Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a02:908:675:8d00:f4b8:ec9b:6ea2:29a9 (talk) at 17:41, 14 September 2022 (→(Posted to RD) Blurb/RD: Jean-Luc Godard). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

view of the street where the truck-ramming attack began
Location of truck-ramming attack

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

September 14

September 14, 2022 (2022-09-14) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Irene Papas

Article: Irene Papas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): iEdidiseis (in Greek)
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: Greek actress and singer, a Good Article - Dumelow (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Astana

Article: Astana (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Kazakhstan announces change to name of capital from Nur-sultan back to Astana (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Kazakhstan announces the changing of their capital city's name from Nur-Sultan to its former name of Astana.
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This is unique and I believe encyclopedic (as well as political). The last I can think of such an event is St Petersburg > Leningrad > St Petersburg and took over decades rather than 3 years. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

September 13, 2022 (2022-09-13) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Fred Callaghan

Article: Fred Callaghan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fulham FC
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: English footballer Dumelow (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Susan L. Solomon

Article: Susan L. Solomon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First reported today (September 13); died on September 8. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ken Starr

Article: Ken Starr (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): KWTX
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Origin NS-23 mission failure

Article: Blue Origin NS-23 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 23rd flight of Blue Origin's New Shepard spacecraft results in complete mission failure following a booster failure (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The 23rd flight of Blue Origin's New Shepard spacecraft results in a booster failure and a successful execution of its launch escape system
News source(s): CNN, The Guardian SpaceNews
Credits:

Article updated
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.

 BilledMammal (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Oppose – A non-event. – Sca (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article almost exclusively is about the failure of the mission and only briefly mentions mission objectives. I think if we are going to post this, ITN/R or not, there must be more information in the article about the potential impacts. All we have currently is that the booster was destroyed and the mission presumably delayed. What are the the impacts of this failure that have this rise to a ITN level of concern? I do believe most readers would question the exact significance of the failure of a non-crewed sub-orbital flight such as this one. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added some additional information, but significance is presumed through ITNR. It is also the first time that a New Shepard rocket has had complete mission failure. BilledMammal (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Perhaps if it was manned or the first mission, but neither, so unimportant. The Kip (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. BilledMammal (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IAR -- Sca (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IAR should only be in exceptional circumstances, where the PAG can't reasonably have accounted for the circumstances; The Kip's position appears to reject the majority of stories that would be posting under this part of ITNR, which means the circumstances aren't exceptional and IAR doesn't apply. BilledMammal (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for affirming your faithful adherence to the sacred ITN Catechism. – Sca (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If we want to be able to reject ITNR, we should note that they are subject to some discussion about significance - otherwise, the instructions are clear that Items listed there are considered exempt from having to prove their notability through discussion on the candidates page. BilledMammal (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think this is a rare instance in which the encyclopedia is not best served by inclusion of this story.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @WaltCip: Previously, you said I think this needs to be codified somewhere: ITN/R is not a guideline and there are no exceptions. Any attempts to treat it as such by opposing an ITN/R item based on notability, usually with the accompanying argument of WP:IAR, should itself be ignored. Has your opinion changed? BilledMammal (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm never too old to learn, and in this case, I got a clue and determined that my previous opinion was wrong. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 11:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - one thing to keep in mind here, is that it was a sub-orbital rocket, not designed or planned to orbit the earth. Looking at other launch failures that were featured; Soyuz MS-10 in 2018 had a crew on board, that survived ballistic re-entry, and were recovered over 400 km from the pad. The Falcon 9 carrying AMOS-6 (satellite) in 2016 blew up on the pad in a massive explosion, all but destroying LC-40 and was felt over 60 km away! In this case we have only a sub-orbital rocket, no large explosion, and the capsule landed safe and intact. The booster didn't land successfully - but the article doesn't really say much as to it's fate, other than it hit the ground; elsewhere I've seen reports that it was providing telemetry until it's unsuccessful landing. So no humans, not orbital, payload survived, no damage to the launch pad, and no information about the booster landing zone. Nfitz (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Regrettable Support I have no idea what an unknown number of people were thinking when they agreed every launch failure with enough details to update an article is automatically good enough, but they did and the article's updated, so let's just get this subjectively bad idea over with. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- it's ITNR. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is, so it needs to be posted, otherwise the point of ITNR is moot. --RockstoneSend me a message! 00:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ITNC entries that are based on ITNR can still be debated if that specific entry is important enough to post, just we don't want people rehashing the "is the ITNR appropriate?" here on ITNC. Masem (t) 00:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow. The phrase "each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post" seems to preclude any discussion about whether the event is important enough to post. --RockstoneSend me a message! 00:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. Not every second time, not every other time, just every time. All anyone who doesn't like it but wants to follow the rules can hope to accomplish is to convince the room the article isn't "appropriately" updated (whatever that means). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We have, in the past, skipped posting ITNR items for various reasons that were beyond quality issues. The point that we have this allowance to skip a singular ITNR instance, as long as we aren't wasting the effort about the base ITNR criteria. Major crashes of spacecraft can be significant, but you can see by the way the news is covering this that this crash of an unmanned commercial rocket wasn't really a major event. Masem (t) 03:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither are plenty of R things. They don't need to be, they just need to recur and constitute an appropriate update to a nominated article without orangetags. If you can think of a good reason unrelated to importance to skip this one, I'd love to get on board, seriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is true that we have skipped posting ITNR items for various reasons unrelated to quality or whether it actually satisfies ITNR criteria, then there's something wrong, and we should change our policies. If ITNR criteria can simply be discarded because we don't like it or think it's appropriate, then we might as well just get rid of ITNR entirely. This being said, I'd support updating ITNR criteria for launches to require that the failure occur with a manned launch. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITN/R is a guideline not a rigid rule. Right at the top it says "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the wording needs to be changed, as that is not what it currently says. BilledMammal (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ITN/R and marked ready. Update is sufficient. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm removing the ready tag, it may be technically ready to post but there isn't even a remote degree of consensus to do so. There's a grand total of six votes overall, and it's 50/50 between oppose and support. The Kip (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    57/43. You can assume the nominator supports. In addition, consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposes which disregard the WP:ITNR guidelines are invalid. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding it back. There's no need to form consensus for notability, since it's ITN/R. I've yet to see anyone oppose on the basis that the article is not in an acceptable state. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can this really be described as "complete mission failure" if most of the payload was recoverable? - Indefensible (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality and also notability. Quality-wise, per DarkSide830, it lacks information on the mission beyond the details of its failure. Also oppose on notability per those above. ITN/R is not a suicide pact, and there is no part of the project where IAR doesn't apply (it's even one of the five pillars). Per above, this is one of those rare cases where something that's ITN/R nonetheless fails to reach the significance bar. It's a relatively insignificant story that won't materially affect that company's programme or anything else in the longterm, and our readers wouldn't particularly be well served by its inclusion at ITN.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I also think that ITNR is not a must. This was a failure of a rather routine mission that did not carry crew (luckily) or some particularly important equipment, like JW telescope (also luckily). We should probably amend ITNR criteria. I suggest this is sent to DYK instead, the article is decent enough. --Tone 08:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't think this falls under WP:ITNR; launch failures are listed under the "space exploration" heading but this was a suborbital launch, and thus it's dubious to what degree this counts as "space exploration". Including this only begs the question of where the line is drawn. Would a failed weather balloon launch count? I agree with the sentiment that this item would be better suited to DYK. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll buy that, this was space trucking, Oppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the launch hadn't failed it terminates above Kármán line, which means that it is space exploration; weather balloons don't go anywhere near that high. BilledMammal (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Altitude aside, cargo can't explore, especially when only going somewhere its shipping company has gone 22 times before. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The cargo was experiments, intended to be run in space. Such experiments are part of space exploration. In addition, look at our article on space exploration. Reaching the Kármán line is considered part of it. BilledMammal (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Such experiments are part of space research, no doubt, which I guess might pass for exploration in an inner intellectual sense. And maybe that T-2 Mission Arroway could have felt some base rush of actual firsthand pioneering. Tough to say, my furred friend, but I'm not flipping twice on this. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a note, the original discussion which led to the space rules in their present form is here, from 2011. This was a reduction in scope from a much broader "any space flight" that was there before, but it actually looks like the version that was written as a result of that discussion is not quite the one that had consensus in the discussion. The initial suggestion at the discussion was for "Orbital launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article" (emphasis mine), with one or two users also saying that all launch failures should be left to ITN/C. Nobody suggested automatically including all launch failures, including those that weren't orbital, but that's what was inserted. I'd suggest revisiting this ASAP to be honest.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The WP:ITN/R entry is "Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article". This is poorly drafted as all nominations obviously require such sufficient details. And so the only meaningful bit is "launch failures". But these are commonplace – the repeated launch failures of Artemis 1 are a fresh example. We therefore have to discuss whether a particular failure is significant or not and so this shouldn't be ITN/R. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Same response as to sca above; if we want to be able to reject ITNR, we should note that they are subject to some discussion about significance - otherwise, the instructions are clear that Items listed there are considered exempt from having to prove their notability through discussion on the candidates page. BilledMammal (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITN/R is a guideline not a rigid rule. It says "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". The only way we can use our common sense and establish whether this is an exception is to discuss the details of the case. That's what we're doing here. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except it is very unambiguous. If it is not a rigid rule, then it shouldn't say Items listed there are considered exempt from having to prove their notability through discussion on the candidates page and Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. BilledMammal (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But that applies to any guideline (or indeed policy) anywhere on the project. Most such "rules" are worded in clear language that would appear at first sight to discount exceptions, yet IAR applies if appropriate nonetheless. And the idea that IAR would be a principle applied right across the project, covering almost all of our content and conduct conventions, but somehow not apply in one single hallowed corner of the Wiki known as ITN/R, seems a bit ludicrous when you think about it. For most purposes ITN/R is a "rigid rule", but occasional exceptions apply. The bottom line is that if enough editors feel that there are special reasons why a particular item should be IARed, as appears to be the case here, then a consensus doesn't form and it doesn't get posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most other guidelines aren't written with the same strength of language. In addition, IAR should only be in exceptional circumstances, where the PAG can't reasonably have accounted for the circumstances. Given that the reasons for rejecting this launch failure would apply to most launch failures, IAR can't apply. BilledMammal (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTLAW explains that "...it is not governed by statute ... the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. ... Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus." So, what we have here is an evolving consensus and WP:ITN/R seems to require further adjustment to reflect this. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets see how this closes, but if it does close against posting then you are right; ITNR (and Wikipedia:In the news#Sports and other recurring events, and the template above) would need adjustment. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue a discussion here is not sufficient enough to override ITN/R. Per WP:CONLEVEL, this wouldn't be sufficient because the stability and consistency of guidelines are important. Any change must be made conservatively and slowly while seeking the input of others. A driveby discussion on a matter such as this is not sufficient to change the ITN/R guideline. NoahTalk 11:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's ITN/R... It has been said before. If you don't like it being on ITN/R, then start a discussion on the talkpage to remove or amend the topic. Notability is assumed for anything on the ITN/R list and thus it's notability is not a question here. The only issue we can debate on an ITN/R topic is quality, which the article meets since it has been updated. I will note that the ITN/R guideline has a broader level of consensus then any discussion here so we can't just override it. Drive by discussions are not sufficient to change the ITN/R guideline itself. Therefore, this must be posted whether we like it or not.
NoahTalk 11:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remind you of WP:NOTBURO. Also: Do you yourself believe that this story would be significant for posting on ITN, regardless of whether or not it's a recurring item? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to RD) Blurb/RD: Jean-Luc Godard

Proposed image
Article: Jean-Luc Godard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard (pictured) dies at the age of 91. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard (pictured) commits assisted suicide at the age of 91.
News source(s): Reuters
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: Pioneering filmmaker. Quite a few references missing, as there are completely unsourced sections. Filmography page poorly sourced. Mooonswimmer 09:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jack Charles (actor)

Article: Jack Charles (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC
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: Australian Aboriginal actor. I've done a pass through to add missing refs - Dumelow (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmys

Article: 74th Primetime Emmy Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In television, Ted Lasso wins best comedy and Succession wins best drama at the Emmy Awards. (Post)
News source(s): NBC News
Credits:

Article updated
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: There still need to be a few parts about the ceremony (In Memorandum) that needs to be updated but there is prose. Also probably a few firsts to document as well. Masem (t) 03:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia - Azerbaijan war

Articles: 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis (talk · history · tag) and September 2022 Armenian-Azerbaijani clashes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Large-scale conflict breaks out between between Armenia and Azerbaijan (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Large-scale clashes erupt after an uneasy ceasefire and tensions regarding an ongoing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Large-scale clashes along the Armenia and Azerbaijan border kill 99 people.
Alternative blurb III: ​ At least 99 soldiers die from renewed fighting in the border crisis between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
News source(s): Gulf News, Reuters, Israel National News, Daily Sabah, Malay Mail Jerusalem Post, DW
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Probably too early to tell if this is full on war or should we be ready to create 2022 Nagorno-Karabakh war article but certainly a huge escalation. Updated at 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis#September 2022 with multiple references there for now. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox says that this has been going on for a year and four months. What about the recent "escalation" merits posting? That proposed blurb is uninformative. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The scale, not just skirmishes this is full on shelling and combat. It's breaking news so I didn't know whether to start a new article or just add it to an existing one. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

September 12, 2022 (2022-09-12) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Law and crime

Science and technology

RD: Lowry Mays

Article: Lowry Mays (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; San Antonio Express-News; Texas A&M University
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ramsey Lewis

Article: Ramsey Lewis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
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: Prolific musician. Article isn't in bad shape, but needs plenty references. Mooonswimmer 00:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: PnB Rock

Article: PnB Rock (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American rapper. Career section missing some references. Mooonswimmer 00:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: William Klein

Article: William Klein (photographer) (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: Died Sep. 10th, reported on today. Article needs some work. Mooonswimmer 18:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strike my oppose out of respect to nominator; did mention article needs work. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gwyneth Powell

Article: Gwyneth Powell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: English actress Cowmilla (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Swedish general election

Article: 2022 Swedish general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2022 Swedish general election results in no overall majority (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Social Democrats gain the most votes in the 2022 Swedish general election but their left-wing bloc lose majority to a right-wing Sweden Democrats-Moderate-Christian Democrats-Liberals bloc.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Social Democrats gain the most votes in the 2022 Swedish general election but no party or coalition gains an overall majority.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The right-wing opposition wins a majority of seats in the 2022 Swedish general election.
News source(s): The Guardian
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: 94% votes counted, it's pretty much all even, question is whether the other right wing parties will continue to/form a new electoral pact with the very controversial Swedish Democrats party. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The source cited in the nom (The Guardian) says something different: The current headline of that Guardian article is "Rightwing bloc heading to victory in Swedish election, 90% of vote count suggests". In the text of the article itself it says: "With 90% of the vote counted, the right bloc of four parties had a share of the vote corresponding to a majority of three in the 349-seat parliament." Similarly, WaPo says that the right bloc appears to have won a narrow majority of seats. Nsk92 (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that bloc is yet to form an official alliance. Technically Social Democrats won with the most votes but nowhere near enough to form government. Even when 100% is counted it will be by the narrowest of margins and if Swedish Democrats turn out to provide the PM as the biggest right-bloc party I can guarantee you there'll be a huge uproar.Abcmaxx (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an explicitly WP:OR argument. If and when we do post something to the ITN, the blurb should correspond to what WP:RS say. And right now most sources say that the the right bloc appears to have won the majority of seats. Nsk92 (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. The blurb is very much unhelpful. Most media reports group M, SD, KD and L together, and by the current count they do indeed have a majority. Such a blurb would be much better. Second, the count is still ongoing. It's not confirmed who will win before the remaining votes are counted. As such, posting a blurb at this moment is absolutely premature. Gust Justice (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Social Democrats will win a pyrrhic victory. Those 6% left will not change that. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a win at all for the Social Democrats. Sure they are the largest party, but that doesn't mean anything in the Swedish parliamentary system, where a majority in parliament must elect the Prime Minister. I don't think the outcome will change once the last votes are counted, but we need reliable sources to say so, not conclude it ourselves. Gust Justice (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last votes remaining to be counted are the postal votes not the in-person votes. They may sway a different way albeit only slightly. Haris920 (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If we are going by that blurb, it clearly is against the WP:RS which therefore should not be posted. If the blurb reflects WP:RS, i’m for it but this nomination is too early and is all in all wrong.[4] BastianMAT (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I agree with Abcmaxx on this - the blurb can't be posted as is. If nothing else it may be worth waiting until we hear about coalitions or such, and if this does not come to pass we could at least say that the Social Democrats won the most seats (which may not tell the whole story but tells a bit more). DarkSide830 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait This election is very close although the right-wing bloc currently has a slight majority of 175 seats. Vote counting is still ongoing and will continue until Wednesday. Social Democrats have been the largest party for the past 100 years and it should be noted that Sweden Democrats are now the second-largest party. I'd recommend to change the blurb.
Vacant0 (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guardian now reports a one seat majority at 95% count. I agree with waiting. Regards SoWhy 12:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Social Democrats likely will win in terms of individual party performance, but right bloc may win by a small margin against the left-bloc.AP News Abcmaxx (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added altblurb and withdrawn blurb per above comments. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait ... for official, final results. For obvious reasons. – Sca (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. The final results will not be in for a few days yet. It is likely that the liberal-conservative-far right bloc will win a majority, and the left-green-liberal bloc will lose power. It is, however, not clear yet. Furthermore, while it is likely that the Moderates and the Christian Democrats, or the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals, can form government if these parties together with the Sweden Democrats can form government, they have yet to actually agree, complicated by the fact that the Sweden Democrats are the biggest party among the four but the Liberals have stated they will not to agree to any government the Sweden Democrats are part of. In short, it's far too early to make any statements around where this will lead – we don't present the probable as fact. /Julle (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on quality Whilst the consensus is to wait for the final results and what the coalitions will look like in terms of forming a majority government, I believe that so far the quality of the article of is very good; in terms of length, quality and referencing alike. If anyone disagrees please comment and/or improve the article. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be really nice if we had a stand-alone article on the conservative bloc/coalition. (But the current election article is easily looking good enough for blurbing of course!) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know whether they will form an official one yet and what the composition will be to be fair. So far it has been an informal alliance on a local level. Having said that we may need an article on the left bloc coalition equally as well. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's likely we won't get all the parties involved together in a coalition government – it's a very uneasy alliance, with the Liberals agreeing to talk to the Sweden Democrats to negotiate a government but stating they will not support a government including the Sweden Democrats; likewise, in the opposite bloc, the Centre Party can't imagine forming government with the Left Party. We're looking at minority governments with reluctant support from parties who don't exactly like each other but consider the alternatives worse. I'm not sure we should create articles for these uneasy alliances unless there is very good sourcing to do so specifically. They are in no way as strong as for example Alliance (Sweden), which was a real coalition, used to be. /Julle (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's exactly why I had the initial blurb as it was; no-one won really. Also, worth adding that the Red-Greens have an article regarding the left bloc which may need updating and inclusion in the election article. It may even needs to be split as it technically refers to 2x coalitions. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added altblurb2 in case there is a minority government.Abcmaxx (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Julle: am I right in saying that there's a chance of a hung parliament and another election or are we likely to see another minority government? Abcmaxx (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Abcmaxx I think a hung parliament would be far too speculative for us. All sources assume someone will form government based on the result we'll see on Wednesday or Thursday. /Julle (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South African dam collapse

Article: 2022 Jagersfontein dam collapse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A dam collapse in Jagersfontein, Free State, South Africa leaves thousands displaced and hundreds injured. (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg, News24, Daily Maverick, Sowetan, Eyewitness News, eNCA (eNews Channel Africa), SABC News, Reuters
Credits:

 TapticInfo (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty in the sources tab? Abcmaxx (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

September 11, 2022 (2022-09-11) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Mavis Nicholson

Article: Mavis Nicholson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Daily Telegraph; The Guardian; The Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First reported today (September 11); died on September 8. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Joyce Reynolds (classicist)

Article: Joyce Reynolds (classicist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Newnham College, Telegraph
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: Reynolds was a pioneering woman in the world of classical scholarship and a centenarian. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Papua New Guinea earthquake

Article: 2022 Papua New Guinea earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A magnitude 7.6 or 7.7 earthquake strikes Papua New Guinea, leaving at least seven people dead. (Post)
News source(s): Barrons, CBS, CNN, Reuters, Time
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Greater magnitude than recent Sichuan earthquake which is currently blurbed, fewer casualties. - Indefensible (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are still almighty big earthquakes though, each notable in its own right. Abcmaxx (talk)
Please let's not go down the rabbit hole of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Anthony Varvaro

Article: Anthony Varvaro (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AJC
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Javier Marías

Article: Javier Marías (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: Spanish novelist. Other updaters include: Jkaharper, Ira Leviton, Goszei, Asqueladd, Normantas Bataitis, Unknown artist, Alexcalamaro, and more. --SitcomyFan (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is sure notable enough. Seems to have been quite a writer. But I agree with Black Kite that there are several unsourced phrases, to which I believe the sources can be found easily as I have come across a quite a good source on him. The literary mind/thought of Javier Marías is quite promising. I'll try to add some sources and come back with the result.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am taking a break. For anyone interested to source the Kingdom of Redonda part, it's a fun section with Kings, Duchies and a a charming diplomatic spat with the Government of the United Kingdom.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2022 Ukrainian Kharkiv counteroffensive

Consensus to post is unlikely to develop, and this is already covered with the ongoing item. Closing before the discussion gets fatuous.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:10, 11 September 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: 2022 Ukrainian Kharkiv counteroffensive (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ukraine retakes the key logistical hubs of Izyum and Kupyansk, following a surprise counteroffensive in Kharkiv oblast (Post)
News source(s): Financial Times, The Guardian, Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A significant event; the fall of the city and the surrounding area is a major strategic victory for Ukraine, and the biggest setback for Russia since they retreated from Kyiv; commenters have described it as a "stunning rout" that has the potential to change the course of the war. BilledMammal (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Margrith Bigler-Eggenberger

Article: Margrith Bigler-Eggenberger (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/switzerland-s-first-female-federal-judge-dies-aged-89/47890508
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: She became the first women judge of the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, the supreme court on Switzerland in 1974. She died on the 10 September. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

September 10, 2022 (2022-09-10) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Jack Ging

Article: Jack Ging (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): KMIR-TV (NBC)
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kurt Gottfried

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

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

Nominator's comments: Austrian American physicist. co-founder of the Union of Concerned Scientists. NY Times obit published 10 September. Thriley (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Frank Cignetti Sr.

Article: Frank Cignetti Sr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: B. B. Lal

Article: B. B. Lal (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express
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: Indian archaeologist Dumelow (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Marsha Hunt

Article: Marsha_Hunt_(actress,_born_1917) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter article
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.

 --SitcomyFan (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

September 9, 2022 (2022-09-09) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: James Polshek

Article: James Polshek (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; Ennead Architects
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ray Rippelmeyer

Article: Ray Rippelmeyer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Republican-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: I think it's minimally sufficient but will keep working on it so lmk if you see something glaring I missed. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) New High Commissioner for Human Rights

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Good faith nomination. However, consensus will not evolve to allow a red link on the mainpage. Ktin (talk) 02:08, 10 September 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: Volker Türk (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Nations General Assembly approves Volker Türk to be new High Commissioner for Human Rights, succeeding Michelle Bachelet. (Post)
News source(s): The Associated Press via CTV News
 2001:268:C1C0:9255:35CD:89B9:6539:928A (talk) 01:06, 10 September 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.

September 8

September 8, 2022 (2022-09-08) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD:Sonny West

Article: Sonny West (musician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): KCBD
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 musician and song writer Dumelow (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: LaDeva Davis

Article: LaDeva Davis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Philadelphia Tribune
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Marciano Cantero

Article: Marciano Cantero (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Billboard, BBC, Clarín
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: Argentine musician. Needs a lot more refs, will try to work on it but it probably will be until tomorrow. –FlyingAce✈hello 00:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Death of Queen Elizabeth II

Discussion here is complete. Any other comments can go on WP:ERRORS. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 8 September 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: Elizabeth II (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Elizabeth II (pictured), Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms, dies at the age of 96. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Radio, BBC TV and https://www.bbc.co.uk/
Credits:
 Chrisclear (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So it happened. The article needs proper updates, but because of protection will take a bit longer than for unprotected articles. Shall we use the picture from the article? Tone 17:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support once article is sufficiently updated Jbvann05 17:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
support blurb Not much to say, this is a major event.  4🧚‍♂am KING  17:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support and post immediately No question about the notability of a Queen who has been Britain's anchor for almost three quarters of a century. aeromachinator (talk to me here) 17:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been protected on commons, can be replaced here now by an admin I think. nableezy - 17:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tone 17:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth waiting at least a few hours to see if a regnal name is announced. The official announcement so far just referred to him as the King'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably wait until crowned. He can still turn round and refuse it until then. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is already king though.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both BBC and CNN say that Charles immediately became King upon the Queen's death Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the Royal Family too.[5] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Legally he is king whether he likes it or not. If he doesn't want to be king then Parliament would have to pass a law saying that he isn't king, as they did for Edward VIII (who was never crowned). Hut 8.5 18:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True but in this case I would suggest leaving him out of the blurb for now since the news coverage almost completely focuses on her death and not on his ascension. If and when news coverage becomes mainly about him, we can change it accordingly. Regards SoWhy 18:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, and if the name changes can update the blurb then. Think this can be closed though, blurb and photo are up with obvious consensus for it. Any further changes can happen at WP:ERRORS. nableezy - 18:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'll do it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 8 September 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.

I previously posted this at Talk:Main Page#Upcoming Elizabeth II TFA and it was suggested that I come here instead. As is mentioned on that page in the previous discussion, Elizabeth II is scheduled TFA for 19 September to coincide with the funeral. By then, it's very likely that her ITN item will still be live. I suggest that for the time that the TFA is up, we change the ITN item so that the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II is in bold font. I say this for a variety of reasons:

  • that article is in good shape
  • it would appear strange to have a TFA and an ITM main item point to the same article
  • to point to the funeral article on the day of the funeral would seem appropriate

Thoughts? Schwede66 05:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna nominate the funeral wikipage on the day of the funeral? God knows what newsworthy calamities await us over the next few days, bumping the current blurb off ITN soon. No doubt the funeral wikipage will get lots of support !votes then. --PFHLai (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an excellent idea, and would support this as proposed. What should the ITN situation be on September 20? Should we return the ITN setup to the death and ascendance, or should we keep it on the funeral after the TFA has ended? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind whether it reverts to the current blurb or stays like that. Schwede66 21:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That somebody is buried after they die is not news, and if this gets bumped by other events then it shouldnt artificially be returned. nableezy - 21:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

September 7, 2022 (2022-09-07) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: James L. Fisher

Article: James L. Fisher (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Towson University; WBFF
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dagmar Schipanski

Article: Dagmar Schipanski (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): tagesschau.de, ZDF, BZ
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: German physicist and politician. Runner-up in the 1999 German presidential election. Wikibio very much unsourced. Please add more REFs. -- PFHLai (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Lance Mackey

Article: Lance Mackey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
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.

 --Annwfwn (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Most of the improvement to this article in recent times was a result of your typical WikiEd trainwreck, a group of editors eager to collaborate amongst themselves so long as they pass a class, and not the least bit interested in collaborating with the community at large. Here's what I came up with right off the top of my head:
  1. The order is extremely disjointed for a biography, as if to suggest that it was intended to be a fanboy exercise first and foremost.
  2. Too many primary sources. The sourcing in general resembles detritus found in incidental Google searches, missing a number of higher-quality sources (several books, for starters)
  3. Higher-quality sources have given significant weight to his pre-mushing career as a commercial fisherman and his resultant bouts of addiction. The article appears to gloss that over in favor of giving weight to fanboy trivia and recentism. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That WikiEd assignment ended in April 2021. Pretty sure the recent 40 or so edits in 2022 have nothing to do with that. --PFHLai (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the article and topic as a whole, not in a bubble driven by news of his death ("the sum total of human knowledge", right?). The Anchorage Daily News, the source cited above, is a pitiful shell of its former self. Early versions of that story began with repeating the family's Facebook post, followed by repeating large portions of our article. Work commitments prevented me from following it further to see if it actually turned into a respectable journalistic piece. I'm sure none of that matters to those who believe RS is solely a matter of "Why, I found it on this website and not that website, so therefore...". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I threw in some {cn} tags.... but, wait! game? sitting back and waiting for others to do work? Hmmm... look, RadioKAOS, if I am too involved in the writing, I should not help with reviewing and posting on MainPage. Kind of a conflict of interest there. Admins should not be showcasing one's own work on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bernard Shaw

Article: Bernard Shaw (journalist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Anne Garrels

Article: Anne Garrels (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 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: Article could be improved, but nothing an RD nom hasn't been through. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Surgical amputation of a limb 31,000 years ago in Borneo

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Consensus to post unlikely to emerge. Ktin (talk) 20:37, 7 September 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: History of surgery (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Surgical amputation of a limb 31,000 years ago in Borneo (Post)
News source(s): Nature
Credits:

Article updated
 Count Iblis (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Doesn't seem too notable for the news, but is an amazing accomplishment regardless. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:48, 7 September 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) Brazil celebrates its 200th anniversary of independence

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Consensus not likely to emerge toward posting. Closing a good faith nomination. Please feel free to revert if someone has a different opinion. Ktin (talk) 21:05, 7 September 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: Independence of Brazil (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Brazil celebrates its 200th anniversary of independence (from Portugal). (Post)
News source(s): GOV.BR

Neutral This seems like something that would be a bit more of a domestic event, but the 200th anniversary is generally notable for a country.
However, I'm searching through archives of ITN, and I can't find anything on ITN celebrating China's 70th anniversary, so I don't think Consensus is in favor of these anniversaries. I don't know what to think; 200 years is a BIG milestone, and Brazil is a BIG country, but do milestones generally get inserted into here? InvadingInvader (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is something that we'd normally handle through WP:OTD or as a WP:TFA. Something really significant and actually newsworthy would need to occur at the celebrations for them to be nominated at ITN. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:25, 7 September 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) Record women's football transfer

Consensus against posting. I know I am closing this only after a couple of hours, so feel free to reopen if you have some really strong arguments the consensus can change. --Tone 20:17, 7 September 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.

Articles: List of most expensive association football transfers (talk · history · tag) and Keira Walsh (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, Keira Walsh joins FC Barcelona Femení for a world-record fee of £400,000. (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph, BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Nominating before transfer window closes (though it is only in an hour) as I anticipate debate. On the one hand, we posted Neymar's record in 2017 and, given the different markets, an equivalent posting of the women's record would make sense. On the other, Pernille Harder as the previous women's record doesn't appear to have been nominated in 2020. Perhaps this can be attributed to lots of men's football enthusiasts and few women's football enthusiasts being active on Wikipedia, but perhaps more likely is that, while certainly growing, women's football still wasn't a mainstream sport in Europe then, while it is now. It can also be said that Harder's fee was not much larger than a 20-year record, while Walsh's is considerably bigger in relative terms.
I would suggest looking at the Neymar discussion, because there are other comparisons between that deal and Walsh's, namely, the drama involved and how much larger than the previous record the new one is. And should it get to posting, there are images to choose from. I have phrased the blurb in the format of the posted blurb for Neymar, rather than the nom. Kingsif (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment posting the Neymar transfer was a mistake, but if it's a thing we're going to do, then doing so for womens soccer as well as mens makes sense to me. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - I also don't agree with posting the Neymar transfer. But the rationale of the consensus was that it was not just an important sports story, but also a major global event with extensive news coverage, in such a manner that made it almost sui generis. I'm not sure if we're seeing quite the same impact with the Walsh transfer.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be the detriment to nominating early to generate discussion; the transfer window closed five minutes ago, and it got a breaking news bulletin on the BBC. Perhaps the story will be bigger, perhaps it won't, but we can only see that over the next day or so. Kingsif (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This will open the floodgates if this gets posted. Record men's basketball player, then women's basketball player? What about volleyball? Rugby? Handball? Baseball? It will cause all sort of conundrums, and whilst an interesting story even if two non-sporting businesses did a record deal in a particular sector it wouldn't get posted. Neymar was slightly different in that it was a world record across all sports and received much more coverage, but if for example another men's player breaks the record again I'm not sure that would get posted now, especially when salary and bonuses are much more at play than transfer fee alone.Abcmaxx (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose even considering the record amount. One previous posting should not be taken as consensus to post more like it. Masem (t) 15:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, This topic is journalistic and not suitable for wikipedia. Alex-h (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITN... Kingsif (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ITN's purpose is to feature articles that happen to be in the news, and not itself to be a news source. Hence why we always go on about not being a new ticker. Masem (t) 19:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is really something that pertains to sports, which based on consensus on Serena Williams' retirement, doesn't usually belong here. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:44, 7 September 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.

Ugandan landslides disaster

Article: 2022 Kasese District landslides (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 15 people are killed when heavy rain causes landslides in the Kasese District, Uganda. (Post)
News source(s): (Reuters)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Breaking news, I have just created the article with 1 sentence just to get the article started, I appreciate it can be difficult to find Ugandan sources but any help will be much welcome, will attempt to help when I can too. Nominated to draw attention to disaster. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did say why that is at the moment in the nomination... Abcmaxx (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now per Muboshgu. It's been three days, still a stub. 208.92.242.44 (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albania and Iran cut ties

Article: Albania–Iran relations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Albania and Iran sever all diplomatic ties with each other. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, BBC News, US News, Al Jazeera, Yahoo! News/Fox News, NBC News, NZZ
Credits:

Nominator's comments: It is very rare for countries to sever complete ties, even if they are at war it doesn't always happen. Before anyone raises that Albania is too small to matter, Albania is a NATO, COE, OSCE, and OIC member and EU official candidate. Also Albania has given refuge to the Iranian Mojahedin for a while now and despite its generally secular society, is still a Muslim-majority population. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sources its due to Iran's recent cyberattack on Albania. The article needs updating, bear with me. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This might belong on the article 2022, but I'm not sure about here. I'll say Weak Oppose unless this turns into a war and tensions further escalate. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For argument's sake I made sure to consider "would we post this if this was two large countries", but the reality is this isn't horribly rare. There are about 200 countries on Earth with some change likely in that number over time. I think it's hard to justify posting the cutting of ties between two countries unless there is a lot of highly-publicized and impactful conflict that precedes it. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Err Albania is home to a disproportionately large number of Iranian dissidents and severing ties completely is very rare. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Irish Times, DW, ABC News. The US has just officially responded to this as well. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, then. I hadn't come across this on Der Spiegel and a few other German newspapers, The Guardian, the FT or Figaro, which are the ones I regularly check - if a news appears in one or more of them, it's usually a sign for me that it's been picked up and will be viewed by many readers in Europe. But maybe the news hasn't made its way into them yet, or I've overlooked it. I still feel it's not major news. Khuft (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a few hours. Albania in anglophone news is usually woefully underreported though in general. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I last heard this much about it in The Crepes of Wrath. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"... and the main export is furious political thought" Abcmaxx (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Breaking diplomatic relations is indeed a fairly rare event and normally I would support. However the incident doesn't appear significant enough to justify its own article, which is a customary requirement for most noms at ITN, and the target article has only two sentences dedicated to the matter. Sorry, but that's not enough for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: this did cross my mind however my thought process was that this is a culmination of about 45 years worth of tensions, and any new article would probably not have all the background that's central to this. As for the length, this is breaking news essentially, please let it have a chance to expand. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Abcmaxx Perfectly open to reconsideration if the article can be adequately expanded. Ideally it should have its own page that begins with the cyber-attack and any relevant background. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all, thanks for having added the additional sources. While for now I'd tend to keep my oppose !vote, I would suggest modifying the blurb to reflect that Albania unilaterally cut its diplomatic relations with Iran, accusing it of cyberattacks. Khuft (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Albania did not have an embassy in Iran, while Iran had an embassy in Tirana. So ultimately it was never on equal footing. Also I don't know what Teheran's reaction is/will be. It's such a long, tense and complex relationship im not sure we should be making such an assertion just yet. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually very few countries cut ties with either Taiwan or Israel as those that oppose their statehood never form diplomatic relations in the first place as doing so would legitimise their status which they oppose. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think a non-involved person should make a judgement on this. Not sure there is anything more to add. Quality issues have been fixed although it is a section not a stand-alone article in itself. Few opposes on notability, several supports.Abcmaxx (talk) 00:49, 14 September 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=1110296541"