Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/August 2021

Oppose: while I am aware of the rarity of this, this appears to a purely domestic matter. (I doubt whether it is truly an thing that should be in Wikipedia, but that can wait.) It is not of a weight now for ITN. --PaulBetteridge (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and by "domestic", I mean literally to do with a household --PaulBetteridge (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose yes, worst mass shooting in a decade but a domestic crime with likely no ongoing impact to the already stringent laws on firearms in the UK. Utterly tragic though. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I suspect it will be largely a domestic UK event. Nigej (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As were the 2010 Cumbria shootings? Not sure if that was nominated or posted. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From that article's talk page it seems it was an "in the news" item. Personally I'd still oppose. Big story in the UK but, sadly, pretty common round the world, I suspect. Nigej (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbria was the third worst mass shooting in the history of the UK so that was perfectly reasonable to post. This event is not ground-breaking at all, just tragic. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, because it's not important enough. Being rare in the UK doesn't make it notable enough to post. The killer was a lone gunman & there's no indication of any ideological motive. Jim Michael (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose Yes, incredibly rare in the UK, but the previous event (2010 Cumbria shootings) was a mass shooting as we understand it including some random members of the public being targeted, whereas this appears to be a tragic event confined to victims in one household. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note Although it now appears this may not be case (that the victims were from one household - the Guardian quotes a witness as seeing a man "shooting randomly at people"), so waiting to see what transpires. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he went through the streets shooting at passers-by. Why did you think it was all one household? — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - probably opposing per above, since the death toll is relatively low. But also noting that the expansion is below 1500 bytes at present so would need some expansion if it were to be posted. — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unusual crime here in the UK, but it would open the door to a flood of shootings in other places where they are nowhere near as rare. Unless this leads to a further tightening of gun laws (which seems unlikely and can be considered at the time if that happens) I don't see how this has any long-term impact. Notable enough for an article, not significant enough for an ITN blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 10:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess actually fairly likely, whether directly by primary legislation, or in terms of the practical application of it in terms of the checks and standards police operationally apply to issue and renew shotgun licences. ("Will you give us access to your social-media accounts?" "No!" "We'll be in touch.") But agree that's a separate issue and possible future article, other than to the extent it's already under discussion in reliable sources and successfully addressed in the nominated article. I must disagree with the slippery-slope argument. One applies one's crampons, rather than getting out the most waxed pair of skis one can find. Shootings where nowhere near as rare will generate less coverage in reliable sources, consequently fewer articles in the first place, and less likely to be of even serviceable quality in any timely manner. And even if such do arise, this can be addressed at the ITN stage simply by pointing this out. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination, prompted (though not directly suggested) by the observations of Effy Midwinter on the article talkpage. This is not, as may have initially been believed given the understandably confused nature of the reporting, a single-household domestic incident, nor one without a political or ideological dimension, per almost all of the opposing !votes. Indeed it has particular significance for being not just a rare UK mass shooting, but the first I'm aware of there with apparent elements of incel movement and misogynist terrorism as either the motivation, or at the least a framing rationalisation of the violence. Initially the leading UK news story ahead of Afghanistan, and still featuring prominently. Presently appearing on the top four stories on CNN's world news page, so not without general importance, either. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Re-opening nomination due to arguments brought up by commenter above, as well as some opposition related to article quality. Article was closed 8 hours after nomination so IMO is worthwhile to open up for a little longer to let discussion play out. The article and the story has undergone considerable development since initial reports so I agree that it's worth re-opening for additional discussion. Spencer^T•C 03:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying about quality concerns; the article's rather harshly marked as "Start-Class" at present hopefully a slightly lagging indicator, and it's maybe more B-adjacent at this point. The sourcing seems pretty robust, certainly. But if the first rough draft of history is still a little too rough, then so be it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and would have before it had a supposedly OK motive, but it was closed when I first saw it. English mass shooting, unusual enough. Plus, the current blurbs are stale. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As per IP109, somewhat tragically still leading UK news story ahead of the fall of an entire country to a fundamentalist Islamist movement. And I really don't see that "Summer Olympics close (ceremony pictured)" is in the news any more, if it ever was. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support now it's clear the domestic crime was just the start of an extremely unusual (for the UK) mass shooting with wider implications (the incel movement). Article quality is fine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support given our intent here is to encourage and reward improvements to WP, and the target is an entirely new article of some quality. There is certainly reasonable debate on both sides of the significance question, but "qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another" (per ITN criteria) GreatCaesarsGhost 12:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very unusual mass shooting .Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support now we have more information, effectively (and being quoted as) a terrorist event. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose While the potential connection to incel aspects may be new, we still have the fact that this may simply be a person that was having mental health issues, and still all seems like a "lone wolf" issues and not the start of a fresh wave of potential violence from incels. --Masem (t) 15:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely a connection to incel culture, as the article now pretty clearly establishes, which I think is highly notable in itself. That's not to say it's clear-cut between that and mental-health issues: it needn't be -- and likely isn't -- entirely one, or entirely the other. The two may have interacted -- the perpetrator himself essentially claimed that movement had worsened his own mental health -- or it might be more of a framing rationale. It's certainly lone-wolf in that this isn't an organised attack or conspiracy. But that's true of many incidents classed as terrorism, under the 'self-radicalised' category. Or more precisely, radicalised under the influence of many others, but not with the explicit purpose of this sort of violence. I don't think the 'fresh wave' idea is suggested as part of why this is especially notable or newsworthy. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why is this reopened? The death toll is low on a global scale, worse incidents happen all the time elsewhere. The guy was a nutter, we knew that all along. Just because people start talking about "terrorism" doesn't suddenly change what happened. And we're not a news ticker. — Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I would more support posting if this led to some extended background check being implemented since this guy was apparently a clear danger from social media posts and family reports, but article improvements and the new information seem generally sufficient. Kingsif (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The background checks thing is being more and loudly mooted. The Telegraph had a retired chief constable commenting on this yesterday, and according to the BBC review of The Papers, they've another story tomorrow on this being likely to actually happen -- apparently not yet on their own website, nor is it on the BBC's, so not usable in the article at least until then. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

support - Rare event in the UK. Looks ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think any kind of immediate action against gun violence is either likely or, frankly, possible in any case, so I don't see why that's the bar for so many. That will come later. In the meantime, we're left with one of Britain's worst terror attacks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so this is an incel shooting. It's unusual in the UK, and it's very sad indeed. We have a law that seems to suggest that incel shootings don't qualify as terrorism. It seems odd (to me) that men who find life challenging when they can't have sex with women resort to hating women and then killing them. There may well be underlying issues that are yet to be discussed/released. I still oppose posting this kind of thing, even in the UK where such things are rare as rocking-horse shit. It's sad that there's a section of "society" that feels obliged to destroy another section because of their misgivings. Wikipedia should recognise it in the context of the world, i.e. it's nothing in the big scheme, but it's hugely societally important to recognise in the UK that we maybe dropped the ball on incel culture and its terrifying effects. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it's not important enough. Though rare in Europe, mass shootings with higher death tolls occur many times each year in the world. Being unusual in its location doesn't make it more important, even though that's the main reason for the Western media being intensely interested in this after having almost ignored the 2021 Spin Boldak shooting, whose death toll was about 100 & which wasn't nominated here. This isn't being treated as terrorism, and even if it were it wouldn't be one of the UK's worst terrorist attacks or mass murders. Compared to the Denmark Place fire, Hungerford massacre, Lockerbie bombing, Omagh bombing, 7/7 etc., this is tiny. There's no international angle - unless you count him liking some American things. Jim Michael (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Spin Boldak shooting took place in Afghanistan which, as we all know now, is a warzone. Plymouth is not a warzone. Try to get some perspective that doesn't rely on hyperbolic examples. This was the third-worst mass shooting in the UK, with six dead. In Amurica that would have been a mass shooting that happened last week. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the third most deadly mass shooting in UK history: the Ballymurphy massacre, Bloody Sunday, Kingsmill massacre, Hungerford massacre, Greysteel massacre, Dunblane massacre & Cumbria shootings were all mass shootings in the UK with higher death tolls.

Had this happened in the US, it would have been quickly closed with a fairly strong consensus against posting. Jim Michael (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well either you're being contrary or you don't understand what I'm saying, the IRA (etc) vs the Army aren't part of the thinking of the vox populi. Still, I'm not engaging here, it's a waste of my life. In the US, six dead from mass shooting happens almost every month. In the UK it happens perhaps once a decade. Next. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said mass shootings, you didn't limit it by perpetrator, but even if you do, how do you work out that Plymouth was only the third most deadly? In any case, being rare in its country doesn't make it important to most of our readers or to history. The international media report this prominently because of its rarity, not importance. We wouldn't post a fairly small earthquake due to it being rare in its location. Jim Michael (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're going here for some kind of "record"? I'll defer to your infinite knowledge, and just stick with facts, it's the worst mass shooting in the UK since 2010. Of course, yesterday and tomorrow we'll see worse in the US. I don't know what you're trying to achieve here. Rarity and importance are intrinsically related. Oh dear........ The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could call it the second-worst mass shooting recorded, all the others seem to be massacres (i.e. intention to kill a large homogenous group, not shoot and hope), if we want to get specific. Kingsif (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not massacre is in their titles is mostly due to whether or not that's the common name. I listed mass shootings. Kingsmill is just as much a mass shooting as Plymouth. Hungerford & Cumbria weren't about killing a homogenous group, so how can you say that Plymouth is second? Jim Michael (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On "There's no international angle", per WP:ITN/C, "Voicing an opinion on an item [...] Please do not... [...] oppose an item 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 unproductive." I've read a series of comments from Jim Mitchell about the lack of "importance" of this, and can't discern any operable standard that would apply here to preclude this -- while including any reasonable number of other ITN items at all -- short of ignoring reliable sources as being hopelessly biased, and ignoring what's in the news as playing any part in determining what appears as "In the News". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This incident was and is sufficiently important. This was the worst mass shooting in a decade in England (and indeed more broadly in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). The fact that similar shootings may take place in the USA much more often, or indeed in any other country, is irrelevant. The gun laws in England and Wales are much stronger than in almost any other jurisdiction. (NB the gun laws and their enforcement in Scotland are not identical, and in Northern Ireland a firearm including a handgun may be acquired on the grounds of personal protection). It was not a domestic incident – after killing his mother, the killer then used his shotgun in the streets outside his mother's home, to blast, kill or injure numerous others, each of them strangers, including a three-year-old girl and her father. The 22-year-old white blue-collar killer was a mentally disturbed individual who had had his shotgun licence removed after threatening two youths. After he completed an anger management course, Devon Police then returned to the killer both his shotgun licence and his shotgun. This was despite the fact that five years earlier, without provocation, the killer had assaulted a 25-year-old man and his pregnant girlfriend. According to news reports, the killer had also attacked and beaten up his father. The killer's mother had tried without success to get help for her mentally ill son from social services. The killer posted frequent tirades against women and referred to himself as an incel. Many commenters in the UK media, and UK politicians, have questioned the actions of Devon Police in returning the shotgun licence and the shotgun to a person who was mentally disturbed, and the subsequent decision by Devon Police to classify the mass murders as a single incident of domestic violence. 82.15.254.27 (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably oppose per TRM. But it is a tragic event. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose shootings happen in the UK, as they do in every country, some more than others. However firearms offences aren't all that rare in the UK, this story is only different because there is no element of criminal underworld involvement or gang-warfare. Also I suggested this UK-based story a short while back which had far more long term wider implications and affected far more people both directly and indirectly and that was turned down as "local event" despite it being country-wide. This, whilst tragic, only affects no more than one neighbourhood in a fairly average city, with unlikely any long-term consequences; so lets be consistent. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, shootings in the UK are super-rare. Mass shootings even more so. Trying to equate a post-master story with the worst mass shooting in the UK in a decade is bizarre. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere near as rare as you claim. Yes, statistically given the population and size UK's gun violence rate is low, however there's shootings in urban areas like London, Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool relatively regularly, nearly always gang related or organised crime related, and yes, it's usually targeted against a specific individual. But let's not pretend it doesn't happen at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The claim was about the rarity of mass shootings, not of firearms deaths generally. It would clearly be fallacious to argue that if you wait a while they'll be six deaths in a particular city, so that's comparable to a mass shooting of six people, so I'm certain that's not what you're seeking to do. I can't improve on "bizarre" as a description of the comparison with that other article, and bringing up the lack of success of your own nomination is an especially poor look. Nor as 'turned down as "local event"' even accurate, that was one comment of a whole series of objections, including sustained newsworthiness even within the UK (clearly not applicable here), and specific concerns about the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, I would guess the rate of gang shootings/single-person-target shootings/accidental shootings/basically any not-mass shooting in the UK is much lower than in even just Detroit or [insert Middle Eastern city for equity], let alone other areas of equivalent population to the country, enough to be described as rare in comparison to the world. Because guns are stupid easy to get hold of in many places, so random shootings are stupid common. Kingsif (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a direct comparison to offer framed in those terms for Detroit, but here's a handy sortable table at the country level. (On Middle Eastern cities, I think those are pretty variable: "actually at war" tends to have quite the effect on the stats. (Hi Iraq, Syria.)) But not far off, UK's per-cap gun-murder rate is about 1/20th of the US's (which alarmingly itself isn't even in the top dozen or so "not actually at war" countries). Not to be confused with the total murder rate, of course: there's always people willing to go that extra mile, if they really have to. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we comparing the UK to the US, itself a unique case with regards to gun crime? If anything that table shows that yes, the UK gun crime rate is low but it isn't anything out of the ordinary compared with the rest of the European continent. You cannot seriously compare a place like Plymouth to Detroit, you'd barely be able to compare Plymouth to Plymouth. The fact is domestic incidents happen in Europe too, and sometimes they involve gun, it is a sad fact of life and WP:ROUTINE news most of the time. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added alt now that new social media-firearm license guidance has been outlined. Kingsif (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After not hearing anything about this before, and reading the article, I find that the motivation for posting is at odds with the article itself. The official response is that it's some sort of domestic issue, per the chief constable. This line is immediately followed by an WP:OR section (farmed out to Guardian and YouTube and Reddit) that ponders the societal consequences/causes of such action. Which is completely at odds with the perpetrator's choice of victims. Shortly, the stated reason for re-opening seems tangential at best to the statements of authorities and acts of the perpetrator. I'm sure I can dredge up some good conspiracies surrounding his defense-contractor employer and 5G; but it would be improper to put them in the article absent further authoritative comment.130.233.213.61 (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This incident has now prompted a systematic review of all England and Wales police force's licenses, application processes as well as (upcoming) new statutory guidance. That seems a significant enough impact on the UK's already quite strict gun laws to merit being out of the ordinary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and rightly so. Our government takes gun violence seriously here in the UK, I'm glad to say. That's still a relatively local issue of limited global relevance though, and the shooting itself, although tragic, remains relatively small in impact as far as death and injury toll are concerned. — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about golf club murder? That hurts more (unless you knock out first). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Such a mass killing in a peaceful residential area is significant news for ITN. STSC (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. We almost never post incidents with fewer than 10 deaths, unless there's some significant wider global impact. The San Jose shooting in May had double the deaths, and it was unanimously opposed at ITN. — Amakuru (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but San Jose is in the US, and ITN has the view that US mass shootings are a dime a dozen. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just using body count to evaluate the significance of an event is immoral. STSC (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I've never heard "morality" used as an argument at ITN before, but if we're going down that route then I'd argue the greater immorality would be to declare that 10 people in San Jose are less important than 6 people in Plymouth. The bottom line is, though, we don't ask how moral it this, or how sad we feel, but to question whether it has lasting international or major domestic impact. And I just don't think it does. It's in the news in the UK and in some US outlets yes, but ITN has never been a news-ticker and we need some evidence that this is of wider importance beyond police and government reviews into what went wrong in this instance. — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement "we almost never post incidents with fewer than 10 deaths" is immoral and absurd by any standard. You're saying that man just hasn't killed enough people. STSC (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't. Not as far as ITN is concerned. Although the regulars here do fiercely deny it, WP:MINIMUMDEATHS was actually a thing for a while (indeed, it still exists as a userspace essay). WaltCip-(talk) 12:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't judge UK gun deaths by UK gun death standards, but by 'global' -- meaning US -- ones? Even ignoring that notability is localised (rainstorm in the Atacama = news, rainstorm in Cork = Tuesday) why wouldn't the standard be the global median? Or what's typical for the developed world? Or the global maximum? (Full-scale civil war or it didn't happen.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC) PS/ETA: Just looked at the MINDEATHS essay, not sure whether to be amused or appalled (and not sure to what extent it's satire, and to what degree it's userguide). But I somewhat wryly note that by its 'mass shootings' bul-- eh, point number three, this "should be enough for posting". Except possibly in Belgium.[reply]

Oppose - The totality of the low death toll, the minimal impact and the staleness of this story essentially makes this a non-starter. Yes, the UK is reacting to this by adding more restrictions. They are actually doing what governments are supposed to do all the time, as opposed to the US which functions as a very dubious exception to the rule.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a 'low death toll' by UK standards, as has been pointed out, scratching my head at 'low impact' (on what or whom?), and as to 'staleness' I'd point out that ITN#4 is still "The Summer Olympics close in Tokyo, Japan." Though perhaps in hindsight I should have re-nominated this as soon as I became aware of it... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When an Olympics closes in Tokyo, it stays closed for years. A shooting in Plymouth is more fleeting, like cherry blossoms, post them while they're hot! But yes, less philosophically, your nom's way fresher. Another thing the Chinese Silver Show had going for it was advance notice. For weeks, the regulars all kind of knew it was just a matter of time before they felt compelled to post it. When people think deeper about things, they can still seem fresher later than literal yesterday's news does now. Even Plymouth Rock will still seem fresher to millions in about three months. Face it, mass shootings are difficult sells in this market, you did the best you could, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My renom, for accuracy. Bear in mind that this was nominated days earlier, and I'm just trying to help out with the wikiprocess, futile as that may be. Nor have I done any of the heavy lifting on the content. Olympics is indeed still closed, and but not still in the news. Plymouth shooting is still in the news, albeit no longer leading it or contending with Afghanistan. It's fairly clear to me which is the more useful and accurately described front-page content; editors and process may have different priorities, of course. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Una Stubbs[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 August 11 Template:Cob

At least the article is not a stub[bs]. --180.244.163.23 (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Small

Absolute fucking A* major irony klaxon. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding us all. Great to see ITN looking as vibrant as ever. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Till Death Do Us Part While ITN has snubbed Stubbs, note that her article was the top read for the day, with a larger readership than Gerd Müller and the other minor RDs.Template:Quote

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We fool ourselves that an appearance on Main page will direct readers, only when the article is good enough. Readers go straight there regardless. The main task should just be improving the article, not all lining up to say "it's not good enough yet"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - it was a big shame to see this legend of the British acting scene go by un-notived, so I've fixed up the refs on the article. Looks good to go to me. Any chance of posting it before it slips off the bottom? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ready to go now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --Tone 14:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 11[edit]

(Posted) RD: Peter Fleischmann[edit]

Comment. This is absolutely not "too late". So, you should not have to worry there. I will give this article a detailed read later today. Looks largely good at first glance. But, a quick question for you -- are all of the points on the filmography section covered by ref #11? Similarly the screenwriter section? In addition, I would be curious about the secondary points on each of those bullets e.g. Arkady and Boris Strugatsky's 1964 novel Hard to Be a God, also producer. Should ensure that they are covered by ref #11 or add a separate ref.

PS: Did you mean real life "pleasures" or "pressures". If you meant the former, I am genuinely happy for you. If the latter, I send across my warmest wishes for you to feel better soon. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Pleasures. The ref is rich, has a list (right) which has his functions, often many for one film ("Mitwirking" = participation, didn't know how to say that, "Sprecher" = speaker, narrator, "Regie" = direction, "Drehbuch" = script, screenplay, "Kommentar" = commentary, "Produzent" = producer, "Interviews" = interviewer, "Darsteller" = actor, "Schnitt" = cutter, "Stoff" = theme, "Ton" = sound, "Regie-Assistenz" = assistant director, "Kamera" = camera, ) and prose with more detail to some on the left. There's a link to more details about each film if that's not enough, and some films are covered also by other refs further up. I had no time to check, and still have a DYK nom due today. Thank you for looking into it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Article looks good for homepage / RD. I am assuming good faith WP:AGF on the Filmportal.de ref (currently ref #11) covering of all of the filmography entries that are not covered by in-line refs. RIP. Ktin (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 02:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: David Levene[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 August 10 Template:Cob

Support - Looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 02:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 10[edit]

(Posted) RD: Donald Kagan[edit]

Looks READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 05:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tommy Curtis[edit]

Support Referenced, good depth of coverage. Spencer^T•C 01:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 01:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Neal Conan[edit]

Posted Step hen 03:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Eduardo Martínez Somalo[edit]

Template:Archivetop Template:ITN candidate

Nom. comment Article is fully sourced and ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the refs appear to be WP:PRIMARY though. - Indefensible (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the Policy is still complied with. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor comment. The primary sources policy says: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Though I can't be sure which citations triggered the objection above, the annual volumes of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, cited several times, are the official published record of the Holy See and require no interpretation. They allow us to cite specific dates the deceased got or changed jobs. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Wish there was a little more detail about his career than just positions and dates, but there are a few additional sentences. Meets minimum standards. Spencer^T•C 15:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets the RD requirements JW 1961^Talk 21:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 10:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Lionel Messi joins PSG[edit]

Oppose just like we opposed him leaving Barcelona a few days ago. We wouldn't post a transfer for any other sport. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivebottom

(Posted) RD: Tony Esposito[edit]

Comment article is good to go now. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good team effort, everyone. Didn't think this one would make it. Teemu08 (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is worthy of such a great player now. Well done. --Jayron 32 23:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Andrew Cuomo to resign[edit]

Support Was just about to nominate this myself. Currently featured on de.wiki as well. Question: Should the blurb mention the New York COVID-19 nursing home scandal as well as the sexual harassment scandal? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He would never have resigned over the nursing homes alone so I think it would be misleading to include it.Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He's a domestic politician and it's domestic affair. He leads a very populous state, but he is still a regional leader. Yes, he will resign because of a scandal that has echoed around the world, but is there anything exceptional? absolutely nothing. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last time any U.S. state governor resigned was over three years ago. This is pretty exceptional, and of all states, it's New Yawk, the one people have probably heard of outside the States. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resignations are part of political normality, however shocking they may be. Also, honestly, I don't think Cuomo's is that unexpected. One question: if the mayor of Paris, Rome or Barcelona were involved, would he/she also have to be directly in the ITN because they are well-known cities? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support them being posted to ITN, personally. But I think it is also different when it's a sovereign state (which New York is) vs. a political subdivision under the control of a unitary Government. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 20:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re I strongly advise you read the List of sovereign states, then hop over to check out the list of federated states because frankly you're just embarrassing yourself. Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I literally looked at that -- it backs up what I'm saying. Scotland is not a sovereign state, nor a member of a federation of sovereign states, so I don't know what your point is. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 21:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't know what your point is. I never said New York was a fully sovereign state, just that it is a sovereign state, which all members of any Federation are. The article is pretty clear on that. Maybe you should read it yourself. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 21:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tq - time for bed? Template:Tq No it really doesn't, maybe you should read them with this nom in mind. You keep throwing around that New York is a "sovereign state", and the article pretty clearly shows that no subdivisions are. I assume you're saying it's a federated state with sovereignty (you should say "autonomy" and/or specify not nation-state to prevent the confusion). And as the federation list shows, and what my point very obviously has been from the start, is that US states are no more special than hundreds if not thousands of other nations' states using the same system - and others not on that list with a non-federal system - so creating an ITN "exception" would not be an exception in the slightest and would certainly justify nominating any political mishap from, say, the island of Nevis. P.S. I don't know why you're harping on about Scotland/UK when I mentioned so many other examples but you cling to your one line of Westminster-devolution defense ;) Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomy and sovereignty are two different things. New York is both autonomous and sovereign. Scotland is autonomous, but not sovereign. Federated_state describes this concept in more detail. But I think we are also arguing semantics -- i.e. there are two different definitions of what it means to be a sovereign state; New York fits one definition, but not the other. Anyway, I'm perfectly fine with events from the Island of Nevis being in ITN. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 22:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just got the weirdest deja vu (of something else, not this thread), but, note about Nevis taken, let's agree that New York isn't an actual sovereign state by UN definitions, that Scotland needs to gain independence just to make this thread funnier, and that if you would support every New York-equivalent-'state' story being posted then I have nothing more to offer. I think it sets an awful standard but if you would stick by it no matter where, you do you. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough -- I agree. Under the UN's definition, New York isn't a fully sovereign state, and this whole thing is semantics. :-) And yes, Scotland (and Northern Ireland) should gain independence. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 22:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Local politician leaves because he was a jerk to women. Pretty much not the sort of thing ITN covers, even if it is New York.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Describing the governor of the fourth most populous state in the US as a "local politician" rather downplays the significance of this story. It has received international coverage, as Masem notes - it's on the front page of bbc.co.uk.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good riddance, but ultimately local/regional news, even if the locale/region is itself important. I would say the same thing about the California recall business, regardless of its outcome. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He will be replaced by another Democrat, the state legislature hasn't changed, and there is another election in a year which he probably wouldn't have run in. The actual impact here is minimal. Resigning from Congress has more of a ripple effect, and we still don't post those. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose local politician resigns after being a dick. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per longstanding consensus that we eschew sub-national political news in all but the rarest cases. This is a run of the mill scandal that brought down a prominent state governor. Big deal. Are we going to start posting provincial scandals with regularity? If not, then I see no reason for this beyond the usual US centric bias. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question It seems that we routinely reject state political news as being too local/parochial, and not of interest to the world as a whole. But perhaps the fact that it is featured on dewiki means that people around the world do care about what's going on in the US, and we shouldn't have a knee-jerk WP:RGW reaction whenever state news is nominated? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the answer to that (which I personally agree with to an extent) is that we are here to post stuff that's in the news and encyclopedic; that's why we'll likely post the ISS docking when it happens and not the Bezos-Branson flights even though the latter were far more in the news. Cuomo's fall might be in the news right now but is neither completely unprecedented nor will it likely have any lasting impact; furthermore, if we start doing US subnational politics we'll probably have to start doing the subnational politics of other countries like China and India, which would be a mess. Also, this isn't the first time enwiki has chosen to be more selective than our peers; we refused to post a country's censorship of Wikipedia even though frwiki(?) and a couple of other sister projects did. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. — Amakuru (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator Masem and Pawnkingthree. Jusdafax (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There could be the argument than unlike other "regional politician does scummy thing" stories, Cuomo has some international prominence. But that only flies if what he is doing is equally remarkable compared to lesser peers. Unless it brings major political downfall, sexual harassment stories are nothingburgers, and I'm pretty sure even then, the downfall is the story. Resigning as NY governor isn't such a downfall IMO. Kingsif (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Let's put it this way: when Boris Johnson inevitably resigns due to sex scandal, I will oppose posting that. His replacement as PM will, as ITN/R, probably be posted. So I'd certainly oppose ~~Nicola Sturgeon~~ Omar Prieto doing it. It's basically celebrity gossip. Kingsif (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think this rises to the level of prominence needed to post a subnational leader's job status. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle (despite being subnational this is an abnormally prominent news story), but recommend waiting until the guy actually resigns in two weeks. osunpokeh (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Local news, no international significance Abcmaxx (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U International significance is not required, if it were, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm wondering where the guidelines stipulate "international significance" and what the significance is of a Belarusian sprinter fleeing to Poland --LaserLegs (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ms. Tsimanouskaya has become an international poster child(2) for political struggle against Eastern Europe's last repressive autocratic regime. – Sca (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ec

- There is a whole section of the criteria for "significance", which is generally held to mean international (or at least non-parochial) significance. As for the Tsimanouskaya business, it is internationally significant in that it shows the antics of the Lukashenko regime during the Olympics; although New York is (probably the City alone, definitely the State) more objectively important than the entirety of Belarus, subnational entities are held to a boatload-higher standards if their stories are to be posted at all. Allowing subnational politics on ITN opens the door to potentially thousands of gubernatorial and mayoral elections being nominated, which even if shot down would be a timesink for ITN participants, and it's almost guaranteed that there will be a US/UK bias in such nominations that would exacerbate pre-existing systemic biases. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - So I looked into that section. It lists as an argument which is not helpful "Arguments addressing how many international newspapers/news channels are or are not covering the story". We have a whole "Please do not" above stating "oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country" so in fact it seems that not only is there no "international significance" requirement but it's actively discouraged and oppose !votes based on that criteria should be ignored. In fact, evaluating consensus in that way I'm considering marking this as ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - This isn't even affecting the whole United States, it's affecting just a single state, and fairly strong historic precedent has been to not post subnational politics. Since none of this counts as Wikipedia policy or even guideline, !votes cannot generally be discarded and pure numbers matter quite a bit more here than at stuff like AfD; given that the opposes outnumber the supports almost 2:1, no admin in his/her/etc. right mind would post this at the moment. You can mark it if you'd like, just know that the tag will be quickly removed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Parochial politix. Lacks general significance. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Sexual harassment in the workplace is nothing new. – Sca (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I feel like semi-sovereign states (such as US states, or Canadian provinces) should be treated differently than unitary local Governments. Therefore, I Support this nom. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 19:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Many other countries' top-level regional divisions are ~~much more~~ just as autonomous than US states and Canadian provinces. The UK is literally four distinct countries. India, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy and to an extent France and Germany, have state-equivalents that are so different they have their own languages. Australia's are separated by a giant desert. Do you want to get noms every time Sardinia's leadership screws up? Kingsif (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapse top

Lol, no. The countries in the UK are not even sovereign like US state are. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 21:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does one determine if a sub-national location is "semi-sovereign" versus "unitary local government"? And how are the countries of the UK different (and "less sovereign") than a US state? Chrisclear (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simple -- can the powers given to the sub-national location be taken away by a simple act of the national legislature? If so, it's a unitary government. If not, it's semi-sovereign. --Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 21:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re This explains so much about your thinking. I've never seen "federated" described as "semi-sovereign". If that's "official" in any capacity, please show me. And no, of course I re-read the federated states page and I can't see it. Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "semi-sovereign" apparently is not an official phrase -- I am not sure where I came up with that or if I invented it out of whole cloth.. That being said, Political_divisions_of_the_United_States#States describes the dual sovereignty concept of US states and the federal government, and indeed the Federal Government's powers are heavily limited compared to other federations. This article may be an interesting read on the matter, as this might also. It even extends to our judicial systems -- each State has its own laws and criminal justice system, and decisions in one state's court has no bearing in another state's. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 23:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume (hope?) you're not kid-splaining to me, since my understanding is most people on earth have inadvertently had to learn about the US State vs Federal system thanks to the omnipotence of American culture (and I've been saved more than once by state law), but this is nothing I didn't know and IMO no more "sovereign" than any other federation. (Can I interest you in Scots law, though ;?) Maybe the specifics give more power to the States than in other federations, I don't know every country inside out, but the system is no different than (what it should be but de facto isn't) in Venezuela. Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dude no. Kingsif (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, what? They are not sovereign, that's a simple fact. You can make an argument that they are culturally more distinct than individual states, but you can't argue that they are sovereign. All the powers the countries of the UK have are granted by the Government of the United Kingdom and could be taken away by simple vote in the UK's parliament. The UK is considered a unitary government. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 21:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying they're sovereign, I'm saying that 1. US states are definitely not sovereign states, and much further from being so than various European subdivisions. 2. many if not most countries in the world have top-level regional subdivisions that are equivalent to the US and Canada, so your argument made no sense. I deal with Venezuelan topics a lot, which has an identical system to the US, and dear god you do not want nominations in here every time someone screws up there. The point was that if we give more leeway to federated states, it's not exclusive at all. 3. more off-topic, but you asked. In practice, there are many nations whose regional subdivisions are much more distinct from their central government than the US. They are less like nations with subdivisions (which is how I would describe the US), and more like lots of regions that have been stuck together. (Yes, this is especially true in western Europe where borders have been redrawn many times over the last century and so regional identity and politics seem adamant to prevail.) While, in the UK example, London could un-devolve, and Washington cannot do that in the US, California and New York are far more similar than Kent and Orkney. The practical relationship of the UK countries is more like the US with Puerto Rico, because of devolution. And until Alaska competes in the Olympics with Canada, or Florida with Cuba, you can't say the US's federated states are more autonomous than Northern Ireland at least. Kingsif (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. The US states are sovereign states. Not fully sovereign, but they are sovereign. You're wrong regarding US states being "subdivisions" and your understanding is flawed. Each state is politically independent of one another. Kent and Orkney could disappear by act of parliament in the United Kingdom; the US Congress could not get rid of California or New York. If you mean that they are more alike culturally, you are correct, but that doesn't mean they're any less sovereign. Northern Ireland is only autonomous because the United Kingdom gives it that power. The UK Parliament could decide to ignore NI parliament's decisions or destroy their autonomy at any time. That's what makes a political division sovereign or not. But we are getting off-topic. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 22:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. That's not true at all. See Federation -- about half of the countries of the world are unitary, and half are federated. And also see "The difference between a federation and this kind of unitary state is that in a unitary state the autonomous status of self-governing regions exists by the sufferance of the central government, and may be unilaterally revoked." -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 22:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tq Since sovereignty is an absolute by definition, part-sovereign is not sovereign. That's the bottom line. A federated state will have sovereignty-you-mean-autonomy within its federation, but is not a sovereign state. Template:Tq - I said "many", did you want me to specify "about half"? Fine. Doesn't change the damn point, does it? Back to that: I made a point, and you definition-debated us to off-topic territory instead of accepting it. As you point out, "about half" of the world is made up of subdivisions of equal autonomy to New York. Ping me to support when you nominate all their screw-ups. Kingsif (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, the governments of all those countries (especially India) are quite more centralized than the US, which is still probably the most decentralized country on Earth (excepting maybe the UAE or Switzerland) in terms of political power. Marriages and criminal justice, for example, are a federal matter in Canada and IIRC India, but are state issues in the US; devolution in the UK can be unilaterally revoked by Westminster but not federalism by Washington. However, that doesn't apply to culture, which is still fairly homogeneous in the US even with the north-south and blue-red divides. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Shhh. But yeah, my first instinct was to compare with Venezuela which has the exact system of the US, but then I couldn't remember if I'd ever nominated a comparable state-level Venezuela item and didn't want to risk the hypocrisy. I will say when I learned Spain is unitary I was very surprised. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapse bottom

Oppose local news. Banedon (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, #Please do not... Template:Tq You've been told this over and over. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U Why are you telling me this instead of all the other people above who are opposing because it's local news? Citing the "please do not" is also silly becaues it just encourages people to switch to the effectively-equivalent-but-not-complained-about "doesn't see enough global news coverage". Besides, "local news" does not mean it relates to a single country, because in this case it relates to a single state in a country with fifty of them. Banedon (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support He was the mayor of the most important city in the world. I support this and so should everyone 212.74.201.233 (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You're referring to de Blasio; Cuomo was (is, for the next two weeks) the governor. Whether we would blurb the death of Rudy Giuliani is one thing, but subnational politics has no place on here and I'm surprised that this discussion has gone on for so long. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this hypothetical, how's Giuliani dying? Kingsif (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peacefully in his sleep surrounded by family members. I was talking about the "autoblurbs" that former POTUSes and UKPMs get, whether that applies to mayors of huge cities; I don't recall whether we blurbed David Dinkins. Or you could imagine he has a glorious suicide on the 9/11 anniversary if that's what you'd prefer. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd only blurb it if it involved flamingos somehow. Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ec Well, he wasn't. Not that it's a good reason to post. Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose local politics story. I wouldn't support a similar item about the resignation of the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, whose population is higher than that of New York, so I don't see a good reason to support this nomination. Chrisclear (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pointed then that you would phrase it that way, as clearly you accept that New York State is substantially more significant than Chhattisgarh. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Cuomo resignation cannot be posted until his resignation takes effect. It is more like WP:CRYSTAL for me because we cannot predict the event and unexpected event can be happened. 36.69.55.6 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to lack any real significance beyond Cuomo himself. This isn't really going to weigh on the lives of New Yorkers, or change the course of government in the state. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should be closed now. The result is more than evident and it's dragging on too long, giving rise to unnecessary debates. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Marked needs attn. (And BTW, U.S. states aren't sovereign in the normal sense of the term.) – Sca (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I totally agree with you on that issue. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean fun debates, right? ;) I feel like I should set up a sub-talkpage to reroute them, but could I make it semi-sovereign, you know? Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well...it's a good idea as long as you keep an eye out for movements that demand full sovereignty and mess things up!. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Domestic event + sexual harassment in the workplace (which sadly isn't new) . --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as others have said political resignations are quite common, and at the sub-national level they carry very little weight. There's nothing particularly special about Cuomo's troubles anyway.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Naga Thein Hlaing[edit]

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

Oppose Just a non-notable surgeon who did some non-notable stuff. Pyramids09 (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, per the small print in the box above, anyone with an existing article is considered notable for Recent Deaths (RD) we should only discuss if the quality of the article is sufficient for it to be posted on the main page JW 1961^Talk 21:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't have an existing article - it was created today. It's perfectly reasonable to question notability in that case (though the lack of a prior article is not itself a reason to question notability). GreatCaesarsGhost 21:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The citing sources in the article are from BBC, VOA, RFA, The Irrawaddy, and The Myanmar Times; I have no idea why you are talking about the notability. It clearly passes GNG. Htanaungg (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A non-Burmese speaker would, upon review the article and its citations, be unable to verify notability for themselves. I don't know that the citing sources are about the target or address him in a non-trivial way. Please note I'm neither opposing nor nominating the article for deletion, merely suggesting it's appropriate to have those discussions here. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just about long enough for RD, but it has plenty of sources of which I could only check 2 (in English), AGF on the Burmese sources JW 1961^Talk 21:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not seem to indicate why this person is notable, and I'm unable to verify if the coverage cited passes WP:GNG. Perhaps the OP could advise on this? GreatCaesarsGhost 21:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U I'm so pity you 😢. Taung Tan (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You pity me for not speaking Burmese? Uh, okay. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support He has been regarded as the "god of Nagaland" per BBC source. A highly respected surgeon of the nation. How much do you need? Taung Tan (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
$500,000 and a Lamborghini would be a start. I shan't be too lavish. WaltCip-(talk) 12:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article seems to meet requirements assuming the refs which appear to be mostly in Burmese are reliable sources. - Indefensible (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is well-cited and more than a stub. 504 words per DYK tool. That's to say, it is fine for ITN/RD. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted AGFing non-English refs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: Climate Change[edit]

Oppose Covered by Blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support once the blurb rolls off. Climate change certainly is ongoing, is regularly in the news, and the target article (or one of the myriad of "sub-articles") is getting regular updates. Seems to tick the boxes. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 in climate change? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Say goodbye to all standalone natural disaster blurbs, if and while you guys win, excepting possibly earthquakes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose covered by blurb, and interest will roll off right around when the blurb will as well. Indeed, this very nomination initially struck me as ridiculous; climate change has been going on, and will continue to go on, for a century, and we don't post uber-chronic crises like the inexorably rising entropy leading to the heat death of the universe even though that is also of note. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More like 4.6 billion years. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not even counting the mystery winds that blew us together in the first place, whenever the hell they started picking up... InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unlike COVID which there was clear, active worldwide participation to fight it on a daily basis, warnings about climate change have rung for years with little momentum to make them an everyday ITN topic, which is what ongoing is meant for. --Masem (t) 02:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blurb is already covered. 36.69.55.6 (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this would be like adding Expansion of the universe to ongoing. It's certainly ongoing, but it's not something that makes the news every day, and any actions taken would only have delayed impact. Banedon (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 August 9 Template:Cob

August 9[edit]

RD: Cameron Burrell[edit]

Comments: Several unreferenced paragraphs. Spencer^T•C 15:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I've added a few refs and tagged a few sentences with {cn}. I find it a little odd that there is no mention of his long jumping. His profile at UH Track & Field has more materials to prosify and add to his wikibio, if anyone is interested in improving the coverage there. --PFHLai (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rand Araskog[edit]

Comment: Close, but needs some copyediting (and perhaps some additional detail if available). Phrases like "He spent the early years building the group's telecom business and developed the System 12 a digital routing and switching solution for telecom companies" seem promotional (what exactly is a "solution for telecom companies"? The link also leads to a disambiguation page). "Dismantling the conglomerate from multiple businesses" is also a little unclear-- were various entities sold? Spun off as separate companies? "Dismantling" seems to parrot from the WSJ obit title without explaining what this actually means. Spencer^T•C 13:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed dismantling. Substituted it with divesting, which is it what it really was. Eg. Sheraton Hotels sold to Starwood Hotels and Resorts. Fixed the disambiguation for System 12 - a telephone exchange system. Hopefully not too promotional. If there are any additional edits that are required, I can get to it later tonight.Ktin (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Spencer^T•C 19:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re do you have the link to the Bloomberg ref? Seems broken on the article. - Indefensible (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will check this evening. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Replaced the Bloomberg link with a different one. For some reason it was pointing to a robots page. Thanks for the catch. Ktin (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better refs are needed for info on his father, ITT's problems with politicians, and his various awards (French Légion d'Honneur, Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, Order of Bernardo O'Higgins, ...) Perhaps these sentences should be removed if better refs are unavailable. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PFHLai. Many thanks. All of the information on father and ITT international relations are from the WSJ obituary. The awards were pointing to a deadlink which I restored from archive.org Hope that's good. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Thanks for the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lester Bird[edit]

Support Political career section could possibly use a sub-header or two but otherwise has appropriate depth of coverage and is referenced. Spencer^T•C 12:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Olivia Podmore[edit]

Support per all the expansion work that has been done today. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bob Jenkins[edit]

Oppose a huge portion of the article is uncited. Well if that is addressed.... ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More refs are needed, please. Quite a few paragraphs are footnote-less. --PFHLai (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) IPCC say global warming can be stopped[edit]

Comment. Without actually opposing this, this is just a report detailing a possible outcome if certain things occur; sounds like a lot of WP:CRYSTAL to me. Lots of groups have predictions or projections related to climate change, why should this one be given more weight? 331dot (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

good question - answer is because it is a consensus and has been approved by governments Chidgk1 (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Governments do not have to approve UN reports; this is a consensus of those writing the report. There are many reports and predictions out there. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right there are many reports - but for climate change the IPCC ones are by far the most important. The governments approve the summary of each report. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U now that alternative blurbs have been suggested which are not projections can you support any of them? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose looks more like a WP:CRYSTAL prediction for me, which the event either can be happen or not happen. 36.69.55.6 (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there are lots of possible blurbs - I just fancied an optimistic one - please suggest alt blurbs - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to happen. WaltCip-(talk) 10:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - this is a major report, already top of news broadcasts in Europe (understandable, perhaps, given Wildfires in southern Turkey and Greece, recent flooding across Germany and Belgium, etc.) However, I would reformulate the proposed headline, which IMO misses the point, namely that major actions are needed in the next two years or we will not be able to stop climate change. (And it's climate change rather than global warming). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not managed to download it yet so I am not sure it does say we can stop climate change. But everyone please suggest alternative blurbs. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality article is a stub. If it's that important to be ITN-worthy, there must be much more that can be said about it. Rather than the one line of text suggested for this blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure a lot more will be added over the course of the week once the IPCC website manages to cope with the load of people downloading the report. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more so have rerated "start class" Chidgk1 (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U Now someone else has improved my version can you support one or more blurbs? If not is there another improvement I can make?Chidgk1 (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd propose an alternative blurb, somewhat like: The IPCC releases its Sixth Assessment Report, urging the nations to halve the greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. --Tone 09:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure any blurb you guys agree is fine by me. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that, or we'll end up with just "The IPCC releases its Sixth Assessment Report" without any details. WaltCip-(talk) 11:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I retract - I too now see the flaw in altblurb2 so do not support that one. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tone's blurb or something along those lines. Make no mistake that this is of incommensurable importance.--WaltCip-(talk) 10:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And as per below, I'll get behind altblurb2 at this point. WaltCip-(talk) 12:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~in principle, wait for article content~~. ~~The article is extremely short and needs at least a couple of paragraphs on what the report actually says.~~ The blurb should be short and neutral - I've added alt2. Modest Genius ^talk 11:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now have 2 paras on report content - hope that is enough to start with - expansion continues. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now, striking my length concerns. Modest Genius ^talk 15:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt2 looks good to me, better than my own one. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Monday's lead story on most Eng.-lang. RS sites. – Sca (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support either of the first blurbs. The last one is at odds with the role of the IPCC: they don't advice on policy, just on science. They don't argue it must be halved by 2030, but that halving it is in line with internationally agreed warming targets. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously she means she does not support altblurb2 as I have now added a new last one. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the infrequencies of the IPCCs, I would support posting something about it, but I disgree with the blurb's focus on future action since this has been a message of all prior IPCCs for the most part. I would instead focus on actual findings, such as the average global temperature rsing ~1 degC higher in the last decade. --Masem (t) 13:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you find that a bit depressing, whereas actions are more likely to cheer readers? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As others have pointed out, the current blurbs focus on CRYSTAL factors, whereas ITN tends to be grounded in what actually happened. Yes, its more depressing, but its also what is been proven true. Again, I support posting something about IPCC as each iteration has been important. Now, that said, you can work in something like both. "The 6th IPCC reports that the Earth's average global temperature rose 1 degC in the last decade, but asserts climate change can still be halted." --Masem (t) 13:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK have added another alt - that is probably enough from me Chidgk1 (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh maybe passed blurb limit or I did something wrong as not showing up - anyway you can see by source editing.Chidgk1 (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support the original blurb most, but support any blurb except altblurb2 Chidgk1 (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to put it can be stopped on shouldn't it be worded to make clear that you're still stuck at whatever level it eventually stops at (somewhat above the 2050 level) and it'll take thousands of years to reverse back to normal? Unless the carbon already released is removed by something that doesn't seem to be inventable any time soon or you wait a few thousand years for it to go from air to carbonate seafloor rocks. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have probably suggested enough blurbs - feel free to suggest one yourself or support one or moreChidgk1 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report finds that global warming can stop intensifying at 2 (1.5?)°C if net greenhouse gas emissions are halved by 2030 and reach zero by 2050.? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- I am strongly opposed to altblurb2 -- there is no argument to be had here -- its the global consensus, we should be focused on the action required. Sadads (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What should be isn't a criterion for news value or impact. We're not crusaders here. – Sca (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the release of the report itself is global, headline news. The article may just about be passable now. I don't think we need analysis in the blurb: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report would be adequate by itself. Alternatively The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report detailing the current state of global warming and projections of its future development. --LukeSurl^t c 14:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL cautions against making predictions of the future in articles, it does not prohibit discussing notable predictions so long as they are clearly discussed in context - which the target article here clearly does. --LukeSurl^t c 14:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL; also, some (though admittedly not all) supports are RGWy, contrary to our purpose and spirit as encyclopedic. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – On significance. Suggest Alt5: "The Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC declares that Earth is the hottest it's been in 125,000 years." – Sca (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as WP:CRYSTAL with elements of WP:RGW. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This report is in the news, that's not CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the disagreement is about the report's issuance itself. That's clearly in the news. Its just the focus of the blurb on what is definitely a CRYSTAL prediction, which really doesn't work as ITN items based on past nominations. Just having a blurb that issues a statement of the situation tied to the IPCC is sufficient to avoid this problem and cover the story. The article on the 6th IPCC obviously can talk to this prediction, just that it doesn't work well for ITN blurbs. --Masem (t) 14:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Template:U, when top climate scientists issue a report like this, I don't interpret anything that they say as CRYSTAL. I take it as foreknowledge. Posted hook is fine by me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree the hook is a good compromise, but the issue is that we still need to be careful on putting too much weight on forward-thinking steps. Someone brought up RGW and that along with the "if" nature of the statement makes any blurb that said , to an extent "if we took steps now, we can stop climate change" as a bit of scaremongering, which is a bit beyond neutral for ITN. However, a neutral assessment was found with the blurb, noting the changes and that actions to prevent further change have been proposed. --Masem (t) 16:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the data for the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) is released under a CC license, just not the figures themselves - data is located here [34]. Figure SPM.1(b) is the nice telling image of showing the effect of anthropogenic change on temperature and likely could be recreated to use as a figure/image here. --Masem (t) 14:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a graph makes a good image, both for readability purposes as well as simply because data doesn't belong as an image on the Main page (except maybe for DYK). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable - I can't understand the argument that this is WP:CRYSTAL. These are scientists who have made this their life's work and have come out and said, with all credentials and conviction behind them, that this is what is going to happen. What are you waiting for? Someone to take out a thermometer 10 years from now and say "yep, it got 1.5 degrees hotter"?--WaltCip-(talk) 15:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The report is what it is. Whether anyone here agrees with it is totally irrelevant. It's majorly in the news and should go into the box pronto. Period. – Sca (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ec

I agree, this is nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL. For a start, much of the report is organising and synthesising measurements that have already been made. The modelling work is explicitly clear on the range of possible outcomes and where the uncertainties lie. This isn't speculation about the future, it's the most authoritative statement for 8 years (since the previous IPCC report) on what is currently known about climate change . Modest Genius ^talk 16:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Czechs have gone for a long one:

Mezivládní panel pro změnu klimatu vydal první část své nové hodnotící zprávy. Uvádí v ní, že lidská činnost prokazatelně způsobila nárůst teploty na Zemi a vedla k menší stabilitě celé planety.

which apparently means:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued the first part of its new assessment report, which states that human activity has demonstrably caused an increase in temperature on Earth and destabilised the entire planet. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but I find the blurb misleading. I read the news differently than what the blurb suggests. We cannot avoid global warming, it's too late for that. What is possible is to avoid truly catastrophic climate change if we are able to cut CO2 emissions as mentioned in the blurb. See here: "The new report also makes clear that the warming we've experienced to date has made changes to many of our planetary support systems that are irreversible on timescales of centuries to millennia. The oceans will continue to warm and become more acidic. Mountain and polar glaciers will continue melting for decades or centuries. "The consequences will continue to get worse for every bit of warming," said Prof Hawkins. "And for many of these consequences, there's no going back."" So, it's like the case of a patient who ignored doctor's advice to stay healthy for too long and now has to undergo quite intrusive medical procedures just to save his life. So, the best prognosis for the patient assuming successful medical treatment is that at he'll survive but in a poorer health condition. Count Iblis (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support blurb, Alternative blurb or Alternative blurb II--PJ Geest (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted There appears to be strong consensus for posting this; all of the proposed blurbs, however, seemed rather unencyclopedic for the Main page so I decided to go with one that was more generic, neutral, and hopefully not placing any undue weight on certain sections/findings. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Good call. I'm happy with the posted blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 16:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the blurb somewhat misrepresents the report, as this report has been very clear in not framing climate change as a future event but as a current event. We can simplify as "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of its Sixth Assessment Report, detailing the state of knowledge of climate change and describing its effects." FemkeMilene (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting comment – The blurb strikes me as rather complex. Suggest we shorten and simplify, perhaps as:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of its Sixth Assessment Report, detailing the state of climate change and describing its possible future effects."
– Sca (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alternative blurb IV, with a typo correction (change "for" to "in"). Alternative II implies that the IPCC is an advocacy organization. Alternative III gives undue weight to methane rather than carbon dioxide. The main blurb and Alternative I say that climate change can be stopped, which is technically correct but probably misleading for the general reader since we are definitely going to get at another approximately .4 degrees of warming. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think blurb IV is better than the currently posted one about possible future effects / the proposed simplification(s). FemkeMilene (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current blurb is fine as is, which is why I refused to post any of the originally-propsed blurbs. Alt IV gives undue weight to a specific finding and is borderline alarmist. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current blurb is mostly fine and I do understand that other blurbs may have been unduely highlighting some of the findings. This is sort of what the current blurb does too, by only highlighting possible future effect rather than current effects and known future effects. Why not simplify to 'effects'? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I didn't notice that something had already been posted. The current blurb looks great, better than Alt IV. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting oppose The complete lack of agreement on what blurb should be used demonstrates the reason why this shouldn't be blurbed. A semi-regular report was released. It doesn't tell us anything new, and doesn't suggest anything new that will happen in the future. For one brief glorious moment, a bunch of academics got a boost to their publication stats. Everyone else will see what they want to see for a day, and move on. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed whether it's in the NEWS? – Sca (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IPCC reports are rare, the top of the field on climate reports and state of the art, they have to be posted, even if no one can agree on a blurb and it has to default to "the report was released". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So the blurb is essentially a panel on climate change releases a report on climate change. Great work everyone. Step hen 22:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the final result was a very milquetoast blurb. I'm not very pleased with it. We could have gone with a blurb that succinctly summarized the report and its findings, and that would have been damn well interesting for readers. But Wikipedia is allergic to such bold machinations in the fear that it may fly in the face of WP:NPOV, WP:RGW, WP:NOTADVOCACY, etc.. So we're left with something that basically leaves the average reader questioning what the heck is newsworthy about some stuffy folks in labcoats writing a report about the weather. WaltCip-(talk) 22:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're damn right, and especially with such a controversial/politically fraught topic I highly doubt anything else would have flown, certainly none of seven(!) originally proposed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only controversial in my country full of flat Earthers, Fauci haters, graphene oxide/microscopic tracking chip COVID vaccineists, moon hoaxers, 9/11 truthers, Jewish space lasers and other conspiracy theorists. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Canadian brainwave meddling, "we" invented Global Research (the website, not the discipline or way of life). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of climate change is not (genuinely) controversial, but nor was it revealed by the report. It is policy recommendations and specific numbers that become inherently political, and thus ultimately toxic and controversial. Without any comments on the recommendations themselves, stuff like "global warming can be stopped if we cut emissions X percent by year Y" has absolutely no place on the front page of the world's greatest encyclopedia. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting oppose WP:CRYSTAL . Given how politically engaged climate science has become in the West, I wouldn't trust this report either. 212.74.201.233 (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your last three !votes on ITN have all been WP:NOTFORUM violations. Stop it. WaltCip-(talk) 00:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ec I mean, the blurb just says the report was published, that's already happened. Your crystal ball work in reverse? On to the reason: wow, you have no idea what you're on about, do you? If this particular group of scientists can't be trusted then the moon could be made of cheese. There's skepticism and then there's choosing to push anything that goes against status quo, and you're doing the latter: look at the sources about news rather than blanket oppose because you personally don't like the subject the news deals with. Kingsif (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting support* This has continued to be widely covered in the media. There is no need to remove it. JMonkey2006 (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 August 8 Template:Cob

Any further discussion on "the matter" should go to the Ongoing proposal. - That's somewhat disingenuous considering that the Ongoing proposal has now been closed as WP:SNOW.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 8[edit]

(Posted) RD: Najma Chowdhury[edit]

~~Weak~~ support Article has adequate depth of coverage for programs that the subject created; as an academic, did she have any research interests? Spencer^T•C 02:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Template:U. Added a few of her research topics. Please have a look. Ktin (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I did not give out ITN credits to Afifa Afrin or Ibrahim Husain Meraj as I was unable to confirm their recent edits to the Najma Chowdhury wikibio related to her death. --PFHLai (talk) 05:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jane Withers[edit]

Support GA, marking ready. Spencer^T•C 02:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. Just because something is a GA, doesn't mean it's automatically eligible. The filmography is largely unreferenced at present. — Amakuru (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:U The Filmography section has 3 overarching references at the bottom of the table, and that seemed to cover the filmography from what I could tell. This was apparently discussed prior to the GA review on the talk page: Talk:Jane_Withers#Filmography_table_sourcing. I'm going to go ahead and remove your tag, but if you have additional concerns, I'm happy to self-revert the tag removal. Spencer^T•C 02:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Template:Ping ah yes, my bad. Sorry about that. All looks good, thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bill Davis[edit]

Comment multiple sections lacking in sourcing- which is a shame, as the first half of the article has good sourcing. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost the entire article could be sourced to the Steve Paikan book I've been using for the first few sections. Unfortunately the Google books preview only goes up to page 93, so I'm hoping someone might have digital access to a copy. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note there were a small handful of citation needed tags remaining. Since they are not of much importance, I've hidden them and moved discussion for them to the talk page. This article should be ready for posting. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 05:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bobby Bowden[edit]

Comment - I'm not seeing sourcing for all that info in the "Head Coaching Record" section at the moment. And "The Bowden Bowl" seems misplaced as a subsection of "Personal life", as it's still related to this football career. Other than that, the article looks good. — Amakuru (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, sort of fixed. Sports Reference doesn't include his coaching at Howard or South Georgia State for whatever reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping OK, I think I've sourced the other bits. Good to go now, Support. CHeers — Amakuru (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban capture city of Kunduz[edit]

Support. Maybe a cropped version of File:Afghan government forces in Jowzjan Province during 2021 Taliban offensive.png could also be used as an image? — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support article good enough. Kingsif (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but would like an improved blub, it doesn't really explain unless you know the contents. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
updated the blurb a bit — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – if fully updated. Favor Alt1, offered above. Provincial capitals captured include Sar-e-Pul, Sheberghan, Zaranj and Taloqan. – Sca (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The pic. suggested above doesn't grab me. – Sca (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca maybe File:Afghan National Army in combat during 2021 offensive 1.png cropped? — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat better. Could be cropped a bit. But are there any pix of the Tollyband doing their violent thing? – Sca (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there has been this relentless effort to post the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan. Kunduz is a regional capital 100s of KMs away from Kabul and the media hysteria doesn't make it any less inevitable since Trump surrendered to the Taliban last year. When they take Kabul and assassinate Ghani it'll be time to post. Not now. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kabul is definitely looking to be the last American stronghold, so I'd support a blurb then. But in a closing ceremony, remove from Ongoing sense. Not because American news likes Kabul better than Kandahar. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When they take Kabul - what if they never do? Never post also? Banedon (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't, they've either been defeated or made peace, both blurbable endings. If it turns into another stalemate, we can quietly remove it from Ongoing. But it sure doesn't end here and now, big moment or not, so your vote confuses me. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support If a militia captured Miami after taking over several states in just a few days we wouldn't be thinking twice about posting. Just because it's Afghanistan doesn't make it less relevant. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does a little bit, in the sense that there has been war there for 20 years so it's not comparable to a non-conflict zone effort of the same size. But I still think this is big enough news to overcome that. Kingsif (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Covered in Ongoing. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's already covered in the ongoing section. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought the understanding was that items would move out of ongoing when a truly blurb-worthy development occurred, and then moved back. That's what happened with Venezuela last year. Kingsif (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary developments can stand alone. But continually taking back territory is the meat and potatoes of this ongoing story. It'd be like saying four cities (or countries) succumbed to COVID complications, during that overall lengthy drama. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conditionally support AltBlurb The capture of these provincial capitals seems like a significant development. However, the capture of the capitals should be in the article’s intro. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb and remove from ongoing - a notable development. Banedon (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Major development and article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per the previous nominations. I think we should wait until the Taliban capture either Kandahar city or Kabul. It's just a matter of time, so better to wait until the more significant fall of one of those two largest cities (Kunduz is the sixth largest in Afghanistan). Modest Genius ^talk 11:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Sixth provincial capital, Aibak, seized. [35] BBC headline: "How the Taliban retook half of Afghanistan" [36] Wide coverage. [37] – Sca (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This story is in Ongoing already, and the whole point of Ongoing is that we don't blurb the individual developments. If they take Kabul, then I'll think differently, but we're not going to blurb all the provincial capitals one by one. — Amakuru (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Amakuru.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it's already covered in the ongoing section. We may consider posting a blurb for an event that will mark a ceasefire but this is clearly not it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As the lead in the target article points out, theyhave taken over 65% of the country in 3 months and are likely to finish the job in 1-3 more. In this context, each city falling is not notable; it is assumed. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In terms of news, the Taliban offensive continues to be prominently covered. Today's AP headline: "Taliban take 10th Afghan provincial capital, squeezing Kabul." I don't expect to change anyone's mind. Nevertheless, I offer this as food for thought. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change mind from what to what? You do know that 2021 Taliban offensive is currently linked on the main page, and has been for some time, right? I'm confused as to what change you're hoping to happen? --Jayron 32 13:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb of course. As noted above, I'm not expecting it immediately – although newswise it is blurb material now. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But this is more appropriate as an ongoing story as it is rapidly changing and developing, as such would require frequent changes to any blurb. Ongoing is exactly what this kind of situation is designed for. --Jayron 32 15:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Herat - 3rd largest city - has been captured, and Kandahar will probably fall in, like, 24 hours or something.[38]At this rate, we might as well wait the next 3 days for them to take Kabul before posting the blurb, really. Juxlos (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Honest people may differ. I understand the logic of Ongoing, but to an ex-newsie it seems we're underplaying the topic. Oh well. – Sca (talk)
Update: "Taliban take 11th provincial capital in a week." – Sca (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support new blurb ALT2 when ready Herat has fallen, and Kandahar has fallen or will fall within the day. I think it's time for a blurb. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- All there is from reliable sources on Kandahar is a one-sentence AP report; it will take at least 2 hours for sourcing and the article to be ready for that blurb. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See: "Taliban take Kandahar, Herat in major Afghanistan offensive." About 1,000 words; moved at 21:30. – Sca (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: "The Pentagon said it would temporarily send about 3,000 extra troops ... to help evacuate embassy staff" from Kabul. (Moved at 21:35.) – Sca (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added ALT3 in case editors still think the city names are too obscure. Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a persistent belief that Ongoing is second tier to the blurb space...that this current ongoing story is too big for ongoing and must be promoted to a blurb...which is completely unsupported by any policy or guideline I can find. Ongoing is not < or > a blurb. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No website is an island. On Friday Afghanistan leads every major RS site. – Sca (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: "Im Krieg in Afghanistan haben nach dem Ende der NATO-Mission Resolute Support die Taliban 15 Provinzhauptstädte eingenommen." (Ger. ITN) — Sca (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As always, we appreciate your informed, well-articulated comments that having nothing to do with the conversation everyone else is having. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ganz typisch bei dir. Geh bloß weg, Bübchen. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the reason this situation has gone awry is that the usual process for Ongoing was not followed - namely that a story is blurbed first, and then rolls down to Ongoing once it falls off the bottom of ITN and the story is still important enough to merit posting. But in this case, for whatever reason, it was added straight to Ongoing with no blurb ever added. Well that's in the past now, and it's in Ongoing, so there's really nothing more to be said. Things seem to have hotted up in the past 24 hours, but according to today's Guardian: Template:Xt [39]... so it's certainly not as if this is going to be all over by Sunday. Therefore Ongoing is still the right place for it. — Amakuru (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this isn't about Wiki's prosaic internal processes, it's about what's actually in the news. Here's the current picture. – Sca (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And, as noted already numerous times, this story is currently posted on the main page in the ITN section. As GCG says, Ongoing is not inferior to a blurb, it's equal in status but simply covers a case like this in which dribs and drabs of developments, each individually newsworthy, happen over the course of weeks. I suggest this discussion be closed soon, as it's becoming a circular argument. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This story is currently posted on the main page in the ITN section.

– No it isn't. A link is posted there, easily overlooked by our hapless readers. And it's just a topic label, telling almost nothing about what's going down. We're missing the boat. – Sca (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no boat to miss. ITN is not a news ticker; it is not designed to keep readers up to the minute on current events. It's there to provide links to further reading for stories they are seeing in the news elsewhere. --Jayron 32 16:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to see it from the reader's point of view. Oh well. C'est la vie. – Sca (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine our readers don't view themselves as hapless, and can find "Ongoing" news if they want it, using their inherent Power of Reading. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Od

"Taliban approach Kabul’s outskirts." [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] – Sca (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Lithuanian/EU migrant crisis[edit]

Is it just Lithuania? Poland says they've been sent migrants from Belarus as retribution for supporting Krystsina Tsimanouskaya. Anyway, the blurb feels back-heavy to me but I can't think of a way to rephrase it? Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think for now it's fair/representative to keep the title as is: the number of illegal crossing to Lithuania is over 4000 in the recent months, while Latvia and Poland reported only dozens, so it's not (yet) a significant increase. However, the situation is still developing and if there will be substantial numbers of migrants reported by other countries, then we will have to re-think the title.. but I think we are just not quite there yet. --Mindaur (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tq - over 500, but not a good argument anyway (see below). Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Should include a section on migrants fleeing Belarus for Poland. – Sca (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains a section about Poland. I just added a reference with some numbers, but as per my comment above -- they still seem to be significantly below the crossings into Lithuania. --Mindaur (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply here also for above: if you want to look at this in terms of absolute numbers, Lithuania's are low compared to other migration and it won't get posted. The story that's in the news, and relevant here, is that the increase (%age) in migrants is an unprecedented surge, and is caused by deteriorating relations with Lukashenko. And the same is also true for Poland. IMO neither or both. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, as I said elsehwere -- it's not about the absolute numbers. It's about an unprecedented state-sponsored human trafficking. I am not very creative with blurbs, but I can propose more alternatives; feel free to beat me on this. --Mindaur (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Do you even understand how many migrants cross the US-Mexican border every well? How many travel through the mediterrenean every month? Hint: way more than did on this small stretch of Belarussian-lithuanian border 212.74.201.233 (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Been going on for years. Belarus is a current political crisis. – Sca (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant; your comment seems to be a case of whataboutism. --Mindaur (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've never ever seen an intelligent person accuse others of whataboutism. Probably because invoking it is in and on itself a logical fallacy. Changing my vote to oppose 212.74.201.233 (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure an oppose doesn't count if it's made because you don't like the fact someone said the word "whataboutism". Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If it were Belarusians fleeing for Lithuania it might be interesting (the article is a mess though) but it's mostly Iraqis and no one should be surprised that Iraqis are fleeing Iraq. Also, 4000 people in 2021 ... that's basically a weekend on the US-Mexican border. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly needs improvements, but did you actually read it? You are comparing very different things: borders and populations of different scale and very different nature of the event. The significance of the article is not the absolute number of the illegal crossings, but the nature of the crisis i.e. it's effectively a state-sponsored human trafficking and a geopolitical/diplomatic conflict. If we have a news item about the Krystsina Tsimanouskaya's humanitarian visa, then I really fail to see how is this less significant? --Mindaur (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure did, I mean except for the meaningless wall of reactions. Terrible background section that has nothing to do with refugees. The claim that illegal immigration was "weaponized" is actually tagged "citation needed". Seems like your standard "Lukashenko bad" WP:SYNTH disaster article about an issue that's been affecting Europe in one way or another since the invasion of Iraq and the creation of ISIL. In other words, literally nothing at all to see here. Don't worry, it'll be posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, improve it. The background section contains two references about the election fraud (and if you need more, there is 2020 Belarusian presidential election with loads of references), but you tagged it in the next section. The "weaponization" claim is referenced in that sentence; moreover, there is another reference in the lead section and more in other paragraphs. It's not WP:SYNTH, it's based on what the referenced articles state, so the events in the backround have a great deal to do with the migrants/refugees. Do we need to improve the narrative and clean it up? Sure. I didn't create the article, by the way, but I am trying to clean it up. Meanwhile, your arguments don't have any substance: "meaningless wall of reactions", "terrible background", "standard 'Lukashenko bad'", false analogies (as already explained by multiple other comments here) -- it's all WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. It's not constructive. --Mindaur (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and reply Seconded the above, absolutely incomparable. By that logic you'd have to mention the Greek, Maltese, Spanish, UK and Italian migrant crises and routes, except this is a whole completely different scenario and different geo-political impact. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus is shipping in Iraqis, keeping them in horrible conditions, then sending them across the border to countries without good migrant support infrastructure as a political weapon. "Be nice to us or we'll create a strain on your resources, and you'll feel bad because it's human lives". Quite a different situation, and I actually hadn't noticed it had got so bad in Lithuania. Kingsif (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support ongoing There's no point comparing this to US-Mexico border. The population of Lithuania is similar to that of New Mexico alone, Belarus has less than 7.5% of the Mexican population and the border is only a few kilometers long in comparison. Different situation, different politics, different migrants etc. and this is a new unique development. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support article appears to be well-cited and the story appears to be relevant to global events. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – "Poland reports record number of migrants at Belarusian border." [46] – Sca (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I raise you "Biden imposes sanctions against Belarus' Lukashenko regime" [47] Kingsif (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Actually they are not Belarusian migrants. It's just another human trafficking route to the EU. Nothing unusual here. STSC (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that it's a state-sponsored human trafficking probably triggered by the failed repatriation of Timanovskaya but it's clear that Lithuania did very little to prevent this even though Lukashenko announced he would let the migrants cross the border as early as sanctions were imposed against Belarus following the aircraft carrying Protasevich had been landed more than two months ago. That being said, this is a relatively minor and not unexpected diplomatic incident compared to what else happened involving Belarus over the past year. The ITN section is really not meant to be a place for posting every single move made by Belarus and it's neighbouring EU member states.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – "Lithuanian parliament to debate building fence on Belarus border." [48] – Sca (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Three-month state of emergency declared at Latvia-Belarus border" [49] --Mindaur (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With Poland's surge and Latvia's SOE, I think it's clear the target shouldn't be the Lithuania article. But what should? I don't think "Belarus migrant warfare" would fly as an article title, and Belarus migrant crisis sounds like Belarusian migration, but Belarus is the connecting factor. Kingsif (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I propose EU-Belarusian border migrant crisis as it would be factually correct and include Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I very boldly went with a slight variation on that, 2021 European Union migrant crisis. Kingsif (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U: It might have been better to initiate the discussion in the article's talk page -- just FYI. Anyway, the move is done and I think the new title is reasonable (even if not ideal). What is the process here, though? Should it be a new ITN proposal? Also, see my response to your other comment below. --Mindaur (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added ALT3. A more radical proposal would be to combine this and the related blurb currently in the box. I do worry how empty it'll look when the triple record blurb rolls off. Kingsif (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If commentators don't think the migration aspect specifically is notable here, then how about something like: "EU nations accused Belarus of human trafficking which caused the 2021 European Union migrant crisis"? --Mindaur (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's more blurb slots available to propose that. Kingsif (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that name is that it is separate crisis to the usual Ceuta, Malta, Lampedusa, Greek Islands, Calais issues, which are all still struggling but completely different scenario. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Just post the "2021 European Union migrant crisis" as ongoing. That's it. STSC (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ongoing Updates are relatively insignificant, and there's an unclear endpoint. Only willing to support a blurb-- once it rolls off, no need to keep in ongoing. Spencer^T•C 22:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The news in the international still write about the situation [50] I am rather surprised that the article has neither have a single ITN item nor ongoing. --Mindaur (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 Summer Olympics closing ceremony[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 August 7 Template:Cob

Support and remove as ongoing the 2020 Summer Olympics is officially close, so it means the article does not longer necessary to continue as ongoing. 180.242.42.147 (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality until "Dignitaries in attendance" and "Anthems" section are either sourced or removed (article is good enough for ITN without them). Definitely removed from ongoing, as the event has finished. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I fixed the sourcing issue in the dignitaries and anthems sections, so that should be fine now! Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 19:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks like a tonne of unsourced content has been added now, so cannot currently support (although I would support it all being removed, as per WP:VERIFY). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tried to fix most of it, so most prose should be cited now Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 19:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support and remove as ongoing The olympics are not going anymore.Pyramids09 (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb. Support removal from ongoing. Nice work Template:Ping. There is one more Template:Cn tag remaining in the lede and two more in the Antwerp Ceremony section. Article is good for WP:ITN once those are removed. Ktin (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've fixed the citation issue now, the cited prose has either been removed or replaced :) Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 20:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question, will this still be news tomorrow? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is or not, it was in the news when it occurred, and as it is ITNR it will be posted when quality is there(it isn't yet). You are free to propose the removal of the closing ceremony from ITNR if you desire. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, this is how ITN words. Maybe I'll propose changing the title to "What was in the news". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support ITNR so only quality is a consideration and I see a couple of [citation needed] tags in there. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb. Support removal from ongoing - Now the closing ceremony should be added.BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb as proposer—the country winning the most medals is a key fact, particularly this Olympics given the competition between the U.S. and China. We have room to include it so we might as well. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whole paragraphs unreferenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried my best to get the citation issue fixed, so most of the prose in the article is now cited properly Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 19:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support the original blurb once the article is improved and strong oppose the alternative blurb per Article 6 in Charter 1 of the Olympic Charter, which states "The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries."--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this means that the whole notion of a medals table is un-Olympic? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IOC is free to consider the Olympics what it wishes, but what matters is how RS report on it, and almost all of them report out which country won the most medals and most gold medals, usually in the form of a table. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC's report on the closing ceremony doesn't even mention which country won the most gold and total medals. So, there's no need to load the blurb with superfluous details when it's clear that the closing ceremony is the main news and an ITNR item that should get posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the unencyclopedic term "taking home" (should be "winning" probably) I think it's fine to mention the US as medal table winners. Sources do take major note of that. — Amakuru (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And let's hear it for the eight countries who shared joint-86th place with one bronze medal each. At least every country got something. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that any outcome of the event is a different story from the closing ceremony and should be dealt with separately. But if we really need an extended blurb documenting achievements from the event, my first choice would be either Caeleb Dressel's five gold medals or Emma McKeon's seven total medals. Their achievements as most successful athletes are covered in RS as much as the US finishing on top of the medal table but the difference is that one such blurb would give more context compared to the blunt message that a country won the most medals.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Blurb. Oppose alt blurb I && II. – robertsky (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Some portions of the content are still unsourced. STSC (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if anything is to be blurbed in connection with this, it should be 2020 Summer Olympics, not the article on the closing ceremony. The point of the ITN/R is that the Olympics are done and dusted, the grand spectacle has come to an end. The closing ceremony itself is certainly not the main story, that's just a bit of light-hearted fluff. — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ITN/R does explicitly mention "the opening and closing ceremonies of the Summer and Winter Olympic Games", plus the closing ceremony is how the Games ended. If this was the case for the opening ceremony, then we could've posted that the Olympics had begun, and keep the opening ceremony as a footnote. If we didn't do that there, what makes us not do that here? Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks fine, even the Paris part. Not enough CN tags to bar from posting. Marking for further attention. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't think of a time where we intentionally posted an item to ITN with outstanding CN tags. Have since added them myself but if there's "not enough CN tags to bar from posting" then it shouldn't be too time-consuming to add them. Spencer^T•C 15:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted CN tags addressed. Spencer^T•C 15:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping United States at the 2020 Summer Olympics is currently tagged. I don't think this choice of blurb was necessary.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U I posted the original blurb, which did not include a link to United States at the 2020 Summer Olympics. I am not sure who adjusted the blurb since posting. Spencer^T•C 15:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. I didn't check that specific detail. It seems like there's an ongoing discussion on the article's neutrality and hence the tag.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping I believe you overlooked the neutrality tag before expanding the blurb. Could you please revert it to the original blurb until the neutrality issue is resolved on the discussion page? Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand (and read on the main WP:ITN page), only the bolded article needs to be fully Main-Page compliant, otherwise little would ever get posted in a timely manner. In any event I can unlink the medal table, but reader interest dictates that the overall result be posted. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 7[edit]

(Closed) 2021 British & Irish Lions[edit]

Oppose relatively insignificant sports series. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not significant enough competition for ITN. News coverage of it in the UK was way lower than e.g. the Six Nations Championship (which does get posted, as it's ITNR). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with the above two comments re significance and also oppose on article quality - mostly a stats page. Only one match has any prose coverage.--Bcp67 (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Markie Post[edit]

Template:S Support Unsourced filmography, with many minor style errors, TV movies in Film and Television...but otherwise fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still some citations missing in filmography section. Awards and nominations section unref'd. --PFHLai (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Re added citations and hid uncited info for ones I could not find reliable sources. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThe filmography entries and text look sourced. There a few dead links, but they are backed up by live sources. Joofjoof (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Thanks for the new citations! --PFHLai (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Brad Allan[edit]

Comments: The Filmography section remains unref'd. More footnotes are also needed in the biographical prose. --PFHLai (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Trevor Moore[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 August 6 Template:Cob

Yeah, definitely not ready to post yet. Given the surprise nature of the death, there will be a fair bit that requires updating and pruning, hopefully some of which will be covered in upcoming articles. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added references for much of the article. TatteredSail (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple more references needed, but nearly good to post. Step hen 01:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Film + discography are now fully referenced, and CN tags are complete. It should be ready now. TatteredSail (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 6[edit]

(Posted) RD: Herbert Schlosser[edit]

Support Made NBC relevant to the 1970s, short sweet article, woe is us. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Attack on Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines[edit]

Oppose It can't be pleasant to be hit with a rock, but he doesn't seem seriously injured. No broader impact than that. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, a concussion to be precise[51], so he will be monitored for some weeks. No lasting issues though. Joofjoof (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has made the regional news: Jamaica Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana. The CARICOM chair also released a statement.[52] Joofjoof (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One wounded fails MINIMUMDEATHS, and he's far from a major world leader (my queen is his country's head of state). But yes, I've felt his pain, not fun. Stay strong, brother! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Lacks general significance. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your average Milkshaking, but with a rock. Kingsif (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Fire[edit]

Support Climate change is destroying towns. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Part of the larger global warming/climate change/U.S. wildfires stories. Doesn't appear to have a larger significance on its own. – Sca (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Sca. The difference with the Turkish forest fires is that have caused at least 8 victims. In California, two towns with less than 1200 inhabitants combined were burned. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Its wildfire season in the US (and elsewhere), and while two towns were destroyed, these aren't very large, and there are yet any reported deaths. The wildfire could get worse before its considered extinguished, and if there are deaths or more severe destruction (acreage of land notwithstanding) then it might be worth posting. --Masem (t) 22:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should we use units of acres or square kilometres? osunpokeh (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For U.S. fires only, sq. mi. with sq. km in parens (U.S. media practice). – Sca (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nom. comment Fire is now the "largest single wildfire in California history". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- While that is very much true, we're also talking about an area of the state largely undeveloped and unpopulated, aka "if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?" scenario. Yes, that's still land damage, there's smoke and ash going at least as far as Salt Lake City from what I've heard, etc. But its again, norm for this time of year and no lives have yet to be lost. --Masem (t) 16:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aye, everyone knows plants and animals were dead when we got here, a barren untouched wasteland. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose big fire, sad fire, not really interesting that it's a "biggest since FOO" fire because there's always one of those. Appears, per Masem, to currently (and merficully) have made little real historical impact. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's wildfire season in California, we'll continue to resist setting precedent for posting any and every X in predictable X season unless it's truly unprecedented. Also, I haven't seen this actually in any news (obviously I see the links, I had read about it by going down the local story route, but I mean it's not making headlines so that elusive "average reader" would be surprised to see it headlining Wikipedia alone). Kingsif (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's not "news" that California has fires in the summer. This fire has been going for weeks. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Change my vote, fire now much bigger and certainly ITN. However, I would rather support a combined blurb also mentioning the Greece/Turkey/Algeria etc. fires. Kingsif (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thing is, there's still no deaths reported, unlike the other wildfires. --Masem (t) 15:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment: No consensus for posting at this time. Spencer^T•C 15:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Prime Minister of Moldova[edit]

Comment: we already posted the results of the election back in July, so this is probably just a formality? --Tone 13:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tone, this is a duplicate posting; we already posted the election and the results. Occasionally we have posted things like this instead of elections, in cases where we missed the election posting for various reasons, but in general, when the election has already been posted, such formalities like this or like inaugurations and the like are not normally posted. --Jayron 32 14:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would not call it a formality because in this case, the leader of the winning party does not automatically become a prime minister (in fact, he is the current speaker of the parliament). It is not the Westminster system. Nevertheless, the prime minister in Moldova has more powers than the president, therefore should be important enough to be posted. Also worth noting is the fact that the country has had no government since last December, so this is a formal end of the local political crisis. --Andrei (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still, according to the election results, it was expected that the new PM would come from a party that has comfortably won the election. We typically reserve the PM posting in cases where there is a prolonged government formation, such as when no party can form a coallition and similar, which was not the case here. --Tone 16:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per Tone, it is a formality because we knew who the PM was going to be at the election, and nothing strange or unexpected happened between then and now. It was expected, at the time of the election, that what happened above would happen. Had it not, we would have a story to post. Since everything happened according to plan, there's no reason to post such an update. --Jayron 32 17:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does seem pretty much a foregone conclusion. – Sca (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 August 5 Template:Cob

August 5[edit]

(Closed) Lionel Messi leaves Barcelona[edit]

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

Strong oppose Sports transactions, no matter who the player is, are not ITN material. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only blurb Messi gets is if (a) he dies or (b) he signs for Ipswich Town. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sports transactions are not news. We didn't post(and shouldn't have) when Tom Brady went to Tampa Bay. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's a "transfer" not a "transaction". And to where, we know not. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Lacks general significance. Suggest snow. Sca (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Soccer is the most important thing in the world. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Richard Trumka[edit]

Comment I think I got the last couple citations in about his work on the U.S. Shell boycott; I would definitely support if so, as it seems everything else is sufficiently referenced. rawmustard (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks solid. Teemu08 (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One citation needed. Step hen 06:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just deleted the only unsourced information. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article looks good for homepage / RD. RIP. Marking Ready. Ktin (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Brian Henderson (television presenter)[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 August 4 Template:Cob

Support – well-referenced; meets minimum ITN requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – referenced and ready. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 14:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 4[edit]

(Posted) RD: Jean "Binta" Breeze[edit]

pinging Stephen and PFHLai. Joofjoof (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Long enough, with enough refs, no glaring problems. This wikibio seems to be READY for RD right now. --PFHLai (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 03:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: R. Aravamudan[edit]

Though long enough at 405 words, it seems a little thin as a wikibio -- it would be nice to know, apart from writing ISRO: A Personal History, what he has achieved while carrying all those big titles. I am not sure if this is a deficiency that should hold this nom back. Otherwise, this is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as fully sourced and although a short article it should be sufficient for our RD requirements JW 1961^Talk 12:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Karl Heinz Bohrer[edit]

Support But meets already minimum requirements. Grimes2 (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fully sourced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bobby Eaton[edit]

Comment. Looks almost ready for homepage / RD. There are two tags for unreliable sources. Template:Ping please can you look at that? Once that is fixed, this is good to go to homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with Tim Dills in particular, but the fact that Kayfabe Memories trusts him to cover Memphis in such depth speaks to his credibility. Not controversial claims, anyway. Would removing the tags sufficiently fix this? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U and Template:U, these tags are your business from two Februaries ago; any lingering doubts? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pending a reason not to, I've fixed those tags. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sourced and looks good.BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 06:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: J. R. Richard[edit]

Support as per the nomination. rawmustard (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article looks good. Added a couple of minor CN tags. Template:U please can you have them fixed. Should be relatively easy. Once that is done, this is good to go to homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, they're resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re ESPN says he died "Thursday" (Aug 5).[53] However, the article currently says Aug 4 and in a hospital, neither of which is specified in the page's current citation. This should be resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This source says Wednesday in hospital.[54] Whichever is deemed more reliable, it should at least be consistent with the citation.—Bagumba (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not too close to the game. But, I did see a few other sources including a statement on MLB.com that referenced Wednesday, August 4th. So, I think the article has the date correct. [55] [56] Ktin (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, it also seems to me that Aug 4 is correct and ESPN is incorrect. This source says that the death was reported by the Astros today, though he died last night in a hospital, and I will switch to this source. ESPN is probably taking the day of the report to be the day of death. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted—Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 400m hurdles world record, update[edit]

~~This should be at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, not here. Suggest speedy close. 108.41.218.218 (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
What? It's not an error. This is the right venue for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs)

Adding a new article requires people to check that article for ITN criteria. No error, no "simple" change. Kingsif (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - But I do not support this blurb. Just add MacLaughlin into the current blurb and add her image and make it a trio.BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At current that would be a bit long. Feel free to propose alts that don't take up half (if not more) of the box. Kingsif (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted by adding to the existing blurb. I will repeat what I said in my edit summary - this entire blurb is somewhat arbitrarily (and perhaps unfairly) putting a spotlight on athletics and ignoring the other world records in other sports, so I question the entire approach of putting Olympic world records in this ITN box. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PULL How was this allowed to go AND get posted when it's a copy-paste of a nom below with 2 opposes? 188.27.36.191 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While your observations are interesting and may even be valid, without a preponderance of reliable sources discounting the world records, it would amount to original research to make a judgment to consider these world records as requiring special treatment in ITN. Now as to whether we should be taking this much blurb space at all for arbitrarily highlighting these world records, but not the ones in swimming or cycling, that is indeed a valid issue to bring up. For now, it is only logical and fair that either all three folks should be gone from the ITN box, or all three should exist. Putting only 2 of the 3 athletics world records, as it was previously, just doesn't make sense. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a copy-paste when it's a different proposal with different scope. (And actually following ITN.) Fuzheado posted a variation on the blurb that has been discussed below; posting admin's prerogative is to assimilate responses, don't tell me you have issue with that. Importantly, discussion here was/is focused on the merit of adding McLaughlin, the point of the nom, rather than a debate on WR blurbs, which literally prefaced the nom below from a nominator who made it clear he didn't want article or blurb discussion to occur. But you knew that. Kingsif (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For reference nobody seems to have addressed any issues here: Seems that this new record was set WITH the "super spikes" that are reportedly a 1-1.5% bump over the old ones. Since this new decrease of .44 sec is by less than 1% of the old record (compared to the 1.6% for the men's one) and it is done WITH the new technology, this is definitely significantly less notable. The magnitude of the men's hurdles one was the notability there, and the long-jump one was the age of the record, neither of which apply in this case. Had this record been set outside of a competition with many records, this should have been posted, but can be skipped now. Alternatively, can add the records article to the ongoing link on the bottom of ITN (alongside medal table one).

More Template:Ping has anybody checked the linked article for quality updates? There are 2 sentences in the intro with ZILCH coverage in the body of the BLP. 188.27.36.191 (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the article was considered and it is fine. It could benefit from more additions but nothing is a show stopper. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support Makes sense to add this to the blurb about the other record being broken.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How many records are broken? Yet the biggest single event in 100m is not posted but 1 support gets posted?2A02:2A57:60AF:0:7931:FDE6:C873:15B2 (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you not nominate it then?BabbaQ (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Milavče train collision[edit]

Wait Stub article that also somewhat contradicts itself: it suggests there is a definite cause for the collision, but also that an investigation has just been opened. We should wait for it be clear which of those is true (do they know why, or are they looking into it?) RS should hopefully clarify with a few more hours. Kingsif (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless there's a criminal investigation, this isn't notable enough to be posted. Jim Michael (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re your wish has been granted. Criminal investigation opened. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support No longer stub and apparently criminal investigations are open now. Cindercat 🐱 (Want to talk?) 05:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose -- it is unclear what significance this has, but it does not appear to be notable enough to be posted. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 06:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Significance - it's a major rail crash in a first world country. ITN getting dominated by Olympics stories. Well developed article with no issues. Mjroots (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem major at all. A major rail crash would be one killing 10-20 or more, which unfortunately would not be unusual in certain countries. – Sca (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps percentage of a country's annual rail death toll would be a better metric for comparison? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does seem to have had a fair amount of coverage in English language sources. Not sure it really has that much significance for the wider world. I think the Stonehaven derailment another train related incident with the same number of deaths was rejected from ITN for that reason last year. Llewee (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Stonehaven derailment discussion was closed as "no consensus". But we're straying into the realms of WP:OSE here. As I have said before, there is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for a reason. Each article needs to be assessed on its own merits, at the time it is nominated. Nominating an article in my experience has a twofold purpose. Firstly, it gets more eyes on the article, and generally leads to improvement of said article. Secondly, it might actually get on the main page, which again gets more eyes on the article. If it don't make the second stage, then its not the end of the world. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that happened in 1962 anyway. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, we don't have a WP:MINIMUMDEATHS because an otherwise notable disaster is not completed mitigated by a low death count. However, the death count is often the most prominent factor in a disaster's significance. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would also prefer we not post multiple Olympics stories, but that's not a legitimate reason to post other stories. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I do not agree with the Opposing side here. Clear significance, deaths, rare event in the country, has received plenty of international coverage. Article is sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) More world records[edit]

Comment/suggestion: Can we have a cap on the number of these new records in the same blurb at the same time, please? Perhaps the most recent three? Just to avoid putting up bloated bullet-points on ITN. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I suggest bumping Rojas out (back to individual blurb?) and having the 400m hurdlers in the same blurb. Kingsif (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that it's better to combine the world records in 400 m hurdles in one blurb and keep Rojas in a separate one. We should also consider a new montage of Warholm's and McLaughlin's photos.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U Users unrelated to the nominator are allowed to propose alt blurbs; nominations are not the property of the nominator and unalterable by others, and adding an alt blurb does not suggest support by the nominator. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How then can it be allowed to appear without accreditation or being marked as distinct from my proposal in a section that has my name, and my name alone, attached to it? Kevin McE (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Users have proposed alt blurbs on the nominations of others for years and this is the first objection I've seen to it. Often discussions lead to such things and it is assumed that alt blurbs were not necessarily written by the nominator. My suggestion, if you are concerned that others will interpret the addition of an alt blurb as your suggestion, is that you make a statement saying that you do not support any suggested alt blurbs. Perhaps the nomination template can be tinkered with as well. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: it's not your proposal. The nominator's name is only there to give credit for bringing attention to the item, which is what gets the bulk of pure !votes, with blurb wording always open to improvement, sometimes (often) even changed by the posting admin without discussion at all. Kingsif (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patent nonsense, a proposal made by me, in my name, is my proposal. Why the incredibly rude tone from you on this page? Kevin McE (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, and I've not been rude. ITN isn't a series of mini-autocracies, and I have merely tried to elucidate that. Wordily and firm, probably. You're making incorrect generalizations of a process you evidently don't understand and now are trying to "win" by saying I'm not nice to you. It's embarrassing. Kingsif (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Seems that this new record was set WITH the "super spikes" that are reportedly a 1-1.5% bump over the old ones. Since this new decrease of .44 sec is by less than 1% of the old record (compared to the 1.6% for the men's one) and it is done WITH the new technology, this is definitely significantly less notable. The magnitude of the men's hurdles one was the notability there, and the long-jump one was the age of the record, neither of which apply in this case. Had this record been set outside of a competition with many records, this should have been posted, but can be skipped now. Alternatively, can add the records article to the ongoing link on the bottom of ITN (alongside medal table one). 188.27.36.191 (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to suggest that for the purposes of the rest of the games that we do not try to suggest more WRs, and instead add a link to World and Olympic records set at the 2020 Summer Olympics in the ongoing line (eg "Olympics (medal table, world records)") That article seems to be reasonable sourced and in good shape. That will avoid this issue of us not featuring every WR set. --Masem (t) 13:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And removing those already there? And acknowledge that sports other than athletics exist? Radical: I like it. Kevin McE (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should think about posting a box with links to multiple articles about the Olympics as we did for the COVID-19 pandemic last year. It's clear that the Summer Olympics are the main ongoing event in the world and the ongoing section cannot properly accommodate multiple links.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The box for COVID was more as a attention-getting highlight because of its severity and that we felt the need that we wanted to do something to alert the readers of a global issue. Olympics is not of that severity, but we can add extra links to what are likely articles of high interest, which I agree include the medal table and WRs. I would propose a similar approach for any other ongoing where there is a subpage or two that would be a reasonable target article associated with the main ongoing event where that information isn't on the target page (eg when World Cup comes round, the tourney bracket structure if its not on the Cup's main page could be a possible target like this). --Masem (t) 14:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to propose exactly what Masem just suggested. --LukeSurl^t c 14:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that a suggestion at ITN talk, and completely shot down? Kingsif (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a suggestion to have sports icons alongside the Olympics to point to every single major event. That was shot down. But having a couple side links is completely reasonable given that we already have one (the medal table). --Masem (t) 14:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, I'm sure that would be a separate ongoing nom. Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose and, frankly, suggest close. Massively overloaded blurb, and the nominator has made it very clear that t(his) nom is for that blurb wording alone, rather than for the item (i.e. event, i.e. bold article) - which ITN noms are supposed to be. I suggest Kevin, who also stuck this nom outside the date template until I fixed it, actually learn the ITN rules before trying it again. The rules which also say that items have to be nommed to get posted, so nobody is actively saying swimming and cycling can't be posted and he should stop whining about it. Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 August 3 Template:Cob

August 3[edit]

(Posted) Ongoing: 2020 Olympics[edit]

Support - Seems like a good suggestion in my opinion.BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is in good shape and we're already late. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Long overdue - this should have been updated last week. There's no excuse or any valid argument against including this on the Ongoing section.
Strong Support Such a major, worldwide, once-in-four(five)-years event should be added to Ongoing. The 2016 Summer Olympics were posted in Ongoing from the day it began. CosmicLycanroc (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like Template:U's suggestion of going with 2020 Summer Olympics (medal table). Ktin (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems a very simple solution to days of convoluted debate, accusation and and recrimination. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 21:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such a shame that all the convoluted debate, accusation and recrimination couldn't have been answered with simple factual responses rather than endless and hopeless snide comments, but glad we got to a result that now re-shapes Ongoing. I assume that Template:U, having posted this, will now update ITNR to account for this anomaly. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pull a couple of HOURS AGO it was made clear that the original potential item: Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics had been fixed up. This is a proper ONGOING item, and it's sad it's taken this long for all those complainants to fix it up, but it looks good enough now, and much more suitable that the article posted which is barely updated. Change the target, good job someone here is doing the job of the whining massive, shout out to Template:U, sadly surrounded by pseudo-comedians and users who literally do nothing here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You want a fact? The 2020 Summer Olympics are ongoing and the In The News box should state it as such. It really is that simple.

Please replace this curious smorgasbord of links (neither of which has consensus) with the timeline, which at least has some kind of ITNR pedigree. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I promise to do nothing here, as long as I can be called a pseudo-comedian. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]
I'm just glad I'm not a sports fan (except for snooker, of course). – Sca (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Martin, not a comedian at all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's not is he. Poor SCA. You can still be a snooker-pseud though. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Please Martin, take a break, stop responding to everything I post. It's bordering on bullying now. I'm sure you can find something better to do than continually harass me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sca, even the World Snooker Championship doesn't have the global impact of the Olympics, so it'll never get an "ongoing" slot. And I'm sure you're a real snooker fan, not a pseudo one as I suggested. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I foam at the mouth, on cue, at the sight of an 8-ball. – Sca (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics is now well-referenced and ready for posting. That's the standard article we always post to document ongoing Olympics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2020 Summer Olympics, strong oppose the chronology page. The Olympics themselves are ongoing, while the chronology is just fluff. — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So let's change the ongoing criteria? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Just treat this as a special case. It does get its own mention at WP:ITNSPORTS after all, and we already have COVID-19 pandemic as a perennial Ongoing item which also isn't updated on a daily basis either. — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, to be accurate, the ITNSPORTS link says it was the timeline which was accepted for 2016. The Covid article is a different matter altogether, it's not been updated properly and should be removed, but that's a red herring for this discussion. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think what I'm saying here is that this is an appropriate case for WP:IAR to apply. The Olympics page isn't being updated daily (although actually it should be, but that's another matter) but it's the page that readers most want to see, by a significant margin. — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstating the pull as we have an ongoing timeline article which is properly updated and sourced. Unless we're setting a new precedent here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am extremely certain it is not standard procedure for one unhappy editor to put "PULL" in a heading because they don't like something. If it's an actual error you should ask for it to be pulled at WP:ERRORS, otherwise you really must wait for at least one editor to agree with you, no? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you don't get it. There's no evidence this article meets the Ongoing update criterion. We have timeline article (noted at WP:ITNR) which should go into ongoing, now it's been updated. This article is not appropriate for "Ongoing". I think you all know that. Whether you are "extremely certain" or not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "evidence" is the 8 editors above who have supported this. I don't know or care what the Ongoing criterion are; there's certainly consensus that something about the Olympics should go there. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, correct. So the Ongoing criterion is now superseded. You don't care about it, but fuck that guideline. Glad the article which receives almost literally NO updates is now in the "Ongoing" section where "updates" are "continually" required. Well played. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is definitively not what the ongoing targets were supposed to be about. There's literally NOTHING in the target article about the ongoing events in the Olympic Games. The choice of two articles, one about the games, and a repeat, the medal table, is utterly shambolic. Neither give any indication as to the ongoing events and this project should be ashamed of this second-class choice, particularly in light of the work done on the timeline article. Embarrassing and pointed, this is junk and sets a clear precedent for literally any event to be added to Ongoing without any kind of substantial or useful update to our readers. Well done everyone, a proud moment. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. Full stop.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose quite conflicted here, as I appreciate the epic troll y'all are running on Rambling Man. But we shouldn't burn the whole project to the ground to do it. Just make fun of Thatcher or something. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I make the suggestion that we add Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics to the Ongoing section just as well as the Medal table. They are all three part of the Olympics. I see no reason to Pull neither of the other two articles part of the Ongoing section though. BabbaQ (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero reason to pull this, if we want to alter what is posted, we can do so. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post the timeline (per ITNR). Last chance saloon for me. This has dramatically changed my view on what the community believes "Ongoing" is for. We can now post things like the World Cup or the Euros because there's literally no updates to the articles in question, but "they're a big tournament". We will remember. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! Glad we reached this solution.

Ignoring everything else, I don't see why 2020 Summer Olympics medal table would be preferred to Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics, and would support swapping that for the second link. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion that article should be added to Ongoing as well, along with the Medal table with the 2020 Summer Olympics as the main article. This is the biggest Sporting event in the world. So having three articles at Ongoing for a few more days would make sense. BabbaQ (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swap medal table for chronology. I'm not generally a fan of chronology articles (there's a very good reason the other item is COVID-19 pandemic, not Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic), but the chronology article here includes the winners of all the events, which is relevant in the newsy sense. I think the general Olympics article is the target readers more expect, though, so I would very much oppose removing that. Including two Olympics links is fine, but I wouldn't want to see more than that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article has a continually updated medal table. Will China win? Stay tuned! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The ongoing section was originally created for having a link the Olympics and then was built up since then. Appropriate to continue having a link since various events are on subpages that can be reached by the existing link. Has a clear starting and end point, unlike the vast majority of other events on Ongoing. Spencer^T•C 03:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Horrible choice to now instead cram two Olympic items to ongoing because the original proposal failed because Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics, the single link typically posted, is now a bloated set of tables and an egregious violation of MOS:COLLAPSE. I'm not a slave to the "Olympic spirit" marketing machine to WP:IAR this (though I am updating 2020 United States men's Olympic basketball team).—Bagumba (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time to Close this nom. There will be no consensus to remove or add anything. Now only some bickering remains.BabbaQ (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pull not choice for me. 114.125.233.94 (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pull chronological article only not choice for me but it must only main article can be posted as ongoing. 116.206.35.25 (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pull Unless there are unexpected reasons to be posted it. 202.67.42.35 (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Three IP !votes from the same geoplace. Suspicious.BabbaQ (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... and only joint 40th in the medals table? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now stands unopposed at 46th place! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is absolutely pointless. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TRM. Surprised this hasn't been changed already given that the current situation goes against established policy. Effy Midwinter (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pull not choice for me and please do not strike out my vote. 2600:387:F:4013:0:0:0:8 (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Participants here are invited to join a broader discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news#The next Olympics: Appropriate article target(s) for ongoing items and other questions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) World records[edit]

Oppose lots of the cycling records are unreferenced. The article lacks a suitable introduction. Also, is the intention to extend this if records are beaten in other disciplines, to the point where it becomes the only news story in the ITN template? Also, rowing (for example) lists them as "world best" not "world records", this nuance doesn't come across in the blurb, so it's misleading. Either these are world records or they're not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The official weightlifting records are all from 2018+, pre-2018.5 records became historical interest-only with a weight class rearrangement. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about rowing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthen the blurb some more with World records are set in weightlifting, cycling, swimming, shooting and athletics at the Tokyo Olympics, along with world bests in rowing.? Why not alphabetical order? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's not really news that new world records are set during Summer Olympics because that always happens. The real news is when a world record is broken after a long period of time or by a significant margin.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People always die and elections always have results too. Kevin McE (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So we no longer need RD because we can post a blurb that links to deaths in 2021 as a target article. Don't we?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as long as we can still argue there aren't enough sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if a nomination with a proposed blurb "Sportspeople win medals at the 2020 Summer Olympics." arrives. And all such nominations come as a result of the reluctance to post the Olympics to ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sportspeople win medals at a big event". A lot simpler, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, take a break now Martin, maybe a week or two. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too vague to be meaningful. An "ongoing" for the Olympics is one thing, this is just silly. What's next? "Football matches occur in England, Germany, Spain, and France"? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What? Football matches occur is not equivalent to world records are set. I don't know, perhaps you're just testing us, this is patently absurd. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted, Closed) 400m hurdles world record[edit]

I'd support merging the two athletics world records, it even gives us the opportunity to have a direct link to the Olympics in the blurb. --Tone 08:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support simply because this is perhaps one of the most outstanding results in the history of athletics. It's extremely rare to see a race in which the first two athletes have run way better than the world record and 0.76 seconds in 400 m is really a huge margin.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with support rationale above. Just noting a few of the results in the table are unsourced (but happy to try and find some). Also not sure if this would get subsumed by the proposed "on-going" nomination (if that succeeds). Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we've already set a precedent by posting the triple jump, although I still think this is ridiculously unfair on the swimmers who set world records and weren't posted. So probably, as Tone says, let's fold this in to the triple jump story. And preferably add the swimming records too. That said, I don't think this is as surprising as the margin or the hyperbole above would suggest. Of course, the athletes today are strong, but comparing their times to those of the past is apples to oranges, as a result of changes in the spikes used on their boots.[57] — Amakuru (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the swimmers don't use spiked boots. Maybe just the diving? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Perhaps some spiked goggles though? [58] — Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the pole vault record was the precedent. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see world records in other sports being posted but the problem is that no-one nominates them.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U The winner didn't use the new spikes (the 2nd place guy did). Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Template:Ping Ah OK, my bad then. That certainly makes the new record seem more spectacular. — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: i am reclutant to support it to be posted unless the blurb can be considered ITNR. But, the article is a good shape. 36.77.94.77 (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support and fold it in to the other WR. This does need to be posted, though, because it's an astonishing destruction of the previous record. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~New World Record. And a great one. Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)~~ [reply]
Support good record, great from Warholm. No opinion on combining the athletics records into one blurb, but someone could montage their photos if that gets support. Kingsif (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There have been many records set, in swimming, rowing, cycling and probably other sports as well: if we do not have the equanimity to mention all of them, mention none (i.e., pull triple jump too). Otherwise we are declaring the POV that one Olympic sport is more important than others.Kevin McE (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would we also mention "records", set for the first time, at new events e.g. Mixed Triathlon Relay and Freestyle BMX? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an event that has history, like BMX (X-games), then that could get posted posted. New to Olympics doesn't matter, right? But setting a record in a new event shouldn't. I think I heard that the new triathlon event has been trialled before, but I don't know if that time was used to set the record? Kingsif (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. The GB time of 1:23:41 for the Mixed Triathlon Relay is, of course, the current Olympic record. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is like claiming that not posting every death in RD is saying some people were more important than others when, simply, nobody nominated RDs that would have been posted. If you want to see every new record posted, it's on you to nominate them all. Of course, some record breaks are seen as more newsworthy (i.e. actually ITN) than others: long-held records, those broken by a big margin, and those in sports like track and field which are contested by people from lots of countries, are generally in the news much more than someone taking 0.001 second off their own record in a sport only their nation cares about. Kingsif (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's always hope for 2024, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Would that be in track and field or some new summer biathlon, I wonder. Kingsif (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the field, I suspect. Along with the shooting. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Support, as this world record is newsworthy. If you feel other world records being set are also newsworthy, feel free to nominate those, but don't oppose this one for that reason.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support and agree with the sentiments above that this is an "overhaul"-standard record-breaking effort. Much like those others which we've posted lately. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this appears to have significant consensus to post, I marked it a while back but no willing admin yet. Suggest this is dealt with expediently and then we'll see what happens with the plethora of other Olympic nominations, premature or otherwise. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kevin McE. It's the Olympic Games, didn't you all expect the world records to be broken? In the end, that this happens has a lesser impact on society than the personal one of the achiever. If we don't even have the Olympics ongoing, it's nonsense that we have to put on the Main Page every single record that is broken. It's not pragmatic, neither a Sports page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody (other than Kevin) is suggesting we link to every record broken. Just those which are significantly broken, whether that be by a notable margin or from a notable period of time. We don't have to put on the Main Page every single record that is broken, self-evidently that hasn't happened. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You severely overestimate how many world records are broken at the Olympics, they're not gold medals. There's probably an article somewhere comparing world records and Olympic records. If you want to oppose with the argument that breaking a world record is something that is "just personal for the achiever", well, should no awards ever be posted? There's a lot of ITN/R gone... Kingsif (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the blurb that is proposed currently. The most notable and important thing about this event is that both the gold and silver medallist set a time that was quicker than the existing world record. This a very rare occurence and that is what the blurb should deal with.T v x1 17:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes this world record more outstanding but I disagree that a blurb should mention it. The second fastest time, albeit significantly better than the previous world record, is not a world record itself. I prefer including the exact margin in the blurb instead of this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t care about the individual merits of the second time. It’s about the event as whole. If you want to highlight this sport event in the in the news section, than it needs to convey the key elements why it is notable. And both the winner and the runner-up setting a time quicker than the existing world record is a key element of this event.T v x1 19:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point but the news is the world record and that's what should be included in the blurb. The results of the other athletes, including the time of the runner-up and the total of six national records set, should find their place in the race summary, which is indeed the case because the summary is very well written and captures all relevant details about the race.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nom isn't for "400 m hurdles event". And even if it were, a blurb cannot mention every notable aspect of the event. Compare it to awards ceremonies: merely happening is deemed blurbworthy, and by tradition our blurbs mention the top result, even if something interesting happened in a different part. Kingsif (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don’t care about the unique merits of the other athletes. I’m referring to the combined achievement of the first two. It’s that unique achievement which is actually in the news. It’s not some detail and did not happen in a different part of the race. It’s the most important event of it.T v x1 10:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - Changing my stance to strong support. This is indeed an "overhaul"-standard record-breaking effort. BabbaQ (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be ok with merging it into the triple jump story, but oppose a separate blurb, as with the Olympics looking set to be added to Ongoing as well, that's enough representation of the games on ITN I think. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment still confused as to why this hasn't been posted. It has community consensus to do so. Are admins now making personal choices on what to promote, based on the fact that a newer item has been posted since this was ready to go? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We have the Olympics Ongoing handle now to cover all the twists and turns. Pull the triple jump too. As Kevin McE says (and I said below) there are numerous records being set, and we shouldn't editorialise which ones we post. — Amakuru (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We literally "editorialize" everything we post. Why one plane crash and not another? Why one death and not another? Are they all nommed, and after the nom, it's a democracy, people vote. If they vote for one record and not another with sensible reasoning, so be it. If this is in the news and not another record, all the more reason to "editorialize", a word you're incorrectly using in place of "fulfilling the ITN goals". Kingsif (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Oppose withdrawn. Support double blurb though. — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Step hen 22:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Ping OK why? There's no consensus here whatsoever. Please pull. — Amakuru (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
I'd say there's strong support for posting this. What did I miss? The oppose seems to be "meh, stop posting world records", the support seems to be "wow, highly publicised world record smash which is strongly in the news and for which we have an article". What did I miss? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That there’s no consensus on what the blurb should contain.T v x1 10:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Comments seem to indicate a preference for a double-blurb; in any case, discussion should continue on that even though it's been posted. Kingsif (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this had strong consensus to post. Not sure how that can be denied. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A combined blurb would be a better reflection of all the comments here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ongoing: 2021 Taliban offensive[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 August 2 Template:Cob

Comment I nominated this article two weeks ago and it didn't go anywhere. The nomination will probably have more support after one of the provincial capitals falls Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proseline, wall of reactions. Nominate for a blurb when something significant happens. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – UN says 40 killed in fighting over Lashkargah. – Sca (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the news seems to think that the bulk of fighting is in Lashkar Gah and it's getting bad. If they take Helmand province, that would be the blurb. Pending article update, of course. Kingsif (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these place names don't mean much to most English speakers, I'm afraid, so I guess we'd be back (at least partly) to weighing the death toll. BTW, that BBC story did say 40 civilians killed. – Sca (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I am convinced that this will be blurb-worthy when the Taliban take Kandahar city (or Kabul, but that seems further away). Re-nominate for a blurb when that happens. Modest Genius ^talk 15:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Kandahar (pop.: 650,000) is at least somewhat more familiar to English speakers. – Sca (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We posted the "peace agreement" which was understood by all as ceding the country to the Taliban. I have no objection to a second blurb when the job is done, but we don't need to post each territorial gain any more than we need to cite that the sky is blue. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a process, clearly ongoing, citations look adequate (and I know these places from 25 years of exclusively English news, for whatever that's worth). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Taliban now control the majority of Afghanistan. They attacked Kabul on 3 Aug. Jim Michael (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I imagine that Template:Xt qualifies as "something significant". And of course all this on the back of the US and other nations announcing they will be withdrawing their forces from NATO's involvement there. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support As it's not a blurb, the minimal update for August seems satisfactory. Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping can we keep the COVID-19 link left justified in "ongoing" since it's going to be there for another 2 or 3 years it makes sense to keep it in the same place. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting comment – Seems to be on the boil, with three key towns taken. [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] – Sca (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2[edit]

(Posted) RD: Dave Severance[edit]

Support – Sourced and ready. Looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: George Forss[edit]

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

Support - Looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 03:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics[edit]

~~Oppose~~ as before, target article is poorly cited, missing dozens if not scores of references. Nothing appears to have changed since the first nomination which was closed with consensus against this. This re-nomination without any attempt to resolve the previous issues is decidedly a failure of WP:POINT and I am (not) shocked that an admin would stoop to this. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discussion (just prior to closure) can be found here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Olympics really needs to be in ongoing. If not this article, something else needs to go up. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing articles need to be updated as the event progresses (indeed, per the ITN instructions, Template:Xt). The timeline was used for the 2016 games as it was the only one summarising the events. This article is currently not fit for the main page (as per the community consensus discussion last time round, a week or so back, sadly nothing has changed). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we can't post the article that was mistakenly posted before, I agree with Template:U above, and invite others to make other suggestions here. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For an Ongoing entry, it must comply with the requirements noted above. The only 2020 Olympics article to do that is the one you yourself have nominated for Ongoing. I assume you knew that when you made the nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm astounded that the Tokyo Olympics still isn't listed as "Ongoing". This must be fixed. I think it should simply say "2020 Summer Olympics" and link to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Summer_Olympics . I don't see a single reason why that should not be implemented.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.7.130 (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No single reason other than completely ignoring the criterion for Ongoing items as noted above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my ignorance - where is the criterion? Having trouble finding it. I'm just in disbelief that a consensus hasn't been reached when such a simple, uncontroversial, objectively correct implementation is right in front of us.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.7.130 (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the relevant text is noted above, but see WP:ITN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think the article checks out, as the medal table is regularly getting updated. In any case, it is objectively correct to state that "2020 Summer Olympics" is ongoing and it would confuse or upset absolutely nobody to have it included in the box.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.7.130 (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We cannot be seriously considering this in the current state. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I opened this because I felt the discussion below was closed prematurely; there is clearly a desire to post something. It doesn't have to be this, there's good reasons to not post this as it is now; an IP user made a suggestion above. But we are missing the boat here and should do something. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The discussion below had served its purpose to remove a sub-standard article without consensus from the main page. You then prematurely re-opened this nomination with the same article in the same sub-standard condition. "Do something" == fix the poor state of the article you have nominated, and feel free to do that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose putting the chronological summary as Ongoing, both per above qualify concerns, and also because it's the wrong article to be showcasing. As evidenced by page view statistics,[64] the page that readers are seeking is the main Olympics page, not a poorly structured data dump which receives 50 times fewer hits than its parent. Currently, 2020 Summer Olympics has some orange tags and has not been fully updated with latest info, but I wouldn't be opposed in principle to posting that one to ongoing if someone sorts it out. Not the chronological summary though. — Amakuru (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see what's wrong with using 2020 Summer Olympics. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose that article, just put 2020 Summer Olympics up there, its currently a glaring omission. Nixinova T C 07:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for those requesting 2020 Summer Olympics to be posted as Ongoing, can they demonstrate what aspects of that article (currently maintenance-tagged) beyond the medal table are being regularly updated to comply with the basic requirement of Ongoing items? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is that "needs additional citations" template, in the "Sports" section, in the right place? That section looks very well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it relates to the latter part of that section which is entirely unreferenced. And what part of this article meets the Ongoing requirement? Just the medal table? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But only the "Number of athletes by National Olympic Committee" subsection is "entirely unreferenced"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said. But no-one's answering the question on what's being updated here for it to qualify as an "ongoing" event. If we want to remove the requirement for continual updates, that's another debate. The medal table? Amaze. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The medal table is sourced to this. Are you saying that's inappropriate, or just amazing? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the medal table was unsourced. Good grief. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what did you say? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can read for yourself. I'm still waiting for an answer to the question "what aspect of the article is receiving updates that complies with the basic requirement of "Ongoing""? I guess if we're now down to just the medal table, this will impact future "ongoing" nominations where just a "number of deaths" (for example) will need to be updated to keep something in there. If that's what the consensus agrees, fine by me, meanwhile I still oppose this nomination (as a woefully under-referenced article is being knowingly proposed) and the alt-"nomination" (which has practically zero updates being applied). Now feel free to find something else to do. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "woefully under-referenced." That template seems unjustified. I'm also unclear what it means for an article to be "continually updated". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't place the tag. I didn't invent the Ongoing requirement. Take it up with those that did. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm no longer clear which article you're talking about. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind Martin, take a break. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am saying the following without any prejudice to quality concerns, but I am under the impression that if the opening ceremony has occurred and the closing ceremony hasn't concluded yet, then the Olympics are considered "ongoing" and therefore common sense prevails there. Therefore, the article for the 2020 Summer Olympics is sufficient for ongoing during its occurrence after the opening ceremony rolls off. This should have been a precedent for at least 15 years now, sheesh. We're doing the same thing with the COVID pandemic article, albeit indefinitely. At least the Olympics is a two week span. So its obviously ongoing and is a major news spectacle. DrewieStewie (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that's fine. The only question is, what aspects of the article (beyond the medal table) are being updated as the event progresses, or do we not need to do that for this one special event? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I think the real thing regarding the olympics is that unlike other “ongoing” candidates, it’s a recurring sports item that lasts two weeks every 2 years and is international in scope. This poses unique circumstances as there aren’t any (at least to my knowledge) comparable events that end up on ongoing. It’s not like we do that for the World Series, Stanley Cup, or NBA Finals. So the Olympics is an outlier, and as it’s subject to consensus, my opinion is that for this one special event, the medal table being updated and it being within the dates is sufficient to signify ongoing. DrewieStewie (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and thank you for being the first person here out of everyone (including the nominator!) to answer my question. If the community are happy with an updated medal table, and the unreferenced material can be referenced, then sure thing. We'll need another footnote at ITNR describing yet another exception for this edition of the Olympics of course, but that's easy enough. I don't believe that, given we have a "timeline" article which is being updated but not referenced, that we should just cop-out and post an article which provides almost literally no detail on the ongoing events, and will still oppose, but thanks for at least explaining the rationale behind your own support, I appreciate it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DrewieStewie what about Winter Olympic Games, FIFA World Cup, Euros, etc? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I included the Winter Games in my argument (2 weeks every 2 years is inclusive of winter games). As for World Cup and Euros, I suppose they work too. It probably would be easier to gain consensus on a World Cup as that is global rather than continental, though the Euros shouldn’t have much trouble either. The olympics seemed to be a more sure bet given it’s scope and it being inclusive of various sports, but the futbol World Cup and euros should do too. I am not opposed to those either. DrewieStewie (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool beans. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be too late now (given 2020 Summer Olympics is being discussed), but I have added references for everything on Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics, so that article no longer has references problems. I don't have an opinion on which one of the two articles is the better main page candidate. — NormalPerson7 (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very well done, NormalPerson7. A good outcome, even if nothing gets posted. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support great work Template:U, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed) Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics[edit]

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate This has been added with the "roll-off" of the opening ceremony but the discussion to include this as an "ongoing" item ended with opposition. If I missed the community consensus agreeing to adding this very poor article to the main page once the opening ceremony rolled off, could I be pointed to it please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I remembered it wrong or didn't follow that particular discussion, I thought this was non-controversial. I leave it to the community to decide whether to keep it or pull it. --Tone 18:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should revert your edit. I've given you the evidence of the community discussion on this matter above. There was no consensus anywhere at any point that when the opening ceremony rolled off we should post the timeline as ongoing. Not a shred. Please do the right thing now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's the criterion for a "very poor article"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amongst other things, one where a considerable portion of the information is unverified. I think you know that, having seen your work on RDs with discographies where all entries are required to be cited. As you can clearly see, this article has dozens of results without citation. Hope that clears thing up for you. Thanks. Also, there was no consensus anywhere to post this after the opening ceremony rolled off. As you know. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, RD seems to need to have everything cited, not just a considerable portion. Perhaps they just start off as "poor". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, the standard is to not target articles which aren't pretty much comprehensively verifiable. Anyway, this is irrelevant. The previous attempt to nominate this very article for ongoing ended in a consensus against it. Of course, as you're so keen, re-nominate it and, as you note, you could always fill in the missing hundred or so references. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer of all that help. Perhaps you think there is a more suitable target article? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed for the time being. Let's have a discussion instead whether we should have it or not. --Tone 18:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, that will need to be a new "ongoing" nomination which will supersede (or concur with) the previous ongoing nomination where there was consensus directly against posting this subs-standard article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a good idea. Looks like the ideal candidate. Perhaps people will help to improve it. Radical thought, I know. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U Thanks for addressing the honest mistake. I don't think there is a bureaucratic need for a separate nomination, it can be discussed here. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, a new heading needs to be used, this is a "removal" nomination. Good grief. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's time to close this one, as it's been "pulled" and marked as such. Who needs bureaucracy when you can have pedantic bureaucracy. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 August 1 Template:Cob

August 1[edit]

(Posted) RD: Kazimierz Kowalski[edit]

Support length ok, sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Paul Cotton[edit]

Weak support Slim but referenced and meets minimum standards. Spencer^T•C 03:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re I think this is ready to go now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Eddie Presland[edit]

Support - Sourced, Start class, looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted: A bit slim, but okay for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Triple jump world record[edit]

Comment The athletics article is a bit messy and is written like emphatic commentary, but I've been updating Rojas' article since the win. A bit of ref clean-up and it should be really good. I'll probably check back with a support when I'm done. Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC) To add: disappointed to see objections solely based on users' personal views that triple jump isn't as important as 100m, an argument that wouldn't hold water in other noms. Kingsif (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Where is this listed in ITNR? 331dot (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything like this at WP:ITN/R. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we didn't post world records during the Olympics because there are too many of them. This isn't as newsworthy as a 2-hour marathon or a 100-meter-dash world record would be, so I will probably oppose on newsworthiness. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, and frankly absurd, if someone took 0.2 seconds off the 100m sprint we wouldn't post it because it's the Olympics? Honestly. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My intended point was that we would post if the 100m dash fell by that much. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So we should post this, a 26-year-old record beaten. This is a weird objection, I'm not clear what you're talking about. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this right, you'd post the minor break of a recent world record, but not a 17cm improvement on a 26-year-old record that was probably illegitimate anyway? And in the same overall discipline (athletics)? That's simply triple jump prejudice, plain and simple, which makes no sense. We've posted Duplantis beating the pole vault, another jumping event, so is it because of the hopping involved or are you not impressed with one of the best record improvements this century? Kingsif (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not ITN/R, and I don't think the triple jump world record is significant enough. Personally I think Elaine Thompson-Herah running the second fastest ever women's 100 is more notable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re The triple jump record was older than the athlete who broke it, and most athletics disciplines get wide coverage - this is certainly dominating the news. Have any other records been broken (not set, broken) this year, because if so then they haven't even been shown on the dedicated sports networks. On Template:U's behalf, I've removed the ITN/R tag. Kingsif (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we nominate this world record? OR this one? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry but your links don't work. Try to make your point again so we can all understand it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you Brits really not access any American news sites because of ad-tracking rules now? Anyhow, Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's 200 metre breaststroke and Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre butterfly are the articles. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - No we can't so stop being a dick about it. Were either of those records 26 years old? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And by Brits you mean Europeans. GDPR is a European law, and yes, sites are completely walled, only the url can tell you where you were supposed to go. Honestly, feel free to nominate those records, it wasn't sarcasm. Kingsif (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Yes, I'm aware of how old it is - I watched Inessa Kravets set the previous world record in 1995. My personal view is that breaking a world record is not intrinsically more significant than winning a World or Olympic title, and we don't post those individually. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well then oppose on that basis, rather than saying triple jump records aren't notable. Though it would be a limited oppose given ITN's history of posting records. Kingsif (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed those as well. And until it's ITN/R, they are discussed on a case-by-case basis. And as for the blurb itself, talk about burying the lead. It doesn't even mention the Olympic gold medal, which is what she came for.Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should consider Thompson's Olympic record, beating FloJo's 1988 record, as a ITN candidate. The 100m is the most famous (or one of the most famous) track and field and in general Olympic events. Wqwt (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support be consistent. Either these records are worth posting or not. There's no intrinsic difference between the one we posted a month or so ago, and this one. And this one was amazing to be fair. She beat a record which had stood for 26 years. But then, female ethnic athlete, whatever. Wikipedia continues to disappoint its regulars. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think this is one of the marquee records that is followed by the public at large, like the 100m run record. This isn't top line news(and no sources are offered). 331dot (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You stick her name in google news search and it literally says "top story". Kingsif (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I still think this record is not highly followed. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"highly followed", what does that even mean?! Look at the facts rather than just this useless back-garden opinionating. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, she's not American, but she's highly notable and her record is all over the news. This is top line news. Sad to claim otherwise. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support because four stories on ITN are over a week old and it's a reasonable story to include on ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obvs. Also, when was the last time an Olympic gold medal was shared? Just sayin'. And, of course, what we really need, is a whole separate ITN box on the Main page for all those latest Olympic records!! --Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as it is a major track and field world record being broken. Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the blurb should be about the age rather than about the exact value, alt4. The caveat is that likely this is a WR cause triple jump women was not an olympic thing during the 80s testosterone era that still has half of women's athletics WRs. 2A02:2F0E:D519:8B00:C9CC:5655:DF34:665B (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add American distance numbers to the blurb as well as meters for reader understandability, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 03:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 26 years is nothing special because this is around the average for such field events – see The Economist's detailed analysis. And lots of other records are being broken at the Olympics. As there are two other Olympic blurbs currently, we should shift all this to a single ongoing entry. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The numerous weightlifting records is fake as they raised the weight classes in 2019 for fairness and set the minimum to count as an Olympic record low enough that it usually happens at least once per record (3 records per weight class, the snatch,clean and jerk and the sum which is the one that determines who won). There is also a mixed team fad going on now in multiple sports, the extreme newness of these events will make it very easy to get an Olympic record in them until at least 2024. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the Opening Ceremony is still ongoing isn't it, judging by that bold link.... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's how ITN blurbs are written. For example, the triple jump world record is not being continually broken is it? And please be careful not to disrupt other's signatures. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We embolden Yulimar Rojas, not women's triple jump. And we don't even have a direct link to the "triple jump world record." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? Oh, there isn't one. You tried this at ERRORS yesterday and it got nowhere. Those looking for an "ongoing" Olympics article should nominate a suitable candidate (for the second time) instead of just complaining about it (repeatedly). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew suggested moving "all this to a single ongoing entry." I don't see what's "ongoing" about the triple jump record/ gold medal. And as far as I can see, neither do you. And please be careful not to describe other editor's contributions as pointless. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you re-litigating an issue that was closed down at ERRORS yesterday? That's pointless. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, if we did move to a single ongoing Olympics event, I'm guessing we'd use 2020 Summer Olympics as the emboldened main link, not the opening ceremony. Is that correct? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed here, feel free to take another stab at it, as suggested several times. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, that's a question for Andrew, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is. But there you go, the discussion is linked and you can see for yourself what the proposed target articles would be for an ongoing. I'm sure Andrew has an opinion, but this is Wikipedia and we go by community consensus. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paging Template:Ping. Is there an Andrew Day Vidson in da house? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

This is getting creepy now. I'm sure Andrew will be delighted to receive so many notifications from you. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd better remind myself about WP:ANTICREEP. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose per 331dot. Incremental record, and the Olympics always has quite a few records as that's the nature of the beast. This is why we have an Ongoing entry, we don't post every twist and turn. — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other records set at this Olypmics include four in the shooting competitions and in swimming, the men's 100 metre butterfly, women's 200 metre breaststroke, as well as two swimming relays. Why is the triple jump seen as more important than any of those? — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is (a) it's a long-standing record (26 years) and (b) it's a large increase in the record and (c) it was all in the news, unlike the shooting and swimming records. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where I sit on this posting, but claims like "it was all in the news, unlike the shooting and swimming records" don't work for me. Where I live, the swimming records topped the news. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, local news will focus on local notability. Apart from Peaty, swimming is barely mentioned where I live. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live swimming medals were plastered all over BBC radio and television news. Well, Team GB ones anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But this is about the world records, not the local winners. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where I live swimming events were not only part of every news bulletin, but swimmers appear at every single commercial break. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
support - It is a world record and a quite old one as well. I support the posting.BabbaQ (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marvelous jump and great achievement. She broke a world record that was set before she was born. That tells everything.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That she was born too late? – Sca (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Krystsina Tsimanouskaya / Belarusian athlete defections[edit]

Oppose. This isn't quite as brazen as forcing a passenger aircraft to land, and there is a plausible reason for this on each side. Maybe if more develops(such as Japanese police arresting someone). 331dot (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What "plausible reason" do you mean? This incident is the main topic on the websites of Reuters, BBC, DailyMail, France24 and dozens of others media outlets.--KastusK (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that both the athlete and the team have plausible explanations for this incident. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the team did not give an explanation for the deportation at all.--KastusK (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a deportation since Japan did not kick her out of the country. Abduction, maybe. Reuters: "The Belarusian Olympic Committee said in a statement that coaches had decided to withdraw Tsimanouskaya from the Games on doctors' advice about her "emotional, psychological state"." I'm not saying they are correct, but that is their answer. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this supposed "emotional, psychological state" only arose after she criticised Belarusian authorities on Instagram, "for entering her for the 4x400 relay despite her never previously racing the event." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The travails of individual Olympic athletes usually don't pose general significance. This one seems part of the continuing Belarus story. – Sca (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's certainly news, but not so prominent or impactful to justify a front-page posting. At least not yet. Maybe add it to the Current Events portal? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Important news, but just not important enough for the main page.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Taken to airport but not deported. Spencer^T•C 05:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Just a trivial event. Maybe it's her tactic to gain refugee status. STSC (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's her tactic to avoid being "disappeared" by a brutal authoritarian regime? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She has now voiced fears for her own safety and has said that it may not be safe for her to return to Belarus for five or ten years: [65] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Ms. Tsimanouskaya (Tee-man-oooss'-skee-yah -??) has been granted a "compassionate visa" by Poland, [66] [67] [68] which apparently amounts to provisional asylum status. This seems to make her case more interesting and significant. – Sca (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim-an-off-ski-ya, I believe. Kingsif (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ціманоўская / Тимановская – Where does the 'F' come from? (Not that I'm any expert.) – Sca (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that looks like a B in Cyrillic is an F. And that pseudo-U at the start is a T. The funny y is a semi-vowel, which I'm not sure how to attempt, they appear in Welsh but those accents are quite different. Kingsif (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Well, in Russian anyway a B is a V, as in Moskva (Москва) – Moscow to us. – Sca (talk)

Template:Hat

Eh?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

There are two vowels in Betws, but you'll probably only hear one. That's about all I know. Kingsif (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. If you go to Betws, I can assure you that you'll hear two. In fact you will at any of them, even this one! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

See now, I was just thinking of the common noun, (it was read from the day prayers in a church I visited (chapel, it seems). The w barely sounded voiced?) don't come here with your geography *gasp* Kingsif (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, you meant 'betws. I only came here with geography in answer to a geographical example. *gasp* But I guess you mean Short U (Cyrillic), for the voiced labial–velar approximant /w/, which can occur in Welsh? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

... Yes. Yes, that's what I was thinking short U voice labia approximate. Am I saying that right? Kingsif (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hab

Wait Until it is less "developing story" to decide. Kingsif (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique and important, we have an obligation here at this international website to highlight human rights abuses. More importantly, its in the news all over the world, which is what this vote supposed to represent also. 212.74.201.233 (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually we are not here to right great wrongs. Please use social media to publicize human rights issues. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is clearly evolving into a significant story that is remaining in the news. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – in principle, but suggest we wait until Ms. T. actually gets to Poland. AFAIK she's still in Japan. – Sca (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She's also been given a Japanese visa, so it looks like she can just stay in Tokyo now. Kingsif (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Story was not a one day thing. Has continued to be published in all major media today. Has become an international story. BabbaQ (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Three supports don't constitute consensus. Premature "Ready" tag removed. – Sca (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support And added Japanese visa alt: an Olympic host basically sheltering an athlete is news, and the media is treating it as very big news. Also a story about the Belarusian "last dictatorship in Europe", too. Kingsif (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. – Sca (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – getting closer: – As of 12:00 Wednesday Tsimanouskaya was on a plane from Tokyo to Vienna. [69] [70] [71] – Sca (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vienna arrival – Plane carrying Ms. Tsimanouskaya lands at 13:00 in Vienna, [72] [73], from which she's expected to journey to Warsaw today. – Sca (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna departure - Took off to Warsaw shortly after arriving. [74] Kingsif (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cripes. Now tempted to suggest the "o-word". Maybe not. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need a scrolling line, duh. Kingsif (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only scrolling any self-respecting encyclopaedia needs are these. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Update Suggested alt4 with a different 'hook' after two other athletes say they won't go back to Belarus. Kingsif (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Warsaw arrival – A plane carrying Ms. Tsimanouskaya landed at Warsaw Chopin Airport Wednesday evening, and she was taken to a private terminal where she was greeted by Polish officials and Belarussian expatriates. [75] [76] [77] – Sca (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – When dully updated with Warsaw arrival. No. 1 story worldwide today. Great political significance. – Sca (talk)
PS: IMO, it would be best not to complicate this spot news by combining the item with stories about other Beloarussian refusenik athletes. She was first. – Sca (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Dziękuję, Polska. — Sca (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, at least we know she's alive. Surely can think of five more altblurbs? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough room, won't let ya' Kingsif (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also support one of these blurbs. Which one is up to you.BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support article updated. Check how much detail you want on the arrival, though, it's one sentence in the saga at the moment. It's a bit of an unravelling story but all blurbs are current, I'd probably go with alt2 but don't mind. Kingsif (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Alt2 is shorter, but Alt1 tells a bit more of the story and it reads OK, so I'd probably go for that. In any case, let's get it into the box before the day's out. – Sca (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted with Alt1, but if anyone thinks that one of the others is much better, feel free to change it. Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've sent File:Krystsina Tsimanouskaya 2019 Summer Universiade, brightened (cropped).jpg to WP:CMP if anyone feels it should be the image (when KrinkleBot has done its work). Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar military junta[edit]

Comment. This seems like it would be ITNR. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it's not clear whether this titular grab portends any tangible change on the ground. – Sca (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major development from the coup back in February and also depicts a new leadership in the region. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support, but the update related to today's development needs to be longer. --Tone 18:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose respectfully. Smoke and mirrors or window dressing. Call it what you like but nothing substantive has changed. It was a military dictatorship last week and it's still a military dictatorship today. Changing job titles does not fundamentally alter political reality. This is not what ITNR was intending to cover. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The change in job title is what is ITN/R, though, not the change in power. We still post the results of elections in countries with rigged elections or in which real power is held by a different individual. We also post when the incumbent wins and when someone takes the relevant job title by law (e.g., VP taking power after President dies), so clearly there doesn't have to be an actual change in power and there doesn't have to be an actual election for it to be ITN/R. Mlb96 (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Legitimization of dictatorship by change in administrative position, ITNR and article looks fine. Gotitbro (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not ITNR WP:ITNR#Elections and heads of state and government says: "Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government...as listed at List of current heads of state and government." This list shows President of Myanmar to be the executive, not the Prime Minister. Joofjoof (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see both President and Prime Minister listed in that article for Myanmar. Mlb96 (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only the President is marked as executive, as mentioned in the key at the top of the article. Joofjoof (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This just appears to be pedantic, the guideline's purpose is to highlight significant administrative changes. Even if take this into account, the president is clearly not that important in the present regime. This is in the news and the assumption of a different substantive role does appear to fall into that category. Gotitbro (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not a normal change of head of state. I think article "2021 Myanmar coup d'état" should be included in the blurb. STSC (talk)
Comment – Opposition on Monday condemns Min Aung Hlaing's asumption of PM title, calling it a bid to gain legitimacy. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fails ITNR in both fact (the president is the leader) and spirit (a change in leadership has not occurred). GreatCaesarsGhost 22:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sad situstion but ITN worthy still.BabbaQ (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not ITN/R per GreatCaesarsGhost. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment debate can continue on significance, but I'm untagging as ITNR, as there is too much doubt about if this event is covered. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Turkish wildfires[edit]