Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here.

↓↓Skip to suggestions

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations (Archives) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

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

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

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

Pervez Musharraf Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf (pictured) dies at the age of 79. A Chinese balloon suspected of surveillance and espionage is shot down after overflying Canada and the United States. Comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF) makes its closest approach to the Earth. A suicide bombing in a mosque in Peshawar, Pakistan, kills 100 people and injures more than 220 others. Petr Pavel is elected as president of the Czech Republic. Ongoing: Peruvian protests Russian invasion of Ukraine Recent deaths: C. Lalitha Barrett Strong David Durenberger Richard Woolcott John Adams Melitta Muszely Nominate an article view — page history — related changes —

Discussions of items older than seven days are automatically archived

February–March 2005 • April 2005 • May 2005 • June 2005 • July 2005 • August 2005 • September 2005 • October 2005 • November 2005 • December 2005 • January 2006 • February 2006 • March 2006 • April 2006 • May 2006 • June 2006 • July 2006 • August 2006 • September 2006 • October 2006 • November 2006 • December 2006 • January 2007 • February 2007 • March 2007 • April 2007 • May 2007 • June 2007 • July 2007 • August 2007 • September 2007 • October 2007 • November 2007 • December 2007 • January 2008 • February 2008 • March 2008 • April 2008 • May 2008 • June 2008 • July 2008 • August 2008 • September 2008 • October 2008 • November 2008 • December 2008 • January 2009 • February 2009 • March 2009 • April 2009 • May 2009 • June 2009 • July 2009 • August 2009 • September 2009 • October 2009 • November 2009 • December 2009 • January 2010 • February 2010 • March 2010 • April 2010 • May 2010 • June 2010 • July 2010 • August 2010 • September 2010 • October 2010 • November 2010 • December 2010 • January 2011 • February 2011 • March 2011 • April 2011 • May 2011 • June 2011 • July 2011 • August 2011 • September 2011 • October 2011 • November 2011 • December 2011 • January 2012 • February 2012 • March 2012 • April 2012 • May 2012 • June 2012 • July 2012 • August 2012 • September 2012 • October 2012 • November 2012 • December 2012 • January 2013 • February 2013 • March 2013 • April 2013 • May 2013 • June 2013 • July 2013 • August 2013 • September 2013 • October 2013 • November 2013 • December 2013 • January 2014 • February 2014 • March 2014 • April 2014 • May 2014 • June 2014 • July 2014 • August 2014 • September 2014 • October 2014 • November 2014 • December 2014 • January 2015 • February 2015 • March 2015 • April 2015 • May 2015 • June 2015 • July 2015 • August 2015 • September 2015 • October 2015 • November 2015 • December 2015 • January 2016 • February 2016 • March 2016 • April 2016 • May 2016 • June 2016 • July 2016 • August 2016 • September 2016 • October 2016 • November 2016 • December 2016 • January 2017 • February 2017 • March 2017 • April 2017 • May 2017 • June 2017 • July 2017 • August 2017 • September 2017 • October 2017 • November 2017 • December 2017 • January 2018 • February 2018 • March 2018 • April 2018 • May 2018 • June 2018 • July 2018 • August 2018 • September 2018 • October 2018 • November 2018 • December 2018 • January 2019 • February 2019 • March 2019 • April 2019 • May 2019 • June 2019 • July 2019 • August 2019 • September 2019 • October 2019 • November 2019 • December 2019 • January 2020 • February 2020 • March 2020 • April 2020 • May 2020 • June 2020 • July 2020 • August 2020 • September 2020 • October 2020 • November 2020 • December 2020 • January 2021 • February 2021 • March 2021 • April 2021 • May 2021 • June 2021 • July 2021 • August 2021 • September 2021 • October 2021 • November 2021 • December 2021 • January 2022 • February 2022 • March 2022 • April 2022 • May 2022 • June 2022 • July 2022 • August 2022 • September 2022 • October 2022 • November 2022 • December 2022 • January 2023

---

---

(Posted blurb) RD/Blurb:Pervez Musharraf[]

 The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 07:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support blurb -- given that he was instrumental in effecting the coup. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support blurb - Article in good shape, although some of the tenses still need to be sorted, but that shouldn’t hold anything up. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I think we need to figure this out. Are deaths of former heads of state ITN/R? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We had this same discussion when Constantine II died, and I don't think we reached a consensus PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Add exile in Dubai to the blurb? Only a suggestion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Death blurbs don't usually include location, I think. Juxlos (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• RD no blurb A routine death with no special features or update which therefore belongs at RD. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Last living military head of state of the 5th most populous country. Joofjoof (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It's ironic to read in The Signpost that Wikipedia is now blocked in Pakistan... Andrew🐉(talk) 22:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Old Man Dies of same thing at same age as Antonio Inoki, but without changing the game. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I was unaware that Inoki had become president of Japan through a coup d'état and was subsequently sentenced to death for treason. How could I not know that! _-_Alsor (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Inoki did things his peers didn't and his industry hadn't. Set new records, affecting the way wrestling is done and MMA is promoted. That's way better than becoming another famous criminal, in my eyes. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Hmm, should have told Jon Stewart before the show. Joofjoof (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The article is in a great shape, I am posting RD for the time being. Blurb discussion can continue, I see good reasons for posting. --Tone 12:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Where? In this nom, you see one reason for posting, good or bad. Rockstone said he was instrumental in the coup. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose blurb I'm not seeing any clear indicator in the article to speak of his legacy or impact, nor can read that from the information given - his period of leadership had a lot of turmoil but that doesn't equate to being a major world figure or the like --Masem (t) 14:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support blurb Sui generis major figure. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Blurb One of the more significant leaders of his country and in the region more broadly. Prominet on the world stage. Article is in good shape for a pleasant change. Referencing is solid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Blurb, Article is good enough, He was one famous figure in the region. Alex-h (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Long term dictator, initiated a war with high nuclear tentions, a coup which started his reign of about a decade only ending after a long (internationally noted) protest movement the assassination of the first woman prime minsiter of a Muslim country, was sentenced to death (which we did post), but was overturned. All of these are blurbable events, his death naturally should follow. Gotitbro (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose blurb Being a prominent world leader is not enough for a blurb. The standard should be RD unless there are exceptional circumstances and I'm not seeing that here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Respectfully disagree. IMHO being a prominent world leader is a very good standard for blurbing deceased heads of state/government. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support he had a lot of notable events during his time in power (the coup, Kargil War etc). He gave the infamous NRO which allowed many politicians such as Nawaz Sharif (who later became prime minister again in 2013) and Benazir Bhutto to return to the country without fear of corruption cases. Although the order was later overturned, the politicians who had returned due to the NRO were already back in power. He definitely left a legacy and in my opinion, he deserves to be blurbed.  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 19:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support blurb With respect to OMD, we wouldn't hesitate to post the death of a former US president; Musharraf was a major figure in the South Asia region broadly (hence, international), and is in recent memory still. Curbon7 (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted blurb. There is sufficient consensus here, with good reasoning.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The posted blurb is missing a period at the end. 108.46.24.72 (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Good catch, thank you.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Whoo, crisis averted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

RD: Jürgen Flimm[]

Nominator's comments: Theatre and opera director and manager, loved by the audience, Salzburg Festival and Berlin State Opera. The 2004 article was almost ref-free and quite close to what the Berlin opera had about him. Many good obits, with more detail possible if you have time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Vani Jairam[]

Nominator's comments: Noted Singer Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Many whole paragraphs and sections of the article (as well as most of the awards) are unsourced and it appears to be written in a very hagiographic manner. Black Kite (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Sherif Ismail[]

Nominator's comments: Former Egyptian prime minister. - Indefensible (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - looks good. Well cited. Crusader1096 (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I think a little more about his political career can be explained. He was for almost three years PM at a turbulent time in the country's recent history. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Sufficient for our purposes. Article is well-cited and covers the important parts. Curbon7 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

São Paulo scuttled[]

Nominator's comments: The sinking of a capital ship of 32,000 tons is significant and the pollution aspect adds to this. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - ITN worth, plus we posted the sinking of the HTMS Sukhothai a month and a half ago. Crusader1096 (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We posted Sukhothai due to the death toll, no one died here, just a routine decomissioning of a ship. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This wasn't routine. It was towed around at sea for months, desperately trying to find a scrapyard that would take it. The scuttling was then a last resort to avoid it sinking in an even worse place. The prolonged agony was in the news and now we have the climax. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose - Ship decomissioned, not really a big deal. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really want you to explain why this is significant, because I'm just not seeing it.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Capital ships sinking, whether planned or unplanned, isn’t something that happens often. The Kip (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per above. Insignificant. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Intentional sinking of a decommissioned ship with very little impact. If the ports actually accepted it and it got scrapped like intended this most likely wouldn't have been nominated for ITN. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Supportthat they try to get rid of a toxic issue by dumping it into the nature where it doesn't bother humans is ITN worthyParadise Chronicle (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose it was already in the works to be scuttled when it was pulled out from port and forced these steps. This tends to happen to all large ships. --Masem (t) 14:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support The noteworthy part is the fact that numerous governments refused to let it dock under pressure from environmental groups, and as a result the Brazilian navy is scuttling the ship despite the presence of substantial toxic materials aboard. The involvement and interface of multiple governments and internationally recognized environmental groups in itself makes this signigicant. The media coverage around this has been extensive and highlights Brazil's failed attempt to recycle the ship sustainably. The noteworthiness argument here isn't about being a planned vs unplanned decommissioning, its about the months long process that @Andrew: mentioned, and the ultimate outcome, which could set a precedent for other ships and the handling of toxic vessels in the South Asian sea. Schwinnspeed (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It should be pointed out that the reason action was taken is that the last inspection of the hull found holes that were beyond the state of repairs that the ship was going to go down soon, so that forced the end of the process here, (they didn't want it sinking in any port) it was not like they legally exhausted all options, etc. So it would not really be fair to call this a groundsetting outcome. --Masem (t) 16:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Multiple sources state that there is no explanation why the navy did not take the ship back, and its condition deteriorated further as the ship circled as a result. There is media coverage [1] [2] around the argument from environmental groups that Brazil violated international convention. The notability here is in the process itself not the ultimate outcome Schwinnspeed (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose How is an aircraft carrier ITN-worthy? Evan224 (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are numerous situations in which "an aircraft carrier" can be ITN-worthy. Curbon7 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose per PrecariousWorlds. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thanks PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support There is a significant backstory to this involving a huge environmental threat from the ship which was(is?) full of dangerous materials. It recently got front page news coverage from the NY Times. A lot of people were quite exercised over the idea of sinking her but they couldn't find a port that would allow the ship to be docked even on a temporary basis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed as duplicate; see below) 2023 China balloon incident[]

---

RD: Paco Rabanne[]

Nominator's comments: Article needs some cleanup and sourcing work Mooonswimmer 20:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Almost Well-cited and holistic enough for our purposes. There is only one outstanding CN tag in the Eccentricities section; once that is rectified, consider this a support. Curbon7 (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed that paragraph. I don't think it adds anything interesting or relevant. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support looks enough for me. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment There's an outstanding tag about the lead's length.—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) The balloons go up[]

Nominator's comments: We like shooting things down but President Biden has been advised not to do this. No-one is quite sure what it is so possibilities include arson, intelligence; invasion; research; rover, weather and more. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak support - Mainly supporting this due to the extensive news coverage it has been getting, but at the same time I do think a lot of this has been sensationalised, and I have a feeling this will have no significant impact, and everyone will forget about it in a week's time. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Altblurb II seems to be the most well-written. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support: This is a major diplomatic incident in geopolitics as China and the United States are one of the most powerful countries in the world and any incursion by one onto the other's territory is ITN. If we add Chinese incursions into Kashmir to ITN, we should add this as well. I also support a mix of Altblurbs II and III. Djprasadian (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support It’s been shot down, there’s 2, the Chinese government is denying it which usually means that they did do it and are hiding it. Vriend1917 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support What are we waiting for? This is dominating the headlines everywhere, it's better that we post this global ongoing event instead of waiting around for nothing. Evan224 (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment you guys need to figure this out soon. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Unsure about the article yet, I think it will need a bit more work before it's ready. The image doesn't seem appropriate at all: an image of a balloon of the same design might be acceptable, but a WWII Japanese balloon does not work for us here. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The image (right) is mainly a placeholder as I expect we'll get a free image as and when it gets near a Wikipedian. But also, as an encyclopedia, we have lots of material about historical precedents and it's good to air it on such occasions. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The duplicate nomination suggested a picture of the Pentagon briefing, so we might try that. The article has a picture of the actual balloon but that's fair-use and fuzzy and so not adequate for ITN, yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I love that argument and I agree that it would be great. I am worried about lots of implications in comparing this incident with Emperial Japan sending a balloon to the US in the middle of a war. We shouldn't suggest the two incidents are equivalent, I believe. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It appears that China and the US are engaged in a Second Cold War. See also Chinese espionage in the United States. This also reminds me of the 1960 U-2 incident and it's conceivable that it could have come from Russia. It will be interesting to see if it's captured... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• A cold war is not comparable to a war with a lot of active fighting. This doesn't at all diminish the notability of an incident like this, but comparing espionage with direct attacks can create undue fear. This balloon is not going to drop bombs. The U2 incident might be a better comparison, but that would feel like an even odder image to include. Unless we had a tradition of linking news items back to past events, which would've been nice maybe... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It appears that the US is working on its own balloons too. Apparently these are to counter hypersonic weapons -- who knew? The plot thickens... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  My personal opinion is that everyone should come together with these balloons and throw a party PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• And it's interesting to read that "Back then, Eisenhower tried to minimize it at first, ordering the NASA press office, stunningly, to say the U-2 had been conducting “weather research,” and that Powers might just have strayed a trifle off course and wandered over top-secret Soviet military facilities..." History repeats! Andrew🐉(talk) 17:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is only barely comparable to the U-2 incident and it’s silly to argue that comparison. A spy plane pilot getting shot down and held as a POW is worlds apart from a spy balloon being spotted.

If anything, this is just a slightly escalated version of an average spy satellite. The Kip (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wait -- unless this actually develops into something, I don't think this is (yet) appropriate for ITN. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 10:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose for now it’s anecdotal and, as you well know Andrew, this kind of things are not ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It's currently the top read story on the BBC and is apparently all over Chinese social media too. For a European connection which you may appreciate see a favourite song of mine: "The President is on the line..." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I guess you may have noticed by now that not every "top read story on the BBC" is ITNR-worthy, as this is not a news paper. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course this is a newspaper. The offical signaling from the Pentagon makes it clear this is sn important story. I do think we need a closer awareness of journalistic practice on Wikipedia. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not WP:NOTNP. Btw, the Department of Defense statement reads: "Ryder said the balloon is well above commercial air traffic and doesn't pose a threat to civil aviation. He also said this isn't the first time such a balloon has been seen over the United States", and "Currently, we assess that this balloon has limited additive value from an intelligence collective collection perspective," the official said. "But we are taking steps, nevertheless, to protect against foreign intelligence collection of sensitive information."

Another case of American overdramatization for everything. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also don't understand the purpose of including a photo of a Fu-Go balloon bomb when the purpose of the "suspicious balloon" has not even been confirmed. Let's not alarm. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - official signaling from the Pentagon is probably indicative of this story's noteworthiness. Crusader1096 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additionally, it has been confirmed that the Biden administration is moving to down the balloon. Crusader1096 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: plane was shot down by US aircraft. @Rockstone35 @Alsoriano97 @Modest Genius @Thebiguglyalien @Vriend1917 @Jayron32 @Editor 5426387 @GenevieveDEon @WaltCip @Rsrikanth05 @Masem @The Kip y'all may want to reconsider. Crusader1096 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

so…? _-_Alsor (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The the highly publicized downing of a balloon, regardless if it was Chinese or not, under a coordinated military operation is unprecedented and I firmly believe that arguing that that this isn't newsworthy is rather foolish. Crusader1096 (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a war breaks out, perhaps then. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is that the threshold for posting to ITN now? [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 13:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never said that but this isn't a U-2 being shot down is it? -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disappointed I wasn't @'ed

Regardless, there's still a balloon over South America, and the diplomatic crisis isn't over. But yeah this does start to hurt the notability, we better reach a consensus quick before the story becomes stale. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Still Oppose - even if it got shot down, the news is not ITN-worthy unless something MAJOR results, like a war, per above. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose for now. Currently this is just an accusation. No-one has demonstrated that the balloon is Chinese or has any nefarious purpose. Even if they did, it will need to spark a major diplomatic incident to justify posting in ITN. I'm willing to reconsider if this starts having major impacts. Modest Genius ^talk 12:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Doesn't seem to have any significance at this time. A country detecting the spycraft of another country happens every once in a while, nothing ever comes of it. Even then, I strongly oppose the use of an unrelated image. Might as well use File:Birthday balloons.jpg. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Striking my !vote as the story develops. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wait This story has to develop, its not appropriate for posting, nor closing yet. Vriend1917 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Oppose The story is "An balloon of unknown origin is being tracked". The article text says the same thing, but with a lot more words. There's not enough about this story to support a blurb if we don't have anything worthwhile to say. --Jayron32 14:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support the article has developed to where it is good enough to appear on the main page. --Jayron32 18:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose - per above, and, unless sit actually develops into anything major, the news is not ITN-worthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)]"Reply[reply]
• Oppose - This is currently a curiosity, rather than a major incident. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose and close - NYT announced over the wire that China claims it's a civilian balloon. Since it wasn't shot down and there's no contrary evidence, there's nothing left to analyzed. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It was shot down and we should also take whatever the Chinese government says with a grain of salt. Djprasadian (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  At the time I had !voted, it had not been shot down. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 00:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Update Checking after a day, I see that it's the top 4 headlines at the NYT starting with "Furor Over Chinese Spy Balloon Leads to a Diplomatic Crisis". And the latest news is that "Diplomatic row between China and US escalates as Pentagon says second 'spy balloon' being tracked". This escalation requires further consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Everybody loves balloons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Has resulted in the cancellation of Blinken's trip to China, increasing tensions between the two powers. BilledMammal (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. per Hawkeye7. Alexcalamaro (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't really seem very significant. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wait until something actually happens. If the balloon is confirmed to be for surveillance purposes, this is a reminder that countries spying on each other is not uncommon, especially between rivals like China and America. If China turns out to be right here and the balloon is not for spying, then yeah... there's no reason to explain why that would not be posted. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 14:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wait till Monday Now South America has one, too. That needs more weight. A little more Canadian content wouldn't hurt, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose This is the media and politics making a mountain out of a mole hill. This is why we do not follow what the news considered to be most important and instead look for encyclopedic value. --Masem (t) 15:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Exactly.... _-_Alsor (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I mean, it's clear that high levels of multiple governments are concerned by this situation. Let's at least have a little humility: none of us here knows how this story is going to develop. Sometimes these weird little moments do escalate and end up in the history books. The prudent decision for ITN is to wait. Zagalejo (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The tension between China and the USA also "escalated a lot" with Pelosi's visit to Taiwan and ended in nothing. American noise. And that doesn't make it ITN-worhty. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It definitely did not end in nothing as you claim. Multiple important lines of communications between America and China were severed after the visit (as far as i know they haven't been restored yet) and it led to an overall deterioration in the relationship which you could argue directly engendered this balloon incident. And this isn't even counting the other consequences of the visit which impacted other nations (Taiwan, Japan) that could have the potential to further escalate tensions between the US and China. I am not sure if the Pelosi incident was posted, but even if it wasn't that doesn't mean this one shouldn't be either. Restflux (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I've seen nothing that indicates that US/China relations have been irreparable harmed. This is standard tensions as the Pelosi visit. We absolutely cannot speculate on possible impacts that haven't happened, and every day there are strains on interntaional relationships between various countries, this is nothing new. Masem (t) 17:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Masem: What is "encyclopedic value"? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  We are talking topics that have more than a burst of coverage and will be significant 10+ years down the road, which is not what this story currently is and with no evidence of having serious long term effects. If there are breakdowns in diplomacy between countries due to this, then that might be something but that's impossible to read at this point. Masem (t) 21:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I am going to stress, in the aftermath of the balloon being shot down, this is a textbook example of a media circus. The only thing that has resulted from it has been some strain on US/China relations and while there may be something down the road with that, this one event is the media and political circles trying to make this seem more important than it actually is. Masem (t) 14:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Would it not be better to wait for confirmation as to their espionage status, perhaps posting then would be better. Gotitbro (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support conditionally, depending on the gravity of any potential additional developments or revelations over the weekend and beyond. If: 1) it's officially revealed that the balloon has ballistics capabilities, 2) the balloon is shot down over the ocean, 3) the balloon is guided down for further analysis, 4) it's officially revealed that the balloon somehow has an active crew aboard, and/or 5) these are confirmed by multiple states as surveillance-oriented and they're dotted all over the globe, as examples, then this qualifies as a next-level world diplomatic event, and should go up immediately. Beyond that, the article as it stands has been tended to very well thus far, and wouldn't need a whole lot of additional work to qualify. If nothing changes and this story peters away, then no need to promote it. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support + alt blurb 4 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose This has led to a fairly minor diplomatic spat and nothing more. Not ITN-worthy. The Kip (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - international story that's had legs --Torsodog^Talk 20:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support – Per The New York Times, the balloon was shot down. DecafPotato (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Ongoing coverage of a developing international incident Tisnec (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support The story definitely has some weight behind it now. Kafoxe (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Fairly Emphatic Wait. To me this looks like a story that, while encyclopedic, will largely be forgotten in a year and will likely be resolved with little real conflict (i.e. the verbal type). Still, I think we may be behooved to wait a bit longer to see if there is indeed tension that comes of this. As things stand, I would quite emphatically be opposed per Masem, but I believe we may wish to let this breathe a bit more. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support: Alt-blurb III is the most well-written, obviously a big news event. I'm not sure the relevance of some of the arguments against, this is a big news story according to a wide variety of Western news outlets.Yeoutie (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak support: Yeah, sure. Major coverage, the impact of the event is unclear but this sort of thing isn't a regular event, apparently the first aircraft to be shot down in US airspace since WWII. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support -- it's not like this happens every day, and it has intentional impact (since, despite the admonition above, people apparently care about that). This will be in the news for some time to come; so it is now a situation that warrants posting. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wait and leaning oppose. These balloons flew before, just this time it has become a "surveillance balloon".Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Major powers possibly spying on each other? What a shocking revelation! Khuft (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It's superpowers, brother, and they're shooting on each other. Well, one side's shooting. But even if it's the one you'd expect to blow something foreign up, it hasn't happened domestically in a long time. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support now it's been shot down, and disregard immediately these opposing !votes based on, err, "it hasn't been shot down yet". SN54129 14:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support in light of how the incident is developing and not dying away. Banedon (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support given the scale of coverage (this is inarguably 'in the news' currently) 15:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwinnspeed (talk • contribs)
• Support based on continuing news coverage and relative rarity of such an event. -- Kicking222 (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment It’s absolutely laughable that this is gonna get posted. I think ITNR’s “American bias” is usually a silly concept, but it’s genuinely coming in full force here.

Oh cool, an unmanned spy balloon got spotted then shot down, causing a comparatively small diplomatic spat of a similar level to Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan, which wasn’t posted. Totally ITNR-worthy. The Kip (talk)

• Support given the scale and scope of the coverage in the news. The fact that the incident has a military dimension because it was shot down has implications that I think a lot of the comments+ors here either don't fully understand or aren't appreciating. This is definately much more than just a run-of-the-mill diplomatic spat between the United States and China Restflux (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posting Consensus favors it, going with a modification of alts 4 and 5. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per above. As to this being unique, this mentions: "The official said Chinese balloons briefly transited the continental United States at least three times during the prior administration." I guess normally we do not make a big deal about it. If the US somehow sanctions China over this, maybe it will be significant. Maybe. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Consensus? Where??? _-_Alsor (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  . Consensus does not require unanimity. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The tally is 23-10 (give or take) in favor of posting the story, with most of the "yes" votes coming within the past day or so, so a consensus to post has clearly developed. Just because you have a hatred for all news relating to America (as demonstrated by your past behavior on similar stories) doesn't mean you can unilaterally demand a story should be pulled when the community states otherwise. 2600:8802:2718:6700:9F35:65C0:D934:6DC9 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I believe there are:

  25 Support votes

  10 Oppose votes

  5 Wait votes

  3 Comments

  Definitely a consensus PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Reminder that this isn’t a vote.  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 19:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I also thought the quality of supports was stronger than the quality of opposes. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Post Posting Support Somehow I missed this, but it is a no brainer. One of the biggest news stories of the last few days both here in the US and internationally. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

RD: Paul A. David[]

Nominator's comments: American economist. Death announced in WP:RS on this date. I will work this article over the weekend if no one gets to it before me. Ktin (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article needs a lot of work. Looking forward to checking it out again after your work, Ktin. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Glória Maria[]

Nominator's comments: Brazilian television personality. Quite close, only some source work is needed. Curbon7 (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: John Zizioulas[]

Nominator's comments: Prominent Greek orthodox theologian and bishop. Source work is needed. Curbon7 (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Jean-Pierre Jabouille[]

Nominator's comments: Formula One racing driver. His engineering expertise helped bring the turbo engine into Formula One with Renault. Two Grand Prix victories. Article needs work though... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not yet ready The article is practically entirely unreferenced, although at least his stats are referenced. Curbon7 (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: K. Viswanath[]

Nominator's comments: Prominent Indian director and recipient of highest Indian cinematic honours. Article looks to be in decent shape. ƬheStrikeΣagle 22:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Looks thoroughly cited. Comprehensive details on his career. One messy line at the end of the "Television" section, hopefully someone will fix that soonish. Tbh, he probably needs a separate filmography page but that's not relevant to RD. e.b. (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Looks important enough for me. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Importance does not matter at all for RD. Curbon7 (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Article looks good. Thanks, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 03:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Article seems to be in good shape. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Admin Action Needed: Article is properly sourced and ready to be posted. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 06:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Not yet ready Sourcing on the prose is fine, but the filmography is only about half-sourced. Curbon7 (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Lanny Poffo[]

Nominator's comments: Wrestler and brother of the Macho Man. Article needs ref work. The Kip (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not yet ready As stated by the nom, significant chunks are unsourced. The prose is quite bizarre at spots, but is overall ok, although there seem to be way too many two-sentence sections which may benefit from being condensed. Curbon7 (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Richard Woolcott[]

Nominator's comments: Article not too good, but at least it is (now) fully referenced Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Good condition, ready to be posted. Vriend1917 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support A bit rough, but sufficient for our purposes. Article is well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, well-sourced, good to go. Tails Wx 18:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

RD: Carin Goldberg[]

Nominator's comments: American graphic designer. Death announced 1 February. Thriley (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Prose looks sufficient enough. There is one CN tag in the prose, and the Notable covers is completely uncited, but those appear to be the only issues. Curbon7 (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Tom Brady retires (again)[]

(Posted) Comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF)[]

Nominator's comments: It was previously suggested that this should appear at the time of closest approach and that's now. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong support, post immediately - As consensus has been reached in the previous discussion that we should post now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong support and support posting immediately due to how time-sensitive this is. Good article, strong coverage today in reliable sources. DFlhb (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak oppose. I don't see what has changed since the last nomination a week ago, which ended as no consensus. This comet is not ITNR, it isn't visible to anyone who doesn't have a pair of binoculars (unless they live in an area with no light pollution at all) and knows exactly where to look, and being green isn't unusual. The article is OK but nothing more than that. There has been a bit of media coverage but largely restricted to the science sections. Modest Genius ^talk 11:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The previous nomination was not closed; it just scrolled off after there were lots of !votes of "Wait". So, we've waited. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Astronomical items are not required to be ITN/R in order to be newsworthy or ITN-worthy, otherwise nothing would ever get posted except for great comets. It would make for a rather limited pool of science stories. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @WaltCip: I agree that items don't have to be on ITNR to be posted. I was disagreeing with the 'intr=yes' parameter that was set in the nomination template. Modest Genius ^talk 17:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The previous one had a number of people preferring this to be posted on Feb 1, which is today. As one of those people, I strongly support posting immediately. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 12:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Magnitude 5 is pretty bright. It should be visible in the outskirts of major cities, under moonless skies. Perhaps we should include some instructions for viewing in the blurb? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong support posting immediately because it is the closest approach now. - azpineapple (need help? 12:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Neutral – I suggested a wait last time, but that was also because the quality of the article didn't seem up to par yet, and this hasn't changed since. The lack of bare-eye visibility (0.3 AU is quite far away) makes this a somewhat hard sell. It's probably fine to post but none of this makes me particularly excited. I still approve of the main blurb as the optimal choice. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comets are not near-Earth asteroids, 0.28 AU isn't far if the comet releases enough gas and dust. A comet reached magnitude 3-4 in the 18th century and never even reached 3 AU from Earth or 4 AU from Sun. Halley's Comet would be 4.9 magnitudes brighter than this if both were 1 AU from Sun and observer was thought experimentally on the Sun (the standard apples-to-apples brightness comparison of solar system science because full asteroid is much brighter than thin crescent asteroid and comets obviously get dim very fast as they get further from the Sun (if they get very very close they sometimes even explode and "release all the brightness at once")). And Halley happens every c. 76 years. Hale-Bopp would be even brighter. The 1700s comet would be 13.4 magnitudes brighter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It is easily visible under moonless skies, with little light pollution. It's at magnitude 5 right now, which, while not incredibly bright, is still just about visible from my location in the outer suburbs of a city of 14 million people.

  Also, I'm pushing for us to diversify the stories we post from just being changes in heads of state or X tragedy kills Y people PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support, though I think the blurb should both say the official comet name and that it is a green comet. I don't think it requires that everyone on earth be able to see it with the naked eye (eg, clearly urban centers have too much background light to do so) but as long as it is some appreciable fraction that have the potential to see it, its a good idea to post. Article appears to be in good shape. --Masem (t) 13:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Proposed alt2. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 14:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support alt2 (or the base blurb). Oppose alt1. DFlhb (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support It was a bit silly that it didn't get posted last week, but c'est la vie. Just because an event is not ITN/R doesn't prevent us from posting if it is particularly newsworthy, as this one is. Curbon7 (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Pending quality checks of course. Curbon7 (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support posting immediately, noting that of course if it doesn't get posted today, then there will be no point to posting this as the event will have already come and gone.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose - what is the significance of this comet? It has little cultural presence like Halley, etc. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As @PrecariousWorlds pointed out, we do have to diversify our blurbs a little bit. We haven't had a science-related story at ITN for quite some time now, and this one is receiving pretty good coverage, and the coverage is worldwide for those who love global significance, with sources in the West (CNN BBC) and the Arab World (Alarabiya) reporting on it. The Independent are also covering it live on their website. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, I guess that's cool. But I do think the blurb needs to do more to establish that this is notable and not just a "diversity candidate" (to appropriate phrasing from the (un)professional world). QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not just about being a diversity candidate, it's about providing interesting stories that viewers of Wikipedia want to read, apart from Depressing Tragedy no. 352. I think astronomical events like these should be ITN:R, as they are In The News. I think we should also post major infrastructure projects as well. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Bestagon PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support, Posting immediately - per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support: Reasonably significant as far as astronomical news goes and the article is well-cited. Probably should have been posted a few days ago. And while this shouldn't be a factor when considering any individual story, it would be nice to have more science topics at ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Ad Orientem: I think alt2 is better here; it mentions both the official name and the fact that it's green. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The link is to the article with the full title. I doubt that the majority of our readers will be that worked up over the actual name. It's the green comet thing that is going to get their attention. That said, if there is a consensus to change the blurb, or another admin thinks that alt II is better, go for it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm pleased to see that a consensus was reached and that this has been posted. It provides desperately-needed balance to the current gamut of ITN stories which amount to four disasters and an election. I hope that this reflects a sea change towards lessening our overall significance restrictions.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Post-posting Oppose, numerous astronomical bodies, including comets, pass by the Earth every single day. The visibility of this single one is not specifically notable. I would understand if this was say, a Comet Hale–Bopp type event, where the comet is like that of a great comet. At the moment, I don't see the value in pushing this nomination to diversify the coverage of news stories regarding disasters either. Other folks have brought up the magnitude and distance from the Earth that I concur with.Ornithoptera (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]

  This is the only comet visible to the naked eye right now, probably for months to come. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Not to make it a number-game, but only two ors have made the argument of diversifying. That is not why 7 others !voted in support. Curbon7 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Just to be clear, I never intended diversifying to be my main argument. The main argument was that reliable sources were in fact treating it as a big deal. Diversifying was intended to be a "pushing factor" for those on the fence to lean support. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 04:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

0.28 AU isn't far if the comet is bright. A comet reached magnitude 3-4 in the 18th century and never even reached 3 AU from Earth or 4 AU from Sun. Halley's Comet would be 4.9 magnitudes brighter than this if both were 1 AU from Sun and observer was thought experimentally on the Sun (the standard apples-to-apples brightness comparison of solar system science because full asteroid is much brighter than thin crescent asteroid and comets obviously get dim very fast as they get further from the Sun (if they get very very close they sometimes even explode and "release all the brightness at once")). And Halley happens every c. 76 years. Hale-Bopp would be even brighter. The 1700s comet would be 13.4 magnitudes brighter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC

• Noting here that there are several comments at WP:ERRORS regarding the "green comet" wording. ansh.666 18:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Switched to Alt II per multiple requests. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I voiced support for alt2, but prefer User:Ravenpuff's newer version: "C/2022 E3 (ZTF) (pictured), a comet with a green coma, makes its closest approach to the Earth".

It's nice, and the linked term "coma" will certainly stimulate curiosity in our readers, which is what ITN does at its best. I'd be grateful if ors who already posted here would voice support or opposition to Ravenpuff's version. DFlhb (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concur. Curbon7 (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support this version, for the record. It sounds much more scientific and interesting. Though it is not entirely clear to me why this event has found its way to the Main Page. There are approximately 10 long-period comets crossing the Earth's orbit every year. --TadejM ^{my talk} 19:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're usually dimmer. It's also been an unusually long time since the last great comet besides 2006 or 7 (I forgot) which was only naked eye at dusk to most North Hemisphere native English speakers for a few days and not at all after dusk (at least in my extreme light pollution). And I guess some might've also called the magnitude ~2.5 2007 or 2008 comet great, it was naked eye in extreme light pollution but not very impressive there especially if you're not into "faint fuzzy "star" with no naked eye tail". Hale-Bopp of 1997 was the last truly impressive non-twilight one. With that said 22 E3 or better comets seem to happen every few years at worst. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I Beg you to remove "green comet" from the top. It's a nonsensical moniker applied to it by media that knows nothing about astronomy- as commonly used as it is, it is meaningless at best and misleading at worst. Every comet that has ever graced the sky has been green- saying it's a green comet is like referring to space as "the black space" or the sky as "the blue sky". Sincerely, an actual astronomer. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the gas ever greenish cyan/cyanish green? Would that still count as green? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This ^. We should change the blurb immediately. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is what the comet astronomer Matthew Knight says about the comet's color: "The color of C/2022 E3 (ZTF) isn’t unique: Most comets that have higher gas contents tend to yield C2, so they “are generally going to look green to our eye,” Knight says. That said, only a subset of comets happen to make it as close to Earth as C/2022 E3 (ZTF) will get, so it’ll provide an uncommonly good view of a comet’s emerald hue."[1] --TadejM ^{my talk} 00:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meteorologists refer to blue skies all the time. They are much prettier than white or grey skies. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Post-posting Oppose per Ornithoptera. Completely insignificant.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Well, shoot, we better pull it and put the more significant Azerbaijani embassy shooting back up. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Your assertion is not backed up by the evidence at hand; reliable sources do discuss the comet in a manner that plainly indicates it is significant. Your assertion doesn't make the sources go away. --Jayron32 17:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Post-posting supportI believe to guide public awareness to an astronomical event is in the interest of wikipedia. This they will remember much longer than most of the resisters we post.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

(Posted) RD: Lalitha Chandran[]

Nominator's comments: Indian carnatic singer. One half of the musical duo Bombay Sisters Ktin (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. Edits done. Please have a look. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted Stephen 23:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Angel Alcala[]

Nominator's comments: Filipino biologist and national scientist. Curbon7 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support well-cited. Tails Wx 05:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: David Durenberger[]

 – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Well-cited and holistic enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Shanti Bhushan ‎[]

Nominator's comments: Indian Ex Minister and lawyer Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not yet ready A few CN templates. Date/place of birth is uncited, and entire early/non-political life are missing. The prose in political career is bare, but ok enough for our purposes. Prose in the activism section is fine, except for the 2010 contempt charge which needs updating. Curbon7 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

RD: Bobby Beathard[]

Nominator's comments: Could use some work. Pro Football Hall of Famer. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Almost I think this article is quite close. I don't know much about football, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the general manager is a fairly minor role compared to the same position in baseball, right? If so, I don't think too much more expansion is needed, as I do note that the article already names some prominent players he scouted. Just a few sentences of what he did while the scout/manager of the Dolphins, Falcons, and Chargers should suffice. Some spots also need sources. Curbon7 (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Charles Silverstein[]

Nominator's comments: The American psychologist who got homosexuality removed from the DSM. Curbon7 (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Ann McLaughlin Korologos[]

Nominator's comments: Former U.S. Secretary of Labor. Some source work is needed. Curbon7 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Ouyang Pingkai[]

Nominator's comments: Chinese academic and party official. A bit short and over-reliant on one source. Curbon7 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Will Steffen[]

Nominator's comments: Climate scientist. Article looks okay to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Short but adequate and well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Article is well-cited and holistic enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 05:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Cindy Williams[]

Nominator's comments: She died on Jan 25, it was just reported today – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• :Support once Filmography section is properly sourced. Mooonswimmer 01:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Not Ready Significant gaps in referencing, mostly around the tables. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Not ready {{verification}} tag at the top of article, needs some sourcing. Tails Wx 05:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: John Adams (drummer)[]

Nominator's comments: Known to many who follow American baseball and everyone in Cleveland, Ohio. Is a Good Article. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Well-cited, but there are significant prose issues. Will give a full breakdown in a bit. Curbon7 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I don't want this to seem over-scrupulous, as we of course don't need the articles to be great or even necessarily good for RD; however, they have to meet a basic threshold of quality. The article is mostly fine for holisticity (wish there was a bit more to his non-superfan life, but it's understandable that sources may not cover this) and sourcing (his date of birth and education are uncited; these are more pressing, as you'll know we can't have uncited material on the main page).

  The main issue here is the prose. This is far from the (very basic) level of quality we expect and needs to either go through WP:GAR to be delisted or needs a ground-up rewrite. To say the article's tone is very informal is an understatement; the entire thing reads like an article on baseball.wikia. That is to say, it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, it reads like a fan write-up, chock with inside baseball ("making him the only fan for whom the team dedicated a bobble head day"??), weasel words, and general poor phrasing. It is hard to explain because there's not necessarily one specific thing wrong that I can point to, it's kind of just the entire article. Curbon7 (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Curbon7 I have been going through the article and making some s along the same lines. I think the problem here is that the information in an article is going to be shaped by the information available in the sources, and generally speaking it's going to be Cleveland publications writing about him with a very casual tone. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Most of my concerns have been addressed, and the article is much better now! Just waiting for a source on the DoB. Curbon7 (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support I've swapped out the DoB with his birth year based on age at death (DoB is commented out so it is still available if a source is found). Curbon7 (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I've found a source for his birth date and added it back in.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Curbon7 (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support (provided date of birth is correctly cited or removed) – I think the quality of the prose is perfectly fine for a front-page feature like this. It goes into details that other encyclopedic articles are unlikely to contain, and therefore can feel informal or odd, but I think it is acceptable at worst and charming at best. Article is well-cited and beautifully detailed, including his personal life (I'm not sure what else Curbon would want from that section (it lists school, marriage, occupation, volunteer work, and health issues). I think this is a lovely feature! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support This has Good Article status. Have we reached the point of arguing about quality for publishing a Good Article to RD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenmelken (talk • contribs) 13:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Articles have to meet WP:ITNQUALITY, even if they're Good Articles, as you'll know GAs can diminish in quality over time. Curbon7 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Kenmelken, this article was promoted to GA in 2012. Alot of bad writing can happen in 11 years. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  11 years?! No, no, 2012 was last year, right? :( --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Someone has updated the article after his death to replace Indians with Guardians in many places. I understand the intent, but it is now factually wrong in many places due to the time frame in which he was active. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have fixed this. Spencer^T•C 05:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced. Marking ready. Spencer^T•C 05:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted Stephen 23:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Bobby Hull[]

Nominator's comments: A lot of work is needed sourcing-wise. Mooonswimmer 15:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support: pbp 20:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Not yet ready As stated by the nom, the article is still heavily under-sourced. Curbon7 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) Peshawar mosque bombing[]

 Ainty Painty (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not ready – Love an article where 80% of the length is a navigation template. This stub needs a lot of work to become suitable for the frontpage. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Article has been updated and is well referenced. I think it's already fit for ITN. It will continue to be updated as new information arrives. Very sad news. :( MSN12102001 (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose for now. There's a "failed verification" tag that needs fixing, and the article could stand for more expansion. --Jayron32 13:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Article is ready, definitely significant. Proposing altblurb -Azpineapple (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per @Azpineapple Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Article is definitely not ready yet, with all of its one-sentence paragraphs, but with how the death count is spiking up I'm fairly certain it will be posted soon. Very big tragedy.. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - about 2k characters of cited prose is long enough for DYK, and it's also long enough to meet the quality requirements of ITN, IMO. Levivich (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Altblurb is better. Levivich (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - Notability is obvious, given 40+ deaths. I've also expanded the article and I think it's now good enough. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support because the article is good enough & the death toll is very high. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support article is good, and a lot of deaths. The death count makes it notable. TomMasterReal^TALK 16:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - As per above comments. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support alt blurb. First blurb is not grammatical. Notable for sure, article quality is good as is. There are a couple things on the article that need citations, but the article is being actively ed so I assume these will be fixed by the time of posting. e.b. (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Question: Do reliable sources provide any indication that this is having national or regional consequences? Has this affected the political climate in Pakistan in any way? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support altblurb The Kip (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted Went with a variation on the altblurb. "Suicide blast" sounds sensational and a bit weird. Changed it to the terminology 'in the article' and said "suicide bombing". --Jayron32 18:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: