Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→August 1: RD nom for robbie shepherd added
Line 116: Line 116:
*'''Oppose''' per Ad Orientem and Black Kite. At this point his indictments are almost status quo... <small> ✈</small> [[User:mike_gigs|mike_gigs]] <sup>[[User talk:mike_gigs|talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/mike_gigs|contribs]]</sub> 12:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Ad Orientem and Black Kite. At this point his indictments are almost status quo... <small> ✈</small> [[User:mike_gigs|mike_gigs]] <sup>[[User talk:mike_gigs|talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/mike_gigs|contribs]]</sub> 12:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 12:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 12:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as it's a fundamental indictment on the obstruction of democratic election results in the United States. I don't buy the arguments that it shouldn't make it because of other indictments. If [[Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (2020 election case)]] is seen as too weak right now, may I suggest linking to [[January 6 United States Capitol attack]] may provide some strength? --'''[[User:Natural RX|<span style="color: #000000">Natural</span>]] [[User talk:Natural RX|<span style="color: #007d1d ">R</span><sub style="color: #000000">X</sub>]]''' 12:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


====(Ready) RD: Sheila Oliver ====
====(Ready) RD: Sheila Oliver ====

Revision as of 12:59, 2 August 2023

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Yahya Sinwar in 2011
Yahya Sinwar

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...

Shortcut
  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

Shortcut
  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives


August 2

August 2, 2023 (2023-08-02) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

August 1

August 1, 2023 (2023-08-01) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

RD: Robbie Shepherd

Article: Robbie Shepherd (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Press and Journal
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Scottish broadcaster and author. I've done some work on the article but it may need some more expansion. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 12:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Henri Konan Bédié

Article: Henri Konan Bédié (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: 2nd President of Ivory Coast. Served as president for 6 years and 17 days. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article looks sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 23:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trump indictment

Proposed image
Article: Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (2020 election case) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former U.S. President Donald Trump is indicted by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for his alleged participation in attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Former U.S. President Donald Trump is indicted for his alleged participation in attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.
News source(s): NBC News
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This is big news, making headlines in all major American media. 0KK2KC (talk) 22:29, 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 making headlines in all major American media, it's also appearing in global media like the BBC[1] and the Sydney Morning Herald. [2] 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 — In Trump news. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:56, 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]
    If the USA produces the most "in the news" news then that is what should dominate it. This isn't a democracy... what are you on about? Zombie Philosopher (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional support as major news, but article need to be cleaned up This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:20, 1 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]
  • Oppose agree with above editors; every single indictment against him shouldn't be nominated for in the news. Yeoutie (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The most important of the indictments against him in my view. It is also the lead story globally. Davey2116 (talk) 00:37, 2 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. NoahTalk 01:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, per uhh.. WP:HAMSANDWICH — xaosflux Talk 01:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Simply put, it's In The News. It's the top story pretty much everywhere and related to other significant events of recent years (January 6 United States Capitol attack and Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election). It's true that this is already Trump's third indictment in just a few months but it is what it is. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:21, 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]
    This one is the cherry on top of the sundae. Jehochman Talk 12:15, 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 [3]. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:34, 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. 03:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose let's post when there is a conviction YD407OTZ (talk) 03:20, 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]
    This indictment is specifically targeting the Jan 6 attack It is not. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:54, 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 For now. Post conviction. Pavlor (talk) 05:20, 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 the first federal indictment of a former U.S. president, in history (quoting our article). This is The Big One (LawFare, The Guardian). It's a turning point in the US's democratic backsliding, which will define the future of American democracy (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 previous occurrences, and we're well-above the criteria of three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs. 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]
  • 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]
  • Oppose or we'll be posting these all year long. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem and Black Kite. At this point his indictments are almost status quo... ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:14, 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. Jehochman Talk 12:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as it's a fundamental indictment on the obstruction of democratic election results in the United States. I don't buy the arguments that it shouldn't make it because of other indictments. If Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (2020 election case) is seen as too weak right now, may I suggest linking to January 6 United States Capitol attack may provide some strength? --Natural RX 12:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Sheila Oliver

Article: Sheila Oliver (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
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: Article updated and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - no reason to oppose. Glad someone else nominated this as I came here to do it myself. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ready to post. SunsetShotguns (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 31

July 31, 2023 (2023-07-31) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

(Ready) RD: Angus Cloud

Article: Angus Cloud (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

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

 2A00:23EE:18B8:6C5C:CC75:E28:D583:EA12 (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose I feel that his career section could be expanded a bit more. I understand his career began in 2019, but he had some upcoming projects, appeared in music videos and commercials and had some minor roles in other projects that could be discussed in this section. Support I've expanded the career section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose on quality Article could use some expansion, and a few of the IMDb citations need to be replaced. I expect some decent upcoming coverage of his short career as the likes of Variety, Rolling Stone, People, Hollywood Reporter... report on his death. Mooonswimmer 22:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the career section can naturally be expanded. Article is on the shorter side, but ready (w/o orange tag). Anarchyte (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is as good as the article can get probably. Sufficient in terms of sourcing, length and depth. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 08:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Adrian Street

Article: Adrian Street (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: British professional wrestler  The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article now appear sufficient in terms of length, depth and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 08:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2023 Ashes series

Proposed image
Article: 2023 Ashes series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cricket, Australia retains the Ashes after drawing the series 2–2 against England (Compton–Miller Medal recipient Chris Woakes pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In cricket, the Ashes are retained by Australia after the series against England is drawn (Compton–Miller Medal recipient Chris Woakes pictured).
News source(s): The Guardian
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: Just completed. Good series. Congrats to both the teams. Ktin (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Paul Reubens

Article: Paul Reubens (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN NBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Filmography needs citations, as per usual. RIP Pee-Wee. The Kip (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. Not letting this even slightly kick off. Not every even-remotely-notable figure deserves a blurb. The Kip (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"I know you are but what am I?"
  • Blurb A blurb and/or picture is needed here because the subject was especially famous under their stage name for which there is a separate article – Pee-wee Herman. So, just running the name Paul Reubens through the RD ticker isn't adequate or appropriate. Note that the readership for the nominated article was over 1.5 million yesterday and so gatekeeping is beside the point. We should focus on how best to present this. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 World Aquatics Championships

Article: 2023 World Aquatics Championships (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2023 World Aquatics Championships conclude with Australia winning the most medals. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The 2023 World Aquatics Championships conclude with Australia winning the most gold medals.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The United States win the best team at the 2023 World Aquatics Championships, despite winning fewer gold medals than Australia.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The 2023 World Aquatics Championships conclude with China winning the most gold medals.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ The 2023 World Aquatics Championships conclude with China winning the most gold medals, and the United States winning the most medals overall.
News source(s): [4], [5]
Credits:

Article needs updating

 Happily888 (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality. Article has not been updated with a proper prose synopsis of the event. --Jayron32 12:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on significance. Not prominently reported on; would be WP:UNDUE emphasis on this event to post it when we decline more significant events. BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that this event was ITN/R until 2022 when it was removed via this discussion of six events which removed all the ones except those popular in the USA. Ironically one of the reasons given for removing this was that it hadn't been nominated since 2017! However, Oppose on quality. Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All blurbs are wrong. China won the most gold medals. Australia won the most gold medals in swimming, which was only one of the six disciplines. Moreover, the fact that the United States won the most medals is completely irrelevant when the ranking is made by the number of gold medals won. I've proposed altblurb3 as a correct one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment added altblurb4 to hopefully remedy the confusion. I am supportive of this on notability and I think the quality is getting better. I added some citations but prose is needed on the event itself ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 30

July 30, 2023 (2023-07-30) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Vladimiro Roca

Article: Vladimiro Roca (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 14ymedio.com, Miami Herald
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Cuban dissident. Article appears to be alright. Curbon7 (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Khar bombing

Article: 2023 Khar bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Pakistan, IS–KP kill over 50 people in a suicide bombing at a political rally in Khar. (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, Euronews
Credits:

 elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality, support in principle I did some expansion but I think it still needs some work before it meets main page requirements. 2001:2020:301:6B8A:3DE8:A452:75E5:B9B8 (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That number has been changed in the article several times. Different RS give different figures. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2023 Tour de France Femmes

Proposed image
Article: 2023 Tour de France Femmes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cycling, Demi Vollering (pictured) wins the Tour de France Femmes. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News Le Monde
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: 2022 event was posted to ITN. Nearly finished being updated, just needs the stage 8 recap to be written. Turini2 (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ready Excellent article. It's ready to go and if there had been a couple of supports here, I would have posted it. Can't think of a good reason why we would come to a different notability conclusion than last year's. Schwede66 01:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there was a suggestion that the Tour Femmes should be ITNR but others suggested making sure that the event was reported widely and the article generated was of high quality for a few years. We clearly should be trying to tag it as ITNR (we post the men's event and while the women's is not run at the same time, it seems just as important), but as for this current entry, I support the item, that's how we expect a sports article to be written for the main page. Masem (t) 01:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support This seems like an important event & it's a great article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recap written, article now fully updated with photos etc. Key links (Tour de France Femmes, Demi Vollering) have also been updated. Turini2 (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

July 29, 2023 (2023-07-29) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Danny Grossman

Article: Danny Grossman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
Credits:

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

 Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Spotted one statement that might need a citation, but I don’t think it prevents this from being posted. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 08:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: George Wilson (basketball, born 1942)

Article: George Wilson (basketball, born 1942) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article looks good 62.101.230.180 (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article appears sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 08:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

July 28, 2023 (2023-07-28) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

Nematode revived after 46,000 years

Article: Nematode (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A nematode that was frozen 46,000 years ago has been revived (Post)
News source(s): CNN, PLOS Genetics
Credits:

Article updated

 Count Iblis (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - no prejudice on resubmitting when they revive a mammoth. Nfitz (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, and I would like to add that this is not ITN material because there have been things like this happening before, and if we post every time an ancient animal got revived, it would just be weird. Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This has the peer-reviewed paper which we see being demanded for the item about Nero’s theatre. Reviving an organism of such age is impressive — the stuff of Jurassic Park. And certainly more significant than a routine game of golf. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if Jurassic Park were a movie about worms. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Quite a major finding, but this isn't like cloning a mammoth. That would have been a biggest scientific find that makes a lot of people say "WOW!!!". MarioJump83 (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a major finding an excellent ITN material of high encyclopaedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WaltClip. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, in principle. It's 46k years which is a long time. Mammoths will never be revived because they lack the biological mechanisms necessary to revive one. Only in-principle support however, because the target article is not very relevant to what actually happened. Banedon (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: i am admittedly not a microbiologist, but from examining the paper reporting the new species, it looks like the paper mentions that the species had previously been reported as "Panagrolaimus aff. detritophagus", where the "aff." stands for "species affinis", meaning that the specimens showed similarities to members of the previously known species panagrolaimus detritophagus but did not actually belong to that species. the earlier report, published in 2018, also notes that the specimens were first collected in 2002 and had an estimated radiocarbon age of 32,000 years. what the 2023 paper is reporting is that the specimens may have actually been frozen for about 46,000 years, and belong to a previously undescribed species, which the authors have named panagrolaimus kolymaensis. as a result, i think this nomination might be stale (like the nematodes), but would be interested to see someone providing an argument reviving it (like the nematodes). dying (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Martin Walser

Article: Martin Walser (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deutsche Welle
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Very prominent German writer. Article appears acceptable (if short) and is updated.  Sandstein 19:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Article needs major ref work. A lot of citation needed tags and two unsourced sections. Not to mention the lead could be expanded to reflect more about why he's notable/major works/possible controveries/etc. Also noticed some sentences are still using present tense, not past, so it hasn't been updated thoroughly post-death announcement. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with TDKR Chicago 101, who already updated a lot (and many others including myself updated a bit) that this article is in a shameful state as I write this, and not ready to appear on the Main page. I'm willing to look further, but a nomination without a minimum of presentable content (it's long only because of detailed coverage of one a bit sensational event) is not what I would do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Sandstein, I have no idea what you mean by "is updated". Next time you think an article is updated, please name the updater's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this edit helps? I'm adding you as an updater here, Gerda. --PFHLai (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I came to add myself. - No idea how the tabloid obit would help, but it has nice pics. I'll add the FAZ obit tomorrow, - too tired. All references are now formatted, and many refs have been found, thanks to all who helped. More is needed, especially regarding the politics, the academies, the plays and the films. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check again. I found a bibliography (Fetz), and Suhrkamp lists many awards if wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

July 27, 2023 (2023-07-27) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

RD: Saeed bin Zayed Al Nahyan

Article: Saeed bin Zayed Al Nahyan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Khaleej Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: He was the half-brother of the President of the UAE. Article needs a bit of expansion. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nero's theatre

Article: Theatre of Nero (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Archaeologists discover the Theatre of Nero in Rome. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Roman Emperor Nero's private theatre is discovered under the courtyard of a palazzo in Rome.
News source(s): Guardian, AP, ABC, the other ABC, CNN
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major historical and archaeological find. Discovery announced on 27 July. Brandmeistertalk 11:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on quality - it seems to only be a single-sentence update to the article, as it stands. I will say I weakly support on notability, however. The Kip (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update? This is a brand new wikiarticle created a few days ago. --PFHLai (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Article length is decent enough to not call it a stub. Mostly well-sourced, though I did catch one sentence without a citation. A quick search for the subject brought up quite a few news articles that could be used to further expand the article and demonstrates that the subject is in the news. Though I would like to see a fair use photo of the actual site added to the article (news articles show that these photos do exist) instead of just using a photo of the nearby palazzo, this is hardly a fair reason to oppose an ITN nomination.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt An "exceptional" find, per CNN, and on that we agree. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is certainly notable, and the quality issue seems to have been dealt with. Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a peer-reviewed paper to back up these findings? We usually don't post these types of stories without that peer-reviewed paper. --Masem (t) 04:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't found, but per multiple sources the discovery was announced by the Special Superintendant for Archaeological Heritage of Rome, Daniela Porro, which looks sufficient. Brandmeistertalk
  • Support I was initially suspicious that this was hype but the article does a good job of explaining and justifying the claim. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. Very nice story and great work with the article! --Tone 10:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support One of the most impressive archeological finds, and as such, keep the blurb. Frankly though, if there's something like Xia Dynasty is confirmed or something like that, it should deserve a blurb. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support Excellent material of high encyclopaedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose — Certainly interesting, but not a major news event. Save it for DYK. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this not a major event? This is the most significant archaeological discovery in years, and that's not hyperbole. Archaeologists have been searching for this theatre for ages, and the structure contained countless preserved artifacts which help build a better picture of ancient Rome. Curbon7 (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Article doesn't say any of that. Can we improve the article to make the significance more obvious? We all know Nero is important but the article basically just says "May have been where Nero watched Rome burn" in one sentence. Article doesn't vouch for itself QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Temporary Pull. The article still appears quite light. It does not substantiate the significance of the theatre, nor the supposed extensive search for it, which are the main driving factors for this item's significance. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support. Important archaeological discovery for one of the most well-known Roman emperors. Seems reasonable to keep up; no need to pull. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post posting oppose Article doesn't even vouch for its own notability or importance. Just marginally a stub article, and since its not a news event, i'm am skeptical it will get more info added to the page soon. How notable really is this theatre? the page has one throwaway line about how the theatre may have been where Nero watched Rome burn, but that amount of uncertainty just renders this article not notable enough for the front page. Like this is even below Milan Kundera (who I opposed). QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hottest month ever?

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​ July 2023 is on track to become the world's hottest recorded month. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres declares that Earth has entered an "age of global boiling" as scientists confirm that this year's heat wave have been some of the hottest in recorded history.
Alternative blurb II: ​ July 2023 is regarded as the hottest month in the last 120,000 years.
News source(s): The Guardian, Scientific American
Credits:

Article needs updating

 Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]

  • Oppose — Far too long of a blurb—an informal one, at that—that loses focus halfway through. Climate change is difficult to blurb because it doesn't have a beginning or an end, e.g. climate change naturally occurs, so this about human-induced climate change, which doesn't have an exact beginning or end date either. António Guterres is not a scientist, either. I would support an ongoing entry about the heat waves. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a revised variant of this sentiment, sans the "global boiling" neologism. The fact that this past month has been the hottest ever recorded seems plenty significant enough for its own blurb. (That's assuming it hasn't already been mentioned on ITN recently, of course. I've been taking a break from the internet for the past month or so, and I haven't kept up-to-date on recent blurbs. If it's been posted, I would oppose adding a duplicate.) Kurtis (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it hasn’t been blurbed due to article quality issues. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in theory I'd support this since it's a significant trend update in our struggle to combat climate change. I'm just confused if climate change would be the target article or if there's another more appropriate target article? Also I agree that the blurb could use some shortening/change. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder/Moderately Support Alt Upon Fulfilment This is not a "declaration", this is a figure of speech "snipped" from a press conference; the world is not boiling. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The UN statement is hyperbole - a stern caution and the like but still not a scientific fact. On the other hand the heat wave article has been proposed recently for Ongoing (which makes sense) but no one has worked on improving it to any degree to include it. I think that option is still on the table because the heat waves are continuing. --Masem (t) 22:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose El Nino is in effect this year so warmer global temps than usual. This is just fear mongering. Koltinn (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's just wrong. The Kip (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why this statement to highlight climate change and not the litany of other significant reports of broken records? This seems like an odd choice. This is the sort of thing where we need to remind ourselves that ITN is not a news ticker, and we don't act as a sounding board for politicians trying to speak to history. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm puzzled, User:WaltCip, what politicians have to do with this discussion. Nfitz (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @NfitzThe blurb currently reads in part: United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres declares that Earth has entered an "age of global boiling" Why is this particular remark so important that it justifies a mention in a blurb about climate change? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it is important enough. I'm still trying to understand the whole thing enough to opine, or not (a novel concept I admit at WikiShootFirst 🙂). So I'm trying to clarify. I've never considered the UN Secretary General a politician - more of a bureaucrat; so it didn't cross my mind that you were referring to him. To a great extent, he's repeating what we already know. Haven't we already ITN'd the unusual July weather conditions? If not, perhaps that's the story. Or maybe it should be ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose far too nebulous. Climate change has been and will continue to be ongoing for decades to come. Also actions not words, ultimately it's of little importance what the UN says, lots of politicians talk about climate change all the time but do very little to by way of countering it. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support alt, but this runs into the same issues as every other global warming/climate change blurb proposal - what's the target article? What's the update in said article? There's gotta be a focus, we're not a news ticker. The Kip (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I figured it, the rule about needing a target article was getting in the way of focusing on the plain and simple fact of the matter, so I ignored it. People know what a month is, they know what the world's hottest is and only some of them will read or hear this news elsewhere. For the greater good, probably. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until July is confirmed as the hottest month ever and then post it as a definite rather that a bit of CRYSTAL. No target article is needed. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any nomination without a target article. And the 2023 heat waves article needs mega work done on it.--69.118.235.3 (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are all kinds of climate related records that are being broken right now, and this record is just one of many. The "age of global boiling" thing is a rhetorical declaration by a single official, not a term actually adopted by the scientific community. Nsk92 (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Climate change has been going on since the formation of the Earth. Anthropogenic climate change has been around for 10 times longer than this encyclopedia. This also seems to be a repeat of a nomination for global temperature records earlier that failed to reach consensus. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 21:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You might be thinking of last June's record, which most people supported, but thought all the articles sucked and/or wanted to wait till about now. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've switched the blurb and altblurb. Also retitled the nom. It wasn't going well the old way but could work now. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose there is uncertainty in the title of the nomination and there isn't even an article mentioned. This is not to deny climate change, but simply "hottest month ever" as an ITN blurb is not very ITN-worthy. If climate change keeps ramping up, every month will be "hottest month ever". I'd be willing to change my mind if there were any concrete events to back up this nomination. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Seems like something that would be better highlighted in DYK. It's unclear what the impact of "the hottest month in 120,000 years" even is. I'm also unable to find this story on the front page of any of the major news networks, CNN, MSNBC, Google News, etc. Perhaps it was ITN a couple weeks ago but interested appears to have tailed off. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think 2023 heat waves has a solid chance to get on the main page, because weather be weird and people be dying. However, I'd want some fairly specific things to be said in the "Political, charity, NGO, scientific and corporate responses" section, like major figureheads like António Guterres giving the season a specific designation. Something specific like "the hottest month in history in Spain, Russia, and China" (for example, I don't know the data). I can confirm that my region in the world didn't have a heatwave in July. We had ours in June. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 26

July 26, 2023 (2023-07-26) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

  • Moldova–Russia relations
    • Moldova orders the expulsion of 22 Russian diplomats by August 15. Several days earlier, a journalist investigation alleged that Russia installed satellite dishes and antennae on its embassy rooftop that could be used for spying. (AP) (RFE/RL)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Patricia A. Goldman

Article: Patricia A. Goldman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post via Legacy
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former member of the National Transportation Safety Board. She was a relative of mine, and my conflict of interest disclosed on talk; accordingly this article was started and reviewed through AfC. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is well-cited and is of sufficient length. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 16:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Randy Meisner

Article: Randy Meisner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, Rolling Stone, Variety
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Just announced, but while the article may need help, he was a member of the Eagles, member of Poco, and with the Eagles, was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Was mainly known for the Eagles hit "Take It to The Limit". TheCorriynial (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Simpson Kalisher

Article: Simpson Kalisher (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [8]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American photographer, death announced recently. Bremps... 18:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Ready pretty well-cited for the most part, but there are one or two uncited statements ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 20:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sourcing improvements needed, has 1 cn tag, publications section fully uncited, and exhibitions section has two uncited exhibitions, some other parts of the article may also need citations as well. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 11:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MonarchOfTerror: I added a citation where the cn tag was and to the two uncited exhibitions. Working on adding additional sourcing elsewhere. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nigerien coup d'état

Article: 2023 Nigerien coup d'état (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A coup d'état is attempted in Niger as presidential guard soldiers hold President Mohamed Bazoum inside the presidential palace. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The soldiers of the presidential guard depose President Mohamed Bazoum in a coup d'état in Niger.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In Niger, the presidential guard successfully mounts a coup d'état, deposing Mohamed Bazoum.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, The Examiner, The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Breaking news, nominating to draw attention. Unknown if successful, also Niger is difficult to find credible sources for. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality for now. This could shape up to be major. Bremps... 18:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abcmaxx: That seems like a good idea to me. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
perfectly reasonable _-_Alsor (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would they not already qualify under Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government? DecafPotato (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you could have a self-coup Abcmaxx (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed; Posted RD): Sinéad O'Connor

No consensus for posting a blurb. SpencerT•C 06:58, 29 July 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.

Proposed image
Article: Sinéad O'Connor (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Irish singer Sinéad O'Connor dies at the age of 56. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Shuhada' Sadaqat, better known as Irish singer Sinéad O'Connor, dies in her London home
News source(s): Irish Times
Credits:
 2A00:23EE:1940:363C:C55E:B14F:110C:45C5 (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose blurb Recent Deaths was created for situations like this - a well-known entertainer who wasn't the top of her field. We should not be blurbing every single singer/actor/TV person/sportsball player just because they are well-known. Chrisclear (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD once quality is improved, oppose blurb We should only very rarely post a blurb for someone's death. RD is made to post most notable deaths. Gust Justice (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only one album & one single of hers were major hits internationally. Most of the media coverage she has received since then relates to the controversy she generated & her chaotic personal life. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She's had 10 albums chart internationally. Her singles haven't charted well internationally after 2000 or so - but neither do singles from massive artists from the 1980s these days. But even in 2000 she had (different) singles chart in at least 5 countries (of the 10 tracked), on two continents - and her album that year went gold in Australia. Though this isn't just about her music. I do think the "one hit" thing has been massively overplayed here. Nfitz (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folks, please: If you don't personally support a death blurb, don't be the first to raise the subject. You are just distracting from the work at hand. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying don't be the first one to oppose a blurb? Or don't mark a nom for a blurb unless you are also supporting it? —Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I would support a blurb. At the time I added a blurb, the article was not in a fit state to post. As I said in the edit summary, she is "possibly blurbworthy", so I opened up the subject of a blurb for discussion. Consensus would seem to be against a blurb though. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying that as a best practice, IMO one shouldn't raise the possibility of a blurb if s/he is not personally advocating for it. Blurb discussions are contentious and distracting; and for some reason everyone feels the need to pile on, creating the clusterf*** you see now: tons of "Support RD" with no review of the quality. Anyone who is truly blurbworthy will gain support. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You expressed the same sentiment w.r.t Pat Robertson a couple months ago, and I didn't fully articulate my disagreement at the time—but to be very clear, I completely disagree. Wikipedia is a community project, and we make decisions through consensus. Suhmitting a proposal, even if you aren't in favor of it from the outset, is neither disruptive nor a distraction. Discussion is how we get things done. Kurtis (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, currently I see no obvious huge flaws with the article. (the awards section needs more sources, but that's IMHO not enough to omit her article from RD) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready It currently has 13 [citation needed] tags. I reserve judgement whether she was notable enough to justify a blurb. Schwede66 03:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb - massively significant singer, who was at the top of her game when she was blacklisted in the early 1990s, because of her opposition to pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church. If she was just another 1990s singer, perhaps not. But the blacklisting of her changes the game - especially given her vile treatment in the USA, where many prominent figures enabled pedophilia by the Church and protected Pope J-P-II; ironically the Church has since admitted that children were being sexually abused and the Pope was aware. I don't know how a second-stringer like Tony Bennet gets blurbed (mostly it seems, for outliving everyone else), and a much more significant figure like O'Connor doesn't. Nfitz (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb - O'Connor has more international recognition than is credited in the above comments (she is quite well known in Europe, and also has reach in Latin America). Some above comments above oppose RD/Blurb based on younger audiences not being familiar, but I would argue that if Tony Bennett counts as relevant, than O'Connor would have an even higher priority for Blurb.Tazanzabub (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not consider the amount of or lack of recognition as a factor for RD blurbs. Masem (t) 13:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But you didn't make this comment to those opposing RD saying she wasn't influential enough. Arianddu (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Influence and popularity are different things. There's a difference between being influential (Haruki Murakami) and being popular (Logan Paul). AryKun (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Leo Varadkar publicly announced his condolences, how often does that happen? World figure for sure, meets blurb threshold. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fairly often, actually. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These eight also weren't nominated. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    People being murdered and death of parliamentary colleagues known personally or professionally are very different scenarios though, you cannot compare those to this. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Voice of a generation", then, unblurbed. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes, I'm aware that Dolores O'Riordan wasn't even nominated for a blurb. It was a different time. The rage against bureaucracy/quality and shoutout to a pope as it regarded the personal life of an Irish singer who went to London to die alone are "all too familiar". InedibleHulk (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose blurb We've had a couple of questionable blurbs lately, but this is honestly the most ridiculous nomination I've ever seen; we might as well nominate Yung Gravy whenever he dies if this manages to be blurbed. She is a controversial singer who made a couple of popular albums in the 90's, she is nowhere close to the level of influence you would expect for a blurb. AryKun (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yung Gravy? I believe their pronoun is "he", User:AryKun. Two popular albums in the 90's would be extremely significant - given they were only 3-years old in 2000! Perhaps you are thinking of someone else! Most ridiculous? We literally have Tony Bennett up there right now! Nfitz (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear that "She" refers to O'Connor, not Yung Gravy (you can see that AryKun understands that Yung Gravy's pronouns are "he" from the words "...whenever he dies".) 2600:1700:38D0:2870:1CFA:420:83E8:2E18 (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As IP has said already, "she" refers to O'Connor, not Gravy. Your ability to completely miss the point and construct what might be the dumbest strawman I've ever seen is almost impressive. AryKun (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I misread he for she; and I was genuinely confused (despite reading it three times), and asked for clarification. And yes, reading now, I wrote it twice ... as you can see from the history, I was caught in an edit conflict; I'll delete the duplication and strike the comment. But that doesn't, User:AryKun justify your AGF failure, and personal attack. Especially after the query was already answered. Your claim that this was the "most ridiculous nomination" is also bizarre, given it's got more attention at Wikipedia than any other death this year (AFAIK); and more attention of any death since Elizabeth II. Also, isn't Yung Gravy (whoever he is) a big strawman argument, given that they've only one single that's charted outside one country (and not well either); and has no sign of social activism at all? Please apologize for you incivility, and stop violating the most fundamental Wikipedia policies we have. Nfitz (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Implying that I thought a three year old Gravy had songs charting on Billboard is nothing if not a strawman, so I don't see how that's a PA. Saying we should nominate Yung Gravy is sarcasm, since he's basically a shitposter, not an actual argument. AryKun (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Article seems good enough to me. Most uncited claims are not important, and could probably be sourced trivially if someone cared. The real controversial one is her calling Pope Francis "anti-christian" which seems to come from a televised interview on Channel 4. I'm not 100% on how to cite this the best way. Various small online sources have covered it, for example Irish Central which I'm not familiar with and doesn't have a wiki article, but has been used as a citation in other articles. The actual interview is also posted on Channel 4's YouTube channel, but I don't have enough experience to know whether we can just cite that. When this is fixed I'm of the opinion that the article is good to go despite the few remaining uncited claims about the musical style of some albums and such. I oppose a blurb because while I'm sure many people respect and care about her, frankly she was not in the top of her field, whether we're considering her music (the top would be someone like Michael Jackson) or activism (someone like Gandhi). We blurb way too many deaths and this is why RD exists in the first place. No disrespect to her obviously, as should go without saying. Occidolophus (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, oppose RD She doesn’t seem transformative enough, neither in music nor in activism and the article itself doesn’t convince me as it doesn’t demonstrate how she has the sui generis significance needed for a blurb. RD-wise article needs work, mainly sourcing as it has an orange tag and many cn tags. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 11:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
who are you lil bro 😭😭 2601:58A:8E82:1FF0:4D13:A0E:2B7E:1260 (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose on quality; a few sourcing issues need to be cleaned up. Once that is done, would support RD only. Since there would be nothing to say in a blurb than she died, with no other important information to report, RD is the only appropriate thing to do here. --Jayron32 12:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD The heavy editing going on right now seems likely to have the article ready by the time a decision is made here.Theodore Kloba (☎) 13:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Ridiculous that the RD has not been posted, at this stage, tbh! An artist with multiple gold albums, multiple awards, the only female artist ever to refuse a Grammy, the notoriety of the SNL photo-tearing, her outspoken views on the church and religion, etc., etc., not to mention condolences from the Irish president and Taoiseach as well as numerous music stars. Currently her death is covered in the top three stories being run by RTÉ, the Irish state broadcaster, on rte.ie/news, and there are a further seven stories in a special section further on down its news page! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why she hasn't been posted is not because she's not notable (notability is not a requirement to pass RD/blurb) but it's because her article needs some improving. The 1990s subsection of her musical career section has some citation needed tags and then there's an orange tag/refimprove tag in the awards section. I'm sure once these issues have been addressed, this nom will be posted as an RD. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ITNQUALITY. You could be the most famous person in the world, but you are not getting posted to ITN unless your article meets the bare minimum standard of quality for posting. That's really all there is to it. This is not a news ticker. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Header Marked "Discuss RD only" This discussion is not going to gain consensus for a blurb. The continuation of the blurb discussion is distracting from a discussion on whether the article is of sufficient quality that it can be posted as an RD. In an effort to refocus the discussion on this, I'm attempting to take the blurb discussion off the table. Please only focus on that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    More: While I don't agree with the current WP:ITNQUALITY requirements, they are what they are. The awards section has a lot of entries with no source. The ITN guideline clearly states "Lists of awards and honors, bibliographies and filmographies and the like should have clear sources. Sources themselves should be checked for reliability. Generally, "orange" and "red" level clean-up tags are signs that article quality is not acceptable for the main page as well.". Speaking for myself, I'm not going to get into an argument with ITN hawks that I posted something that pretty clearly didn't meet the ITN guidelines. Time would probably be better spent adding these sources than arguing here that we shouldn't be that strict. If another admin comes along and says it's good enough as is, I'm not going to argue. But they should be ready for others to. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you review that thought, given all the subsequent support blurb votes, some of the false statements above, and that her death has more eyes on it than many would have thought. Nfitz (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading all the slightly unclear comments in the most favorable light possible for a blurb, there’s still only a 33% support for a blurb. I’m not going to discount the first 15 comments just because they came early in the discussion. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when, User:Floquenbeam was it a vote? If the later comments are at odds with the earlier comments, then it could well indicate that there's been a greater understanding of her significance, especially outside of North America. Nfitz (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or it could be that exactly 4 new people decided to vote in the discussion, of whom 3 (three) voted to blurb, which apparently should count as consensus now and overturn 26 votes overwhelmingly against blurbing that were posted earlier. AryKun (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes sense to value later commenters more when discussing readiness; the article is constantly improving. It doesn't make as much sense to value later commenters more regarding appropriateness of a blurb, because the circumstances are unlikely to change much. It devalues the people originally commenting too much. Now if some of the original commenters come back and say they've been swayed by the argument, then sure that's evidence of a change. But in the absence of that, I don't see why we discount early commenters opinions on a blurb. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like more than 4 to me; nor do I see 26 against blurbing. And I am seeing at least one struck vote. And some of those opposed make clearly false or irrelevent (only one hit?!? Never heard of her - despite getting the most Wikipedia hits of any death since Elizabeth II?!?) Once again, it's not a vote; Nfitz (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ready - imo, i see the orange tag down below but still think this is plenty better than things that routinely get posted to RD. nableezy - 17:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an obvious RD. Article is good enough now, other than the header, despite some tags, (it's got 213 references already!). We've posted RDs on much, much less. Still I think that it's blurbable; notability isn't based on the number of top hits. I'd be interested to see the number of times her page has been accessed in the 24-hours since her death, compared to Tony Bennett. I certainly am seeing a lot more media coverage in Canada about her death, and she was as never as popular here as in Europe. I'd expect massive coverage in Ireland, given how many top-5 hits she had there over, during 4 different decades. If hits really count, Bennett only had top 20 hits in the USA in the 1950s and 1960s. There are huge false claims here about O'Connor. Nfitz (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree blurbable but thats been apparently shot down. nableezy - 22:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily shot down. I'm no longer seeing consensus on non blurbing. Nfitz (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb or RD. This is an egregious omission. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb or RD. Article about Sinéad has 62 interwiki and not mentioning her in the list is just a shame. --Movses (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A blurb requires being transformative. In what way(s) did she fulfil that? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? nableezy - 22:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is technically no requirement for a blurb. All that is needed is a consensus. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't a standard or uniform system for determining this as, per ITNRDBLURB, it's explicitly sui generis. The size of the readership is therefore quite valid and, as it's a plain, objective and substantial fact, it seems superior to personal opinions. In this case, it's clear that millions of readers are viewing this and Wikipedia exists for its readership, rather than as an abstract ivory tower. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we based notability & blurbworthiness on pageviews when they die, we'd have to say that Bob Saget & Anne Heche have extremely high notability. We'd conclude that they were each of far higher notability than Pelé; that Saget & Heche should've been blurbed & Pelé not. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On what do you base that? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look further down: owner of a US ice hockey team - no commentary about whether worthy, transformative, recently active or important enough to nominate. Male Canadian politician, notable mainly for being old, ditto. Football player from the 1940s in a code only notable in the US, ditto (and RD posted). British football player, ditto. Another British footballer, 1 comment about notability, replied with not required for RD, all subsequent commentary strictly about quality of article. British male news reader, ditto as per first example. But commentary for O'Connor is repeatedly questioning whether she is worthy of inclusion for an RD. Arianddu (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is questioning her inclusion on RD on merits. Simply that her articles doesn't meet the expected quality in sourcing we expect for any featured links on the Main Page. That's a genderless determination. Masem (t) 00:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is questioning her inclusion on RD on merits? Have you read the commentary? Arianddu (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you’re confusing the discussion between an RD and blurb. People are opposing a blurb on significance, not an RD; that’s being held up by citation issues. The Kip (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fuckwit. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
such eloquence. Arianddu (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not at the level of Lord Tennyson, but it does have brevity going for it. In any case, after seeing a massive discussion about whether we should BLURB her, it does take some incredible selective viewing of the votes to conclude that we're being misogynistic. AryKun (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't blurb either of those two, because not a single person even suggested we blurb them. Heche's death was extremely dramatic, as then she lingered on her death-bed for a week on life-support afterwards - already declared brain-dead for 3 of them. The death followed perhaps the most bizarre series of one-vehicle accidents I've ever heard of. Had she simply died of natural causes, it would have been a blip. If she'd been immediately killed when she drove into the second building, I doubt it would been anywhere near as high. It's not comparable. Saget's death numbers really surprise me. I'm at a loss to understand that - did I forget something tabloidy about his death? Is there a way to break down these numbers by nation or something? Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, User:Jim 2 Michael, you are looking at stats that only go up to the day O'Connor died. Now that today's (Wednesday's) stats are in, you can see that O'Connor has had virtually the same number of views for a second day, while Saget's only peaked for a single day. I'm still perplexed why Saget would be so high. Was he worshipped as a god in a European country or something? Maybe something linked here? Nfitz (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Masem: I've added some sources, now that remains are some pesky awards from the award section (Rober Awards Music Poll, Meteor Music Awards, Billboard Music Video Award, Goldene Europa, MTV Music Video Award and Danish Music Award). After searching for a source for the remaining unsourced awards, I'm unable to find any. Not sure what the move is now? Hopefully other users can help find these sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those aren't non-notable awards, so you can't just wipe them out of the table. They should be documented, but the age suggests print sources may be necessary. You can easily get newspapers.com via the Wikimedia Library Card, but that might only get MTV and Billboard, given that the others are more European in nature. Masem (t) 00:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, if it’s unsourced info in a blp and questioned, it should be removed until sourced. Right? Floquenbeam (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically yes, and for those smaller awards I would agree removal may be appropriate, but a Billboard and MTV one are not minor and this should be easily sourced but might require more work than just a google search. Masem (t) 03:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
break (continued O'Connor blurb discussion)
  • Posted RD Whilst nowhere near free of citation needed tags, I suggest it's good enough for a recent death post. If you wish, continue to debate whether a blurb should be considered instead. Personally, I would support that on notability grounds when you consider both her performance as a musician together with her outspokenness. Schwede66 02:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Honestly, I was disappointed that Barbara Walters and Vivienne Westwood not getting blurbs since they were on top of their fields, especially Barbara who is a pioneer, even if she isn't that well known outside America. Sinead's case is unique: Looking at Google Trends, she has been more well-known in recent years, especially in 2010s forward, because of her outspoken activism as LGBTQ+ ally, and as a LGBTQ+ myself, I see this as a great loss for our community. The bigger issue is, Sinead has low name recognition outside Western countries (especially if you are outside of LGBTQ circles), and this is the very first time I have heard of her name as an Indonesian. It's sad to see that her career fell off this way after SNL incident in 1992 - if that didn't happen she would have had more name recognition here after 1990s. She could have been in top of her field as well if she was given more chances, and I would have heard some of her songs as well as a kid. Misogynism kills careers I guess. I'm sorry. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What, User:MarioJump83 do you mean by "Indonesian"? Typo? I don't think misogyny was the prime issue; she was massively attacked and blackballed, especially in the west, after she had the temerity to suggest that priests were molesting kids; and the Vatican already knew about it; But we are heading into Talk Page territory here. I could see an argument for blurbing Barbara Walters given her so many firsts on TV in the 1960s, and anchoring a major news broadcast like ABC Evening News in the mid-1970s; I'm hard-pressed to think of any women in other countries who achieved that nearly a half-century ago (though I'm sure I've forgotten some). I'm barely aware of Westwood though, I'd be quite neutral on blurbing her. Nfitz (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What, User:MarioJump83 do you mean by "Indonesian"? Well, I come from Indonesia and most Indonesians do not know who she is. No, it's not a typo. Once again that's my opinion, but we should think about WP:NOTFORUM here. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! I understand now. I thought you meant she was an Indonesian! Yeah, I doubt she was well known outside of Europe for almost all of her career. Even in North America, she virtually vanished from the airwaves after being virtually blacklisted. (edit - I guess I didn't know about her significance in Arab states - see Nableezy below) Nfitz (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    She is exceedingly well known in the Arab states. See for example this extended obituary in al-Jazeera. nableezy - 05:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't know this since Google Trends doesn't show anything in there. That's good to hear. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have thoughts about opposing this, but our bar have lowered drastically in recent months, especially once it comes to international notability. It goes without saying that I support blurbing this. Once again I wish Barbara and Vivienne got their blurbs. MarioJump83 (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - top-5 all-time internationally-significant Irish singer/musicians. Front page of the NYT, London Times, and Le Monde, among other countries' papers of record. And currently half the blurbs on ITN are about last week's sports results. ITN would do well to post more blurbs and be updated more frequently. Deaths like hers (receiving front page international coverage) are significant enough to blurb, even if some Wikipedia editors have never heard of her or don't think she was very important. Levivich (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We purposely do not consider what is "front page news" because that differs depending on where you are at or when you look at the source. Masem (t) 03:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop saying we when what you mean is I. nableezy - 04:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem: You can see the world's paper front pages at websites like frontpages.com/world-newspapers/. (Just scroll through and look how many world papers have Sinead on their front page.) I'm not talking about website front pages (which, you're right, are personalized), I mean paper. The paper front pages of newspapers is a good indication of what those papers' editorial boards think is the most important news each day. In the aggregate, looking at the paper front pages of world newspapers of record is a good indication of what the world thinks is important each day. Levivich (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, Levivich, I haven't seen the ITN blurbs turn over so quickly over the last few days for a very long time. Schwede66 03:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Though why do we have only 4 blurbs right now? Isn't it 5 normally - and I've seen 6 at times. Nfitz (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITNBALANCE: the combined length of ITN/OTD should generally be the same size as TFA/DYK on the Main Page; as ITN is the most malleable, that usually means removing or re-adding blurbs. I believe there was one time last year where we had 7(!) blurbs up at once, while a few months ago we only had 3; balance giveth and balance taketh. Curbon7 (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I didn't know that. Hmm ... the one OTD seems very long "In New York City, the NAACP and church and community leaders organized a silent march (newsreel footage featured) of at least 8,000 people to protest violence directed towards African Americans.". Could someone with rights at least fix the grammar mistake (NAACP and church and community leaders). I'd think that "A silent march was organized in New York City" would have been better though ... Nfitz (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sinead O'Connor's death made it to the front page of major papers in England, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark Australia, Brazil, Argentina, United Arab Emirates, China, Canada, and the USA. Levivich (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone make a new proposed blurb somewhere, as we are obviously still debating that aspect (I still massively support a blurb). Nfitz (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. Previously I would have said no to this, but it's clear the bar has moved significantly in recent months and we now blurb many more people that we used to. By that standard, and given her relatively going age, O'connor seems to qualify. Keep it as the simple one though, no need to include her other name or where she died.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. Fairly high quality and overally well-referenced article of candidate who is a highly notable Irish singer/musician, per above. Happily888 (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original blurb as per my previous comments. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb as I've changed my mind in comparison to my original comment. I've also tried to improve the "Awards" section by adding several sources I've retrieved, although some bits of information were atrociously hard to find: for example, none of the three Danish media portals I went to seem to provide any type of information on her double victory in their domestic DMAs, which is quite confusing to me... Oltrepier (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt or Nothing Per the front page news and her well-documented beef with her common/slave/cursed name. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Per all their above Ceoil (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - I now align with Amakuru. The consensus is changing on the subject of blurbable deaths, though of course it is going to require us to take another long look at what we consider "transformative", or perhaps more likely, just rewriting the WP:ITNRDBLURB criteria entirely. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Recent Deaths was created for situations like this - a well-known entertainer who wasn't the top of her field. We should not be blurbing every single singer/actor/TV person/sportsball player just because they are well-known. Chrisclear (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Levivich's front page demonstration above is all the evidence I think is necessary to demonstrate that this person dying was front page news and as such imo it should be in our "in the news" section on our front page. nableezy - 13:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb Not at a level of significance that would justify a blurb. On a side not, I do not know who arbitrarily broke up the discussion, but that was inappropriate. It is not how we do it at ITN and the discussion is now quite confusing with overlapping votes all over the place. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I share part of the blame for that; it seemed clear at the time I tried to refocus away from a blurb that a blurb wasn't happening, and it was derailing discussion on whether it was RD-worthy. But then someone restarted a blurb discussion as a separate discussion, and (worse) people have now commented in both sections. It would have been better, if someone was sure I'd made an error in judgement, to have undone my marking it RD discussion only. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No worries. You were clearly acting in good faith. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. First, Ad Orientam is correct that this way of splitting of the discussion about a blurb is highly inappropriate and smacks of an attempt to game the system. There were plenty of users who commented on the blurb option before this artificial split-off and their opinions carry no less weight. On the substance: ITN for death blurbs should not be about how sensationalized the recent coverage of a person has been but based on their lasting impact and significance. In the case of O'Connor, for quite a few years (even decades) most of her coverage had to do with various personal controversies rather than artistic impact. Nsk92 (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a protest singer rather than a pop star, I think her various personal controversies are the weightier part. The one about fighting the real enemies in the Church definitely had more lasting impact than, say, inventing a new synth pad or starting a new dance fad. Mental health, transgenerational trauma and suicide awareness are also since pretty popular, in part thanks to her. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe in Ireland, but most of the world has no idea who she was and their views on mental health were unaffected by her. AryKun (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I speak for Northern Ontario. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The worldwide newspaper front pages prove you wrong. Demonstrably, the whole world thinks her death is front page news, which means they know who she was. Levivich (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As WP is not a newspaper, and ITN not a news ticker, we don't care where stories are posted, or how many front pages a story gets. We care about the encyclopedic quality of the article and the demonstration (described in the article backed by those sources as a means of objective evidence) of why that person was important. There's a lot of outpouring of sympathy for O'Connor's death and the overall problems with her life, but that's all that I'm seeing in these front page obits. Masem (t) 16:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's not all we're seeing. We have clearly identified significance/importance/whatever, in the article and without. "We" meaning "the other side", of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no demonstrated sourced discussion of her significance in the article. None. The arguments on this line are akin to original research to claim she was significant or important. So the only argument that has objective demonstration is "her death was on the front page of many international newspapers", which is not a reasonable argument to use for what are supposed to be exception RD blurb posting. Masem (t) 01:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem, the question was whether most of the world has no idea who she was. We need to try not to confuse the issue as I think you and AryKun are arguing two separate points; they are arguing that nobody knows who Sinead O'Connor is, while you're arguing that it's irrelevant whether there is any news coverage or recognition of her. It's difficult to have any sort of productive conversation about whether consensus should exist for a blurb when the goalposts keep shifting. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but newspapers are Wikipedia's WP:RS. We summarize RSes, and we look to RSes to determine what we write; we look to RSes to decide if we should have an article about something (WP:N), and to decide what to include in articles (WP:DUE). We also look to RSes to determine if an individual was significant enough to merit an ITN blurb when they die. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb RD seems enough to me. Interesting character/life but to me she doesn't seem significant enough for the Blurb. Nigej (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Blurb. Typically speaking I wuld not be a "support", especially when it comes to someone who is not a true titan in the musical game, but the untimely death and strong coverage really sends this one here. Maybe that's just my Irish bias talking, but I do feel O'Connor clears whatever line I have set for death blurbs. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb I wish we would post less death blurbs. RD is sufficient. YD407OTZ (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb We didn't blurb Eddie Van Halen. She was not bigger than Van Halen. Tradediatalk 19:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "We screwed up before" doesn't mean we continue to screw up forever. Also, consensus can change, as it indeed has certainly done at ITN just in the past few months. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have blurbed Eddie Van Halen, User:Tradedia. But also, not bigger than Eddie Van Halen? There's at least double the pageviews of her death compared to Eddie Van Halen; and higher than anyone else we've blurbed so far this year. Eddie was a huge star, but has not got the social activism that O'Connor has; which is what puts her over the top. If it was just for her music, I'd agree. Nfitz (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. International figure and a household name. That we made an error when we didn't blurb Eddie Van Halen is not reason to make an error here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. In a vacuum I may have opposed this; I don't necessarily see her as transformative in the field of music. But based on my understanding of the impact recently blurbed individuals have had, I think she makes the cut as both a musician and someone who made the news for her actions on TV. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support blurb While I agree that this is a solid RD case only, in the days after her death, I have been amazed to see the global coverage and the somewhat impact she left in the music world, perhaps not through her songs but through her actions/opinions. She did make global headlines during her career and in death. While I agree that she's nowhere near Bennet/Turner level of musical impact (these two definitely deserved blurbs), I also believe her dying young/somewhat unexplained circumstances (though not mysterious or malicious) I feel that too would warrant a blurb especially for someone as controversial and with an extensive career as O'Connor. I would feel though someone should create a legacy section (if possible at all) to further discuss the impact she made (if any). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly support blurb, I'm unsure what the typical standard for a blurb is (and going by this discussion, there isn't really one), but based on the news coverage and article view statistics I'd say a blurb would be in order. In the end, Wikipedia is made for humans and if humans care about someone, that's the most important thing IMHO. My main concern is actually that by the time a consensus may be reached, her death may no longer be "news", so my support kind of hinges on how long it'll take to develop consensus. I'd only support the original blurb though, not the alternative. Referring to her as "Shuhada' Sadaqat" is confusing, I wouldn't refer to Tina Turner as "Anna Mae Bullock" in a blurb either. Follow WP:COMMONNAME. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Anna Mae Bullock chose "Tina Turner" for a stage name and Shuhada' Sadaqat chose to renounce "Sinéad O'Connor" for everything but a stage name. Almost like a deadname or slave name. Death isn't very professional, in any case, and most mainstream news doesn't seem to care about her preference in this one. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb per Chrisclear. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral about a blurb now I don’t think she was notable enough as a musician to merit a blurb under normal circumstances, but her death is being covered widely. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Subject appears to be known less for being top of her field/transformative figure, and more about causing controversy in the 90s that, once ended, tanked her career and thus general relevancy. RD yes, blurb no. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why choose to ignore her continued international prominence for social issues through this century. And why say that her career tanked in the 1990s, when her most recent number one album was in 2014? With three other top-10 albums since the 1990s. It's not like she's been out of the spotlight since she spoked out about pedophilia in the Roman Catholic church over 30 years ago - at least in most of the world. I'm really puzzled, User:Fakescientist8000 why there the truth is being stretched so much in this discussion. Why do you discount her prominence since she accurately outed the Pope, virtually blacklisting her in North America? Nfitz (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Matter of perspective. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. To the best of my knowledge (and I'll admit I don't participate at ITN and may be wrong; WP:ITNBLURB does not cover the "typical picks" in detail here), blurbs are selected based on the "size" of the news story, not the "importance" of the subject(s) of the story. These are of course both subjective things. On both 26 July and 27 July (stats for 28 July are not online as I write this), Sinéad O'Connor received around 3.25M pageviews ([9]). By contrast, all five articles boldlinked at ITN right now are in the tens-of-thousands of pageviews ([10]). Other recent deaths are in the thousands by daily pageviews ([11]). I could construct an argument about why O'Connor is notable beyond one chart toping single and one SNL episode, but with page view counts that astronomically outside the ordinary, I feel like I don't need to. The story seems big enough to justify a blurb. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb - I don't see what about her makes her transformative enough to blurb. She was not at the top of her field. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 05:23, 29 July 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.

References

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1168383130"