Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS. Archives of past nominations can be found here.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

A blurb is a one sentence summary of the news story. An alternate suggestion for the blurb is called an altblurb, and any more suggestions get labelled alt1, alt2, etc. A blurb needs at least one target article, highlighted in bold; reviewers check the quality of that article and whether it is updated, and whether reliable sources demonstrate the significance of the event. Other articles can also be linked. The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time. RD stands for the "recent deaths" line, and can include any living thing whose death was recently announced. In some cases, recent deaths may need additional explanation as provided by a blurb; this is decided by consensus.

Protesters in Tehran, Iran
Protesters in Tehran, Iran

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • 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 not...[edit]

  1. add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive.
  3. accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  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. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page.

Please be encouraged to...[edit]

  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. Maybe the previous reviewer has missed a problem, or an identified problem has now been fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes may also help administrators identify items that are ready for promotion to the ITN template on MainPage.
  3. point out problematic areas in the nominated article and, if appropriate, suggest how to fix them. If you know exactly what to do, by all means, go ahead and fix it as you see fit.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[edit]

September 26[edit]

Business and economy


September 25[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


2022 Italian general election[edit]

Proposed image
Giorgia Meloni
Article: 2022 Italian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The centre-right coalition led by Giorgia Meloni (pictured) wins the 2022 Italian general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The centre-right coalition wins a majority of seats in the 2022 Italian general election. (Brothers of Italy leader Giorgia Meloni pictured).
News source(s): Sky News, Reuters, BBC News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Comfortable win according to exit polls for Meloni just as opinion polls predicited, results are watched in the whole world as Italy is a major country. BastianMAT (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Obviously notable and article looks fine. According to the centre-right coalition, the coalition is led by the three main party leaders (Meloni, Salvini, and Berlusconi). As such saying that Meloni is the leader of the coalition would appear inaccurate, even if it is likely she will be elected Prime Minister after the election. I would instead rephrase the blurb as: "The Centre-right coalition wins the 2022 Italian general election. (Brothers of Italy leader Giorgia Meloni pictured)." Gust Justice (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article does not "look fine" when the "Results" section only contains empty tables and no prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously I would only post once at least initial results are part of the article. I wouldn't immediately post the blurb right now. Gust Justice (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that this is ITN/R, there is no need to support on importance, only when the item is ready based on quality. Your initial comment made no mention of waiting for it to be ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now until results tables are filled in and some prose about the results is written up. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tentative Support, By ANY Blurb The results section is empty. Assuming that's normal for now and the article won't otherwise get worse, cool. Only two years or less till this major country's 69th post-war government! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait. Official results are not out yet. I do not think we should post this nom on exit polls. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Aïcha Chenna[edit]

Article: Aïcha Chenna (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Iconic Moroccan Activist Aicha Chenna Dies at 82
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.

 gobonobo + c 14:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Oleksii Zhuravko[edit]

Article: Oleksii Zhuravko (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ukrainska Pravda (in Ukrainian), Euromaiden 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.

 TJMSmith (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment – Article says subject was "reportedly killed" in an airstrike. That language doesn't seem definite enough for an 'encyclopedic' RD. – Sca (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now. RD requires "reliably sourced confirmation of their death", and I'm not convinced that second-hand reports of a statement in "Russian propaganda media" qualify. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose None of the news or references are in English. All can be seen as Russian or Ukrainian propaganda. If it were just most and the subject was less controversial, I'd say whatever, not technically verboten. But no. Not whatever now. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 Berlin Marathon[edit]

Proposed image
Eliud Kipchoge about 14.5 km (9.0 mi) into the race
Article: 2022 Berlin Marathon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At the Berlin Marathon, Eliud Kipchoge (pictured) wins with a new world record and Tigist Assefa wins with a new course record. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​At the Berlin Marathon, Kenyan runner Eliud Kipchoge (pictured) sets a new marathon world record with a time of 2:01:09.
Alternative blurb II: ​At the Berlin Marathon, Kenyan Eliud Kipchoge (pictured) and Ethiopian Tigist Assefa win the men's and women's races with new world and course records respectively.
News source(s): BBC · CNA · DW · The Guardian · The New York Times · Olympics · Reuters · Runner's World
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: i will be updating the article shortly. any suggestions would be appreciated. note: the berlin marathon is not in itn/r, though i am not sure why. however, i figured that a new world record would be worthy of itn. dying (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support once updated Still in need of updates, and fixing of barerefs, but it is clearly significant enough to post, since we posted the prior marathon world record, also set by Kipchoge at the Berlin Marathon. Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – Lacks general impact or significance. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support once the article is improved. I find it really surprising that this marathon isn't listed as ITNR given that it's been part of the World Marathon Majors from the beginning and its flat course makes it attractive with significantly higher probability to set a new world record.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support once updated - The marathon is significant on its own, nevermind with the new record. Quantum XYZ (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It seems that new records are a usual thing here, but I remain supportive of the nomination. Perhaps even an addition to WP:ITN/R? Quantum XYZ (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Sca. BilledMammal (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment the Berlin Marathon was posted in 2018, not sure what would be different to make it lacking in significance now vs then. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The 2018 nomination and posting was based on the significance of the new world record rather than the significance of the event. The significance of the two records may or may not be the same. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment The article on Tigist Assefa needs to be updated/expanded. TJMSmith (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    thanks for pointing this out (and for cropping a picture of her). Track1News has expanded her article with an update. dying (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support 30 seconds off the world record seems significant and it's in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • comment: i have marked the nomination updated as there is now a summary of kipchoge's race, although i hope to eventually get a summary of the others up as well. in addition, as i now realize that, the last time the world record was broken, only the record breaker was mentioned in the blurb, i have added an altblurb. (assefa's result was actually the third-fastest time ever, broke the course record by more than 2.5 minutes, and broke her personal record by almost 20 minutes, despite the race being only her second marathon, but, alas, it was not a world record.) i have also added a photo taken of kipchoge during the run, though i think some elements of the image could be cropped out. dying (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment This should probably be posted in terms of the ludicrous breaking of the world record, rather than the event itself. In which case the target article should probably be Eliud Kipchoge. His article appears to be mostly fine apart from the second paragraph of the "2021" section, which is unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. I've drafted another altblurb that I think is clearer if we want to post a blurb mentioning both winners. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • World Record Only A lesser concurrent announcement waters it down (and as the record, the runner and the race completely coincide in this recent event, none can rightly stand bolder). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 24[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


Hurricane Fiona results[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Hurricane Fiona (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Hurricane Fiona hits Canadian soil being the deepest low-pressure system ever to be recorded on the country's soil after causing extensive flooding in Guadalupe, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic" (Post)
Alternative blurb: Hurricane Fiona kills at least 21 people across the Caribbean and Canada.
News source(s): [1], [2], [3]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Historic meteorological event affecting multiple different countries

  • Oppose Not a significant disaster, but the record about lowest pressure system is fair game at DYK. --Masem (t) 21:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Not sure what the impact of this is. Perhaps elaborate a bit further on damage/death toll, if there is one?--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support altblurb. The death toll has been steadily rising and it's already about as high as when we'd usually blurb a hurricane.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Interesting event but more DYK material. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A Canadian record???!!!!! C'mon. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose England's right, Canadian history's boring, a hurricane that fails MINIMUMDEATHS should beat some Atlantic record before it's showcased. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What number, User:InedibleHulk is MINIMUMDEATHS - I can't find that article? We certainly have posted articles about murderers who have less victims - even though that's a frequent occurrence in some countries. Nfitz (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's an unfixed number. I could say twelve and be too high and too low, depends on others. Anyway, hurricanes aren't murders, and by virtue of almost always taking way longer should make Ongoing far more often (today's big storm shares its name with a Moors Murderer, DYK?). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not sure if hurricanes in ongoing would work in a lot of cases, as forecasts any further out than 3 days into the future can change quite a bit and it'd only make sense in situations where we knew that a hurricane would cause substantial damage to another country not long after causing damage to a first country (no use in making it ongoing if it just drifts off into the ocean and dissipates, right?) But I agree that Fiona would've been more noteworthy if it shattered Atlantic Hurricane records, not just Atlantic Canada records.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Death toll sits at 19 now - with some still missing. Nfitz (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, I meant the Atlantic Ocean (thought Atlantic Records). Hurricanes have precisely defined beginnings and ends, little subjectivity required when we see them in the news, and no need to boil the wider path down into a blurb someone will always find lacking (or misfocused or worse). Nineteen is a considerable amount. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Reconsidering my opposition; we posted Hurricane Ida last year when it had fewer confirmed deaths (14 at the time). the toll would soon rise to 40 before its final count was over 100.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Has there ever previously been an Atlantic category 4 hurricane so far north of Bermuda? (Not saying it was category 4 at landfall.) - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Pharoah Sanders[edit]

Article: Pharoah Sanders (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, Stereogum
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: Legendary jazz saxophonist who worked with Coltrane in the 60s — Chevvin 15:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support — Unfortunate to hear about his loss and condolences to his family. Article is in good standing. [email protected] (he/him) 03:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are several unsourced paragraphs, it needs a lot of work. Masem (t) 04:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unfortunately there is a large amount of unreferenced text and a potential copyvio issue. This all needs fixing before going on the main page. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Ready) 2022 AFL Grand Final[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2022 AFL Grand Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In Australian rules football, the Geelong Cats win the AFL Grand Final, defeating the Sydney Swans. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In Australian rules football, Geelong defeat the Sydney Swans to win the AFL Grand Final.
Alternative blurb II: ​In Australian rules football, the AFL Grand Final concludes with Geelong (Jock McHale Medal winner pictured) defeating the Sydney Swans.
News source(s): [4] [5]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Just happened, so article needs updating under Match Summary and Norm Smith Medal. First nomination so please let me know if I've done something wrong. -- EchidnaLives 07:38, 2022 September 24 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - Article seems fine but the topic would be unfamiliar to many people. Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Confused. 😕 Since it states in the nomination that "The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post" what is the relevance of it being unfamiliar to many people? Or is the sentence in the nomination incorrect? --Gaois (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I totally agree with you. But its lack of popularity which makes me not fully support ITN. Prodrummer619 (talk)(@ when responding) 19:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items <- It is in the recurring items Haris920 (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NOTPROMOTION which states "Wikipedia is not ... a vehicle for ... advertising and showcasing". The nominated article has a large Toyota brand logo at the top. The article does not otherwise mention this car company and so this seems to be gratuitous advertising. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Article has a medium sized Toyota logo at the top, which is part of the 2022 AFL Grand Final logo. I don't see how this is any worse than the countless American stadiums that have a brand name as their article name. If you really want, a sentence on the Toyota sponsorship could be added to the article, even though that would make the article more promotional than it currently is. I don't think that should preclude this being posted to ITN. Steelkamp (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We cannot do anything about official logos for events that include logos of other companies. That should be completely obvious of what we can't change from a non-free image. Masem (t) 17:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, we can do something about it. We can refuse to give such intrusive advertising a free plug on our main page. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No we can't. Period. Is it advertising? Yes. Is it blatant advertising? No, it is a de minimus element of the logo. If we had a standalone logo of Toyota at the same size, with all other problems with that given (no mention in the body, etc.), that would be a problem. Masem (t) 17:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What exactly is intrusive about it? It's part of the darn logo! DarkSide830 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is designed to stand out and catch the eye. It was the first thing I noticed when I clicked through to the article. It distracts from the actual sport and makes me think of Toyota cars instead. This is the entire point of such logo placement – see brand awareness. The fact that such spam is all over some sports now doesn't mean that we have to facilitate and highlight it. We could, for example, just remove the logo. Or not post the item. So far as ITN is concerned, my position is unchanged. This article violates a major policy and should not be featured here. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Go get it deleted. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It seems that's the literal official name of the season per the official website: the 2022 Toyota AFL Premiership season. It's actually in the official logo for the event itself because Toyota has naming rights. There seems to be no real way for the article to include the actual logo for the event without the massive Toyota brand. The article isn't being more gratuitous advertising than any other sports events article, though it may serve well enough to what, say, the 2018 NHL Winter Classic did? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This seems like a massive dose of WP:RGW. What portion of professional sports isn't sponsored nowadays? Sorry, but this isn't sufficient enough of an argument to merit overturning the WP:ITNR process. There are worthy exceptions, but this is absolutely not one of them. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is this any better? The photograph of the stadium is more prominent. --Gaois (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Said "large Toyota logo" is only one part of the competition logo. I've gone ahead and restored it, as plenty of other sporting competitions have similar logos used in their infoboxes without issue. SounderBruce 01:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Meh I almost objected to the blatant mistitling, despite Toyota owning the naming right fair and square, but it's apparently been cheated like that here since 2007 and it hasn't stopped the routine series of postings yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The article is titled the way it is due to Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. Steelkamp (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So are a lot of things. The lead usually spells out the real (official) name at least once in most. But again, meh! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Other than the nominator-acknowledged needed updates for the match itself and about the medal, the article also has four unreferenced paragraphs in "Background" and almost everything under "Ceremonies and entertainment" and "Media coverage" is also unreferenced. In my opinion, these are the actual, salient points that will prevent a feature. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Alternative blurb II. There is a photograph. I have tried to fix the unreferenced sections. I also adjusted the appearance of the multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in a part of Aichi Prefecture which I won't name so that readers won't notice it first. --Gaois (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support There are now references galore. As an ITN/R item, significance is already established. The pearl-clutching about the sponsor's logo was over-the-top, but the offending image has now been removed. Chrisclear (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality grounds per Andrew Davidson. It has also recently been established that significance or INTR items can be challenged. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On the quality, would this make it better? The logo was later restored, though it seems unfortunate that a dispute over a logo being inside or outside an infobox would prevent it being posted (if that is the case). --Gaois (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, or the use of this logo. BilledMammal (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On the significance, it is the sport's top game. The events surrounding the game have been getting English-language media coverage in both hemispheres. Some examples of Northern Hemisphere media coverage in recent days and weeks include: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this. --Gaois (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Those all seem to be Irish media so calling them the "Northern Hemisphere" is a stretch. I did a search in the BBC's sports and news websites and found nothing. The BBC provides pretty wide coverage of the world, such as the Canadian hurricane above, but they clearly regard this as insignificant. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry, that's simply not true. The discussion about the rocket launch was a discussion about a class of ITN/R candidates, where the argument was that it was too broad. This item is specifically cited at ITN/R. If you want to remove it, start a discussion. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You clearly do not understand what the issue was that prompted that item not being posted. Reread the discussion as well as that on WT:ITN regarding updating the ITNR category for failed launches. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue was the people disputed the significance. The same can be done here, although my objection is on the grounds of quality. BilledMammal (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no quality issues with this article. You can argue about the logo (and I'm not unsympathetic to that view), but that's not per se a quality issue. Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - if being sponsored can remove a sport's ITNR significance, then every single sport currently listed should be cut and ITN will need to focus on political developments only. Anarchyte (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support (though I'd like to see a source for the International broadcasting - everything else is fine). The two opposes above are invalid as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just added references for international broadcasting. echidnaLives (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks. Marked as Ready. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support seems good to go. For people like Andrew Davidson making odd claims over the use of logos etc, I suggest they are either ignored or perhaps even banned from such discussions. Wikipedia has a huge wealth of resources to enable such individuals to actively learn how fair use images etc are utilised. Perhaps Andrew is unaware of the fact that the logo would not appear on the main page, for example. A failure of comprehension, and WP:CIR. If, after all that, these individuals persist in discussions with their own personal opinions on the use of such logos, and without demonstrating they have understood the processes and procedures around such images, they should be removed from the project post-haste for deliberate and targeting disruption. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This incredibly harsh on that particular user. We should be encouraging people to voice their concerns and opinions on such matters even when they risk being wrong. We should not ever be criticising comments made in good faith, even if you happen to disagree. Such a heavy handed approach is in bad taste and would do much more harm than good and I think such comments needlessly escalate tensions. Abcmaxx (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Support. My above concerns have been addressed. I do not see the issue with the logo as it is the official logo of this year's event and these articles are expected to use it. This specific event is ITN/R. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 23[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Bill Fulcher[edit]

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

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Louise Fletcher[edit]

Article: Louise Fletcher (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood
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: Best known as Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Typical problems associated with actor articles on sourcing. Masem (t) 01:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Per nom. A couple of citations needed in main article and filmography must be sourced too, but article is strong otherwise. SitcomyFan (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Near Support I think the reckless driving part needs a resolution. Clearly, she didn't serve much time, if any. But something happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unreliable sources say she cut a deal and did no time. Which if true, may not be covered by media. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support when updated a little more - yet another influential person of note that impacted my very being has passed. :( (Also to the above: At least she isn't Broderick...) --SinoDevonian (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    She sure isn't Matthew Broderick or Betty Broderick. Their cases end, for better or worse. Broderick Washington Jr., way closer deal, who knows if they're innocent? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A reminder that that article needs a LOT of sourcing work to get it up to par for posting. --Masem (t) 18:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Good enough for an RD. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Hilary Mantel[edit]

Article: Hilary Mantel (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, AP, NYT, SMH, ToI
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 author, twice winner of the Booker Prize. Died on Thursday but was announced on Friday. Most of the article is in decent shape, but the early career needs more references, and some of the awards are not cited. I'm adding some {{cn}}s. Modest Genius talk 11:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Absolutely support this. Martin Petherbridge (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Article is looking pretty good so far. This nom has me feeling rather glum, as only last week I got into reading my first novel by her...--SinoDevonian (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support A few citations needed but overall article looks good. SitcomyFan (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment The article is in general in a good shape, better than many other RD noms. But there are still a few tags about lacking sources that need to be addressed. Yakikaki (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Summary of what is required: A citation is needed for the following (perhaps someone who has read the books will be able to find them):
  • Career section
  • Fludd (at the end of the first paragraph)
  • A Place of Greater Safety (third paragraph)
  • A Change of Climate (fourth paragraph)
  • An Experiment in Love (fifth paragraph)
  • The Giant, O'Brien (sixth paragraph)
  • Beyond Black (the sentence at the end of the seventh paragraph of the career section refers to details from this book)
  • The two citations needed in the "Early life" section are possibly less urgent (taking her stepfather's surname, working in a geriatric hospital and department store). Those sentences could be hidden or removed if they cannot be verified.
  • The "Views" and "Personal life and death" sections are cited. --Gaois (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sources are also missing for a number of bullet-points under "List of works" and "Awards and honours". Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Referenda in Ukraine[edit]

Article: 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Russian-backed authorities hold referendums in four Ukrainian oblasts on accession to Russia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Russian-backed authorities hold referendums, widely condemned as illegitimate, in four Ukrainian oblasts on accession to Russia.
News source(s): The BBC, The Guardian
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article needs updating, but the event is significant enough to be deserving of a blurb. We've already blurbed some events of this war even though it's in the Ongoing section - this is way more significant than any of them. EditMaker Me (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose - Procedurally, these are sub-national polls, which we don't generally cover. Additionally, the results aren't in. But more than that, these are fake polls being used by the occupying Russian forces to give a false legitimacy to their occupation. In that sense, they are a weapon of war, and the war is already in Ongoing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fake polls yes, but they're still significant - countries usually don't formally annex other countries' lands anymore. EditMaker Me (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait. I think this becomes significant enough for a blurb only if/when Russia actually annexes the territories. I suspect that will happen next week, as these are clearly being rushed in response to the Ukrainian offensive and are not free or fair referenda. Modest Genius talk 11:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I recommend renominating in ~eight days. Article already looks very impressive tho, nice work so far!! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, we normally post the result of democratic processes (even though this applies in name only here), not the process as such. The result is likely to be the annexation of these territorries, which will then be the story to post. Sandstein 11:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait until we have results to post. News is covering this, but the proper time to post this in ITN is when we have results to discuss. --Jayron32 12:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Genevieve, Sandstein. NYT terms this chapter in political theater "staged voting." – Sca (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: Is the preferred plural not referenda ? – Sca (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You do realize that legitimately free votes are not the only newsworthy things to happen. If Russia formally and forcibly annexes these territories, that will be something that people notice and care about. We can bitch all we want about the referenda being rigged, but that means fuckall with regard to the significance of them. Lots of things which are immoral, unethical, illegitimate, or just plain evil are still important. --Jayron32 14:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Jay: If RU annexes, yes. Perhaps you view that as a foregone conclusion, but it hasn't happened yet. -- Sca (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Wait until territories are annexed, and even then, I'm not so sure this should be posted unless these "Russian territories" are recognized as such by the United Nations.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Russia doesn't physically control all the territory in question. This is an ongoing situation which is covered by the existing ongoing entry. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose We already have Ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine in the news. We don't need a second entry. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait For Results, if there's a positive result, and Russia does indeed proceed to annex the territories, that will indeed then be a blurb-worthy development imo. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  13:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4iamking There is very little doubt about what the result will be; the surprise would be if it was a "no" vote in their own rigged referendum. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That may be, but until it happens, coming to any conclusions would be WP:SPECULATION. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  15:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait, per king. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support once the results come in. Accelerate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.44.170.26 (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, but in the right context. Very few if any non-Russian media outlets are saying these votes are anything other than "so called" or fake. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose because a) it's already in ongoing and is not any more significant of a development than the capture of Mariupol or the recent Kharkiv offensive, and b) because it would be very difficult for Wikipedia to post a blurb that is neutral, because simply stating the result of the referendum without comment would be biased heavily in favour of Russia, who is using this referendum as a form of propaganda, and presenting the results without comment would legitimize it; while stating that the referendum is ignoring all democratic norms in the blurb would present a much more accurate picture, but that would be biased in favour of the Western/Ukrainian standpoint, even if they're correct. The easiest move is to avoid all the blurb neutrality arguments by not posting the referendum at all, hence my vote. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose As this is already covered by ongoing, and Wikipedia ought not to allow itself to be used, even indirectly, for Kremlin propaganda. If there was any hint of legitimacy to these referendums, I might consider an exception and support. But this is just a farce. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait until results are out. Sham of course, but potential risk of incorporation into Russia, as it was done with Crimea, is there. Brandmeistertalk 17:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait for results, as the importance will be based on how these turn out. --Masem (t) 18:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This user predicts the results will favor annexation by Россия. -- Sca (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Masem: Just so that I'm clear, do you believe that these referenda are legitimate in the same manner as a free and fair election? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Doesn't matter if they are legitimate or "forced", they should be treated as referendum elections as we would any other country in the world. Otherwise, we're imposing a POV on ITN. Masem (t) 00:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We didn't cover the 2020 Puerto Rican status referendum. BD2412 T 00:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Puerto Rico was and would still have been part of the United States both before and after the vote, even if it was honored by the US Congress. This is a situation that involves potential territorial change. I certainly don't have any reason to believe these referendums are legitimate, but if they are handled like Crimea than it is certainly something worth watching. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We didn't cover the 2017 Puerto Rican status referendum either, which had Puerto Rico leaving the U.S. entirely as an option. BD2412 T 02:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The annexation should be posted when it happens, but any mention of the referenda is problematic, as per NorthernFalcon. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – Late-cycle coverage Friday: BBC, Guardian. – Sca (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose already in ongoing. We *really* shouldn't be arbitrary about this. Banedon (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Devil's advocate, but what standalone event would you support involving the war short of it ending then? DarkSide830 (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The use of a nuclear weapon would probably be blurb worthy, ongoing notwithstanding. Otherwise... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait. Sham or not, this is certainly a story. Crimea was a similar situation. Whether or not Russia's annexation is recognized, if their people are there and it's being operated as part of Russia then it is notable. I don't see the point of getting concerned about legitimacy - the linked article will explain that to people. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Crimea was not being covered in "ongoing" at the time. This is. No point in having the war at ongoing if we are going to keep nominating developments for blurbs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Rigged votes don't really change anything of substance. Nothing that isn't already covered by the Ongoing 90.210.230.246 (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait, for the results to be released but generally support as this is an important escalation/development. Not really getting the views that this would 'advance Russian propaganda' as the alternative blurb covers that aspect or we shouldn't include because it will be rigged because we featured 2014 Crimean status referendum twice in fact before the referendum of that concluded and then again once the results of that were released. Tweedle (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait until the results are official.
DinoSoupCanada (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – Coverage Saturday includes AP BBC. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As it has every Saturday this year. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So? -- Sca (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So it's still Saturday's story, nobody has results. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Post something when actual annexation occurs. We do post national election and referenda results but this isn't it. These are sham votes conducted by an occupying foreign power, with results pre-determined by Putin, and totally illegal under international law. Posting an ITN item on these "referenda" would give them a perception of legitimacy, which we should not be doing. Nsk92 (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, As the war is ongoing, the results won't change anything. Alex-h (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    your statement "the results won't change anything" is completely reckless. It's clear that the result will be in favor of annexation with Russia. Any attempt by Ukraine to regain its territory will already be considered an attack on the Russian Federation. The invasion will open a new and much more cruel phase. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Or just as cruel as it has been, though newly affecting many more people. It's still not yet known if Ukraine will attempt to regain the territory by invading it and attacking Russian occupants. Call me optimistic, but maybe it'll pursue legal and diplomatic remediation, prompting less death and misery. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait I will support if (or realistically, when) Russia announces they're planning to annex 15% of Ukraine's territory. That's a fairly significant escalation. RE: what Nsk92 said, I think we can phrase the blurb in a way that describes the event without implying that these sham referendums have any legal legitimacy.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If Russia proceeds to annex the territories, the referendums will have de facto legitimacy as they would be the impetus for such action, even if they are unrecognised by most nation states. This should be expected to happen on Thursday, as the annexation bill is expected to be voted on by the Duma then. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  08:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Cherry Valentine[edit]

Article: Cherry Valentine (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https:bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-63006004, https:theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/sep/23/cherry-valentine-rupaul-drag-race-uk-dies-drag-performer-george-ward
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.

 174.113.161.1 (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should be fixed now :) XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 22[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime


RD: Dave Barrow[edit]

Article: Dave Barrow (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Toronto Star; CTV News
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Long enough with 500+ words of prose. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found where they are expected. Earwig found no troubles. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Donald M. Blinken[edit]

Article: Donald M. Blinken (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6], NYT, BBC, AP
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: Father of Antony Blinken – Muboshgu (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This wikibio seems a little stubby with only 319 words of prose. The Career section with merely four sentences (I moved one of the five out into the next section.) seems particularly thin. There should be more to write about this guy, right? What did he do while carrying those listed big titles? Would this be useful in some way? --PFHLai (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PFHLai, how does one define a "stub"? WP:STUBDEF suggests 1500 characters / 300 words, and this has 1820 characters / 319 words. There's not that much to say about him from my archival searches, but perhaps that source can provide another sentence or two. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oh, c'mon, Muboshgu. It is technically not a stub but reads and looks like a stub! Do we want nicer things on MainPage or not? Or do we post whatever just happens to pass the minimum standard? This nom still has several days of eligibility remaining. If there are things to enrich this wikibio, please add to it. I just added a sentence to make it 355 words long now. --PFHLai (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Now it's at 2901 characters and 498 words. There's plenty there. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the expansion, Muboshgu. Looking good. Earwig has no complaints. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Khmer Rouge Tribunal ends[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Khmer Rouge Tribunal (talk · history · tag) and Khieu Samphan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia pronounces its final judgement on the genocide by the Khmer Rouge, as appeals by Khieu Samphan (pictured) were rejected and sentence of life in prison upheld. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, Al Jazeera

 2001:268:C1C1:BD24:31BB:C6B1:1AD7:DCD7 (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics[edit]

Article: Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​American mathematician and computer scientist Daniel Spielman is awarded the Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics. (Post)
News source(s): New Scientist Nature, Scientific American
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I'm prepared to expand the article further. Nature, Scientific American and New Scientist all have this on their front page, so it is a notable prize, even if a relatively new one. Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose. These are not ITNR prizes, and they are not sufficiently in the news to warrant a blurb. Sandstein 11:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality alone ITNR is not a requirement for posting anything. Most items we post are not previously approved through ITNR. In fact I can't find a single item currently listed on the ITN box which is on ITNR, nor can I find any rules that say that we cannot post items which are not on ITNR. That being said, the target article is NOT up to the quality we expect on the main page. The bolded article contains very little useful biographical information about the subject beyond their job title, a trite description of their work, and a list of awards. It's merely a CV masquerading as an article, and not even a good CV at that. --Jayron32 12:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics[edit]

Article: Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Peter Shor, David Deutsch, Charles H. Bennett and Gilles Brassard are awarded the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics for their work in quantum computing. (Post)
News source(s): New Scientist Nature, Scientific American
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I'm prepared to expand the articles further. Nature, Scientific American and New Scientist all have this on their front page, so it is a notable prize, even if a relatively new one. Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment Might be best to merge this with the above blurb regarding the Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics, just to save some space Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. These are not ITNR prizes, and they are not sufficiently in the news to warrant a blurb. Sandstein 11:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose though I would not have an issue if we covered all three Breakthrough Awards in one nomination (yes we're not going to name winners), given that while there's no mainstream coverage of these, I'm seeing SciAm and Nature coverage. We may need to do something like "The Breakthrough Awards are named, including in Life Sciences to Demis Hassabis and John Jumper for developing DeepMind." (the one that is leading the reports I'm seeing). --Masem (t) 01:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 21[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Saul Kripke[edit]

Article: Saul Kripke (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY 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: Influential philosopher. NY Times obit published 21 September. Thriley (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This is a longer article (6000+ words) with quite a few footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Dean Caswell[edit]

Article: Dean Caswell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kapil Narayan Tiwari[edit]

Article: Kapil Narayan Tiwari (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Pioneer Sambad
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: Indian MLA. Curbon7 (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Greg Lee (basketball)[edit]

Article: Greg Lee (basketball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Angeles 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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tom Benner[edit]

Article: Tom Benner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: John Hamblin[edit]

Article: John Hamblin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Sydney Morning Herald; ABC News
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Allan M. Siegal[edit]

Article: Allan M. Siegal (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Mobilization in Russia[edit]

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


Article: 2022 Russian mobilization (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Russian president Vladimir Putin announces partial mobilization in the country. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Russian president Vladimir Putin announces partial mobilization in the country, calling 300,000 reservists to active service.
News source(s): CNN, etc
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The first such step in Russia since WWII and front page news in some outlets which may justify blurbing in addition to ongoing invasion item. Article appears generally ok, but further copyedit is welcome. Brandmeistertalk 20:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - he mobilized troops in February didn't he, moving them to the border with Ukraine prior to the invasion? I'd have thought the blurb would need to be more specific about what's changed... as I understand it conscription may be on the cards now...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, he did not. Russia started its illegal invasion mainly with contract soldiers. The professional army. A mobilization means 'random' civilians will be conscripted and forced to fight in ukraine or face punishment of up to 15 years in prison for refusal. Your last sentence is exactly what has happened. Just that conscription will be happening now, has started today and isn't a maybe anymore. 188.118.189.42 (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait: (ec) while possibly a major development for the invasion, I'd rather wait to see how does this deploy, because this could easily be relegated to Ongoing -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound 20:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom. This is already at ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose This is why we have the ongoing.
Masem (t) 21:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait This is mostly covered by ongoing, I think the 4 upcoming referendums in the LPR, DPR and two other Ukrainian regions (and potential annexation afterwards) might be the bigger story in all this. I do think this is the beginning of a major escalation which could be blurb worthy even with the war in ongoing, but it's not there yet. ✨ 4 🧚‍♂am KING  21:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (for now) – notable escalation in the war but actual implementation/effect is unknown and might not be known for some time. Ongoing remains sufficient for this imo. The referendums for LPR, DPR, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia are likely the next event that would warrant a blurb, barring massive escalations and/or discovery of further atrocities. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: Russia has started mobilizing its population for military service, and it's significant independent of the invasion. 213.233.108.79 (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait to improve the article. I saw the references and then the Russian version, and it looks like it's a translation so I marked the talk page. 213.233.108.79 (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The nominated article does not seem to be reliable and perhaps that's because it's based on Russian sources. For example, it says "Previously, mobilization in Russia was announced only twice: at the beginnings of World War I and the Great Patriotic War during World War II." This is not correct as there were multiple mobilisations during the Russo-Japanese War (source). Andrew🐉(talk) 22:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The heavy use of Russian language sources is clearer now as the talk page says "This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Мобилизация в России (2022) from the Russian Wikipedia." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support a major event being reported on most news outlets. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|𝕽𝕴𝕻 🇬🇧|☎️|📄 01:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support a significant escalation of the war that is widely covered. BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose In an ongoing war, it's only natural that dead/wounded/captured/missing soldiers be replaced, somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Added alt-blurb. Accelerate! 5.44.170.26 (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose covered by the on-going item. This is very much a part of Russia's invasion. Polyamorph (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I want to support this largely based on the quality of the article, but Andrew's comment about inaccurate information is concerning. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose we really should not be arbitrary about this; all these items are covered by ongoing. Banedon (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support. Headline news around the world and a substantial escalation of the conflict. Yes it's part of the wider conflict already in the Ongoing section, but the article is excellent. That's enough to tip me into supporting an otherwise borderline nomination. Modest Genius talk 11:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose after a long thought. I acknowledge the fact that this is a major news in the whole story, but it's still just a move made by one of the sides in the conflict. If we want to cover this with a blurb apart from the ongoing item, we should perhaps focus on the protests against the policy that resulted in mass arrests throughout the country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm not certain this is newsworthy enough. I'm trying to figure out what would merit a separate blurb on Russia's end. I think the only thing that would qualify would be if they went completely to guns over butter. But this is still just a partial mobilization. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose There seems to be some sort of hierarchy in people's minds where a blurb is "better" or a promotion from ongoing. It's not; it's arguably better to be ongoing as they stay there until pulled. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Masem, Andrew, Kiril. Domestic opposition to the call-up seems more interesting. [8] [9] [10]Sca (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, Per above, it is still ongoing.Alex-h (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Very significant as the first mobilization in Russia since World War II. Already has resulted in large protests and a large emigration (as Sca noted) making it even more significant. Pithon314 (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. One of the most important topics this week. It's not every day that a European country mobilizes the population, breaking through every news source. PLATEL (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, maybe with blurb mentioning protests. Khuylo Prez deciding to flood the battlefield with reservists is definitely important development and maybe even breaking point. Damn, one more failed exam and I'll have to choose between frontline and prison. a!rado (CT) 22:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - This is clearly more of a news than all other current ITN items put together. This level of mobilisation has not been seen in Europe in at least several decades. Filing this under ongoing does not suffice. Daß Wölf 01:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Conditional support – We should not have both a blurb and an entry in "ongoing". If we agree for this to run as a blurb, and I think the significance of the development justifies it, we should remove the item from ongoing for as long as the blurb is up. Schwede66 02:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree that an item should generally not be in "Ongoing" if it has a related blurb, and the Bucha posting should be considered an oversight and not a precedent. However, I don't believe we have any codified procedures on handling this. —Bagumba (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support Yes, it's covered under ongoing, but this is a major development and has received widespread, global, coverage. Schwede66's idea of suspending the ongoing mention might be a good solution. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Ongoing exists for a reason. Gotitbro (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - I'm beginning to think that Masem has a point. We must remember that it is important to determine whether or not these news items, if they had occurred independently of the Russo-Ukraine War, would have been considered sufficiently significant and newsworthy as individual blurb postings on ITN. I think we're finding that we are getting so emotionally caught up in the outcomes and machinations of a highly unpopular war that we might be unwittingly inserting systemic bias into the equation. I don't think we would be posting these sorts of blow-by-blow developments for any other war in any other part of the globe; we certainly haven't done so for previous wars to my knowledge.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.

RD: Darrell Mudra[edit]

Article: Darrell Mudra (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [11] [12]
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support. Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: Muboshgu Do you have a ref for the coaching table? Otherwise this is good to go. SpencerT•C 18:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Spencer, much of the table is sourced in prose, especially tenures, single season team records, and postseason/bowls. Conference records will be tougher. Sports Reference, for instance, only includes the "major" schools. It can be done, but it's a bit of work, and is it really necessary? ITN doesn't require everything be cited, just the major stuff. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I will let others decide. I looked at the existing references and probably 90% seems covered, like the overall school record, but not year-by-year stuff covered in the table, which is why I brought that up. (e.g. my spot check on [13] showed that the prose is appropriately covered, but groups 3 years of Adams State record, so I don't know where the info for the individual seasons come from. SpencerT•C 17:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Even the Adams State Hall of Fame page just lists the overall record, without a season-by-season breakdown. I'm sure it can be cited if I put more time into it, but this level of citation shouldn't be necessary as plenty of it is cited and nobody is challenging specific season-by-season records. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If I may jump in here: Is it a good idea to remove from the stats table the less important details that are too hard to verify? It's like the Filmography and Discography sections of wikibios of people in the entertainment industry. Things should be referenced as much as reasonably achievable. While I don't think we need perfection there to qualify for RD, there should not be eye-catching stretches of unreferenced materials on the nominated wikipage. Can the table be simplified to reduce the work needed to get sourcing done? --PFHLai (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Raju Srivastav[edit]

Article: Raju Srivastav (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Khaleej 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: Start class, well sourced Venkat TL (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marked ready after 3 supports including mine.--Venkat TL (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 20[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Émile Antonio[edit]

Article: Émile Antonio (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): OGC Nice
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: French footballer in the 60s. Basic, but will be good enough once the few missing references are added. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • At 972 B (170 words) of readable prose, it needs some expansion in addition to referencing. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Maarten Schmidt[edit]

Article: Maarten Schmidt (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; Caltech
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First reported today (September 19); died on September 17. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Dutch-born American astronomer who measured the distances of quasars, article cited, updated. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted to RD. Relatively short but meets minimum standards. SpencerT•C 18:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Harry Langford[edit]

Article: Harry Langford (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News (Canadian Press); Calgary Stampeders
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) 12:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Vernon Dvorak[edit]

Article: Vernon Dvorak (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [14]
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: Dvorak revolutionized the way we monitor tropical cyclones with the creation of the Dvorak technique. This tool enables us to assess storm intensity with great accuracy over open oceans where there is no in-situ data available. His work is regarded as invaluable to tropical cyclone forecasting and monitoring. Currently working on digging up info to expand the article but I'm having little success. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It's a stub at 1330 B (207 words) of readable prose. Is there anything more that we can add? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Herb Lusk[edit]

Article: Herb Lusk (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Philadelphia Inquirer; WPVI-TV (ABC); WTXF-TV (Fox)
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) 03:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Looks good enough. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Mostly good enough, but one part of the professional career section makes little sense to me: In the third game of his career on September 27, 1976, he fumbled the ball with 12 seconds remaining in the first half after he opted to run instead of running out the clock. This led to the Eagles' 10–3 over the Washington Redskins, with Philadelphia ultimately losing the game in sudden-death overtime. Could you reword this? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Maury Wills[edit]

Article: Maury Wills (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN, LA Times, NY Times, 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.

Nominator's comments: This one will need work, but he was awesome and I'll put in whatever effort is needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From 38 sourced cited to 60, ready for review.[15] – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) 2022 Carlsen–Niemann controversy[edit]

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: 2022 Carlsen–Niemann controversy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Five-time reigning world chess champion Magnus Carlsen (pictured) resigns after one move in a match against Hans Niemann amid allegations of cheating against the latter. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Five-time reigning world chess champion Magnus Carlsen forfeits a match after one move to 45th-ranked Hans Niemann (pictured), who snapped his 53-win streak earlier this month.
News source(s): Guardian ABC Australia
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A bit left field, but a big scandal in the chess world. Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Depends The article notes Levon Aronian saying young players are often suspected of cheating and high-level players are "pretty much paranoid". Is this true? If so, what makes this episode different? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, MC is the five-time reigning WC, and walked out/forfeited a game after one move, so he basically disrupted the tournament directly in protest. Not sure if your edit summary was rhetorical, but cheating would be from getting external assistance ie looking up suggestions from a chess supercomputer during toilet breaks, or other smuggling/transmission events Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, thanks. As his title wasn't on the line, and the tournament seemingly continued with him in it, I think I'll pass. The lack of any actual allegation of cheating in this game or the earlier tournament he quit also lessens the oomph, to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment @Bumbubookworm: Could you please explain how this is notable? It appears to be just an online game. NytharT.C 04:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The alt blurb appears to be saying Hans Niemann made one move; I think he made 2 moves and Magnus Carlsen made 1 move (see the board in the article). NytharT.C 08:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was an online match, but it was part of the Champions Chess Tour 2022, a prestigious tournament. Davey2116 (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Niemann made two moves, but only one before buddy flipped out; I've changed "by" to "to", hope that helps! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. It's been much discussed because of how unusual it is, but there has been (as far as I was last updated on this) no formal accusation, no formal investigation, no clear aftermath or clear lasting effects on the circuit. It's a lot of murmuring, rumor, thoughts but little concrete facts. Just a lot of speculation about what happened. It may be worth it to consider again if significant moves with tangible consequences on the field are made, such as truly bombshell accusations or an incredibly disruptive investigative launched. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree that it's not fit for the main page, but I want to point out that it's remarkable either way - Either it's actual cheating in over-the-board play by one of the best players in the world, or it's extreme unprofessionalism and borderline witch hunt instigation by the world champion. There isn't any concrete evidence of cheating, but it's still a major event regardless of the outcome. AviationFreak💬 05:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh for sure. I do agree it's a major thing. The intangibility (for lack of a better word) created by lack of a straightforward and formal accusation is, in its own way, remarkable even if that very intangibility is a major reason for me why it isn't a good fit. I do wish it had more of a... shape (again, lack of a better word, it's late...) to it to qualify because of how fascinating and remarkable it all has been. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose - (edit conflict) While this is certainly the biggest news in the chess community worldwide, I don't think it warrants a blurb. This was not a major event (not even OTB) and the game itself (where the one-move resignation occurred) is likely not notable enough for an article (the article covers the controversy as a whole, which started a couple weeks ago). As much as I want this to be a blurb because of my love of chess, I don't think it meets the blurb standard. AviationFreak💬 05:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Support (Altblurb) The more I look into this, the idea of today's hottest grandmaster and reigning (but not defending) world openweight champion rage quitting to a relative noob for the second consecutive loss on a previously stellar record is a pretty big deal. Imagine if Amanda Nunes just up and left the first next time she was eyepoked or kicked in the junk by Julianna Peña and the ref didn't see it. Granted, in her case, such an unsportsmanlike tantrum would cost her the strap, but chess is too much a game of wits to draw too fine an analogy with "human cockfighting". Plus, it would show those regulars in the peanut gallery (who know who they are) that ITN is not purely a Caroline royal mouthpiece. Again, the kings and queens in chess are different than in "human chess", but you get my point, one small step for a pwn. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Would expect at least a formal investigation with reported findings and penalties, not mere allegations. That said, Houston Astros sign stealing scandal and Deflategate were not blurbed.—Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose – It's a relatively minor tournament, but if this article were of particularly high quality, I would definitely be open to seeing it featured. Right now, it's unclear from the article what the impact of this issue is. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. There isn't a lot of chess news on ITN other than winning a championship. This would be different and interesting. 331dot (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But pretty much every sports-related blurb, not just chess, is about winning a championship. —Bagumba (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And every world champion typically played the game through to whatever may be his or her equivalent to checkmate (or inescapably near). Except in pro wrestling, of course, for screwy reasons. This is (maybe?) a brand new low. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Except one certain ITNR item about rowing! Howard the Duck (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Allegations and innuendo are improper per WP:SUSPECT. And the idea that there was cheating in a game after just one move is absurd. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The cheating is insinuated to have occurred in a different match between these two players earlier this month. Davey2116 (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support Huge news in the chess world, certainly has gotten some RS coverage due to the more... sensational aspects of the story. However, I see it is also nominated for DYK and I'd be just as content to see it featured there. Davey2116 (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support Interesting, unusual, in the news. Great way to dilute the usual postings of random unelected monarchs deaths and wars in places where wars have been endemic for centuries 5.44.170.26 (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Unusual situation, but forfeiting one match in an obscure tournament isn't much of an impact. Carlsen hasn't even accused Niemann of anything - it's all gossip and speculation. I do find chess interesting but Carlsen's increasingly eccentric whims (e.g. his decision not to defend the world championship) aren't suitable for ITN. We'll blurb the new world champion when that happens next year. Modest Genius talk 12:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – A niche sideshow without general significance. – Sca (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A career-defining series of upsets. If it worked for X-Pac, it can work for this plucky kid, too. In a general notability way, I mean, details better vary. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Does chess have kayfabe the same way wrestling does? It honestly wouldn't surprise me if it did. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I only learned it had cheating today, no clue. But I've always figured this is the "sport" that retained the primal competitive nature while wrestling stayed athletic. Again, absolutely an assumption, no reason to trust it. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Commen The candidates tournament was a more significant chess event. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Big story as Carlsen is the world's top rated player and this is definitely getting coverage. Article looks fine.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – Not generally in the news. Absent from primary RS main pages AP, BBC, Guardian, DW, France 24 (AFP) and NYT. Only CNN offered an account under its 'Live Updates' heading. – Sca (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "The cheating row that is rocking chess", says The Guardian. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Local boy quietly makes good, politely interjects the CBC. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. About as big of news as it gets in the chess world. Probably bigger news than the INT/R items we have for yearly chess tournaments. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment I'm leaning oppose here, but only because there is quite a lot of backstory and circumstance that you need to know to understand the significance of the story. That isn't something we can give in a short blurb, and it doesn't appear that we have anywhere to send people that they can learn all this in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments immediately above and Gotitbro's comments below. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Chess controversies of this scale are extremely rare and a potential cheating incident against the reigning World Champion is a major deal. I remember that the last major cheating controversy involved Borislav Ivanov, but it was a suspected case at tournaments with significantly lower rated players. The article is also in very good shape. Great work!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment The lead para does not make clear the significance of this for chess. Why is this/should be in the news now and not when the first allegation of cheating occurred? Why is "their" used in "losing their first match"? And for a continuing controversy/scandal whose scale is not clear (in the form of no official action) this appears to be better suited for DYK than ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's not about cheating now, it's about the world champion throwing a match to a mediocre opponent, and "their" is tidier than "Carlsen and Niemann's". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – Meh. ZZZzzz.... – Sca (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 00:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose This feels to me more like Carlsen's personal drama. Carlsen also announced last year that he would not defend his title in the 2023 world championship unless one particular other player competed, and subsequently announced that he won't be playing in the tournament just a couple months ago. We don't really know why he resigned this game, or what's going on. TarkusABtalk/contrib 01:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose This is certainly something interesting in the chess world, but the article goes too far to make claims this is a controversy. This really should be a section in Carlsen's own article, barring further developments of the story. --Masem (t) 01:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose - I'm not inherently opposed to this being posted, but I struggle to see the main page relevance when nothing has been proven. If Niemann did cheat, then I'd support this. Anarchyte (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's been proven that Carlsen forfeited a match/resigned after one move. That's highly controversial. I don't know what sport or game you find best, but if its top-ranked player(s) "took the ball and went home", wouldn't that matter regardless of why? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I completely agree that it's a news story. However, we didn't blurb when Lewis Hamilton failed to attend the compulsory award ceremony after losing the 2021 F1 season. The blurb we ran in ITN for the end of the season didn't even mention the controversy. It was relevant to those that follow the sport, but it wasn't important enough for ITN. Anarchyte (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Did/does that controversy have an article? Was it nominated? If not, that's the difference; can't hit what we can't see. Less objectively, I feel pulling out of a race after one lap would have been more equivalent than skipping a ceremony (with advance notice) after losing normally. Especially if it was for no apparent reason (rather than, say, crashing the car). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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: Brian Binnie[edit]

Article: Brian Binnie (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [16]
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: Died September 15, announced today – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Valeri Polyakov[edit]

Article: Valeri Polyakov (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; The Moscow 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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks ready to go - The page is classified as a good article. Besides the categories (which could be reorganized better/organized in alphabetical order) there are no issues with the page. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Nothing to complain. Grimes2 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Clean and neat, looks ready to go — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizstomania716 (talkcontribs) 18:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted A couple of outstanding "citation needed" tags, but only on relatively minor points. Generally well cited.—Bagumba (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support blurb I mean, why stop there? He is a record holder after all and we did post the guy who was the first to go into open space or wahtever 5.44.170.26 (talk) 11:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is a GA, so in that sense it would be a lovely page to feature. But even as a space travel aficionado, I was unfamiliar with him and his particular record. The first spacewalk is (to me personally) more famous. The shortness of the article (despite it being a GA) suggests to me that he isn't really a major figure. Perhaps on a similar level as ~ten of the twelve people who have walked on the moon. I don't expect we'll be blurbing most of them either. I'm fairly neutral on the idea, though. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting support for RD, neutral for a blurb due to significance - most people that go to space end up doing something for the first time. That said I wouldn't oppose it.Polyamorph (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) State funeral of Elizabeth II[edit]

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: Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The state funeral of Queen Elizabeth II (pictured) takes place at Westminster Abbey in London. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I'd like to think it is worthy of a blurb because of the wide amount of coverage of it (similar to her actual death) XxLuckyCxX (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose It is fair to add an event to ongoing if it has a long tail, as this one has. But the funeral is not sufficiently distinct from the death and mourning period to warrant a separate blurb. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Plus Elizabeth II is already the featured article, so an additional blurb about her on ITN is completely unnecessary. rawmustard (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The featured article, featured image and DYK are all centred around her because of the fact her state funeral is today XxLuckyCxX (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, and it is in ongoing. If it is blurbed it will still be on the main page for up to a week or so. I originally supported the blurb but this is too much. Let the ongoing go tomorrow and get back on with our lives! Polyamorph (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support It's much more in the news than the current ITN blurbs. And it would be consistent with the other main page sections today, which are focussed on this major event. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment This specific article is already in ongoing. If the nomination is suggesting swapping the ongoing for a blurb, that seems alright. I would also think it's reasonable to blurb once it drops from ongoing after the funeral concludes. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That would be okay with me & just let it move down the ITN list naturally, yes. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose we've had some discussion about this below. It is currently in ongoing and that will be removed tomorrow. Polyamorph (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Largely talked about and has been long awaited Prodrummer619 (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The funeral is a known consequence of the death. A somewhat analogous comparison is the swearing in of a head of government after an election - there is no need to blurb the swearing in because it is a known consequence of the election outcome. It is sufficient for the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II to remain as an Ongoing item for another 8 (or more) hours. But I don't see the need for the article to be a blurb again. Chrisclear (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose There are already plenty of references to Her Majesty and the monarchy on the front page. Further, this is an ongoing event. No need to add to ITN. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – With all due respect to her late majesty, coverage of this royal saga has been omnipresent – and overly detailed for non-Commonwealth audiences. – Sca (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Blurbs are not awards we give for "worthiness" or "level of coverage". Ongoing is sufficient. --Jayron32 15:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose We had the death, and the current ongoing. The ceremony is not the important matter compared to either. As established with the ongoing (in addition to TFA being about the the Queen) Masem (t) 15:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose does not meet WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Also already in ongoing, featured article and already was an ITN item. Enough. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I struck part of my comment because I, actually, totally forgot that we ran the death itself lmao. The death was blurbed, so blurbing this is unnecessary. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support swapping out the ongoing for a blurb—if for no other reason than it is the largest gathering of heads of state that we may not see the likes of it again. (This American is saying this knowing that it is unlikely to change the outcome here at all.) Imzadi 1979  16:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - we covered her death, and we included the general mourning period and funeral in Ongoing. We don't need to reblurb the actual funeral. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose It's getting a bit ridiculous now, isn't it? The front page currently has an Elizabeth II Featured Article, the article in Ongoing, every single DYK article is about her or the monarchy, and on top of that she's also the Featured Picture. Perhaps we should replace the Wikipedia logo in her honor as well? YD407OTZ (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support although I realize this is futile at this point, and I recognize the consensus is firmly in the oppose camp. This doesn't happen every day. The news coverage of the death and funeral has been intense and ongoing. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - This is not the Commonwealth Wikipedia. This is The English Wikipedia. --RockstoneSend me a message! 17:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Already in Ongoing, Elizabeth II is TFA and all of today's DYK hooks are items related to the funeral. Perhaps all a bit too much. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I commented in that discussion. At the time, I didn't realize ALL of the DYK hooks were related to the funeral. Holy shit. Perhaps I'm not in such a hurry to support this after all. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: QE II[edit]

Article: Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
News source(s): [17], [18]

Nominator's comments: Queen has been laid to rest. I suggest removal at 00:00 UTC. NoahTalk 22:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support but I would let it run one or two more days max. Its still has a small news tail. --Masem (t) 22:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)