Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions
Indefensible (talk | contribs) |
Mkativerata (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
* '''Wait''' – Confusing. [https://apnews.com/e13d15348d0d96b55973f26659188e86 AP] says that soon after the king's appointment, 94-year-old Mahathir challenged it, naming "114 lawmakers that support his bid for a comeback as prime minister ... surpassing the 112 votes needed for a simple majority." Murky. – [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 17:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC) |
* '''Wait''' – Confusing. [https://apnews.com/e13d15348d0d96b55973f26659188e86 AP] says that soon after the king's appointment, 94-year-old Mahathir challenged it, naming "114 lawmakers that support his bid for a comeback as prime minister ... surpassing the 112 votes needed for a simple majority." Murky. – [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 17:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
** If it is being contested then it can be posted as Ongoing as originally submitted. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 19:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC) |
** If it is being contested then it can be posted as Ongoing as originally submitted. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 19:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
*He’s been sworn in. 18 hours ago. Nothing to wait for. ITN/R.—[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 19:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
====Afghan peace process==== |
====Afghan peace process==== |
Revision as of 19:31, 1 March 2020
Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
In the news toolbox |
---|
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. Nomination steps
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
March 1
March 1, 2020
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
|
Ongoing: Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–present)
Although the war is still a protracted mess, Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–present) looks like a brinkmanship, with casualties on every opposing side, including Turkey and Russia. Article gets daily updates. Brandmeistertalk 14:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- One thing that is missing from this article appears to be the issues with refugees fleeing to Europe via Turkey [1] which probably should be documented as well. I believe this wave of refugees is from the latest offensive. --Masem (t) 14:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - for ongoing. This situation is escalating again.BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
February 29
February 29, 2020
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
|
Blurb/Ongoing: Malaysian political crisis
Blurb: Muhyiddin Yassin becomes the prime minister of Malaysia following a political crisis triggered by former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad's abrupt resignation. (Post)
News source(s): Channel NewsAsia, MSN, The Straits Times, CNBC, AP
Credits:
- Nominated by Indefensible (talk · give credit)
- Created by Lulusword (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Noteworthy ongoing political event in a fairly major country. This nomination comes out of the February 24th nomination for Mahathir Mohamad per Masjawad99's suggestion, as this event is broader in scope than the subject of that person. Indefensible (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Wait - I want to support but I think we need to wait just a little bit. The YDP Agong has appointed Muhyiddin Yassin (whom the Agong believes commands the majority support of the MPs) to be the next Prime Minister. However, several hours after this announcement, Mahathir claimed that it is him who commands the majority support. I think it is unlikely that the planned swearing in ceremony in the morning of March 1 (Malaysian Time) for Muhyiddin will be canceled, but the dispute could continue even after he becomes the PM. My proposal is to nominate a blurb if Muhyiddin is sworn in. If for whatever reason the ceremony is canceled, or if the dispute continues after he becomes PM, then I would support posting this as ongoing. Masjawad99💬 19:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Wait for what? Malaysia has a new Prime Minister. That’s ITN. The fact that he’ll be lucky to last the week is immaterial. Note that Muhyiddin hasn’t yet been sworn in, but he has been appointed, which is what matters.—Mkativerata (talk) 19:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support I'd have nominated this a while ago if I'd been aware of the article. Banedon (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support qualifies for ITN even without the entire crisis Juxlos (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment is there a way to blurb it before rolling it into ongoing? Needs a copyedit. "former arch-nemesis" no thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Muhyiddin Yassin is apparently now the prime minister, so perhaps something along the lines of "Muhyiddin Yassin becomes the prime minister of Malaysia following a political crisis triggered by former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad's abrupt resignation"? - Indefensible (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Something "apparently" happening doesn't meet ITN blurb standards. – Sca (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is supported by valid references and a significant event though, why doesn't that meet WP:ITN criteria? - Indefensible (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Something "apparently" happening doesn't meet ITN blurb standards. – Sca (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Indefensible: That could work. I support that blurb. Masjawad99💬 04:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Your proposal to wait seems like it was a good call. However, the "crisis" might continue past Yassin's appointment as PM as you also wrote, in which case it might be appropriate to have a discrete entry for just the change of prime minister from Mohamad to Yassin plus the ongoing post for the crisis as the situation continues to play out. - Indefensible (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Indefensible: That could work. I support that blurb. Masjawad99💬 04:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose posting to ITN ongoing because nonsense. Strong support for posting as blurb because significant for politics in Malaysia. I also support altblurbs if not original blurb was posted. 36.68.232.203 (talk) 04:27, —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not prominent news – the BBC has the story buried quite deep. And the political situation still seems quite fluid and unsettled. We should not be picking winners when the result is unstable. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Wait – Confusing. AP says that soon after the king's appointment, 94-year-old Mahathir challenged it, naming "114 lawmakers that support his bid for a comeback as prime minister ... surpassing the 112 votes needed for a simple majority." Murky. – Sca (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- If it is being contested then it can be posted as Ongoing as originally submitted. - Indefensible (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- He’s been sworn in. 18 hours ago. Nothing to wait for. ITN/R.—Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Afghan peace process
Blurb: The United States and the Taliban sign a peace agreement which establishes a framework for ending the War in Afghanistan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The United States surrenders to the Taliban in Afghanistan
Alternative blurb II: The United States and the Taliban sign a peace agreement to end the War in Afghanistan, removing all U.S. and allied troops in 14 months.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Cerebellum (talk · give credit)
- LaserLegs Please offer RS that call this a "surrender". 331dot (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Al Jazeera three days ago. I can't paste links on my phone, should be easy to find. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- I see an opinion piece from three days ago, but RS are not calling this a "surrender" by any side. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Al Jazeera three days ago. I can't paste links on my phone, should be easy to find. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with 331.
Much RS coverage, but is agreeing to end the war the same as ending it? – Sca (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC) - Vox too, local Afghans complaining it's a surrender. I doubt you're going to get the Trump white house to say it. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Local Afghans are not RS. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with 331.
- Support alt blurb It's a surrender, pure and simple. Let's not Gerald Ford our way out of this. WaltCip (talk) 15:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- We seriously do not play these types of games on WP. The terms are certainly not what US was aiming for, but we are absolutely not going to use ITN to play as a political message. --Masem (t) 16:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose The article needs some expansion on the subject of the just signed peace agreement. It probably should have it's own section. Strongly Oppose the alt blurb as obviously POV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose per Ad Orientem, would like to see more at target article. Provided Alt3 to give an idea of the key agreement - troop removal in 14months. --Masem (t) 16:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose While I agree surrender is too strong a word, it's closer to reality than "peace agreement." There's nothing that requires the Taliban to stop fighting with the US-backed Afghan government, and no reason to think they will. They're promising only to not support terrorism, which they are unlikely to stick to (no CBALL needed). This is just CYA for Trump, nothing to see here. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - The subject could use some article improvement, but is definitely a noteworthy enough event for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 17:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: The alt can't be serious. Ythlev (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Conditional support, but not alt blurb Obviously noteworthy event, but the bold article has a grand total of 2 sentences regarding the agreement itself. Surely there's enough coverage of it to create a workable standalone article. Juxlos (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support alt 2, very noteworthy event, strongly oppose alt 1. Nixinova T C 22:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I created a separate section for the agreement. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support in principle Once the part about this agreement gets duly expanded. (Though extremely opposed to Alt 1.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
February 28
February 28, 2020
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Ready) RD: Joe Coulombe
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Founder of Trader Joe's. Short but seemed to be sufficiently sourced. Masem (t) 18:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Needs better referencing I think, and one current ref link is dead. - Indefensible (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Not quite there, one or two references to sort out. P-K3 (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Article's referencing has been improved, meets the requirements for WP:ITN/DC I think. - Indefensible (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support I fixed a dead link and mismatched citation. Content, which would meet minimum DYK page size, also checks out with references.—Bagumba (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support I have added details and several citations. Note that an IP user moved my changes.SWP13 (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Coronavirus stock market crash
Blurb: In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, the Dow Jones closed with the biggest weekly percentage loss since the financial crisis of 2007–08. (Post)
News source(s): Wall Street Journal, New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Bender235 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: As sad as the events are, the blubr connects to ongoing major news topics. bender235 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sort of support we definitely need to bump coronavirus back up to a blurb, not to do so is patently absurd. This might be the hanger for it. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not this blurb - I don't think this would be a good indicator for the significance of the coronavirus. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is prone to gyrations, and this one happened to be a particularly rapid one. It's also overdue for a correction. If we didn't post any benchmark news about the Dow Jones in the past, I see no reason why we should do so here.--WaltCip (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- In addition, the market fundamentals haven't changed. The stocks are falling on investor speculation. They will likely recover to pre-coronavirus levels later in the year.--WaltCip (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, FTSE recorded its biggest drop in a week too. Apparently this week has wiped $6 trillion off the markets. It's a global financial meltdown. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Based on investor speculation. Don't fall victim to the panic.--WaltCip (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Walt, that's a weird thing to say to me. I'm not commenting on any panic. I'm commenting on the fact that global markets have been wiped and coronavirus needs to be more than just "ongoing". The actual fact is trillions of dollars have gone wayward this week and it's global news. I imagine as soon as the virus reaches the US, we'll get a blurb again... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Based on investor speculation. Don't fall victim to the panic.--WaltCip (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- In addition, the market fundamentals haven't changed. The stocks are falling on investor speculation. They will likely recover to pre-coronavirus levels later in the year.--WaltCip (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- @WaltCip: Panic or not, it's a current event. We're not in the WP:CRYSTAL business, so whether the market recovers in a month or a year from now is irrelevant. --bender235 (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Look, I don't disagree that we should post something. I just think the DJIA is a poor indicator because that darn thing goes up and down regardless of what's in the news. If we're going to post a blurb on coronavirus using economic indicators, we should use something other than that.--WaltCip (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- We don't need to focus on the Dow Jones. Global markets have been massacred this week. It's fact, whether its panic or not. As I said, when we have our first US victim, things will be very differently perceived. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is currently noteworthy as a ~10% correction by definition, but just going back to last October's level is not a "massacre." - Indefensible (talk) 04:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- We don't need to focus on the Dow Jones. Global markets have been massacred this week. It's fact, whether its panic or not. As I said, when we have our first US victim, things will be very differently perceived. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose - This sort of thing isn't that rare as the Dow always trends upwards, so point-value rises and falls will be larger each time.Blurb also mentions "weekly" loss but links to the article for "daily" losses which is confusing. And let's wait until the week is actually over before quantifying anything. Nixinova T C 20:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)- Uh, no, it's rare, as the blurb suggests. This is the worst week's trading across pretty much all global financial markets for over a decade. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, then the blurb is pointless as it doesn't link to any further relevant information other than what is on the blurb. Nixinova T C 21:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not clear what you're saying. The blurb is very clear, suggesting that the Dow Jones has been hit hard because of the caution over a pandemic. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- The list article talks about daily changes, not weekly changes, so it's not of use, and the coronavirus article has two sentences which are the same as this blurb. There's nowhere to go if you want to compare weekly changes or similar events, or aftermath of this event. Nixinova T C 21:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- While this may sound patronising, it's globally common knowledge that the markets have suffered their worst week in over a decade because of the virus fears, real or otherwise. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Did you mean to reply to me? What does this have to do with the parent comment? Nixinova T C 23:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- While this may sound patronising, it's globally common knowledge that the markets have suffered their worst week in over a decade because of the virus fears, real or otherwise. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- The list article talks about daily changes, not weekly changes, so it's not of use, and the coronavirus article has two sentences which are the same as this blurb. There's nowhere to go if you want to compare weekly changes or similar events, or aftermath of this event. Nixinova T C 21:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not clear what you're saying. The blurb is very clear, suggesting that the Dow Jones has been hit hard because of the caution over a pandemic. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, then the blurb is pointless as it doesn't link to any further relevant information other than what is on the blurb. Nixinova T C 21:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Info: it's the largest weekly loss in percentage points since 2008. --bender235 (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Uh, no, it's rare, as the blurb suggests. This is the worst week's trading across pretty much all global financial markets for over a decade. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Conditional Support it's not just the DJIA, global markets have plummeted all week. The update belongs here with five sentences and I'll support. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm open to posting something that focuses on other major markets besides the Dow Jones, in order to give a global perspective on the virus.--WaltCip (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - DJIA is only one stock index in the world. It might be the most important one, but it's still only one. Coronavirus is already in the main page. We could promote it to a blurb, but some other kind (e.g. "over 500 people are diagnosed with the coronavirus in X, Y and Z countries). Banedon (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Stock markets fall because stock markets fall. A lot of the downward activity at times like this is brokers and investors reacting to selling by others, not the original speculated AND speculative cause. Linking the fall and the coronavirus in such an absolute way seems a bit too certain to me. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- In essence, that is my viewpoint as well. HiLo phrased it better than I could.--WaltCip (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I understand the desire to have something, but everything involving the outbreak remains an upward trend, and no critical line has been crossed yet (not declare pandemic, etc.) and choosing something arbitrary like a drop like this may be the wrong thing to focus on. We have the outbreak on ongoing, so to try to find some story to make it a blurb doesn't seem right. I want to stress that I believe we need to consider the fear and panic that the media is bringing to the situation here. the WHO earlier today say that not's not the time to spread fear on the matter and I think that's smart advice. Wait for MEDRS sourcing to panic and then we have every right to. --Masem (t) 23:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - The first article, 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak, is already in the ITN box as an ongoing event, posting it again would be redundant and not a good use of the space. For the second item; the DJIA is not the best stock index to follow per the current 2nd sentence of its article, and the submitted article is a list page rather than specifically about the event--it could be that at some point in the distant future, this event will not even be actively included on that page. - Indefensible (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support irrational or not, this drop is the largest since the Financial Crisis - it's clearly not something that happens every other week and has elicited significant policy responses. Practically every RS links this to the coronavirus outbreak and for us to say it isn't would be improper. Juxlos (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- IF we post this, we could say that "Practically every RS links this to the coronavirus outbreak", but we cannot say, in Wikipedia's voice, that it is linked. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's all a big coincidence. Smoking doesn't really kill people, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Have we posted that Trump caused the stock market to go up? Because he and all the people who voted for him said he did. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Looking forward to that nomination. We'd need to count the !votes carefully. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Have we posted that Trump caused the stock market to go up? Because he and all the people who voted for him said he did. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- It's all a big coincidence. Smoking doesn't really kill people, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- IF we post this, we could say that "Practically every RS links this to the coronavirus outbreak", but we cannot say, in Wikipedia's voice, that it is linked. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Wait – Dow lost 14% in two weeks but recovered a bit Friday. Let's see if this dive turns into a 'panicdemic' next week, à la '08. That would have global effects. – Sca (talk) 15:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm open to another blurb on this, but think WHO uprating the global risk to very high yesterday is probably more important. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose The stock market is not the right angle for this story. P-K3 (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Amend. This is not happening "in the wake of..." something that has ended. It is happening concurrent with the continued spread of a virus. Moriori (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Freeman Dyson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2]
Credits:
- Nominated by Ihcoyc (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Hawkeye7 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: A number of citation neededs in the lede, which may be removable b/c the views tagged are referenced in the body. Awards need sourcing, Possible blurb candidate. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support in principle, oppose on current quality given a couple of cn tags and the need for updating. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Opposewe don't need to support "in principle", that's a given, this an RD. Plenty of referencing needed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)- Support good to go, nice work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support @The Rambling Man: The article was on my list of articles to fix up, but regrettably Dyson has died before I got a round tuit. I did a pass over the article this morning, added references, and fixed one error. The article still could use a lot of work, but it is fully referenced at least. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support image it's not terrible, and Mubarak has been up there a while --LaserLegs (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support - influential subject, article looks comprehensive and well referenced. - Indefensible (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support image or blurb per above. Prolific figure in his field. Davey2116 (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Posting to RD – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- OBJECT TO IMAGE - established practice is that an RD image is only used iff there is no suitable blurb image. Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Remove image - per Mjroots. Banedon (talk) 07:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support image per the Kirk Douglas precedent. Expand the caption to be a mini-blurb, e.g. Freeman Dyson dies. Andrew🐉(talk)<
- Regrettable object to image per Mjroots. I respect Mr. Dyson quite a lot, but established precedent is to have it only in the absence of a suitable blurb image ... neither "Mubarak has been up there a while" nor "Kirk Douglas" are valid reasons to overturn such precedent, which should be discussed on the appropriate talk page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Image pulled - from the above few posts, it's clear there's no consensus here for an image. And beyond the occasional WP:IAR case, the community has previously expressed opposition to using RDs in the picture slot, so changing that convention reuqires discussion or RFC on the project pages. — Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Sun Yang
Blurb: Chinese swimmer Sun Yang, winner of three Olympic and eleven World Championship gold medals, is banned for eight years for evading doping controls. (Post)
News source(s): ABC BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Bumbubookworm (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Melcous (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
People may claim that doping in sport is routine, however this fellow has been World Swimmer of the Year and none of the top swimmers have been convicted of doping. At first FINA didn't want to pursue the case and other swimmers made public podium protests against Sun Yang. Secondly, there also has been a geopolitical angle in this, whereby other swimmers (and their swimming federations) who have spoken out against this fellow have been targeted by internet trolls/hackers (possibly/probably with the encouragement of the Chinese media/government) and received death threats. For example, when Mack Horton spoke out, Chinese government newspapers wrote nationalist editorials directly attacking Australia, not just Horton. Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose would be good for a sports almanack, but not a global encyclopedia. Chinese athletes doping? Really? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oh well, I did check BBC Sport, ABC News Australia, NY Times, CNN, L'Equipe and Gazzetto dello Sporto and managed to find it on all of the front pages. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- On average, we post <1 blurb per day. News outlets post considerably more. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- And sure, BBC Sport. Sports almanack, like I said. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- On average, we post <1 blurb per day. News outlets post considerably more. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oh well, I did check BBC Sport, ABC News Australia, NY Times, CNN, L'Equipe and Gazzetto dello Sporto and managed to find it on all of the front pages. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support - in this particular case I support. Have been reported on worldwide. Very notable athlete. Article looks ready for posting as well.BabbaQ (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Maybe if it was Lebron or Neymar (though probably not), but this is an athlete who is as famous for cheating as swimming. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I will support this if he is stripped of his Olympic medals. Otherwise, it is just an ordinary doping case that is customarily concluded with a ban.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support I support this as it is worldwide news. He owns Olympic Gold medals and An Olympic record. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This is more a punishment for not cooperating in checking for doping, and not any proof or findings that he had used enhancements since prior findings. In other words, this is not because he was found to have been doping, but that because he had been found to have doped in the past, his actions in preventing blood tests to check for doping to be performed is what is being penalized via the ban. In other words, it looks more significant than it really is compared to real doping scandles (eg Russia's). --Masem (t) 14:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- He was a previous Olympic gold medalist. If he was found doping in the past (which is was according to what you said), then being banned for missing a session would make it be suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is not our place to cast suspicion on something like doping. We can say that he was banned for failing to cooperate with the blood testers, and that he had been previously found to have doped, but that's it. --Masem (t) 14:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- He was a previous Olympic gold medalist. If he was found doping in the past (which is was according to what you said), then being banned for missing a session would make it be suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Athletics trivia. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's swimming, not athletics. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article is in good shape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support This is front page news (not 'mere sports news') here in Australia, (and was on the CNN and BBC home page, not just BBC sports) and will be massive news in China. Current world and Olympic title holder given a career-ending ban in highly controversial circumstances, with national governments previously taking stances on the issue. Melcous (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- At best it was the eighth story on the BBC News homepage. It's trivial and there's no clear indication of its encyclopedic value. Why would this be more or less significant than any other ban of any other successful athlete? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, there's that argument for never posting anything about American college football again. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- I get that you disagree, you have made your point of view clear, I'm also allowed to make mine. The sources don't seem to think it is trivial. Even the eighth story on BBC seems reasonably significant to me. And it's apparently the first or second in Chinese news sources. Melcous (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sure but athletes around the world get bans all the time, even for skipping tests (see Rio Ferdinand). It's trivial, regardless of the perceived stature of this individual. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, but they generally don't make front page news all over the world. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sure but athletes around the world get bans all the time, even for skipping tests (see Rio Ferdinand). It's trivial, regardless of the perceived stature of this individual. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- I get that you disagree, you have made your point of view clear, I'm also allowed to make mine. The sources don't seem to think it is trivial. Even the eighth story on BBC seems reasonably significant to me. And it's apparently the first or second in Chinese news sources. Melcous (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per precedent: [3]. Banedon (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Front page news in many countries. And that means getting sport onto the front pages! It's significant. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 01:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem's argument. Ambivalent on the discussion of whether athletes are too trivial for ITN, but I'd support if it later came out that he did indeed dope. Sleath56 (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- His offence of avoiding a drug test is seen as more serious than simply doping. It has to be, otherwise everyone who has used drugs could just smash their samples. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keeping in mind that he had earlier had been found to have doped, and that WADA/CAS had given him 8 yr as the maximum they could do for smashing vials, if he actually had doped, WADA's rules suggest that this 2nd infraction then would have been a lifetime ban. If it were a first, it would have been only a 2yr. --Masem (t) 07:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- His offence of avoiding a drug test is seen as more serious than simply doping. It has to be, otherwise everyone who has used drugs could just smash their samples. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
February 27
February 27, 2020
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Science and technology
|
2020 Balyun airstrikes
Blurb: Airstrikes kill at least thirty Turkish soldiers in Balyun, Syria. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC) (Spiegel)
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionEstar (talk · give credit)
ArionEstar (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Burkhard Driest
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Die Zeit
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Paolo Grozzi (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: A life good for a for a film, law studies and bank robbery, flirt on live tv with Romy Schneider, playing gangsters with charme, writing novels and screenplays, directing, - art also. - The article had one sentence, then Grozzi updated, then a new user replaced it all by a literal unformatted translation of the German WP article ... - I tried to repair and added a few sources. There's much more, in case someone wants to expand. Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Having a (hopefully) temporary brain lapse, but isn't there a small waiting period after death before fair use photos can be uploaded? Should it be tagged F7? Otherwise the article looks good enough for RD. Kees08 (Talk) 17:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Kees08 is correct, fair use can't be applied to a subject who's died so recently, there could easily be replacement images out there. I've removed the image, and otherwise the article looks up to scratch, so it's good to go. — Amakuru (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Posted (although noting that the intro said he died February 28th, I changed it to 27 to match the source) Kees08 (Talk) 19:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Suthep Wongkamhaeng
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Thai PBS World
Credits:
- Nominated by Paul_012 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Paul_012 (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD — Amakuru (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
February 26
February 26, 2020
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
RD: Nexhmije Hoxha
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Alsoriano97 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose under-referenced, only just beyond stub, is that it? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Another case of fame by name. And she was 99. – Sca (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose stub Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) 2020 CD3
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Astronomers discover 2020 CD3, a mini-moon that has been in Earth's orbit (orbit pictured) since about 2017 and expected to escape orbit by April 2020. (Post)
News source(s): New Scientist, CNN,
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
- Created by Nrco0e (talk · give credit)
- Comment - support the idea of posting this, but article is currently rated stub-class. - Indefensible (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose More trivia than newsworthiness. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Article is new, so why not expand it a bit and submit it for WP:DYK? Regards SoWhy 08:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose "mini-moon" is misleading, this is a temporary satellite a few metres across. This is essentially astronomic trivia. It will have no lasting significance beyond a line in the list of these rocks. --LukeSurl t c 09:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Send to DYK, a perfect story for there. --Tone 09:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose current blurb, misleading as it uses terminology that the article itself does not. Also oppose the article itself, it's only marginally above stub level and would need some expanding before it is main page ready. --Jayron32 14:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Pages like Temporary satellite, Quasi-satellite and Claimed moons of Earth all note that this is an uncommon, but not unprecedented, occurrence. I agree with other users here that this might be more suitable for DYK than ITN. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
February 25
February 25, 2020
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
Henneguya zschokkei
Blurb: Scientists determine that the multi-cellular parasite Henneguya zschokkei contains no mitochondria, making it the first known animal that does not use aerobic respiration. (Post)
News source(s): PNAS paper, US Today, CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Article is short, so there may be a better target as the focus from the coverage of the paper is more on what this means to how we define an animal. Masem (t) 14:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support on the merits. This seems to be an important scientific discovery, and more science news in ITN is a good thing. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Too arcane for ITN. – Sca (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree. The name of the species is a mouthful, no question, but I'd expect the average reader of WP to understand basic biology to know what aerobic respiration is. (We don't need to dumb it down as the media is by saying "doesn't breathe oxygen".) It's a rather novel find. --Masem (t) 14:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- But the name would make a great byline: By HENNEGUYA ZSCHOKKEI / Asocialated Press Writer. – Sca (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not read the paper yet, but potentially support on importance (well, I was fascinated) but oppose on stubbiness of the current target article. Also, looking at the lead of mitochondrion, which might be a better target, I notice that there's another example of a eukaryote completely lacking mitochondria, so that would need sorting out. Perhaps "first known multicellular organism"? Espresso Addict (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- The way I think Im understanding what they are getting at, a single-cell species is neither animal nor plant, but when you get to multicellular you can make that distinction, with this species above being animal in nature. However, this level of biology is not my field (I nominated this because I also found it interesting for ITN). --Masem (t) 16:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- As far as I know (and this has really surprised me) all plants have mitochondria; it's only bacteria/cyanobacteria and things smaller that don't. And thanks for nominating, Masem, I'd missed this and really appreciated it. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- All eukaryotes have mitochondria—except the few species that later went on to lose them—because they're what react oxygen with stuff to power the organism. Eukaryotic cells are much bigger and therefore need lots of energy. Plants have both mitochondria and plastids; the plastids (derived from ancient cyanobacteria) do photosynthesis, and the mitochondria "burn" the resulting molecules as needed, as in any eukaryote. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- As far as I know (and this has really surprised me) all plants have mitochondria; it's only bacteria/cyanobacteria and things smaller that don't. And thanks for nominating, Masem, I'd missed this and really appreciated it. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- The way I think Im understanding what they are getting at, a single-cell species is neither animal nor plant, but when you get to multicellular you can make that distinction, with this species above being animal in nature. However, this level of biology is not my field (I nominated this because I also found it interesting for ITN). --Masem (t) 16:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose mildly interesting but the article is barely even a stub. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support on principle, oppose on quality There's room to expand the article given this new discovery, so I think it's possible this will eventually pass. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support on principle, oppose on quality This is a big deal in biology, but the article is a stub. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support as above This is a paradigm-shifting find in biology; we couldn't reasonably pass over a decent article on this and still call ourselves an encyclopedia. It has to be at least a decent article, though...130.233.2.197 (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support in principle, but the article is a stub that give no more details than are in the blurb. Major expansion is needed before it could be posted. Modest Genius talk 12:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- IANA
Lzoologist, but isn't there a certain circular reasoning here? Aerobic respiration is a definitive characteristic of animals. If you find an animal without it, is it really an animal? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)- It had been previously classified as an animal. Its anaerobic respiration quality had been discovered only recently.--WaltCip (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Modern taxonomy generally favors phylogenetic taxonomy, meaning classifying things based on their family trees. This means taxonomists today prefer "monophyletic" groups, known as "clades": groups containing a common ancestor and all of its descendants. This provides a definition based on evolutionary relationships and avoids classifying organisms based on arbitrary characteristics. If we define animals as a clade, we pick an ancestral organism and anything descended from that is an animal. (This is why most taxonomists consider birds dinosaurs now. If you define "dinosaur" as a clade, it necessarily includes all the living members of that clade: birds.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Very cool discovery. I'm ambivalent on it for ITN because while the discovery is great it's not a tremendous surprise. Parasites very often lose lots of functions over time due to natural selection, since they can just "steal" from their hosts instead. Several unicellular eukaryotes that similarly lost their mitochondria were already known. In any case, I'd love to see it on DYK! --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Kazuhisa Hashimoto
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WaPost, CNN
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Video game developer, best known for giving us the Konami code. I did just create the article today, but it was possible to have created this article before based on existing sources. Masem (t) 22:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Weak support - Good short article. Could use a little more prose about the death, but it's not a dealbreaker.--WaltCip (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've been trying. jp.wiki doesn't have much help here and the language barrier makes it hard to search Japanese sources directly. --Masem (t) 23:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- (Also dealing with alot of sites in talking of his death pointing back Wikipedia sooo... that's helpful :P --Masem (t) 23:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support - No glaring issues, could use more detail / referencing, but meets the minimum requirements of WP:ITN/DC I think. The Konami Code that the subject was responsible for seems fairly extensive, so influence and significance appears justifiable. Archived some of the article's refs. - Indefensible (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Javier Arias Stella
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): El Comercio (in Spanish)
Credits:
- Nominated by Amakuru (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Peruvian academic pathologist and foreign minister. I've expanded the lead, and refs look OK for a start class article. — Amakuru (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- A lot of the content is referenced to ref #1. But that reference link currently leads to a 404 page. It'd be good to fix that and it would be better also to link to the actual original source instead of rerouting users to Google translation. Not everybody needs Google translation, but those who do, would know how to find it when needed. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ammarpad: good point, thanks. I've linked instead to an archived version of the original source. — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to go now. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Kees08 (Talk) 22:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
RD: Dmitry Yazov
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The last marshal of the soviet union and a convicted war criminal --89.113.138.10 (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - death is not currently noted in the article except by lifespan. Article is currently rated as stub-class, although it looks decent and the subject seems significant. - Indefensible (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Could also have better referencing as well. - Indefensible (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Article is a stub, and in particular, the person in question had many high posts such as being 5-star general and a defence minister and it is not really explained even at a basic level how this came about and how specifically he was removed from being defence minister. There is unsourced stuff about his legal problems and because the article is short, this material is a bit disjointed and the context is not clear, which is a problem Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for lack of refs, and like noted above, the text about his activities during the early 1990s is confusing and feels incomplete.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose far too much work to do right now, as evidenced by the myriad tags. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - ping me when fixed.BabbaQ (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Article seems to have been improved, with better referencing. Only one cn tag remaining, which may or may not be a blocker. Death is now noted. Most of the refs are in Russian though, so not able to verify how good / applicable they are. Article is still rated as stub-class as well. BabbaQ, you might want to take another look now. - Indefensible (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) North East Delhi riots
Blurb: 21 people were killed and more than a hundred and eighty nine are injured as riots break out in North East Delhi amidst the Citizenship Amendment Act protests. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Twenty one people are killed and more than a hundred and eighty nine injured in riots in North East Delhi as part of the Citizenship Amendment Act protests.
Alternative blurb II: Twenty one people are killed with more than 189 injured in riots in North East Delhi as part of the Citizenship Amendment Act protests.
News source(s): NDTV 21 deadBBC, NDTV
Credits:
- Nominated by I am not a Seahorse (talk · give credit)
- Created by DBigXray (talk · give credit)
- Updated by DBigXray (talk · give credit)
--I am not a Seahorse (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support I've added a slightly different altblurb to tighten up the language a bit and avoid starting a sentence with a numeral. The article is short, but well written and well referenced, and the subject is being covered by major news sources. Checks every box for me. --Jayron32 14:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose when you take out the background filler sections, it's very light on details. Where in Delhi? Was it one large protest or scattered confrontations throughout the city? Total number of participants? Some kind of chronology of events? Way too thin. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support I have updated the blurb --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm moving note of this article Delhi communal violence 2020 from a comment left in the wrong place by User:Rashid Jorvee. Have not yet checked if same thing. --Masem (t) 14:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, they are the same news item but different articles. Should be merged (history merged ideally). --Masem (t) 14:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Masem, I have redirected it as a newly created duplicate to the existing article. The content hardly merits a hist merge. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 15:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Working --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose original blurb because there have a grammatical errors and problems whether it is eleven or 11 in numerical form, because it, I Support the Altblurb with more clear sentences and significance. 180.242.51.208 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support the alt.blurb, seems constructive to me. Dey subrata (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- I also support the alternative blurb in favour of my own.--I am not a Seahorse (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support on significance. I have poked around on the article and it looks decent. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Mostly Done. Marking as ready, support from me, added altblurb2 since we don't write 189 in full words per MOS:NUMBERS (also takes up much space) and both blurbs fail MOSNUMBERS at this point. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support but do fix on a blurb which meets our MOS guidelines, all numbers or all words for those comparative figures. Maybe rephrase so it can be all numbers while not starting with a number. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: MOSNUMBERS specifically allows for numbers to be spelled as words if they are two words or less. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I know what MOSNUM says, it also says we use the same format for comparable entities in a sentence. So all numbers or all words. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- You're aware, TRM, that the problem had already been fixed for over half an hour when you made the above comment, right? --Jayron32 15:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I was simply noting that I had already pointed out the problem before the blurb was posted as I am fully commensurate with MOSNUM. Thanks for your input Jayron. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- You're aware, TRM, that the problem had already been fixed for over half an hour when you made the above comment, right? --Jayron32 15:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I know what MOSNUM says, it also says we use the same format for comparable entities in a sentence. So all numbers or all words. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: MOSNUMBERS specifically allows for numbers to be spelled as words if they are two words or less. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support but I think it's important to mention that this coincided with the state visit of Donald Trump. There was barely anything going on on the 23rd, and there was a sudden outbreak of rioting and violence on the 24th. I think Donald Trump's visit is highly relevant to this. I have made edits to the blurbs accordingly. Karan (Karandotg) (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support inclusion but remove mention of Trump from the blurb. The article only mentions his name once, down in one the body and I don't think this is particularly relevant. — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I have removed the Trump part from the suggested blurbs, and I sugest they be proposed as an alternative version if someone prefers that. — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru: I wondered about that too. Article says "violence appeared orchestrated due to the US President Donald Trump's visit to India". Awaiting further comments on this ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- @MSGJ: well that's a quote, attributed to the government, rather than a stated fact. I just find it odd that our blurb would mention something that doesn't even appear in the article's lead section. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I have removed it for now. If people feel strongly that it should be included, they can make their case — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, and indeed we'll see - maybe others will think it's relevant. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I have removed it for now. If people feel strongly that it should be included, they can make their case — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- @MSGJ: well that's a quote, attributed to the government, rather than a stated fact. I just find it odd that our blurb would mention something that doesn't even appear in the article's lead section. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Posted with a few tweaks to altblurb2 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support the alt.blurb. But, it should be corrected. The death is now 24.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
(Posted blurb) RD: Hosni Mubarak
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak (pictured) dies at the age of 91. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Zwerg Nase (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Surely notable. Article looks fairly well sourced as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support, maybe even blurb as nominator. Article seems well sourced for the most part. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Blurb on significance - 30 years as a powerful head of state of an important regional power. --LukeSurl t c 11:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment it's not terrible, it could in theory fall under WP:ARBPIA, needs to be closely scrutinized for BLP issues and may attract POV warriors. Still working through it. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- The article has some {{cn}}s and an unreferenced section that need to be fixed, which looks easy enough. Once that's done, I will support a blurb - a major figure in the Middle East who ruled Egypt for three decades. Meets the Thatcher/Mandela standard IMO. We need a proposed blurb to discuss. Modest Genius talk 12:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Opposeneeds referencing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)- Support blurb infinitely more newsworthy than Weinstein, and my referencing concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb once referencing issues have been addressed. Mjroots (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb. We've established the bar on this recently, with the Daniel arap Moi and Kirk Douglas noms. For those who die of natural causes, only those of the stature of Thatcher and Mandela get blurbs. Mubarak was leader of Egypt for a long time, sure, and in some ways transformative, but no more so than Moi, and he is not on that world-renowned level required. — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: Mubarak was indeed of the stature of Thatcher and Mandela.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thatcher and Mandela were elected to briefly govern mostly-independent Commonwealth realms. This guy ruled Egypt on something more resembling an Elizabethan level. But unlike her or Anwar Sadat, his death doesn't change the contemporary setup (we rightly blurbed his political demise already). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: Mubarak was indeed of the stature of Thatcher and Mandela.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb This is a clear-cut case as he spent 30 years in office as president of the most populous Arab country which now has almost 100 million people. His death is expectedly top-tier news in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Wording comment: Blurb text has him as prime minister. He was, but his period as president was longer and more notable. Moscow Mule (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hook amended. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD only, oppose blurb article is of sufficient condition for main page posting. The article has nothing interesting to say about his death other than it happened, as such, there is nothing to say in the blurb to justify it. RD is sufficient for deaths where there is nothing to say other than that it happened. --Jayron32 14:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb once improved Obviously can't post either RD/blurb right now, too many CNs, but once cleared up, posting the death of a former long-term leader of a major country as a blurb is a no-brainer. --Masem (t) 14:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb once referencing is fixed. On the contrary to Amakuru's opinion, being forced out of office after 30+ years by some 2 million+ strong in Cairo's Tahrir Square, in an event given a moniker named after its start date ("January 25 Revolution"), is automatically sufficient for a blurb. As to the commonly used
Thatcher and Mandela
-trope, applying a strict criterion such as "created the political weather" (as Thatcher / Reagan / Mulroney did), which George H.W. Bush did not by any measure, even if his career began as a diplomat in the 1970s (?) and he was part of a political dynasty. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC) - Oppose blurb per Jayron, there is nothing to be said other than "dies aged 91", blurbs should be reserved for events where the death itself is the story, per our guidelines. (This is not one of the "rare cases" exceptions in my view.) The article is not yet ready for RD as there are a number of cite tags.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb A leader of Egypt for three decades (Egypt is basically half of the Arab world), relevant in the recent Arab Spring events, numerous reporting in the media.--Adûnâi (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb pending quality, updates, etc. Mubarak meets the Thatcher-Mandela standard. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb – per previous two. An important historical figure (unlike Harvey Weinstein) – Sca (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb - 30 years' president of a country of just under 100 million. Seems pretty major to me. Juxlos (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support either as RD or with blurb. Notable subject, article looks decent--currently rated B-class. - Indefensible (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb because there have a grammatical errors and linguistic problems But i Support posted to RD instead because the article quality and significance for Egyptian politic history. He is also very notable for Middle Eastern politics as whole. 180.242.51.208 (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb when the few sourcing problems are fixed. Mubarak was a transformative world leader, per above. Davey2116 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Blurb once the cn's are addressed, important Middle Eastern politician Joseywales1961 (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I added the image to CMP so it can be posted when the cn's are addressed. First time doing it so yell at me if I did it wrong or if it was inappropriate to do this early. Kees08 (Talk) 19:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- support blurb - definitely blurb worthy. post when few issues are fixed.BabbaQ (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The "Political and military posts" section is very difficult to source and doesn't add much. Suggest nuking it. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Done. 7 CN tags are keeping this off the main page. If every support above fixed one, this would be up by now. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- I added 5 more citations; need 2 more. SpencerT•C 02:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Done. 7 CN tags are keeping this off the main page. If every support above fixed one, this would be up by now. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb - seems obvious, deeply involved in Arab Spring. Banedon (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb - Per above. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support photo People remember his face and roles, but he was retired, and retired people dying is unremarkable beyond what the Deaths in 2020 link already covers. The fact that he ruled for three billion man-years until the Arab Spring was notable, so we blurbed it back when. This isn't that. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support as one of the most important leaders in the Arab world for decades. He should definitely be listed under recent deaths and it's bizarre he hasn't been already. Blurb and photo? Maybe not as much but he's easily comparable to Qaddafi or Al-Assad in terms of stature & length of rule.Chess (talk) Ping when replying 06:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality, neutral on blurb. Article is getting pretty close, and editors appear to be fixing the remaining issues fairly quickly, but it's not ready for the front page just yet, for either RD or blurb, as there's still a few outstanding tags, and there's a few sentences here and there at the ends of paragraphs that are unreferenced. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- RD only Did not died at height of career, death was expected (hospital bound for weeks prior), death has little effect on current events, not a transformational figure. Arguments here rely on that last notion, but "lifetime strongman in Africa/Middle East" is not exactly an unheard of accomplishment. Sadat was transformative, Morsi might have been, but Mubarak and Sisi are just continuing a long line of tradition for that part of the world.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb – I took care of the last few CNs. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Posted blurb. I see a consensus for a blurb, though not universal. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I see consensus for acknowledging his long reign and widely-reported overthrow were historic, but nobody seems to think the fact in the blurb (died at 91) matters on its own merits. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Readers can read the article(which is what we want) to learn that he was a long time overthrown leader, it doesn't need to be in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- If you want dead retired politicians to pick up steam, you have to entice new readers with something memorable, a hook. Plenty were suggested, none made it. Odd, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I still Support photo, regardless of the newer Delhi riots. He's more visually appealing than they are. And no, that's not a fascist bias, it's just the thing about a welcoming smile. Even coming from "beyond the grave", it's inherently warmer and more comforting than the mass personification of rage and despair. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Readers can read the article(which is what we want) to learn that he was a long time overthrown leader, it doesn't need to be in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I see consensus for acknowledging his long reign and widely-reported overthrow were historic, but nobody seems to think the fact in the blurb (died at 91) matters on its own merits. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - InedibleHulk has suggested at WP:ERRORS that we could note the length of Mubarak's presidency in the blurb, as a way of asserting the significance of his death, for example:
Hosni Mubarak (pictured), Egyptian president from 1981 to 2011, dies at the age of 91.
- I know this wouldn't be the usual formulation (as per the death of George HW Bush) but something to consider, and I am neutral on whether this is better or worse than what is currently there. — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- If "former president" isn't enough of a hook, I don't see how adding the years of his term helps. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with 331dot. If some readers can't immediately recognise someone's significance, the bolded link directs to the article for more information. We don't need to post blurbs indicating significance when we have this page to evaluate it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- "Former president" isn't a hook at all, potentially describing several unblurbworthy people just as well. Eight supporters found the long term the main point of interest, and none were excited about his age. If newsworthy aspects of a news story don't matter so much as giving readers a name to click, this could have just as easily been as uninteresting and clickable in RD. But whatever. Boring and scant lines aren't as bad as incorrect ones, at least. This occured "in Cairo," if anybody finds settings brief and cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with 331dot. If some readers can't immediately recognise someone's significance, the bolded link directs to the article for more information. We don't need to post blurbs indicating significance when we have this page to evaluate it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- If "former president" isn't enough of a hook, I don't see how adding the years of his term helps. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- This is a clear example of why the RD-blurb criteria exists, and a clear indication that Mubarak doesn't qualify. But if we want to pretend that there was anything unusual about Mubarak's life or death, relative to his peers, then length of term is the only one. "ME/NA strongman" is a crowded field, but only a few make it to 30 years.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Bob Iger
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Bob Iger (pictured) steps down as CEO of The Walt Disney Company, and is succeeded by Bob Chapek, former chairman of Disney Parks, Experiences and Products. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Bob Iger (pictured) steps down as CEO of The Walt Disney Company, and is succeeded by Bob Chapek.
News source(s): [4]
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by AlexKitfox (talk · give credit)
- Support as nominator. AlexKitfox (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose We don't post run-of-the-mill business news, even when the business is one of the largest in the world. If there was some significant reason for his step down (eg was arrested on criminal charges) then maybe but this is a standard transition. --Masem (t) 00:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't view this as run-of-the-mill business news in the slightest, or I wouldn't even have nominated this article. Iger presided over Disney as it made major acquisitions (including 21st Century Fox, PIXAR, and Marvel Entertainment for instance), produced some of the most profitable films of all time, and saw a record-breaking increase in wealth. Saying this news is "run-of-the-mill" requires some stretching of logic. AlexKitfox (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- If the story was about him leading Disney, those feats would matter a lot. But it's about him leaving the top office now, for (seemingly) far less interesting or exceptional reasons. Has the new, unpictured Big Bob done anything to suggest the corporate future on his watch will be substantially different? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't view this as run-of-the-mill business news in the slightest, or I wouldn't even have nominated this article. Iger presided over Disney as it made major acquisitions (including 21st Century Fox, PIXAR, and Marvel Entertainment for instance), produced some of the most profitable films of all time, and saw a record-breaking increase in wealth. Saying this news is "run-of-the-mill" requires some stretching of logic. AlexKitfox (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I thank the nominator for his good-faith nomination and encourage him to do more ITN nominations in the future, but this is still ultimately business news that is inappropriate for ITN. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Good faith nom but this doesn't rise to the level that we typically deal with on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - This is included in WP:Current events but not sure it rises to the level of significance to be included in ITN. For example, contemporaneous to Iger's resignation as Disney CEO in Current events is Thomson Reuters appointing a new CEO, but that is not similarly nominated or posted. Even if Iger's resignation is unexpected, there may be no greater meaning or noteworthy consideration beyond that. However, if some significant reason does come up, then it may be worth posting. - Indefensible (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose on notability: standard business news. Nixinova T C 05:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose with regret, because I'd really like more business news on ITN. However, apart from the timing of leave, there's nothing "noteworthy" about this. All CEOs of medium-or-larger corporations preside over various initiatives, acquisitions, etc. Chairmanship can end in death (would qualify for an RD blurb), ousting (could qualify depending on circumstance) or leaving (which is mundane and not notable). There is of course something going on at DIS which is not being told, but without RS coverage we've nothing to found our "noteworthy" arguments upon.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose person replaces person in business is not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose but with thanks for the nomination. I think there would need to be some controversy behind the change or the individual was forced out. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
February 24
February 24, 2020
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Clive Cussler
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by JuneGloom07 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Author or co-author of around 80 novels, which have sold more than 100 million copies. He also founded the National Underwater and Marine Agency. JuneGloom07 Talk 17:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for the usual reasons. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose There are whole paragraphs still unreferenced. P-K3 (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Diana Serra Cary
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5]
Credits:
- Nominated by Clibenfoart (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Her death is notable as she was the last surviving star of the silent era (a few other child actors are still around, but she was the only real star). It seems quite well-sourced, every section has at least one source. --Clibenfoart (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support One CN tag noted but otherwise the article appears to be in decent shape and adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support, and note that she was indeed a star. That she was a little kid and ridiculously easy to rob shouldn't take away from the fact that she drew over a million bucks, at a time when a million bucks could buy a large swath of Africa (a continent much larger than most flat maps suggest, even today). If the "quotes" weren't meant to mock the magnitude of this "silly widdle baby", sorry for "getting all defensive" about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi InedibleHulk, I wanted to emphasize that she was the last star, because other silent film actors are still around, but they were never stars in the true sense of the word. So there was no harm intended. Greetings, --Clibenfoart (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- That makes sense, thanks. I'd have found italics or *stars* a bit clearer, but was only mildly harmed. Barely even knew of her, personally. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support I fixed the CN (Amazon Prime to the rescue! was able to confirm from her autobio). Also confirmed that the list of films is based on MOMA's list and so its singular source there is fine. --Masem (t) 06:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I just glanced at it but it looks like there is a citation to reddit? Might be worth taking a quick look at source reliability. Kees08 (Talk) 07:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for now, per Kees08 point above. Good spot. The sources also include the now defunct fansite AStarForBabyPeggy.com — Amakuru (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've tagged the article. There's also a source called astarforbabypeggy.com which in any case is a dead link — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have been able to replace the reddit and that second link with appropriate sources (huffpost and guardian). Additional NYTimes has its obit up and I started seeding that in there. There's more that could be added, but in terms of sourcing and fundamentals, it shoudl be there now. --Masem (t) 15:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've tagged the article. There's also a source called astarforbabypeggy.com which in any case is a dead link — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. Thanks to Masem for sorting out those last few dubious refs. — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Olof Thunberg
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
Credits:
- Updated by BabbaQ (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
BabbaQ (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose stubby Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I did not see that it has been rated a stub. When it is clearly a Start.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- The main body about his career is only 214 words. The rest is about his famous descendants and a long list of participations in events Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I did not see that it has been rated a stub. When it is clearly a Start.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Not a stub and adequately referenced.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Posted --Jayron32 15:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) Harvey Weinstein convicted
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: American former film producer Harvey Weinstein is convicted on two charges of rape. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Harvey Weinstein is convicted on one charge of rape and one charge of felony sex crime while acquitted of two charges of predatory sexual assault.
Alternative blurb II: Harvey Weinstein is convicted of rape and a criminal sexual act.
Alternative blurb III: Harvey Weinstein is convicted of two felony sex crimes.
Alternative blurb IV: Harvey Weinstein is convicted on two charges of felony sex crimes while acquitted of two charges of predatory sexual assault.
News source(s): NYT, NBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by Davey2116 (talk · give credit)
Both articles updated
- Oppose on quality issues I forgot that we post on conviction not sentence, as I was going to post this when I saw it and added the news to the article. Note that I added an altblurb focusing on the charges he was cleared of which were the ones that would have carried the heavier sentences and that more people wanted to see. I note that when I added this to the trial article, there was almost nothing about the last two weeks about the trial at all which was in the news (at least, noting when the jury was given the case to deliberate). --Masem (t) 18:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. He still has another trial waiting for him in Hollywood, so I can't say this is ready to post yet since it's not over. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose seedy character convicted for seedy crimes. Happens every day everywhere. This one happens to be an American prominent in Hollywood. Nope. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Regardless of what happens at future trials, this verdict will send him to jail. Key moment in the Me Too movement and fall of a key figure in modern culture is of global interest. 2A00:23C5:508F:3E01:20BB:11B4:8EE1:9D30 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support
in principle– This case is a very influential. See Weinstein effect. This conviction is the climax of a long controversy worth posting on ITN.Oppose the current blurbs.He was only convicted on two charges. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)- Alternative blurb II looks ready to post. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per TRM. Celebrity crime/gossip we are not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support - We are stupid not to post this. This is definitively in the news.--WaltCip (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Walt, this is "in the news" in our shitty clickbait world. This isn't ENCYCLOPEDIC as far as I can tell. Little wonder if this kind of shite is getting traction for the main page that we're now considering ditching ITN altogether. Gets my vote. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)`
- Support pending article quality This is not, as Ad Orientem suggests, merely "celebrity crime/gossip". This case is a touchstone to the Me Too movement. Something like the Oscar Pistorius case is celebrity crime/gossip alone. This is much more. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support --- this is as much ITN as anything else that's posted on ITN. TRM's comment that he's American is irrelevant. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, if he was Sri Lankan or Filipino or Greek you'd be supporting. Of course. But your argument, it's ITN because it's ITN because everything else like it has been ITN and therefore this should be ITN is spot on. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - per Ad Orientem. No doubt this is on all the front pages around the world, and I'll be honest - that used to be my criterion for posting here per WP:ITN#Purpose. But I have been told many times by ITN regulars, and consensus usually follows this, that despite our "purpose" of getting the day's news stories up on the main page, we are at the same time not a news ticker, and that means we don't post celebrity stories etc. just because the media do, but we only choose stories of genuine encyclopedic value. So if we're picking and choosing our stories based on encyclopedic value rather than newsworthiness, and hence rejected stories such as Brett Kavanaugh being appointed to the supreme court, then we should also reject this one which, despite the rhetoric, is ultimately just the trial result of an individual Hollywood celebrity and not even a massively unexpected result. — Amakuru (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- As pointed out above, this is not just a big-name celebrity news story (that would be something more akin to Kevin Spacey's current trial). Weinstein's accusations kicked off the entire #MeToo movement which washed through Hollywood and numerous other industries and not just in the US and yet remains probably the highest profile case. That seems to be the reason to post, its relevance to #MeToo, not because Weinstein was a Hollywood big shot. --Masem (t) 02:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose because of referencing in the filmography. Weinstein isn't your usual sex offender, this kicked off "me too" --LaserLegs (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- We do not have to bold link the bio. The cases have their own article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as worded the blurb is about a single case. If this is about the Me Too movement, it needs to say so (although the "timeline" section in the Me Too movement article conspicuously starts from 2006). Banedon (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support once quality is taken care of As said above, this did kick off MeToo. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Highly notable watershed moment of accountability for an extremely powerful man. Agree that this case started the MeToo movement. Attempts to redefine the purpose of ITN in this discussion are irrelevant, in my view, and should be discounted. The article(s) may not be 100% perfect, but they are good enough. Blurb should be posted asap. Jusdafax (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Blurb errors: Only one count of rape He was convicted of two counts, but only one count of rape.[7]—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- I fixed that while adding a fourth blurb that summarized both convictions and acquittals. --Masem (t) 05:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support I prefer Alternative blurb II. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support on notability, per Masem. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support The New York Times calls it a "#MeToo watershed".[8] Not just another "seedy character" conviction, as some opposers contend. Prefer simplicity of Alt blurb III, minimizing legalese.—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment RE: BLP & BLPCRIME. Should this go up, it must include the least legalese and the crimes described in the blurb should be in layman's terms that are understood throughout the ENGVAR universe. Alt III is most suitable. Specific descriptions like "predatory assault" and even "felony" have various meanings. Specific information on the charges are in the article, but as a single line on the front page it should cause the least amount of misunderstanding. Terribly important in this case, as subject is in legal jeopardy in different countries and venues, which may have different definitions for some of the terms in the proposed blurbs. I add my Support !vote: trial is of immense international interest, subject was famous beforehand, topic is, well, topical.130.233.2.197 (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Altblurb 3 as suggested. The Katherine Johnson photo just went up so I thought I'd leave it a little more, but someone can change it if they wish. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Do we really want to post a picture of Weinstein on the front page? Similar to our not putting a picture at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 21, 2020, I think there's a danger it would attract more controversy than it's worth. — Amakuru (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think we just leave it as-is. As Chris Kraft might say, "if you don't know what to do, don't do anything".--WaltCip (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- @WaltCip: when you say "leave it as-is", do you mean we should include a picture of Weinstein, as that's the default, or do you mean we should not have one, and leave it as Johnson's pic? — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- That FA was regarding a person notable solely as a criminal, and not wanting to encourage copycat crimes. Weinstein, on the other hand, is notable beyond this case.—Bagumba (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think we just leave it as-is. As Chris Kraft might say, "if you don't know what to do, don't do anything".--WaltCip (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Do we really want to post a picture of Weinstein on the front page? Similar to our not putting a picture at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 21, 2020, I think there's a danger it would attract more controversy than it's worth. — Amakuru (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Post posting support but I definitely don't want Weinstein's mug up there.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- P-K3 why not ? you are supporting the name though. I am for both or nothing.--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 13:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- There's no requirement that the top blurb must be pictured. And I will happily admit to a bias in favour of looking at Katherine Johnson rather than Weinstein for a week.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- P-K3 why not ? you are supporting the name though. I am for both or nothing.--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 13:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Pawnkingthree, In that case I propose that you as well as Wikipedia reading Humanity be forced to see his face like Clockwork Orange as long as possible, so that we may not have another Weinstein. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - @Bagumba: I have reverted the use of Weinstein's picture for now, per the discussion immediately above. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think we should wait and see if there's consensus first. — Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'd rather look at a inspiring academic than a despicable criminal, but I think we have a clearly established (and recently confirmed) consensus that blurbs get the photo over RD. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- GreatCaesarsGhost, lets not be hypocrites. Lets not introduce personal BIAS here. If you find it suitable to blurb him, it must have his picture. If a new blurb comes, his pic can be replaced, not until then. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Please read more carefully - that's exactly what I just said. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- GreatCaesarsGhost, lets not be hypocrites. Lets not introduce personal BIAS here. If you find it suitable to blurb him, it must have his picture. If a new blurb comes, his pic can be replaced, not until then. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support restoring Weinstein image RD Katherine Johnson's image was the right IAR call at the time. But Weinstein is now the top blurb, and we generally put an image related to most recent blurb on top. Or is moral character now a criteria, like when Trunp was replaced with RD Kirk Douglas?—Bagumba (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- If only real life was like that. We could have Michael Douglas instead. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Where's Trick when we finally need him? – Sca (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support restoring Weinstein image All or nothing i.e. pull down the blurb if you dont want the pic. But it is hypocritical to say you like to see his name there but not his face. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't care either way whether Weinstein's picture appears, but we should leave Johnson up for 24 hours before changing. ITN doesn't have an inexhaustible supply of images, and there's no requirement for the top item to have the image. We should make full use of each opportunity we have, otherwise we end up with the same image staying up for ages (as happened with the Dail and Parasite pictures). Modest Genius talk 14:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's been up for 14 hrs already. It's about being as timely as possible. This isnt like rotating through Nobel winners on par with each other.—Bagumba (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oh well, Mjroots has now put the image back in place again. This is arguably a violation of WP:WHEEL, and it would have been nice if they'd consulted me first, but no harm done - there is probably a rough consensus for inclusion by now. Let's see if anything kicks off at WP:ERRORS or Talk:Main Page. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru, IAR, I am glad, someone used his admin bits, to undo the hypocrisy. More power to unbiased admins. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies, Amakuru, I was not aware that it had been previously posted. I saw that there was an image available related to a blurb, rather than a RD, checked that the image was protected, and inserted it. AFAIK, RD images are only to be used if there are no suitable blurb images (I think I commented to that effect recently). There was no intention to WHEEL. Mjroots (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: Fair enough, and that's fine - thanks for the explanation. I get the point about RD and blurb pics, my only concern was that there have been objections in the past to posting pictures of convicted criminals and terrorists on the main page. But evidently there's consensus here, so no harm done. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's been times when I thought "do we really have to have that ugly mug there?", but it's the system we are working under. Best we can do is apply the system fairly and without bias and partiality every time, no matter what our personal feelings are on the matter. Mjroots (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: Fair enough, and that's fine - thanks for the explanation. I get the point about RD and blurb pics, my only concern was that there have been objections in the past to posting pictures of convicted criminals and terrorists on the main page. But evidently there's consensus here, so no harm done. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies, Amakuru, I was not aware that it had been previously posted. I saw that there was an image available related to a blurb, rather than a RD, checked that the image was protected, and inserted it. AFAIK, RD images are only to be used if there are no suitable blurb images (I think I commented to that effect recently). There was no intention to WHEEL. Mjroots (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru, IAR, I am glad, someone used his admin bits, to undo the hypocrisy. More power to unbiased admins. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support image newest post gets the image, otherwise it's editorializing. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support image RD images are only if there's no suitable blurb image, and this is a suitable blurb image. (EDIT: There's also no requirement that the imaged blurb be the top one, but this is the "main" story of the ITN section right now, so it makes sense for the image.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting support; the trial isn't newsworthy in and of itself; its newsworthy for its role in touching off the Me Too movement. Describing it as nothing more than celebrity gossip is...an interesting outlook. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment – Way overplayed (per TRM, Ad Orientem, Amakuru). Despite the interminable hype (there'll be more in Calif.), this squalid episode is of little general significance. – Sca (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe someone could photoshop some bars across his mug? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Lugnuts, would posting his pic above this image would work for you ? ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Katherine Johnson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/katherine-johnson-hidden-figure-at-nasa-during-1960s-space-race-dies-at-101/2020/02/24/fd5058ba-5715-11ea-9000-f3cffee23036_story.html
Credits:
- Nominated by Samwalton9 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article looks to be in good shape. Not personally convinced this rises to the level of a blurb but could see the argument for it. Sam Walton (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support per intersecting multiple areas of international/intergenerational interest. ——SN54129 14:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Samwalton9 A recent deaths nomination is dependent only on article quality, so there isn't any argument necessary in that sense. (Unless you are proposing a blurb?)-- P-K3 (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, by ITN I meant a blurb. Corrected my note :) Sam Walton (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Quality is good and seems ready to go. --Masem (t) 15:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article looks in good shape.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Kees08 (Talk) 16:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Can we post the photo? Been looking at that empty room for a long time. 159.53.46.144 (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- I would support this being an IAR case of posting an RD photo (even if the Weinstein blurb above is posted). --Masem (t) 18:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting support and I agree that we should post her picture. Davey2116 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- I’d support a blurb. If you look at the children’s publishing world, she has rocketed in popularity as a subject of biographies. For example, DK’s children’s biography series has a title about her, putting her on the same plane as one Nelson Mandela. I think there will be a great deal of interest in this article. Zagalejo^^^ 17:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- The problem is .. it's like just short of all metrics we're consider for blurb. She's an important mathematician but was not the top of her field. She was an important first-female type thing, but that's not a reason to blurb as well. --Masem (t) 18:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support I have also added the image to WP:CMP; it may be added as soon as KrinkleBot does their job (I will be AFK for a while). Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Picture posted It is Black History Month, after all. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Coronavirus outbreaks occur in South Korea, Japan, and Italy
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Coronavirus outbreaks occur in Italy, South Korea, and Japan, infecting over 1,300 people. (Post)
News source(s): https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/
Credits:
- Nominated by Hurricane Noah (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose the story is in "Ongoing" which is fine. Both regional outbreaks seem to stem from interactions with Chinese nationals, no evidence of a wider pandemic. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- The issue is this is no longer contained in China with just isolated outbreaks elsewhere. If it keeps on increasing like it has in Italy, South Korea, and Japan, it will be one. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/world/asia/china-coronavirus.html PANDEMIC is being mentioned in tons of news articles now. These outbreaks are quite notable on their own. NoahTalk 14:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- There is more notability in the panic induced 4% drop in the FTSE 100 and DAX 30 than in 225 cases with 3 fatalities in Italy. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose There's no special factor of these cases in S. Korea or Italy as to reblurb the outbreak. It already had been spread well beyond China already. It is similar here to climate change, and only want to make to blurb stories where there has been massive change. If, for example, WHO reclassifies this to a pandemic, then that calls for a blurb. --Masem (t) 14:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, but not to the extent of a thousand+ being infected. It was pockets of double digits in countries. All the news sources are screaming pandemic. I would say thousands of cases outside China is quite a change. NoahTalk 14:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- A little perspective: CDC estimates that so far this season there have been at least 29 million flu illnesses, 280,000 hospitalizations and 16,000 deaths from flu.. This is just in the USA. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- News sources are screaming it, but lets wait for the medical/disease experts to make the call first. We want to stress the importance that readers know about this virus, but at the same time, there is a lot of misinformation about it and we can't be sharing the same sense of panic as media has on that. And I don't expect these three countries to be the last to have >100 cases before this is over, given what we know, and we're not going to post each time a country gets above those numbers. --Masem (t) 14:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- South Korea has almost 1000... I see no reason not to blurb that the virus is rapidly spreading in places outside of China since it hasnt been done thus far. NoahTalk 14:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well ITN is not a news ticker, and there is no requirement to blurb every development on every single story. The coronavirus is clearly a major deal - the likely overall mortality rate of at least 2% and the potential for global spread makes it more worrying than the winter flu cases mentioned above - but probably we should wait for a more major development before re-blurbing. — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- South Korea has almost 1000... I see no reason not to blurb that the virus is rapidly spreading in places outside of China since it hasnt been done thus far. NoahTalk 14:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Ongoing is the right place for this.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support This is big news affecting three of the top economies in the world, on two continents. It is funny that some people think the WHO's calling it a pandemic would be considered more notable than this. 50k people in Lombardy are in lockdown.--Adûnâi (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Several million people in Wuhan have been in lock-down for weeks, as have smaller numbers in several other countries. Why are the Italians more notable? Modest Genius talk 14:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Wait per Masem. For now, ongoing is the right place for this. Things do seem to be escalating so I'm open to re-posting a blurb once something major happens, but these localised cases aren't substantial enough yet. Modest Genius talk 14:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- CLOSING: Closing due to lack of notability expressed by the opposition. NoahTalk 14:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
RD: Kiki Dimoula
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ekathimerini
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Alsoriano97 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose this really needs to be expanded; it's a stub and there is very little about her life.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose stub missing refs. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Sardar Patel Stadium
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: US President Donald Trump on his first Presidential trip to India, officially opens the Sardar Patel Stadium which is now regarded as the largest cricket stadium in the world. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Sardar Patel Stadium officially opened by US President Donald Trump as the world's largest cricket stadium with a seating capacity of over 110, 000
Alternative blurb II: Sardar Patel Stadium, the world's largest cricket stadium and second-largest overall with 110,000 seating capacity, is inaugurated in Motera, India.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, Reuters, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Abishe (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose Second-largest stadium is second-largest and thus not record-breaking. Even on this, I would oppose the blurb focusing on Trump, just announced that the second-larget stadium by seating was opened, there is no need to make this potentially political. --Masem (t) 05:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's the biggest cricket stadium. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Purpose is irrelevant, though I would make a distinction if we were talking between indoor and outdoor stadiums from an architectural standpoint. --Masem (t) 05:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hardly irrelevant. You can't even play serious cricket on most soccer grounds, and soccer fans don't like watching their game on big, wide cricket grounds. Note that we are talking of the two most popular sports in the world here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not irrelevant but not necessarily significant enough to be posted either. Undecided on this one currently though. - Indefensible (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- If the key factor is "largest", then it is an architectural facet , not a sporting one, to figure out the way to support that many seat, though the sport itself is going to partially dictate why they need that many seats (eg , there's a reason why several of the largest ones are American college football) --Masem (t) 06:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hardly irrelevant. You can't even play serious cricket on most soccer grounds, and soccer fans don't like watching their game on big, wide cricket grounds. Note that we are talking of the two most popular sports in the world here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Purpose is irrelevant, though I would make a distinction if we were talking between indoor and outdoor stadiums from an architectural standpoint. --Masem (t) 05:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's the biggest cricket stadium. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose/Comment The building (and perhaps the opening) of the stadium is the news here, not the fact that Trump opened it. Stadiums are noted for their size, tenants, location, and many other things, but never for who opens them. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Change Alternative Blurb II to say opened rather than inaugurated, and I will support it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose It's not the largest and Trump inaugrating it is irrelevant, ITN is not a press release. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose on notability as the blurbs need a lot of qualifiers to prove notability. ("Largest cricket stadium" doesn't seem to be a bit deal.) Article also needs copyediting. Nixinova T C 07:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose trivia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Strong oppose because grammatical errors. Grammatical errors like assumption that it has largest stadium world is false. Because grammatical errors, it not sufficient to include in ITN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.122.197 (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced you know what a 'grammatical error' is. You appear to be criticising a factual error. Modest Genius talk 11:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is a part of Trump’s visit to India, which in itself is nowhere near when Trump and Kim Jong-un met in terms of importance. Besides, the stadium itself is the largest among cricket stadiums. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment this is a new stadium, but the article is a mix of info about the new stadium and the one which stood previously in it's place. Strip out the trivia from the old structure and there isn't much left. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral on significance, oppose on article quality. The opening of a large stadium is pretty uninspiring, especially one that isn't record-breaking, though I suppose we do need some new items on the template. However the article is mostly about the old stadium, full of unencyclopaedic cheerleading, needs a heavy copyedit, and hasn't even had the tenses updated. If posted, the blurb certainly shouldn't mention Trump, who is irrelevant to the story. Modest Genius talk 11:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Trivia.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Mahathir Mohamad
Blurb: Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad submits his resignation to the king after 2 years in office. (Post)
News source(s): CNN Prime Minister's Office of Malaysia AFP Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Nahnah4 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Wpeneditor (talk · give credit), Sisuvia (talk · give credit) and Milliede' (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: A prime minister resigning should be notable enough to be front-page news. (Correct me if I'm wrong) Nahnah4 (talk
- Oppose
For as long as the target is, I can't find an update in the suitable section (Second term as prime minister). Updatesto the infobox and ledeare lacking in detail. I am therefore unconvinced that this resigning is any more impactful or notable than any other.130.233.2.197 (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)- Prose updates are now at least in the correct place, but there are still no details regarding why this in important. Indeed, the updates make it sound as if nothing is actually changing.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment A change in PM is not always notable outside of a general election, mostly when the incoming PM is of the same party and policies are not expected to change(don't know if that's the case here). 331dot (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- The CNN & Guardian sources above make it clear this was unexpected, seems to be excluding the person who was previously thought to be the most likely successor, and will lead to a new coalition. Modest Genius talk 14:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment "The Prime Minister of Malaysia is the head of government and the highest political office in Malaysia. The prime minister leads the executive branch of the federal government.". We really need to get over this inane head of state vs head of government fixation. I'll change to full supprot if I have a chance to read the target before the nom is SNOW closed. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - has the change of leader actually taken place yet? I suggest we wait to post this until it's known who is successor is, and the reins of power are handed over. Then we can mention both of them in one story. — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Seems he's the interim prime minister while a new government is formed. Banedon (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support was going to nominate this. Banedon (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Unexpected resignation, high quality article. Mahathir_Mohamad#Resignation seems enough of an update. Modest Genius talk 14:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose The forming and dissolution of governments in the parliamentary system are not generally significant enough to be posted (though general elections are ITN/R). New PMs are posted on a case-by-case basis, but he is still the PM for now and could remain so in a new government. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose post new PM per ITNR. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per TRM and GreatCaesarsGhost. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support of course its note worthy enough for the main page, the change of a government outside an regular election cycle is significant. The fact the King has asked Mahathir to stay on as PM until his replacement is resolved, is also significant as it shows his government the crowns support even if the parliamentary processes dont. Gnangarra 01:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I'll tell a bit about the situation. Mahathir Mohamed is supposed to appoint Anwar Ibrahim like what had been planned where he'll take the position just for 2 years (written in news) but he resigned which make the appointment of Anwar Ibrahim as a new Prime Minister is off. So, there's a plot twist phenomenon there as Mahathir Mohamed doesn't seems to put off the position when the Agong of Malaysia appoint him as Interim Prime Minister. I think he's notable enough to be in the front page because he's one of world phenomenon.CyberTroopers (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- This sounds like domestic political intrigue, and I don't think it's suitable for ITN absent some other criteria.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support but wait This is clearly dominant news over in Malaysia, and is also covered significantly by international media (would probably be more if not for the entire virus affair, but what can you do). However there is still plenty of uncertainty so best make sure we at least know what's going to happen first. Juxlos (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Judging from recent developments, I think it would make more sense to nominate 2020 Malaysian constitutional crisis as an ongoing item. Masjawad99💬 06:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Otherwise, perhaps we should wait until it is clear that either Mahathir or Anwar gains enough support to form a new government, or whether a snap election would be called to resolve the deadlock. Masjawad99💬 06:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Agree that 2020 Malaysian constitutional crisis seems more applicable for posting as an ongoing event, as the subject seems broader than just the person of Mahathir Mohamed. However, the article looks like it needs some cleaning up currently as well. - Indefensible (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Lulusword seems to be doing an excellent job with creating and maintaining the article and providing extensive referencing so far. - Indefensible (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the rec. I am doing what I can, but I can only edit on mobile, so it will probably experience slow updates. Lulusword (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- If Australia (population ~25 million; compare with Malaysia's ~32 million) had been mired for years in political scandal, the Prime Minister resigned, and then the Parliament had a dispute over forming a new government, I suspect we would post something, subject to the quality criteria of course. I do agree we shouldn't be hasty and might want to wait until either a government is formed, an election is called, or if the dispute drags out, post it to ongoing. Context for the unfamiliar: Malaysian politics have been rocked for years by the 1MDB scandal, with lots of politicians implicated in corruption and some going to prison. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
February 23
February 23, 2020
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Politics and elections
|
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com]
rather than using <ref></ref>
tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref>
tags are being used, here are their contents: