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 Carnildo (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 20 April 2021 (→‎(Posted) George Floyd case verdict). 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.

Tadej Pogačar in June 2022
Tadej Pogačar

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

April 20

April 20, 2021 (2021-04-20) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

(Posted) George Floyd case verdict

Article: State v. Chauvin (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former police officer Derek Chauvin is found guilty of the killing of George Floyd. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Former police officer Derek Chauvin is found guilty on two counts of murder and one count of manslaughter relating to the killing of George Floyd.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is found guilty of the murder of George Floyd.
News source(s): CNN, AP, Mpls. Star-Trib, St.Paul Pioneer Press, Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

 Count Iblis (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockstone35:, you obsiously have a strong biased in this matter, especially with your comment of "Thank God for the conviction.". I would suggest you not comment to anyone else in this discussion to maintain a Wikipedia's no bias as an editor.
I'm pretty sure my opinions are irrelevant. I would have supported a blurb regardless of the verdict. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You would be surprised. I have had admin noticeboards against me for showing my opinion on Wikipedia. My message was more of a heads up to not show it anymore. But either way, after you said your support statement, saying your opinion is actually really bad on Wikipedia, especially in discussions. Just be careful and tread lightly in the future. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad for your support !Vote, however, I can't believe I am about to say this, but Muboshgu, I know you are an admin, but I highly recommend you don't comment anymore here due to that !vote comment of "WOOOOO!". Shows a decent bias and the last thing needed for a discussion is high biased. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop policing other users comments. Users have every right to express their feelings. Polyamorph (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I've always been open and honest about my beliefs outside of article space. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't comment anymore here" is a bit much. I would recommend that all users provide a reason for their !votes, though. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dead soccer player in six minutes --LaserLegs (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support post-posting. Obviously the biggest story in the United States of its kind in decades, and making headlines worldwide. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The blurb does not mention the country in which this case was heard. Chrisclear (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Reposting as mine got removed in an edit confict before posting - this is an internationally reported story and is clearly in the news, which is what this is. The three articles are also high quality with not one citation needed tag between them. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why Chauvin’s conviction matters - Vox – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If we posted Philip but not this then somethings wrong with this site. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 21:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment (pull/support) - I think that this, as it was the trigger for many protests and was ITN originally, likely merits an ITN posting with the result. That being said, I do not feel the posting was prudent as it needs to be discussed for more than an hour or so before it is posted, and the current blurb is... lacking at best. An eventual blurb should include information as to why this trial result is important to worldwide news, and as such, I support it being pulled until such time as it is fleshed out here. WP:DEADLINE applies here - there is no "urgent need to post" or anything that would mandate us posting this before the blurb is fully fleshed out. I also recognize that it is unlikely that any administrator is going to be willing to pull it, and as such, I support continued discussion and improvement of the blurb here. I think trouts are due all around for those who encouraged the early posting, the admin who did the posting without allowing at least a couple hours of discussion, and those who, from my viewing, supported this without evaluating the blurb as a whole. As to my suggestions for improving, I think a link to George Floyd protests (piped in some way to flow in the sentence(s) of the blurb) is necessary, as is a link to police brutality (in the US if that article is up to ITN standards) as that's the important thing here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 1: if the posting survives, can the image at Murder of George Floyd be used on the Main page? Question 2: can these verdicts be appealed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123 re:q2, yes they can be appealed, most convictions can but in this case it's unlikely to go anywhere if an appeal is filed. TAXIDICAE💰 21:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is clearly one of the more significant guilty verdicts in recent history, as demonstrated by the coverage in reliable sources. Mz7 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting Support I've been getting into edit conflicts since before this was posted. I know it's unprofessional, but just this once I'm going to have to join Muboshgu in publicly celebrating this: 🦀 CHAUVIN IS GONE 🦀 —— now it's out of my system. On a more serious note, this is obviously relevant worldwide as his murder sparked protests across the planet. It's not just a domestic story, there were George Floyd protests from from Minneapolis, MN to Almaty, Kazakhstan. This is one of the rare instances where it's not an exaggeration to say that the whole world was watching. We can keep Idriss Deby as the image for a while before changing it to an image relating to this story, of course.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled (edit conflict) - let more time for a clearer consensus to post to develop. -- KTC (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is already consensus. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing Removal: Myanmar Protests

Article: 2021 Myanmar protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: Proposal to remove Myanmar Protests from ongoing. They may or may not still be happening, and may or may not be being covered by news sources, but the article at Wikipedia is not being updated adequately to reflect this. The last update was 18 April, which involved a minor increment to the casualty numbers. Before that was a 3 sentence update on 16-17 April about an upcoming ASEAN summit. Before that was a single sentence about an arrest on 15 April. Before that was a 2-sentence update about a statement by a UN official. It's been since the 9-10 April that there have been any major protests reported in the article; everything else is just incremental updates of numbers, and brief statements by random officials. It's probably time to take this one down now. If and when the article (or another article) starts receiving significant, substantive, and sustained updates, we can post it then. It just isn't now, this article has been moribund for more than a week. Jayron32 19:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The last update was 18 April. Not every day needs to make headlines, and that was literally only two days ago. A few things happened today alone (formation of interim government by protesters, the junta publishing lists of wanted journalists, the EU widening sanctions, ...) so it'll get updated and it won't be a problem in a few hours. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait I'm running the content diffs now if y'all can wait a day we can evaluate content changes instead of edit counting. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Chadian president Idriss Déby killed in action

Proposed image
Articles: Idriss Déby (talk · history · tag) and Northern Chad offensive (2021) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ President of Chad Idriss Déby dies of injuries at the age of 68. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ President of Chad Idriss Déby is killed during a rebel offensive.
Alternative blurb II: ​ President of Chad Idriss Déby is killed during a rebel offensive.
News source(s): France 24, BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

 Hektor (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The death of a national leader is blurb-worthy, but four citations are needed. The details are also very light right now with only the army spokesperson confirming the death, so I suggest waiting for confirmation anyway. Uses x (talk • contribs) 11:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb2 The article is in good condition now with only two citation needed tags, which is fine as they're not particularly controversial and they're not out of character for him. Anyway, he's influential and he died unexpectedly while serving, so blurb-worthy. Uses x (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And going by US presidential terms, Merkel is in her 5th130.233.213.199 (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD/Blurb: Walter Mondale

Proposed image
Article: Walter Mondale (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former Vice President of the United States Walter Mondale dies at the age of 93. (Post)
News source(s): CBS, AP
Credits:

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

 pbp 01:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Some orange tags that need addressing. Would support a blurb when fixed. Support blurb now that issues have been addressed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb the only reason he would be considered for a blurb is having been US Vice President, and the article spends only 2 paragraphs addressing that tenure. I think most people know him better for losing to Reagan. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Walter Mondale was an important part of American history as Jimmy Carter's Vice President. If Wikipedia puts Alcee Hastings on "Recent Deaths", they should put him on "Recent Deaths" at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djprasadian (talk • contribs) 01:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NB first edit today, 2nd edit overall Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bumbubookworm. I think it would be a lot better for community-building to welcome this new user instead of obliquely casting aspersions. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Djprasadian, please see the notice at the bottom of the tan box. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is in fact precisely what we shouldn't do. The Main Page is the most outside-facing page we have; the elbow grease required to get articles to a presentable level can go on behind the scenes. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Citation needed tags are fixed and the article is of decent quality. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD for now, as per Uses x. And Oppose blurb.

Wasn't he married to Betty Ford??[FBDB] Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose blurb I don't think a former vice-president and a presidential candidate who is (in)famous for his utter defeat merits a blurb. There's also not much ado about his death in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD only. Made history when he chose a female vice-presidential candidate, but time fades. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready for RD - numerous unreferenced paragraphs and even those with references often have just one citation at the end of a long paragraph. Oppose blurb as nowhere near significant enough. Modest Genius talk 10:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb Article quality is good enough for RD, but he really is not getting the level of media coverage necessary for somebody who isn't covered under ITNR to get a blurb. ( Prince Phillip had way more coverage than Mondale is getting, and even he barely got a blurb.)Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD Eight unsourced paragraphs remaining that are tagged.—Bagumba (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, support RD It is being unknown outside the United States, notably in non-English-speaking countries and the Commonwealth. 36.77.95.2 (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD only Mondale was certainly not transformative in his roles to merit a blurb; his death at 93 is certainly not under extraordinary circumstances. rawmustard (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He is also known abroad for his role in the history of astronautics. He was pretty much against human spaceflight, a position US politicians are not often very vocal about, when they share it. Hektor (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb - not a transformative figure on a global scale, no lasting legacy. (Notably, in contrast to Idriss Deby, who played a key role in shaping relations in the Sahel region...) Ok for RD. --Soman (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb - one-term Vice President whose term is summarized in his own article within a single paragraph. Not on the top of the "most influential US politicians" list for me. Juxlos (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb, Support RD – needs more references, after that it will be fine Vacant0 (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 8(!) CN's remain. I challenge anyone supporting a blurb to make a better one than the proposed blurb. "Former Vice president" doesn't convey any impact to the wider world, and his own article doesn't even cover it in detail. Were I not already familiar with the subject, I would think the blurb violates UNDUE.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD Walter Mondale is remembered in his own right, and we should at least put him in the RD section. Although the article has some issues, which would invalidate it from blurb, he is fairly important. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the actual context, instead of the count, you'll see that many of the tags are either on things that while unreferenced, are pretty clearly true - or things that are relatively minor in terms of the article. The vast majority of biographical information is referenced. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb People who have not gotten over the Duke of Edinburgh having a blurb are clearly neither living in a monarchy nor are they aware of what a king/queen consort implies for a society and a country. Imagine being one for over 7 decades, in a huge Commonwealth and next to one of the most important people in the world. Mondale was VP of the most (perhaps) important country in the world, but only four years and hardly recognizable to many people outside the United States. I also Oppose RD per now as his article is not ready, but will support once it's fixed. Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strange, I haven't gotten over the Philip blurb, but last I checked I did live in a monarchy... Perhaps in the future, just write about content, and about why you think X or Y deserves a blurb or not, and laeve the reasons, motives, background ... of other people out of it? Fram (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, support RD - not transformative. Jim Michael (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only – Due to age (93), long absence from politics. – Sca (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb - While having served as Vice President, he has not gained a lot of notability in general American politics since, and certainly not internationally either. Not prominent enough to have an entire blurb listed to him, but a general listing in the recent deaths section will do. --Mr. Lechkar (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb and also article is not yet ready for RD due to outstanding cite tags.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article is not up to quality standards for the main page, mostly due to excessive citation needed tags in the Personal Life and U.S. Senator sections. Once those are fixed, this is ready for RD. A blurb is unnecessary here because there's no extraordinary circumstances surrounding his death. --Jayron32 14:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking ready as the citation needed tags are fixed, and support was solely contingent on that. I don't want to ping everyone for an update, but it's certainly fine for RD which was the concensus anyway. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD per the above. BD2412 T 22:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD Article still needs some minor touch ups but it is well decent to be at least on the recent deaths entries. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 19

April 19, 2021 (2021-04-19) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Jim Steinman

Article: Jim Steinman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone, Fox News, USA Today
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: Songwriter for several famous bands/singers. Article is not quite the worst I've seen, but it isn't close to good. -- a lad insane (channel two) 19:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Miguel Díaz-Canel

Proposed image
Article: Miguel Díaz-Canel (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Miguel Díaz-Canel (pictured) is elected First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba, succeeding Raúl Castro. (Post)
News source(s): RTÉ
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: He has been formally elected to the position now. All three articles have citations needed before it can be posted. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the CPC and the CPSU are any indication, these will get far more interesting the farther Cuba gets from the original dynasty --LaserLegs (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He looks like Paul Drake. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Mars Ingenuity (helicopter)

Proposed image
Article: Ingenuity (helicopter) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ NASA's Ingenuity helicopter (pictured) makes the first ever controlled flight on another planet (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Ingenuity helicopter (pictured) flies on Mars, the first powered flight of a spacecraft on another planet
News source(s): The Independent, BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: We featured this article when it first landed but this seems like a significant step. Article not yet updated - Dumelow (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sumitra Bhave

Article: Sumitra Bhave–Sunil Sukthankar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ref
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: Please note that the article is on the duo Bhave and Sukthankar. Care to be taken to only mention Bhave's name when displayed on main page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - @Dharmadhyaksha, The article seems well sourced and would surely be eligible for posting if it was on Sumitra Bhave only. I'm not sure of the protocol for duo, and in my knowledge it hasn't been done before. The Rambling Man, do you know what to do in this scenario. In my view, the best course of action is to create two separate pages and then post. -Sitaphul (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just for sake of posting, i don't agree with forking out pages. And are you suggesting we keep repeating same info on two pages because it was to stay on main page for 2 days? There are plenty duos who dont have to die together to be placed on main page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 18

April 18, 2021 (2021-04-18) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Wayne Peterson

Article: Wayne Peterson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post
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: Only announced and reported today (April 18). —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Iain Gallaway

Article: Iain Gallaway (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Radio New Zealand; The Dominion Post
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) 17:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

European Super League

Article: European Super League Company, S.L. (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, twelve clubs from England, Italy and Spain announce the formation of a breakaway European Super League. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In association football, Arsenal, Atlético Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Inter Milan, Juventus, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, Milan, Real Madrid and Tottenham Hotspur announce a breakaway European Super League.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In association football, twelve clubs from England, Italy and Spain announce the formation of a breakaway European Super League amidst large condemnation and disapproval by FIFA, UEFA, ECA and other football associations.
Alternative blurb III: ​ In association football, an announcement about the formation of a breakaway European Super League leads to widespread condemnation, protests, and the cancellation of the new league.
News source(s): Guardian BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The clubs are threatened with disqualification from their national leagues and from the UEFA Champions League - if that happens, that should definitely be part of the blurb, but so far it's just a threat. Smurrayinchester 07:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. It's a huge European-wide sporting prospect which is upsetting a vast number of people (even causing the UK PM to comment) so it's certainly newsworthy, but at this stage it needs to be paused until it's all in place and actually a reality. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Obvious ITN post if it happens, but an announcement isn't equivalent to it actually happening. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait there will likely be some ramifications of this which will become ITN worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because the bold article does not explain why this is significant. This is your pan-continental competition right? It's supposed to "replace" the champions league? Like the EPL isn't going away, this is the thing the top three EPL and whatever other country teams play at the end of the season to decide who is bestest? But it's not the conference cup? What is actually going on here? Y'all Europeans lose your minds over this soccer business and if it's in the news we ought post it (instead of whining about it being parochial or some nonsense) but you can't just assume people are going to understand it. "Obvious" indeed. Is this another XFL (2001)? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be daft, it's not "pan-continental", the clue is in the name "European". It's not replacing anything, it's another league competition. If you read the article it would help you understand. It's hardly "parochial" as it is about the world's most popular sport across a continent. But hey, don't worry, we're bound to get another riot/shooting nomination in the next few days to get us back on track. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read the article, but it doesn't explain the hysteria. This is a case where the controversy is the story, and the target needs a "Controversy" story otherwise it's just more soccer bother. Yes, very Euro-parochial I agree. Proposals for a European Super League in association football is an orange tagged mess that did a better job explaining the outrage than the current bold linked article. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer this for me: Does Manchester United and Liverpool FC leave the EPL to play in this super league or is it just another end-of-season romp like the champions league? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody know, which is why it's too soon to post. There will likely be some ramifications from it, and those ramifications may well be ITN worthy at that time. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, just remember you have to make it make sense for Canadians and other countries that don't know or care about soccer. If the teams that routinely dominated the Champions League are breaking away to form their own version of the exact same thing then there has to be a reason and the article needs to explain it. If they're bailing on their national leagues to form a continental league without relegation, well, that's what happens when you let Americans into the cupboard --LaserLegs (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we don't have to make it make sense to people who don't care about it, that's not the point of ITN. Your discourse here is all very interesting but as you can see, we don't have the detail and we don't have any consensus to post, so perhaps focus all that nervous energy on improving some articles? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the point of ITN, it's the point of Wikipedia and the article isn't "minimally comprehensive" unless it explains the significance. That's just how it is I'm afraid. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In case you didn't notice, there's no consensus to post. You're raging against the wrong item. Still, plenty of articles to improve, like XFL (2001), have at them! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It'll go up, it probably should go up, once the significance of the new league it's clarified in the target article I'll even withdraw my oppose. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as, err, not actually being a thing. ——Serial 10:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is A Big Deal for European soccer. Major ramifications especially for the game in England. The story is still developing but the big event is its announcement with 12 clubs. I can't see anything other than its collapse fundamentally changing the item we'd post (apart from increases on the 12 number which is easy to implement). This has happened now and that's noteworthy, it's less good for ITN to retroactively decide there's been sufficient ramifications a few days later. --LukeSurl t c 11:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Timing of the announcement suggests muscle flexing in view of the proposed reformed Champions League, which would have come into effect from 2024. Under the proposals, 36 teams would play in one league in a “Swiss model” - with each team playing 10 games. A knockout stage would then follow. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As far as I can tell, it's currently a proposal. If a league is actually formed, competitive matches take place and/or football authorities such as FIFA and UEFA take action, such as kicking the clubs involved out of their leagues, then we can revisit this. Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There's talk of clubs being kicked out of the Premier League today. As I'm not going to be on Wiki for a fair while from ~09:00 UTC, should this happen, then my !vote can be considered a Support. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. This is huge news for the sport, and a massive controversy. But I do wonder if it's actually going to happen, or if it gets negotiated away... As they're talking about starting this August, I can see a case for waiting until the first game happens. On the other hand, the article is a decent introduction to the topic and there's huge reader interest, so posting now would also be acceptable. Hence my !vote. Modest Genius talk 11:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The more I think about this, the more I wonder if it's a threat to force UEFA to renegotiate the new Champions League format. If so, it's possible it never happens, though perhaps the two sides are already irreconcilable. I'm leaning more towards wait to see if it actually happens or was just a very big bluff. Modest Genius talk 14:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm from a country which isn't football crazy. I didn't quite understand what was the reason for the split - it's not mentioned clearly in any of the related articles. But I'm not denying its significance. Such a split definitely would be a turning point in any sport - it would be big news if that happened in my country's favourite sport league. The Wikipedia page would be much better if someone wrote the reason for the split. Thanks. --Sitaphul (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At what point should this story be posted? The first day of play, or the first point in which one of the domestic leagues expels an ESL member, which would be appealed by the most prominent lawyers in the world? The only big new league I can remember in the Wikipedia age is cricket's Indian Premier League, was that posted? In any case, that was a completely different kettle of fish, as all the teams were new. Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A perusal of the article's talk page shows that the Indian Premier League was not posted at ITN. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • IPL wasn't a breakaway of existing clubs to form their own league - it was a new competition in a new format of the sport, founded by the existing national authority with new franchises. We had no idea how important it was going to become years later. I can't think of a good parallel to the current situation, where existing clubs are founding their own competition outside the current national and continental structure, but still trying to remain in the other competitions. Modest Genius talk 12:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This European Super League is the biggest sports story of the year so far. The formation of any league would not make the requirements to be post in ITN, but with how much there is at stake, the widespread opposition, and the influence of the team and clubs in the league, it should be posted. Not only the clubs would be affected, but players will also, with as of right now being banned from all international competitions. Also, with an actual article for the Super League up, which looks well referenced, the first blurb is ready to be posted. --Awestruck1 13:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait as others have suggested. If the league is actually formed, it does appear significant and will impact assc. football in Europe, but this is a planned announcement and could be a negotiation tactic at this stage. --Masem (t) 13:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This certainly seems like a big deal, given all the press coverage it has received. As for waiting to post, I'm not entirely sure what we are actually waiting for. It appears the 12 teams are not merely proposing this league, they have already formed it, though games might not start for a few months. -- Calidum 14:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is of sufficient quality; legitimate news sources are currently covering this story in sufficient depth. That checks all of the boxes. --Jayron32 14:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The way this goes, we may as well end up with posting "PSG wins the UEFA Champions League after the other three teams are disqualified for joining the Super League". Since the Champions League is ITNR ;) --Tone 14:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Even though this story is major enough to be picked up by NPR's Morning Edition (when that program typically doesn't feature sports stories in general), there's still all the details to work out. (E.g. there's lots of money, but we don't even know how media rights will shake out.) rawmustard (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if it's actually happening akin to the formation of the Premier League.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the blurb has to include something about the condemnation of the idea by FIFA, UEFA, ECA, the domestic football associations and even politicians because it makes bigger news. I've therefore added another alternative blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support regardless - the story is either a new major sports league or international government condemnation at the attempt, or both. Both would be worthy alone. Kingsif (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there's no guarantee this will actually go ahead.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait with the governing bodies actively against this, it's hard to really specify what has happened at this stage. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Any announcement, in any field, broadly construed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's a huge story now, e.g. the top international story here in Denmark. It will probably gradually get less attention with some fluctuations. Don't wait for a threshold event at a time with less interest. It may or may not actually happen but the blurbs correctly say "announce". The 12 announced teams include 6 of the 7 non-American teams on Forbes' list of the most valuable sports teams, 9 of the top-10 at Forbes' list of the most valuable football clubs, and all 12 are in the top-18. They may all be disqualifed from national leagues and other international competitions if they go ahead, and the players may be disqualified from national teams, seriously weakening many countries in their most popular sport where continental and World championships are enormous events. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Do you know how immensely hard it is for European soccer to make news -- let alone front-page news -- here in the States? --WaltCip-(talk) 00:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since it is a major new development within a major world sport, and a very controversial one. Yakikaki (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a sense of the scale of this in a soccer country, it's Tuesday and The Guardian is still running a live developments and reactions feed [1]. LukeSurl t c 10:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing?? In one sense nothing has happened yet, in another sense, it is like an ongoing coup attempt Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Talk is cheap. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although it's unknown whether this will actually happen, I think the best time to post it is at the time of league announcement. Even though it is not official, the announcement of the league is clearly having a major impact on international football. SpencerT•C 18:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For info:- Chelsea and Man City withdraw from ESL (BBC) Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already talks that this will be broken up by tonight [2]. This is why we wait until there's some committed action to post stories like this. --Masem (t) 18:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Internal machinations that are falling apart.[3] All hat, no cattle. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Table Mountain Fire (2021) and Mostert's Mill

Proposed image
Articles: Table Mountain Fire (2021) (talk · history · tag) and Mostert's Mill (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A fire on Table Mountain, Cape Town, destroys historic monuments including Mostert's Mill (pictured) and the University of Cape Town's main library. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Mostert's Mill (pictured), the only working windmill in South Africa, is gutted by a wildfire that started on Table Mountain.
News source(s): [4], [5]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Significant fire and impact on cultural properties Mike Peel (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 17

April 17, 2021 (2021-04-17) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Frank Judd, Baron Judd

Article: Frank Judd, Baron Judd (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: British Labour Party politician. KingOfAllThings (thou shalt chatter!) 00:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Black Rob

Article: Black Rob (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Complex
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, 51. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Charles Geschke

Article: Charles Geschke (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Adobe press release
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Co-founder of Adobe Systems Inc. Just announced today. Joofjoof (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Vivek

Article: Vivek (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of India
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: News just breaking. RIP Vivek. Article might require one pass at ensuring readiness including some citations for the awards. Referencing completed. Seems to meet hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kakarla Subba Rao

Article: Kakarla Subba Rao (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Indian radiologist. Padma Shri awardee. A tad on the shorter side. Will work on some edits based on available obits and share an update. Edits done. Article has shaped into a decent C-class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, the article seems good to go now. Sitaphul (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

There will be no consensus to post and the discussion is already getting off-topic. Closing. --Tone 17:13, 17 April 2021 (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: Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh's funeral takes place in St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle (Post)
News source(s): CNN, The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A high-profile member of the British royal family, consort to the Queen. A funeral for a member of the royal family, something rarely seen now. Aknell4 (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As from previous discussions, he was a consort, not born into blood into the Royal family, and had zero possible chance of assuming any position in the Commonwealth's governance. --Masem (t) 17:05, 17 April 2021 (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.

April 16

April 16, 2021 (2021-04-16) (Friday)

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: John Dawes

Article: John Dawes (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport; The Guardian; Associated Press
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) 07:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Liam Scarlett

Article: Liam Scarlett (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
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: Former Choreographer for the Royal Ballet. Just announced today. META: Can someone please help with the formatting issue here? I’ve never done a nomination before, and I’m not sure how to fix this.  Wizardoftheyear (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ranjit Sinha

Article: Ranjit Sinha (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NDTV
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: Former chief of India's Central Bureau of Investigation. Article has an yellow box that will need to be fixed before it can be ready for homepage. I will take a pass at the article here in a bit. Ktin (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support Article could use some copyediting/cleanup and once done, has my support. Examples of issues for fixing include use of italics for quotations instead of quotation marks; talking about his children before his birth in "Early Life"; unclear abbreviations (IAS, IRS) that are not spelled out or linked (or others spelled out after usage); and some grammatical/wording fixes. Appropriate depth of coverage and referenced. SpencerT•C 01:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted, quality seems sufficient per above iteration. --Masem (t) 03:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Roger Soloman

Article: Roger Soloman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; The Guardian (Charlottetown)
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: Only announced and reported today (April 16). —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed - Wait) Raúl Castro

There is no consensus to post at this point in time, consensus is to wait. And since we don't know when the successor will take over it's not worth keeping open. Can be renominated when that happens.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2021 (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: Raúl Castro (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Raúl Castro resigns as First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, AP, Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Not ITN/R because the President of Cuba is the head of state, but the First Secretary is the de facto leader of the country, more powerful than either the President or the Prime Minister. Also the first time a Castro isn't the leader of Cuba since 1959. Davey2116 (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Raúl Castro has too much unreferenced content to post, so while we wait for a replacement to be announced, the supporters can get it post ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for the resignation and turnover of power to happen. I agree on that this is a case not readily covered by the ITNR but nearly all sources I see reporting on it treat the resignation as if the US Pres. or UK Prime Minister had stepped down, particularly as related to past Communist rule in Cuba. But right now, he still is in this position, he appearently has to name a successor to do this. --Masem (t) 22:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, what would be significant would be a change in the political system, but I haven't seen anything indicating that's in the offing. As it is, the titular occupant of the top political post is of only passing interest. 'Cuba without a Castro' is still the Cuba we've known for the last 60 years. – Sca (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That feels a little misleading; like stating that the hypothetical replacement of Xi Jinping with an ideologically aligned person wouldn’t be a major story because it’s the same system, or that the hypothetical succession of Kamala Harris to the presidency wouldn’t matter because she’s the same party as Joe Biden. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The key difference is that Cuba is a one-party state. Thus, it doesn't materially matter who succeeds Mr. Castro. It will remain a one-party state, and policies (by all appearances) won't change – at least not soon. (Besides, Raúl more or less inherited the top party post from his brother Fidel, founder of Communist Cuba.) – Sca (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the China comparison. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2021 (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: Vartan Gregorian

Article: Vartan Gregorian (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times Carnegie Corporation of New York
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: Looks ready to go. Varavour (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Helen McCrory

Article: Helen McCrory (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
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: Needs some updating. 109.249.185.34 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Andrew Peacock

Article: Andrew Peacock (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian
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: Former national leader of the Liberal Party of Australia (LP), Former Ambassador of Australia to America JMonkey2006 (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

April 15, 2021 (2021-04-15) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

  • Divers arrive at the scene of lift boat MV Seacor Power, which capsized and partially sank off the coast of the state of Louisiana in the United States. Rescuers suspect crew members may be trapped. Since the accident, six crew members have been rescued, one has died, and twelve remain missing. (KATC-TV)

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

(Closed) Indianapolis FedEx shooting

Closed... no chance of a consensus developing for posting. NoahTalk 01:32, 17 April 2021 (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: Indianapolis FedEx shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A mass shooting at an Indianapolis FedEx leaves nine dead and six injured. (Post)
News source(s): (CNN), (AP News), (NY Times), BBC, Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: 9 dead and 6 injured is a fairly large mass shooting, even for the US. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bro. 15 casualties at a single shooting isn't "another day in the US". At max, 10 casualties in a single location would be typical, but more than that is big news. This is top news in 90% of major news sources. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Bro", nearly 13,000 people have been killed in gun violence this year in the US (and it's only mid-April). This is nearly the 150th mass shooting of 2021. It's just not news. It's like reporting that bombs have gone off in a war. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting these numbers from? You're either making it up or wildly misciting somebody's statistics. Levivich harass/hound 00:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gun Violence Archive has 12,422. Stephen 00:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the source, that would be misciting statistics. GVA is reporting 12k deaths, not homicides. Similarly they report ~147 "mass shootings" this year but 11 "mass murders". And their definitions don't match other sources' definitions anyway. This hasn't happened 13k or 150 times before or anything even close to that. This is not a routine event, and I wish people would stop misciting statistics in their arguments. "Lies, damn lies, and statistics," I guess. Levivich harass/hound 01:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting the number 15 from? All recent sources (including the article) list the death count as 9. Gex4pls (talk) (lack of contributions) 16:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gex4pls, "casualties" include non-fatal injuries. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu Oh, I assumed they meant deaths alone, thanks for the clarification. Gex4pls (talk) (lack of contributions) 16:14, 16 April 2021 (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) United States racial unrest

Consensus to post to ongoing will not develop. Stephen 00:43, 19 April 2021 (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: 2020–2021 United States racial unrest (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Nominating after proposal at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Daunte Wright protests. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all just run of the mill stuff at the moment. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (pending significant developments) in accordance with previous reasons in Daunte Wright protests below. Osunpokeh (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Osunpokeh Anything specific? I can't see anything that applies to this nomination considering this is a list of all protests (which undeniably are notable and have a high impact), rather than a single element of that list. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's ongoing, it's certainly in the news, the overall impact (both domestic and international) is high, and the article is high quality. The comment about the protests being routine (which I agree with) doesn't apply to a collection, so there's no issue with that in this nomination. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Uses X mostly. I'm unconvinced by the not a (insert country name) ticker - civil unrest is well established as notable enough for Ongoing. We should apply the same standards that we ought apply to others: pull it down when the story is stale or the article is trash. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's significant, the nature of these protests is not run-of-the-mill at all, and the article is in great shape. Events are likely to continue in this direction as today we see the release of a video of a 13 year old Hispanic male shot while his hands were up. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support none of this is run-of-the-mill, despite the misinformed protestations to the contrary. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. That's why we have an article detailing literally dozens of protests after the literally hundreds of people who have been killed by the US police in the last few months. It's almost as common as mass shootings. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no valid argument against this year-long event being significant. Rather the argument is that several hundred mass protests occurring in a short span are distinct unrelated events, such that a) they must qualify individually and b) the vast number of protests make the them commonplace. Cynical as hell, but typical anti-American bashing from the usual suspects. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we just run a "racial unrest" ticker and a "mass shootings" ticker then, as both are commonplace and completely unremarkable these days. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The problem is, given the nature of this article is being constructed, there's no proverbial end to this, and it would remain in ongoing indefinitely (In contrast, we know there will be a point we can eventually remove COVID once it no longer is seen as a worldwide threat). If we post this, we might as well post something along the lines of "gun violence in the United States" - a major news topic but one that has no clear "end". --Masem (t) 22:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guaido still thinks he's president of Venezuela, students in Hong Kong are still antagonizing the CPC, in fact there are still weekend protests in Belarus all those articles were in ongoing and are no longer. Prying stuff out of OG is a gigantic hassle around here but that isn't a reason not to put things into OG. Brexit popped in and out as it flared up. The Myanmar protests are in the box right now and that mess is a monument to WP:SYNTH. I empathize, but relax, we'll be fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem and The Rambling Man. I do not believe that several riots that may coincide temporally and causally is something of such importance as to be "ongoing". Police brutality + protests is usual in the US. Catalonia has experienced something similar (bridging the gap) in recent years in the context of the territorial crisis with Spain, with riots for days and I would not even think of nominating it. Although honestly I am not going oppose if a consensus is reached to support it. Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Its a notable series of ongoing protests, and I would support Catalonia protests being ITN, tooJackattack1597 (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Since at least 2011, there have been reliable protests/unrest/riots in American cities every Summer. Whether you're sympathetic to the professed motivations, yet another year is hardly unique, unusual or comment worthy outside of larger effects. Putting them in Ongoing is like putting Crime in the US in Ongoing; it's part and parcel of living there.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding, individual events are much better suited for blurbs, and I would (and have) support(ed) them previously. The linked article is narrative spinning from disparate events that are sometimes not even thematically related.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Uses x and Muboshgu, and per RS (e.g. those cited in the article), which write that the protests 2020-present are quite different from previous 21st-century protests. (How long did it take before Occupy Wall Street was added to ongoing?) Levivich harass/hound 06:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mostly because the article is blown up with every incident of larger scale that occurred in the country over the past year (What does the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol have to do with race without clear explanation in the text?). I also notice events that were posted either with a blurb or to ongoing on their own so the target article is definitely not something to support on the main page. In my opinion, 2020–2021 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial justice protests could be a better fit in place of Daunte Wright protests and the proposed one just waters down notability (Yet, the article on Daunte Wright protests is not updated with yesterday's events, implying descending significance as time goes by.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is sorta what I was getting it in my oppose, while it is clear the concept of long-term racial instability is there, this feels like an OR-created topic that doesn't reflect how the news frames this. Connections are being made between the George Floyd protests and these events, sure, but they aren't seemingly calling it connected event. --Masem (t) 14:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Musing -- Having thought on this some more, I think we should probably wait until after the verdict for Derek Chauvin. These protests may rapidly die, or they may become as big as the protests in 2020. We don't know yet. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 08:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then that won't be an "ongoing" news story, it will be a story directly related to the most recent police killings so will be a blurb. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My first thought was a blanket oppose, since the other nom is still open and this feels like a classic way to skirt around opposition there, but I read through all the comments, particularly TRM and LL, and I still feel that the Minnesota riots article would be a more appropriate target (and that the new? article probably shouldn't exist at all) but have been convinced a blurb would be more appropriate given the often disparate nature of the protests/riots/whatever. Kingsif (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Too broad a topic, impossible to manage in a way that treats incidents equitably, inevitably producing a mishmash. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Racism in the United States has been going on for a long time and this topic isn't current (this is my understanding, since I'm not from the US). If it's about a specific protest or unrest like the George Floyd protest, I'm okay with it. But not this. --Sitaphul (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before anyone says I'm anti-American, I've supported the Daunte Wright protest nomination Sitaphul (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Albertaont: See here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Uses x and Muboshgu. It's certainly getting a lot of coverage. Collectively they're notable enough and show no signs of fading, so it's suited for ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Anyone who claims that this is "run-of-the-mill" either categorically dislikes when United States affairs get put on the front page or doesn't know anything about the United States (or in TRM's case, both). The changes that have been sweeping the nation since last June are unprecedented. Monuments getting taken down, actors retiring their roles, the Redskins finally changing their name, etc. Mlb96 (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, this article covers every protest since last June. Look at this list of race riots in the U.S. Prior to June 2020, there hadn't been a race-related protest in four years. And with the exception of 2014-2015, there was an average of one race-related protest per year. Since June 2020, we've had multiple race-related protests per month. To claim that these kinds of protests are common is absurd. If they seem common now, it's because the racial unrest is LITERALLY on-going. This frankly should have been put into on-going months ago, but better late than never. Mlb96 (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You mean there wasn't any protest in 2019 like this one? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Hah, by all means try to insult me Mlb96 but you just make yourself look silly really. Racial unrest has been ongoing for years and it's not newsworthy, it's just "a way of life" in the US, just like mass shootings. Nothing changes, nothing of true encyclopedic value comes from these protests or shootings. Once the balance tips and someone actually does something to prevent more than 1,000 people being murdered by the US police per year or reduce hundreds of mass shootings to nearly zero, then we can get genuinely interested in a news story. Until then, it's business as usual. I feel very sorry for the thousands of people killed every year in each of these circumstances in the US, but that doesn't mean we need to overwhelm this global encyclopedia with protest/mass shooting tickers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      TRM, I'm trying assume good faith, but I feel that your anti-American bias is shining through, and it's annoying. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 09:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I'm just saying it as it is. The rest of the world is dog tired of being inundated with "riot" and "mass shooting" stories from the US, in particular when literally nothing ever is done about it. I discovered 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens today, sums it up perfectly. This isn't about anti-American anything. If someone kept suggesting we post minor casualty events from a war zone then I'd continually oppose those as well. This is no different. But I appreciate your attempts to AGF. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm in full agreement with TRM here and I'm American - this is unfortunately the situation in America for more than a decade or two. What's happened in the last year and calling it a special period is inappropriate WP:SYNTH. Further, this type of story belies the purpose of ongoing, where we know that there will be a reasonable endpoint that we expect to pull the event; there is no sign that this unrest will end in the US; if it ends (likely due to legislation that is passed) the means by which it ends would be a story. --Masem (t) 14:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. If '20-21 racial unrest in the US is synth, then AFD the article. But of course it's not synth; the RSes themselves, in their own voice, explicitly, state that the protests of the past year are unique. (Those RSes are cited in that article.) These protests are not business as usual; they are larger, more frequent, more widespread, longer lasting, and more violent (on both sides), than any protests in the US probably since the seventies. Even bigger than OWS. (Was OWS in ongoing?) Definitely the biggest in my lifetime, and probably the biggest in your lifetime, too. If not, name the last time we had sustained year-long nationwide protests. Even OWS didn't last a year. Levivich harass/hound 14:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a low-level collection of angry people who are continually angry about things that don't change. This isn't news. That's the point. There is nothing to be gained for our readers on seeing low-level protest after low-level protest after low-level protest added to that article of low-level protests. The world is bored of this, nothing changes, nothing gets to a point of real noteworthiness. It may come to a shock to those people in the US who think this is of anything more than a passing interest, but these shootings and riots just roll off the news with regularity. There's no interest. This is a global encyclopedia, focusing ITN on mass shootings and protest after protest is not its mission. And since when was 2021 storming of the United States Capitol about racial unrest? Jesus. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to millions of American protesters as "just a low-level collection of angry people who are continually angry about things that don't change" is your anti-Americanism showing again. You really need to curtail this here. If "this isn't news" then why is it all over the news? Also, you do not speak for "the world". "The world" does not have a single opinion on anything. Your comments here are 100% just your opinion and no one else's. Levivich harass/hound 15:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh give it rest. Half the items in that article featured dozens, not millions, of people protesting and many of those had nothing to do with "racial unrest". Once you have a suitable argument other than the half-baked "anti-Americanism" bollocks, I'll listen. I'm actually anti-police-murder and anti-mass-shooting, I have no opinion on the United States, having been there several times it offers literally nothing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Mlb96. Nothing "run of the mill" about the racial protests that have been taking place over the last year since the George Floyd death in the U.S. They absolutely are qualitatively different from the protests that have occurred before, and they have already resulted in significant changes in attitudes towards race and policing, comparable to the impact of the Me Too movement. Saying that the rest of the world is dog tired of being inundated with these stories is a perfectly good reason to put them into a single 'ongoing' item. Then each time an individual story of this kind gets nominated for a blurb, there will be an immediate counter-argument: we already have an ongoing item for this topic and let's keep it there. Nsk92 (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose way too broad and disparate. A lot of that article is just disparate protests in response to isolated events that might've had something to do with racism. TBH, it might actually be original research to group these all together as part of some cohesive movement, in the way that article is doing (distinct from some kind of list article), unless there's some RS doing the same (not immediately obvious). But, and WP:CRYSTAL notwithstanding, possibly in the future there may be a suitable nomination relating to the Chauvin trial. But not sure this is it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as too broad, in line with what several others have pointed out above. Yakikaki (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This strikes me as rather amorphous. I'm not completely ready to dismiss it because it is generating significant and ongoing coverage, though. pbp 22:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is a cultural paradigm shift, and so in effect is actually too newsy for ITN. At the rate things are going, this would probably never come down off ongoing if posted.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:27, 18 April 2021 (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) Kerch Strait closure

No consensus to post. Stephen 02:04, 18 April 2021 (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: Kerch Strait (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russia announces its decision to close the Kerch Strait in the Black Sea to "warships and other state vessels" until October. (Post)
News source(s): NY Post, Plymouth Herald, Ukrinform
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Likely a notable development in the ongoing tensions with Russia, Ukrainian Foreign Ministry has responded. Brandmeistertalk 21:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Announcement. Might be relevant when it actually happens. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just an announcement, and not in the news much. The update would also need to be longer, giving the impacts of it, etc, as right now there's only the background. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's not significant - if we were to nominate every military activity then the list would be huge Sitaphul (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think Russia announcing it's doing a thing is the same as Russia doing that thing. I rather doubt anyone is going to test them. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is related to the back-and-forth between Russia-Ukraine-US, and is a minor development about equal to the US sailing destroyers through the Dardanelles, or Zelensky's visit to troops. The article is actually pretty nice. I'd rather post good articles with a topical update than the usual "event" article, but some more information in the blurb is needed to give readers context. And we should wait at least until next week when this is no longer merely an annoucement.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2021 (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.

April 14

April 14, 2021 (2021-04-14) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Michel Louvain

Article: Michel Louvain (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CTV News / Canadian Press; Montreal 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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ahmed Usman

Article: Ahmed Usman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Premium 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: Former Military Governor of Ondo and Oyo States in Nigeria. Article is referenced and has appropriate depth of coverage. SpencerT•C 15:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to RD) RD/Blurb: Bernie Madoff

Consensus does not seem likely to develop for a blurb, so I am closing/withdrawing it.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:24, 14 April 2021 (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: Bernie Madoff (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American financier Bernie Madoff (pictured), who operated the largest Ponzi scheme in history, dies at the age of 82. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian, AP, BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Financier and fraudster
Both of you are going to have to provide a rationale...-- P-K3 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pawnkingthree: To be fair the comments were posted before I added the template - it previously just read "Bernie Madoff" with no context. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my bad. I was just bewildered that it didn't have a template. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2021 (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) Daunte Wright protests

No consensus to post to ongoing. Stephen 02:02, 18 April 2021 (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: Daunte Wright protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Nightly unrest is now in its third day. 2600:1700:5890:69F0:1D21:C59E:DB08:A777 (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is improved and the AFD has closed. On a second review the article could go up. The point made by TRM below is a very good one, though. Protests and riots in the Upper Midwest (and in many of the places listed in the Events elsewhere section) have become commonplace over the last few years.130.233.213.199 (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another Ongoing nomination has been made for this event (above) which links to a much weaker and frankly poorly composed article. In the interest of getting something up on this topic, I'd suggest to make a blurb nomination along the lines of Protests and unrest stemming from the death of Daunte Wright enter their Nth day. The article here is good enough, and that blurb formulation we have used many times previously.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it's nowhere near important enough. The article is up for deletion. Jim Michael (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's pretty clear that this isn't like the George Floyd matter. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-opened The AfD has been speedily closed with a result 'Keep' so the discussion here can continue.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the AfD was closed as "no consensus".—Bagumba (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes indeed but 'no consensus' to delete has the same effect as 'Keep', which is more spot on in relation to this nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never seen a speedy close with no consensus before- seems like that is being used solely so people can re-open this nomination. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator themself withdrew the nomination, but a speedy keep was technically not possible because one editor chose "Delete" before the article was expanded to a reasonable length (see WP:WITHDRAWN). Other than that, it was between a keep and a merge, and a merge isn't reasonable considering the size of both articles. There's no conspiracy. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It would be inconsistent of me to have supported posting the Northern Ireland protest but oppose this one. Mlb96 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be considered that often when there is a "white cop shoots black person" incident which happen with rather troubling frequency, there are protests, some more significant and/or violent than others; the Floyd protests clearly surpassed a level of being "routine". These protests may be just tipping past "routine" with the events of last night but they still aren't at the same sense of scale as the Floyd ones. In contrast, the protests in N. Ireland aren't anywhere close to routine occurances, and the events that led to those unusual (beyond the ususual tension between N. Ireland and the rest of the British Isles). As such, it didn't have a baseline to compare to so was posted for that reason. Its why we do consider events relative to their scope and scale for similar events within the same region for posting, and how that would filter up to the international scale. --Masem (t) 18:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose along the lines of Masem's explanation above. Like mass shootings, these protests are now commonplace, and realistically it needs to not be "routine" for it to be something we should consider at ITN. Those arguing about the N'Iron posting need to realise that riots there (in this day and age) just don't (didn't) happen. Trying to equate these regular riots with a rarity is not a reasonable comparison. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Effects? Which ones? Where? Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
City under a state of emergency, professional sports teams cancelling games, protests around the country. These things rarely accelerate as quickly as this one has. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Jim Michael, TRM – The shooter and the police chief have resigned, and the shooter has been charged, hopefully defusing this incredibly bizarre event.
PS: This user grew up in Minneapolis, and can hardly believe the stuff going on there – but I left a long time ago. – Sca (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of U.S. mass shootings, this singular one seems less than significant, though it has a bizarre aspect. – Sca (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but that's not a qualification for not posting. Correct me if I'm wrong Sitaphul (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above, but I think a broader racial unrest ongoing would be better, per the arguments in that thread, and tonight is the first Adam Toledo protest... these protests are only growing with no sign of dissipating. Levivich harass/hound 03:38, 17 April 2021 (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.

April 13

April 13, 2021 (2021-04-13) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Conn Findlay

Article: Conn Findlay (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; The Washington Post
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: Only announced and reported today (April 13). —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bobby Leonard

Article: Bobby Leonard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Indianapolis Star; Associated Press
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) 23:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Peter Warner

Article: Peter Warner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald
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 captain. Article covers key aspects of the subject's life in appropriate detail; referenced. SpencerT•C 15:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Japan's cabinet approved dumping of radioactive water

Duplicate nom; see closed nom below. SpencerT•C 15:32, 13 April 2021 (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: Discharge of radioactive water of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Cabinet of Japan approved the Fukushima nuclear Plant to dump treated radioactive water to the Pacific Ocean over a course of 30 years. (Post)
News source(s): "Fukushima: Japan approves releasing wastewater into ocean". BBC. 2021-04-13.
Credits:

Article updated
  • Nominator comments: This is the first time since 2011 the Japanese government makes it clear to the world on how Japan would deal with the radioactive water. Reading the comments on the ITN nomination of #(Closed) Fukushima disaster cleanup (which was a different article), my responses are as follows.
  • (1) Part of the "consensus" on rejecting #(Closed) Fukushima disaster cleanup was based on the poor focus and the poor quality of that article, not on the importance of the news per se. This is a different, new article, entirely focus on the water.
  • (2) Some users voted "opposed" by claiming this is "old news". In fact, news on this before 13 April 2021 was just speculation by tabloids. The cabinet approval was handed down on 13 April 2021.
  • (3) While some users rightly pointed out "the cabinet approved the dumping to happen two years later, not to happen now", being the "first ever cabinet decision on the matter" grants this news importance.
  • -- love.wh 15:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close. We just had a discussion on this that closed as a clear consensus not to post. The fact that a new separate article has been created doesn't change the consensus. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Significant global news, must read. STSC (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose New article is a hopeless mess of WP:SYN about various dumping events. I'm not even sure why this is a distinct article from the Fukushima clean-up article. It takes a scatter-shot approach to reporting on the events, and there's little in the way of narrative flow that makes the article very hard to follow, and not up to the standards I would expect for the main page. --Jayron32 15:27, 13 April 2021 (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) Fukushima disaster cleanup

Consensus will not develop to post. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:42, 13 April 2021 (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: Fukushima disaster cleanup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Japanese Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide announces that more than 1 million tonnes of radioactive water will be dumped into the Pacific Ocean (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Japanese Government announces that treated radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant will be dumped into the ocean
Alternative blurb II: ​ Japan announces that radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster will be dumped into the ocean
News source(s): NHK News, KBS News, CGTN, Reuters, Global Times, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, ABC News, The Jakarta Post, The New York Times
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Huge announcement in the aftermath of one of the largest nuclear disasters - Backlash from many Asian countries as well as environmental organisations JMonkey2006 (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2021 (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.

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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1018986547"