Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 261: Line 261:
*:Haven't you opposed 3 or 4 times already? --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 20:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
*:Haven't you opposed 3 or 4 times already? --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 20:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
*::[[Echo chamber|Whatever]]. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 20:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
*::[[Echo chamber|Whatever]]. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 20:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
{abot}
{{abot}}


== August 29 ==
== August 29 ==

Revision as of 21:21, 31 August 2022

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

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.

Joseph Aoun in 2018
Joseph Aoun

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

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

  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

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.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

Format 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...

Shortcut
  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

Shortcut
  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives

August 31

August 31, 2022 (2022-08-31) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Steep fall in US life expectancy

Article: United States (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Life expectancy in the United States declines sharply, falling by about three years in the last three years. (Post)
News source(s): NYT; FT; BBC; NPR
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This seems a big story but I'm not yet finding updates in any of the various pages we have which touch on this. Note that the decline is just not due to COVID but also other factors like drug overdoses. The decline is being presented as a historic turnaround. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Lee Thomas

Article: Lee Thomas (baseball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WaPo
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Will be up to par by tonight – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

August 30, 2022 (2022-08-30) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Fauziyya Hassan

Article: Fauziyya Hassan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Onmanorama news Raajje
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Maldivian actress, article appears to be well referenced (unusual for an article of its type!). Couple of missing refs in the credits section, not my area of interest but will see if I can fill those in. Article needs updating Dumelow (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted Blurb) RD/Blurb: Mikhail Gorbachev

Overwhelming consensus to blurb; no more post-posting supports required.Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Mikhail Gorbachev (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev (pictured) dies at the age of 91. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The last President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev dies at the age of 91.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The last President of the Soviet Union and Nobel Peace Prize Mikhail Gorbachev (pictured) dies at the age of 91.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Former General Secretary of the Communist Party and President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev dies at the age of 91.
News source(s): CNN, Reuters (CNN gives age at death as 92)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Last leader of the Soviet Union, from 1985 to 1991. Article has been GA since January 2020. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting the most ridiculous !vote in the world per WP:DENY.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I usually don’t make these type of replies, but I have to. This was one of the world’s most influencial and important leaders in the 20st century. Please tell me you are joking. BastianMAT (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure this was a pointy !vote - Floydian τ ¢ 20:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trolling. Dennis Dartman (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User had only a handful of edits including a few prods, and knows how to add inline formatted refs, hmmm [eye roll] Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read -> [1] TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's a very important figure. He was the last leader of the USSR, and helped with perestroika. Dennis Dartman (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make me tap the sign...
Do not add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: COVID-19 pandemic

Even though I highly disagree with it, it's pretty obvious that the decision to remove this from ongoing is not going to be reverted yet again, and so this discussion serves no further purpose. Let's close it and move on. (non-admin closure) --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: COVID-19 pandemic (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: Per discussion and closed debate below, I'm reopening this to allow fresh discussion unsullied by the back-and-forth over the pulling and reinstatement saga. To restate my rationale here, I have been reticent to remove covid from ongoing in the past, but LaserLegs's nomination statement below is sound, and in most parts of the world the ongoing newsworthiness and daily updates are not there. We can always put it back if the pandemic flares up again, and we are not obliged to wait for the WHO. Please allow this nom to run for at least a day or two before assessing consensus, to avoid the drama seen below.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We can't just wait up for China indefinitely. Monkeypox seems to have become the more dominant health story in the news (at least if Portal:Current events is anything to go by). -- 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's difficult to say now, but monkeypox will probably not spread in such extent as Covid, it is not a new, unresearches disease. "given that MPV spreads primarily through close contact, it is less efficient at spreading between humans." [2]. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      And that may be true, but the fact is that monkeypox has been dominating the headlines. Whether or not it's due to media hysteria induced by the impact of prior pandemics is up for debate, of course. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the requirement that The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time. The article is not regularly updated and there are other crises now which appear much more frequently in the news than covid. Polyamorph (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think removal would be the right thing to do. Keeping this up is like if we kept Climate change up because it is ongoing forever. There has to be a point in time where the event is not receiving regular updates and I believe we have reached that point. Interstellarity (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's time. The disease has effectively become endemic and the main article is not receiving the level of updates expected for an ongoing. Any major developments in this story can be addressed on a case-by-case basis through routine nomination and discussion process. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - there are Covid waves still, in some countries it is influential. Let's look at TheGuardian home page. [3]. What are the main sectons above? World, UK, Coronavirus. If one of the most reliable sources thinks it still important, we shouldn't remove it. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are eight more main sections, so I feel you just stopped there for effect. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But Coronavirus is specifically the third most important topic listed there, more important than football (in UK website, yeah). We follow reliable source in terms of coverage when we consider news for blurb, then we need to look at whether the setion is in constant focus on RS. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look at that so-called "Coronavirus" section while I was arbitrarily stopped. What percentage of its current news stories do you think are primarily filed under a more topically appropriate section's name and just happen to also mention The Big C for background? That's right, 72.727%! Chinese heat wave, French Disneyrail outage, 1982 Australian murder...think about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is your number representative? How many news items did you check? On the contrary, it gives many new items, as well as one of the most important topics now - vaccinations. [4] [5] For vaccinations alone the topic shouldn't be removed from ongoing. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I sampled all eleven, sir; three were positive. Of the two you show me now, one (already checked) is primarily Global development (that ongoing North-South divide). The other one (from August 20) looks legit, a Coronavirus topic, four of twelve. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, the news items that are onfront page are not a proper sample - it is more deductive to see news for a longer period. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't test the front page, just the COVID section. But yeah, I suppose a larger study is a better study. Not sure how I feel about pushing nasal vaccines, though, I'll sleep on that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Restrictions have been coming down across most of the world, and Covid isn't mentioned as much as it was. Still happening isn't an excuse for an article to stay on Ongoing. It's interesting people use the surge in China as an excuse to oppose removal when even those child articles aren't receiving regular, substantial updates. Given the lack of substantial updates at the target article, which is what we look at for the requirement, this clearly doesn't qualify for ongoing any longer. It's still happening, yes, but fails the criteria for ITN Ongoing. NoahTalk 16:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for all the reasons in the previous nom where there was obvious consensus to remove and a rogue admin disregarded the same. Opposes which disregard Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section guidelines are rightly ignored for the purpose of evaluating consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It has receded from the news, it cannot stay up indefinitely, and it is not receiving a sufficient level of updates. I am not convinced by arguments that sub-articles are being updated.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it's no longer resulting in daily blurb-worthy news as it once was. Levivich 16:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The practical reality stands that besides China, which is attempting the likely-untenable goal of zero-COVID, the world has moved on. Cases, deaths, and restrictions are a small fraction of what once was, and restrictions have for the most part been rolled back. It’s an acceptable time for removal. If we were to keep it in purely because the WHO still defines it as a pandemic, we’d have the AIDS pandemic listed; if we kept it wholly because it’s still happening, we’d have climate change listed, and that was literally shot down yesterday. The Kip (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - multiple things can be true at the same time. a) much of the world has moved on, at least surfacially b) the article itself, as a few folks have noted, is not seeing many edits c) not many of our readers are clicking that link on the homepage, btw. 60k across a month is arguably a small number d) but, COVID is still an epidemic and has not been downgraded to endemic as a few editors have noted e) scratch the surface and you will note that across the globe we really have not returned to the normal (perhaps we never will, who knows) f) there are still many evolving guidelines and actions that are happening across the globe even if not in some of the countries that we are in. With all of this, I recommend either wait until September 15/16 when the next clickstream data comes in and/or update the link to timeline of COVID events -- something like this [6] (or perhaps something better) which might be more pertinent than our current link perhaps? Good luck and be kind. Ktin (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Polyamorph. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per usual et al. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per InedibleHulk. GoldenRing (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is long overdue. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose is still a pandemic, however much it may behave like an endemic virus. We should have waited for a WHO statement confirming this and put an end to the pandemic declaration. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WHO rightfully isn't concerned about whether or not a topic is in the news or whether it receives regular updates. But that does mean that by the time WHO sees fit to declare COVID-19 endemic, the news will have long stopped covering it, and a section labeled "In The News" on Wikipedia would look particularly archaic in having waited so long to make a decision. Similar lack of coverage was present on ITN when Ebola and Zika were declared to no longer be PHEICs. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When WHO sees it fit to be declared, the news will cover WHO decision, of course, with some retrospective in-depth articles. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Shenzhen apparently just went into lockdown per Reuters, I think it's too early for this to be removed. There should be no rush for an encyclopedia to make this change when the pandemic is still ongoing, there will come a day when that is no longer the case but not yet. Covid is still in an acute phase, it has not yet become merely chronic like the HIV example. - Indefensible (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it's still a thing that affects a lot of people, with daily infection rates above half a million. Many news articles are still being produced about it, so it's in the news. Aren't those the only two criteria? —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:In the news#Ongoing section, which details the criteria. NoahTalk 18:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. It is still a pandemic and it is still in the news. Davey2116 (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is long, long overdue. Covid is no longer news, it's an endemic disease world-wide, and will remain so. This is akin to keeping a link to Malaria as Ongoing in ITN, which kills millions of people every year. --Soman (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    two years of pandemic for you to say this? Not the same. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The WHO is unlikely to declare it endemic, but COVID isn’t in the news anymore. 58-59% of Americans don’t view COVID as a threat. It just isn’t discussed anymore, and In The News doesn’t mean Broadcasting COVID-19. 47.19.209.230 (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • support removal It is sadly clear that most governments and the majority of people don't give a stuff anymore (this coming from a person who voluntarily wears masks everywhere still), and the reinstatement was just the personal preference of a higher authority driving by to put us plebs in place again. Consensus was clear then and it is in this reset Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I checked my country's national news sources and (to my genuine surprise) there isn't actually any updates about COVID on the front page anymore. YD407OTZ (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I know the goal was to keep this up for a while, worth noting there's a pretty clear consensus in favor of removal at the moment. The Kip (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the consensus that you claim to see. I see a lot of people overly eager to get rid of this from ongoing for no good reason. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains all these oppose votes not addressing the criteria will be ignored. Still happening is not a criteria. Regular, substantial updates which add new, pertinent information is a criteria and one that has not been met as of late. NoahTalk 21:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal - The pandemic is still ongoing, and it is still in the news. If the BBC and the Guardian can both find enough material to maintain entire news website sections about it, it's still very much in the news. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal' -- COVID-19 is still in the news, and thousands are still dying daily. Not time to remove it yet, there's no reason to remove it just because a small segment of the Wikipedia community wants to pretend COVID-19 doesn't exist anymore. It does, and it's not endemic. Also, articles linking to COVID-19 are still being regularly updated. See here -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is pretending it doesn't exist. I actually have covid right now. It simply isn't in the news the way it was. In terms of deaths, road accidents are killing more people daily than covid. But we don't have road collisions in ongoing. Polyamorph (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We would need to hold a discussion to determine if the criteria covers child articles as well. As written and generally interpreted currently, it does not. I might as well start a RfC on the talk page now. NoahTalk 21:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal - I suggested this some time ago but was over-ruled. No longer headline news. — Voice of Clam 21:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal the message now is we just "live with it". Certainly if we get a shitty new mutation which evades vaccinations and causes massive mortality, we can re-visit this (if anyone's left alive to deal with it), but in the meantime, it's just background deaths, like gun-crime in the US. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal, as per my comments yesterday in my request to reinstate it. The pandemic is still the subject of ongoing news and COVID-19 has not yet been declared endemic. Pandemics are not inherently open-ended; someday it will be over. But the expectation that the pandemic is almost over has been around almost as long as the pandemic has, and every prediction so far has been premature. I don't think the pandemic should stay on here forever, but I don't think this is the time to remove it. Tisnec (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, “it’s still going on” is not a criteria on WP:ITNR. The Kip (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's still receiving news coverage, though, which satisfies WP:ITNCRIT - "the event is appearing currently in news sources". It's definitely less news than before, and I think we're close to a notability tipping point, but I've seen several stories just today. The only other necessary criterion is consensus, which is what we're debating here. Tisnec (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with accepting his apology? --RockstoneSend me a message! 17:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need. It was a good pull, consensus remained strong even after the pull until a rogue admin yeeted it back into the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, LaserLegs, NO this was not a good pull. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 09:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is no need to apologise, but the fact that you have demonstrates how good an admin you are. Polyamorph (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I feel you have nothing to apologize for. Consensus was just as clear then as it is now. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the 'glamour' commanding officers from the wild west era of 15+ years ago who often try to pull faits accompli on everyone that is the problem, especially when they don't participate on a routine basis but carpetbag in to impose their choice on the 'glamour' topics. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal, in terms of news coverage this is nothing compared to what it was before / during the vaccine rollout. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal as I have done previously, per Wikipedia:ONGOING. The article linked has not received significant updates - Dumelow (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment - this request for comment should probably be brought to the wider community. I notice a lot of people commenting for and against in the previous removal discussion who have not yet commented here. No matter the outcome of this, someone is sure to want to bring this to WP:DRV or something. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 09:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is the ITN discussion page for items in the box. We don't need to WP:CANVAS more "oppose" !votes from people who don't bother to read the guidelines we have enough already. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not opposed to adding this to WP:CENT. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal - COVID has turned into a background story at best, and unless a new wave begins to spike up it will stay that way. Regardless, as per WP:ONGOING "In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." Updates to the article have become irregular at best. Prism55 (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal: This is still a major issue in the world, especially in SE Asia. Its economic and political effects are still very much being felt. And are likely to again in Europe/America this winter. Plenty of coverage of new vaccines etc. 2A02:A03F:61B7:5B00:84C5:B0F7:9195:2BFD (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal per above. EditMaker Me (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Some 3,600 words later, posts running over 2:1 in favor of removal. Consensus? – Sca (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no rush whatsoever to remove this from ongoing. It's worth it to let everyone have a chance to participate even if their participation is unlikely to change the result. Have patience. Let the world turn at least once. 24hrs, even 48, is not that long. Levivich 13:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I can certainly understand that the first pull was rushed, but we’re at a full day of discussion with a pretty overwhelming consensus. I don’t see much of a point in dragging things out longer than they need to be. The Kip (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      We're at a full day now when you posted your reply; we weren't at a full day yet two hours ago when I posted the comment you're replying to. In those two hours, three new people participated (two supports, one oppose), who would not have had the opportunity to do so had this been closed two hours ago. That's valuable in and of itself; can't you see that? I can show you innumerable examples of bad things that happened when threads were closed too soon. Can you show me any examples of bad things that happened when threads were closed too late? What is so hard about the concept of allowing (at least) 24hrs so that everyone in the world has a chance to participate? And what is with this obsession by some with commenting about when it's time to close? Do we think that, unless someone says "this should be closed now", the closers won't know when to close? All these comments do (mine here included) is needlessly add to the text on the page, to the watchlist, to the edit history. There is no need to rush. Levivich 16:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the pandemic is still ongoing and there are still developments. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal - having just now read WP:ITNCRIT, I'm not seeing how the level of continual background activity rises to that point. For all effective purposes, this has moved into recurrent rotation now. Hog Farm Talk 13:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal: What a coincidence, someone on the TV News was discussing yesterday exactly this, that COVID is mostly over by now and there are hardly any more news to it. And, as pointed, the article should be having frequent news-related updates, and this one is not. The opposes that say "it's still going on at Foo" should check the criteria in WP:ONGOING. Cambalachero (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With 712,000 new cases yesterday, "mostly over" sounds optimistic. However, since they're mainly the Omnicron variant that's less debilitating, it does seem the global crisis is ebbing at present. -- Sca (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unless there's some noteworthy global development that makes sense to add again.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal. The pandemic is still ongoing, it is killing thousands per week, and several countries (most notably China) still have lockdowns in place. Much of the world population is still unvaccinated. Updates are occurring in the sub-articles and it's still receiving mainstream media coverage, even in places where legal restrictions have been lifted (e.g. there were two articles about Covid on the the front page of the Guardian website this morning). The Covid pandemic isn't over, no matter how much people (or some governments) like to pretend it is. Modest Genius talk 14:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more worried about CC than the pandemic. 104/40 due where I live today. -- Sca (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool, so where does WP:ONGOING mention "sub-articles" and can you highlight a recent update for "new, pertinent information"? --LaserLegs (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Removal I would challenge anyone to cite a COVID-related event/occurrence/fact that has happened in the last six months that is of interest to anyone. We know that people continue to get it, we know that people continue to die. Simply updating the metrics is not a reason to retain this forever. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While certainly things related to COVID will continue to be newsworthy, those can be handled as individual ITN items rather than a permanent placement. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's 24 hours in. By a straight !vote count it's 32 support and 15 opposed (very high participation for ITN). The Oppose (or keep) camp points out mainly that the pandemic is still happening. The Support (or remove) camp agrees but points out that the story is stale, getting only statistic updates for a long time now. WP:ONGOING applies. Time to call it --LaserLegs (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the rush? You seem to be afraid that others will come by and oppose removal. --RockstoneSend me a message! 17:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      24 hours is the frequently proposed but never officially adopted "minimum wait" and there is a clear consensus. Time to act --LaserLegs (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see overwhelming consensus worthy of pulling this now. What is the harm of waiting a few more days? --RockstoneSend me a message! 17:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are in opposition to removal. You have posted on this thread 11 times. You are not a neutral arbiter here. The consensus is what it is, and there has been plenty of time allotted for opinion in this nom and the prior. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • First of all, I hardly call 66% support to be "consensus" on something like this. But even if it is, you haven't answered my question. The consensus is not overwhelming, so WP:SNOW doesn't apply, and there's no harm in waiting this out a few more days. Patience, please. Why does it matter if this stays on for a while longer? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 19:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • If 2/3 of all participants does not reflect "consensus" then nothing would ever get done here. There is no question of harm, there is a question of reasonable and ordinary practice. A nomination that is open for 24 hours, has 66% support and extremely high participation is absolutely a mandate for closure and acceptance. Keeping the nomination open, with the hope that canvassing may drop the majority a bit actually would be harmful. I'm readding the "Needs attention" header for admin consideration. Please allow an ADMIN to make the decision on whether to act. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are not many updates now, the editors can update the articles. There are new lockdowns and discussions on impact of possible measures. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This article has been discussed for removal from Ongoing several times over the past months and the updates you are suggesting have not since happened. For all those who continue to insist it should not be removed, why have very few of said editors updated the article to meet the Ongoing standards? That someone may eventually make an update is simply not good enough. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment For what it is worth, the headline story on the New York Times is the updated vaccine being approved, while the second story involves the US's steep decline in life expectancy (lowest since 1996) due mostly to COVID-19. Not that this changes the ITN criteria, but to say it is not "in the news" still is simply not true. --RockstoneSend me a message! 17:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for removal, or updating to a current timeline article per Ktin's suggestion above. COVID-19 is still a big part of what's happening in the news, but a developing-story enthusiast (or whoever actually clicks ITN links) is not going to find what they're looking for in the linked article. -- Visviva (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment: Regarding the suggestion that we should ignore contributors who "disregard Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section guidelines" for purposes of evaluating consensus, I would just like to point out that (a) ITN does not appear to be a guideline, (b) even if it was, guidelines derive their authority, if any, from consensus and therefore agreement with them cannot be used as a precondition to determining consensus, and (c) in general, excluding voices from the discussion is harmful to the project and the community and should be done only when strictly necessary (e.g. when there is evidence of actual manipulation, or some other reason to believe that a particular sample of Wikipedians is unrepresentative). The power of consensus comes precisely from the pressure it creates to find better and more nuanced solutions (or, as some poli sci folks would say, "increase the dimensionality of the policy space"); relieving that pressure by excluding inconvenient voices does no one any favors. I am but a humble rando, and this is but a minor issue in this case, but those are my thoughts on the matter. -- Visviva (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." is a direct quote. Not sure what else to tell you. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either we have guidelines and we enforce them, or we don't. The latter is anarchy. The former is constricting, but we can change consensus through open-ended discussions such as through WT:ITN. We don't do it through individual case studies. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a court system. One case doesn't set precedent over long-established guidelines and practices. It takes broad consensus to change practices and guidelines. Consensus of that nature can't be achieved in a discussion about an item on ITN. NoahTalk 19:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This site is not exactly a democracy as some like to believe it is. This is why there are no precise requirements for consensus. Personally, I do not believe ~66% of votes for something is consensus at all, but the failures of the article to be updated to Ongoing standards is not a matter of opinion. If an article is not being updated enough than the debate over the event being ongoing doesn't just mean very little, quite frankly it means nothing at all. I do not believe anyone who has opposed posting has offered an opinion as to why the article is actually meeting these standards, nor have the proper actions been taken to elevate the article to said standards. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 29

August 29, 2022 (2022-08-29) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

RD: Hans-Christian Ströbele

Article: Hans-Christian Ströbele (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tagesschau (DE)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Influential German politician. SoWhy 09:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Charlbi Dean

Article: Charlbi Dean (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: South African actress. I am working on referencing the article Dumelow (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think the referencing is now up to scratch - Dumelow (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Abhijit Sen

Article: Abhijit Sen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Indian economist. Article needs some work before it can be ready. I will work on it, but, if someone wants to assist, jump right in. Ktin (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ernie Zampese

Article: Ernie Zampese (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American football coach. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: COVID-19

This discussion had veered completely off-topic, from the legitimacy of the nomination to a back and forth over admin actions. Plus several editors have cast multiple "votes" for different actions at different points in the debate, making assessment of consensus hard. I will reopen a fresh nom shortly, which will hopefully be allowed to run for a decent period of time and stay on topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: COVID-19 (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: COVID-19 has been going on for years now and it will do so probably for all of our lifetimes (much like MERS and HIV/AIDS). It cannot be in ongoing indefinitely. Would it be suitable, for example, to put car crashes into ongoing? It's also become a very broad topic (from lockdowns, supply chain issues, human migration, political consequences, etc) spot news events (like China lockdown) related to COVID-19 do not illustrate the general topic. LaserLegs (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; in countries still tracking Covid-19 in a reasonable way, the statistics are still high. The US reported approximately 500 daily deaths over the last week. It's also still in the news, much more so than car accidents or flu or cancer or any of our other shared ills. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And it will likely be in the news for the next 10 years as the world calculates the social, economic and health cost of Covid and assess global/regional responses. 193.119.98.23 (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I would challenge anyone to cite a COVID-related event/occurrence/fact that has happened in the last six months that is of interest to anyone. We know that people continue to get it, we know that people continue to die. Simply updating the metrics is not a reason to retain this forever. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems like debates on these are becoming more frequent while we still don't know how long an item can be considered ongoing, so I opened up a discussion on the talk page to clarify some things if possible.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it is still causing widespread effects in China which still having downstream effects on world markets. Masem (t) 14:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was on the fence last time because the world was seeing a bit of a wave from the latest subvariant but seeing how almost no major jurisdiction made any changes to their public health policy, except continue to remove covid-era restrictions, covid as it stands now is firmly in the past. Apart from news outlets reporting readily available stats, like a stock ticker, there hasn't been any notable developments in months. 193.119.98.23 (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – In the past month, there has only been one substantial update to the article, and this update was not related to current events (such as direct impact). If the article is no longer actively seeing news-related updates, we should indeed remove it from our ITN box. This is not related to how much impact the pandemic is still having. The issue is that we are not covering the impact in the linked article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note, for example, that quite a few "as of ..." sentences are dated to 2020 or 2021. We might need to be concerned about the article being outdated. I have no idea if this is an actual issue for the article, but it doesn't feel suitable for ITN. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We cannot have it on ITN forever and, as mentioned above, there are no day-to-day updates to the articles as typically required for ongoing items. Yes, it made sense to have it on for way longer than any other ongoing item, but at some point we should drop it. Our readers know to use the search box if they need info. --Tone 14:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – S-o-o-o long-term is this topic that I'm not sure Ongoing matters much. OTOH, it does provide a hot button for a topic that affects everyone. On the fence. – Sca (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Restrictions are continuing to fall, infections have been falling, not much in terms of substantial updates at the article. NoahTalk 15:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - We can't just wait up for China indefinitely. Monkeypox seems to have become the more dominant health story in the news (at least if Portal:Current events is anything to go by).--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a single covid item at Portal:Current events/August 2022 that would have gotten a blurb had this not been in ongoing, and only one (on August 15) that wouldn't have gotten snow-opposed. We have to go all the way back to July 6 for an item that we even might have blurbed. Support. —Cryptic 16:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – same reasons as why don't we put climate change to ongoing. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Clickstream data for the month of August is not available as of yet, and will be available on September 15 / 16. I would recommend having a look at that data before acting one way or the other here. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Much like the Invasion of Ukraine, it's not in the news as much but that doesn't mean it's done or over with. MyriadSims (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not really "in the news" much anymore is it? It is endemic now in many places. No longer the crisis it was, now others have taken over. Polyamorph (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I think at this point in time we can remove it from ongoing. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's time. If there is a really major development, we can deal with that on a case by case basis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC) signed belatedly[reply]
  • Support, endemic disease by now. --Soman (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed Consensus for removal; lack of regular updates to article as required for Ongoing items. SpencerT•C 16:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    updates for a topic as big as COVID will be in the sub articles. this will be a similar issue for the Ukraine war. Masem (t) 16:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered this. The issue is that we're not featuring these sub-articles on the front page. Such an indirect way of "featuring" the work of people editing articles like (for example) Chinese government response to COVID-19 (which of course isn't even linked in the main article) is not really reasonable in my opinion. It doesn't serve our readers or our community. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I’m here to remind you that COVID-19 will be endemic when the WHO declares it so, not when you say so. It’s still a pandemic. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If we were to go wholly by the WHO’s definition of events, we would still have the AIDS pandemic listed. Sometimes it’s best to go by the practical reality. The Kip (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and reinstate - The pandemic is still ongoing, and it continues to make the news. Pulling it from Ongoing with less than four hours' discussion is much too quick in any case. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It should not stay up indefinitely, and it is no longer receiving the regular updates required for Ongoing.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I personally think it is time to remove as other events have taken far more media coverage and it should not stay perpetually. -- FictiousLibrarian (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse removal - It is clear that restrictions are easing almost everywhere in the world. COVID will likely be with us for a while now, but not to the point that it is affecting everyday life. Interstellarity (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Removal Support Pandemic will continue, but continuous updates have not. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to reinstate The pandemic has not ceased to drive news, nor is it an inherently open-ended event (a charge reasonably used elsewhere here to say climate change shouldn't be listed). I believe the decision to remove it from "ongoing" was premature, and that it should be reinstated. Tisnec (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    CBC News doesn't fully reflect the global journalistic scene, of course, but insofar as it does, the pandemic really has ceased to drive. The top health story (currently top overall) is about how much weekly drinking scientists say is too much this week. The only COVID-related homepage headline is about normality's inevitable comeback. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, the New York Times has a little covid dashboard not unakin to Wikipedia's "In the news" infobox. (I checked two other sites: The BBC has no covid-related stories on the front page just now; CNN has two). We're probably close to covid not being news anymore - provided it doesn't have any more tricks up its sleeves - but I don't think we're there yet. Tisnec (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to reinstate This isn't just premature. While COVID pandemic will go on as a part of our lives, there's an ongoing big wave of COVID in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam (all of which are in around East/Southeast Asia), and while the monkeypox is now a bigger news than COVID, it is not growing that much in Asia as of now. I feel COVID-19 should be considered as ongoing until these waves are put under control and growth of monkeypox in Asia becomes definite. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, reinstate until better consensus is achieved The discussion ended before I could vote on the original proposal. For something like this that has been repeatedly re-litigated on this page over the past several months, I feel like we could stand to get more opinions before making such a contentious change. On substantive grounds, the pandemic is still active, I'm still seeing stuff in the news, and I feel adverse to calling this endemic before the WHO does. Certainly, World War II managed to stay in the news for a good 6 years; what's 2.5 years to COVID? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinstate. Four hours isn't enough time to develop a consensus; item should be reinstated until the discussion has had sufficient time to run its course. For the moment, I oppose removal, per Vanamonde93 and the fact that while the target article is not seeing regular significant updates, the child articles of the target article are, and I believe that is sufficient for the criteria for ongoing to be met. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-removal support The practical reality stands that besides China, which is attempting the likely-untenable goal of zero-COVID, the world has moved on. Cases, deaths, and restrictions are a small fraction of what once was, and restrictions have for the most part been rolled back. It’s an acceptable time for removal. The Kip (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/lean reinstate Only 20.9% of people in low-income countries have received at least one dose of a Covid vaccine.[8] (See ref for more stats) In many parts of the world, we're not out of the woods. -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After two years of reminding people about it, yes, the pandemic and its articles still exist and everyone knows where to find them. That was the point, awareness. We thoroughly and completely helped raise it. We did not put an end to death, disease and socioeconomic turmoil. We were never supposed to. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal, as I did last time. The article has received precisely zero meaningful content updates in the last month - Dumelow (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Who knows when the pandemic ends, it has been in "current events" for so long. NytharT.C 07:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-removal support (since apparently some are calling for reinstatement). It's long overdue, the article is no longer receiving substantial update to warrant keeping it in Ongoing. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinstate. As stated above, four hours is simply not enough time to build a reasonable consensus. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And as restated immediately above, this new resolution and realization is long overdue, following months of trial proposals, similar discussion and (nonbinding) alternative results. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinstate we can remove this when Covid-19 becomes endemic, which it hasn't, yet. In the meantime, one would be hard-pressed to find any news outlets without daily Covid-related news. Banedon (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd also really have to look for one that doesn't treat it as another bottomless mundane category of news, beside Politics/Government, Weather/Climate and Indigenous/Sports. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many countries are already treating it as endemic in any case. Polyamorph (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They're treating the literal virality as endemic. I'd like to think we're focusing on how they're treating the transmission of COVID news. This isn't In The Public Health Sector/C, after all. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. Although I was responding to the OP who I think was referring to the virus. Polyamorph (talk) 10:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We must remain vigilant, referring to misindentation. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Soz. Yes, Stay alert! Polyamorph (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinstate. This was a woefully brief discussion which should not have been closed so quickly. The pandemic is still ongoing, it is killing thousands per week, and several countries (most notably China) still have lockdowns in place. Much of the world population is still unvaccinated. Updates are occurring in the sub-articles and it's still receiving mainstream media coverage even in places where legal restrictions have been lifted. The Covid pandemic isn't over, no matter how much people like to pretend it is. Modest Genius talk 11:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Those calling on ITN to wait until the virus is declared endemic are forgetting that this section is called "in the news". The criteria for remaining an ongoing item is the determination that there are still regular updates to the target article, and the item has to be pervasively in the news. Those are the only criteria, nothing to do with what the WHO says the virus is or isn't. At this time, these criteria are not being met. The discussion should be closed without reinstatement. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 11:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • REINSTATED - The removal was done very soon after the request was posted, which is very unusual for ITN, given it was not close to SNOW support. Many voices have asked for it to be reinstated, so it should revert back to its default state while further discussion happens. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fuzheado strikes again! 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or rather, a decision made in poor faith less than 4 hours after a proposal was posted has been reset so that a clearer and more fair consensus can be determined. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to the guidelines which stipulate a minimum wait for taking action or what compelling "keep" justification (other than 'too fast') necessitated a re-post? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This has a wiki lawyering vibe. Anyone who has been active on ITN knows that if you take action on an item within four hours that is not clearly WP:SNOW worthy, then procedurally its legitimacy is going to be highly controversial. The requests to reinstate have been raised by experienced users and reflect this. I don't have a preference on the matter either way. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a fairly straightforward question. What guidelines stipulate a minimum wait, and what compelling "keep" justification (other than 'too fast') necessitated a re-post? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's another unwritten rule, just like the notorious WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. NoahTalk 13:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think WP:CONLEVEL does; just four hours of discussion results in the decision being made among a limited group of editors. BilledMammal (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That certainly seems relevant in this case. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are asking for policy proof for something that was never asserted. I never said anything was "stipulated" or "policy," only that it was unusual how quickly it was acted on and that many voices objected to this procedural issue. It is the custom of this community that decisions for the ITN box are given enough time so that the consensus is properly determined. The COVID item was removed after a sampling period of less than four hours, resulting in users who noted the short consultation period:
    • "Pulling it from Ongoing with less than four hours' discussion is much too quick in any case,"
    • "The discussion ended before I could vote on the original proposal"
    • "Four hours isn't enough time to develop a consensus"
    • "four hours is simply not enough time to build a reasonable consensus"
    • "woefully brief discussion"
    The legitimacy of this forum is lessened when procedures and customs are not followed in the best of faith. A reversion to the prior state/status quo while discussion continues is the most fair and equitable thing to do. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While it's true that four hours might not be an ideal length of time to judge consensus, at the time you reinstated the item, over 20 hours of discussion had elapsed, and at that point consensus was clearly heavily in favor of removing the item from ongoing. This is where I believe you made your error in judgment. You were weighing consensus based on temporal conditions that existed at the time of removal, and in doing so, imposed a supervote at a time when consensus had become more fleshed out and definitively in favor of removal. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree entirely with WaltCip here. A good admin would recognise they've made a mistake assessing the consensus and revert it. Polyamorph (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quite comfortable in restoring the status quo in the name of fairness so that consensus can be properly evaluated. What concerns me is the number of folks who would dispense with good faith community norms in order to fast-track a decision they prefer. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when is calling another admin action a "decision made in poor faith" (your words) consistent with "good faith community norms". Do you consider your own admin actions to be unaccountable? Polyamorph (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe I have said anything of the sort. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You certainly did. The full quote: Or rather, a decision made in poor faith less than 4 hours after a proposal was posted has been reset so that a clearer and more fair consensus can be determined. The comment is at the top of this thread. Polyamorph (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I said the things in bold type. I meant in response to, "Do you consider your own admin actions to be unaccountable?" I never said my actions are "unaccountable" and I don't understand why you would attribute that sentiment to me. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the reactions between the removal and the reinstatement, they are 50/50 in their split on their opinions on the matter. The fact is, it is so FUBAR at this point a close and re-request is likely the only way to properly come to a community decision. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but this is not the first time that you've made a decision on ITN that in my view appears to go against a clear consensus. It's difficult not to have a knee-jerk reaction. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fuzheado: Whoa, hold on. "poor faith"?! You can't possibly mean that. At the risk of sounding self-important, could everyone just chill a little bit? No one is acting in poor faith, no one is "misusing" the admin bit, we're just (as usual) kind of stumbling towards a solution because the wikipedia way is inherently messy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are you quoting with "misusing?" Apologies if it was me, but I don't recall saying that. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone down below said "abuse of admin privelege" regarding your action. I'm saying Spencer didn't do anything in bad faith, you didn't misuse your bit. But frankly, I was kind of hoping your very first response would be to say "oh my god, I didn't mean 'poor faith', I meant 'good faith (but incorrect)'". Floquenbeam (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by my comment. I could add "unintentional" abuse, but nevertheless it was a mistake. Polyamorph (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I am not charging gross misuse or abuse of power, merely that Fuzheado misread and acted against consensus - in good faith. But I still believe this needs to be corrected and the ongoing item should be removed. Even if the discussion is closed with no consensus, it's nearly inevitable that it will be renominated for removal in a month barring some extraordinary development in the virus's progression. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose reinstatement, pull - Just for the record, although I did note that I supported removing this from ongoing earlier. I think Fuzheado acted against consensus, even if the previous removal was technically a bit early.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted by @BilledMammal above, consensus evaluated "technically a bit early" means it's not a proper consensus, as per WP:CONLEVEL. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull It is sadly clear that most governments and the majority of people don't give a stuff anymore (this coming from a person who voluntarily wears masks everywhere still), and the reinstatement was basically just another the personal preference of a higher authority driving by to put us plebs in place again Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose reinstatement, pull. Per WaltCip. Yes, the original pull was a little hasty, but we're a day in now and consensus for pulling seems fairly clear in the discussion above so I'm unsure why it was reinstated. I have been reticent to remove covid from ongoing in the past, but the nominator rationale above is sound, and in most parts of the world the ongoing newsworthiness and daily updates are not there. We can always put it back if the pandemic flares up again, and we are not obliged to wait for the WHO. @Fuzheado: please reconsider, because it will be difficult for any other admin to reverse your decision now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think reinstatement makes it harder to reverse. It makes it hard to reverse right away, but if the discussion is open a while longer and there's clear consensus for removal, then by definition it isn't wheel warring to reinstate a contested admin action that has broad consensus. It's been on the main page for years, we can afford to let the discussion run a little longer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull reinstating was an abuse of admin priviledge, there was clear consensus against doing so. Polyamorph (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, reverting a hasty bold move that did not have consensus is not abuse. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverting another admin action, against clear consensus, that had further developed, is very poor judgement for an admin. So I disagree. It may be well intentioned, but it is still wrong and you should revert it. Polyamorph (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid your definition of "clear consensus," is not universally or widely held. And with this much uncertainty and doubt around the removal, a reversion to the status quo is the least controversial and most equitable move one could make while more discussion happens. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you afraid? The least controversial move would have been to leave it alone. Are you completely unaware of how much opposition your action has generated? Polyamorph (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're definitely aware this discussion is recurrent, since last October, not four hours. You even participated. There's nothing hasty about this time, it's just the first time the result wasn't Close. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC
  • Oppose reinstatement, pull Restrictions have been coming down across most of the world, and Covid isn't mentioned as much as it was. Still happening isn't an excuse for an article to stay on Ongoing. It's interesting people use the surge in China as an excuse to oppose removal when even those child articles aren't receiving regular, substantial updates. Given the lack of substantial updates at the target article, which is what we look at for the requirement, this clearly doesn't qualify for ongoing any longer. It's still happening but fails the criteria for ITN Ongoing. NoahTalk 13:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - (1) Four hours isn't sufficient time to get a true reading of ongoing coverage around the world. (2) The lack of "reinstate" votes following the removal should not be taken as agreement with the removal, as I'm sure most people have found that it is almost always pointless to discuss decisions that have already been made. (3) The accusations of impropriety have also derailed this discussion to the point that it isn't about keeping/removing at this point, so pointing to a "consensus" in a derailed and disjointed discussion means next to nothing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; I think at this point the best option is to procedurally close this discussion and open an RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, let's just go ahead and close it as no consensus. What a mess. And it was one that didn't need to happen. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I opened a discussion on WT:ITN regarding minimum length of time for discussions. I didn't call it an RfC because I don't think my wording is neutral enough to declare it one, but if someone wants to suggest how I can polish it up, I don't mind declaring it an RfC.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Ongoing: Climate Change

Consensus to post is unlikely to develop. However, we can post significant news pertaining to reports, protocols, initiatives and measures on climate change at any time as we did in the past. For more insights on the same topic, please see this recent discussion on the talk page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Climate change (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): Floods in Pakistan, Heatwave in China
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Climate change is affecting people all over the globe now, it's an ongoing issue with even greater consequences than COVID-19 and the invasion of Ukraine. Cashewnøtt (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The Western US drought is a major threat to global food security as well. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Climate change has been affecting people for years now and it will do so probably for all of our lifetimes. There is no point in adding something to ITN as ongoing if we already know it will never be removed because that's not what ITN is for. Regards SoWhy 09:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is like the third time an ongoing for CC has been suggested, but it fails as it would be ongoing indefinitely. --Masem (t) 10:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I know this year new things have happened as climate change becomes more severe, but climate change has been ongoing for years and will probably continue into the future. Would it be suitable, for example, to put car crashes on ITN/Ongoing? EditMaker Me (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Masem. Too broad a topic. Spot news events related to CC would not illustrate the general topic. – Sca (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Cancelled) Artemis 1

Launch scrubbed. Next opportunity: 2 September. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Artemis 1 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The uncrewed Artemis 1 (rocket shown) is launched as part of the Artemis lunar human exploration program. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Artemis 1 (rocket shown) is launched for its human exploration program.
News source(s): NASA's mega-moon rocket ready for liftoff on eve of debut Artemis mission – Reuters
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Obviously significant event. Launch is expected to be in a few hours. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because, if successful, it will be the start of further moon exploration and more moon landings. Also, Artemis has a huge impact on other future space missions, such as missions containing extensive exploration of other planets, as finally completing lunar exploration and establishing bases can be a huge help in setting the first foot on Mars. But in general, it is a major event in the history of human exploration of space, since the last moon landing dates back to the early 1970s. --CDE34RFV (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 28

August 28, 2022 (2022-08-28) (Sunday)

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

(Closed) Liverpool 9-0 Bournemouth

Consensus not to post, also AfDing the article that consists just of basic statistics. --Tone 15:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Liverpool F.C. 9–0 AFC Bournemouth (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Liverpool F.C. defeats AFC Bournemouth 9–0 at Anfield, matching the joint-largest winning margin in Premier League history. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport
Credits:
 EditMaker Me (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Far better as a DYK, of expanded.
Masem (t) 14:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 27

August 27, 2022 (2022-08-27) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) 2022 Pakistan floods

Article: 2022 Pakistan floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Pakistan declares a state of emergency due to severe flooding, killing at least 1,003 people and affecting more than 670,000 homes. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Monsoon floods kill over 1,000 people and 700,000 livestock in Pakistan.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Floods in Pakistan kill over 1,000 people and over 700,000 livestock.
News source(s): DAWN, Al Jazeera, Tribune, BBC, The Guardian, DAWN, AP
Credits:

 Ainty Painty (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The extreme weather events have already been in evidence all over the world this year. The Scientific American article has a reasonably global perspective, "...But scientists at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in Geneva say there's no doubt that higher Atlantic Ocean temperatures contributed to the disaster begun late last month. Atmospheric anomalies that led to the floods are also directly related to the same weather phenomena that a caused the record heat wave in Russia and flooding and mudslides in western China...". But our article doesn't say anything about the Atlantic, Russia or China. It doesn't even mention India, which naturally has monsoon flooding too. It's presented purely as provincial incidents rather than as a global weather pattern. Proseline rather than a coherent global narrative. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd support since this is clearly ITN; however, the blurb statement about a national state of emergency does currently not seem to be in the article? I'd think we need at least clarification on that. Currently it's clear to me that this should be ITN right now, but from external sources, not really from the article. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 26

August 26, 2022 (2022-08-26) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Roland Mesnier

Article: Roland Mesnier (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: White House Executive Pastry Chef from 1979 to 2004. Thriley (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Aldo Mirate

Article: Aldo Mirate (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): La Stampa
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: 79, Italian politician, deputy (1972–1979). Abcmaxx (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Espen Skjønberg

Article: Espen Skjønberg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NRK
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: 98, Norwegian actor (One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, A Handful of Time, The Last Lieutenant). Orange tagged but there are plenty of sources and needs to be inputted into the career section. Filmography needs references. Otherwise the article is good. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jalaluddin Umri

Article: Jalaluddin Umri (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Vartgabharati
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: 87, Indian Islamic scholar, amir of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (2007–2019). Referenced and good enough to post, although unusual subsection headings. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Slavko Večerin

Article: Slavko Večerin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Direktno
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: 65, Serbian Roman Catholic prelate, bishop of Subotica (since 2020). I believe article although not overly long is good enough to post. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Hana Zagorová

Article: Hana Zagorová (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Radio Czechia
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: 75, Czech singer-songwriter and actress (The Hit, Hrubeš a Mareš jsou kamarádi do deště). Article is great at first glance but desperately needs a lot more references; orange tagged as a result. Filmography is incomplete as well. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 25

August 25, 2022 (2022-08-25) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

  • Flooding in Afghanistan this month has killed 182 people and wounded 250 more as torrential rains wrought widespread devastation in central and eastern provinces. (Al Jazeera)

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Dale Joseph Melczek

Article: Dale Joseph Melczek (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NWI Times Chicago Tribune
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American Catholic bishop Dumelow (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Joey DeFrancesco

Article: Joey DeFrancesco (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, NPR
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American jazz musician. --PFHLai (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Steven Hoffenberg

Article: Steven Hoffenberg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://bnonews.com/index.php/2022/08/steven-hoffenberg-worked-with-epstein-found-dead/
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American businessman and fraudster. Former owner of the New York Post. Found dead on this day. --PFHLai (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Giles Radice

Article: Giles Radice (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, The Times (paywalled obit with date of death)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: British politician. The "writing and political ideas" section needs more sources. Fully sourced. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Re-posted) 2022 Angolan general election

Proposed image
Article: 2022 Angolan general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Incumbent president João Lourenço (pictured) and his party the MPLA are declared winners of the general election in Angola. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Angolan general election, the MPLA win the most seats and João Lourenço (pictured) is re-elected as president
News source(s): CNE, Guardian, Reuters, AlJazeera
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: I realise I'm slightly early with the nomination but best to start tidying up now, with over 97% of votes counted, rather than having a lot to do later. I believe the article so far is very good: more background would be nice especially given the very long history of both the two biggest parties and the fears over potential vote rigging that were raised; once official results announced they need to be added and an aftermath section needs to be added too. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Robert E. Finnigan

Article: Robert E. Finnigan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WSJ
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American engineer. Death announced in WP:RS on this date. Article might require an end-to-end read and some edits. I did not have to do any major edits. Article seems well built and seems ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 24

August 24, 2022 (2022-08-24) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Man of the Hole

Article: Man of the Hole (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  In Brazil, an Indigenous tribe's last survivor of genocide, Man of the Hole, dies (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Man of the Hole, his tribe's last survivor of Indigenous genocide in Brazil dies
Alternative blurb II: ​ The last surviving member of a people destroyed in the genocide of Indigenous peoples in Brazil dies
Alternative blurb III: ​ The Man of the Hole, one of the last known survivors of the genocide of Indigenous peoples in Brazil, is found dead.
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Last known member of an uncontacted Amazon tribe. Body found 24th August Dumelow (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dorli Rainey

Article: Dorli Rainey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American activist. Died Aug 12 but announced Aug 24. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tim Page (photographer)

Article: Tim Page (photographer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AusBC, NYT, CNN, People Mag, WaPo, EuroWeekly, Telegraph, Guardian, Barron's, HistoryNet
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: British-Australian photographer and war correspondent. Wikibio still needs more footnotes, but it's getting there. --PFHLai (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coradia iLint hydrail line

Articles: Hydrail (talk · history · tag) and Alstom Coradia LINT (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Alstom inaugurates hydrail, the world's first fleet of hydrogen fuel-powered trains. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Coradia iLint train line in Lower Saxony becomes the world's first train line with a hydrail system.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The world's first hydrail train line system is inaugurated in Bremervörde, Lower Saxony.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, DW, Onet, CNN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The world's first. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was tested in 2018; not actually formally implemented.Abcmaxx (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the DW link above, those two trains have been in passenger service for the entire four years, carrying fare-paying customers. That's not just a test, it's a small-scale deployment. Modest Genius talk 14:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Wayne Yates

Article: Wayne Yates (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Commercial Appeal; WMC-TV (NBC); Memphis Tigers
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First reported today (August 24); died on August 16. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kallistos (Ware)

Article: Kallistos (Ware) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Orthodox Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Extremely prominent theologian and bishop of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Article needs work on referencing. Memory eternal! Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Article is good enough for RD. Alex-h (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything is now sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Shalom Cohen

Article: Shalom Cohen (rabbi) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Haaretz
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Rabbi and spiritual head of the Zionist Shas political party. EditMaker Me (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Len Dawson

Article: Len Dawson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [10]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: NFL player who is a Super Bowl MVP, first round draft pick, and Hall of Famer. Sportsfangnome (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1107780535"