australia, and it's hardly rained at all here for three months. The title gives a completely false impression. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, it was originally named "2022 South East Queensland flood" before it was moved earlier today in a violation of WP:CRYSTAL: see this diff. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a far more accurate title, so I have moved it back. No idea what that means for this proposal. Do we rename this too? The real point is that this is NOT about as significant event as the old title implies. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hilo you probably live in either Sydney or Melbourne, which is actually west of SEQ/Northern NSW, and we are farther east of you. So title of the article is accurate.--Caltraser5 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we need a better name for that chunk of Australia which is SE Qld and NE NSW. "Eastern Australia" is not a good choice. Are you seriously suggesting Sydney is not in eastern Australia? HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sydney is on the east coast, but to many people from SEQ it is south-west of us, and the area affected by flooding is more than just SEQ, Gympie is not really part of SEQ it's part of the wide-bay burnett region and the northern rivers of NSW often experiences the same weather as SEQ does, and that's definitely not part of SEQ.--Caltraser5 (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're not actually discussing this. I repeat - It seems we need a better name for that chunk of Australia which is SE Qld and NE NSW. "Eastern Australia" is not a good choice. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you come up with a better title--Caltraser5 (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We didn't (correctly IMHO) post Storm Eunice (Discussion) last week and that killed 17 people over a wider area. Black Kite (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must point out that Caltraser5 has Edit warred over the title of the article being used here, and has not gone near the Talk page to discuss it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose impact is way lower than the European floods that weren't posted. So not ITN worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – "Tens of thousands" ordered to evacuate, per AP. – Sca (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is record breaking flooding, and so far 13 people have died. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 02:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Half a million people ordered evacuated, per Guardian. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not enough for ITN. Tradediatalk 17:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

February 26[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Ralph Ahn[edit]

Article: Ralph Ahn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety; Rolling Stone; KNBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Length (500+ words of prose) Green tickY Deployment of Footnotes Green tickY Formatting Green tickY Coverage Green tickY: This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 25[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports


(Posted) RD: Eleonore Schönborn[edit]

Article: Eleonore Schönborn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Diocese of Vienna
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: Another one who arrived at deaths in 2022 with a red link. I began translating the German article, just to have a bit more than that, but then realised that she was a great woman, not just the mother of a famous son, and was 101 years when she died. Grimes2 worked miracles expanding. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Sumatra earthquake[edit]

Proposed image
The Raya Kajai mosque in West Sumatra has collapsed
Article: 2022 Sumatra earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 8 people are killed in the 2022 Sumatra earthquake (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At least 8 people are killed and 6,000 displaced by the 2022 Sumatra earthquake
News source(s): see article
Credits:
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Kind of surprised this isn't nominated, although the Russian invasion of Ukraine dominates the news. Banedon (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is probably personal, but as a Sumatran (Batak) native, I'd really just suspend this in favor of raising awareness on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Not that I'm opposing nominating this, but at least we can suspend until the Ukrainian invasion news item has enough main page time.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Jeromi's views noted, the article is actually really good for a recent disaster, and we haven't had an earthquake for a while. Kingsif (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Russian invasion of Ukraine will still be on the mainpage as a blurb. Realistically it won't likely rolloff to ongoing before another development results in a new nomination. Baurach86 (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The invasion will still be highly sought after. We don't want accusations of "biases", hence, let the news roll. PenangLion (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Being consistent with my idea that only natural disasters that cause a notorious number of casualties are ITN-worthy. And that there was a Russian invasion in Ukraine has nothing to do here. PS: and I wish the affected editors and their families are well. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - I dont see the reason why this shouldnt be on the mainpage. The state of emergency has been declared in the West Pasaman Regency and there are more than 6,000 estimated refugees. If thats not a disaster worthy of being on the mainpage I dont know what is Nyanardsan (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this, added altblurb. Kingsif (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a minor quake with minor damage in a major fault zone? Not really notable. We routinely (and rightly) do not post other routine natural disasters with low death tolls and a few inconvenienced people (such as storm Eunice just last week). --LaserLegs (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Legs. Currently not widely covered on main RS sites. – Sca (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is widely-covered, I feel I have to say, from Reuters all the way down, but obviously nothing is beating Kyiv et al to the top spots. Kingsif (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wire services "print" copy for every random event around the world in the hopes to get ad reveune from eyeballs it != notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"all the way down" Kingsif (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The death toll is thankfully not particularly high. I would agree if this was a slow news cycle but this isn't clearly the case, leaning towards an oppose. Gotitbro (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a friendly reminder that slow/fast news cycles are irrelevant towards whether an article should be posted on ITN or not. — Chevvin 18:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until full impacts are known. Not sure this measures up in an area with a history of violent earthquakes, but more knowledge on the impact can better quantify this. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article looks to be in good shape. -- Tavix (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted In the news, article in good shape, and we don't have a WP:MINIMUMDEATHS threshold to meet. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture The target article contains a couple of good pictures which we should consider. I've added the picture of a collapsed mosque to the nomination above and suggest that it be added to the main page entry too. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was already added. Stephen 21:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture was swapped at 21:11 but I started writing my post before then, taking some time to figure out where the mosque was. It's a good picture so thanks for putting it up. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lionel James[edit]

Article: Lionel James (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP
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: Undersized American football player at 5 feet 6 inches (1.68 m) and 171 pounds (78 kg). —Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Short but adequate. Referencing looks solid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a bit harsh, I'm sure he was a more than adequate player. Black Kite (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John Landy[edit]

Article: John Landy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC Australia, The Age, 7News
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.

 Craig Andrew1 (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A great Australian. Article seems OK. But I await constructive suggestions for improvement. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple paragraphs that lack a single reference would be good to improve. Stephen 23:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked for CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions. Maybe you could mark what concerns you with some cn tags please. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you not able to recognise an unreferenced paragraph without help? Stephen 04:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Forget it. Somebody else has helped here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Ready Referencing is quite poor and will require significant improvement before this can be posted. I have tagged the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of Wikilinks in the article. Many of the tags refer to content well sourced in the articles those links take a reader to. There is already a source used at one point in the article (Other acomplishsmets) which could be reliably used to source many of the claims in the article. It is https://about.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/file/0024/15828/landy.pdf This is from the University of Melbourne, a top ranking university. I seek help in making better use of that source please. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HiLo48. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This means that Wiki articles, including links to articles, cannot substitute for inline citations to sources that pass WP:RS. PROVEIT is an excellent tool for adding citations if you need help. Thank you for your work on the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Sourcing seems thin. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - Article is good enough. Barely.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Significant improvement in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's comments: Thank you for the work on the referencing. Any further work and support to get this important RD article posted, would be much appreciated. Craig Andrew1 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • READY A massive amount of work has been done to bring this article up to standard. There are no cn tags left. Time to post! HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 08:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 24[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports


(Attention) RD: Vitalii Skakun[edit]

Article: Vitalii Skakun (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
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: Ukrainian marine and combat engineer. TJMSmith (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This probably falls under WP:BLP1E. Stephen 23:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bridge near the Russian embassy in Prague is renamed after him, making this ">1E" now. --PFHLai (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Sally Kellerman[edit]

Article: Sally Kellerman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: She played Hot Lips Houlihan on M*A*S*H – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification Saying "on M*A*S*H" perhaps suggests that it was on the TV show. In fact, Kellerman played Hot Lips in the movie that preceded the TV series. Loretta Swit, who played that character in the TV show is still alive. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some cite tags and unreferenced tables. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still a handful of {cn} tags. Filmography is largely unreferenced. The Awards and nominations section is sourced to IMDb and nothing else. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN, AP
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The invasion of Ukraine is a large topic in the news and the events that are transpiring are being reported on minute-by-minute. Kellis7 (talk) 3:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The invasion blurb is sufficient, and barring and major events to require a new blurb, it would be expected for that to fall off into an ongoing. --Masem (t) 15:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support there's no actual ITN rule that says something cannot have a blurb and also be on ongoing- it's a made up pseudo-rule that people here always try to enforce. It's an ongoing event too, so deserves to be ongoing. Let's not be bureaucratic about it, put it on ongoing now, rather than waiting a week and then making people redo this discussion for the sake of it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its actually a main page rule not to duplicate featured article links. --Masem (t) 15:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Is that specifically for when a page is a Today's Featured Article or does it apply to all aspects of the main page? And is that a rule or a guideline? WaltCip-(talk) 15:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Its for all sections. --Masem (t) 15:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see what's gained by delaying this for a week.--Llewee (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Needless duplication and poor user experience are avoided. It'd be bad experience to have two blurbs in close proximity leading to the same article. And if you argue the sections should link to different articles, that'd be misleading as you're suggesting the ITN section event is different from the Ongoing section one. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The chances of this event and the surrounding circumstances drawing to a denouement by the time this blurb drops off the main page is infinitesimally small.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. It is OK to be in Ongoing, but that should wait until it falls off ITN. There's no need for duplication here. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's a blurb now, when the blurb falls off it will move to Ongoing.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, once the event falls off of the ordinary list. I think that a duplicate listing is fine but I think it is better to not list the same event multiple times in the same general area on the front page. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So then you oppose. Don't confuse the issue. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I fail to see any argument made for what we gain by duplicating the blurb. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Joseph2302 and WaltCip. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle but wait until the blurb is pushed off by more recent events per the concerns of all of those above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but I would take the supports above to mean that we should automatically put this one into ongoing once the blurb expires off, unless Russia pulls out of Ukraine and we return to the status quo before the blurb ages off. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is virtually certain that another blurbable event (e.g. fall of Kyiv) will happen well before this falls off. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the addition of more links. Yesterday, the blurb was linking to 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis. Today, it's 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Who knows what it will be tomorrow? In Ongoing, we should have an over-arching link like Russo-Ukrainian War. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The most important event in the world today. Free Ukraine. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the war is possibly the most significant event so far this century. Bending our rules to allow two links is appropriate - though I also support updating the blurb as appropriate to keep it on ITN while the war continues. BilledMammal (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A blurb and Ongoing at the same time is appropriate in this case.BabbaQ (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is no need to link to the exact same article twice. I'd be open to putting an alternative article under the ongoing section. Calidum 20:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Let’s simply wait until the blurb rolls off and then move it to ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ongoing. This is already on the main page. It will go back to ongoing if the blurb rolls off.  Nixinova T  C   20:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing Though I'd rather see it bumped off of the ITN list before it gets added to ongoing Canuck89 (Chat with me) 21:04, February 24, 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted/Updated) Update blurb: Russia-Ukraine[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russia invades Ukraine. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Russian president Vladimir Putin announces military action in Ukraine.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Russia attacks Ukraine.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine.
News source(s): AP, BBC, Guardian, Reuters, DW, France24, AlJazeera
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Per the AP release, it seems like a full invasion. Juxlos (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment from the AP source: "He said the Russian military operation aims to ensure a “demilitarization” of Ukraine. Putin said that all Ukrainian servicemen who lay down arms will be able to safely leave the zone of combat." Several news outlets are reporting explosions heard around major cities like Kiev and Kharkiv, e.g. CNN. Some others like the New Zealand Herald outright reports it as "Russia declares war on Ukraine". Juxlos (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ukrainian representative in the UN claims that the Russian Ambassador to Ukraine has delivered a formal declaration of war. [2].Juxlos (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well, this is it. CNN and others are reporting explosions near Kiev and Kharkiv, and Kramatorsk is reported as under attack. The Kip (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - but surely needs to be stronger. "Russia invades Ukraine". "Russia and Ukraine at war". "Russia attacks Kiev". Nfitz (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Wait Support in principle, but we are in the opening moments of hostilities here. Let's get an idea of what is going on and how reliable sources are characterizing this. If they label it an invasion, so should we. We may also end up with a new article dedicated to the war, as opposed to the current bolded article that is mostly focused on the political aspects of the crisis that is likely transitioning from diplomacy to open war. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The invasion is like 90 minutes old. I doubt soldiers on either frontlines are speaking to reporters at the moment. Juxlos (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Enough sources are now characterizing this as a large-scale invasion. The original blurb works for me, again based on a mountain of RS sourcing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for what? CNN is reporting that Ukrainian Interior Ministry says that there are missile strikes in various places, and that the invasion has begun. Nfitz (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not even agencies like AFP and AP know exactly what's going on right now. All they know is that Russia is doing military invasion in Ukraine, where and how is still to be reported. No reason to rush past the agencies. Juxlos (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support initial blurb at this time there is little doubt about it now, there being literally Russian boots on the ground of Ukraine as we speak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle Maybe wait a few hours to see how things play out, but definitely a defining moment of 2022, and likely will be upgraded to ongoing in the near future. I think the blurb's bluntness makes it strong enough. Jumpytoo Talk 03:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. --Bedivere (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle Without a doubt, but blurb will need to be refined and made more precise. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could hardly be more direct than that. Juxlos (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not post right now, wait - Per everyone above who supports to wait, currently 4 cities are under a series of barrages. Mariupol's case is the worst, the videos provided showed the entire sky being orange. Rumors about Russian forces occupying an airport in Kyiv has spread like wildfire. Uncertainties are everywhere. Do not act hastily. PenangLion (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Heartbreaking escalation, will definitely be a defining moment of the decade, let alone 2022. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 03:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but suggest waiting a few hours given the large quantity of amateur video footage pouring out of Ukraine right now, I have no objections to posting blurb 1 to ITN now. Oppose blurb 2 as it significantly waters down the facts on the ground. --benlisquareTCE 03:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support and post now - Per above reasons in favor. 2603:8000:6700:C5F:8BF:3CF4:4D41:1B0D (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with a short delay for the basic facts to become settled. However, modify standard ITN procedure to use a full sized blurb (similar to one used by TFA) so that we can provide an effective summary of the situation rather than having to settle for "Russia invades Ukraine" - the global significance of the situation warrants such a change. BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A quick reminder that Wikipedia is not a newspaper/ticker. There is no rush here. This is unquestionably going to be posted. Let's get it right and, if possible, maybe something with some substance beyond a screaming headline. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There we go, per Ad, wait until confirmed reports surface. We have no idea the actual situation down there. PenangLion (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved to support per my above comment near the top. This is clearly a large scale invasion and is being almost universally labeled as such by RS sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've put an alt blurb to state exactly what Putin has said. Yes, most Western sources call this an invasion, but per Ad Orientem above, we've already got part of this story in ITN, lets make sure it is covered neutrally. --Masem (t) 04:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair, but make sure that the admin is alert. Reports are coming in of Russian landings as far away from Donbass as Odessa ([3], [4]) - that's a full invasion, not a regular military operation. Juxlos (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not going to lie, the alt blurb is incredibly vague for people with little to no context ("announcing military action" is very different from launching an unprovoked, full-scale military invasion of a sovereign country). It also gives an unnecessary amount of weight to the Russian nationalist narrative (WP:Mandy). Wikipedia is not, and should not be, a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 04:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt as the blurb as that's the most direct confirmed info we have, further information can be added in the article as needed. ansh.666 04:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO a combination of the alts would be ideal here to prevent it from being too short. ansh.666 04:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose alt as we are not a mouthpiece for propaganda, and independent reliable sources are universally describing this as a Russian unprovoked attack on Ukraine, not the reverse or whatever it was that the Russian delegate was spouting at the UNSC meeting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the same time, we can't jump ahead of RSes to call it an invasion, either. There's not a lot of exactly what's happening yet beyond reports of explosions and gun fire, so whether an invasion has actually occurred (now) is unclear. --Masem (t) 04:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose alt as it reflects Putin's POV, rather than NPOV. This is why I believe a full sized blurb is needed, to provide a complete summary of the situation. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ANY BLURB JUST POST IT WHAT THE HELL, also Daikido (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Just woke up WHAT THE F*CK IS GOING ON???? Daikido (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose alt That's effectively re-spouting Russian propaganda. The Kip (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean, news sources so far are using "military operation" for the time being so unless you want to call them Russian propaganda outlets. Mellk (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first blurb or wait until we have information for a more specific blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original blurb. It's succinct and accurate. The argument for waiting is basically "well Putin just said he would invade Ukraine, but all we have now is credible reports of a whole lot of aistrikes and sketchy reports about the amphibious operations in Odessa, so we don't truly know if there's an invasion." In other words, pointless pedantry. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support announcement of invasion, OPPOSE alt as repeating pure Russian propeganda and WP:FRINGE. Ravensfire (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict × 3) Comment re: alt - it doesn't really matter that it's "Russian propaganda", reliable sources are reporting that that's what Putin said. We aren't claiming in Wikipedia's voice that what is going on is that (much as the news outlets aren't either), just that Russia is claiming that that's what's going on. Besides, the article itself has more than enough context. ansh.666 04:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about a combination of the two? "Putin announces blah blah. Western sources label it an invasion." or such? 70.172.194.25 (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A "military operation" in Ukraine by Russian Armed Forces is, by definition, an invasion. Unless the military operation involves the largest vodka drinking contest in known human history. Juxlos (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very much in the news right now and it is international. Very surprised this hasn't been updated yet. I have seen US "breaking news" be added to ITN faster than this. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When someone dies the wording is unambiguous and the article is easy to update. Not so for an invasion. Juxlos (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle Russia's definitely attacking Ukraine & it looks like it's an invasion. I oppose the 1st alt blurb & have added a 2nd alt blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT3 which I just added and is the way the intro sentence of the article is phrased. This is an invasion. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support NYTimes headline is "Russia attacks Ukraine". LATimes headline is "Putin orders attacks on Ukraine". AP headline is "Putin announces Ukraine military operation, explosions heard". There are plenty of reliable sources for there being an active attack. The current blurb about "deploys troops to the region." is out of date. --GeorgeSonOfJohn (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is some posturing, all. Since yesterday, when it (apparently) became inevitable that this would happen, I have been asking myself what we would have done when Hitler invaded Poland. And, if that would have been a shambles of a response, what we would have liked to have done. I mean, throw out COVID, Russia has outstaged that. Do we hastily post a benign "Russia attacks Ukraine" line and leave it? Do we start a new article, separating the, er, new war from the 2014-present and 2021-present tensions articles, and post that as updates? Do we list the main cities as they fall or repel? Do we start a box? Do we, on the backend, siphon off part of the current events and MILHIST, those dedicated nerds, projects and ask users we trust to basically focus on this coverage for us? I know the mad scramble of current events articles, and am a little terrified of the collision of war and the internet age, where nothing is real until you've updated your status about it (Wikipedia, of course, included). This is, obviously, urgent, but in trying to find a blurb to agree on, nobody seems to have asked what it should say, what the history book headline will be. Kingsif (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe there is much support for it, but I see it much the same way; a simple short blurb isn't sufficient, and we should instead write a full sized blurb that temporarily replaces the current content of ITN. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I considered leaving the previous blurb on the Russian recognition of the breakaway republics up instead of just updating it as an IAR way to provide context for the invasion blurb, but decided not to break SOP. Of all the things to have two concurrent blurbs/an oversized blurb, full blown war in Europe would be it. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Pater knight and Kingsif: I've proposed an extend blurb above. Will need extensive editing if there is support for posting it, and I don't mind editors doing that; I'm adding content regarding the international reaction now. BilledMammal (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          I think a simple "Russia invades Ukraine" is fine for now, but since this story is likely to develop (more details from what has been attacked already, potentially there could also be a ground invasion, etc.) I'd support an extended blurb like this in that case. We could also do a "Russian invasion of Ukraine" banner with links to Russo-Ukrainian war, Donbas war, buildup to invasion, DPR and LPR, any others? Davey2116 (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • We couldn't even update our one-line blurb without a discussion this big. How on earth do you expect something that long and detailed would remain accurate for so long as an hour? —Cryptic 07:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Besides that, @BilledMammal:, the ITN box can probably only fit about four complete sentences. Kingsif (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is any kind of special intervention needed. The self-organizing military and event projects will do just that, as for "the headline" newspapers will handle that with the historical record justifying which stuck. Gotitbro (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro: Fair, though we are in an unfortunate position where we are outpacing newspapers and users still demand catchy titles - I advocate against coining, of course. What I meant was that there are the most stoic broadsheets that use lines like "Russia invades Ukraine", and the most extreme tabloids that write things like "COMMIE PUTIN personally MURDERS innocent Ukrainians, including WOMEN and CHILDREN, in the worst WAR in all of EUROPE this CENTURY!" and obviously we are not going to get close to that example, but there is a happy medium (skewed broadsheet) that includes some detail without hyperbole, rather than just taking a bland detached position. Kingsif (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted ALT3 per overwhelming consensus here. Discussions on the precise wording can continue, but "invasion" is widely used by reliable sources.. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post posting support --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even simply Russia invades Ukraine would suffice here.  Nixinova T  C   05:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AP literally says "Russia attacks Ukraine". Doesn't get any more clear than that. Therefore support current blurb for now. We can update it later if it's needed. Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post posting support, shocking and horrible. I wish Ukraine solidarity and the best, they don’t deserve this. BastianMAT (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post posting support, quite a shocking and surreal turn of events. As per above, I am genuinely mortified that this has occurred. Wishing nothing but the best to Ukrainian Wikipedians, and the Ukrainian people, in this difficult and challenging time. Ornithoptera (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing As I write, the previous blurb about the Donbas has been replaced by "Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine." The trouble with this is that it's not stable. The target article started with an edit war over its very existence and there are still massively disruptive edits like this and so the quality of the article is quite uncertain. The situation seems quite fluid and the launch is obviously just the start of something. But we've had an article, Russo-Ukrainian War, since 2014 and this seems to be the latest phase in this conflict. Our instructions say that "The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time." As we can expect many developments and updates, we should put this back into Ongoing with a link to the broadest article. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Russo-Ukrainian War is too large by now to accommodate the latest events, so this is a rightful WP:SIZESPLIT and should remain blurbed as such. This phase of the war is intense and serious enough to have a separate article. Brandmeistertalk 09:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This asks for some flexibility and out-of-the-box thinking. I support the blurb, but we can do better. What we need is a box, which not only gives the blurb (with its one link); but with a "for background on this, see: Russo-Ukrainian War for the situation since 2014, 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis for the build-up to the invasion, Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic for the disputed territories, and War in Donbas for the situation prior to the 24 February invasion". Give people easy, direct access to the major articles surrounding this invasion and giving background to it, which is the thing we should be good at (more so than the immediate "what happens now"). Obviously the format and the suggested articles need tweaking, but this is what the readers want right now, and this is what we as an encyclopedia can and should offer them. Fram (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such an approach would be sensible. Looking at the top views indicates that our readership is going to about 20 different articles for this topic. What they are not reading now in significant numbers is our article about the Superbowl as that happened over a week ago. We can give up space from such stale blurbs to give more space to this crisis, as we did for Covid. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need. We don't want or need up to 20 (or more) articles linked from the front page, when our readers can go to one article, and then access whichever others they might want from there.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update image to File:War in Ukraine (2022) en.png Kingsif (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's illegible at MP scale.
    Modest Genius talk 11:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support changing image to something related to this blurb. I also agree with Andrew Davidson that we should have more links in the box since many people will come looking for that information (for reference, this is what the COVID-19 banner looked like in July 2020. Regards SoWhy 12:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • COVID directly affected every reader, and thus the box was deemed essential to make sure every reader was alerted to it. This event has major impacts but does not directly impact every reader. Making sure that a blurb or ongoing is in ITN is important but a box won't help in the same way. --Masem (t) 13:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support changing image to something related to this blurb, but Oppose other suggestions to do much more at this time. It's currently an important event, hence the need for a related image. But it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume it will be as important as COVID, let alone as Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939. It might of course eventually lead to nuclear Armageddon (in which case nobody will be around to criticize us for inadequate headlines). But that would be an unexpected surprise, given that the West has said its own troops won't be involved. It seems more likely that it will be just the latest of a long series of such Russian or Soviet actions (Finland 1939, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Afghanistan 1979, Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014, and probably many others that I don't remember) and I'm not aware that anybody is saying 'Wow, Wikipedia ITN really messed up in 2008 and 2014 by failing to have banner headlines announcing the start of World War 3". We can leave that sort of thing to other kinds of media. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the blurb as it is currently written. I'm not in favor of taking neutrality to the point of pure ignorance of what is actually happening. WaltCip-(talk) 13:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment – Per Nfitz, Davey2116, Juxlos, support Alt4, which says all that needs to be said at this pt. "Launches" is unnecessary, redundant, and seems to inject a vague whiff of uncertainty about whether this is in fact an invasion – which all RS sources say it is. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT3 It would sound better, as Russia officially LAUNCHED an invasion of Ukraine. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We generally use present tense verbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentNYT headline: FIERCE FIGHTING ACROSS UKRAINE – Sca (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Late Thurs. coverage: Antiwar protests in Russia – 1,600 reported arrested. [5] [6]Sca (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

February 23[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Antonietta Stella[edit]

Article: Antonietta Stella (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Opera Wire
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.

 TJMSmith (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • She has been described as the last Italian soprano legend from the 1950s and 1960s, Scala, Metropolitan Opera, all the big houses, with a focus on Verdi's suffering heroines. - We had an article with one "source" which was the copy of the GSL, and covered only half o the text. So it took a while. As I write this the recordings still have no reference, but that's more a question of patience, - a recording is a recording and will show somewhere. Please check the rest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    update: the recordings shown are now referenced, - there could be more but I need a break --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Short but adequate and decently referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems good to me. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mehdi Hasan (Pakistani journalist)[edit]

Article: Mehdi Hasan (Pakistani journalist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DAWN, The News, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
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.

 Ainty Painty (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Short but adequate. Referencing is acceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted with fixes. --PFHLai (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: The Amazing Johnathan[edit]

Article: The Amazing Johnathan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone, Daily Mail
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.

 Craig Andrew1 (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose correctly orange tagged as needing more sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Anna Karen[edit]

Article: Anna Karen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC The Independent
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.

 Spicy Veggie (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Suisse secrets[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: Suisse secrets (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Suisse secrets, documents relating to US$108.5 billion of offshore investment, are leaked. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, DAWN, NY Times, Al Jazeera
Credits:
 Ainty Painty (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not 100+ billion documents, that's the USD total for the ~30,000 clients. Stephen 02:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle Reword as I haven't seen that figure mentioned but is definitely notable enough. Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support, we posted both Panama Papers and Paradise Papers, which were similar types of leaks. However, the article is absolutely too short at the moment. --Tone 09:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Given the size of the leak and the names on the bank's client list, this is significant news which merits inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, oppose quality - article length is 1323 bytes at the time of this message. More background would be needed. Juxlos (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Support on significance. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as simple existence does not imply guilt, which is not the position WP should be taking. --Masem (t) 13:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Masem. And at 211 words of text, article is too stubby. – Sca (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, oppose on quality per Juxlos. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tending to oppose first for quality. Secondly, I don't think it is comparable to the Panama, Paradise and Pandora papers. At least for now the notable people who have been named are not many, not to say remarkable less than five. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem and Sca, pretty short article for something notable as such. PenangLion (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article needs expansion, also names are listed in the article but subsequent details are not mentioned in many of the bios which should be added. Gotitbro (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, too short article for such a claim. Alex-h (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What exactly is the notability of this "story"? As it currently stands, the only proposed blurb, "The Suisse secrets, documents relating to US$108.5 billion of offshore investment, are leaked" is about (1) the existence of bank accounts and (2) the leaking of information about those bank accounts. The fact that rich people have bank accounts in a Swiss Bank is not news. What makes a Swiss bank account more notable than a bank account in other countries? Chrisclear (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notability is that multiple international criminals and dictators have billions of likely laundered money in this Swiss bank, and that it potentially provides evidence of the Vatican laundering money, which is explained in the first sentence of the first link OP posted. It could be worded better. Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've highlighted three problems with the proposed blurb. (1) The blurb only mentions the existence of bank accounts, and not the allegation of money laundering. (2) As you wrote "likely" laundered money, but not proof. (3) "potentially provides evidence" of money laundering, but not proof. Chrisclear (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other significance is that some whistleblower went and leaked such details, which is why a lot of the previous leaks (especially Paradise Papers, as I recall) were dramatic, too. Kingsif (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess you're right that it's "dramatic", but breaches of privacy are fairly common, and it's unlikely that this story would be posted solely due to the privacy breach. I can't help but notice your use of the word "whistleblower" - yet the blurb as it stands (1) does not contain any specific allegations of wrongdoing by the account holders, nor (2) proof/findings of wrongdoing by account holders. The only wrongdoing contained in the blurb, ironically enough, is the privacy breach by the "whistleblower". Chrisclear (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Rehman Malik[edit]

Article: Rehman Malik (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Geo TV, The News, Duna News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Ainty Painty (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: This wikipage is tagged with {unreliable sources|date=January 2017}, {anachronism|date=February 2020}, and a few {cn}, too. Please fix. --PFHLai (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Once quality issue is addressed. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 22[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Judith Pipher[edit]

Article: Judith Pipher (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]
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: Canadian-born American astrophysicist and observational astronomer. TJMSmith (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Decent length and career coverage, with full sourcing. Joofjoof (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mark Lanegan[edit]

Article: Mark Lanegan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SPIN
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: Screaming Trees, QOTSA, solo career – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was playing Scraps at Midnight only the other day. Damn. Never got to see Screaming Trees live, but did have the pleasure of seeing Mr Lanegan a couple of times. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never saw ST live either, but I did see him perform with QOTSA more than a few times. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saw ST once whilst very drunk at a festival, but saw him twice with the Gutter Twins and around 4-5 times solo. Last time was the tour with Duke Garwood in 2018. Oh, man. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, the collab section needs a few sources and a cruft-tidy. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking much better now! – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marked ready. I'm on my phone, but I can't see any major issues. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Joan Croll[edit]

Article: Joan Croll (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald
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.

 Oronsay (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The provided death source does not work, and I cannot find another. Also, article directly cites a marriage certificate. Joofjoof (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The given obit works. At 1290 characters, though, the article is currently a stub. Joofjoof (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, at 228 words it's rather too stubby. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Stub with debatable sourcing (not just marriage cert). Presumably obits will come along that can fill it in. Kingsif (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close but still needs a bit of expansion. The use of the marriage cert follows WP:PRIMARY. TJMSmith (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 22:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 21[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) Separatist republics[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic (talk · history · tag) and 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Government of Russia officially recognized separatist Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Government of Russia officially recognizes the separatist Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics in eastern Ukraine, and orders Russian forces to enter the territory.
Alternative blurb II: Russia officially recognizes the breakaway self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk republics in eastern Ukraine, and orders its military forces to enter their claimed territory.
Alternative blurb III: ​ In an escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian crisis, Russia officially recognizes the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk republics in eastern Ukraine, and orders its military forces to enter their claimed territory.
News source(s): Reuters, AP, BBC, Guardian, DW, France24, PBS
Credits:

 Andrei (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is the kind of news that moves the Ongoing to a dedicated blurb. However, the article is not ready. --Tone 21:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substantially in agreement with Tone. Support pending improvements to the article. Btw, the proposed image has an error, as the apparent salient on the border of the two oblasts is far from being that deep - it used to be so until February 2015, but when Ukrainian forces lost the battle of Debaltseve, it became much shallower. Use Openstreetmap for reference. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Globally significant news. The next step would be deploying Russian nuke missiles in these republics. Be afraid. STSC (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once the article is improved and remove from ongoing. This is clearly something concrete in the pissing match.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- and added an altblurb.-- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a de jure Russian invasion of Ukraine. Even though Donetsk and Luhansk have been under DPR and LPR control since 2014, they are still legally part of Ukraine and as such, the presence of Russian forces there is blurb-worthy news. Davey2116 (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — as per STSC = Emperor Putin rips up the Minsk Protocol. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportBIG news. This will be the No. 1 story for days, weeks, if not longer. Favor Alt2. – Sca (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - Huge news. This is an (almost) superpower recognizing an independent country CR-1-AB (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle clearly noteworthy news, however a blurb will have to dance that important line of neutrality between the two sides, and simply stating what one side said it did is not neutral. The two altblurbs do an okay job of that. NorthernFalcon (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Alt-blurb 3 is the best-worded blurb and should be the one that is used. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The title of the nominated article seems tendentious – "International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic..." is not what has happened, is it? It mainly seems to amount to more diplomatic posturing and fist-waving and there's not much change on the ground. There will be much more of this as the other international countries have their say and this could still take years to work out. The current ongoing entry still seems best to cover this latest development. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, who cares about Ukraine, a "far-away country of which we know nothing," as Neville Chamberlain said in 1938? – Sca (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was Czechoslovakia that Chamberlain said that about. Certainly not his finest hour. WaltCip-(talk) 00:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." – Sca (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we all care so much, we should not be presenting this as a done deal, as the nominated title suggests. This is clearly a disputed and ongoing situation and the final outcome is far from clear. This issue has been ongoing for 8 years now while the latest crisis was the threat of a general invasion of the Ukraine which still has not happened yet. We should await further developments, while maintaining the ongoing entry. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first direct incursion of Russian troops on Ukrainian soil (that we know of) since the invasion of Crimea in 2014. We can update the blurb if necessary, but for now, this is a significant occurrence regardless of the whole situation being unsettled. The Kip (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read Donetsk People's Republic, you'll see that much of the population has been quite integrated with Russia for years now – the people there get Russian passports, pensions, &c. So, this is more of a political development than a military one because the population already considers itself Russian and the Republic already has a functioning government and administration. Here in the UK, we're very used to such separatist and devolution issues in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Brexit, Gibraltar, &c. Life goes on... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, what's happened now is that the ongoing entry has been moved to a blurb section with some details of the latest escalation. There's a couple of issues with this. One is that the bold linked article has years of history and proseline so it's hard for the reader to pick out the latest developments. And, as the situation is still quite fluid, daily updates are likely to be needed. And that's what ongoing is for. Compare with the Covid-19 ongoing entry. In the UK, the big news is that the Queen has got Covid while the government has announced the ending of all restrictions. These are very much in the news but ITN just lumps it all into the ongoing entry. But, of course, it doesn't much matter because our readers make their own choices regardless. The crisis article is down at #41 in the top read list while numerous other articles are getting more readers – Ukraine (#3); Putin (#6); Donetsk People's Republic (#7); Donbas (#11); &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Probably the most concrete development in this story for a while, also I think the sending in of troops should probably be included. Llewee (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis seems like it should be the bolded article, and §Recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics by Russia looks sufficiently updated. The real news isn't Russia's recognition of the territories but its use of that as a pretext for invasion, which the International Recognition article doesn't even mention. —Cryptic 00:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per above. Redoct87 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The event is significant, but the headline is very misleading, and plays into Russian propaganda. Something along the line of Russia invades eastern Ukraine or Russian troops enter Ukraine. Surely the invasion of Ukraine is more significant than the legal shenanigans. This is a bit of a moving target though, as the invasion started after the article was nominated. The proposed target seems inappropriate as well - either 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis or Russo-Ukrainian War. Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With rewording and retargeting, I no longer oppose. Though I don't know why the wording is "deploy troops into the region". There's a simple word for deploying troops into a foreign country - invasion. Nfitz (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]