This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose Some tagged sourcing issues e.g. not supported by exisiting citation, or multiple statements not all covered by the single cite.—Bagumba (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a cue from RfA and WP:BOLDLY closing this. I think all of us know where Thebiguglyalien stands on this issue of EVENTCRIT in regards to disasters, and he has been consistent throughout every time he's !voted at ITN. There is nothing anyone can say that will change anything, and we are approaching that heat-to-light threshold thingy again. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)15:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I typically at least sympathize with your comments regarding this but come on. This is like not posting the Boston bombings because only a handful of people died. Not to accuse anyone of WP:SYSTEMIC, but I doubt the same argument would be used if around 150 casualties occured in America or the UK. — Knightoftheswords00:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it's ridiculously false to say it has no wider ramifications. This has massive ramifications which are already all over the national press. Zaian (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this has resulted in mass displacement, the government passing a law, etc, then you should include it in the article. Right now, the article makes no indication that the subject is significant except for a WP:BIGNUMBER argument, which as far as I'm concerned has zero weight. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doing exactly that now. I know this is going to sound like lacking WP:AGF, but is there a counter rule, WP:FARAWAY or WP:NOTENOUGHAFRICANS? Zaian (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't added any content to suggest that it even meets the bare minimum of having an article at all, let alone significance to post on the front page. And yes, this is about as blatant of an AGF violation as you can get, especially since this is a position I've held quite consistently for all geographic regions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon man, it really feels like you are starting to bend over backwards to oppose events like this. You can't just keep citing policies and hope one of them sticks. This is another event where we would have this posted very quickly if it happened in a Western country, more or less per what KotS and Zaian note. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well that I consider meeting WP:N to be a requirement for posting. And these veiled accusations of racism are growing rather tiring when you've seen me apply this standard to every instance that comes up, regardless of country. I understand that you have very little experience with Wikipedia outside of ITN, but I assumed that the recent village pump discussions would have made it quite clear that yes, these policies do apply, and Wikipedia as a whole is getting impatient with ITN's belief that it's above policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support notability / Oppose quality An incident that seems similar to the Greenfell Tower tragedy a few years ago, which was posted. Article is very short, however, so I would only fully support if/once it's expanded.Khuft (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its hard not to make that comparison, but I think that we're seeing a massive difference in the verified response that makes this far less notable - Grenfell involved rented flats and launched a massive investigation into why the building burned as it did. Here was an abandoned warehouse being used by homeless, and unlikely to draw the same type of attention Grenfell did. I'm not saying this is a reason not to post, but I don't see this getting the same type of attention in the media. Masem (t) 01:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a story to be told here (president's visit to the site, hijacked buildings under cartel control and rented out to the desperate, locked gates and blocked exits, ongoing housing crisis, inner-city decay, the affluent fleeing to the 'burbs...) but unfortunately, 24 hours on, this sad little stub isn't telling it. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. And there is a huge story here. For instance, people displaced by the fire refusing to trust government-provided buses to emergency accommodation, as they feared they were being used to round up undocumented migrants (with some justification, based on previous actions by officials). And the specific building is notable as it was built at the peak of apartheid as a Pass Office to enforce the pass laws, which regulated the movement of Africans to restrict their presence in "white" cities. Zaian (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every major disaster like this has a Swiss cheese effect. In other words a variety of small circumstances, which by themselves wouldn't cause a catastrophe, does when combined together. These types of stories are always interesting and encyclopedic, and should merit inclusion on ITN regardless of "long-term global significance", which really at this point in ITN/C's history, is just a polite euphemism for "doesn't affect me in any way". Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)15:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two people are killed and three others are injured in a Russiandrone and missile strike on Kyiv. Ukraine says that it shot down several missiles and drones during the strike. (Reuters)
Global Witness reveals that EU countries increased their imports of liquefied natural gas from Russia despite committing to reductions, rising by 40% in 2023, accounting for 22 million cubic meters. (Reuters)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support; preemptive oppose blurb since I can see the blurb noms coming. Blurbs only go out for massively influential people (IMO we should have a blanket ban on them for people other than heads of state/gov't but that's a discussion for another day). Important though he was, Nelson Mandela al-Fayed was not This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have straightforwardly voted to "support RD" had it not been for the plenty of {cn} tags that still needs to be worked on. A notable figure, but some cleanup is needed for his article. Vida0007 (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor adjustment: as his death occurred on August 30, I moved this nomination to that date. (Also did the same for the Jimmy Buffett and Bill Richardson RD noms). Vida0007 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Filelakeshoe: It says in the lead and infobox that he was married to Heine Wathen and had four children with her; this is unsourced and not mentioned in the rest of the article. Also the Infobox and start of article says he was born on the 27 January but the prose in early life (which should serve as a source for those) only mentions his birth year. Once these issues are fixed it gets my full support. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror09:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved that sentence about his wife and kids out of the intro and into the main prose, and copied a few footnotes from the wife's wikibio. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: A former Dutch international goalkeeper, who was best known for being part of the Netherlands squad that lost twoconsecutive FIFA World Cup finals, as well as the player with the highest number of appearances in the Eredivisie. The article is in shockingly poor conditions, given Jongbloed's CV, but the sources I've retrieved should be useful enough to at least bring the page in decent shape. Oltrepier (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
With consensus running at 7–1 against the proposal, it's safe to say that one will not form now. Note the almost panversal suggestion to take to DYK. SN5412920:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: In Canberra, Australia, a live parasitic worm (a giant one at that - 8 inches!) was discovered in a local woman's brain during a surgical operation, marking the first time they have been discovered within a human's brain. I think this would be a great bit of science news to add to ITN, with it likely to have major ramifications (not this specific infection, but future studies relating to it and increasing the potential for an actually dangerous infection), and also emphasizes Wikipedia as a dynamic resource, or point IV of WP:ITNPURPOSE. Additionally, it's an interesting story that will likely intrigue our readers, or point III of ITNPURPOSE. The article could do with some lengthening however. — Knightoftheswords15:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to put this to DYK, as the article meets the criteria. The blurb is technically incorrect, this is probably the first time for a worm in the brain but not in humans in general, those are rather common. Tone15:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While lots of news sources picked this up, the sources all seem to cover this as a "human interest" or "weird news" kind of story. Not the sort of coverage I'd expect from an ITN post. --Jayron3215:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Jayron points out, this is more in the weird news category (which often does get wide coverage but fails to be actually much of scientific value) rather than serious news. --Masem (t) 15:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This actually IS a candidate for DYK because this story and the surrounding scientific coverage results in significant expansion to the article. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)17:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lots of international coverage so it's in the news. DYK has no need of such as that section has such a surfeit of articles that its backlog is over a hundred and they are running 2x8 sets every day to try to clear it. ITN is quite the opposite with just four blurbs in a week making DYK about thirty times more productive. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: This is not yet in any major news outlet, it's just coming in. The military has ousted current president just after the results of the 26 August election were announced! There are some recordings on X (Twitter) showing the military apparently reading a declaration [1][2]. Now on major media! [3]Bedivere (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have done my best with the little information that has surfaced in the last few hours. I hope someone can expand it as more details emerge. It's a little late at my place and need some sleep! Bedivere (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I would like to acknowledge all people who have worked on the article and have expanded it significantly both in prose and referencing in the last few hours. It certainly looks good enough for ITN! Bedivere (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, oppose on quality The article needs some work before it's ready to be posted. Pretty clearly notable as change in head of state. Also doesn't this count as ITN/R as Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government? Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror05:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability per above. Article's too short at the moment, but details are scarce for now and they'll filter in over time. Proposed ALT1. TheKip06:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a bit, from the sources, it is not clear how this will end, so we better be careful with the blurb. In any case, even an attempted coup where "the president is removed from power" is ITN material. --Tone09:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, combine with ITN/R The coup appears to be a done deal, and is definitely a watershed event in Gabonese history, bringing down the ruling family that has held power since 1967. Support having the election also in bold as the two events are directly connected. Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The news is covering the coup, AND the coup article is of sufficient quality. Do NOT bold the election article, however, as it is of bad quality; there's entire sections that lack any prose. --Jayron3212:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. And comment: Do we need to include the "Ondimba" part of the name? He's much more commonly known as just "Ali Bongo". And (w/r/t both suggested blurbs) specifiying "Gabonese" in the election article link seems redundant. AltBlurb2 suggested. Moscow Mule (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly a notable event, significant not only in history of Gabon but in the amount of press attention this is getting. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support coups d'état (at least the successful ones) should be ITNR per se (I think that this debate was already opened, I don't know how it ended). The article is good, with enough information for what has happened at this time, taking into account that the Reactions section may be expanded in the next hours. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is required to give credit for an ITN nomination. If you really want to receive credit, you can click on the link yourself; nobody will mind. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)17:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should the blurb make it clearer that he was president before the election? It could be read that he had just taken office. Maybe "Incumbent President Bongo Ondimba" or "following his reelection in the 2023 Gabonese general election"? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support but wait—the article needs more work before it's officially posted, not to mention a previous failed coup occurred in 2019. Until there's more confirmation on the situation, I recommend waiting another day or so. MateoFrayo (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Wait-this article itself appears to be about ITN ready, and there appears to already be consensus as well. This may have been posted a bit prematurely, but the article seems ready reguardless so it should have no impact. We need to fix the link for President Bongo Ondimba, however, there seems there was some vandalism or something of the sort it appears and that should be fixed immediately if it hasn't already - yikes. Daneellis11419:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability—I haven't reviewed the article's quality or sourcing, but in terms of overall notability, this is a major event for Gabon. The country has been ruled by the Bongo family for 57 years, and the fact that they've been removed from power will have significant ramifications for Gabon's political (and possibly economic) trajectory. Kurtis(talk)22:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Died last Tuesday, there's an orange tag at the top of the article, but apart from one {cn} tag remaining, the article looks good to be posted for RD. Vida0007 (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
There should be prose elaborating on items listed as "Notable works" in the infobox. --PFHLai (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Refs, too! --PFHLai (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC) And things in the intro are supposed to be only highlights or summaries, and should be explained in more details in the main prose, where footnotes should go. --PFHLai (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Ukraine claims they retook the village of Robotyne, Zaporizhzhia Oblast from the Russian forces. Russia says they have repelled attacks in the area. (Reuters)
Iran says it has reached an agreement with Iraq to disarm and relocate Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq and shut down bases run by the groups in the semi-autonomous region. (Al Jazeera)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Legendary American bass-baritone, known as Wotan in Wagner's Ring cycle. His death was announced on 28 August. The article was more or less a list of famous places, people and orchestras. It could be more detailed, with more reviews and colleagues mentioned for performances and recordings, also his first wife Inga Nielsen is still missing, but I have no more time for him right now. Help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Schwede66, I'm sorry. I found the section as it is, - the same information once in prose, once in a table, which may be good for different types of readers. All recordings in both sections are referenced by Muziekweb (with the exception of the Schumann, for which I already found a review). I copied the ref now to the list of videos, for clarity, - sorry that I missed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
This stubby wikibio currently has only 139 words of prose. Stubs are not supposed to be used on the RD line. Please expand this wikibio. Noms with less than 300 words rarely get much support. --PFHLai (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American playwright. Article needs some sourcing work (especially plays and awards section), I plan to work on it now or later today if nothing comes up. I've done some work and the article looks alright now. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror10:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: British politician. Article is a bit stubby and undercited, I will look at this now. All cited now, though still a little short. Black Kite (talk)10:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
There are currently 7 {cn} tags in the prose. The table of his coaching record (one row?) is also unsourced. Please add more REFs and footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Major global world cup of a major global sport. Pretty standard/routine addition to ITN, like how the FIFA Women's World Cup was included in ongoing recently. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk)06:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the biggest names, but objectively the biggest tournament for basketball outside of the Olympics. Prose feels adequate enough. TheKip08:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose The FIBA World Cup has always been just a qualifying tournament for the Olympics with very little to no significance. This description has gained additional importance after FIBA decided to move the World Cup to odd years, only a year before the Olympics, which discouraged many world-class players to play in order to avoid playing tournaments two summers in a row. United States with youngsters looking for an opportunity to compete for the Olympic squad, Serbia without Jokić, Greece without Giannis, Latvia without Porziņģis, Canada without Jamal Murray all support that description.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kiril. Also, I would argue that the US's NBA finals and even the college playoffs are far more famous than this, even though neither has the global impact. --Masem (t) 12:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support ongoing, strong support blurb - ITN doesn't require stories to be of "global significance" or be subject to (largely unfounded and editorialized) claims of having very little to no significance. I'd say that this meets points I and III of WP:ITNPURPOSE; not to go full Andrew Davidson, but it's received half a million views in the past week and is receiving extensive coverage from the likes of the BBC, Forbes, CNN, AP, SCMP, ABC, The Guardian, Huff Post, etc, and it's also likely attracting the interest of readers who may not be aware of this but may be interested by say, perhaps misreading it as FIFA. — Knightoftheswords14:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This tournament is an ITN/R item, so a blurb on its conclusion should be posted. As for ongoing, those arguments that you present make a much stronger case for posting US Open, but we simply can't and don't overload ongoing with sport events.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please tell me what was the last election or natural disaster posted onto ongoing? I don't remember that we've ever posted such events there.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is literally one election on {{ITN}} RN, plus an adjacent item where Cambodia has sworn in a new PM, amounting to effectively half of the template. Until very recently, ITN was basically more natural disaster porn than anything else, since that was effectively the only thing we could agree to post that wasn't WP:ITNR; it wasn't until some users raised a fuss about the trillions of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:DISASTERSTUBS that were being created as a result. — Knightoftheswords15:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you about the "Ongoing" section, i.e. the penultimate line between the blurbs and the "Recent deaths" section, not about ITN overall. This is a nomination for ongoing, not for a blurb (as I already mentioned, a blurb should be posted when the tournament concludes as it's an ITN/R item).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, hence why it was a weak support; I'm not sure if we should broaden the scope for ongoing as much as we should for blurbs. Perhaps make any long-term ITNR blurb item ongoing? — Knightoftheswords17:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ongoing, weak support for a blurb on the competition's conclusion. The Olympics is the far more prestigious international competition, with most of the major basketball powers (USA, France, Serbia etc) sending their B or C teams to FIBA. With the exception of Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, none of the worlds top players are participating.--Newtothisedit (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ongoing, support blurb on conclusion—Literally just copy and paste Black Kite's rationale as my own. He put it succintly and I have nothing more to add. Kurtis(talk)05:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
I'm aware that Discogs is not generally considered a reliable source, but the discography section is just a list of albums. The only thing a citation would add to it is verification that it exists, and for that, I think the Discogs external link is sufficient (though perhaps not ideal). Kurtis(talk)14:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kurtis Well, WP:ITNQUALITY says Lists of awards and honors, bibliographies and filmographies and the like should have clear sources. Sources themselves should be checked for reliability. I don't think that discogs counts as a "clear" or "reliable" source in line with this criteria. Even if it's just as verification that an album exists, we need reliable inline sources for it. I recall many articles have a simple discography (just album and year) and don't get posted because the discography isn't sourced. I see no reason to change that. It's not like RD is desperate to post more noms, we only have a quality standard for RD, so that standard should matter. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror15:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MonarchOfTerror: You know, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2007 and registered in 2008, yet I didn't know you needed high-quality sources used as inline citations to verify the existence of albums or other creative works. I had thought that this would've been one of the limited situations in which user-generated websites, such as Discogs or IMDb, would be acceptable to be used as sources.
@Kurtis Using WP:UGC for even basic facts is controversial, but not necessarily wrong. It might be an appropriate exception to the general rule of WP:UGC. For example WP:Citing IMDb says it's disputed, IMDb content which is in dispute about whether it is appropriate to reference on Wikipedia: Released films only: Sections such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications. My real main point is that such ambiguities should be avoided entirely when we're posting it on the main page, highlighting it and telling our readers this article about a recent death was high enough quality to put here. RD is solely about quality, that's what makes it great and cordial, but that quality standard should matter then. If it's debatable on reliability then it isn't main page worthy. But don’t sweat it, experienced editors are humans too and I enjoyed this civil and cordial conversation with you. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror20:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise—collegiality is something that ITN could use a lot more of, so to have an exchange with someone that doesn't involve having anyone's opinions denigrated is a welcome breath of fresh air. Kurtis(talk)21:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom I've cited what I could in the discography, removed what I couldn't, and marked the list as incomplete since it's definitely missing items ("Plummer has made an album every year for eighteen years", Munro 2016). Hopefully that's sufficient @Curbon7 and MonarchOfTerror:. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
I can find sources that back up that he was a "divorced father of a 13-year-old boy" as of 2008. Is that good enough to support the statement you tagged under "Early life, education, and business career"? The only part of this sequence of events which I can date using the sources I found is the birth of his son, so maybe the claim would have to be weakened to avoid uncitable (but eminently plausible) extrapolation about the timeline.
Anyway, the statement I find much harder to find a source for is the one about working for Global Crossing. I can only find WP clones mentioning that he worked there. Maybe he said it in a TV interview or something, but I can't find anything on Google right now. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My vote was kind of late at night, but from my 15 minute Google search, that uncited info was hard to come by, unless you wanted to risk using sites like Breitbart which Wikipedia generally doesn't allow using. ❤HistoryTheorist❤19:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—But on a personal note... wow. I remember commenting on his article's talk page during the 2008 election, and I even made a suggestion on the BLP noticeboard (both under my former username) relating to BLP concerns on his article. And here we are, fifteen whole years later, discussing an RD for him. (Fun fact: the "recent deaths" section of the main page didn't even exist back then, and wouldn't become a thing for several years.) Feels a bit surreal. Kurtis(talk)04:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose for Now & Close there is literally no article. I will considering changing my support once there is a good-quality article created. There are no sources listed either. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Neutral, lean Oppose I still hesitate to support the blurb but @Monarch of Terror did significantly update and source it so I guess it's alright. FIFA is really getting in on this, so perhaps I'll throw in my weak support, but I'm not a good judge of notability when it comes to football news. ❤HistoryTheorist❤03:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not to be rude, but this really feels like tabloid news. We posted the world cup, and minor dramas like this regarding one football team aren't really relevant. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the disputes article, and at the time I didn't think it should be posted. It's been a bad week to have a busy week, and obviously there's now a lot more, but I now wonder if it's appropriate to post an ongoing situation as a blurb, or to post it to ongoing when the dimensions of what's ongoing seems to be often-changing. I disagree that it's tabloid news; while I would guess that if this had happened to the Spain men's team in 2010 it would be even bigger, Rubiales is quite a high-level executive in European football anyway. Besides that, the response is becoming the slightly-delayed MeToo movement of a stereotypically-macho nation where feminism has had a very rapid rise. But that begs the question: what is the story we would post. The eligible players refusing to play and the support staff resigning? FIFA suspending Rubiales? The growing social movement? I don't think the unconvincing nomination has helped in the decision-making (sorry IP), but I wouldn't know what to even put in the box that isn't "there's a lot going on in Spanish football and it's spreading to society". Kingsif (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rubiales' attitude at the World Cup final has generated a wave of indignation in Spanish society, involving the entire political chessboard and generating regrettable headlines in the international press. The president of the Consejo Superior de Deportes recently declared that this was the first case of Me Too in Spanish sport, the Spanish government has initiated proceedings for Rubiales to be dismissed, complaints have been lodged with the sports court, a regional president has asked for his resignation and Rubiales has been suspended by FIFA. I would like to say, therefore, that it has been a particularly high-profile case in Spain, without any doubt. Rubiales is likely to fall soon and, just by looking at the reaction of several sports clubs and the leaders of the regional soccer federations, it seems that it could end there. In other words, the impact of this is not transcendental for Spanish sport, but just another embarrassing event that has lasted too long and has overshadowed the truly historic event. Therefore, I believe that ITN is not the space for this news, as it does not transcend, either, the purely local aspect of a shocking local news item. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
has been suspended by FIFA ... purely local – famously small local organisation, FIFA. Really, though, there's a difference between 'local news', i.e. social interest stories in a region that make headlines on slow news days, and major news that is still regional. You already acknowledged this is the latter, so a reminder of "Do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country". Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb proposed by MonarchOfTerror This is getting international coverage and not just from tabloids as alleged above. If it had been a minor incident, that would be one thing. But we're now a week out from the incident and coverage continues. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 18:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb (also I think it should be added at the top with the original blurb?). This is a massive scandal making international news, and shouldn't be minimized here. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb written by MonarchOfTerror, which I've added a slightly modified version of to the nom as an altblurb. It's gotten enough press at this point that it's notable enough for ITN. TheKip00:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait It feels like this is a situation that could end up with something more significant as a result, but the present actions are currently not really at a major level of affecting women's association football, since the World Cup is already over. It's gotten attention, but the full story doesn't feel told at this point. --Masem (t) 01:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the suspection, I will remind people that WP presumes innocent until proven guilty, and so that AltII blurb is a definite Oppose for this purpose. It is standard practice that an agency will dismiss or suspend a person accused of sexual harassment until a full investigation can be performed - not just in sport but this happened with numerous celebs, so this is definitely not a topic appropriate for ITN. --Masem (t) 12:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt2 Added and support alt2. While the status of the team itself is a developing story and I'd !vote to wait on that, the sports business side is on firmer ground. Clearly notable, and anyone who is !opposing with "only of tabloid interest" comments, despite clear evidence otherwise, needs to re-examine their own sexist biases. That's not an accusation, that's asking - or saying the commenters should ask themselves - where such an illogical line of 'argument' came from. Kingsif (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest that, and you (should) know it. Everyone has sexist biases: Wikipedia has an issue with sexist bias, that's why we have WiR, that doesn't suggest it's misogynistic. Kingsif (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then what does needing to re-examine their own sexist biases mean? Unless your saying their misandrists, or both? I fail to understand how supposed underlying sexist biases are to blame for people opposing? — Knightoftheswords15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you re-read the full sentence. Sexist biases – I would have said gender biases but thought that could be taken the wrong way – refers to the perpetual issue of having to perceive the world through a patriarchal lens because of history. That's very different from hating a whole gender. In this instance, I was suggesting that users saying the item is only of interest to tabloids, when that is patently false based on the sources already listed before those !opposes were written, could indicate that those !voters simply expect news based around women's sports etc. to be of that low level of importance, and so they haven't bothered to appreciate that this is more significant. They maybe have !voted based on bias expectations due to having seen women's sports etc. get low-level coverage before, and haven't challenged their expectations by actually looking at this item's individual merits. I think I know where your reaction came from, but remember sexist =/= misogynist or misandrist. Kingsif (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that people would have been voting oppose if something of a similar calibir occurred in male sports; ITN has always had an enormous aversion to what can be considered as "celebrity news;" hell, its often used in the vaguest sense to oppose noms (for example, you had people comparing the Titan submersible incident to Anne Heche's death). — Knightoftheswords01:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I encouraged you to read my full !vote again – I didn't say any !oppose came from bias, just the ones invoking clearly false reasoning. And perhaps more to the point, what I perhaps didn't expand enough on, is I see this very clearly as a sports story, not a sports scandal: between the business side of a powerful European executive being forced out and the sporting side of the new World Cup winners taking their (bat and) ball home, it's much more than "ongoing BTS drama in [sport]". Kingsif (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coming out of nowhere to insult someone? Classic troll. But seriously, if you're going to try write-off people with whom you disagree like that when they're clearly in good faith and good standing, what are you doing here. Kingsif (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The trigger incidents occurred at the World Cup and that's ITN/R so its significance is unquestionable. They have released a remarkably intense civil war as there's a long history of hostility to women's football in Spain where it was initially suppresssed. There's legal action on both sides, the vitriol is flowing freely and multiple authorities are involved, including FIFA and the Spanish government. This is big news with lots of heavyweight international coverage which is much more serious than the routine reporting of results. The article update and altblurb seem adequate and so it's good to go. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - nowhere in ITN are events ineligible for posting if they lack an article; a relevant article can suffice. Per #How to nominate an item, In order to suggest a candidate, update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.. {{ITNcandidate}} literally has |updated= partially for this reason, so any closer should ignore any !votes stating or citing !votes that use the fact that this event doesn't have a dedicated article as an argument for opposing. — Knightoftheswords12:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. Editors have long cited criteria not spelled out in black and white. And, conceding odd exceptions, the community has more often than not rejected nominations on the basis of insufficient notability to justify a standalone article. While you are certainly free to disagree with it, that doesn't mean you can simply tell closers to ignore an argument. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed been here for a longtime. Long enough to know and recognize long established precedent. I have also been around long enough to recognize rude comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not precedent; multiple times have we promoted articles that don't fully focus on the noteworthy event, such as the malaria vax or the Finnish nuclear reactor. If you want to amend ITN's guidelines regarding this, then organize a consensus on WT:ITN; this willingness to abuse WP:IAR and casually ignore rules when it gets in the way of our !vote is arguably the primary reason why ITN is on the gallows on the moment, and also why we can barely attract any new users. Additionally, I wasn't being rude, I was just saying that !votes like your's (and HistoryTheorist (talk·contribs), who was actually the user that initially prompted me to make a comment) are contradictory to ITN's guidelines. — Knightoftheswords14:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Knightoftheswords281. As I said, you are certainly within your right to disagree with my vote and its rational. Telling closers to ignore it along with concurring votes is a different matter. I also noted that there have been exceptions where we have posted blurbs without a standalone article. But they are exceptions. ITNC is not an exercise in legalism and editors have long been free to apply what criteria they think is appropriate as long as it isn't flatly proscribed in the guidelines. The closers will determine the reasonableness of the arguments when assessing consensus. The reference to rudeness was not directed towards you. It was in response to GCG's rather snarky comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will concede that it was probably a little overboard to directly state that !votes should be ignored (though, that is somewhat common in !vote discussions), but just because ITN isn't some almalgamation of Qin China and the Stalinist USSR, doesn't mean that it has to be like Rojava or Somalia either. We are not legalist, nor are we anarchist; we ought to have guidelines that need to be followed. ITN's current passiveness and vagueness in its rules and enforcement of said rules is the major reason why ITN is in its current state, and we need to centralize the process into a comprehensible guide set that you typically cannot deviate from just because one feels like it. — Knightoftheswords15:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I for one have found the process here to be mostly functional, though I have had moments where I felt a certain level of frustration. And FWIW I am no anarchist. One of my personal rules is that invoking IAR should be safe, legal and rare. That said, I am not a supporter of turning ITN into a news ticker. There have been discussions about revamping the guidelines with a view to taking a more expansive approach to what gets posted. Those have almost always failed to gain broad support which I tend to view as an indication that the community is not keen on the idea. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Knightoftheswords281 I'm sorry if I did anything wrong. I usually avoid voting on controversial things, especially if it has nothing to do with things I'm familiar with because I really have no clue if they are worthwhile for ITN. I'm not all too well versed in this side of ITN, so if I made any mistakes, please forgive me. I guess my !vote was kind of to nullify my !vote which was a bit premature, when there was no article whatsoever and no news sources attributed. I honestly have no opinion at this point and I don't want to see discussion closed at this point. ❤HistoryTheorist❤19:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The merits of posting items that are updates has already been debated, but I would point out specifically that this situation would be notable enough for its own article, it just doesn't need one (yet?) IMHO. Kingsif (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the news coverage is ramping up. For example, the NYT is running two prominent stories today while the BBC coverage is extensive and now has a timeline with 13 entries across 8 days.
Just because people are talking about it now doesn't mean this will be an enduring story. And, yeah, it would be CRYSTAL to assume it will or will not be, but is this something people will really remember, say, a year from now. This story seems to be part of a larger problem in soccer and perhaps Spanish soccer, but this particular story doesn't feel like anything but a symptom of said disease. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sports scandals don't belong in ITN unless it results in truly global ramifications for their sport. Meanwhile, this is largely (almost entirely) still constrained to Spain and the Spanish football federation. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk)02:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's easy to find prior examples of similar scandals being run at ITN:
I think there is a huge difference in scale between those events and this one. Both of those were multi-decade institutionalized incidences with many hundreds of victims, while this incident was just one creep. I'm not arguing against a blurb or downplaying this, but there is a fundamental difference between this and those. Curbon7 (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely downplaying and again it's false. The nominated article details a pattern of abuse and oppression by multiple officials going back many years and affecting many players. Note that we also have a List of 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup controversies including "Sexual misconduct allegations" against other countries besides Spain. There's clearly a lot of institutional issues here and so the scandal here seems even bigger than those others. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - overblown (c.f. [4]). This doesn't mean that action shouldn't be taken, but rather that the action does not need fanfare, and it should not be posted to ITN as a result. Banedon (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and? As someone who is on the suport side, I must say that the attempt to imply that this is only receiving opposition solely because we're talking about women's soccer is bogus and bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS at the very least. Why is it mandatory that we have to have women (or realistically, known women; there's a chance that it's at the very least a bit bold for you to assume that everyone in this discussion is female)? It's just like the argument that men can't speak on abortion because it (somehow) doesn't affect them; it's a argument yelled from the bleechers when you can't play in the field. — Knightoftheswords14:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Andrew but it seems to me he was not asking to have less men, only more women. That with the item linked to gender so critically, men should not be the only voices. Really, KotS, you are (again!) either accidentally or deliberately misreading the simple observation that gender bias exists; either way, the tone of your response is unwarranted. Kingsif (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never did I say that men should be the only voices, nor did I state the opposite. I still fail to see the distinction between sexism and misogyny and misandry; from our article on the first:
Misandry (/mɪsˈændri/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men or boys.
Via stating that the opposition may be sexist, which using the definitions above, are objectively what you and Andrew are stating, you're saying that they are, in this case, misogynistic. Let's lay down the culture-war axe-grinders for once and go by Occam's Razor and state that the reason this is receiving massive amounts of opposition is that it's viewed as tabloid drama, which historically on ITN, whether regarding men or women, has been scorned here on ITN. — Knightoftheswords17:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that you said anything, just that your interpretation of what Andrew said was wrong. If you're not going to bother reading, it's really out of place for you to be so vociferously replying. As for your own aspersions, I (again, can't speak for Andrew) said sexist biases, i.e. gender bias on Wikipedia, which is not an accusation towards any user nor of their own alignment. If you're still stuck for the distinction: misogyny in women's sport could be someone in the crowd shouting abuse, sexism in women's sport could be historic underfunding. Besides sexist/gender bias being its own concept. Yes, there are people opposing because they see it as "tabloid drama" – the thing you're so outraged by was me simply saying those !voters could ask why they consider it tabloid drama when it's getting ongoing topline coverage in broadsheets around the world. Kingsif (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like Andrew's is why I would never reveal my gender online. If I say I'm male then I get accused of bias, if I say I'm female then I am still accused of bias, by a separate group of editors. Same goes for whether I am e.g. Spanish or non-Spanish or follow/don't follow soccer, etc. Banedon (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps the article needs an update, and perhaps that's on me, but I still think there are gender biases causing people to assume this item is little more than a dramatic reaction to (alleged) sexual harassment – or perhaps those responses are dictated by social media now dedicating more coverage to Rubiales' mother being dramatic. I do not see the key of this story as being "scandal", though, and I encourage others to see it the same. In terms of business, a vice-president of UEFA has been suspended and Spain has no football officials. In terms of sports, the newly-crowned World Cup champion team just doesn't exist anymore and seems like it might not before they have to play in qualifiers. Spain has tried to uncover systemic abuse in women's football before; that an unwanted kiss had to pull back the curtain rather than a landmark investigative report doesn't make it ultimately more tabloid-y. Kingsif (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - After reading all of the above discussion, I find myself thoroughly unconvinced that this is suitable for ITN on the basis of impact, consequences, or encyclopedic coverage. I align with those who feel like this may be a situation where WP:NOTATICKER is applicable, and I'm further revolted by accusations of sexism. Enough with the WP:ASPERSIONS. Maybe general sanctions truly are necessary for ITN. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)16:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is accusing users of sexism; it's revolting (or at least disruptive) that one user is continuing to mischaracterise simple requests for !voters to have awareness of inherent bias (and perhaps reconsideration with that in mind). Kingsif (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but "examine your sexist bias" is an implied accusation. Whether you intended it or not, that is how the wording comes across. I'm sympathetic to your overall message, but not your methodology. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)18:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't deny there could have been better execution, that's fair, but there was still no intentional implication of sexism, let alone misogyny. I think most users, like yourself, understood the point I was trying to make; I say this to say I do AGF of KotS, who has explained they don't know the difference between concepts. Suffice it to say, I would advocate for awareness of sexist/gender bias in every discussion at ITN, and remind everyone that it's not bad to admit such biases exist as long as we're aware of and trying to counter them. Kingsif (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment As a note, we do not know the exact date of her death, only that it is likely recent. Only now are sources talking about it. --Masem (t) 05:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that THR story had come out by the time I posted my comment. If they are saying that, then that's the date we should use. There was a WP:BLPN thread about her death which due to having first been from Twitter posts was making the details unsure, and last I read that it was now a question of when she died. Masem (t) 13:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
American food delivery platform DoorDash announces that it will pay $1.6 million to its workers after a Seattle Office of Labor Standards investigation finds that the company failed to implement the city’s required sick and safe time policy. (AP)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Prominent singer/funkeiro from Brazil. Just translated article and updated sources. Should be good to go, save for it being sort of late to add. PootisHeavy (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support article looks good enough. I wish there was a bit more info on when he started service and when he was born, but that info is probably quite hard to come by. ❤HistoryTheorist❤01:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this article says he was 29 as of May 2022, which would imply that he was born between May 1992 and May 1993. I've been unable to find a specific birth date, but maybe it's out there or will be soon enough. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Paragraphs like "As of 7 May 2022, Juice had 500 hours of combat flight time." and "In June 2023, Juice was quoted in a CNN article." makes me think that this is not a finely-tuned article, but perhaps good enough and hopefully more work is in progress. Nigej (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support I see two "needs update" statements but I don't think that is as major an issue if we were looking at unsourced statements. Thus the article appears ready to go. --Masem (t) 16:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding Oppose blurb here. Well-known but that doesn't equate to significant or transformative or the like. Masem (t) 02:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added two CN tags in the "Awards and honors" section. These, along with the two "needs update" tags should be fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is probably a borderline case of someone getting a blurb or not. Bob was absolutely at the top of his field as far as television presenters goes in terms of his career and his longevity, but he’s a very US-Centric personality who probably would not be as well known intentionally Spman (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have to tap the sign again? There's a good reason to not blurb him (his death was not at all unexpected, given his age), but that it's relevant to only a single country isn't one of them. -- RockstoneSend me a message!21:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Just because someone is well-known does not mean they are sufficiently significant to warrant a blurb. I agree with The Kip and Darkside830, these blurb nominations for dead people (especially old people dying) are getting out of control. If Bob Barker deserves a blurb, does that mean Larry Emdur deserves a blurb when he dies? Chrisclear (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb, Post Support RD I checked Alex Trebek's nom back in 2020 to see if the blurb was even brought up for him, and while it did, it was pretty hard oppose. I don't think its likely Bob will be getting it either. It may be worth closing it here.
Oppose blurb—But I'm not opposed to having a discussion about it. If someone is a high-profile public figure, or the case could be made for them being a highly transformative figure in their field, we shouldn't shut an editor down for even suggesting the idea. Discussion harms no one—I mean, how else are we supposed to establish consensus? Telepathy? Kurtis(talk)23:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Being well-known by itself is not sufficient to merit a blurb. I wonder if we need to revisit the blurb criteria and be more specific as to what "transformative" means. Certainly I have no problem with the discussion either. After all, only through a discussion can a consensus be reached. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)00:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KOTS281, you're riding a fine line between bluntness and patent incivility. The discussion was quite civil until you closed and then took the extra step of editorializing in your close hinting that people are "starting shit." Spman mentioned that this was a borderline case of a blurb, and even with reasonable doubt, that in itself would be sufficient to prompt the discussion. You mentioned before that you (and I) were part of the problem regarding the toxic atmosphere on ITN/C; why not now try to be part of the solution? Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)13:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this close was rather hostile to the calm, civil discussion that was ongoing about a potential (albeit highly unlikely) blurb, a discussion at least worth having per Spman. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)13:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spman suggested there may have been a case for a blurb, I said if it was proposed I would oppose, and someone then put blurb in the header. Seems harmless enough to me. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same as DarkSide, I took it that Spman posited the idea of a blurb and I voted in opposition as such. If anyone's "starting sh*t" or "instigating unnecessary drama," it's KOTS' unnecessarily inflammatory closure message and hat. TheKip00:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Two telecommunication companies in Haiti, Digicel and Access Haiti, said their fiber optic cables were severed this week, temporarily disrupting service in suspected acts of sabotage by criminal gangs. (AP)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
On closer examination, I wasn't able to find a citation to support the Rockefeller Foundation/Ohio State University connections, only the University of Florida. The rest of the article is supported by the sources. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: The release of the infamous mugshot is generating immense coverage of this. I know many will oppose us becoming "Trumppedia" but I think it's worth taking a look at this story. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The BBC article says It was his fourth arrest in five months in a criminal case, but this was his first police booking photo., so I suppose the main story worth considering here is his mugshot. Unfortunately, it's a trivial funny thing that doesn't make any significant changes in the process.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That adds to media circus. Normally a person is placed in custody or detention after the first arrest, but here we had four arrests and still basically nothing until conviction. Almost like WWE pantomime. Brandmeistertalk11:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Germanfederal court rejects an appeal by a military officer who posed as a asylum-seeker and was convicted of plotting to attack prominent politicians. (AP)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose article is very unbalanced in terms of importance; it spends less than a paragraph on his time in Whitesnake, arguably the most well-covered part of his career outside of Wikipedia, it doesn't even discuss the well-publicized shake-up in the band that led to Marsden being fired, years of strained relations with Coverdale, reconciliations and reunions, etc. Instead of being an integral part of his notability, it comes off as a minor part of his career. It spends almost as much text on Paice Ashton Lord, a band he was only in briefly as a hired gun for one album and a few shows, as it does on Whitesnake, a band he was a founding member of, and for which he served as a principle songwriter for a long time. Really below quality standard I would expect for the main page. --Jayron3216:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Utterly tragic, and another wrestler gone far too soon. Article is extremely well-cited for a wrestler's page, and should be ready for RD shortly. The Kip (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's a couple spots that need a bit more sourcing, such as in the section on the developmental territories, but otherwise this is a well-sourced page (over 300 citations!) and looks ready for RD. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook19:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Major expansion of bloc of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) nations, aimed at creating a counterweight to Western organisations such as the G7. Widely reported and commented upon. Khuft (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These countries actually asked to join. Their joining date is set for 1. Jan 2024 - when no news media will be reporting on it. The news about the expansion of the bloc is happening now. Khuft (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - though I like to shit on BRICS all the time, this is notable and is personally one of the few instances where they have actually done stuff. For the people who oppose on the basis of "it hasn't occurred yet," everytime we invoke that "rule," it never gets posted when the event actually goes down. The newsworthy event is when the change is made, not when the formalization occurs. — Knightoftheswords18:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blurb is misleading, the invitations have appeared to been accepted, ands now just process that will delay their actual participation. --Masem (t) 21:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. This is not major news unless some or all of these countries are actually admitted. Assumption that it will happen or what coverage will be like when admissions happen are CRYSTAL. Just because it is covered now does not mean this is the right time to run this story. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not Now & Oppose. These countries were just invited and aren't members yet. This should probably be nominated again when they officially become members. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 (話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 02:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the emphasis on expansion. The organisation is already quite ineffectual and adding countries like Ethiopia isn't going to help. Its acronym is also going to collapse into chaos as there will be too many vowels. The best I can find is ICE_ABUSERS but there's still an extra I left over.
No offense but "Oppose because the acronym won't work anymore" is probably the funniest argument I've seen in a while. (And whenever they find a new acronym, that one should definitely go to ITN!) Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Warsaw Pact was somewhat inaptly named given the fact that the seat of power was concentrated in the USSR and not in Poland, but in any case: You do recognize of course that those sources, reliable as they are for purposes of secondary reporting, would naturally have a Western-centric political and ideological bias towards blocs such as BRICS. The United States is no stranger to such viewpoints; you need only look back a few decades when the hammer and sickle still flew outside the Kremlin. So even if the expansion appears "ineffectual", it's still newsworthy, otherwise there wouldn't be a counter-narrative. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)13:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per HenricArryn. It's arguable that we should post when it happens, but there's a good chance it will not get as much coverage when it happens compared to now, in which case it makes sense to post now, especially since there are no major obstacles I'm aware of to them actually joining. This compares to, say, Sweden joining NATO. Banedon (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Article is in decent shape, but the updated text that the blurb references should be expanded a bit. Still, probably good enough for the main page. --Jayron3211:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A pretty significant shifting of the world order, with many of the countries listed (Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE) having strong economic footholds in the Middle East. Encyclopedic in nature as it will no doubt result in major alterations to existing important Wikipedia articles. As to whether to post it now or at the formal introduction of these countries, my preference would be to post it now, but I'm not opposed to waiting. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)19:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be misinterpreting the meaning of "invitation" here. It's diplomatic language to say that the 5 current BRICS countries accept the new ones (who had expressed interest already) to join. Ramaphosa's speech says the following: "We have decided to invite the Argentine Republic, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to become full members of BRICS. The membership will take effect from 1 January 2024." It doesn't mention any acceptance or ratification process, nor does it leave any doubt that the 6 new countries will become members on 1 Jan 2024. Needless to say, no news media will be reporting on this on New Year 2024. We either post this now, or we will never post it. Khuft (talk) 07:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What the Saudi foreign minister has said already is that they'll think about it and so it's not a done deal. The Saudis are naturally more cautious than the others as they are the rich ones with the money while the other entrants would be more supplicant. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Important news, and, in the same way we posy elections of heads of state rather than their inagurations, I think it's best not to wait and to post this now. DecafPotato (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not significant like UN or EU quite yet. Also it's only an invitation, and also BRICS hasn't flexed its muscles on anything yet. This isn't news yet QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems okay to post the news now. The January 1 date is a formality, and I'm not sure that when the new year starts the community will still care about posting this update. A lot of agreements are worded such that they come into effect on January 1, but I guess it makes more sense to post them when they are agreed upon. I don't blame people who disagree though. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mark my words, on January 1st, 2024, I will post this nomination again. And if someone else has posted it before me, I will give it a whole hearted support.
Support This is one of the best examples of the type of major geopolitical news that has serious ramifications, but is so big picture that it can be hard for people who, to put it bluntly, are not well-versed in international politics to grasp the tangible impact of, and therefore too often receives opposition at ITN/C for being "insignificant" or "incremental." Article update isn't massive, but I don't think it needs to be or should be. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is not done yet, and it is not clear what the practical implications of this will be, beyond cheap talk and the usual anti-West leftist propaganda. It is a group of very different countries that will have a hard time agreeing on anything or achieving anything. Tradediatalk03:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Support I find BRICS laughable as an organization, and agree that it will get very little (potentially nothing) done, but it still is, practically, the expansion of a major geopolitical block; about the most blatantly notable event imaginable. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between NATO/G7/EU and BRICS. NATO has conducted wars. EU has created a top 2 currency and economic system. G7 has done a lot of important things. On the other hand, BRICS has not achieved much since its creation. Tradediatalk01:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support but with the altblurb I just added, which is I think explains the situation much better. The "invite" language is what I think a lot of the opposes are arguing against, but it is the fact this is a done deal, and simply like the election of most state leaders, the formal start of their term aligns with the BRACS calendar. --Masem (t) 00:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose Mostly well-cited in the body (only one CN tag), but the Books and Filmography sections are mostly to entirely unsourced. The Kip (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done some work to source the books section and also replaced letterboxd and IMDb sources in the filmography (since IMDb is unreliable per WP:IMDB and Letterboxd gets its data from TMDB which is user-generated and unreliable per WP:UGC). There’s still the one cn tag in the body and one uncited book, I could not find sources for these. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror17:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Before anyone comments on the fact that the war has not ended, yes, I know that the war has not ended, and that there are still news articles about it being published. The cornerstone of the Ongoing section, however is that there is a regularly updated Wikipedia article we are linking to on the main page. The current linked article, Russian invasion of Ukraine, last received a substantive update about the war on 1 August 2023, using this source (currently source 448). In the past three weeks, the only changes to the article have been cosmetic or grammatical, or have been someone incrementing the dates on the maps and in tables to the current date, with no substantive changes describing any new events. The article itself appears to not be receiving updates, and so is no longer eligible for ongoing. If someone has a different article on the same subject which is being updated, please feel free propose that article to be swapped out for this one, which is approaching a month stale at this point. Jayron3213:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose & WP:SNOW close This type of nom has been nominated before, we don't need to open another one. Quick summary of what I said last time in a nom like this; the war is still ongoing, just because that specific article isn't receiving any major updates doesn't mean nothing is happening on the battlefield. Supplies are still being sent to the frontlines from Western countries, the killing of Prigozhin will definitely escalate tensions between the Russian military and Wagner itself, and bloody battles like in Bakhmut are still being fought. Absolutely no reason to remove it. TwistedAxe[contact]13:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then why didn't you add all of that information to the article? If it is so important to you that this remain on the main page, why couldn't you put in 5 minutes of effort each day or so to update the article with all of this information? --Jayron3213:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Time for the monthly Ukraine war ongoing removal
This is a good faith nom though, and you raise good points. But my personal opinion is that this item is far too important and is making so many headlines every day that it would be ridiculous to take it off, even if the article is not being updated. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Common sense says that fir a topic that has been going in for this long and this well covered, the updates are going to be on subpage of the main topic and not the main topic itself. We had this issue before with I think the Hong Kong protests, and I am pretty sure that acknowledge that subpage being updated was appropriate. Masem (t) 13:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still definitely ongoing. And will be ongoing for a long time. A big crucial battlefield update could happen tomorrow, right now the main article might be a bit slow on updates though. I also remind everyone that this article have several articles about individual battles and event which might get updates through the main articles appearance on Ongoing.BabbaQ (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - COVID is still ongoing as well, but when that stopped being regularly updated, with substantial updates, it was likewise dropped. nableezy - 14:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Russia-Ukraine is still receiving regular updates. Yesterday's plane crash, for example. The situation continues to develop on the regular. Kurtis(talk)14:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Conflict regularly makes headlines, and while the main article may not get updated every day, the 2023 Ukrainian Counteroffensive is getting many updates daily (but we should not solely post the counteroffensive article, as this does not capture the full picture of what is ongoing). 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and please link to the timeline article so that we can't get a regular removal nom for this topic based on a technicality. Good faith nom, but per above, it's still somewhat foolish to remove this, though as I've repeatedly stated, at this point, linking to the TL article is much better, as the home article barely gives any info on recent developments and the former is being updated daily. — Knightoftheswords14:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I object to this closure, and the comments in opposition are based on a false premise. Kurtis the plane crash does not appear once in Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is the last significant update to the article, and that isnt really all that substantial an update. And it was on August 6. People are claiming something that is not true, that the article is being updated regularly, and then the discussion is closed on the basis of those false claims. nableezy - 15:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, perhaps the meaning of my comment was unclear—the linked article might not be getting regular updates anymore, but the topic itself is still very much ongoing. It continues to receive widespread attention, and the situation is developing by the day. I like Fram's suggestion that we pipe the link to the recent timeline rather than the main article, but I am very much against removal at this juncture.
In two hours it’d amassed nine oppose votes, all on solid rationale grounds, to just one single support outside of the nom. That’s the very definition of how WP:SNOW works. The Kip (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if the Sudan conflict can't get a consensus for removal, this sure as hell won't. Wasting the communities time/energy on this is absurd. Until there is a peace accord I don't see consensus ever forming and we should very well consider trouting the next person who brings it up. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a completely absurd comparison. The last time someone proposed removing the article Sudan conflict, the article was receiving substantive updates every 2-3 days. This one hasn't received an update in weeks. If we are telling our readers we have up-to-date information on a story, why are we sending them to read an article that doesn't? If you think the story deserves to be covered by an ongoing link, either edit the article in question regularly to add the new information or give us the link to an article where that is happening. --Jayron3216:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be in support of discussing whether to pipe or not (and in weak support of piping). However, I agree that discussing removal is pointless. Nobody in the discussion challenged the notability of the topic, only the quality of the linked article. DaßWölf15:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with not removing the item, but there were several proposals to change the link. Can we discuss perhaps doing that? If the story is in the news, but some other Wikipedia article is receiving all of the updates rather than this one is, perhaps we can link to that one instead? --Jayron3216:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other article is just a chronicle of day-by-day events, without any context. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to link to that. The currently linked article is the main one that covers the war, and from which readers can navigate further to get more in-depth details. It's probably more useful to the casual Wikipedia user than a war journal. Also, didn't we treat covid in the same way? (Honest question: I don't really remember). Khuft (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other article is just a chronicle of day-by-day events, without any context. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to link to that.
As opposed to a vague overview article that essentially goes over all the things everyone knows about and doesn't even highlight any of the events that are in the news? — Knightoftheswords17:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have supported removal. Jayron is making points which I don't think have been sufficiently addressed - if this is an ongoing event, why is the main article not receiving substantive updates? The discussion needs to be reopened. Two hours to declare WP:SNOW is silly. The guidelines on WP:ITN state outright: In general, articles are not posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. (bolded mine). ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)17:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two hours to declare WP:SNOW is silly.
With all due respect; the proposal had garnered nine opposes, with solid rationale (as opposed to simply "lol no" or similar), to just a single support. If it was something like three opposes it'd be premature, but not SNOWing it then and there would've just extended the inevitable, and the lone support voter force-reopening this discussion feels like sour grapes to a degree. The Kip (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The war is ongoing. It’s time to stop these nominations that are snow closed anyway. And yes there was a clear and loud consensus to not remove this article from ongoing. If anyone want to discuss if another article about this war is better for the section, then have that discussion at the appropriate talk page.BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um, this is the appropriate page for that. And whether or not the war is ongoing is immaterial to the question of is the article we are linking receiving updates. It is not, and as such it is ineligible for inclusion in ongoing. And i dgaf if a thousand people say oppose, that is not consensus, we base "consensus" on adherence to our policies and guidelines, and this is one of the few instances here where we actually have some guidance. WP:ONGOING: In general, articles are not posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status. All the opposes here are invalid and should be ignored. And this should be reopened. nableezy - 17:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removal at this point is clearly premature. This is where a strict following of policy to remove the entry would actually be unencyclopedic and of no productive benefit in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. Jayron32 and Nableezy make good points, but there is even more to be said. We removed the COVID-19 pandemic at times when there were containment measures in place in half of the world, tens of thousands of deaths were reported on a daily basis, there was wide media coverage and hundreds of Wikipedia articles were regularly updated, but the main argument was that the world got used to the pandemic and began to gradually normalise. The same is happening with this story now. While it’s undeniably still ongoing, the world got used to it and, more importantly, Ukrainians went back to normal life. The incremental updates in the past few weeks consist of run-of-the-mill drone attacks, planned future operations, pleads for weapon and some statements about alleged losses. That’s definitely not newsworthy. I’d rather remove it from ongoing and post when something major happens in the same way we do with the Gaza–Israel conflict.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strikes affect the quality of life, but people already got used to it. People go to work as they did before the invasion, and refugees began returning to the country (please read this news article). Shootings affect the quality of life of Americans, but it doesn’t mean they don’t live a normal life.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your "every day" is a strong argument that this should be removed. While it's certainly tragic and I personally acknowledge it as someone who helped Ukrainians who left the country to find shelter, those strikes have definitely become routine, and editors here should divorce from their emotions. The case was same with the pandemic. It was urgent when several hundreds of people tested positive and several dozens died daily, but then it became routine when tens of thousands of people tested positive and thousands died daily, so it was removed from ongoing at times when the situation was more severe compared to when it was posted. We all know it's ongoing, but it can't stay posted forever.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be kept in the Ongoing section as it seems now, with the addition of the fork article about every day updates. So a good compromie for now.BabbaQ (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted) Proposal: link timeline to ongoing section
Nominator's comments: Per guidelines, ongoing items must receive substantial updates on a daily basis; otherwise, it should be pulled. A major reason why the mother article's edit count has declined is that it has since been absorbed by various fork articles. Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (8 June 2023 – present) is updated on a daily basis with lots of material; it would make sense to at least retarget or add an additional link to the ongoing section. — Knightoftheswords17:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt Yes, did we not have something similar during the pandemic. That the main article also included other fork articles in italics or whatever they were formatted as. Maybe that is a solution. I would support that.BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal - Is there any way we could make some 'Portal' page that links all of these articles together and have that be the main article? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The timeline article is most definitely a better target, but there have been really no major developments in the past few weeks. Ongoing was practically introduced to prevent posting multiple blurbs pertaining to a single ongoing story. I don’t see that happening.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When one says "per guidelines" and then says we "must" do something, that's a fallacy in using P&G. Guidelines (which ITN's are) guide us but are not prescriptive, but descriptive. Yes, we typically require the linked article to be the one updated while it sits at Ongoing, but there is no one holding us to that, and in a case like the Ukraine-Russia war, the topic is so huge that it is reasonable to expect subpages to be updated more often than the main page. The ITN guideline would be interpreted to allow that. As such I'm not saying we can't link to the timeline, but it should be a second useful link, presented as "Russian invasion of Ukraine (timeline)". --Masem (t) 12:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They're just different tournaments. World Cup is one of FIDE's (the organizing body of chess) marquee events, with major funding (see the prize pool) and global representation (there are qualifying tournaments all over the world). It's similar to the FIFA world cup in that sense. World Chess Championship is a different event that awards the World Chess Champion title, it has its own qualification paths (World Cup is one way to qualify).
To me it's simply a question of whether we want to post more than one chess event in ITN. If yes then this is the obvious one to post. If no then just keep the WCC (which is in ITNR anyway). Banedon (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Giant table farm, almost no prose about the event at all. There isn't even a full sentence describing the final match or who won. Article needs a LOT of work to be main page ready. --Jayron3212:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a qualifying event for the Candidates, which itself is the qualifying tournament for the world championship. Grandiose name aside, it's just another tour event that happens to be directly organised by FIDE. The equivalent of the 'world cups' held in other sports is the Chess Olympiad, not this. Modest Geniustalk14:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on importance and quality. This is, at most, the fourth-most-important chess event in the biannual cycle (behind the Championship, Candidates, and Olympiad). Also, the article is mostly a giant table of results. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order @ The C of E—! The FIDE top 15 currently comprises players from Norway, USA, China, Russia, France, Netherlands, India, Romania, Azerbaijan, and Vietnam. That's a greater global representation than a helluva lot of sports that claim the same moniker. Which hardly applies to Cluedo (World champion one Josef Kollar... probably rightly red-linked). Just an FYI. SN5412917:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Meta, Facebook’s parent company, and 184 of its content moderators based in Kenya agree on a mediation attempt to settle in a lawsuit seeking $1.6 billion in compensation, alleging poor working conditions, insufficient mental health support and low pay. (AP)
A presidential decree extends voting by one day in 40 wards across the country due to delayed distribution of ballot papers, which the electoral commission attributes to late printing caused by court challenges. (Reuters)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support RD and blurb. The article quality seems good enough for RD, no major issues tagged. My reasoning for a blurb is that Prigozhin is a figure who has been in world news a lot over the past years and especially last few months, and so his death itself is quite a newsworthy event, whether it was just an accident or due to intentional human machinations. The Wagner group has been involved in the Ukraine invasion, various other conflicts around the world (e.g., Sudan) and an attempted internal coup in Russia, just this year. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for confirmation, but this a blurb if all true, should be about the plane crash that included Prigozhin. --Masem (t) 17:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWait per my comments here. There is confirmation that the plane crashed, and that he was on the passenger list, but there is not confirmation that he was on the plane. Giraffer(talk·contribs)17:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait than Support blurb If it is confirmed, than it should be a blurb given recent events and the nature of the death, but we can afford to wait a bit for that, since things are still unclear now. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions17:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have proposed a blurb making his death more ambiguous, simply referring to the crash. There are also some unconfirmed reports that the plane was shot down. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When did they confirm it, User:Daikido? I just turned off the TV, and both CNN and BBC were only reporting he was on the passenger list, with pundits clearly saying that they need confirmation of his death. Nfitz (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - CNN and BBC are both reporting that he was on the passenger list, but no confirmation he was on the plane. And what's the bigger story - if it's just an unfortunate crash, then it's not otherwise ITN. But if Russia has now started shooting down planes departing from Moscow - than that may be the bigger story. Nfitz (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We might not get unambiguous official confirmation that it was an intentional act of shooting down a plane. People will undoubtedly still speculate about it anyway. Russia tends to pass deaths off as accidents even when they clearly aren’t. (IMO it’s newsworthy enough to be blurbed even if it was in fact just an accident, but I can see why some may disagree. Prigozhin is a name that would evoke strong emotional reactions from residents of many Eastern European countries, to say nothing of his relevance to other regions. His relevance to world affairs is greater than that of many other individuals whose deaths were blurbed.) 98.170.164.88 (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support when ready. The big issue, 98.170.164.88 was whether they were actually on the plane - with the long history of body doubles, deceptive movements, and the false claims by the state-controlled media, then we should be cautious. But with the Wagner group itself reporting the deaths, this seems sure enough, that it's time to post. The key question is how Russia destroyed the plane; but we might not get the details on that for decades - unless foreign powers have evidence; I'd think missiles that close to the NATO border will be well monitored. Nfitz (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and then weak support RD and blurb - Confusing vote, I know. I think we should wait until there is more details on this story, as this is such a rapidly developing situation with confusing and conflicting info. But as it stands, I do think the situation is notable. First of, plane crashes like this, regardless of global impact, are often posted on ITN. Second, one of the biggest players in this conflict, head of a major component of Russia's fighting force, and also deeply involved in other global conflicts like the Niger crisis being killed is pretty big.
While you could argue that this is covered by ongoing, I do think a development as big as this that also has significant effect elsewhere shouldn't be grouped as just another phase of the war. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a consensus for a blurb. I suggest we wait at least 12 hours or until his death is confirmed before posting. Thriley (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb IV - he's been universally been presumed dead, with even our own article stating that he's deceased; it's not ITN's job to editorialize and state "WeLl AkShulLy" an be contrary to all the WP:RSes. — Knightoftheswords18:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Situation is changing too quickly. At least wait for an official confirmation of death. After that, and maybe a confirmation of a shootdown, then Support. Bremps...18:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of the support !votes engage in a non sequitur argument, namely, they assume that since Prigozhin is on the passenger list, he must have boarded the plane. There is, however, no obligation to board even if you booked the flight, and we have no firm confirmation that Prigozhin was on the plane. None of the blurbs take this into account.
According to WP:BLP, biographies must be written conservatively and responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. What the majority votes on so far is a definite overstatement that is not supported by any of the RSs. It is only suggested that he was a passenger, we are not sure, like, 100%, and we should be to claim he is dead.
Wait for official confirmation that he was on the plane, or that he died. Situation is still unclear and we don't lose much by waiting a couple of hours instead of jumping the gun. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose In context this is a small blip on the radar of the war and even smaller in international relations. This is not much different from a plane crash on which a somewhat famous person happend to be. Not at all a significant world event by any stretch. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is beyond significant, and this will definitely have a big impact on the war in Ukraine. Wagner supplied Russia with much needed firepower and manpower. Not to mention, Putin now definitely has a stronger hand over his military command. TwistedAxe[contact]22:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle several media are now edging towards stating he died, on the basis that Wagner group Telegram channel and Russian aviation authority claim it. See e.g. The Guardian. Khuft (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support & comment Wagner has since confirmed the death of both individuals in their official Telegram channel. I've edited both articles to reflect this change, however there might be some reverts. I fully support posting this, HUGE news and its all over every global news outlet. Will have big influence both in and outside of Russia, and especially in the war. TwistedAxe[contact]22:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen unconfirmed tweets that Wagner group had wartime plans in effect and are beginning to engage them should Prigozhin be killed. This may require a rescope of the current article if there is a new offensive front again Putin that was triggered by the crash, but for now keep the blurb focused on the estashlibrd fact that the plane he was in crashed with aboard killed. --Masem (t) 22:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are still unconfirmed reports with both Wagner Telegram Channels and mainstream media regarding their deaths, but considering that we've already updated both of their statuses to "deceased", we should put it in the news for now.
I'm on board if we want to include a comment about these reports not being 100% confirmed, but considering how much this would affect in and outside of Russia if true, it should be in the news. MateoFrayo (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on Notability, but Wait the articles don't really cover their deaths much, and I'm not 100% certain what exactly has happened to them. If nothing develops (i.e. they are not actually dead or something crazy like that) and the articles are brought up to snuff, I'd definitely want it on ITN. ❤HistoryTheorist❤22:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support but Wait for now. Considering Prigozhin was a notable figure during the invasion (especially the munity) his death sounds very notable but for now, wait until his death is confirmed and other details are released. I've read many news sources but so far, none has confirmed his death and only presumed that he died. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 (話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 23:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Highly notable, one would have no idea how long I have been waiting for this, and I'm not trying to bring personal opinion into this or anything, but this should be immediately posted as a blurb due to the notability. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until verified one way or the other. Wikipedia would look ridiculous if we front-page declared the death of a person who turns out to be still alive. If Prigozhin is still alive and was not on the plane, then chances are that this was a failed FSB attempt to assassinate him - but that likely wouldn't become WP-verified info for months or years. Boud (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for RD until the deaths are independently confirmed. As for a blurb, I would support Alt3, due to Wagner (and thus their founders) being very significant and influential, as well as the good quality of the founders' articles. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the waits above, as I think consensus is close to postable. Would tracking with the sources and saying "are presumed dead" in the blurb address your concerns? Ed[talk][majestic titan]03:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presumption of death is not listing impact. If Prigozhin isn't dead, this story doesn't mean a whole lot. We lose nothing here by being patient and waiting. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what editors are supporting or opposing. Because there are a blurb and a RD nom at the same time. Is Prigozhin ready for RD for example.BabbaQ (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. CNN,Updated 3:11 a.m. ET, August 24, 2023,"Wagner boss listed among plane crash passengers as Russia wages Ukraine war" and ALJAZEERA, Reported:"Prigozhin reported dead: Former Wagner chief on plane crash passenger list" AbDaryaee (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose until we have a clear factual evidence, or, at least, a Russian official statement on this. Everything presented so far was speculation based on a list of passengers. All 10 bodies have been recovered, and can be easily identified by the authorities. Materialscientist (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and strongly disagree that our posting this should be dependent on an "official Russian statement", just post the original blurb with the wording "presumed dead" instead of "killed". It's in the news now. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱08:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We still have a disparity between the blurbs which say he has died (or at least, was on the aeroplane) and the reports which generally say that he is presumed dead. Nigej (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, post now but only bold the crash article. Reliable sources are pretty clear that Prigozhin was listed as a passenger and there were no survivors. If by some bizarre circumstance it turns out to be a body double or he survived by some other means, we can update the blurb or post a new one. I think that's highly unlikely though. If we wait for confirmation from official Russian government sources, it might never come - there's clear incentive for a cover-up. Post now. Modest Geniustalk10:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being on the list of passengers, and that no one survived, is not confirmation that he died. That's the worst type of OR we can be doing at ITN. This is Russia, and I would not put it pass any one there to try to fake their death if they wanted. Masem (t) 12:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Both bolded articles are in decent shape, this is exactly the kind of death that needs a blurb, because of the unusual manner of the death, which needs context and explanation. --Jayron3212:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not confirmed (no new source):WSJ only attributes its source with Prigozhin was killed in a plane crash northwest of Moscow, according to Russian authorities. and attributes TASS as the source in the earlier brief with A business jet that had Yevgeny Prigozhin ... Tass news agency said citing aviation authorities. We're no closer to an official statement than before. This is just WSJ clickbait. Boud (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC) It's not credible that WSJ has better info from Russian authorities than reliable Russian newspapers such as The Moscow Times and Meduza. Boud (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support since he seems to have been confirmed to have died in this, and this is a very notable event following the Wagner mutiny which happened. River10000 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support No need to (re!)affirm to the outside world how completely retentive we can be over a couple of words. For all the hand-wringers, stick 'presumed' or 'reported' in front of the claimallegation assertion already. SN5412913:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about hand-wringing its about saying someone's dead when it's not confirmed. (see WP:BLP). The thing could have been posted in half-an-hour with a more precise wording (and the exclusion of the RDs). Nigej (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it was any other source but Russia media reporting, we may do that (I think we did that after US forced claimed a terrorist leader was killed in a strike, once). But we can't trust Russia media one bit here. Masem (t) 14:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, but Id personally go with something like Yevgeny Prigozhin, who led a short-lived mutiny in Russia, is killed along with Dmitry Utkin and eight others in a plane crash in Russia. Kinda missing the story here with the proposed blurbs. If we can also add shocked Pikachu face at the end that would also work. nableezy - 14:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - The mental gymnastics we go through to avoid being possibly wrong to the extent that we don't say even just the confirmed things can be amazing. There is general consensus that this is worthy of posting. The disagreement arose from the lack of certainity/confirmation of the death of certain individuals. There is no neutral official party that can give that confirmation here. The West (and non-aligned countries) are outsiders here. So is Ukraine, unless they did it, in which case they're definitely wouldn't be a neutral source. The crash happened in Russia, but they are suspected by many to have caused it, so what they say cannot be trusted on this either. There's Telegram channels affiliated with The Wagner Group but it's debateable whether we would consider any of them reliable source, and if we did, they're saying Prigozhin et al. are indeed dead in any case. So posted a blurb that says what no one can disagree with as facts. -- KTC (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse posting. I don't have strong opinions about this one way or the other, and for all we know there might be more than has currently been reported, but the closing/posting admin is correct to disregard comments based on speculation or personal interpretation beyond what is reported by the sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mental gymnastics we go through to avoid being possibly wrong to the extent that we don't say even just the confirmed things can be amazing. Not sure I could have ever possibly put it anymore succinctly than you have, KTC. What ever happened to WP:VNT? Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)12:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the posted blurb do not mention Prigozhin and Utkin was simply the disagreement over confirmation of their deaths. I would suggest that if there's consensus to post that they're dead, then just change the blurb rather than have them as separate RDs. -- KTC (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure when we will get confirmations. If soon, yes. If the blurb scrolls off first, then names can go onto the RD line on MainPage after the wikibios get reviewed again. Hopefully by that time, we don't have to deal with problems like new unreferenced text or neutrality tags, etc. These things will need to be dealt with then. --PFHLai (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW some sources now claim Prigozhin has been identified by a Wagner commander by a body feature(a missing portion of a finger) and that Utkin was identified by his tattoos. ([6]) 331dot (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose His biography has a hatnote saying "This article is about a person who has been presumed dead" As such I don't believe he should be a RD. Nigej (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now I'm onboard with the blurb due to it going purely off what we know, but I don't feel that "presumed dead" is a bridge we should cross for RDs. Vote will change if/when it's actually confirmed. The Kip (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. No need to double-dip here. If we have a blurb saying they are dead or presumed to be so, then we don't need a RD as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose first off, this person is only Presumed dead, and secondly, his "death" was already posted in ITN in the form of the 2023 Tver plane crash, so there would be no reason to post his death twice, although if his death is confirmed by outside sources, it may be RD-worthy due to the widespread media coverage. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mild oppose, very little updates about his recent (post-2017) activities and current status in the Wagner group, which feels like an important part that is currently missing. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose His biography has a hatnote saying "This article is about a person who has been presumed dead" As such I don't believe he should be a RD. Nigej (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose although this is RD-quality and worthy of RD in every sense, and is very big news to me due to some personal reasons, this is already posted in the form of ITN, and there is no reason why it should be posted twice. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Query: This wikibio does not appear in the blurb on the plane crash on MainPage. Should this go on RD? Is it ready for RD? --PFHLai (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Valery Chekalov (talk·history·tag) Recent deaths nomination (Post) News source(s):Reuters Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Query: This wikibio does not appear in the blurb on the plane crash on MainPage. Should this go on RD? Is it ready for RD? --PFHLai (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strong Oppose This is the 3rd Indian lunar exploration mission, so not significant. Also, the 100th+ overall lunar exploration mission. Footnotes like this shouldn't take up ITN space just because the article is "full enough". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombie Philosopher (talk • contribs) 12:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can but it should at least be grounded in some rationale to make us diverge from policy. Yes multiple lunar missions but how many of them that were for a landing and especially since ITN started (which has posted every single one). We did not create an exception to ITNR for China, UAE, Russia etc. and there is no substantiation to do so now, besides WP:I don't like it as expressed by the above user (like most ITNR opposes). Gotitbro (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITNR, so your argument is invalid. Plus, the previous two didn't land on the moon (okay, Chandrayaan-2 did land technically, but it crash-landed). Tube·of·Light13:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the arbiter of what is or isn't a valid argument. My argument is valid based on my opinion that it is not significant. The text from the ITN page reads exactly: "Events are added based on a consensus on the ITN candidates page, using two main criteria: a) the quality of the article, including material added or updated to reflect the recent event, and b) the general significance of the developments." B is my contention despite what the contradictory text in ITNR says. By my vote in the consensus, I do not regard B to be satisfied, by extension its inclusion in ITNR. Your opinion of which argument is or isn't valid is thus meaningless. https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rulesZombie Philosopher (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the program's first *landing*. Which makes it more significant than the other two, not less. (After all, Apollo 11 is more significant than its predecessors.) ApLundell (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, following the landing. The refs for the "first soft landing near the lunar south pole" seem out of date. Probably the "India achieved multiple landmarks with Chandrayaan-3" etc section will need to be deleted unless sources are added. Nigej (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support! - One of the biggest leaps in Lunar exploration this decade! ISRO's progress has been truly inspiring. The first rover on the south pole, making a lot of headlines. What a story! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I believe Altblurb III is the best one to post as the fact that this is the first spacecraft on the lunar south pole and the first Indian spacecraft on the Moon is very notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledging that there are a few unsourced statements, Support Alt1. The other blurbs are too wordy in trying to fit in being the first the land at the lunar south pole, we can't just acknowledge it. --Masem (t) 15:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Good article and amazing day for the world and India. A spacecraft made with the fraction of the money NASA uses makes history like this! Support altblurb1. Rushtheeditor (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - But lets be clear that it has not "explored" the south pole. It just landed and is starting to test its instruments. Only Original and Atl1 are correct. 103.247.13.214 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support only the fourth country overall to land on the moon and the first to do so at the poles, need I say more? I’ll be waiting for the opposers here to show up on the Artemis II nom on the basis of that being the tenth manned moon mission and the US’s sixth.AryKun (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: First mission to successfully land on the south pole, please see The Time update (or search on the web yourself). This is a major achievement. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is on the WP:ITNR list so notability does not need to be argued. If you disagree with this being on the ITNR list, raise it at the talk page, not here. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is good enough, subject is in the news. Altblurb III is best because it really illustrates the significance. Bremps...18:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to remove at this time is unlikely to develop while noting that some editors have indicated a willingness to take a second look down the road aways. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose. Timeline of the 2023 Sudan conflict is being updated almost every day, and I see significant activity on the main page as well (the last 50 edits go back only ~a week, which shows more active editing than even the main Ukraine invasion article, ignoring the numerous more specific battle pages and timelines). I don’t think it should be removed. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now; "daily" updates are not the standard as listed at WP:ONGOING states " Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status." This more than exceeds that standard. Willing to reconsider if no updates are made when that milestone occurs. --Jayron3215:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose It looks like while there are still flames around Lahaina, most of the wildfires have been extinguished or run dry. Thus, at this point, it is now in the rescue and recovery phase, which could last months - that it, not well suited for ongoing. --Masem (t) 02:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We simply have never kept a disaster article with a long-term search and rescue effort well after the triggering event is over as ongoing because while there may be daily updates to, for example, the death toll, the actual event has been completed. Perhaps, if that toll drastically increases to 1000, a new blurb to say "Over 1000 people are consider dead or missing from the Hawaii wildfires." might be appropriate. Masem (t) 03:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Continuing and future updates seem to most likely be solely incrementing the confirmed deaths. Does not seem to be significant enough. --Jayron3215:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More than 200 fishermen stage a protest on the docks of Gaza’s seaport after the arrest of at least six fishermen and the seizure of multiple boats by Israeli forces, requesting immediate international intervention. (Al Jazeera)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Posted There is a comment from 2008 on the article's talk page mentioning earlier candidacies in general elections. That was indeed correct; I've added four candidacies to the article. What's there is adequately sourced and I consider the article meeting RD criteria. Schwede6608:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose Significant sourcing work needed. Early life section has one uncited statement, many unsourced paragraphs and statements in career, a good amount of uncited awards and an uncited selected publications section. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror14:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Extremely notable, top in the field of statistics.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Unless there is some obvious issues im missing, this could be a quick one. Toto Cutugno was a popular musician in Italy, but to most of the world, mainly Europe, he was known for three things: "L'Italiano", and both of the next two go with each other, being the winner of Eurovision Song Contest 1990 with "Insieme: 1992". TheCorriynial (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One cn tag and discography uncited.Support RD Article looks good. Also weak oppose blurb, there's no indication in the article of him being one of the most famous Italian singers or household name in countries. A legacy section would be great. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can work on creating a legacy section or incorporate that in the career section. The article needs to show the impact Cutugno had in his field or how he was his country's most renowned singer. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - Article seems to have been fully-cited, including discography. Oppose blurb per TDKR, as well as just the obvious per my prior RD/blurb votes. The Kip (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simply having a long career or a large body of work is not sufficient for a blurb. And as for allocates the one one called out I can see on scanning the text is for Eurovision, so thats definitely not applicable. Masem (t) 21:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This depends on what you want to (dis)prove. Long career and numerous accolades are not decisive but are most definitely significant indicators for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but let's make sure in providing rationales of this type, that the article reflects how those aspects have translated into significance (which when I last looked, lacked that), rather than just stating it in the !vote rationale. Masem (t) 02:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb RD is sufficient for noting that a person died, there's no extra context that needs to be provided by a blurb. --Jayron3212:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Posted) Thailand prime minister vote and return of Thaksin Shinawatra
Article updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: The prime minister appointment is ITNR, though Thaksin's return is an equally significant and politically linked development which should also be mentioned, so I've made this a regular nom. The context of this past three months' political wrangling is very complicated, and these are the shortest blurbs I could come up with. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this - ITNR declares HoG changes important - but maybe Shinawatra could be separated or removed to clean it up a bit? I get it's important of course with me having followed these politics for a while, but it's just really long
Support Oh my, what a convoluted story! Would suggest bolding the new PM Srettha Thavisin and adding a picture of himd, and deleting Thaksin Shinawatra from the blurb (if he gets pardoned by the new gov at some point, we can deliberate posting that). But I'm also fine keeping him in. Khuft (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a shorter but more concise altblurb. The quality of Shinawatra's article needs a lot of work. On the other hand, Thavisin's is good enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support posting the new PM, but the Shinawatra story is distinct enough where a separate blurb is needed IMO. It's not immediately apparent to a casual reader why he has relevance to Thailand getting a new PM. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 21:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - PM election is ITN/R (I think) even though the election was posted a few months ago. Support the return of Shinawatra too. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be blurbed together.--estar8806 (talk) ★21:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support PM Blurb and Oppose Shinawatra blurb. Former is in theory INT/R. I don't see what is so significant however about coming back from a "self-imposed" exile. He has not been in a position of power since 2006. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He has not been in an official position of power since 2006, but he has been pulling strings from afar, the central polarising figure splitting the fault lines of Thai politics for most of the past two decades. But yes, such background information can't easily be conveyed in a single blurb. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've adjusted the nom to have Srettha's article as the bolded item instead of the election's per the first three comments. I've also added Alt3, which leaves out Thaksin's return. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt III The PM change is WP:ITNR, and the article quality is sufficient. Thaksin's page has a ways to go to meet sourcing standards, and should not hold up the main item.—Bagumba (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My intent was to reflect the unusualness of the situation a bit, as in Following three months of unprecedented post-election wrangling in which the party that won the most seats was blocked from forming a government by the unelected senate..., but that's not really possible to convey within constraints of a blurb, so shortening might be for the best. That said, more of the relevant info is in 2023 Thai general election#Government formation than the Srettha Thavisin article, so I would rather that a link be somehow included. How about "Srettha Thavisin(pictured) becomes Prime Minister of Thailand after an election by the National Assembly."? (Personally I try to avoid using election for the parliamentary vote as it's a bit confusing, but some news sources do use it so I guess it shouldn't really be a problem. Also, parliament is an unofficial term used quite commonly by news sources to refer to the National Assembly, but let's stick to the more technically correct term as you suggested.) --Paul_012 (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...leading with 'following general elections in May' makes it sound like this all happened in May: If it "all happened in May", it wouldn't still be posted now. The delay is a major part of the story. The New York Times article begins with: After a three-month delay, Thailand’s Parliament chose the country’s next prime minister on Tuesday, picking a real estate tycoon from a party seen as acceptable to conservative elites. The move ends, for now, a prolonged period of uncertainty that had pushed the country to the cusp of a political crisis.[8]Parliament is interchangeable with National Assembly, and is probably better understood globally, without needing a click. For example, The Bangkok Post headline was "Parliament elects Srettha prime minister"[9]—Bagumba (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: Re: May: yes, I understand what's happening. Unfortunately, the ambiguous wording muddles the timing and doesn't make it clear to readers that there were two separate votes by different things. If you have a better way of conveying the timing and complex political dynamics here, I'm all ears. On parliament: on a quick scan sources appear to mostly use the phrase "Thailand's parliament" as their wording, like The New York Times. The original altblurb did not use "Thailand" until the final word.
I think the delay can be clarified as Three months after general elections..., though the above short suggestion is also Fine by me (but maybe pipe out the last Thailand as it reads as a bit redundant?) --Paul_012 (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: This seems to be getting reasonable international coverage though I'm not sure if it has reached the French press yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does "reaching #1 immediately" mean? Lots of songs went to #1 upon release. This record sounds like less of an earth-shattering moment in pop culture than a trivial tidbit thats getting a lot of attention because of its cool factor. Kurtis(talk)09:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that it’s the musician’s first song to make the Billboard list at all, and it did so in the #1 position. Looking through the article you linked, most of the songs were not the debut works of the artists (e.g. Michael Jackson was already famous long before 1995). I’m still not sure of the importance of the claimed record however, and a little unsure of its veracity (why wouldn’t, for example, Brandy (You're a Fine Girl) also meet this criterion?). 98.170.164.88 (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it’s the first ever song to chart immediately at number one for which the artist has never previously had any chart activity at all. Boscaswelltalk10:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb should be reworded for clarity. The quote Bagumba gave from the Guardian is closer to what we're looking for; it specifies the fact that this is the first time an artist's debut single became a chart-topper upon release. Otherwise, I'm neutral as to whether or not this merits a blurb—sort of leaning towards oppose, but I'm open to being persuaded. Kurtis(talk)11:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I understand better what the claimed record is. I’m still not convinced it’s important enough to post though, and we don’t usually post items like this. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Neither the BBC nor the CBC sources make any mention of the Billboard charting, only the political American pop cultural aspects of the song's reception. And as mentioned above, there is no record being broken. The reported historical achievement is specifically for doing so "with no prior chart history in any form", so oppose as worded. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, The Guardian says ...debuted at number 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, making him the first artist to do this with no prior chart history in any form.[10]—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantic I suppose, but surely this would have happened quite a few times in the early days of Billboard? As a comparison, though, it's happened quite a few times in the UK charts. Black Kite (talk)10:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wouldn't this or this also hit the criterion? Unless I've misunderstood something... Black Kite (talk)
Rolling Stone cites this announcement on Billboard as the source. That gives a variety of details including six artists who did something similar but not quite so out-of-the-blue. I suppose they have access to a database as they comment on other near-misses like "the singer-songwriter marks a rare unsigned artist at No. 1 on the Hot 100. Lisa Loeb became the first such act, when “Stay (I Missed You)” led in 1994, although the song was released on RCA Records". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: I am not a regular at ITN (in fact I think I may have edited it for the first time ever today) so maybe I am not that clued up, but I have to agree this doesn't really seem like something which belongs alongside (takes a glance at the current ITN) massacres, natural disasters and presidential assassinations...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Despite appearances, there is no minimum death requirement for ITN entries and the section often features lots of sport which is similar pop culture. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a political topic due to the nature of the song, and would fall under "day to day" aspects of the current culture war happening in the US. It is the type of story that makes headlines but the encyclopedic nature is fuzzy and unclear. (I can also see that if this was posted as is, that there would likely be some readers and editors offended that we even gave that song the light of day on the main page, but that's not a reason to oppose, just more a caution of where this may go). --Masem (t) 12:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a protest sing? Perhaps, but most outlets see it having white nationalism/far right ties, and it has become a type of anthem and rallying cry for MAGA. I don't know if it written with that intention, but the result has been this massive attention to the song from the right, which is attributed for why this is #1 on Billboard. While the factoid is onterest (first debut at #1), this is just too politically charged to be a good ITN item. Masem (t) 13:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should oppose an item purely because it is politically divisive. In the run-up to the 2024 election there will be a lot of notable, if polarising, events that will be nominated on here. If we didn't want to be politically divisive then we would not have posted the 2020 election, or Jan 6th, or BLM, etc. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that the song is political is spurious. Like The Atlantic (no fire-breathing conservative magazine, that one) said: "Why is so much press coverage of this viral song focused solely on politics? [...] I struggle to imagine a mainstream media site reacting to Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi’s praise of a songwriter by suggesting that the artist is therefore a presumptively leftist act who ought to be covered mainly as a political and politicized phenomenon."[1]). Same is expressed at SFGATE, which also decries the politization of Anthony by third parties: «More likely, he was just singing whatever was on his mind, and then everyone else decided to use it for their own ends».[2] It is the media that has politicized an artistic product. George Orwell warned about those who believe what they see on the media, and disregard their own eyes and ears.XavierItzm (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that this is a politically conflicting song, but simple underneath the trivia of being the first #1 by a first time artist (that itself is not ITN worthy), it is what politics have driven this song to be #1 that is really the headline here. And because this is a political issue with no clear immediate consequences, its not the type of story we post. Masem (t) 17:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is essentially about right-wing American politics and sits with other similar stories in the news, eg Trump/Georgia, Trump/Primary debates. Not for ITN, in my opinion. Nigej (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have we ever posted such records before? If not, than oppose - at the risk of entering into political territory, as a right-winger myself, it's pretty clear that this was the product of immense astroturfing at the hands of Conservative Inc. — Knightoftheswords14:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is a DYK, not an ITN. Andrew, you seriously need to stop nominating literally everything and consider whether it's even going to stand up to WP:SNOW before posting it here. AryKun (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Previously nominated on 8/8, but discussion was closed with a consensus to wait until he formally took office on the 22nd, which is today. Article is short but adequate, kept same update credits from the last nom. The Kip (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks good to go. I've added an altblurb that seems more accurate to me: today he has been sworn in (he is no longer appointed PM. Hun Manet is now the official and formal Prime Minister) and it's important to add that his father spent almost four decades at the helm of the country. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The United Nations Middle East envoy says the conflict has killed over 200 Palestinians and nearly 30 Israelis this year, surpassing the previous year. (AP)
Two people are injured by falling debris from a Ukrainian drone strike on Moscow and flights are disrupted at the city's airports. Russia says they shot down one drone and jammed another. (Reuters)
Cypruspolice rescue 18 Syrian migrants after their boat started taking on water off the island's southeastern coast. (AP)
Greekpatrol boats rescue nearly 80 migrants in the eastern Aegean Sea who were trying to cross from Turkey in inflatable dinghies in two separate incidents. (AP)
Twelve people are killed and 19 others are injured when a bus crashes into a roadside ditch in Yozgat, Turkey. (AP)
Eleven people are killed in an explosion at a coal mine in Yan'an, Shanxi, China. (AP)
One person is killed and two others are injured in a high-rise building explosion in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. (AKIPress)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment There’s a paragraph that doesn’t have any references. I put a cn tag at the end of the paragraph. That needs to be fixed before it can be posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: Could you please point out parts of the article that needs to be copyedited? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael
I just needs an English speaker to have a go, Jeromi Mikhael. Probo won the election with 51.1% votes — a slight margin of about 20 thousand votes – that's not how you'd say that. Schwede6603:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is rather like the Olympics in that there are numerous types of event and so there's a lot to keep track of. I'm not sure that we're keeping up but perhaps listing it here will help. It's Day 3 already but it runs for another six. It's WP:ITN/R but the nomination template doesn't seem to handle ongoing and ITNR together. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unlike the Olympics or the World Cups, this typically does not get major daily news coverage to make it necessary for ongoing. This event is ITNR for its completion. And even with that, comparing this year's article to the 2022 one, this one is nowhere close to be ready for posting to main page. --Masem (t) 12:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, oppose on quality I don't know about you, but all the newspapers I'm reading do have significant coverage of the athletics championships, especially the marquee events like the 100m, 200m, 4x400m, and other ones with more charismatic athletes like hammer throw and shot-put. 13:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose on quality. Article is a table farm, and very little prose about the events. Tables should supplement prose, not replace it. --Jayron3214:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stats - The 2023 World Athletics Championships ranked #39 most read for August 19th, 2023, or 181,291 views. Sandwiched in between XXXX (beer) and Beverley Allitt. Ranked just a little higher at #35 on the 20th. As Bertrand Russell once said, "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." Also, oppose on quality and probably does not merit an ongoing post either. A blurb, yes. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)18:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Notable news, sentencing of murderer after UK's longest murder trial - fourth UK woman to be sentenced to a whole-life order. Osarius13:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that part of this was Jayron32's support !vote.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This exact article was posted, and pulled, just a few days ago. As a note, I supported it then, and I still do. But some large group of people will come along to tell you that your country ain't worth shit, and news from your country needs to be squashed and kept off the main page, which is largely what caused it to be pulled. --Jayron3214:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the supports said something to the effect of "big news in the UK", which isn't a reason that is going to convince international editors, especially when the impact of the story is questionable. No one is saying the UK's news means nothing, but we're clearly looking for more here beyond "it's a big story in x country". DarkSide830 (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's right in the instructions of this page. It says, and I quote "Please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." Literally everyone who says "Oppose, because this is only important in the UK" should be summarily ignored by the admins who post articles, and it's a major failure of the system that they aren't. It literally says that argument is invalid. --Jayron3215:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True does not mean relevant to the discussion. Lots of things are true, but unless they matter, they just distract from the discussion at hand, which should be an assessment of article quality and an assessment of how the news is covering the story, and NOT a chance for people to flex their cultural gatekeeping muscles. --Jayron3211:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is sourced and ready. This case har received attention both national and international, throughout an extensive amount of time.BabbaQ (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Letby story has legs as it was still the front page lead in the Times and Telegraph today. It has dropped a bit with our readership (#24 yesterday) but is still getting more views than ITN's blurb topics such as Luna 25. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Times and the Telegraph are British newspapers. France is a country of similar population, economy size and foreign policy influence as the UK. Are all these different stories on French front pages therefore suitable to go on ITN? [11] If not, why not? If we're playing the "ITN must serve English-speaking readers' interests" game, where is it in the Australian printed newspapers? [12]Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown Temptation asks whether the stories currently on the front page of French newspapers are suitable to go on ITN. Looking at the first headline listed, which is on the cover of Le Monde, it seems to be this story in their English edition: China's unprecedented economic crisis worries the rest of the world. Wikipedia covers that story in the article 2020–2023 Chinese property sector crisis and, apart from some quality issues, there's no reason why that shouldn't be considered here too -- I've already been wondering whether to nominate it. But obstructing a story set in England isn't going to help in getting a story about another country posted. ITN's problem is that it isn't posting much of anything and one reason is the beggar-my-neighbour obstructionism that we see here. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Close. The more important story is the conviction, whose discussion is ongoing. All another nomination does is split the dialogue, which should be redirected to that discussion. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck because the previous discussion has since been closed. As of now am neutral, but preferring a blurb that focused on the conviction over the sentencing. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
M8, as stated in my initial closure that you reverted, the conviction and sentencing are inextricably linked; do you really believe that consensus would be against posting the conviction but magically pull an Italy and change their tune when it comes to the sentencing? Considering how this new nom is already looking, I think not. — Knightoftheswords17:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this new nom looks like five supporting with reason against four and three-quarters opposing without. Anyway, it was a very close race we had, no hard feelings. Maybe next time just don't worry about Wikilinking and italicizing Latin in your summary (plain English works best, IMO). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t feel too defeated. The article appeared on ITN for half a day. These kind of articles are always going to get opposition.BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who's feeling defeated? You're a Swede, I'm a Canadian, Jayron's an American. This idea that the other 40% of us are the only sorts on Earth who might care is defeated. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe next time just don't worry about Wikilinking and italicizing Latin in your summary (plain English works best, IMO)., okay, effective duplicate, happy now? — Knightoftheswords05:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am becoming very disillusioned with ITN and have cut back my participation due to the constant battles over supposed UK and US bias, with Wikipedia:ITNCDONT point 2 routinely ignored. Andrew is quite right above when he says that opposing a UK based story will do nothing to get stories from other countries posted. A whole life tariff is exceptionally rare and this story is getting widespread coverage. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My read of the !votes between these two, excluding the issue of the fast posting if the first one, is not an argument about this affecting only one country, only just in one country where this occurs, this will have little impact and is only a matter of closure on a tragic event. It still was only a domestic (not international) crime and did expose flaws in the British health system, but unless I am missing something in the current article, we're not going to see a massive change in the system there. I don't think saying this is like celebrity or gossip news is a fair comparison since this was a serious need for justice to the families that lost their children from this, but at the same type it is more of a spectacle (a highly visible trial) due to the heinous nature of the crime. But it is not going to have a major impact within the UK compared to, say, Boris Johnson resigning. Masem (t) 20:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant support - I have my gripes over the fact that this would have never even come close to being posted if it was a US story; however, ultimately, I think that this meets WP:ITNPURPOSE and should be posted. I hope that this incident shall be a learning experience and inform us that we shouldn't be creating arbitrary standards on perceived notability requirements over which side of the Atlantic the story occured in. — Knightoftheswords20:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a prominent headline whose inclusion on ITN is in the interest of our readers. While we're here, the conviction post shouldn't have been pulled, either. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Conviction is the time that we should have posted this, but as that discussion has been closed in favour of this one this is where I have to put my support. I don't know how you can get more significant than the conviction of the most prolific child murderer in the history of a country with a very long history and one of the top 2 cases of individual medical malpractice by an individual since at least the creation of the NHS (the other being Harold Shipman). This case will have a very long-lasting impact. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regardless of whether this is a new nomination or supposed to be combined with the one below. It's tabloid news, and has no notable long-term impact. Banedon (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a uniquely heinous crime. Its also unusual in that she was on female serial killer only a handful of which we have pages for in every country. "Letby is the most prolific serial killer of children in modern British history." - To be frank, I don't think the people objecting to this nomination would object to posting the American equivalent of this person.--Llewee (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uniquely? The article itself mentions multiple other medical practitioner murderers both in the UK and elsewhere, such as Beverley Allitt, who also was also known for more or less the same thing. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Taking both discussions into account (and also accounting for those who !voted on both) I believe there is consensus to post this again. Black Kite (talk)18:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an idea here that the opening of a new nom wipes the votes from the prior, which I personally find to be somewhat manipulative of consensus, but alas. The Kip (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
??? Under that logic, if the opposes outnumbered the supports 10:1 in a first nom, but then a later nom occurs when the story has more info, the supports outnumber the opposition 5:1, that story wouldn't be posted if we were to factor the other one. — Knightoftheswords19:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that The Kip is partially right in that a new nom should not wipe votes from the prior. But you're also right that could be problematic. Personally, I think that a second nom should only be posted if the support for it is greater than the opposition to the first nom, or if there was a significant amount of opposers that switched to supporters. I don't think that the support here is greater than the opposition to the last nom. estar8806 (talk) ★22:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Haven't taken part in this (or the previous) discussion, but let's please not start a new discussion on pulling this! It's done, it's posted, no harm is done by having this blurbed. Going back and forth posting and pulling this for trivial disagreements on notoriety is what harms ITN's reputation within the broader community and does us no favours. I've shared my opinion previously that Pulling should only be done in extreme cases, where quality issues are present. Khuft (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
↑↑↑ This. In an ideal world (an ideal ITN/C) it'd get pushed off in 48-72 hours anyway. The article is also now in much better shape than when the verdict was posted. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose - per my opinion in the last discussion. I also would like to mention that there hardly appears to be a consensus to post here, and accounting for the last nomination (which was pulled), I don't understand how this was posted.--estar8806 (talk) ★21:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
18 supports (edit: Jayron32's support containing a valid support rationale was hatted due to a rant which spurred unrelated discussion) with only 6 opposes (DarkSide withdrew theirs), 4 of which under the rationale that the previous discussion was open. I'd definitely call that a consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kip's, TwistedAxe's, Alsor's, PrecariousWorlds', Banedon's and yours. Who did I miss? I think 18 to 6 (which is basically 2) is an overwhelming amount of support, not to mention BabbaQ's argument of long term impact against an oppose wasn't addressed. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the antithesis. It's a convenient way of getting a feel for the discussion at a glance as long as the arguments for each !vote are all valid and not really addressed. In this case I'd only count 1 oppose as unaddressed and 1 support as addressed. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment - A whole-life order? Sounds like something my insurance agent is nagging a client to meet his monthly sales goal. Any different than "imprisoned for life"? CoatCheck (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CoatCheck: I believe this is a WP:ENGVAR situation, where we defer to British usage although American would differ. The words "whole-life order" are blue-linked in the blurb for anyone who wants more of an explanation. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Indian police stop a meeting of activists, academics and politicians discussing global issues ahead of a summit of the G20 that will be hosted in New Delhi. (AP)
A special election is held to elect the president and the National Assembly to complete the current four-year terms. Presidential candidates Luisa González and Daniel Noboa will face off in a second round vote on 15 October. (CNN)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment I've been working on this article for quiet a bit to make sure it's good for posting once a president is elected. Not sure if we post first round election results on ITN? If so, shouldn't González be the one who's pictured since she came in first place? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
My opinion isn't very important, I know, but looks good to me. Pretty important to regional stability - that orange tag seems cleaned up also? I support this. River10000 (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and suggest AltBlurb2: short & sweet, focused on the outcome rather than the process, and Arévalo's article is somewhat tidier than the election article. A bit sea-of-bluish, though. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted tweaked altblurb 2. The runoff is the only new news because the congressional elections happened with round 1 of the presidential vote in June, so the first altblurb wasn't an option. Ed[talk][majestic titan]14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
I added citations to address the CN tags, plus some more refs from her obituary in The Guardian. There's a lot more that could be written about someone who lived through 107 years of Chinese history, but I don't think that prevents an ITN inclusion now. @HistoryTheorist and InedibleHulk:: Can you take a look? Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait It's just two right now. Another might arise, but it's not like waiting for a filmography to never get ready. Fun Facts: She was 107 and also British! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article now has the basics of her life (plenty of expansion also possible). When a 107-year-old with a very interesting life history dies, it seems like a good time to bring them to prominence.Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Luna 25 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Russian lunar landerLuna 25 crashes on the Moon's surface with the loss of contact. (Post) Alternative blurb: Russian lunar landerLuna 25 crashes on the Moon's surface. News source(s):CNN, BBC Credits:
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: In line with ITNR's "arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations" and because of historical failure (Russia’s first lunar landing mission in 47 years, since 1976) I think this is postable anyway. Brandmeistertalk12:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe the previous crash landings of lunar probes were posted. The funny part is that we might also end up merging the blurb with the Indian lunar lander blurb(if it succeeds). Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main problem I see is that, even if this is significant enough for ITN, the article says nothing about the significance of the crash, only listing basic event updates. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this was discussed when the Spacex rocket exploded a while ago, and the general consensus seemed to be that a failed mission is generally not notable enough for ITN, nor valid for the recurring ITN on rockets. Flyingfishee (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it was decided that launch failures/first launches aren’t worthy (which I agree with, considering the sheer number of new commercially-built rockets); this is something different entirely, in being a mission failure. The Kip (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its been over 40 years since Russia (then the USSR) attempted to land on the moon, hence why its the Luna 25, and it failed. So I see the relevance. Stick to first blurb though, not the alternate. TheCorriynial (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support significant event because this is the first time in 40 years that Russia tried to land on the moon, so this would be significant in the new space race. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted per the strong consensus in support above. That said, while the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY, per 2G0o2De0l it could definitely be expanded upon. I would particularly love to see more information about the great power politics that got attached to this mission. There's also one citation tagged for needing a non-primary source. Ed[talk][majestic titan]03:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second article updated, first needs updating One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Oppose Prose summary of the match is needed first. The article for the final also needs more citations so that the orange tag is fixed and preferably the stay on topic tags should be fixed, but they’re not as show stopping.Support Everything’s fixed, looks good to go. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror12:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until a prose summary is added and citation issues are addressed. Much of the Background section is also filled with statistics with little meaningful context and should be trimmed. SounderBruce17:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The prose summary has been added, but several citations in the Background section have been removed due to being cited to a Forbes contributor piece (which are unreliable per WP:RSP). SounderBruce20:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A World Cup final! And this year's Women's World Cup has been much more mediatized than the previous ones. Definitely far above the notability threshold. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for comments on significance: One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror20:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support! Came here to express shock that it has been a day and a half and this still isn't posted! The articles both look good, and we've posted significantly worse quality articles for men's sports no one cares about. Tens of millions of people watched this live, including me. This was the best WWC yet in my opinion. Post it! e.b. (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add photo in nombox - literally no argument has been made for not having the photo other than I presume vibes? We've featured screenshots on the MP multiple times; it's not the best, but it doesn't have to be a damn NASA planetary scan either. — Knightoftheswords05:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moot This article has already been run daily in ITN for an entire month now (with about 5 million views). Further discussion of quality and/or significance is therefore largely pointless as it's a done deal. All that remains is a formality as the wording of the blurb is stereotyped. What needs attention now is the 2023 World Athletics Championships which started yesterday, is ITN/R and seems to need some TLC. Shouldn't that now take the Ongoing slot? Andrew🐉(talk) 21:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and remove from ongoing. I had the same opinion as Twistedaxe coming into this discussion. The event is dunzo, and it's time for the blurb. I echo the concerns of Andrew as well on placing the World Athletics Championships over under ongoing also. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They think it's all over We're still showing the event as Ongoing which is wrong as it's over now. I was amazed to read that the winning team had just two hours to get to the airport afterwards and so they didn't hang about. We should likewise pull the ongoing entry to show that we're on the ball.
But Oppose posting the link to the final as its prose is too purple and contains several Colemanballs. Here's a good example, "She was seeking to become the first manager to win the tournament with a foreign national team and the oldest manager to win the tournament, having aged 53 years 9 months 25 days during the final."
Support without photo I have finally dealt with all the unsourced statements in the final article, so should be gtg on quality grounds. AryKun (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Listen, like most people, I absolutely don't care about this event. This said, it's so notable to, uh, people who are very fond of football, I guess, that it should be in the news even if the article just says "Viva siempre España!". complainer14:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's ITN/R, no one's arguing over the notability. What people are discussing is the quality, which is why a statement saying the quality doesn't matter is dumb. AryKun (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that "so" before "notable"? It's there because it's ITNR, but not actually ITN and these discussions about commas and lighting end up having things that should be ITN get YN and straight into WGAFAL before they actually are ITN. And that's why being rude is dumb.
Support once CN tags are fixed: There's still around 4-5 CN tags on the article about the match, but otherwise both articles are in decent shape for ITN. Should expect them to get fixed very soon. Neutral on the issues about the photo. S5A-0043Talk02:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bonmati - Golden Ball winner
Support and mark Ready again - CN tags fixed on the final article. Note that Aitana Bonmatí was given Player of the Tournament, a higher accolade than the Player of the Match in the final, and we have a better image of her than we do of Carmona (though I have to say it's still not brilliant!). Black Kite (talk)08:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment Should be a blurb. John Warnock is a very influential figure (considering he co-founded Adobe) and his death is being covered heavily in news. Article looks good as well, although death section could use some expanding. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb per Iamstillqw3rty as Warnock made quite a difference, garnered many major awards and left a significant legacy, devising the Warnock algorithm and being the prime mover for the PDF format, for example. They are recognised as WP:VITAL but were not a household name and so just putting the name alone in RD is meaningless. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Via various talk page arguments, we have already eliminated the use of Vital Articles to determine who to blurb, because that project itself had haphazard inclusion metrics. Masem (t) 12:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the interminable arguments have settled nothing and so blurbing is still done on a "sui generis" basis. So, anything goes and if editors wish to respect the prior work and judgement of WikiProject Vital Articles then they may do so. Assertions that the other project is haphazard are just a case of WP:POT. See also not invented here. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD due to multiple unsourced statements. Strong oppose blurb - here we go again. Can’t wait for this discussion to get wildly off-topic from the page quality which should be the only concern. The Kip (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Support I've done significant sourcing work on the article; there's only one unsourced statement/cn tag left. It can be removed if worst comes to worst. I believe the quality is now sufficient for RD. I'll let other editors decide on blurb. Oh and @The Kip:@Masem: feel free to reevaluate quality. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror18:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oupeye, Liège Province, Belgium, bans gatherings of more than four people following riots. The riots spread to the neighboring commune of Herstal. A school and various homes were damaged and garbage can fires were reported. (7Sur7)(Le Soir)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Thanks to the IP for the nomination that I came to make. As for the works: they are referenced to an offline source, and we can do two things: believe that source, or create an extra works list, leaving only the recorded ones which would still be more symphonies than Beethoven ever wrote. All recorded works are referenced by Muziekweb summarily (listed by alphabet, but can be sorted for other criteria), some have now extra reviews. I'd love to add more reviews, and extract information from them, but not today, and time is running out. - I believe she's worth pointing to as it is. The article was one of the strangest I've seen: detailed musical analysis, no bio. I added to bio, and trimmed the analysis, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spencer, I found it, relief! Even online. It's in German, I checked structure and samples, and it looks fine to me, please check. I commented out the articles, - they seem to be small stuff from the 1970s, not defining her work, - I have no time for that right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With almost 800 words of prose, this wikibio is more than long enough to qualify. Apart from quotes, Earwig has nothing to complain about. Footnotes can be found where they are expected, and their deployments are AGF'd (I know no German, except Entschuldigung.) This wikibio is READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Disclosure: GA asked me to look at the article and this discussion) The article is on the shorter end but, even not counting the quotations, I believe there's enough content for it to qualify. The references provided appear to be equally sufficient. I did make one minor change to phrasing to better emphasize her prolific composing, so perhaps look at that with a critical eye to ensure I didn't alter the meaning. I say good to go. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Philadelphia Eagles Hall of Famer and one of my all-time favorite players. Needs more work but I'll make sure to get it done. RIP. BeanieFan11 (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Following the Yellowknife evacuation in the Northwest Territories (which is still in the news), there's now an emergency in British Columbia. The map shows the overall extent of the fires and the BBC has a good graph showing how this is so much worse than previous years. Perhaps an ongoing entry would be best but we might start with a blurb to show the map. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing would be best. Appending an image isn't outside the realm of possibility, either, just subject to a fear of change. Right now, of course, BC and the NWT are the most newsworthy, but Quebec was and might be there again soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have had an article on the 2023 heat waves (which should cover the wildfires across the globe too) being suggested multiple times now for an ongoing, but no one has bothered to try to bring this to speed, instead focusing on local situations. I would oppose on just featuring one region's wildfires, outside of a situation like Maui where 100+ died and making it a standalone event. But just having lots of wildfires is not sufficient to make the one region stand out on its own. --Masem (t) 12:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The temperature right now in West Kelowna is 13°C (55°F) which is cool rather than hot. As explained already, these fires are driven by drought and wind, more than heat. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sun heat, anyway. The rains turns the fires to clouds and the clouds pelt the forests with lightning. That's crazy heat, the sort that burns roots underneath wet sand and even melts the sand for good measure. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing Worst wildfire season on record in North America, and still affecting all provinces of Canada; also, article is well sourced and of fine quality. Because of this (it happening throughout all of Canada), it seems better to post in ongoing, as posting a blurb just about British Columbia would not point to all of the news relating to the fires (for example, Yellowknife being evacuated).
Ongoing - Regardless of whether it's making news in other parts of the globe in Germany or New Zealand or Djibouti, the worst wildfire season on record in Canada and North America in my opinion counts for something. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)15:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing would be appropriate. The 2023 season is far and away the worst in Canadian history, having burned through triple the hectacres of 2021 (the previous record holder), according to BBC News. There are also significant fires impacting parts of the United States, so an upmerge may be appropriate at some point. SounderBruce18:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ongoing—I agree that we should refer to them as the North American wildfires rather than singling out Canada, as the US has been affected as well. Kurtis(talk)23:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing for Canada only. There are ongoing wildfires in many parts of the world (those in Greece are still severe and receive media coverage), so extending this to North America makes a strong argument to go even beyond it, but we cannot go thus far and post “Global wildfires”. Canada seems to be the hot spot these days, and that’s what should be posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is summer in the northern hemisphere. Climate change. Wildfires are commonplace, as are evacuations and emergency declarations. In Tenerife there are 26,000 evacuees [13], and the figure may rise. The situation was very serious in Rhodes, as it is and can be throughout the Mediterranean and North America (as it usually is in California and Canada) all this season. Why this exception? _-_Alsor (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Canada has the 3rd most hectares burned in a country in a year (2019-20 Australia is #1) and might even beat it since it has 13 to 15+ million hectares now and the year ends New Years Day. It usually isn't serious in Canada, it's already 3 times their highest hectares in a year. California got soaked by a Noachian rainstorm this spring, this year isn't as bad as the one with the city destroyer or the one with a fire bigger than the combined size of the 7 smallest European countries (Lux to Pope) plus half of New York City. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing: This has been widely covered internationally and seems genuinely unprecedented, particularly the evacuation of a provincial capital. "Other stuff isn't listed" is an argument for listing those other things - not for not listing this one.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yellowknife is a territorial capital, not provincial, and the Northwest Territories is one territory. This doesn't make it less unprecedented and probably doesn't matter to most people. Just a reminder. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer it to be blurbed, instead of directly putting it into ongoing. Not sure what the argument is to hide it in the ongoing bar without first blurbing it. Given the slowness of the current news cycle, it's bound to stay blurbed for quite some time anyway. Khuft (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to ongoing per the strong consensus above. Most people supported ongoing without mentioning their thoughts on blurbing it, so that discussion should continue. Ed[talk][majestic titan]03:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ones in that target article basically are. We appreciate the help from other countries and have already apologized for helping turn New York orange. But most disasters have spillover, somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Posting Support as Ongoing. This is a valid situation where it's worth posting directly to Ongoing. A sustained story that would probably not be blurbed in it's current state, but is worth featuring somewhere by ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The city of Kelowna, British Columbia, declares a state of emergency and evacuations, as wildfires engulf parts of the city and surrounding area. Lake Okanagan Resort and several residential buildings are destroyed. (CTV News Vancouver)
In Oupeye, Liège Province, Belgium, a man on a quad bike is shot dead by police after running over a policeman and refusing to stop at a police control. Anti-police riots break out in the village and eleven people are arrested. (Le Soir)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Beloved Internet dog. I know that this page was created post mortem but there was in-depth coverage from around the world over several years before he died. Memes/social media personalities are divisive when it comes to notability but please can the discussion be on ITN and debate the notability by other channels if needs be. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like dogs on the internet but my spider-sense starts tingling when I see mention of cryptocurrency. The sources look unconvincing and don't seem to be the quality of links that I want to start clicking on. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment I added 4 cn tags. Also, is there any info about his cause of death? Dying at 31 is unusual.Support Everything is referenced now & there are enough details. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak Support The article looks like it's in good shape, but I don't know if his electoral history needs more citations. I'll try to add more myself, and once it gets cited, I'll change my support. ❤HistoryTheorist❤19:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, article looks good and while the electoral history could use more refs, it is uncontroversial and shouldn't hold up posting. Also, what are the chances that the oldest living governor and the oldest living U.S. senator died on the same day? Davey2116 (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose The watches are not important in the grand scheme even if historic. Wait for the effects to be felt and then we can revisit this. Noah, AATalk00:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Noah. At the moment this is trivia. If there are major impacts we can revisit. And can we please not re-nom this if the impacts are just minor? Simply because a TS [likely to be a TS by then] hits somewhere where it is rare doesn't mean it should be in ITN. Again, that is trivia. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s an El Niño year in which the Pacific high pressure is pushed further north than usual. Additionally, this storm is taking the only possible path to hit California. If it were further west, it would die over cold water. if it were further East, mountains would shred it. There is no certainty it will even be a tropical storm at landfall either because the NHC has a track record of being biased in the EPAC for weakening storms as a result of models failing to weaken the storms fast enough. It has happened time and time again. Noah, AATalk02:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's not trivia if you live in California, yeah. But this feels like the Cyclone Gabrielle thing, where we nearly went and blurbed the story because it was the first time a national state of emergency was issued - a fact so important that...it isn't even mentioned in the article. Hypothetically speaking, do you really consider this event ITN worthy if, say, the cyclone rapidly deteriorates and produces only minor impacts along its path, or it's path changes and its impacts likewise do not end up being severe? California has had severe weather before - that it is accompanied by a TS warning has fairly little boarder importance. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All three could use improvements too. For instance, the Europe article still says nothing about the current unprecedented Mediterrannean Sea marine heat wave which brought sea temperatures to levels that usually create hurricanes in the Atlantic basin, nor record overnight lows resulting from these sea temperatures. DaßWölf15:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mediterranean hurricanes would have to far enough from the summer dry season to storm but not so far that the water cools down too much. The first one will probably occur within my lifetime. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Medicanes have been happening already, FWIW. Yes their tropical characteristics are disputed, but several have been hurricane strength. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was meaning more clearly tropical cyclones though the NHC's authority doesn't include the Mediterranean part of the Atlantic, unless it's changed since I last saw the world map (JMA (Tokyo) is the one that says yes or no in this zone, PAGASA (Philippines) is secondary in its subset of E. Pac, NHC (Miami) is the one in these borders and so on) there's no official agency there. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediterrannean basin is relatively small and fragmented, and its coastline is dominated by mountains, so storm damage is usually caused by rainfall, rather than winds or storm surges. Whether the storms exhibit tropical characteristics and hurricane-force winds is more of a scientific curiosity. Intense storms are named by official agencies (see European windstorm), although not all countries get strong, large and lasting storm systems often enough to take interest in the names.
I mainly mentioned hurricanes to emphasise how hot the Mediterrannean was in July and early August, considering how much farther poleward it is than the region where Atlantic hurricanes usually form. DaßWölf23:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, renominate if something happens While it is sort of historic that we're seeing a hurricane this side of the Pacific, I would wait until the storm actually touches land. Storm alerts are one thing, but the damage done will determine whether I support this storm being posted. ❤HistoryTheorist❤01:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until impacts are known, currently, impacts are almost non-existent and will be minimal for the next few days. Until impacts are known (likely after a landfall), I'm currently opposing. If the impacts are notable enough, I'll change to support it. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 01:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While the first blurb suggests that this is the first tropical storm watch to be issued in Southern CA, it isn't, and it isn't the first tropical storm to affect the area. The first occurrence of such events was from Hurricane Nora in 1997. I'm not sure if I'm not noticing something in blurb 1, but that's what I noticed. Mobius Gerig (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mobius Gerig: As the editor who rewrote Nora earlier in the year, I can confirm that no tropical storm watches or warnings were issued for California or Arizona because of Nora, just your normal day-to-day watches/warnings. From what im told by a well placed Wikipedian inside the NWS, its because of the computer systems in operation back in the day. That being said I am also going to state that we should wait until the system makes landfall and we have a better grip on the impacts.Jason Rees (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you look again, it’s almost solely the remnants of a storm rather than a tropical storm or hurricane hitting directly. Noah, AATalk02:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose impacts associated with Hilary isn't going to cut it for ITN. Impacts aren't notable enough, I'm looking at flooding, road closures, and 4 fatalities, 3 of them indirect, and that ain't notable for an ITN post. And, Hilary didn't make landfall in southern California so only the watches issued were historic. TailsWx (they/them) ⚧ 15:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It entered California but possibly only from Mexico which wouldn't be a landfall. Possibly the center briefly entered California state waters (cause of the curve of the beach) and came back which would be a landfall. Seems pedantic to me. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I'm from the Los Angeles metro area, and although this storm did wreak some havoc namely flooding, fallen trees, washed out roads, I feel that is not enough to warrant inclusion. And I actually decided to wait a day or two to post my decision to assess the impact. Oh, and I'm one that previously supported putting the 2023 Monterey Park shooting on ITN so I'm not those "Oh, that's just US-centric news" fallacy folks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Major story in UK, Letby most prolific child serial killer in modern UK history. Article on her crimes, links back to Letby. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article needs some minor work (Inquiry section needs expansion), but once its up to ITN standards this seems notable and worthy of a blurb (perhaps some alt. blurbs could be proposed, not a huge fan of the current). Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I question the need for the tag on the inquiry section, it'd work fine as a few sentences in another section, so that seems like a minor detail that doesn't need to hold this up. Quality is fine otherwise, and the story is being widely covered in the news. --Jayron3217:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the instructions above "Please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." Such questions should play no factor in whether or not a story is appropriate for the main page. This is being widely covered by news sources from the US, Qatar, Australia, India, and probably news sources in other languages besides English, but that's what I found by spending less time than it took you to type your condescending question about this. Do some work before commenting here, and actually look for sources like the rest of us did. If you can't be bothered to do a modicum of research before leaving a comment, then don't. --Jayron3217:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, can you chill? condescending question; they LITERALLY just asked a nine word question and you're getting this upset? Yeah, I wonder why ITN has a bad rep, when we act with such exquisite respect and understanding to newbies (and yes, in this context, they are a newbie; despite being on this site since 2003, they've only made a combined total of eight edits on INT/C)? Again, nine words from a non-regular set you off and led to you as an admin making WP:BITEy, WP:PERSONAL ATTACKs, and WP:ASPERSIONS on Secretlondon (talk·contribs), who again, has only made eight edits here. Utterly fucking ridiculous, and immensely disappointing behavior from an admin I typically respect. — Knightoftheswords03:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, yes, as someone who created the shortcut links for those very guidelines I think ITN stories shouldn't be decided via geographic location, and SL is somewhat wrong for doing that... but bro, let's be real frank here, where do you believe that they got that conception from? Do not throw stones in a glass house. It's no surprise that newcomers will come onto ITN not believing in the de jure rule that ITN noms aren't dependant on a story's location when in practice, regulars regularly (ha) reject stories on the basis of location all the time. It's apart of the ITN canon, and for us to bathe in this behavior when we're isolated in our small echo-chamber but then go apeshit when a monkey does what he sees is absurd and duplicitous. In fact to add on to this, tying back into those shortcut links, I also created WP:ITNUSA, specifically because this is disproportionately done to U.S based stories. Tying back to SL's comment above, I think that asking for global significance is an understandable concern given the literal years worth of editors (many, if not a majority of which are from the UK) habitually opposing stories from the US with the sole rationale of "it occured in America." Yeah, American mass shootings are also reported globally, yet they rarely get posted in 5 hours.
Overall, this behavior of dunking on newbies on ITN needs to fucking stop. It's funny going back a decade plus in ITN's history and see that like at least 60% of the people present here then are still active on ITN now (which ties into a point I've been thinking about regarding Wikipedia gerontocracy but that's for another time), and behavior like this, as well as frequently attempting to shift blame for ITN's structural ills off regulars to newbies, is definitely a major contributor. We as regularls cannot make our bed and then get pissed when we're confronted with the reality that we actually have to lie in it. ITN's issues was caused by regulars, and comments like yours are a prime example of the issue wrong. — Knightoftheswords03:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support This certainly meets criteria for being significantly covered in the news.
That being said, I am not at all familiar with this case (and its significance), but it being concerned with the deaths of infants seems to make it unusual, and thus notable enough for ITN. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is well-cited and has received significant coverage in the UK, and has seen coverage in various different countries. Tragically, it is the worst case involving babies in the UK in modern times. Fats40boy11 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Jayron32 said, I'm seeing it in my country's (US) news too. Below the fold, but there's nothing above the fold that we'd consider posting.The UK news sites I've looked at have it pretty low, too. Which is unsurprising, since they can geolocate me. But it means I have to ask the British editors here instead of checking for myself - is this a top headline for you folks? Has it been generating sustained coverage throughout the trial and leading up to it? If you could, say, blurb one UK-based news story this week, would this be it? I'll take you at your word on importance here. (The article seemed ok to me quality-wise.) —Cryptic18:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick check of a few sites, it is currently the leading story on BBC News, Sky News, The Guardian and The Telegraph. It has generated coverage throughout the trial, but I would say it has been in and out of the news due to the length of the trial. In regards to your question about one blurbed story this week from the UK, I'd say this story would be it. Fats40boy11 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thank you. For reference, I'd looked at the BBC and Guardian sites - BBC links this near the top, which I'd overlooked since the main story is four pages down; and it's also a page and a half down on the Guardian's main site for US viewers. Telegraph, which I didn't think to check, shows it as the top story despite redirecting me to https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/ even after I click on "UK edition". Sky News (which I was only vaguely even aware of) is showing me what I assume is the same thing as it does to UK viewers; it's the top four stories there. I wish more international news sites did the same. —Cryptic19:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article seems far too focused on the trial and not so much about the crimes, reaction to the crimes, or other similar factors related to the public perception of the crimes. In other words, I can't see why this is a major deal within the UK from the state of our article. --Masem (t) 18:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stress that the article is not written to standards we would expect for such a major crime-based story (regardless of location). This should not have been posted in this condition. --Masem (t) 00:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me exactly what your objections are. The article states that she is the most prolific child killer in UK history. I'm not sure what more explanation is needed as to why an NHS nurse murdering babies in a neonatal ward would be seen as a "major deal." Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
50% of the article is about the day-to-day events of the trial - which is actually excessive detail that we usually don't cover on other trial articles. Going beyond the trial coverage, the article is very thin to explain why this is such a critical case within the UK. Yes, it touches on what you're talking about but I would think there should be more of why this was a landmark judgement within the UK. Sure, one could argue that the virtue of a nurse killing babies should be obvious to why it is bad, but that should be really discussed more from third parties, while purging down the trial coverage. Masem (t) 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tragic, but yet another criminal case in the world. No major impact, interest and long-time international coverage. I don't think it's the most remarkable sentence we can include in Main Page so far this year. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a huge news story in the UK, that has been in the news for some considerable time, and is currently top story on all major UK news media. It's also significant not only because of the abhorrent nature of the crimes, but also the extensive use of circumstantial evidence to secure the conviction. Letby's apparently innocent-looking appearance, in contrast to the crimes she's just been convicted of, has also been a big factor in the notoriety of the case. — The Anome (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This now makes Letby the most prolific child killer in UK history and ranks alongside the likes of Harold Shipman, for medical professionals who murder. This is an historic conviction and is far more than "yet another criminal case in the world. No major impact, interest and long-time international coverage." As can be seen by reporting in the United States todayUnited stated 10 months agoIndiaNew Zealand 9 months agoNigeria. There is also now an independent government inquiry launched. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've not followed this closely but watched the BBC coverage in the main evening news and there were some remarkable features. There seem to have been significant institutional failures and these will be the subject of further inquiry. And this was said to be the longest murder trial in British history. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose — As if U.S.-centrism wasn't enough, there is now a faction of U.K.-based ITN editors willing to support an average criminal case on the basis it's on their front page. I suppose it's acceptable for any moderately covered court case anywhere in the world to be posted on ITN? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)23:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges comparison. The Queen was a reigning monarch who happened to be the longest-serving in the United Kingdom's history and who was globally recognized. This is not the same situation. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)06:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong post-posting oppose - Every support !vote I've seen has been most prolific child killer in UK history, huge news story in the UK, has received significant coverage in the UK, etc. Personally, I believe ITN blurbs should have some sort of long-term significance. I just don't see this achieving that. estar8806 (talk) ★00:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong post-posting oppose & pull. Seriously? I mean, this might be big news in the UK, but this is absolutely by no means significant at all. Yeah, absolutely an interesting criminal case to read up on, but how is this exactly long-lasting and even barely ITN-worthy? Holds zero significance whatsoever outside of the UK. US-centrism is a big no-no for ITN, but so is UK-centrism and other types of news that merely have national significance in one country. TwistedAxe[contact]00:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose I don't see how this story has sufficient scope. Certainly I don't see how it's of greater societal consequence than the suicide bombings and mass shootings that we frequently don't post. Vanamonde (Talk)00:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request [at least] temporary pull. Discussion lasted for less then 5 hours, with many of the supports saying "notable in the UK', which really does seem to suggest this is only locally notable, and while, yes, scope is not a valid reason to oppose alone, the question remains as to if there will be any longer-term impact to this ruling, for which the answer is likely no. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary pull per Darkside. I’m undecided on it myself, but five hours feels extremely rushed for a blurb with not-overwhelming support. The Kip (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd say the support was fairly overwhelming, but given we don't post by a vote, the point is moot in the end. Ideally we need more discussion of why this rises beyond the level of a human-interest story (with respect being given to the families of the victims here, obviously, but the obvious point here is we don't just post every tragedy in which 7 are killed, nor does the media proportionally cover such events). The idea that we would post a conviction of a murderer of seven but would ignore an explosion killing 35 simply because one is more frequently covered feels inherently biased. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I didn't even !vote in this story when I saw it, partially because when I saw the wave of support votes and it being marked as ready after only a few hours, I was aware of the shitshow that was soon to barrel through. All I ought to say is that this is what occurs when we selectively apply ITN's guideline about not opposing based off national origin to post stories from certain countries and then ignore it when we get to put stories from another down. I honestly am not to opposed to posting this in general, however, let's keep it a buck '50, we all know that it's cope to believe that this would have still been posted, at least in this manner, had the story been from the U.S, or frankly maybe any bedsides the UK. — Knightoftheswords03:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose - as sad as this is, this really is just a criminal case. A much more complex crime than the average british one, but I don't really see why this should be posted. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull and Oppose – Unlike Elizabeth II's death, or Trump's conviction for that matter, this one is mostly irrelevant outside UK/US, given main sequence of events predate the growth of Internet in countries like India, and thus people outside in such countries, especially outside Europe, don't know and don't care. I'm from Indonesia and I'm being serious here. I know the conviction is the biggest news in UK right now, but we shouldn't bring this up to ITN. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The news coverage is emphasising that there were numerous alarm bells and warnings as these deaths happened but that the institution was slow to act. The doctors who were suspicious were actually forced to apologise to the murderer. So, there will now be a government inquiry and there may well be consequences for the institution(s) and clinical practice. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support an exceptional, unusual case of highly notable and significant news; if a case like this were to occur in another country which has low child serial killer death rates (such as the US) it probably should be posted, definitely not just tabloid news. Happily888 (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
as we have mentioned multiple times, ITN is not driven by page views or popularity. We don't care what gets the most attention or lack thereof. Masem (t) 12:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There might have eventually been a firm consensus to post this if more time were allowed beyond 5 hours to provide the rest of the world a chance to weigh in on this. As it is, now that it has been both posted and pulled and the footing of this nom has become muddled, it seems almost a guarantee that this discussion will ultimately close as no consensus. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)12:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-removal support So, for some reason, we are to suppose a train derailment that kills 30 people in Pakistan is of global interest rather than "just another train accident", but an unprecedented case of the mass-murder of children that has achieved global attention, dominates the UK news, and raises serious questions about medical safeguarding and the use of statistics and circumstantial evidence in court cases, and has led to the setting up of a major government enquiry to find out what went wrong and prevent it from happening again, is in Alsoriano97's words merely "tragic, but yet another criminal case"? The entire point of ITN is to point readers to articles about things which are in the news -- and this is not just top of the UK news, it's very much in the news globally: see [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] and many more. I suggest this be added to ITN as soon as possible. — The Anome (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out my comment above that applies here, if this case "raises serious questions about medical safeguarding and the use of statistics and circumstantial evidence in court cases", the article certainly doesn't talk about that at all. It is focused on the events of the trial, which are the last things we should be focused on rather than the impact and results, such as whether there has been new standards in medical licensing in the UK from this, or such. But the article is quiet on these things, and thus fails to meet the expected quality for posting to the Main Page. Masem (t) 13:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The people who opposed this also opposed the Pakistan derailment. In fact both of them are exceedingly similar cases of an admin posting something fast after seemingly unanimous support and then people who disagree with it !voting later, though this time it actually received enough !votes to be pulled. I think it might be worth opening a discussion on the talk page on how to post stories in a timely manner while still retaining article quality and significance standards. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror15:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think that individual crime stories will always struggle to meet the standard needed for posting here in the absence of some wider political connection or notable societal response - similar to our policy on US mass shootings. Aside from the redundant "it has lots of press coverage" arguments, I cannot see anything here to explain why this meets the notability threshold. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Copying and pasting a load of news links from foreign sources means nothing, the number 2 news story on the BBC website this morning was the government of Italy paying for a dine and dash by its citizens on an Albanian holiday, and nobody in their right mind would think "this news story is even top on the BBC, it's got to be on Wikipedia's ITN". [25] In this day and age, it is easy for news websites to save money by including stories that fully rely on another website's sources. What are actual newspapers printing in foreign countries? It's not on any front pages in countries geographically [26] or culturally [27] close to the UK. Even in Ireland [28] it's only on the front page of the Irish Daily Mail, a stablemate of the notorious British tabloid, and the inside coverage starts from page 22. Let's be honest, we would not even consider posting this story if it happened in Slovenia, let alone France or Germany. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per all above. Tragic, albeit local crime is bad and the perpetrator is caught. Only because this was in the UK was it even considered for a blurb. Keep pulled. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist800019:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ultimately decided to formally vote on this. I second a lot of the votes above; while I understand opposition on “we would/wouldn’t post in x country” isn’t the strongest argument, this does truly seem like the more locally-relevant type of criminal case that we likely wouldn’t nominate/post if a large percentage of users here weren’t UK-based (ex. I believe there’d be strong opposition to posting the conviction of Rex Heuermann here). Not sure if it’ll have wide-enough long-term significance either. The Kip (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Restore All of the no votes above me which just say that it's only relevant to the UK shouldn't be be counted. ITN has always said that arguments based on an item only appealing to one area are not useful. This comes up on every time so maybe we need to paste WP:ITNATA to the front of the ITN section and make everyone read it before they post. Flyingfishee (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, an admin should re-post this because all the oppose !votes seem to only be arguing UK-centrism and that this blurb is only from a particular region/country/group, which is against WP:ITNATA. Its also the same users who have previously opposed blurbs just because they are or aren't from particular countries, or that they are or aren't 'front-page' news in their own country, both of which are irrelevant and which don't carry any weight in weighing up consensus. Clearly this case is significant and notable internationally in regards to the rare cases of child serial killers in modern/recent times in 'wealthy' countries and is highly likely that inquiries, per the news reports, will lead to changes. Happily888 (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if an admin re-posts this now, they'll definitely be going against consensus. The concern is that ITN treats stories from certain places as being more important than other places. I don't see anything indicating that this isn't a legitimate concern. That is only relates to one place is not a reason to post, but that it has no long-term significance is. --RockstoneSend me a message!06:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't going against consensus if its posted, because admins don't count !votes to assess consensus but rather look at the arguments made by discussers, the point that oppose !voters are making above about the blurb being based in a specific place is not relevant or an appropriate argument for opposing in an ITN discussion, and so those !votes are annulled. Rather, the significance of this case is already clear and has already been made clear above; also, stories are posted based on significance, not necessarily long-term significance which is hard to determine in a short period of time in regards to ITN – if all stories had to have long-term significance blurbs about sports events and political changes of power should not be posted. Happily888 (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding "the point that oppose !voters are making above about the blurb being based in a specific place". A good faith reading of the points about makes it clear that no-one is arguing that stories in the UK cannot be significant.
Aside from its sheer nastiness, the argument in favour of significance here seems to be because it is about the "most babies murdered in modern British history". The counterargument is that the significance comes not from the actual event itself but from this perverse "record". Would "most babies murdered in modern Brazilian history", say, be considered similarly significant? I personally doubt it and, while obviously speculative, I don't think it's an unreasonable argument because the significance is drawn from its connection to the country. Substitute Brazil in my example for, say, a "less significant" country like Andorra and you will see what I mean.
In my view, we have too many stories of all kinds in ITN about the "first Fooian X to do Y" or "most X in Fooian history" which sets an artificial and rather deceptive standard of significance purely because it is defined in local terms. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting While ITN’s UK-centric bias can be a problem, this is being covered internationally (I’m seeing plenty of coverage in the US). Also, Letby murdered babies, which makes her different from most serial killers. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-removal weak oppose While I understand that this disturbing and tragic case has received considerable media attention, I worry that focusing on individual criminal cases could lead to sensationalism overshadowing more substantial news events with lasting implications. Mooonswimmer20:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both this situation and the posting of the 2023 Hazara Express derailment does bring an interesting question about posting speed. Both this and the 2023 Hazara Express derailment were posted quickly with seemingly unanimous support, only to be afterwards hit with a flurry of post-posting opposes and in this case also being pulled. It might be worthwhile discussing how to balance posting blurbs in a timely manner while still attaining consensus on article quality and significance. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror20:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - worldwide news, with even her declining to appear at sentencing making headlines around the world. A country's most prolific child killer is convicted and sentenced, and it is covered around the world, how does that not merit posting here? nableezy - 15:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
In the Yellow Corporation bankruptcy proceeding, the court names financing lenders. Hedge funds Citadel and MFN Partners will together provide $142.5 million in debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing, which will give Yellow’s estate the funds necessary to liquidate assets. (Reuters)
Wildfires near Kelowna, British Columbia, cause the mandatory evacuation of over 2,400 properties and result in multiple structural losses. (Kelowna Now)
In the United States, Herman Andaya resigns as Maui's top emergency official amidst reproval for not activating the emergency sirens during the wildfires. (NBC News)
The former and current heads of Slovakia’s spy agency and five other police and intelligence officers are being investigated for abuse of power and criminal conspiracy in two separate cases. (AP)
A wikibio with almost 1200 words of prose but only 10 footnotes. Multiple paragraphs have zero footnotes. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The stubby wikibio currently has only 220 words of prose. Anything more to write about? What did he do for 5 years as Mayor of Hyderabad? What did he do in his other elected offices? --PFHLai (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support. It's a stub, but my experience in manga biographies has me expect that this is pretty much all there is to say about a (tragically) young manga artist, even one nominated for a significant award, so it's as comprehensive as I expect for the subject area. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol17:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is the case of the article having been expanded since I posted my comment above. I agree that it is now start class and I shall repost it. BabbaQ, please note that when you upgrade an article from stub to start on the talk page, you should simultaneously remove any stub tags from the article itself. I will do that for you. Schwede6600:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there any details that can be added about her art background (i.e. art college or apprenticeship)? That would help buff this out. Curbon7 (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose for now. A precautionary evacuation is not typically ITN material. Hopefully we will not have cause to revisit this subject due to it becoming something more serious. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing The nomination was closed without much discussion but it's not a good look to be shutting down discussion of wildfires in Canada when we're running a similar story about the US. The proposed blurb focussed on the capital of Yellowknife but it seems that there are currently hundreds of major fires in the Northwest Territories. This adds to the many major fires earlier in the year and so the general topic is 2023 Canadian wildfires. Perhaps this should be in Ongoing? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The proper ongoing should have been 2023 heat waves, which has been mentioned at least twice before in prior ITNCs give how there are wildfires across the global, not just Canada. However, no one has bothered to improve that article to be beyond just a listing of records broken. (The Maui fire would have likely still be called out on its own due to the scale of devastation and impact on human life compared to the other fires around the world). It would be inappropriate to call out this single one. Masem (t) 12:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hot droughts tinderize plants faster than cold. Consider how only 23 inches a year gave damp forests to London, England while 23 inches in a year would dry out and probably kill equatorial forests even if evenly distributed. The droughts are unnaturally bad for the same reason as the heat anyway (fossil fuels). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it were somewhere like Ottawa or Toronto, I'd certainly consider. But a relatively (at least internationally) obscure city evacuation seems mundane as they happen all the time as standard during wildfires. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)11:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yellowknife is the capital of the Northwest Territories and the second-largest city in the Canadian north. I am floored that they're evacuating the capital as I'm not sure how the territorial government is supposed to function without the capital. I'm leaving my vote neutral for now, but I can't think of another more important city to have been evacuated due to a wildfire during my lifetime. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The wildfires may develop into something nasty like the 2023 Hawaii wildfires or it could be another run-of-the-mill wildfire. If the city gets destroyed and/or a ton of casualties result, then I'll support. Furthermore, the specific fire doesn't have its own article yet. ❤HistoryTheorist❤16:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have dramatic developments with plenty of international coverage. The drama is the threat to the city with evacuation plans being complicated by there being just one highway which is already in the fire zone. But I get the impression that the nay-sayers want to see a body count before posting. Why do we require there to be death and disaster? Why can't we cover the issue when it's managed better too? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that we "want to see a body count," it's that as it stands, this is a non-story. A large town/small city is evacuated due to potential threat, that isn't an infrequent occurrence and there's absolutely nothing at the moment to suggest it will have any significant present and/or long-term notability. Not everything is motivated by some bloodthirsty interpretation of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. The Kip (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously not a non-story. Here's a selection of the international coverage:
A story highlighted in many newspapers or news channels has a good chance of being significant for ITN, but we do not base the posting primarily on how many such sites have covered it or consider it important.
Oppose Clearly a story, and one whose significance/impact/whatever is highlighted in many newspapers and channels, but we post on how many Supports a story gets around here. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The death toll from fighting in Tripoli between the 444 brigade and the Special Deterrence Force increases to 55 people, with 146 more injured. The fighting ends following the release of a commander. (Al Jazeera)
At least 63 people are killed and 38 others are rescued after a boat carrying mostly Senegalese migrants capsizes off the coast of Cape Verde. (Al Jazeera)
The death toll from the explosion in San Cristóbal, Dominican Republic, on 14 August increases to 27, after sixteen more people are found dead. The cause is still unknown. (AP)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment: The only real description of his research work is a 4-sentence long direct quote that IMO should be paraphrased/re-worded, and with additional expansion. Unfortunatley the timeline is pretty short for this, but given the otherwise thoroughness of the article, willing to weak support. SpencerT•C18:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: One of the best-known Italian sopranos of the 1960s and 1970s, "heir to Maria Callas", later active as opera director and voice teacher, mourned by many. - It took me a while because the article, though detailed, had practically no references. It could still be expanded, but I think we shouldn't wait longer. - Also, I'm busy this weekend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Blurb The nomination doesn't make this clear but he was quite a major figure in UK media, comparable with Larry King or Barbara Walters, say. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb I don’t expect this will be a popular view but Parkinson was the chat show host / interviewer in his country. He was the UK’s top chat show host for over 30+ years - his programme was ranked eighth in the BFI TV 100 in 2000, the highest lifestyle / light entertainment programme in the list and the only chat show there. He was most certainly the top of his field in the country, and knighted for services to broadcasting in 2008. His encounters with figures like Muhammed Ali and Billy Connolly became notable cultural threads in themselves - in UK public consciousness, those people are quite strongly linked with Parkinson and that speaks to his domination of his field. Apologies if this sounds condescending but I think an equivalent in American culture would be something like Carson and Cavett rolled into one. Letterman might even be the most accurate considering his career at the top lasting into the 21st century.
In the recent past, we’ve blurbed television figures who are incredibly well-known in their home country but are not A-list anywhere else (Betty White, who was chiefly known for supporting roles in sitcoms, for example). I think Parkinson, host of a long-running eponymous chat show considered the greatest of all time by the BFI, the revered top of his field in the UK, would justify one, or perhaps a Photo RD. Humbledaisy (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara Walters was mentioned above, and her death was not blurbed. At that nomination, you opposed a blurb, with the rationale A notable journalist within the US but barely known in the rest of the world. Can you explain how Parkinson is different for you?—Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying a hypocritical statement is not a personal attack. Calling someone a hypocrite is. I'm not sure where "pointing out blatant hypocrisy" falls on that spectrum. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)15:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Walters isn't known internationally, having only hosted and reported for American shows/news broadcasts. Parkinson's show was internationally broadcast and he also hosted international shows too. Happily888 (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose blurb The epitome of "old man dies". I have stated that a death should only be blurbed if it's the #1 story in international media, and this isn't even the #1 story in British media- not on BBC News, not in the Times or Evening Standard, not in the tabloids. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you're looking, but it's the lead story on the BBC.co.uk news website and the second lead on The Times and Evening Standard websites. - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD; oppose blurb. A fine broadcaster, but I'd like to see us make far more sparing use of blurbs for deaths than we have hitherto. Ham II (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. There is certainly a parallel with Barbara Walters and Betty White here. Parky has enough cultural impact that not only was he highly regarded as a talk show host, he also portrayed himself as a talk show host in Love Actually and The Damned United. - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add the the cultural impact, I'll point out that the British Film Institute consider he "helped pioneer the celebrity interview format, which few on UK TV have been so successful at since". Industry professionals voted his programme 8th in the list of 100 Greatest British Television Programmes, and they conclude that "His contribution to broadcasting remains incalculable: he revolutionised the chat show on UK television, giving it a depth and reach never accomplished before".(See here). When words like "pioneer", and "revolutionised" are being used by a respected industry body, the idea of a blurb needs to be taken seriously. - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD on quality - I’m seeing a lot of unsourced statements that I’ll add CN tags to momentarily. Oppose blurb - good lord people, do I even need to explain anymore? The Kip (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given we're all !voting based on loose guidelines and our own opinions, "good lord people, do I even need to explain anymore" is just patronising: there's no need for it - you have your opinion, others have theirs, and there's no need for the snark. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I’ve become quite frustrated with the tidal wave of blurb noms for figures that do not rise to the level of one. It seems nearly any recent RD nom that was somewhat famous at somepoint in their lives has had someone come charging in arguing they’re blurb-worthy, setting off a discussion that turns wildly off topic and in turn ignoring the actual RD criteria in favor of “do I think this person is notable enough.” Virtually none of these have reached the (admittedly informal) “transformative figure” criteria, instead being nominated because “well, I liked them.” The Kip (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because people hold a different opinion doesn't mean they should be abused. Just to remind you of what WP:ITNRDBLURB actually says, it makes no claim as to a "transformative figure", but states "The death of major figures may merit a blurb" and that any posting is based on a consensus from the discussion. The definition of "major figure" varies as to what field in which they were active (and in terms of talk show hosts, Parkinson certainly reaches that level), and the opinion of each individual !voting here will always vary. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did I really "come charging in"? I have not contributed to ITN very much in the past - I think this is the first time I've ever nominated someone for a blurb. I was nervous about doing it because I expected pushback, but it's been ruder than I was expecting. My reasoning was not “well, I liked them." and I don't appreciate the suggestion. It's not nice to be made to feel unwelcome, like I'm the wrong kind of person to contribute to ITN. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You also weren't the one who nominated the blurb - that was Andrew, who has a bit of a history at ITNC and isn't exactly looked on favorably by some as a result. Apologies for anything that felt excessively hostile toward you. The Kip (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb was a popular talk-show host in the UK 30 years ago, so what? But feel free to post it in line with our proud tradition of blurbing random American/British actors/singers who nobody born after 1990 has heard of before the obituaries were published. AryKun (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this has got downright unpleasant. Comments like "enough with the blurb suggestions" and "good lord people, do I even need to explain anymore?" don't strike me as fair at all. I thought people were going to engage. In response to AryKun, he was a popular talk-show host in the UK much more recently than 30 years ago - Parkinson ended in 2007. I was also, incidentally, born well after 1990. I don't think that assumption about younger people rings true. Humbledaisy (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, we would not even be considering blurbing a Filipino presenter who hosted a show for 30 years and invited Muhammad Ali over once if they were practically unknown outside the Philippines, even though the UK and the Philippines have comparable English-speaking populations. What’s happening here is people tired of blurb nominations for somewhat famous American and British entertainers when we don’t give this treatment to people from any other part of the world. Betty White was probably the dumbest blurb we’ve ever done, and it’s created a precedent that would lead to ITN being a 24/7 death ticker if we applied it uniformly across the globe. AryKun (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Betty White blurb was an example of too many driveby !votes in favor just because she was famous and popular, which are neither metrics we use per WP:ITNATA. And I think editors here want people to think more about when we actually should blurb deaths when the death or impact of that death that significant. Masem (t) 03:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Being famous or well-recognized by awards is not sufficient for being a blurb RD, no apparent importance or transformative nature to television as a whole. Oppose RD with numerous CN tags. --Masem (t) 18:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, weak oppose blurb Article appears to be in good shape. In terms of blurb, while reading the comments here it seems Parkinson has some notability in his field, but his article doesn't show his impact on his field, no legacy section or anything that demonstrates he was transformative in his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Any other entertainment-related nomination would get shut down immediately. Don't understand why obit blurbs for actors/singers/entertainers are so popular here (while literary figures or scientific figures, including Nobel Prize winners, get the "Never heard of her/him" treatment). While I understand from supporters here that he was a beloved figure in Britain, I'm not sure people outside Britain have ever heard of him - for me that would be key to assess notability. When Larry King died, he made the news in Germany and France at least; haven't come across any news related to Parkinson in DE or FR media so far. Khuft (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb as he hosted the most notable chat show in the UK and has appeared on television and film internationally, would also support RD posting whilst a blurb discussion is ongoing. Happily888 (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do not expect a significant update when only an RD is being considered, just that the death is mentioned and sourced, atop all other quality factors. Of course, obits that provide additional details not yet included can be used to expand the article but that's not always possible nor is expected. --Masem (t) 03:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"OMD" means "Old Man Dies" and should not be construed as opposition or support for RD consideration. If you must ask, though, yes. I'm Strong Neutral. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What else do you see happening in that article that's in any way related to this breaking news/developing story/whatever-this-is? Verb changes to past tense? Needed citations appearing to "get tweaked"? Timothy Cooper's comma?!? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"a substantial quantity of directly relevant information" does, yeah, mean the article has to have significant updates about the death. Right now we have no usable update at all, since even those seven words and three substantial numerals are excluded by "updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb". If more can't be written without unnatural padding written solely to get a blurb, doomed to be removed from the article just as soon as it rolls off the main page, then the criteria are clear that we can't post this no matter how many people vote support. —Cryptic04:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misreading the guidelines here, but as we are unlikely to agree and this is partly the wrong venue to discuss the guidelines, I won't push the point. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Playing devil's advocate, two of those numerals and three of the words relay where and when he died, which this unwritten but easily predictable blurb never could. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb Article well cited and was a notable figure in the UK, and to a lesser extent, Australia. However, despite this, I do not support the use of a blurb. Fats40boy11 (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Major sporting event in association football, winner team is from one of the English-speaking countries and it's their first win. Nxavar (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Association football is one of the most well-represented sports on ITN. The super cup is not a major competition in association football, even the article for the super cup itself says in the lead "It is not recognised as one of UEFA's major competitions". We don’t need to post minor competitions, especially when it's association football. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror12:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The referenced clip from the trophy's article was corrected using the given source!!! It's not a major competition, it is a major trophy. 12:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
How can it be a major trophy without being a major competition? Even hypothetically conceding that point, its recognition and prestige amongst fans is pretty low and the fact that association football has so many fans are what makes its competitions important. If this one isn’t as recognized as the other competitions we post, then it isn’t worth posting. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror12:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem with not posting. I have not been following football closely for many years now and, you're right, it's not really important even among football fans. Nxavar (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Article looks good. The names of the publishers in the sources aren't in English though, feels like they were copied and pasted from the Russian wiki. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Just writing down here to clarify my decision, over 1,000 bodies were found in 30 mass graves in El Geneina, Sudan surpassing the level of deadliness we saw from the Bucha massacre last year and probably this centurie’s most deadly massacre yet confirmed.
PS: If anyone would like edit the blurb or improve it be free to do so!
Weak oppose The article needs some work (2 cn tags, some bare URLs and some permanent dead links). Also the section in the article which covers this, is only two sentences. I'm sure it can be expanded further, maybe cover some reactions and more details about the discovery. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The battle and the discovery of mass graves are two separate events, even if one was caused by the other. That being said, Support on principle, but article needs work first. DrewieStewie (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be reasonable to post if it was a major update to the article (we use similar logic when evaluating ongoing, just with an added time aspect). The trick is making that update happen. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Covered by Ongoing It's not much, but there are a few vague sentences in May, June and July about the clashes, hundreds of deaths and suspected killers themselves (also more mass grave discovery). I presume they were added between May and July. That would have been the "major" part of the ongoing story; finding the bodies is pretty clearly (to me) the epilogue/aftermath/tail end. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a few vague sentences about massacres may have been mentioned in the article previously, but nothing about the massacres got posted to ITN as far as I can tell from searching the archive. To my mind, this is a pretty substantial update. Note that these are largely graves of civilians of one particular ethnic group, so this could be considered genocide/ethnic cleansing. Note that the only previous ITN posting about the 2023 Sudan conflict was this initial tidbit back in April (which gives no indication of mass war crimes against civilians):
Now that we don't have vague statements but rather confirmed existence of mass graves attesting to a killing of such huge magnitude, I think it's definitely the right time to post this. I agree it's the epilogue/aftermath but better late than never, and it could even be argued to be the perfect time to post because we have specific information on the incident with solid confirmatory sources instead of vague statements. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing got posted because it was covered by Ongoing, same as now. When I said vague statements, I didn't mean incredible or dubious ones. The BBC, the UN, the victims themselves...all have been telling us that many thousands are being massacred in the last three months and covered up. I'm pretty sure there's some video evidence, but haven't looked for any. In news, late is never better. And even if we weren't late, it'd still best be covered in the already-posted article (it's just late again now). You're not going to sway me on this. But I don't blame you for trying. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support on notability. Yes, there's a related "Ongoing" item, but a horrific war crime of this scale definitely merits mention IMO. I agree the article could use some work before posting. Also, maybe the blurb could mention that the dead were largely civilians of Masalit ethnicity. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done some tidying of the article and would suggest that article quality is sufficient for ITN. I shall leave it up to others to decide on notability. Schwede6605:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support In addition to the thousands of civilians killed in the battle itself (this aspect is covered through ongoing, similar to the Siege of Mariupol), an additional at least 10,000 civilians (figure according to a local tribal leader [29]) were murdered in the subsequent massacre, when the RSF was literally killing any black person they saw. Absolutely blurb-worthy, though I feel like focusing on just the mass graves aspect may be understating it and would personally prefer a broader scope. Curbon7 (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to Sultan Saad Bahar al-Deen, he seems to me to mean 10,000 or more people were killed in West Darfur since violence erupted in April, not since the battle of Geneina ended (see preceding paragraph). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be correct on that ([30]), though the majority of that is concentrated in this city. I do still think that the way it is being covered demonstrates significance beyond the ongoing section; for example, this horrific CNN article was posted just yesterday. Curbon7 (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly has been concentrated on the capital and CNN does have a history of pouncing on mass grave discoveries in places it normally underreports. This will likely happen the next time, too, considering the last. Remember, thousands more bodies are still unrecovered. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Ongoing exists to highlight highly publicized events that are developing over the course of several days or weeks, but that doesn't mean it's a substitute for blurbing something as significant as the massacre of thousands of people. Kurtis(talk)08:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just gave it a once over but there was very little left to be done, so well done, everyone. The subject's clearly notable, it seems up to date without touching WP:NOTNEWS and the MOS queries have been resolved. SN5412913:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 3, though I would change the wording to "around 1000" rather than "over 1000" as that matches what the source says here, stating "Civil leaders in West Darfur have uncovered 30 hidden mass graves containing roughly one thousand bodies" We need to be scrupulous on things like this. Otherwise, Alt 3 is the best blurb, with that tweak. --Jayron3213:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a little concerned that this appears to be creating a neologism, particularly the way it is capitalised presents it as a proper noun phase rather than a purely descriptive term. None of the sources I have sampled refer to this as the "Battle of Geneina". It is not the place of this project to "name" battles nor implciitly define what subset of actions in a wider conflict constitute that battle (particularly when as here the "battle" is arguably more than one battle over a period). I've no dispute with the substance of the story but its treatment is outright sloppy. 3142 (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: First ITN nom, so my blurb isn't great. Please be soft. This happened a few days ago, with today the seized items were returned to them. SWinxy (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not a crime to receive a tip about someone else's conviction; the pertinent allegations here are identity theft and unlawful use of a computer, and it's typical to wait for a conviction (of private figures, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's best for everybody involved that we close this sidebar.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OR doesnt apply outside the articlespace. I am not supporting the blurb but simply stating there is more to this than old woman dies. NoahTalk21:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does however highlight that an opinion is not based on solid ground. I'd like to know how you calculated that likelihood, myself. Danthemankhan22:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's verging on accusing the cops of manslaughter or reckless endangerment; you should make like the news and attribute the claim to her son, in any potentially libelous space. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as their search was legal, then it’s simply an unfortunate occurrence that couldn’t have been foreseen if stress resulting from that raid did cause her death. Plain and simple. It’s up to the prosecutor and a jury to determine if criminal actions took place. Yes, her son was the one who made the claim. NoahTalk23:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I fail to see how this will receive any lasting coverage or is of encyclopaedic value. This is barely in the news and is basically local news, yes it's receiving some coverage from outside the US but not anything major and even news sources from the US don’t seem to have this as a top story. Yes we don’t evaluate based on whether something is a top story, but if something isn’t even a top story in the country where it happened and it’s a story of this type(even more so in a country where people will scream systemic bias when people nominate events from it, though honestly if this gets posted it probably is bias) it probably isn’t notable enough. The death is tragic but it is what it is. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror20:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Brazil is affected by a nationwide blackout, with all of the states connected to the national energy system impacted. The state of Roraima is unaffected as it has its own energy system. The cause of the outage is still unknown. (The Brazilian Report)
The Chinese central bank lowers the medium-term lending facility rate, which is the interest rate on one-year loans to financial institutions, to 2.5%. (Reuters)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Native American scholar and advocate. Article has appropriate depth but work on improving referencing is in progress. SpencerT•C23:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Not the highest level tournament (this is the European edition) and the fact that it's a fairly niche sport suggests that it doesn't qualify for ongoing. Black Kite (talk)09:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between posting the final result when the tournament concludes (which is fairly standard practice for tournaments at the highest level of most given sports) and posting a tournament when it is still running to ongoing (which for sporting events, would only happen with the Olympics and FIFA World Cups in practice) 2600:1700:38D0:2870:7000:65BC:FAA9:D2A6 (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Fighting breaks out in Tripoli between the 444 brigade and the Special Deterrence Force after the head of the 444 brigade was allegedly detained by the Special Deterrence Force at an airport in Tripoli. Twenty-seven people are killed and more than 100 injured. (AP)
Nominator's comments: fairly high death toll (35) for Europe imo, if this was like Congo or India I'd get not posting it, but I was shoked that a day after there wasn't even an article about it on the english wiki, let alone a discussion on this forum about posting it onto the wikipedia's main page --Daikido (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "if this was like Congo or India", really? We're not here to reinforce the Euro-American bias, a tragedy doesn't become more or less tragic just because of where it happened. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same user that opposed a prior nom because, and I quote, “global warming’s fake imo,” bluntly WP:FRINGE. This user also has prior warnings for inappropriate behavior at ITNC, edit wars, and so on (including apparently using a slur in a prior nom).
I would strongly recommend they read and review ITNC do’s and dont’s before they continue to contribute in this manner, and I’m honestly somewhat convinced at the moment they’re WP:NOTHERE. If someone else proposes sanctions or the like, I'd be inclined to support as well.The Kip (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like how i remember there's been numerous appearance of gas tank trucks exploding in africa or asia or latin america over the past like decade or so with far more deaths usually (often 100+ sometimes even 300+), and those were only rarely posted here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At the risk of severely derailing this whole nom, I am strongly opposed to any proposed sanctions; Daikido's recent contributions to ITN have been fairly mundane; all of the issues Kip referred to on his talk page are at least a year old and these incidents are often separated from each other by like half a year. The exception was the WP:FRINGE climate change denial, which while indefensible on an argumentative basis, is not grounds to levy sanctions against someone. Not to cast any WP:ASPERSIONS, but these accusations of WP:NOTHERE behavior and the like seems to stem from a disagreement on one editor's (admittedly wrong) belief regarding climate change, or in other words reeks of WP:DEADHORSE. Once you remove the global warming comment, nothing in Daikido's presence on ITN substantiates any sanctions. — Knightoftheswords17:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
all of the issues Kip referred to on his talk page are at least a year old
The use of a slur in a prior nom occurred last month. The section of the talk page is quite directly named "July 2023." Their oppose vote to blurbing a stabbing attack in Canada because such incidents are common in the US was also less than a year ago.
Support 115 casualties in an unusual explosion; though I'm not sure why the argument is being made that we wouldn't post if it was from Congo or India (the opposite is probably true). — Knightoftheswords17:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'd probably post this in India, but in sub-Saharan Africa, there's a disturbingly common pattern of "fuel tanker crashes -> people congregate to gather spilled fuel -> fuel ignites, killing a hundred people". --Carnildo (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without wanting to sound pedantic, the city should be spelled Makhachkala (with kh and not just h) in English. It's spelled incorrectly in the title of article. Khuft (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose — Fortunately, this should be the last time that a Trump indictment is nominated. In fairness, the indictment is sprawling, but the legal issues of Trump have already been covered on ITN. The role of the other eighteen defendants is far too intricate for the average reader—particularly outside of the United States—to properly give the same weight to as Trump, i.e. Kenneth Cheseboro's involvement into the attempts to overturn the election is not a particularly well-known fact. On a more general scale, an indictment is an allegation, not a conviction. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)05:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose We are not Trumpedia. The first one might have been justified based on the novelty of a former POTUS being criminally indicted. But we are way past that. These repeated nominations that would never even be made for most other world leaders serve as strong evidence of the projects systemic bias. Enough. We can post the verdicts when they are handed down, which is what should have been our approach from the start. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to consider and support other nominations for former world leaders who are indicted for alleged crimes that occurred while they were in office, or related to their seeking office. We can't consider what isn't nominated. Too many postings is not a problem right now. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—I supported posting the first indictment because it was an exceptional circumstance; up to that point, no American president had ever been indicted for a crime. The novelty of the first indictment has worn off now that there have been four. The next time we should post about Trump's legal issues is if/when there's a verdict in one of the trials. Kurtis(talk)05:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - It's a RICO indictment of a former POTUS. But who are we kidding. Wikipedia's ITN is run randomly (if X random people log on and comment, no matter the logic, the numbers of Support/Oppose will decide the outcome). It's a RICO indictment of a former POTUS and a vote tally will decide if it is posted. Laughable, shameful, and contemptible does not begin to describe this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombie Philosopher (talk • contribs) 07:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Week-old sports tournaments that were never meaningfully in the news aren't more noteworthy either. I'm not saying it's ok that this is being opposed. I'm saying it's not random. —Cryptic10:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is random in the fact that the decision to post or not post is largely based on the # of people supporting and # opposing, which is extremely gameable based on the few dozen people that post their vote, and it is extremely based on the amount of random people paying attention at any given time to what is up for consideration. Furthermore, people with agendas can be watching and skewing the tally which is the main consideration. Not the logic. Not some quantifiable objective metric of "what is actually in the news" aka "newsworthy enough to be featured on the #5 biggest website in the world". It isn't based on this. It is based on the random factor of how many people happen to be paying attention and decide to cast their vote. It's useless. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should really have more precise guidelines for what gets or doesn't get ITN. Right now, a few anonymous votes can decide what is deemed newsworthy enough for one of the biggest websites in the world, without any clear policy behind. I suggest this should be discussed with the wider community as to whether the current system should be kept or a more explicit set of guidelines be drafted. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. Not every story is important enough for ITN, and it shouldn't be a live news ticker, but I will never understand why nominations like this are opposed, when the item is clearly notable and In The News. Relatively minor sports events get featured with nearly no discussion, ones I didn't even know existed. And sure, that's just my personal experience, but I don't think I'm the only one. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it is a little strange how ITN is run atm. It's weird how a story like this is struck down for being almost routine at this point, yet we post the National Darts Championships or high death toll disasters without question. Not to say that these events aren't notable, but for a section called 'In The News' we don't seem to post what is actually In The News often, sometimes out of some moral point about the prevalence of domestic American politics in international discussion.
For the record, I'm inclined to oppose this story, but I think we should honestly have some kind of convention to determine how exactly this section should be run. It feels like everyone has different ideas and philosophies about what deserves to be posted, and sometimes notability criteria gets a little ridiculous (see WP:MINIMUMDEATHS). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's annoying too is that it's only the US that's treated this way. When Elizabeth II died last year, the entirety of Wikipedia, ITN included, completely turned themselves inside out to cover every nuance about it. ITN had both an ongoing event related to her funeral and if I recall, also at least two blurbs related to her death (one for her death, one for her funeral), and then this year we did the same thing with the coronation of Charles. -- RockstoneSend me a message!13:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have that completely wrong. For any other country, an event like this, the charging of a former leader, would never be posted here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm astonished at the opposition here. Is this ITN or isn't it? These people(and in this case, not just Trump) were nominated for allegedly running a criminal enterprise to overturn a democratic election. It's particularly ironic for Rudy Giuliani who jailed people as a federal prosecutor for RICO violations. ITN is withering on the vine here and it's sad. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant support I hate him and I hate talking about him, but it's not just the #1 story in the US, it's the #1 story on BBC News and ABC (Australia) and Le Monde and El Pais and... look, this is called In The News, and the story is the news right now. If the target article is up to snuff- which I think this one is, barely- then it's what we should be posting, whether we like it or not. -- Kicking222 (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per ITNATA, we don't consider if a story is the top headline across news sources (or not) with ITNC, as we are not a news ticker. Masem (t) 12:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is that ITN doesn't just post whatever news happens, even if it's top news, it has a higher significance standard that needs to be met. That's why celebrity gossip or certain other types of stories (low death toll disasters, subnational politics, arbitrary records etc.) don't get posted. See WP:NOTATICKER for more details. Some people of course disagree with this philosophy. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror12:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's the top story in the English-speaking world right now. Trump might lead the story, but the 18 others like Mark Meadows are a significant development. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}09:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and idea I think this would definitely be noteworthy if it were the first one, but now that there've been multiple indictments I'm not sure it's worth posting them anymore. Perhaps an alternative solution would be to add Indictments against Donald Trump to "Ongoing". That way it wouldn't look like we were ignoring the situation, but we wouldn't have to post every update. That said, I'm not sure I even fully support this idea, just throwing it out there for discussion. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing would not work at this point as there are no presently waiting grand juries or similar that could add additional indictments, so now is just the waiting game while there are orders and other legal mumbo-jumbo that will go on prior to any trial date (with possibly the DC one as early as Jan). Ongoing stories are expected to have near-daily major updates which won't happen here. Masem (t) 12:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IF there were an active trial and new things happening just about every day in said trial and IF there was a Wikipedia article that were being equally actively updated with said information, I could support that. This is not where we are right now. --Jayron3213:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Good arguments to support, but personally I do think that a Trump-related story is nominated every week at this point. I think we should wait until these cases are settled in a court of law and post the result. I also think that there is a case to post the Trump Indictments to ongoing, however as others have pointed out the updates probably aren't frequent or consistent enough. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/wait The general policy has always been that we post the conclusion of legal processes, not incremental steps along the way. Once any trial or legal proceedings has been completed, I would be fully on-board with posting, whatever the results. --Jayron3212:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's In The News, and dominating headlines, again. Simple as. We look silly not posting it, just like we looked silly not posting the indictment from a few weeks ago. I get that people are tired of Trump, but we can't not post news stories just because they're exhausting. --RockstoneSend me a message!13:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Even if it's the fourth time a POTUS is indicted, it's still making headline news everywhere. That Trump's legal issues are dominating the news cycle recently is just reality, and not something that should be "balanced against" for fear of centering the man. Even taken individually, these are still extremely important events. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support (1) significant story, (2) of wide public interest, (3) with a nice quality article. Opposition is lots of personal opinion of "we nominate too many Trump stories" and "the novelty of indicting Trump has worn off". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Jayron32. That being said, this is very much in the news and is potentially the most important of all the indictments. I would be opposed to any ongoing though, as these proceedings will last a loooong time and there may be little to update for awhile. ✈ mike_gigstalkcontribs16:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Here we go again. If someone can make a compelling argument as to why this is different I'm inclined to hear it out, but otherwise, this is now indictment number 4. The Kip (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing much to add to what others have said. ITN should guide readers to articles related to items in the news. This is very much in the news across the world. Khuft (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although I think this is going to be buried, this isn't the first time Trump has been indicted on some January 6th-related charge, and this probably won't be the last. When he was indicted the first time, that was ITN-worthy because it had been rare for a former U.S president to be indicted on a criminal charge, the second time may still have been ITN-worthy, but now, this is barely even news. Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This story is by far the most covered story in major news outlets as of now, and the article is of good quality. Some of the above opposing arguments say we should wait to post this until some decision in a possible trial arises. Now, if this was the first indictment, it seems reasonable to conclude that we would have posted (as we did post the real first indictment). This is of course not the first indictment, but I think labeling this as just another indictment of Trump is misleading. This is, for example, the first indictment for 18 other co-defendants. And even if it should be counted as just the fourth indictment of Trump, it being covered as the top story in the major news outlets, IMO, means it should be published.
The nominated articles do indeed name numerous defendants besides Trump and many of these don't seem to have articles. So, WP:PERP applies, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Andrew🐉(talk) 21:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly, weakest possible oppose to the point it's almost neutral. The time to post an indictment was the first one for its uniqueness or the third one for its relationship to attempts to overturn the 2020 election. I would not be upset if this gets posted, but I think at this point the thing to post is a conviction. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol23:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Clearly in the news around the world and a major story which will continue to get a lot of coverage. Personally, I also think it's notable that Rudy Giuliani is among those indicted. To non-Americans, he might be the most recognizable co-conspirator behind Trump because he was mayor of New York City when 9/11 happened. I'm not sure if that's important enough to mention. Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was indicted too. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it's not in the news around the world. Just checked my local major news service, and it's gone. (It did appear yesterday for a while.) Trump indictments are passe these days. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 24 hours since the indictment, of course it's not going to be the top story forever. If being the top story for more than 24 hours was a requirement, ITN would be empty, because that rarely happens (none of the current 4 items would qualify). I just checked my own local news sources and they all have Trump on the home page, just not the top story anymore. Also, Trump and other co-defendants will be booked and arraigned soon, so it won't be long until it's the top story again. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the legal affairs of a president not from your country, appeared in major news sources in your country? Must've been very noteworthy. The legal affairs of other presidents don't appear in major news in most countries. Something to reflect upon while you hate on how America is disproportionately represented in media, the news, world culture, etc. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this is the fourth indictment, and a blurb for it has already been posted previously. In the past five years, Trump has appeared on ITN five times ([32], [33], [34], [35], [36]), far more than other world leaders, so everyone internationally already knows this story and the story hasn't changed significantly enough yet to be posted again – when he is convicted or the full legal process is complete, then it could be posted. Happily888 (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since when did we start posting indictments instead of convictions? (And please don't say since we posted the Putin indictment.) Banedon (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An awful precedent was set with posting previous indictments. I would support posting a conviction, but not another indictment. Chrisclear (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be great if editors could avoid using local jargon, such as "RICO", so that non-Americans can understand their edits. On a related note, who is "RICO", and what does he have to do with Trump? Chrisclear (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Went and looked it up for the fun of it. Still not sure how a RICO charge is worse then charging a guy with incitement of insurrection., so all it is is another "first". DarkSide830 (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame someone hasn't invented an easy-to-use online encyclopedia where a person could easily search for concepts they were unfamiliar with, and then learn about them all on their own, without having to wait for someone to explain it to them. Just a shame. The world could use such a thing. --Jayron3212:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring your unnecessary snarkiness - editors shouldn't have to do additional research to understand the meaning of other editors' comments. It's just plain common sense, politeness (and as Waltcip stated below, courtesy) to define acronyms the first time they are used, so that those unfamiliar with the term can understand what is being written. Chrisclear (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Jayron. In the meantime, we have to rely on people's courtesy to explain regional terms to users who may not be from that country, of which this site has a pretty high number. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)12:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As has been astutely stated previously, we're only scratching the surface of the legal troubles that Trump will be facing. An individual blurb is not appropriate. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)15:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Completely agree, there is already rumor of another (5th) indictment. The hits just keep on coming. I suppose we could just keep posting Trumps woes ITN, but I'm willing to bet his campaign team just sees it as more publicity (good/bad, doesn't really matter). Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - meh, new state charges, second state to charge. Dont see this having a snowballs chance at this point anymore either, so should just be closed. nableezy - 18:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As I said on the previous one, the consensus over ITN standards is that it should be a lot more than a news ticker for whatever seems to be the top headlines at the moment. StellarHalo (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Another tragically young sports passing today, after Rodion Amirov. Article seems fine; considering the only two other Alex Collins-es with Wikipedia pages are long-dead, I don’t think the qualifier is necessary if/when he’s posted. The Kip (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All other reputable sports sources (PFRef, U of Arkansas, ESPN.com, etc) list his date of birth as the 26th; I'd be willing to bet the NFL.com editor simply made a typo/error. The Kip (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment, hat if off-topic Was there a consensus reached on how to post people who have the same name as other, dare we say, more famous people? Let's be honest, the name Tom Jones means only one person to most readers. In fact, page views for Tom Jones (singer) seem to have skyrocketed due to the writer's death [37] unless the singer did something yesterday that I never heard of. I don't see the harm in putting the full title with the job title, to aid the reader and prevent unnecessary distress to people close to the singer. Lord knows what will happen when Harry Kane (hurdler) dies. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If we post it as an RD, we should include the parenthesized "writer" for clarity. When I saw "Tom Jones died" as the title for a news article yesterday, I initially thought that it was referring to the singer as well. We have long risen above that kind of misleading clickbait, and we should continue to do so. Kurtis(talk)01:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
No longer relevant since original user changed their mind on blurb, off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I really don't think he is. But to avoid what happened with Friedkin (ie, opinions on RD readiness lost amidst a sea of blurb-worthiness debate), could we start a ===== subsection===== below to keep the two discussions – one technical and essentially objective, the other highly subjective – separate? Here and henceforth? Moscow Mule (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im just going to undue my blurb thought. I'd thought maybe he might be a borderline, with having signed Bill Withers, produced several films, the nickname, and revleance in the African American sphere, but... it seems it may not be close enough. TheCorriynial (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost ready: One citation needed tag to go (could remove that sentence to deal with it). The bigger issue is the "lead too short" tag; that must be addressed. Schwede6606:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@PrecariousWorlds I took a look through the archives and here's what I found. Also worth noting that the PM of Pakistan is head of government and not head of state. Nomination for Pakistan caretaker PM (in 2013), not posted with 1 oppose and 1 support. Another nomination for Pakistani caretaker PM (in 2018), not posted with 1 support, 1 oppose and 1 comment. Nomination for Austrian interim chancellor (in 2019), posted but as an update to another blurb (which involved the government being dismissed in a no confidence motion), notably she was also the first female chancellor, which may have affected the posting. Nominator for this also said "Appointment of interim leaders is usually not ITN worthy but I think in this case an exception should be made (...)". Nomination for Peru interim president (in 2020), not posted with 4 opposes, 1 comment and 1 question. Worth noting that it was part of bigger situation and that the President of Peru is both head of government and head of state. Nomination for acting head of state in Gabon, posted with 1 support way back in 2009. So consensus seems to primarily be against it, especially recently. Of course, it's always worth keeping in mind that consensus can change! Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror14:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you so much for going back and finding all of this!
While I don't think this should be posted, arguing to close a discussion about a legitimate topic before anyone else has had a chance to weigh in is unnecessary at best and rude at worst. Letting a discussion breathe for a few hours won't hurt us. (Also, this wasn't an ITNR nomination, so why even mention it?) Kicking222 (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PrecariousWorlds: I don't know, but I've definitely seen an uptick in the incidence of ITN regulars attempting to shut down discussions before they're even allowed to happen. What this communicates to the person on the receiving end is that their idea is so bad, it's not even worthy of the bandwidth used to type "oppose" over it. That is antithetical to how we do things here, and shouldn't be an accepted part of the discourse at ITN. Kurtis(talk)01:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To argue that a discussion should be closed because it is unlikely to succeed because the reason is too obvious is an opinion just as respectable as betting on leaving it open for a longer period of time. Let's not exaggerate or claim unethical opinions that we do not share. _-_Alsor (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"To argue that a discussion should be closed because it is unlikely to succeed because the reason is too obvious"—Obvious to whom? You? Me? We are both on the record as being opposed to a blurb in this case, but maybe other editors have opinions that are different from ours, and they should have the opportunity to speak before someone preemptively invokes WP:SNOW. Also, which "unethical opinions" are you referring to? The only thing anyone here is saying is that it comes across as dismissive—and even a little bit contemptuous—for someone to call for a discussion to be closed before it even begins. Kurtis(talk)12:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's obvious to me, that's why I called to close it. I doubt very much that calling to close a discussion early could hurt anyone, but in any case we can't be constantly offended by opinions contrary to our own. Just because I ask for it to be closed, it does not imply that it must be closed at that very moment. Therefore, the debate is not over. It’s my opinion, I have reasons to raise it and I would not change it. Btw, I was not the one who said that some arguments are antiethical. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you say "it does not imply that it must be closed at that very moment", what does "Oppose and close" add rather than a simple "Oppose"? The debate is on whether the story should be posted, we are not here to have a parallel debate on whether to close the debate early - the votes should speak for themselves, and, if they stay unanimously "Oppose" (as they are now), there isn't anything lost in not closing it as the story wouldn't be posted either way. But we couldn't have known that that would be the case if it had been closed early.
In any case, you're the one who is suggesting to cut off the conversation early, you don't have a standing for calling others "constantly offended by opinions contrary to our own". Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it's an interim position. But the Prime Minister (HoG) is the head of the political executive in most parliamentary democracies including Pakistan, not the President (HoS) who's a figurehead. So that's the right position for ITN. A modicum of research would've cleared that up, but some editors would rather dogpile. 5.151.106.3 (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Barring exceptional circumstances, we generally don't post the appointment of interim heads of state and government, as it is intended to be a brief transition period. I don't think there is anything different about this case that would warrant a full blurb. Kurtis(talk)01:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Two restaurants in Lahaina, the Mala Ocean Tavern and Duckine, are reported to have survived the wildfires. The two restaurants confirmed this in a joint statement on Instagram, but also stated that they won't be able to open "any time soon". (San Francisco Chronicle)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak support Short but given his relatively uneventful professional career, meets minimum standards. Could use some additional expansion tbh, such as from this article: [38]. SpencerT•C23:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a couple of sentences using materials from the SABR article, including a bit on his injury from the hit-by-pitch in August 1970. --PFHLai (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question I updated this article, but I didn't nominate it because there's no news source about his death. The source presented is from the funeral home. I didn't think that was sufficient for RD. Am I wrong? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His profile at the Baseball Almanac displays his date and place of death. (Even where he was buried!) I have added this as a source for his death in the wikibio. Should be qualifying now, methinks. --PFHLai (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak oppose Article looks pretty good except exact DoB is uncited (the cited book in the lead only says 1932) and the source for the info about his wife and children only confirms that Gordon Drew is a professional golfer that works at Donaghadee Golf Club, and not the information about when he met his wife and that they had two children named Heater and Gordon.Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror15:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Four people are killed and one other injured following a house explosion in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, United States, that destroyed three structures and damaged at least a dozen others. (AP via The Manila Times)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose Major sourcing work needed. Article potentially has NPOV issues as well, especially with the info being unsourced, such as describing Bjelke Peterson as "wily" (unsourced), which definitely has negative implications and stuff like "Bjelke-Petersen worked actively to destabilise the government from outside of Parliament.", "Bjelke-Petersen was determined to stymie Ahern's ambitions to be in Cabinet." (Also unsourced). At the very least a RS has to be found for these and they could still be NPOV violations. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror17:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is currently a stubby wikibio with only 176 words of prose. Please expand it. Can the Italian wikibio be translated and then footnoted, please? --PFHLai (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Currently expanding article, but I would support a blurb given how close it was to the general election and looking at the polls, he was indeed a top candidate. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb This just happened so it's still early in terms of media coverage, but this is definitely a major story, less than 2 weeks before the election. Johndavies837 (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the polls, he was certainly polling in second-third with some instances in second place. I think the reason for the blurb is how he was assassinated two weeks before the general election. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If he was consistently polling lower than 5% I’d agree, but he’s been in a very close 3rd/4th place with one poll having him in the runoff. The Kip (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb—The successful assassination of a leading presidential candidate mere weeks before the next election is a big deal. Kurtis(talk)01:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb solely on article quality. Assassination is covered in just four sentences which is not adequate for linking on the main page. This event really should have its own article. Support RD for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Once more information is known/released I will expand the assassination section. All the information you see from the information that is avaliable. I doubt it'll be good enough for an individual article once more information is known as Masem said.
I'd be surprised if the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't get an article up on this fairly quickly. A lot of that would likely be good enough to serve as a framework for our own. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping I've expanded the section given the new info coming out.
It is clear that it is the assassination aspect that makes this a blurb rather than the significance of the person, but in that regard, the amount of details on the assassination is woefully lacking that I must oppose blurb until more details on the assassination are incorporated into the article. It does not like sound or that we need to split off the assassination, just that there should some idea of suspects or the like among other details. --Masem (t) 01:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Once more information is known, I'll expand the section as I've been doing for the article. Might take a day until details are known.
Support blurb with expansion noted below. However, why is there now a separate article on the assassination? There's nowhere near a size issue to make a separate article at this point. --Masem (t) 03:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing that stands out as missing before this should even be posted as an RD is whom is suspected - doesn't need to be a name, but did they catch the shooter, or see if they were connected to the cartels? The full details around that would help on posting the blurb, but if we're looking for an RD now, those should be a focus. And yes, I see no sources with that info yet. Masem (t) 01:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This happened only like an hour-and-a-half ago, so major details are understandably thin. Should have a better idea by tomorrow. Curbon7 (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now Unquestionable notability. I agree with Ad Orientem and Masem. Probably in a few hours much more will be known, so it will be easy to extend the coverage of the murder. I don't think it's unreasonable for him to have an article, but as you consider. Once the information is extended, take this vote as afull support of the altblurbif you see that I have not expressly changed it._-_Alsor (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While it's good to see a consensus for a blurb, I feel that this assassination does not merit to have its own article at the current time. I feel that much of the info covered in the individual assassination article is covered pretty much the same in Villavicencio's own article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb with preference for altblurb 3 as being the most carefully worded. While it's true that Ecuador is prone to periods of political instability (the President of Ecuador article indicates that there have been multiple times in which a military junta has taken power), this is a textbook example of "Death as the main story" in the WP:ITNRDBLURB criteria. Absolutely noteworthy event with wide-ranging impact and depth of coverage. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)12:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb 3. Good to go. This is a major political event which occurred less than two weeks before the snap general elections, and while I support altblurb 3 (as I believe it is the most well-constructed blurb among the choices), I also think it should be noted in the blurb that a state of emergency has already been declared by President Lasso because of Villavicencio's assassination. Vida0007 (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this. Photo should be swapped. Can I suggest these one over the existing suggestion (which is angled in a strange way)? F4U (they/it) 17:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting comment This is exactly the kind of situation where a blurb should be used for a death. There's more to say about it than So-and-so died at age such-and-such. Blurbs should always be used when we have something important to say, and political assassinations are the kind of stories that benefit from the elaboration of a blurb. --Jayron3221:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Death is disputed. Sources are only going off an Instagram post at this time. It was known that she was not in control of her social media presence. TarkusABtalk/contrib00:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Literally all we have as a source for her death is an Instagram post. The Vancouver and Los Angeles police departments have said that her death has not been reported and they are not investigating into it, contrary to the claims of the IG post. In any case, it's also clear that this whole debacle hasn't ended yet (I really hope she's okay, this entire event is a tragedy), so we should keep an eye out for what happens and Wait. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I doubt if it would gain consensus for a blurb because of the slew of "old man dies" and "never heard of him" comments, but a photo RD would be good. Black Kite (talk)08:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've included a photo of the artist as a young man. The resolution isn't great. The composition is the best of what's in the article (in my opinion); haven't checked Commons and am open to something else. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Many of the news stories today alone, support the transformative aspects of his career and compositions: Per the NYT front page headline, in a nearly 3,000 word article, Canadian Songwriter Captured American Spirit. . . (with subhead) "helped inspire the genre that came to be known as Americana." Light show (talk)
Append re: transformative aspects. Per Rolling Stone today, "they forever changed the pop-culture landscape by releasing brilliant Americana music at the peak of the psychedelic movement. Their first album sent shockwaves through the industry, inspiring Eric Clapton to break up Cream, The Beatles to attempt their own stripped-back project with Let It Be, and a pair of young British songwriters named Elton John and Bernie Taupin to begin writing and recording their own material." Light show (talk)
Post-death hagiography doesn't need to be reflected in Wikipedia, which is supposed to be more sober. Stop trying to use "transformative" option. It's a non-starter. Instead, blurbs should be used to explain something extra about the death. Robertson can have been transformative, but if the blurb has nothing more to say than "He died", that's why RD was created. RD was not created so that we could grant extra visibility to people we really think are really important by giving them blurbs themselves, RD's only purpose is to avoid blurbs that only report an unremarkable death. --Jayron3221:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to some minor sourcing issues that need to be cleaned up before this is main-page-ready. When that is fixed, this should be an RD-only posting. Nothing additional needs to be said in a blurb than that he died. That's RD's purpose. --Jayron3221:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Photo When Ready Beside the CN tags, 284 instances of "Robertson" might be a bit much. No dealbreaker, but I'd appreciate more pronouns. Certainly the sort of celebrity who should stand out from the pack, but unlike the less photographed presidential hopeful, there's basically no story here (just one twist). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support photo Over half a million views so far. But I'd never heard of him before and the name doesn't stand out so just putting the name alone in RD won't do. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photo RD I would think we should be good enough to attempt posting soon. TheCorriynial (talk)
My recollection is that it was only done once, and to the best of my knowledge, there has never been any discussion in which it was explicitly proscribed for future RDs. Kurtis(talk)04:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - A quick look at the article shows me it should now at least be posted to RD. The discussion about the photo can continue, and I'm fine with a photo or not, but I see no tags and a detailed, well-sourced article ready for ITN inclusion. Jusdafax (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe the question of support/oppose is one of notability, but of the quality of the article. According to Wikipedia, anybody with a Wikipedia article is notable enough to appear on RD. ❤HistoryTheorist❤02:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lack of edits on this article and its likely not making RD demonstrate that there is a great need of editors who have a general interest in improving articles of import- core articles that draw tens of thousands of views per month. There should really be a program that makes this the way to introduce new editors. Has there ever been anything like this done? It seems the majority of edit-a-thons I see advertised are for article creation. Thriley (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A shame those aren't active anymore. It seems I regularly encounter projects and discussions on here from ten years ago or more that I am more inspired by than many things I see today. The project needs some new energy! Thriley (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - But will probably be significant. It's ongoing, and the damage and casualties are still being assessed. Early reports are suggesting that much of Lahaina has been destroyed. TarkusABtalk/contrib20:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m not opposed to posting this, but I have a question. 9-1-1 is used in the US and a few other countries, but other countries use different numbers for emergency services. Would people outside these countries understand the reference? (I am from the U.S., so I don’t know) Potentially, we could link to the 9-1-1 article or reference emergency services. -TenorTwelve (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until it develops into something significant (which, unfortunately, seems likely). I also think the blurb should be rewritten—specifically, the "Big Island" is itself known as "the island of Hawai'i". Kurtis(talk)21:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about that wording, given the state and the island in question have the same name. I'm not sure about this perspective internationally, but I'd believe at least within the US that most would more understand it if "the Big Island" were mentioned. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As you can easily see, these are not the only active forest fires in the world. And it is neither the most relevant nor the most worrying, as failures in the electricity supply are neither the most serious nor the most exceptional thing that can happen. And I don't know what to wait for, if it doesn't seem that things could become tragic (seeing which fires have been posted in PM because they were notorious). _-_Alsor (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait While I'm sad to see a place I've been to destroyed, I would like to see how many deaths these fires are causing and update the blurb accordingly. Alternately, I could be open to ongoing, but I'm not strongly convinced this nomination would be a good fit for ongoing. ❤HistoryTheorist❤23:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on Quality not sure of the significance (if it is major and the article is lagging behind, or if it really isn't) but the article still needs some expansion. Bremps...23:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's unfortunate for the people involved, but the mere existence of fire and the need to evacuate, the loss of power and the loss of "9-1-1" service is fairly common. I don't see how this is any different to other similar fires in other parts of the world. Chrisclear (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think it's okay to support at this point. Over 36 have been killed, wildfires are not slowing down, major towns are destroyed, this is very much In The News. Others have pointed out the 2023 heat waves article isn't ready, but I don't think that's really neccesary at this point to post. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sizable loss of life, towns being destroyed, in the news...
The problem is that "9-1-1" is not the emergency services phone number in all countries on Earth, and it follows that not all readers would be familiar with it. It would be better to use a more generic term such as "emergency services". Presumably if a similar event took place in Australia, and the proposed blurb mentioned triple zero, many readers would (understandably and correctly) ask for an alternative term to be used. Chrisclear (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. I had a jokebook as a kid, and one asked something like what happens when you dial 666? Turns out, a policeman walks in on his hands! There was a picture, but I still didn't really get it for about 15 years, figured it was some sort of Christian allusion. But nope, just otherworldly; the Internet can help people faster now, thankfully, but it would have still been easier to use the more universally recognized term in this case (where the whole idea doesn't hinge on the detail). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle There appears to be significant cultural damage; in addition to the destruction of the historic center of Lahaina (video), a museum/cultural-center with countless artifacts was also destroyed ([41]). At the moment, the death toll is six, but the significance of a disaster goes beyond just a body count. That said, neither of the proposed blurbs do it for me, and the article still needs considerable work. Curbon7 (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
horrendous video. But excuse me for frivolizing. This is what fire behaves, it destroys. The destroyed historical center is a little less than 300 years old, of a little known town and, for now, it does not seem that there have been significant patriotic and historical elements destroyed. What is the real value in the history of mankind, of Hawaii or of the United States left in ashes? Having in mind the fires of the National Museum of Brazil or the University of Cape Town (where the loss was irreparable for the history of the respective countries. Or also taking into account the fires of Sicily, which destroyed the body of St. Benedict "the Moor" when his sanctuary burned or threatened the Greek temple of Segesta) I see very far from having a comparable notoriety to also be included. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still waiting for the worldwide2023 heat waves article to get to spec that would include all these wildfires that are going on. Posting any one wildfire this year over another, short of a massive life loss, would be inappropriate. --Masem (t) 00:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm frankly against it. Heat waves are common in the affected areas. We would add them in ongoing every year, just as we would add tornado seasons in the USA or cyclone seasons in the Pacific. And I don't think that's the goal. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been significant coverage that this year's heat waves are unusual, important, and tied to climate change at the global scale. Unfortunately, the article last I checked failed to make that case, simply documenting in far too newspaper-ish style rather speaking to the big picture. We should have been trying to include that but no one worked to.improve the article. Masem (t) 14:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - We've had dozens and dozens of wildfires nominated that fail to get traction because, as Alsor and Masem have both pointed out, it's wildfire season and climate change is significantly increasing the incidence of this. The loss of life and the destruction of communities is regrettable, but that is often the case with wildfires. We ought to come to a decision whether wildfires are inherently notable regardless of where they occur, or whether we need to continue to be discretionary and only post those that smash records or result in unprecedented catastrophic destruction. My tendency is towards the former, but the current mood on ITN/C seems to be the latter. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)12:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While wildfires have become somewhat a common occurrence nowadays, I think the location of this one makes it much more notable, not to mention that the fatality count has risen dramatically to 36 now. Article looks ready to be posted too, as I have seen no {cn} tags upon checking; even if there are two sections currently orange-tagged for expansion (Impacts and Response), I think those sections could be further expanded in the coming days, if not hours. Vida0007 (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that as well, but then the Background section of the Wikipedia article said: Template:Tq[42] which, although that citation came from a news article specifically about this wildfire, seemed to hint that this may just be a climatic fait accompli, particularly as it also mentions later how the decrease in rainfall is consistent with the effects of anthropogenic climate change. So despite the isolated location, it seems that this has become a more frequent occurrence in the past couple of decades and is not just a freak event. Now, is climate change worth highlighting on ITN? Yes. Have we done a poor job up to this point publishing climate change-related stories? Absolutely. Is this the story to do it? ... I don't know. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)13:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt2 - one of Hawaii's historic districts is almost completely burned to the ground, and now dozens of deaths. It isnt just a "forest fire". nableezy - 14:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb 2 - Lahaina was Hawaii's capital for a time, so it's not just some insignificant town with a historic district. The number of dead also makes this more notable than other wildfires that have sadly afflicted the world this year. Khuft (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A tragic loss of life and historic property, making headline news, and I suggest we post this now, seeing as concensus has developed. Jusdafax (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Planning to post since support is clear. There are two orange-level expand tags, which I am not sure are necessary. Can they be addressed/removed first? --Tone15:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certain votes demeaning this as just “a little known town” subject to some routine natural disaster are frivolous at best and outright biased at worst. Considerable Hawaiian cultural heritage was lost here and the death toll’s not insignificant either. The Kip (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was a support before the death toll shot up but that seals it. The earlier comments trivializing this fire are pretty unbelievable, honestly. --TorsodogTalk17:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very much turned off by the fixation on minimum deaths here, actually. The town was completely destroyed at the point of those earlier comments and it was still trivialized. --TorsodogTalk01:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main comment questioning if any significant cultural heritage was lost compared to other fires (the primary two mentioned being in non-western countries) was in direct response to a comment acknowledging at least six dead.
ITNC concerns itself so much with not appearing to have an American bias that it occasionally circles around to an outright anti-American bias. It’s trivializing behavior, especially when the scale of the destruction is now better-known. The Kip (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this ITN (which I support) an example of American bias? It was posted very quickly. I don't believe that an article about a similar event in Mali would have been edited to ITN-ready so quickly. Nfitz (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was posted in a little under 24 hours, which I think is pretty good. I don't know about Mali, but in Mati, a similar wildfire was posted in 16 hours. The fact that an article can be readily posted after a significance threshold is reached has more to do with availability of reliable sources than any sort of deliberate "fuck you, foreigners; the USA is #1" mentality being suggested by some editors around here. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)16:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still ambivalent on the one hand, it's not at the point where we can say there's new physics (because the theoretical calculations are tough enough that they could be wrong); on the other hand, it's a tantalizing incremental step, and we've not had any science news on ITN for a while. So, no real preference either way. Banedon (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not a physicist, but per Banedon, the wider implications of this for the Standard Model look unclear. Measurement and adjustment of previous values is common. But if it undermines the current understanding of magnetism or the Standard Model, then the blurb should be clearer. Muon g-2 states that "the final results, based on full six years of data-taking, are planned to be published in 2025", perhaps we can wait until then. Brandmeistertalk10:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Standard Model calculation for this is complex and difficult. When a new lattice method is used then "...there was no discrepancy at all." So the result indicates that the Standard Model is still valid but that the previous methods of calculation were off by a bit. So, this is not a big breakthrough -- just a refinement of technique. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait till 2025 per Brandmeister (it will give those in the know a chance to work out the nitty-gritty and the eight billion or so rest of us time to grasp the basics first). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do not sacrifice quality for timeliness. We have no deadline to post it outside of the seven day window. In addition, there's multiple missing sources in the main prose, so that's not going to fly either. Masem (t) 01:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 10+ {cn} tags scattered across the prose. Much of the Discography is still unsourced. Please add more REFs and footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Main prose lacks texts and footnotes to support info in infobox and lede (dates and places of birth and death, labels). Discography is tagged with {refimprove}, but it seems that's mostly done. --PFHLai (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support- I addressed two of the CN tags. If someone can correct the third of them, I believe this will be ready to post. Edit: Looks good to me! SunsetShotguns (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article needs some ref work. There's also a source that's used that could be replaced with a better source. Also the sources listed on death section are bare links. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article already ran as a blurb, and is still receiving updates on a regular basis. That's a perfect article for ongoing. --Jayron3216:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above, also think either "2023 Nigerian Crisis" or "2023 Nigerian Political Crisis" would be best. either way, this would seem worthy of Ongoing due to it previously being a blurb and still receiving updates. Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alsoriano97. Looks like political theater with very limited impact beyond prevention of mining in a small area. Monuments and wildlife preserves are created with great regularity all over the world. I can't remember posting them at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak concur 900,000 acres is a lot of protected land and an exceptionally large monument; I'm glad to hear of its status update. But the cultural, economic and environmental significance seems mired in the no-go topic. As pitched and currently written, anyway, alt's not bad and articles can change. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as its a type of "under the fold" story - it has some importance, but its not as significance in the news, but strongly urge this to be presented at DYK. Perfect candidate for it. --Masem (t) 01:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is currently a stubby wikibio with only 178 words of prose. Please expand it. Can the German wikibio be translated and inserted with REFs? --PFHLai (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the several {cn} tags in the prose, the list of his publications also needs sourcing. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Run of the mill storm. Not on a level of significance we typically expect for weather related events at ITN. The storm apparently is not sufficiently notable for its own article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If someone expanded the article, it would be better.
Can see if I can do it tomorrow though translation has to happen. There's evacuations, floods, closed roads, closed railway lines and landslides in some areas it's maybe worst in 25 years but since the storm is ongoing. Koltinn(talk)21:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. From the perspective of a weather-interested person, I see the intrigue, but as noted above, the article is not nearly updated enough and the impact does not yet rise to the level of storms typically posted to ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Academy Award Winner, influential director. Director of two of the most famous films of 20th century. In this article is mentioned, how he influenced Spielberg, Fincher, among others. [43]Kirill C1 (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He Was 87 Heart failure/pneumonia, lived/died in LA. There will be no autopsy, maybe a public funeral. Meanwhile, we feature 80 dead who got the Pakistani counterterrorism squad involved and 30 more spurring a who's-who of investigative bodies; "not a good look" to put this one former American and his photo before them. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Famous people's deaths carry more weight. That's how the news works. By your logic, the entirety of Wikipedia's news feed should be dedicated exclusively to civilian casualties. I'd actually be fine with that if you weren't using those people's corpses to minimize the significance of William Friedkin's career. TheClubSilencio (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To some people, they do. To others, like me, consequence is heavier. I have no problem blurbing celebrities whose deaths lead to revelations (even unshocking ones) in the coming days. Then, linking for a week or so makes sense, some crave updates. When all we're ever going to know is "Recognizable Name Dies", RD's perfect. It has nothing to do with Friedkin's career. I liked a few of those movies and it was good to learn today they had him in common. But they still exist, same as yesterday. It's more obituary than top story, fleeting news. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Simply being well known, notable for a few major films, or winning awards is not sufficient to show has important/significant/transformative a figure he was. Influencing a handful of other directors is a start towards that but nowhere near sufficient. Oppose RD on poor sourcing quality. Masem (t) 21:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He did Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II, thereby helping the mainstream accept hauntings, monsters and possessions as goofy fun. And I know he wasn't blurbed, that's the point. Someone who didn't do much with the genres he touched besides add to their lists of good examples is less transformative. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb While The French Connection and The Exorcist are notable films from 50 years ago, Friedkin is hardly a household name. For one possible more-or-less objective notability test, a search for his name on the J-Archive (online repository of half a million Jeopardy! clues) returns only one result: a $2000 clue (hardest level) in a game played ten years ago (27 May 2013). It was a triple stumper (none of the three contestants attempted a response).Ryan Reeder (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't think of a better summing-up of ITN's US-centrism issue than a suggestion that we take Jeopardy! clues into account when evaluating if a person should be blurbed. Humbledaisy (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb - We already get a fair amount of pushback for favoring people in the U.S. entertainment industry when it comes to death blurbs, but if it's one that most people haven't even heard of outside of movie buffs and aficionados, then it's going to be very difficult to get anyone to drink from that cup. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)00:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Recent Deaths was created for situations like this. Someone sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, but not a leader in their field. Just because someone is well-known, and/or American, doesn't mean their article is worthy of a blurb upon their death. Chrisclear (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose blurb - Blurbing Recent Deaths is not meant to be an award for notable individuals, it is only if their death has significant impact stretching beyond the event of their passing (see Elizabeth II) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Picture ITN has run the same used-car advert (right) for over a week now and so it's looking quite stale (as usual). Friedkin is not at the same level of fame as Pee-wee Herman or Sinéad O'Connor but is still attracting far more readers than all ITN's blurbs combined. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfect example of the complaint that was made on WT:ITN which is that there's a great deal of chaos caused when someone requests a death blurb for an individual who has no right getting one. It completely drowns out the actual, legitimate discussion about whether the individual is ready quality-wise to be posted on WP:ITNRD. Either requests for blurbs need to be far more considered, or such a discussion needs to be broken up into two parts - one for quality and one for notability. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)18:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb if/when quality issues are out of the way. Friedkin didn't make many movies but he's definitely far better known than most ITN deaths. DaßWölf22:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To expound, consider how many editors have weighed in on Friedkin's death, and how few comments there are on other RD sections. Were the other RDs of this day Tarkovskys of their field as well? Turnout would suggest no. DaßWölf22:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them have all weighed in because of Кирилл С1 audaciously suggesting a blurb, which got people's hair standing on end, but still... 😁 Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)12:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He has influenced directors, won Oscar and had lenghty career. There could also have been argued that he was transformative figure, see obituaries. He has more right to be proposed for blurb than Prime Minister who has been in charge for 4 years. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support once he actually takes office. Hun Sen has ruled Cambodia for nearly 40 years, so the country getting a new leader (even if it is effectively a dynastic succession) is major news. Kurtis(talk)18:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ad Orientem. Also shouldn't the all the blurbs be prefaced with "In Netball"? If we use the main blurb as an example it should be like: "In Netball, the Netball World Cup concludes with Australia defeating England in the final"? That's how most other sports blurbs (including the current blurb on the ashes series) are written in ITN. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror20:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When talking about any old World Cup, World Series or NBA Championship, it (arguably) helps those least familiar with sports in general. But this is the Netball World Cup. I don't know what netball is, but that's clearly what this award is for and I know there's going to be a link to the sport in the target article, if I want to learn more. Anyway, not ready, we'll see if IAR applies if it is. And that should probably be lowercase when it doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTemplate:Ping All cn tags seem to have been resolved and should now meet WP:ITNCRIT, could someone re-check the article before this nom becomes stale and rolls off the page. If not, could an admin IAR post this as the article has now fixed all the sourcing issues brought up above. Happily888 (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been almost a week since any substantial update, so I'm inclined to let it slide this year, especially given the relative lack of coverage at its peak. That's not to say R is a bad rule or that I don't appreciate what your nomination has taught me about the tournament, Australia's dominance in this league or the game as a whole. But yeah, life goes on. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although it'll be another four years before this will be able to be posted again, so it would be nice to have it posted. The oldest event in the ITN news template is still 8 days older than this date, so it is still current and not too stale in relevance to the other events. Happily888 (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Article is alright, I think it could be expanded a little but it’s fine otherwise. I'm a bit uncertain on the filmography since it isn't sourced individually by each work, but WP:AGF exists so I'll just assume all the works in the filmography are in the two sources at the bottom. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror19:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is reaaaally short, considering that the bits that are trying to give it length (part of the BG and the Reactions) are rather trivial or unnecessary. --Masem (t) 22:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, Template:U. Probably three trains (and 3 is the minimum) to run this as a daily service. I’ve explained on the article's talk page how you work that out. Schwede6616:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose - A high death toll does not automatically translate to notability. Does not even feature once on the main pages of the BBC, CNN, Washington Post, DW, New York Times, Gulf News, and TNN. This is a horrible tragedy, but ITN isn't just a "high death toll disasters" ticker. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Kiril said, this certainly was frontpage, even the main story on BBC. While not the main story, it was frontpage on CNN as well. Also in Arguments to avoid it says "Arguments addressing how many international newspapers/news channels are or are not covering the story on their front page or main webpage. A story highlighted in many newspapers or news channels has a good chance of being significant for ITN, but we do not base the posting primarily on how many such sites have covered it or consider it important (...)" Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror12:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose. There's no indication that this is going to have any sort of lasting effect or that it's going to be covered in reliable sources years from now. This is not of encyclopedic significance. If we're posting this, we may as well post everything that has a BBC article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Front-page top news is very different from ‘everything that has a BBC article’. Also, whether this would be covered in reliable sources years from now is a crystal-ball reasoning. We never use future expectations as a determinant of significance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So logically, if we're not allowed to predict future significance, then we shouldn't even have an article on this until after that significance is proven. Which, believe it or not, is exactly what is required by our notability guidelines. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose - As the others have said, what's the long-term significance of this item? What sort of impact does this have apart from being a tragedy or a disaster. Hard to see the news worthiness of this, particularly with the lack of depth of coverage. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)21:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose/Pull This article feels considerably too short for the main page and has little demonstrated longer-term significance. Far too premature a posting. The Kip (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MINIMUMDEATHS is not the sole criteria for these kinds of events. But it is a factor. How common are these kinds of mass casualty transportation related accidents? If they are fairly commonplace that would be a factor against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Template:U I think you are missing the point. This is not a discussion about the pages encyclopedic notability. It's about its suitability for ITN. And assuming article quality is up to scratch and there aren't any serious questions about WP:N, then the rest is largely subjective and you will find a broad range of opinions on some nominations. The so called MINIMUMDEATHS criteria is a popular bugaboo among some editors who get annoyed anytime casualties are discussed in a nomination. There is of course no such policy. But neither is there any policy or guideline which precludes the question of casualty figures being weighed by editors. Some do, some don't, and some get very upset with those of us who do give it any weight. Beyond that you will find some general consensus here and there regarding unofficial criteria based on experience and trends that sometimes go back years. For instance the bar for a death blurb has been getting slowly higher based on my ten plus years' experience around here. And generally a nomination that doesn't rate a stand alone article is stepping into the batter's box with two strikes against it. I've seen some get through. But not often. And so on. In the end, more than most other forums on the project, our criteria is highly subjective and what gets posted and what doesn't can often look terribly inconsistent. But as with almost all discussion on the pedia, CONSENSUS is the one determining criteria. And that is typically determined by those who show up. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Pull There's a difference in the level of perceptible insult between suggesting the deaths of 30 people aren't worthy of commemorating like Mangeshkar's back here and putting them on the same level before (even unintentionally) signaling a "just kidding, yoink". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a memorial, and whether people died is not a factor in determining whether something is encyclopedic. Anyone who has a problem with that is just going to have to come to peace with it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's some good wishful thinking, in my opinion, cheers! But it's "unfortunately" and demonstrably not true. They can also argue at length to post MINIMUMDEATH and DAVIDBOWIE stories for years, as they have and as they will. The article is still too short, the rate of Pakistani rail death is still unlikely to change and (in hindsight) 13 hours wasn't long enough to hear all these Opposes. But what's done is done, it's now up to us to eventually accept it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That has been me, in some similar enough situations, which resulted in a simmering of rage on my end and new disruption in others. Not true peace. That comes from serenity, and whether you "believe" it or not, the serenity prayer isn't exactly wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This not about being e memorial. And the issue is not encyclopedic notability. Questions of that sort can be addressed at AfD. This is about whether the event is sufficiently unusual and has received an adequate level of coverage to be promoted on the main page. Subject to article quality of course. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a cheap rhetorical trick. We have had no shortage of posting disasters from countries outside the U.S., in fact we've actually been criticized for doing so excessively at times. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)00:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this was in a western nation, most of the same people would have voted support, and most of the same people would have voted oppose. The only real difference is that the implied accusations of racism would be against the support voters ("western-centric!" "there's no way we would have posted this if it was in the developing world!") instead of against the oppose voters. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's plausible, it's also plausible the other way around. ITN is inherently biased in the way it functions but regionalism is a well-known factor (racism; wrong word in the wrong context fwiw). I understand where you're coming from, but it's not true for ITN, atleast from my experience. --qedk (t愛c)12:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Knockoff tricks are rhetorically cheaper, historically speaking. I'm not saying Walt appraised the original correctly. But if he did...InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No matter if you support pulling or not, I do think the decision to post this story was incredibly premature. Right now there are about 6 opposes to 7 supports yet it was put on the front page after only 13 hours without any consensus developing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how it works. ITN consensus works differently, since time is of the essence, discussions usually last for >24 hours mostly only when there isn't a consensus, so in the closing admin's POV, there was consensus at the time of posting, let's not use procedural strawmans. --qedk (t愛c)12:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was posted only halfway through those 24 hours. I don't think a proper consensus can develop after only a few hours, not to mention that there were only 4 supports and 2 opposes at the time of posting (and the item would become very contentious later on), way too few. And if that's how ITN works then I very much disagree with it.
We shouldn't rush through a nomination just because "time is of the essence". I don't see what the time limit really was, if the item was going to roll off the notability scale after only a few hours then I don't think it was notable enough to post in the first place. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I assessed the situation at the time I posted this item, Template:U. I looked at 4 supports (based on notability and the article being long enough), 1 oppose (based on article length), 1 comment (that the article was artificially bloated by irrelevant stuff) and a response to that comment that the article had been trimmed of the excess. Schwede6620:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record If a fellow admin finds that I posted this prematurely, or without there having been consensus at the time of posting, or this having lost support since posting, then I won't lose any sleep over that. Schwede6609:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. Lede mentions that he was a "professor and lecturer" but this is not mentioned anywhere in the article. SpencerT•C20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for Now Her early life is uncited and the Russian scholarship section could use some more citations.Support all the uncited bits I mentioned look better now ❤HistoryTheorist❤22:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked, and found it much better. I wonder why the books of such a prominent author can't be sourced. They must be in all libraries, no? I added two German sources to the early sections, which can be used for more. I have no more time today, but hope someone else has. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The FAZ article would have more detail, but it would be difficult to add to a section that speaks about her father back in Georgia and disappearing in one sentence, followed by relatives and their position in life today. - What the ref ("Schmid") has: "Her family lost "all" in the October revolution. In France, her father had to make money, first as a cab driver. The family spoke Russian, she learned English at age four. They survived the war in Bordeaux where her father was a translator for the Germans; he was possibly murdered by members of the résistance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added ill links to some works, and publishers. Someone with more time might add more bioliographic stuff from French, - isbn nos a minimum. Another question: the infobox has subdiscline modern history - which doesn't show. I have no idea if it is meant to mean what she studied or researched, also there should be a link, because the present redirect doesn't work anymore according to the talk page, and I looked it up and found it of little use anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Passes muster as is. But the w:fr article still has a lot of info (academic career, positions in various bureaucracies) that could be mined, translated, and brought over. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on Notability, Oppose on Quality This is an event covered by multiple international news networks and a former world leader was arrested, not just indicted. However, I think the linked article needs more citations.❤HistoryTheorist❤03:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, but oppose on quality at the moment. If the article can improve its quality, this should be on ITN, as it is extremely important news that has made headlines globally. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)02:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CommentImran Khan's article has a NPOV tag, but the other article is fine. Don't know whether this should prevent this from being posted, I suppose we could use the altblurb instead? I'm not really sure, so I'll defer to other editors to make the call. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror20:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work on the Toshakhana reference case article! I've struck all but the word "support" from my original !vote. I did notice the tag on the Imran Khan bio article, I'm also not sure what the best option is. It's hard to know what specific issue may exist when all we know is that someone thought it was NPOV in 2021. I haven't had the time to proofread the tagged section yet, but if it doesn't have any glaring issues, I say untag it as whoever tagged it probably should have done more to articulate what the issue was. As for which blurb to use, I agree that the bolded article we direct the attention to should be the case. Vanilla Wizard 💙20:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping I'm pretty sure the NPOV tag still applies and the article still has issues. I only had a very quick read through but a sentence like "Following the visit, Khan repeatedly refused to condemn Russia's violations of international laws and war crimes, framing the refusal as Pakistan being independent, not amoral, and arguing by whataboutism, falsely referring to lack of requests for condemnation by India." definitely seems like a NPOV violation. That's only the one that seemed obvious, there may be more that are less easy to see. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror20:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still not ready. Good referencing work, but some fierce editing of the prose is still needed. (eg: "The Toshakhana reference case was filed in the month of August against Ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi by the politicians named Mohsin Shahnawaz Ranjha and others from the coalition government of Pakistan (2022), for not disclosing the information about the gifts given to Toshakhana and the supposed sales revenue that means he sold gifts directly in market without submitting in Toshakhana, Imran officially received from different head of states.") Moscow Mule (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Monarch: Brave effort, and I concur with your reluctance to change things "in case that's good and dandy in Pakistani English" (which is why I haven't touched it). I still find the narrative very hard to follow, though: eg, the last two paragraphs have (1) the High Court ruling the case inadmissible on 4 Jul and (2) the trial court (presumably a lower court than the High Court?) finding him guilty on 5 Aug. How does that work? Is there a step missing between those dates? However: it's an important story, and if the consensus is against me as drive-by detractor who's not been involved in the article, then I withdraw my objection. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscow Mule There was a lot of missing info, so I’ve added it. It seems like the high court didn’t say that the case was inadmissible, but rather asked the judge of the trial court to reevaluate Imran Khan's application to stop criminal proceedings because the reference was not maintainable. The judge evaluated that the reference was maintainable and that the criminal proceedings could continue, so it did. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror12:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, I wasn’t really sure if that would prevent this from being posted (was thinking of using alt might help since it isn’t bold linked then), but if it does then so it shall be. This will get archived/be stale soon anyway. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror12:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well the thing that is in the news is the arrest itself. When we posted the Trump indictment we didn’t bold link Trump even though he was the subject of the indictment (I of course know that WP:CCC is a thing, just saying). I suppose we’ll just have to hope the NPOV issues on Khan’s article is fixed soon. I would work on it but I have other irl obligations unfortunately :( Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror15:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are those reliable sources? If not, even his article probably shouldn't call him dead, less the mainpage. If so, though, it's just a bit stubby. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit dodgy to me, and certainly isn't a mainstream news outlet. But it is used in a few other other biographies here, so there's precedent, at least. I won't oppose this, but can't support. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand the distinction you're trying to make. Bram is the creator and BDFL of one of the most popular free software tools, so the fact he died is a free software news topic, something LWN is a RS for. Legoktm (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used the middle one for the update. If you think another one is more reliable or informative, go for it. But they're all closer to secondary coverage than the other day's announcements. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not really a surprise. We don't post prison sentence extensions unless they have widespread significance, in this case this really will have no immediate impact. You could also make an argument this is being covered by ongoing.
As for the Russian wiki posting it, that doesn't really help notability. As I've pointed out to other editors, most Wikipedias associated with a certain area (in our case it's the Anglosphere) will naturally place an increased emphasis on news relating to that area, as sources surrounding the event will be most covered in the regional language. WP:DUEWEIGHT has more on this. So, it makes sense that the Russian Wikipedia would post a news story like this that mostly relates to Russia. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The event doesn't seem to have much significance since it's just an extension and it seems par for the course when it comes to Russian politics. I've fixed the formatting of the blurb and also added an altblurb in case consensus favors posting. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror18:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe we did not post the previous times that Navalny was incarcerated or had his sentence extended, and while I personally think we probably should have posted the initial incarceration, I'm not sure that this particular extension is quite as notable. However, if this leads to notable protests (such as the 2021 protests which were posted), then we can certainly reconsider this. I won't mark this comment as a !vote for or against it because I don't truly have strong feelings one way or another here (I guess you could consider this a Neutral/Mixed !vote?), but I appreciate the good faith nomination even if I am skeptical about its odds at reaching a consensus in favor of posting. Best wishes, Vanilla Wizard 💙19:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic information but falls under internal politics which generally is not posted except for elections, changes in government, etc. - Indefensible (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Photo This may or may not be an appropriate blurb, but there's something fundamentally wrong with posting pictures of alleged criminals smiling. Try to find something free depicting the riot instead, or an injury, or a mugshot. Something indicating impact (barring that, just use words). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not irate, I just find it incongruous. This square pic isn't smiling, but it doesn't seem affected by the recent event, either. It's just a photo of the past for photo's sake, methinks, no big deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that seems to be the best, most recent full view of Union Square available on commons. Also, the photo of Cenat isn't of him smiling, it's a screenshot of him in a video while he's speaking. — Knightoftheswords07:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Union Square, New York sounds like a small town on the mainland not one of Manhattan's most important town squares. Suggest New York City instead of New York and dropping the United States. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, it is local news. And moreover, it is very much so. The impact is irrelevant beyond the injured and the arrested. And the interest, very little. Not even the streamer responsible is one of the best known. Not all news that enjoys international coverage is because it is really important (and this has been made clear many, many times). Worst riots that have happened have not been posted. That it happened in New York and the police activated the alert is circumstantial. Just one more news item of the week that will change few people's lives. Friendly advice: switch to the international news channel. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Alsor and Anarchyte are right, this is hype, and the suspects are mostly children. There's a moral dilemma about hyping up kids as mobsters, even without naming names, plus no jury in the state would throw the book at them (these days). So probably a bunch of local slaps on the wrist; I'm out. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Anarchyte and Alsor. This doesn’t have any impact and isn’t notable despite being widely reported. It’s great that it meets one of the points in WP:ITNPURPOSE but it still needs to meet ITN’s minimum significance standard (whatever that actually is at this point). Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror09:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: This wikibio could use some restructuring/reorganization (WP:LEAD). The lede has too many footnotes and minor details that should be placed in the main prose. The death section is too long, has too much speculative details, and no date. --PFHLai (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the article needs quite a bit of citation work and while this doesn't influence my nomination much, I think the writing on the article needs improvement as well. ❤HistoryTheorist❤03:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've done a lot of work, but still a good amount of uncited info 2 uncited tv shows and 1 uncited film left. I’ve expanded career section and rest of the article is adequately sourced. Almost there. If worst comes to worst we can comment out/remove the unsourced info. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror19:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now regretfully as there's still gaps in sourcing. Many thanks to MonarchOfTerror and anyone else who worked on the page recently for significantly improving the referencing, it's looking much better than it was earlier today. Hoping that it'll get up to shape soon. May he rest in peace 🛎️ Vanilla Wizard 💙23:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted with disambiguation. Too many people with this name to confidently post it solely as "James Barnes". There's also Jimmy Barnes (real name James Barnes), who is one of the best selling Australian musicians. Anarchyte (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the disambiguation, then having seen the suggestion above, have added the middle initial. A far better look IMvHO. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lede section mentions the subject's business career in footwear and tires, but there is no elaboration in the main prose. --PFHLai (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where did the "disguised way" come from? Was it my fault that the wikibio was poorly structured? Anyway, it's now posted by Stephen (and I almost got an edit conflict). --PFHLai (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this does not seems significant, because so what if some company decided to downgrade American credit, this has no major global impact, and the article is linked to another, and needs a lot of work (that section only has two sentences),Editor 5426387 (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is significant. Downgrading the US credit rating resulted in a decline on the financial markets and will inevitably raise the interest rates. Considering the size and impact of the US economy, this will have global spill-over effects.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- did we post the last time this happened, back in 2011? Things were different then, but I'm curious now. Regardless, I don't think this news is more important than Trump's 3rd indictment, which we didn't post, so I'm going to suggest we don't post this, either. -- RockstoneSend me a message!10:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2011#[Posted]_U.S._credit_rating_downgrade|did]] (the interlink can't be rendered because the title includes square brackets).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. While a great item for politicians on the campaign trail for the 2024 election to latch onto, the impact and consequences of the bond rating downgrade are a bit too subtle to be felt and well-understood in the sense of newsworthiness. That the stock market would drop after such an event is not a surprise, but the stock market wavers up and down all the time. It had zoomed earlier in July after the outlook for a recession seemed less bleak than economists originally predicted. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)12:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, though I work in the financial services industry myself and find this a little bit interesting, this is a niche finding with little fanfare and a lot of time passed since the main impetus (though Fitch has other more long term reasons for the downgrade!). This point is made here by Bloomberg's Matt Levine: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-08-02/the-us-is-more-aa-now (great article, non-financial people will definitely be able to read this, i strongly recommend his column!). QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WaltCip, it’s a single company doing so and this stock market fluctuates constantly. Also, a reminder yet again that noms don’t need a dozen+ sources and a paragraph explanation. The Kip (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just being lazy. If it's that big a deal, just update it yourself instead of complaining about it not being updated. NoahTalk16:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The dissipation date is not important - the post-dissipation flooding in China would be eligible for its own article if not for the fact that it fits conveniently in the typhoon article, and I think that alone is sufficiently important to merit an ITN posting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠18:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Despite the fact that I have been following the ongoing tropical cyclone seasons on a daily basis, it never crossed my mind to actually nominate this last week for some reason. But better late than never. --StellarHalo (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Too much unreferenced materials. Five {cn} tags in prose. Filmography and Awards sections largely unsourced. Please add more footnotes and REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose on quality, Support on notability. A few NPOV-related tags and one failed verification, but length is good and article seems fully-reffed. Proposed a better-worded altblurb - counting the three civilians, two policemen, and deputy imam, that’s six deaths, not five. The Kip (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - receiving extensive news coverage from both domestic and to an extent foreign news outlets and is in decent shape. Seems to meet all of the criteria of WP:ITNPURPOSE; there are lots of Indian users of enwiki who could be looking for this, the article is in decent shape, and for those who aren't aware of the story, it can still serve to be an interesting story. All this serves to emphasize the dynamism of ITN as well. — Knightoftheswords18:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability, and the article is not suitable for the Main Page at the moment; apart from some borderline BLP issues and uncited contentious statements, there is lots of wording that is incomprehensible to non-Indians and is not linked ("au rakshaks", "cow vigilantism", "Mahapanchayat", "shoba yatra", "Brij Mandal Jalabhishek Yatra", "Shiv Mandir" etc.) Black Kite (talk)19:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really want to believe that “cow vigilantism” refers to cows themselves committing vigilante acts, but unfortunately I fear that’s not the case. The Kip (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, neutral on notability Article has some NPOV issues, needs better sourcing and needs to be rewritten so that it's is more accessible to a wider audience. I'm not quite sure on notability just yet. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror19:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article still needs extensive copyediting/revisions before being blurbed. Some wording is loaded/biased, the lede is far too long, and there’s still an excess of terms unfamiliar to non-Indian readers. The Kip (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable event reported both domestically and abroad, issues regarding the quality of the article have been largely resolved. Golem08 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article is a mess, there's some edit warring on the article, and it seems like a specific POV is being pushed given the article edit history. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Interesting subject that arguably has relevance to medical research/ethics worldwide, and the article is a GA, but we only have two measly sentences on the Fisher Scientific lawsuit. Given that this was a settlement with undisclosed terms and the company declined to give any more information to news outlets, I am not sure we can expect any more information on the matter to become public anytime soon. So I am reluctant to fully support, but I will not oppose either. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would love to see this as a blurb, but it seems the Lacks article's lead hasn't been updated to reflect the lawsuit settlement, and I agree with what the IP editor said earlier -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound (she/her) 16:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per InedibleHulk. An interesting story and perhaps impactful, but as society has made advancements in the realm of patient rights in the past 70 years, this settlement is probably less noteworthy then it would have been had it been paid out earlier on. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support High quality article, news coverage is appropriate, the only thing keeping me from fully supporting this is the update, which consists of a single sentence. Otherwise, I would be proud to put this in front of front-page visitors. If someone could expand the update on today's developments to a more appropriate depth (at least 3-4 good sentences about the verdict settlement and its relevance) I think this would be a full support from me, easily. --Jayron3217:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I actually learned about her in my freshman biology class and have since done some more research. One of the stated goals of ITN is to
Template:BlockquoteThe story of Lacks and the HeLa cell line is a fairly fascinating story; the controversy surrounding the extraction of her cancer cells, a critical and well studied source in medical research, has persisted for years and will likely affect the relationship between scientific studies and patient privacy for years on end. This would also be a great chance to get a GA on ITN. — Knightoftheswords18:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is all a good reason to consider posting, but the section is still called "in the news." We need a bit more on recent events. Might I suggest that in 3 days we'll have some "day two stories" on this to flesh out impact? GreatCaesarsGhost19:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral On one hand her discovery cancer cells can be relevant in the modern scientific field. However, she discovered it some time ago which can make irrelevant. Rager7 (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She did not discover anything, Rager7. Cancer cells from her body were taken by others and propagated and used without her knowledge or consent. That is the entire point of the lawsuit that this blurb is actually about. I'm surprised, and frustrated, that you're comfortable commenting on this without making some minimal effort to understand what is going on. I'm really trying not to be a jerk here, but this page has enough problems without drive-by information-free "votes". You're welcome here, Rager7, but you need to put some effort in to understand what you're talking about. People can make mistakes, but this wasn't a misunderstanding; you didn't read any of the links provided here. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with regret. The backstory is fascinating and the article is in decent shape. But the legal business which is the reason for the blurb is all of two sentences. And as noted above, the long-term significance is unclear. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To put this in a different way, the long term significance has already been established (being the importance of the HeLa line); thus would be the same reason we post convictions because of what happened in the past. Masem (t) 22:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the HeLa are the important thing, that should be the target article. We don't know how or if this agreement (whatever it was) will affect the cells and all the work they do. But we know Henrietta Lacks is unaffected, despite the symbolic whatever of "justice" coming on "her 103rd birthday". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same logic can be used to oppose convictions too. All the crimes were in the past, nothing in the future will be affected, so we shouldn't post them. It's bad logic. Masem (t) 12:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added myself as updater. I found an obit in English, but the facts were almost all there in the sources given, just not inline, - each ref only for one fact although containing a more or less complete bio. It would be so easy to simply check such a thing before complaining that ton's of citations are needed. - I'll return for another round later today, searching for more details of playing, recording, colleagues, reviews. Who wants the laundry lists of famous halls and countries where she gave masterclasses? She seems to have been a notable international performer, especially in chamber music in Italy - less glamourous, sadly, than solo playing - and should have an entry. I need food first - help in the search wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! Sometimes, I will work on an article before !voting, but the other times I just check what's already there, sometimes adding relevant tags so that editors can know what to work on. Participation in RD is quite low anyway so I try my best to review as many articles as possible, it would take too much time to work on all of them before reviewing, it is what it is. It's great that you do though, very admirable! Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror12:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I found reviews and family. Please look again. - I wasn't criticising you, btw, but the IP who nominated prematurely. We had a similar case a while ago, which received several opposes before I even woke up to her death. It's then tough to call them all to re-review. This one, I noticed early and put her on my to-do (on my user page), and had to postpone her to after a busy weekend, - that's what made it all late, but I have this simple rule of not beginning more than one per day. - Checking what's already there: one step more could be to click on a ref and see if it is good for more than the one facts where it sits. - I need a break now. Thank you for all you do around ITN. I was surprised to find that you just joined ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good now! "She also took part in international music festivals." is uncited, but it shouldn't prevent the article from being posted. Change my !vote to support. I'll try my best to check the refs themselves for future reviews, thanks for the advice. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror18:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are more {cn} tags now. Googling fetches quite a few online French articles on her. Perhaps this nom could use some help from people who know the French language with ref-checks and/or expansion of this wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality Article is a stub. Kinda iffy about supporting it in general as this not his first indictment. While this is big news in American media, not sure if it's big news on the global stage. Let's get this article into good shape first. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose already posted the first time he was indicted. Also, charges are still sealed so we have no idea how many or for what. my bad they have since been unsealed --Masem (t) 22:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose While I can be convinced, this isn’t the first time he’s been indicted, and it feels somewhat unnecessary to post again. The Kip (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support once article is expanded. I think that it's a mistake for the nominator to say that it's Template:Xt, it's also appearing in global media like the BBC[45] and the Sydney Morning Herald. [46] I do agree with the opposers in that it's kinda ridiculous the number of times, we've posted him being indicted. I nonetheless think that this is going to be not just in the news, but it will be the news for the next several days (barring anything major). Wikipedia should not be the 'Trump legal affairs tracker', but what happened on January 6, 2021 (and the entirety of the aftermath of the 2020 election) was not only relatively unprecedented and a shock to the United States, but a shock to the world as well. The indictment of the sitting President at the time on charges relating to attempts to overturn the election (ie. an attempt at an autocoup) is global news without a doubt in my mind. estar8806 (talk) ★22:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose We posted the previous two indictments. The first one might have been justified by the novelty of a former US President being criminally indicted. But we are way past that. The next post involving Trump's legal issues should be a verdict. We are not the Trump News Network. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if any of the indictments were notable or worth posting it's probably this one, but at this point that ship has sailed. come back when there's a verdict. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- about as "In The News" as any story can possibly be. Not posting this just makes Wikipedia look out of touch and/or pro-Trump. It's news people want to follow. --RockstoneSend me a message!23:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. No one arguing this is doing it solely because they are a follower of Trump or serving on his behalf; I don't support Trump or this nomination. Wikipedia is a global environment—encompassing the people that you mention—that can't be dominated by U.S. internal news. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)23:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, it makes it look like Wikipedia is protecting Trump by not posting what the rest of the world is talking about. It's not the US's fault that Trump commits a lot of crimes and is a high profile figure (well... I suppose it is, since he won the 2016 election), and I don't think it's valid reason not to post in ITN. If a story of a similar magnitude were posted about Boris Johnson or another former head of government, and was making international headlines, I'd support it just as vigorously as I support posting this. --RockstoneSend me a message!00:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've already posted the first two indictments he had, we'll post if he's convicted or arrested, we don't need to post the third indictment, which has no novelty aspect to it. AryKun (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about him. He is insignificant to this, per se. It is about the former POTUS and the historic indictments that this unique alleged criminal is producing due to his actions. There is no reptition here. Only to those who cannot see the unique and individual nature of each of these indictements as they relate to USA, its government, and The Office of the President of the United States. Your bias on the "trump" factor in this, is irrelevant to the true definition of "in the news", which this inarguably rises to the threshold. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with Trump, this has everything to do with the United States, its government, and The Office of the POTUS. Trump has produced historic and unique indictements by his actions, for the USA, its governments, and The Office of the POTUS. This is weak and repeated opposition logic, "that this is too much trump news, it's all the same, it doesn't matter, just wait, I don't think it's such a big deal, etc. etc."... while the rest of us live in the real world (no offense) where this is actually beyond-the-pale, severe, and "so very in-the-news" on its own merits. So please, spare us these nonsense excuses that have no legs. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The United States is not the only country in the world, nor does it "produce the most news". There is an American exceptionalism to news that appears on English Wikipedia that doesn't represent the world. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)15:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wish this point of yours, Elijah, were in the majority. But unlikely that the hyper-patriotic mentality of American society is capable of seeing beyond its borders. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, get off your soapbox. This has nothing to do with patriotism or American exceptionalism, and everything to do with the fact that a former head of state and head of government is being charged with serious crimes that could result in 500+ years in prison, in country where this has never happened before. -- RockstoneSend me a message!04:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it would be great if you didn’t misquote somebody so poorly (in quotes!) that it completely transforms the meaning of what they wrote so that you could respond to an argument nobody made. Though it is a bit funny to see an aye aye to such a blatant strawman. nableezy - 20:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits. We rightly did not post the charges added to the previous indictment, but this is related to the worst attack on American democracy in history. This is a no brainer. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell has changed? Is he serving time in prison? No... Oppose until a verdict comes in any of the cases. It seems the world has a hard-on for anything to do with Donald Trump, and we shouldn't reflect that since ITN isn't Donald Trump in the news. ITN is not a news ticker. We have had enough blurbs regarding indictments these past few months and shouldn't post another since it's not a big deal anymore. The first one was and the second one less so... the third? Well, should I say more? The only thing worthy of posting now would be a verdict. NoahTalk01:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - yeah its the top story right now but its just another notch in the existing legal issues facing Donald Trump story. Would be more apt to add Donald Trump indictments and trials to ongoing. nableezy - 01:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dont really see how this is much more than an update to the special counsel investigation, which we already posted when they first indicted Trump. nableezy - 19:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I recognize that this may face an uphill battle as it was not the first time we posted a Trump indictment. It wasn't even the second indictment of his that we posted. And, chances are, this won't be his last, either. But I would argue that the shear number of these cases does not make them less extraordinary (you could easily argue the opposite, especially considering that each indictment seems to bring increasingly severe charges). I recognize that most of us, myself included, have grown exhausted, tired, and even numb to the barrage of news stories related to Trump that we've seen in the last eight years, and as a result many of us ITN regulars are understandably deathly allergic to any news story with him in it. But at the end of the day, it is the top news story yet again, and it remains an extraordinary situation that's in the news and has a decent quality wiki article. Vanilla Wizard 💙02:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This isn't the first indictment, but it's the most serious. It's In the News around the world and we're not gonna post it because we're tired of posting Trump news? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's worldwide news, for example here in Canada, it's the entire top section of CBC News. Readers will be looking for this story and it is silly for ITN to pretend it's not. Article is of sufficient quality. In terms of merit, it's by far the most serious of the indictments, including possible invocation of the Insurrection Act[47]. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions02:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Part of me regrets my past opposition to the indictments. I kinda go back and fourth on those ones. The NY case really read off as more like celebrity drama and the whole "first" argument rang quite hollow to me. However, this is a case with very clear consequences about a high-profile incident that is still fresh in the collective mind of the public. Sure, it's just an indictment and not a court ruling, but it is still very clearly in the news. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This indictment is specifically targeting the Jan 6 attack and will inevitably play out differently than the case in Florida. I expect this will be discussed at great length by legal scholars and political commentators for the days to come. Furthermore this will invariably impact the upcoming 2024 presidential election of which the world will be paying attention to. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 04:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although this may be serious, this is not the first time Trump got indicted, and it's just another part of the legal troubles facing Trump, and this may affect Trump and maybe his supporters, but I don't see the long-term effects this has. Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Man gets charged with crime" is hardly that what we would consider noteworthy enough to go into ITN. IF he was convicted (and he may well be found innocent by a jury), yes that's a story we should cover, but a simple inducement is just something mundane. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)06:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't blurb someone getting merely charged with a crime. I prefer not to see "allegedly" in ITN. Also, this is the third indictment on this man in the past year. Are we going to have six blurbs on the front page? Three on indictments and three on convictions? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support -- This is "THE" indictment. The most important of the 3 thus far. The other 2 were posted, and this, being the more serious of them arguably, should then logically be posted. Furthermore, just because a particular individual is unique enough in his criminality that he produces numerous indictments does not mean that repeated indictments are repetitions strictly because they are centered on him. Quite the opposite, as a former POTUS, each one of these has been incredibly significant and historic on their own merits as they pertain to The Office of the President of the United States. Opposition to the historicity of this indictment and the purely "in the news" aspect of it, is unwarranted as this is actually very much "in the news". These should be reasons enough to post this story. The opposition statements above are very much the same weak logic and reasoning as with the previous 2 indictments- weak logic and reasoning which was addressed in the admin's posting blurb (whatever that's called) as to why those were not good enough reasons to object to the story being posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombie Philosopher (talk • contribs) 08:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's only six weeks since we posted the last one. We're not a Trump indictment ticker, or we shouldn't be. We shouldn't have posted the previous ones, and we shouldn't post this one. Conviction yes, indictment no. Black Kite (talk)08:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Take a look at Legal affairs of Donald Trump as president which seems to contain about 100 different cases. There's so many of them that we should not be posting a blow-by-blow of each stage in such courtroom drama. If you want to do that then it should be an Ongoing nomination. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Muboshgu and Zombie Philosopher. We can't reject this just because there are other cases: this is the most important one by far. A former president of the US charged in relation to an attempted insurrection is far more significant than the weak New York case, which got a blurb. This is the Template:Tq, in history (quoting our article). This is Template:Tq (LawFare, The Guardian). It's a turning point in the US's democratic backsliding, which will Template:Tq (NYT). In case anybody still cares about WP:ITNSIGNIF: it's being covered, in-depth, by the highest-quality news media in the US, Germany, France, and Spain; none are reprints of wire services, and I checked in Incognito mode so none are personalized to me. The articles are long and provide analysis. Most of these outlets had multiple stories on it, not just one. The article is well-above WP:ITNQUALITY, and every single statement is cited. This isn't related to any Template:Tq, and we're well-above the criteria of Template:Tq. Most opposes argue that charges (vs. convictions) aren't ITN-worthy, or that there's a soft-limit to how many times we should cover Trump. These criteria are arbitrary, and not mentioned at WP:ITNCRIT. If you think they should be criteria, feel free to propose them on the talk page; but they're not. DFlhb (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How bold is ignorance. To say that "charges (vs. convictions)" is an arbitrary criterion is simply to be ignorant of how judicial proceedings work and how criminal responsibility is attributed. And there, unless we are jurists or actors in the criminal case, it is inamobile. No matter how American the protagonist may be. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might maybe possibly have a point if anybody were talking about a criterion for how criminal responsibility is attributed and not for whether or not something is in the news. But since we arent attributing criminal guilt to anybody here, you might want to not be so bold. nableezy - 13:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confused as to what portion of the encyclopedia youre editing. This is "In the News", a place where people nominate and consider including links to articles that readers are looking for more information on because it is in the news. That has jack to do with a conviction. Or with whatever you think youre saying with the Fox News reference? nableezy - 19:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's headline news everywhere, which is all that matters. Also, on the merits, it's by far the most important of the various indictments: it's an important political rather than legal development because it sets up a number of potential political and legal conflicts as Trump is tried while being a leading candidate for the presidency. Sandstein 12:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support event more widely in the news than any other current news item. Oppose rampant fallacious arguments at ITN/C about convictions versus indictments. Two questions matter: is it in the news, and is the article good enough quality? Arguments not based on that rubric should be discarded. Nableezy’s subtle point that this should be ongoing rather than a blurb is a legitimate argument. I support either ongoing or blurb. JehochmanTalk12:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not only would linking to it would be a major WP:EASTEREGG unless you could somehow change or contort the blurbs to make it the focus of the event, but it's also not the primary story. The news isn't the attack itself, now a stale occurrence as it happened three years ago, rather it's Donald Trump's legal troubles as a result of events that occurred surrounding and partially including the attack. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)13:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now; in general we have usually only posted the final part of a criminal proceeding (conviction and/or sentencing) and not all of the other phases of the criminal justice process. Wait until a conviction, then post. --Jayron3213:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, since Trump indictments are no longer as interesting as a "man bites dog" headline, since he's already been indicted and impeached multiple times. If Trump gets arrested and/or convicted regarding this, only then I'll support the nomination.
If convicted, certainly that ought to be posted. While a former President being indicted is somewhat of a first (Nixon only escaped through the skin of his teeth) a conviction would truly be a first in the entire history of the country. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)15:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as an addendum to my above oppose, it's very hard to read through the majority of supports in this discussion and not see this nomination as a pretty glaring example of the oft discussed problem of systemic bias on the project. Are we going to start posting criminal indictments for other former heads of government/state? I am not holding my breath. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Indeliblehulk: Then that's your fault you didn't nominate it. Don't blame anyone else. Nothing happens at Wikipedia you don't do yourself. If you want to see it on the front page, you can't blame anyone except yourself that you didn't put it there. Demanding that other people should have done work you couldn't be bothered to do yourself is pretty low. --Jayron3217:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, it's an apples to oranges comparison for reasons you seem to have acknowledged. We posted the coup that deposed the government and established a military junta. That other members of the government besides the President of Niger were also sacked and taken into the custody of the military junta is kind of necessarily a part of the same story that we blurbed and is a poor comparison to make to argue it'd be systemic bias to post about criminal charges against Trump but not the Nigerien ministers. The Nigerien ministers weren't even charged with anything in particular, at least not according to the article you posted. Please don't suggest (intentionally or otherwise) that it was a failing of ITN to not nominate that story and an example of bias that we nominated this one. The whole comparison to the events in Niger is a red herring. Vanilla Wizard 💙22:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be held responsible for things I don't intend to suggest. I also can't make any direct comparisons to support my intended point, because of a topic ban. Suffice to say this is not a red herring nor argument against systemic bias; just letting Ad Orientem know about roughly the sort of thing he suggested we'd be less apt to post. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - this is THE indictment, the one relating to the events leading up to January 6, the one that many of you stated would be the indictment that you would support. Headline news everywhere and will almost certainly have major ramifications regarding the 2024 presidential election. Yes, we've posted two indictments in the past, but its not our fault that he has this many issues with the court; if three colossal sized asteroids collided with Earth, would we not post the third one because "we've already posted the prior two" (besides, irking Template:User's specific claim of Template:Tq, well, that probably has more to do with ITN's slowness than anything else)? — Knightoftheswords18:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the fact that the previous two were really really important as well, but disappeared completely from news sites within a few days, not to be seen again (until the actual court cases)? Black Kite (talk)19:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trump has been indicted multiple times these past few months, with a few new indictments on the way. This event is part of a broader theme of "Trump in legal trouble" that ITN has covered the past half-year or so. Furthermore, he's already been indicted on federal charges for an unrelated incident, so it isn't a step up from anything that's happened up to this point. Bremps...18:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add "Donald Trump legal issues" to ongoing. From this point forward, there is likely to be new reporting on matters relating to these issues for the next year and change. Motions will be filed, argued, and ruled on, appearances will be made, charges will be appended, things will be put into evidence. Some of these will be headline developments, but they will all be aspects of the same milieu. BD2412T20:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From an encyclopedic standpoint particularly NOTNEWS, these trials are going to move very slowly...we should not be covering the day to day legal machinations that go on. Thus, this is a terrible idea for ongoing. Masem (t) 20:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are kind of stuck in the middle, however. There will be real ground-breaking and headline-making developments—new indictments, procedural motions going up to the Supreme Court, trials actually being conducted, convictions or acquittals—but blurbing those would become an exercise in repetitiveness as well. BD2412T21:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of New indictments, and whether there are convictions or acquittal, all that other stuff is just for the most part "noise" from a ten-year encyclopedic view. Documenting some parts of the process should happen but they are not going to be day to day events, as we'd expect from an ongoing topic. It is similar to why we don't put climate change as ongoing. Masem (t) 21:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem like the ideal solution. Ongoing is best suited to articles where we can expect somewhat regular prose updates. The only target articles that would make sense there are Legal affairs of Donald Trump as president, which has issues and has been lacking major updates, and Trial of Donald Trump, a disambiguation page. Makes more sense to simply post the individual topics when they're in the news. Vanilla Wizard 💙21:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: If ITN is just a news ticker, then this would have been posted already. But, the consensus has been that the standards should be more than just being major front-page headline news and I would like it to remain this way. StellarHalo (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trump being charged with more crimes, that we've known was going to happen forever. We even talked the last time this particular offender was charged that we knew that the insurrection charges were scheduled for August. I don't see how more charges against him or his co-conspirators is ITN-worthy. Nfitz (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready IMOSupport The section that narrates her tenure as Lieutenat Governor is reduced to the results of the 2017 and 2021 elections, and little else. Is there anything noteworthy that she did as Lieutenant Governor? I'm sure there is. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conceding that the section in question could stand a little expansion, the article as it stands is more than adequate, and, for a change, well referenced. IMO it more than meets the customary standards for RD. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TDKR. So, if little else can be done, I think the article can now be posted. As for the rest of the article, I agree that it's in good condition. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Done per your request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg)
