Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
In the news toolbox |
---|
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. Nomination steps
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
April 1
April 1, 2022
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
D-Day
Blurb: Allied forces storm the beaches of Normandy, seeking the liberation of France from Nazi occupation. (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, Völkischer Beobachter
Credits:
- Nominated by Sdkb (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Diannaa (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Okay, so we're a little late on this, but hear me out: It's a slow news week this week, and believe it or not, we never actually reported D-Day at ITN, so why not make up for lost time and post some slightly older news to fill in the gap? And yes, I know that there were a lot of World War II battles and we don't have space to report all of them, but this is a really major one, so I really hope there won't be any opposes objecting to the significance.[4-1] {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
March 31
March 31, 2022
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
RD: Moana Jackson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New Zealand Herald Radio New Zealand The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Chocmilk03 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Stuartyeates (talk · give credit), Paora (talk · give credit) and Schwede66 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Influential New Zealander. Article has been tidied up by myself and others, happy to make any further improvements if needed. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment In the past it was required for a bibliography section or in this case the Selected publications section to either have the ISBN numbers next to the listed works or references. If that's still the case, then this article needs that section sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @TDKR Chicago 101: Thanks! I'm not really sure myself what the requirements are, but I've added URLs for the journal/conference articles and an ISBN for the book chapter. The listings also include the information that would be included in a full reference anyway (date, volume, page etc). Hope this addresses the point. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
RD: John T. Richardson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Censorship of Wikipedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Russian media censorship agency Roskomnadzor threatens to fine Wikipedia up to 4 million rubles (about $49,000) if it does not delete information that goes against the Kremlin's official narrative on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. (Post)
News source(s): (Forbes)
Credits:
- Nominated by Desertambition (talk · give credit)
- Oppose Technically covered by the ongoing, and we should avoid Wikipedia centric stories as ITN. --Masem (t) 21:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem. Also "threatens to..." is 0.00% ITN-worthy. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A demand to remove unspecified biased material, under penalty of financial hardship, is a common Edit Request here; warn Roskomnadzor twice, then block or topic ban it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Russia has done this sort of thing before. Don't this instance rises to ITN levels. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but Russia has not done this sort of thing before. How far back are we looking, exactly? I'd agree that it's track record is not good. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose good faith nom. Nothing has actually happened beyond a threat. This has all of one sentence of coverage in the target article. The event obviously does not merit its own article which is generally a showstopper for ITN nominations. And then we can go into significance, naval gazing and so on. Suggest Close as there is no chance of consensus developing to post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for all the input, I did not realize these threats were so common. Makes me wonder why they haven't blocked it yet. It sounds like if they were to block it, that would probably be notable enough. Desertambition (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Beyond Jimbo's comfort zone, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- A bunch of pages already are blocked, mostly to do with drugs, suicide and autoerotic you-know-what InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
March 30
March 30, 2022
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
Turing Award
Blurb: In computing, Jack Dongarra (pictured) wins the Turing Award for his contributions towards supercomputing. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
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.
Masem (t) 00:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality Reads too much like faculty profile. Explains why it looks like a copyvio; I dont really think it is one, it's just the same bland style of listing of achievements.—Bagumba (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality as Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, so it should be written as an article not a CV/resume. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support We have complaints about celebrity gossip but then they don't want a dry list of achievements either. There's no pleasing some people. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support (in principle): Cn tags need to be fixed, is barely passable for the main page but would like see expansion. Gotitbro (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality In concurrence with Gotit here on the CNs. I'm not as worried about the content though. It does read a bit resume-like, but I think there is good reason for this. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Added sources for all the remaining uncited rewards. The citations are largely press releases or list of recipients from the award-granting organizations; I tried to find third-party articles but couldn't find any, so hopefully these are fine. Please let me know if I did any of the citations wrong, as I'm fairly new to this.Morganfshirley (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is now acceptable. Jehochman Talk 18:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) Farthest known star discovered
Blurb: WHL0137-LS, the farthest known star, is discovered 12.9 billion light-years away from Earth. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Earendel, the farthest known star, is discovered 12.9 billion light-years away from Earth.
News source(s): Nature, NASA, The New York Times+comment, The Washington Post, BBC,
- Support I guess this is rather interesting and not at all usual, so I tentatively support it (though I still have qualms since this is just the farthest star, not the farthest object, but oh well). The article looks like its in a decent shape though. --5.44.170.26 (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I love the science involved in this stuff, but I don't see what makes this discovery newsworthy. "Furthest known" simply means the next one we find that's a little further away will replace this one. HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- There's a maximum distance however. When we look into the sky we're seeing the past (because light takes time to travel to us), which means there's a maximum limit set by the Big Bang. There are a lot more subtle details, e.g. the universe wasn't transparent till so-called recombination so we will never see right to the Big Bang, the universe is expanding and there's another limit set by how fast the universe expands (see observable universe), etc. Hence the idea that "we'll find something a little further away" is contentious - there might not be another star further away. Banedon (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Support. An important discovery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support This discovery is uncommon. It's nice to have a change of pace in the ITN right now. (PenangLion (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC))
- Strong Support science is important and this is notable Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- 'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support This is major news. Thriley (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- The article is a 4-sentence stub. Stephen 06:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. The story is good, just the article needs to be expanded to at least three time this length. Tone 06:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality the article is 4 sentences long, which is way too short to be on the front page. If that is everything that is known about it, that's not enough for ITN, and if more is known, it should be added. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Question How often do we find a new farthest object? HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- This one was said to likely be the farthest we may ever discover, because of a very particular alignment with gravitational lensing. So, quite exceptional. Tone 08:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wait Identifying this as a single star seems premature and the suggested image isn't clear. All they have is a faint smear of light with a high red shift. They have been studying it for years but can't yet resolve it to determine whether it's a single star, a binary or more complex. The James Webb telescope is expected to tell us more. BTW, that instrument is starting to produce interesting images to test the alignment of its mirrors. (right). At some point soon, we should publish the nominal "first". That instrument will then produce lots more interesting images and we'll be spoilt for choice. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Support - As OA of the WHL0137-LS article, I also consider the discovery of star WHL0137-LS major news - my own related published comments in The New York Times is here if interested - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's a stub, so needs to be expanded before being listed on ITN. Right now it doesn't meet article quality requirements. No matter how many people post support here, it won't be posted unless significantly expanded. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302: and others - Yes - *entirely* agree - article has now been a bit more expanded with further text - further expansion is ongoing currently - additional help in expanding the article from other editors welcome of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Article is not lengthy enough; also, at this point in time, 'furthest known' essentially means 'until we find another further one', which doesn't really feel "in the news". Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
OpposeWait – A 220-word stub, of which 60 are devoted to its name and "astrophysical implications." Scant RS coverage. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)- Strong Support, major news and coverage. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- 'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Banedon (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Not a stub anymore. Reliable sources (as one would expect for a scientific subject). Grimes2 (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think the lenght now is passable. I'll wait for @Drbogdan: to remove the "working" tag first, though. Ping me when ready. --Tone 14:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Article now weighs in at 248 words, of which 60 go to name and "astrophysical implications," leaving 180 words of description. Still stub territory. Also note that NASA says further details "are forthcoming." – Sca (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Length looks good now. Article is referenced as well Sherenk1 (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done - @Tone: and others - rm {{under construction}} template - WHL0137-LS article now seems ok afaik - at least for starters - more later of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posting. I think all key findings are now in the article, without getting too technical. I'll go with the name, not the designation, because it just looks prettier. --Tone 15:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Still looks like a rush job. Currently the blurb and lead say that it's an "individual star" while the body says that this remains to be determined by the James Webb telescope. It's the usual process of hype in which a discovery is given the interpretation most likely to garner headlines. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Pull per Andrew - After going through the article - it looks more like a RD standard than an ITN standard. Many support !votes are also not standard (e.g. "major news and coverage", "this is major news", or straight up nothing at all.) I would suggest Pulling and continuing consensus. As far as I am aware, WP !votes are not meant to be a numbers game - it is a general consensus amongst editors. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Pull as summed up by two posts above. The blurb is questionable and the article is barely more than a stub still. We are allowed to wait more than 12 hours before posting something... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- In fact Tone you said you wanted to posted, there was a clear objection to that comment from Sca who raised the continued article quality issue, yet you posted it anyway? That doesn't seem sensible to me... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- As I said, the article was brief but it was expanded since the previous time I checked so I felt it met the minimum. I let the others to decide how to continue with this. Tone 17:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's barely a start class article, a clear violation of article quality guidelines. I hope anither admin will pull this if you won't, as we shouldn't be surrendering article quality for haste. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- As I said, the article was brief but it was expanded since the previous time I checked so I felt it met the minimum. I let the others to decide how to continue with this. Tone 17:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- In fact Tone you said you wanted to posted, there was a clear objection to that comment from Sca who raised the continued article quality issue, yet you posted it anyway? That doesn't seem sensible to me... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting Support - per the nine other supports. No, I'm not vote counting. The discovery is of global interest and though still brief, is growing. I commend the posting admin for adding the blurb. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting Support - What a nice change of pace from our regularly scheduled disasters, human suffering and politicians winning elections. The discovery was published in Nature, and of course there are a bunch of uncertainty, but such is the nature of astronomy. If the nominator waited for JWST to look at it, I'm sure it would have been called stale. The article is brief, but in line with what is known. Melmann 17:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment – Still quite thin for ITN promotion – abut 250 words. To this user seems rather pro-science undue. (Consensus questionable.) But not in favor of pulling – that would be lame Pushmi-Pullya editing. (And BTW, we're not an online feature magazine and don't need a "change of pace" to sweeten the product.) – Sca (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- PS: "The farthest known star" seems ungrammatical. It has to be the farthest from something, e.g. the star known to be farthest from Earth (or something similar). – Sca (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Farthest presumes the speaker or interlocutors, unless indicating otherwise. "From here" is implied, and the use of "farthest" without a referent is common and not ungrammatical. Given that it is the farthest from every person who will be reading it, it doesn't need more specificity. --Jayron32 18:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- How very presumptuous of a mere adjective. – Sca (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Farthest presumes the speaker or interlocutors, unless indicating otherwise. "From here" is implied, and the use of "farthest" without a referent is common and not ungrammatical. Given that it is the farthest from every person who will be reading it, it doesn't need more specificity. --Jayron32 18:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- PS: "The farthest known star" seems ungrammatical. It has to be the farthest from something, e.g. the star known to be farthest from Earth (or something similar). – Sca (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting support Article is short, but sufficiently covers what is known about the star and its discovery, without getting excessive technical. --Jayron32 18:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support While the article is short, it is comprehensive relative to what is currently known. Jehochman Talk 18:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Post-Posting Exclamation Cool! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Ernie Carroll
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald, News.com.au
Credits:
- Nominated by Fakescientist8000 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Puppeteer, actor, and entertainer. Best known as the puppeteer for Ossie Ostrich on 'Hey Hey It's Saturday' Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Big news. Article is in good shape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Tom Parker
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Fabulousbargains (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
— User:Fabulousbargains 17:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Sourced. Quality sufficient. Grimes2 (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Short but well sourced. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) MONUSCO helicopter crash
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: A Puma Helicopter, part of MONUSCO belonging to Pakistan Army's aviation division crashed, killing all eight peacekeepers on board in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (Post)
Alternative blurb: Eight UN Peacekeepers die in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo after their plane crashed during a reconnaissance mission.
Alternative blurb II: UN Mission's helicopter crashes in a conflict zone in North Kivu, DRC, killing all eight peacekeepers onboard.
News source(s): CNN Deutsche Welle Al Jazeera The News Reuters France 24
Credits:
- Nominated by Elminster Aumar (talk · give credit)
- Oppose we general do not post military crashes with those killed in the line of duty. --Masem (t) 14:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose because it isn't important enough for ITN. Even if proven to be a shootdown, its death toll is in single figures & all those killed were military personnel on duty, doing an inherently dangerous job. Jim Michael (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on Quality Beyond notability concerns, which could be arguable, the article is VERY light at the moment and includes mostly empty sections. The article will need to be improved before we can even debate notability and impact. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per previous posts. Article narrative text is a 145-word stub, plus 90 words of background & reax. – Sca (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per above Oppose !votes. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
March 29
March 29, 2022
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
|
(Posted) RD: Sara Suleri Goodyear
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT obit
Credits:
- Nominated by GhostRiver (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Subject died on March 20, New York Times obit posted yesterday. — GhostRiver 17:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Stale – death on March 20 was actually announced two days later by Yale University and The Times of India (both being reliable sources). Move to close the nom as stale. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- If we are going with March 22 as the reported date then that's still within the 7 day window, at least for a few hours? The article looks fine, quality wise. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 01:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
March 28
March 28, 2022
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Serhiy Kot
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): istpravda.com.ua
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Influential Ukrainian historian who cared about the restitution of cultural treasures. I'm also the creator but hope for someone knowing the languages better for expansion, it's a bit of a puzzle so far. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment One cn tag added. Grimes2 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I found a ref for it, and five other facts on the way, because I can't really search in a language with different character set. There are about ten more facts in the same ref, - still hoping for a native speaker. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support No issues, minimum requirements. Grimes2 (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Grimes2. Nothing big, but good enough. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 02:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
(Ready) RD: Jeff Carson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Not Bigfoot (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TenPoundHammer (talk · give credit) and Grimes2 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: CNN obit published yesterday. Not Bigfoot (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Not readySeveral cn. Can't find ref for I Fly Proud. Recommend delete. Discography needs some sources. Grimes2 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Mostly Done Grimes2 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- 30+ edits already on the refs, Grimes2? I'm listing you as an updater for this nom. Thank you for your hard work. --PFHLai (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Mostly Done Grimes2 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Opposearticle contains blatant copyvio: the image is not freely licenced at all. We shouldn't post articles with any copyvios in them, which includes copyvio images. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed Image removed by Stephen and biography section is cleaned now. Grimes2 (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article is cited and the copyvio image has been removed. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support looks fine now, marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Eugene Melnyk
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TSN, Ottawa Senators
Credits:
- Nominated by The Kip (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Owner of the NHL's Ottawa Senators, businessman and philanthropist. The Kip (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. RoyalObserver (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @RoyalObserver: Do you mind explaining? I apologize for nitpicking, but ITN really tries to avoid unexplained !votes (such as yours). Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Not readyRemoved dead refs and added 2 cn, otherwise refs ok. Size ok. Grimes2 (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support cn's Fixed. ok. Grimes2 (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Still has cn tags. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Seems all have been fixed. The Kip (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Alex-h (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: One more CN tag, then this should be good to go. cc: The Kip SpencerT•C 01:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Fixed remaining CN tags, should be ready to go now. Article could be more comprehensive, but it should meet RD standards. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
March 27
March 27, 2022
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Martin Pope
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Scientist whose work led to OLED displays. Sadly article needs lots more sourcing. Masem (t) 04:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) 94th Academy Awards
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: At the Academy Awards, CODA wins three awards, including Best Picture. (Post)
Alternative blurb: At the Academy Awards, CODA wins Best Picture.
Alternative blurb II: At the Academy Awards, CODA wins Best Picture, the first such win for a streaming service.
Alternative blurb III: At the Academy Awards, CODA wins Best Picture and Dune wins in four categories.
News source(s): The New York Times, IndieWire, Deadline Hollywood
Credits:
- Nominated by Sdkb (talk · give credit)
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.
- Let's get it out of the way first: yes or no to including Will Smith and Chris rock in a blurb? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. That's a minor controversy, if it was a controversy. --Masem (t) 03:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we have something about the winners in prose updates then? Will Smith won Best Actor afterwards. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- The winners were already selected way before the show, and from what I saw, it seemed to be taken all in humorous jest (audience was laughing throughout). Now, if that becomes of serious controversy over the next few days, that might be something to add, but that's crystal balling to assume it will be needed to add now, given this article currently actually has updated ceremony information (presenters, and even mention of this event). --Masem (t) 03:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- What I meant to say was that the article treats the confrontation as a big deal, it's the last update for the ceremony. There should be prose about who won in the article, just like sports articles need to have prose about the game, not just tables. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- The lede should probably be updated to try to summarize the winners, though as no single film really away with wins, this probably would need to be sustinct. As for prose in the body, this is rarely done as the table does this, though if there is commentary about notable wins (for example, Parasite being the first foreign language film to win Best Picture in 2019) that should be added, but that likely will be information that will develop in the next couple of days from secondary coverage and not immediately available now. Same with other aspects of the broadcast (viewership, commentary on the quality, etc.) Compared to other broadcast award articles like the Grammys, this is in very much ready state (in terms of content, haven't validated sourcing) for posting. --Masem (t) 04:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- What I meant to say was that the article treats the confrontation as a big deal, it's the last update for the ceremony. There should be prose about who won in the article, just like sports articles need to have prose about the game, not just tables. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- The winners were already selected way before the show, and from what I saw, it seemed to be taken all in humorous jest (audience was laughing throughout). Now, if that becomes of serious controversy over the next few days, that might be something to add, but that's crystal balling to assume it will be needed to add now, given this article currently actually has updated ceremony information (presenters, and even mention of this event). --Masem (t) 03:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we have something about the winners in prose updates then? Will Smith won Best Actor afterwards. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. That's a minor controversy, if it was a controversy. --Masem (t) 03:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn’t have to be world-changing to be an interesting event that has never happened before and has high quality sources… It’s the most talked about aspect of the whole show. Trillfendi (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- A note on the first blurb, given that Dune won 6 awards, it seems odd to call out CODA (which is an initialism so that's the proper style)'s 3 wins. If one of those was for best director, sure, we've done in the past. --Masem (t) 03:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- We could tack on
, and Dune wins six.
Only a few extra words. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- We could tack on
- Adding alt2 based on the Deadline article, the first time a film from a streaming service (Apple TV, Netflix, etc.) won Best Picture. --Masem (t) 04:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Good suggestion. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support blurb 1 (or blurb 3 if it specifies that CODA wasn't made by a streaming service) - Technically CODA wasn't produced by a streaming service. It was distributed by a streaming service. Tube·of·Light 04:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- The sources that are calling CODA the first win for a streaming service are not appearing to make that distinction. In fact, in considering when they look at studio win counts, they are looking at distributor, not production side. --Masem (t) 12:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- 2019 comment In 2019, the Best Picture (Green Book) was blurbed along with the movie with most awards (Bohemian Rhapsody), while the best actor was pictured (Malek from Bohemian).[1]—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Added similar as ALTIII.—Bagumba (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Blurb 3 with additonal mention of Will Smith's best actor win/incident with Chris Rock, as it is appearing to overshadow the rest of the event. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support altblurb 3. I think it's important to mention the film that won the most awards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posting alt3. Dune won six, not four. --Tone 07:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Image? Should there be an image for the blurb? We could put CODA writer and director Sian Heder, except she didn't win Best Director. Or CODA's Troy Kotsur for Best Supporting Actor? I'm not sure who would be posted for Dune, as it didn't win the more prominent awards like best actor/actress/director. Or no image?—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- No image seems better to me, as there's not a clearly, directly relevant image for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- If we go with an image, Troy Kotsur is a good choice, this time the distribution of awards was rather interesting. Tone 09:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- No image seems better to me, as there's not a clearly, directly relevant image for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Contrary to the general opinion here, in Britain the BBC regarded the Will Smith incident as being of world importance. It was first headline on the radio news this morning, displacing Ukraine. Thincat (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- As Smith won best actor, it would work to use him for the picture so we could mention the fracas in the caption. I have added a suggestion to the nomination. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- The whole thing with Smith and Rock is, at least right now, in the realm of celebrity gossip, just stuff that happened (nearly) live to a world audience. We should not be giving it any additional coverage to overshadow the ITNR stuff. --Masem (t) 12:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, this is not something to mention in the ITN box. Tone 12:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm currently listening to an extensive item about this on the BBC's World at One. This is what's in the news, not CODA or Dune. See also WP:NOTCENSORED. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Again, we do not follow to the letter what are the headlining topics in the news, as we are not a news ticker. Second, we're not censoring it - the event is well covered on the ceremony's page - but it is the type of thing that falls under WP:NOT#GOSSIP - it happened, there's a lot of talking-heads aftermath so far but as I've read, no charges are going to be filed, and the Academy's statement says nothing about any action against Smith, so anything more is just rumormongering that we should not cover in excessive depth, and certainly not as an ITN item. --Masem (t) 12:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - There was an awards show in the middle of this, but people seem to not be focusing on that. That said, if we posted the Smith-Rock assault as its own ITN item without mentioning the awards show, we'd probably be laughed out of the room. The only reason that particular item of the story is notable is because it took place in a highly public setting with lots of TV cameras and social media feeds. If I had my druthers, we wouldn't be posting anything related to the Academy Awards at all since it's a non-story story, but that's neither here nor there. --WaltCip-(talk) 12:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agree, the awards show is ITNR, and so that's what we should post (and have done). If people want to add the slap onto ITN, then that would need a clear consensus to do so. I would be against it, as it's only well-covered because it happened at a notable event. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Are you seriously considering mentioning the Will Smith incident in the blurb? Main Page is not for this sort of thing and it's not a gossip journal. It's anecdotal, however much of a headline it may have made. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've just listened to a further extensive analysis of this in the BBC's PM programme. It was quite amusing to hear progressive pundits wrestle with this moral conundrum as they agonise about the forming consensus. And they still weren't talking about Dune or CODA. Pretending that this didn't happen is pathetic – a feeble ducking of the issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- You can go literally anywhere else to hear about this story. You don't have to go here. WaltCip-(talk) 17:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Stressing again why we are not a news ticket, and instead focus on stories of long term encyclopedic value rather than these short term celebrity gossip news that sadly dominate 24/7 news cycles. --Masem (t) 17:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I led with Smith/Rock last night because it didn't take a crystal ball to see how that slap would dominate the narrative today. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Stressing again why we are not a news ticket, and instead focus on stories of long term encyclopedic value rather than these short term celebrity gossip news that sadly dominate 24/7 news cycles. --Masem (t) 17:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- You can go literally anywhere else to hear about this story. You don't have to go here. WaltCip-(talk) 17:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've just listened to a further extensive analysis of this in the BBC's PM programme. It was quite amusing to hear progressive pundits wrestle with this moral conundrum as they agonise about the forming consensus. And they still weren't talking about Dune or CODA. Pretending that this didn't happen is pathetic – a feeble ducking of the issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Las Tinajas massacre
Blurb: In Mexico, 20 people are murdered at a cockfight, in a mass shooting linked to the Mexican drug war. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Twenty people are killed in a mass shooting in Las Tinajas, Michoacán, Mexico.
News source(s): BBC Al-Jazeera
Credits:
- Nominated by Sheila1988 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Jim Michael (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: 20 people killed in a single attack, biggest massacre in the Mexican drug war since, I think, the Irapuato massacres of 2020. Sheila1988 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Support because it's important enough due to its death toll. Though the article is short, it's good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
March 26
March 26, 2022
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) 2022 Maltese general election
Blurb: In the Maltese general election, the Labour Party, led by Robert Abela (pictured), wins the most seats. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Labour Party, led by Robert Abela (pictured), wins the most seats in the Maltese general election.
News source(s): Electoral Comission of Malta
Credits:
- Nominated by Alsoriano97 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Vacant0 (talk · give credit) and Braganza (talk · give credit)
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: The results are now official and the article seems to be close to ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- More or less ready to post when I see some more support. Tone 09:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Done. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support article looks fine, elections are ITNR. The image is possibly not correctly licenced (I doubt it's their own work), but that shouldn't hold up the nomination from being posted. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posting. --Tone 11:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Add picture of Abela, highest article with available picture. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I highly doubt the validity of the licence of the image File:Pm robert abela malta 21022020.jpg. It's clearly a professional image, but has been uploaded as "own work". Unless it has a correct licence added, it is a copyvio, and we shouldn't be posting copyvios to the main page. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Joseph. I hadn't noticed the suspicious license of the picture. And there is no quality photo of Abela on Commons despite this one, for now. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- The pic is now tagged for speedy deletion at WCommons. I am removing it from this ITN/C page. --PFHLai (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Anybody able to find a replacement image for Abela? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've just added the only one possible, but frankly it's far from the best. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Another one is available, although he has a mask on. here Vacant0 (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
RD: Lee Koppelman
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: New York Times obit published yesterday. Thriley (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not ready I've added cn tags to two whole paragraphs that need citing. Please fix. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Many dead refs. Grimes2 (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:ITNCRIT:
References should be correctly formatted and not bare URLs.
—Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have access to pqasb.pqarchiver.com URLs? I don't have. Grimes2 (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose lots more sources needed, as well as the bare URL issue (which WP:REFILL doesn't seem to be able to fix easily for me :( ). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, I should have looked at the article more closely. It looks like it may need more work than I thought. Thriley (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
March 25
March 25, 2022
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
|
RD: Arthur Riggs (geneticist)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post; California Institute of Technology
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: First reported today (March 25); died on March 23. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
RD: Philip Jeck
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian; Pitchfork
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Bloom6132 (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article is fully cited, although some more information could be useful for his early life. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Any more that can be added? Kinda on the borderline for me with 2 full paragraphs instead of the minimum 3, but there's not really a reason that I can see to split the career section into 2 paragraphs just for the sake of having 3. Additionally, there's info in the introduction (e.g. use of turntables, looping devices) that doesn't appear to be mentioned in the body-- potentially that's where we can have some additional info added. SpencerT•C 14:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Dirck Halstead
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; BBC News; Briscoe Center for American History
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Bloom6132 (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support No cn/orange tags to be seen. Article is long enough. Nothing to complain about. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Support Could be stronger if his Personal life, Career and Awards were separated somehow; an American photojournalist. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support the concerns above look somewhat fixed, sufficient article for RD, well referenced Josey Wales Parley 20:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing at all has changed since I complained. There's still career in the middle of "Biography" and awards lumped into "Career". That's not to complain further, though, I still weakly support it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
OpposeOrganization needs improvement. Why is there a "Biography" section in a biography. Redundant. And one's career is part of a biography, but it's made a separate section somehow. And the "Biography" contains work with Life and UPI that seem part of his career. Also seems contrary to MOS:BLPCHRONO:
—Bagumba (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise.
- @Bagumba: fixed by restoring the most recent version that I edited. Subsequent edits by other editors was what led to the "Biography" section and non-chronological order being used. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Struck my opp.—Bagumba (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Bagumba: fixed by restoring the most recent version that I edited. Subsequent edits by other editors was what led to the "Biography" section and non-chronological order being used. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Grace Alele-Williams
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://gazettengr.com/nigerias-first-female-vice-chancellor-grace-alele-williams-is-dead/
Credits:
- Updated by OskarJacobsen (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The first Nigerian woman to receive a doctorate. --PFHLai (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Not readyAwards and Publications sections still have CN tags. Please fix them!Support I have fixed the WP:CITE issues. Article should be good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)- Support Per nom. Alex-h (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support decent article, well referenced Josey Wales Parley 20:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Taylor Hawkins
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Doc Strange (talk · give credit) and Spy-cicle (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Drummer for the Foo Fighters. Needs work. Will get it by tomorrow I wager. Too many edit conflicts right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Detailed article. Sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article looks good. Well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Now I've had a chance to read his bio, most of the section about the Foo Fighters is unsourced. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Is sourced at Foo Fighters and The Colour and the Shape, so have copied across. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, Martin! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Is sourced at Foo Fighters and The Colour and the Shape, so have copied across. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Now I've had a chance to read his bio, most of the section about the Foo Fighters is unsourced. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Article has several [good] sources. Vida0007 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support looking ready for RD now Josey Wales Parley 11:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted - The
{{fact}}
tag has an accompanying comment questioning it, so I'll assume it is not "information challenged or likely to be challenged". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)- Source was added two minutes later. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Post posting support Article is detailed and no cn tags there. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com]
rather than using <ref></ref>
tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref>
tags are being used, here are their contents: