Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hcoder3104 (talk | contribs) at 03:04, 30 June 2023 (→RD: Sue Johanson). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Collapsed Novi Sad railway station canopy
Collapsed canopy

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

June 30

June 30, 2023 (2023-06-30) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Milky way is viewed via neutrino

Proposed image
Articles: Neutrino (talk · history · tag) and IceCube Neutrino Observatory (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The IceCube Neutrino Observatory (pictured) in the South pole detects neutrinos within the Milky Way Galaxy for the first time. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The IceCube Neutrino Observatory (pictured), a neutrino detector in the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, detects neutrinos within the Milky Way for the first time.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Scientists at the IceCube Neutrino Observatory (pictured) in the South pole are able to map the Milky Way using neutrinos instead of light for the first time.
News source(s): NYT - Reuters - NPR - The Independent - Scientific American - Science - El Pais
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Another scientific discovery. This one regards neutrinos, small, so-called "ghost particles" at the subatomic level. They're called ghostly because they're so small that even though Earth gets bombarded by them, we haven't been able to detect them - until now. The detection of neutrinos is major because it allows us for the first time to view and understand the Milky Way in something other than light. They've even produced images of the whole thing that you can see in the above sources and is being hailed as the start of neutrino astronomy. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 03:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Hipólito Mora

Article: Hipólito Mora (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP - The Guardian - Telemundo - BBC - El Pais
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: This Mexican politician just got assassinated today. The article was freshly created (though he had enough coverage to have an article beforehand), and need serious expansion. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 00:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmenistan inaugurates its first smart city

Article: Arkadag (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Turkmenistan, the city of Arkadag, the country's first smart city and named after former president Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, is inaugurated. (Post)
News source(s): ABC (Australia) - Reuters - AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Turkmenistan just inaugurated their first smart city, in honor of their former president, who amassed a cult of personality during his reign. The project costed nearly US$8 billion. Its not every day that you see a city of close to 70 thousand open.

June 29

June 29, 2023 (2023-06-29) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

  • Myanmar civil war
    • The Tatmadaw carries out an air strike in the Sagaing Region, Myanmar killing at least ten civilians and injuring more than a dozen others, according to local officials and eyewitnesses. Thirteen homes are also destroyed according to officials. (CNN)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Shakeel

Article: Shakeel (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Geo.tv
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: . Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, not very informative and lots of uncited films. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action

Proposed image
Articles: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (talk · history · tag) and Affirmative action in the United States (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In a 6–3 decision, the United States Supreme Court declares that the use of affirmative action in university admissions is unlawful. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In a 6–3 decision, the United States Supreme Court declares that the use of affirmative action in university admissions is unlawful, overturning Grutter v. Bollinger.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Supreme Court of the United States (justices pictured) determines that affirmative action in college admissions is unconstitutional, overturning Grutter v. Bollinger.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The Supreme Court of the United States (justices pictured) determines that favoring minorities in college admissions is unconstitutional, overturning Grutter v. Bollinger.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ The Supreme Court of the United States (justices pictured) determines that considering race in college admissions is unconstitutional, overturning Grutter v. Bollinger.
News source(s): NYT, CNN, WaPo, BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Another end of term, another landmark bad decision. Davey2116 (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support — I reluctantly support this nomination, but solely on the basis that universities in the United States are attended by students around the world, thus meeting an international impact. I am not entirely sold. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - beat me to it. Reminder of WP:NOTFORUM though. Considering how fraught this issue is, and how as ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) brilliantly pointed out, how international U.S universities are, I don't see how this is not ITN material. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 14:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 on NOTFORUM. @Davey2116, lots of us have opinions about the ruling, but it's not helpful to provide them here. What's relevant is the significance of the decision, not the merit or lack thereof. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expect more of these WP:NOTFORUM violations as we get closer to the 2024 election and more controversial topics like this are brought up. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was recently a discussion about discretionary sanctions for ITN, and it was determined that aspects already covered by sanctions (such as post-1992 American Politics) are covered here as well. So any uninvolved admin can issue a sanction (like a week-long page ban, for example) to anyone that engages in forum-like behavior here. Obviously I'd rather if this didn't happen, but it is an option if it gets bad. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Affirmative Action is an incredibly contentious issue that has been at the forefront of American public debate since the 1960s (as evident by the comments below). Having it overturned is a pretty big deal. I also find it likely that this will significantly impact American politics in the future. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per comments, like those by @ElijahPepe, noting that this impacts major universities that are attended by students from around the world. Definitely meets the criteria for inclusion on the home page. Glman99 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing an egregious WP:NOTFORUM violation; also incoherent and TL;DR. I would have removed it if people had not responded already. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It means that if a Black or Brown person and an Asian or White person are applying to a university and are so similar it's the most astounding coincidence in the history of Earth (all four parents came from the same country, the applicants have same sex, gender, age, orientation, religion, cis or trans status, dietary habits, criminal record, socioeconomic class and need for a full or partial scholarship to pay, whether they need THEIR scholarship or already have what they need, disability and medical condition status i.e. none or both diabetic, same personality, hobbies, interests, languages spoken and fluency levels thereof, similar biographies, same level of essay-writing skill and interest in sports and which ones, same gaming the system skill in both applications, visits, interviews etc, both took SAT and no other test, same number of siblings and birth order and skill at each sport and musical instrument, have the same school/club/job/volunteering and awards history for everything, same chess rating; same average, skew, peakiness and standard deviation of their face and body hotness in a scale from 1 to 10 (I don't know if it still happens but the finger on the scale has been the lady making the decisions thinking he's cute), same language(s) spoken and fluency levels, same citizenship(s) and nationalit(ies) held, similar lives, both born and grew up in Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn (NYC) to carbon copy parents, similar places on the spectrums for extroversion-introversion, conscientiousness, open to exprerienceness, agreeableness, neuroticism, autisticness and politics spectrums, both want to double major in paleontology and anthropology with a concentration in dinosaurs and minor in the most obscure thing they have, both families have never been to college, heck have their teachers be exactly the same since preschool but the White or Asian has slightly higher grades and test scores (a Scholastic Admission test of 2150 while the other person has a score of 2100) then the White or Asian probably won't get into Harvard and definitely won't if only one of them got in. Unless the Black or Brown person is from war-torn impoverished Sri Lanka then she won't get in for sure if she and her parents changed their names to Smith and put race as Asian (as is usual for Subcontinent-Americans) and didn't send their photos or let them know or suspect in any other way that they're "more minorityish" than the other girl cause she has the lower scores and grades. And if the White person is Jewish and doesn't otherwise have more minorityness than the other person they won't get in even though Harvard and other good schools all have a long history of discrimination against Jewish people. Like explicit quotas till about the 1960s. You can get into Harvard with as little as about an 1800 by being Black and not too boring or similar to any other person who'll attend at the same time as you. Also by being better at football, basketball or rowing than the weakest player on the team, 1800 and willing to play 4 seasons, you don't even have to be any kind of minority or avoid being unlucky enough to have too similar of a personality to too many other students or have any other hobby, award etc to make you more interesting. Possibly even just being better than the weakest player on any one of their many sports teams and >1800 test score and wanting to play 4 seasons and not being convicted felon is guaranteed entry. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A little strange that these weren't hatted either. Regardless, the above is, ladies and gentlemen, is what you actually call tendentious and disruptive. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 18:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Also the UNC case artucle needs to be brought into this one as it was decided by the same slip opinion. The only reason the two cases are not consolidated is due to Jackson's refusal on the Harvard case. So there is an article quality issue too.
Also also, I would challenge the claims re I ternational students at these schools. AA was always about American residents and the biases of those races. Schools are still limited in how many international students via visa counts. So I really don't think that angle makes sense here. Masem (t) 17:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just that it's expected doesn't mean it's not news. I'm not sure how we could bring that into this one. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a 6–3 decision, the United States Supreme Court (justices pictured) determines considering race in college admissions is unconstitutional.
Note not using the phrase "affirmative action", using the phrase "in college admissions". I decided to exclude "overturning Grutter v Bollinger' but you may want to keep it in, your call. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, In a 6–3 decision, the United States Supreme Court (justices pictured) determines that considering race in college admissions is unconstitutional.QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comment: The court didn't explicitly overturn Grutter, therefore the blurb should not mention Grutter at all. Edge3 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am really sure that not each and every SCOTUS resolution deserves our attention. In fact, their overall interest and impact is usually minimal, with very few exceptions. In this case, it is another particularly specific issue that affects only a part of the American population. Oh, European, Asian, Latin American, African and Oceanic universities are also attended by students from all over the world. I think that was pretty obvious. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    European et al universities don't have major news right now. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because they do not need to and don’t overdramatize the events that take place there. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need drama to be on ITN. I don't get what you mean by "they do not need to". Aaron Liu (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article in good shape and this has major ramifications towards the educational landscape of the country. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT4 Case is of significance both domestically (obvious) and internationally (given the many international students in US institutions), and far more so than the independent state legislature case the other day. The Kip (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How, User:The Kip are international students effected? I don't see any indication of this in the references. Nfitz (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as another wrench, tomorrow is 99.99% certain we will know the result of the challenge on student loan forgiveness, which is a more immediate issue to many. I would think ahead that we might be able to have one blurb support both, since all the cases are dealing with college issues. But I would wait to see what happens tomorrow. --Masem (t) 19:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is really local. And not particularly relevant as few universities, even in that country, still use such systems; few colleges too I'd think. Roe vs Wade is certainly big, as would be something like tossing out the 2nd amendment, or the 13th amendment. I really don't see such nominations for most countries (the UK being the exception), other than the very biggest cases - even in very large countries. Nfitz (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    or the 13th amendment Have things really gotten to the point where this is now the bar for a SCOTUS decision being posted? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 00:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Masem and Nfitz (cf. the Moore v. Harper section below too). - SchroCat (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yes, it's a major court decision in the US. But major court decisions are handed down all the time all over the world. We almost never post them. FWIW, I supported the overturning of Roe being posted. But I think that was on a much higher level of significance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as well even though I suggested blurb 3 and 4.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As per the above: this decision will have significant consequences regarding race relations in the US, and it is also of international significance due to the US leading role and international students. The article is fine too. --TadejM my talk 00:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose internal to the US, and furthermore does not look like something that affects everyone in the country. Banedon (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong article. This blurb should link to Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina instead since that is the "main" case where all 9 justices participated. The Harvard case simply follows the decision of the UNC case with Jackson not able to participate. So either the UNC article should be linked or both cases should be treated with at least equal weight. 18.29.64.10 (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Corazon Nuñez Malanyaon

Article: Corazon Nuñez Malanyaon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/regions/874272/davao-oriental-governor-corazon-malanyaon-passes-away/story/
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: Filipino politician, twice member of the House of Representatives and in her second stint as Governor of Davao Oriental at the time of her death. Jollibinay (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic gravitational wave background

Proposed image
Pulsars rotate precisely so minute variations in their signals show the effect of gravity waves
Article: Gravitational wave background (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The NANOGrav consortium announces detection of a cosmic gravitational wave background in the signals from pulsars (pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The NANOGrav consortium announces evidence for the existence of a cosmic gravitational wave background in the signals from pulsars (pictured).
News source(s): Scientific American, Science, Al Jazeera, NYT, BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Gravitational waves are hard to detect but this ingenious technique seems fairly solid with a group of papers being published by an international consortium. We have work to do improving our coverage but a start has been made. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Per @Anarchyte PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning support - the NYT article does indicate that the findings are shy of the five sigma level that would be required in order to state with any certainty that this is a discovery and not just a random fluctuation. It wouldn't be the first time that we'd post a major scientific discovery (like the Higgs boson supposedly being found in 2012) only for it to be found out later that it was just a random glitch. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 11:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the Science article refers to 3.5 to 4 sigma level. Maybe, it's too low for a ITN post. Alexcalamaro (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - major scientific discovery that can provide serious insight into how the fabric of reality operates. However, needs additional citations for verifications; two whole sections lack sources. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 13:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
temp oppose on quality - article does not explain the theoretical mechanism, no equations or theoretical predictions either, etc. we need a good description of what the grav wave background is or is predicted to be. eg. compare to CMBR article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background, theres a chart comparing theoretical vs observed. I also want to see more indications that this is notable - it seems to me that this is just providign further evidence of gravitational waves existing and being pervasive, using pulsars as the medium of investigation (to prove that grav waves are pervasive). Quote sciam:

"...radio astronomers have tuned into the slowly undulating swells in spacetime thought to arise from pairs of supermassive black holes (SMBHs) that are about to collide.... five separate international teams... found evidence for these gravitational waves. They are far longer than the waves first captured .. in 2015, which emanate from collisions of star-size objects."

Are we going to post every single gravitational wave observation at this point? We have now observed grav waves from mergers between two black holes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves, that was the first observation and definitely deserves a blurb); but since then also a pair of neutron stars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817, GW190425). We can't just be posting every time a new gw is observed between two different objects, can we?

It's not clear to me that this is a significant discovery, in terms of addition of knowledge. (Certainly the methodology is significant, but that alone is not enough to merit a blurb?) QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was the quote from Science mag, not Sci Am. The biggest issue with this is that the authors are not claiming a discovery. Quote Sci am (for real this time!): "So for now, scientist... are modestly claiming “evidence for” the gravitational-wave background... But they’re confident that milestone will come with additional observations." Emphasis added. This feels to me like a clear WP: Crystal Ball issue and definitely means to me it does not merit a blurb. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 28

June 28, 2023 (2023-06-28) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

RD: Sue Johanson

Article: Sue Johanson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News, The Guardian
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: Canadian sex educator, TV and radio host, Order of Canada recipient Ornithoptera (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Domingo Germán perfect game

The result of the nomination was: not posted. Good faith nom, but I highly doubt consensus will develop to post per WP:SNOW. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 21:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

Article: Domingo Germán's perfect game (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In baseball, Domingo Germán pitches the 24th perfect game in Major League Baseball history. (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: 24th perfect game in the history of MLB; last one was in 2012. Article is still in progress, but topic should be worthy of ITN. Natg 19 (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we don't post the xth achievement in an area, where x is 2 or greater. That is if it were the first perfect game ever, that would be itn worthy. The 24th is not. Masem (t) 17:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome achievement that I watched highlights of this morning, and not something that would or should ever be posted on ITN. I love baseball, but a one-day regular-season achievement that doesn't break a significant record is not worthy of the Main Page. -- Kicking222 (talk) 19:22, 29 June 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.

RD: Robert Sherman (music critic)

Article: Robert Sherman (music critic) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WFUV
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.

 Thriley (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rudolf Pardede

Article: Rudolf Pardede (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Antara News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Indonesian politician, former senator and governor of North Sumatra. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lowell Weicker

Article: Lowell Weicker (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times, CT Mirror
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: American politician, former U.S. Senator and governor of Connecticut. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Nael M.

Articles: Killing of Nael M. (talk · history · tag) and Nahel M. riots (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In France, riots erupt across the country after a 17-year-old boy is fatally shot by police in Paris. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In France, over 150 people are arrested and 25 police officers injured after riots grip the country following the shooting of 17-year-old Nahel M. by police in Nanterre.
News source(s): Al Jazeera - Reuters - AP - France24 - Euronews - The Independent - NYT
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The French are again rioting; this time over the killing of 17-year-old Nael M. by police in Paris after a traffic stop. The riots are receiving widespread, international coverage, with many outlets running multiple stories on the incident. In many ways, this is somewhat full circle for me since my first nom on ITN was over another police killing: Tyre Nichols. That didn't get posted because people alleged that police shootings in America were too frequent. Regardless of how true that was, I believe France does have less of these (though not as little as you may expect). - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 16:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait This feels like a situation that we gave a better understanding in 12 or 24 hr of a news cycle. Maybe these riots disperse quickly, I dunno. But the article clearly needs expansion before any posting can be made. Masem (t) 17:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding article - while I agree with Masem (talk · contribs) that such an article is likely a premature content fork, with the widespread coverage this is receiving, I think we should just wait and see. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 14:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: David Ogilvy, 13th Earl of Airlie

Article: David Ogilvy, 13th Earl of Airlie (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph (subscription required), Daily Mail
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: Was Lord Chamberlain from 1984–1997, close friend of the Late Queen, last living person to have attended the Coronation of George VI and Elizabeth, and via marriage of his brother, related to Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy of the Royal Family. Article may need some work. TheCorriynial (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Sierra Leonean general election

Proposed image
Articles: 2023 Sierra Leonean general election (talk · history · tag) and Julius Maada Bio (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Julius Maada Bio (pictured) of the Sierra Leone People's Party is re-elected president. (Post)
News source(s): AP - AL Jazeera - The Guardian - Africa News
Credits:

Article updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Although the opposition is denying the results (which affects some people's support of general elections), he's already been sworn in, so it seems moot. Needs a lot of work (also surprisingly, there's very little coverage of the election results, even though the lead up did for the crackdown on the opposition). - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 07:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All South Koreans become younger

Article: East Asian age reckoning (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ South Korea switches from the Korean age system to the system used by most other countries in the world. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ South Korea has standardised age calculations for official purposes.
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The population of an entire nation has become 1 or 2 years younger. This was an ITN nomination in December 2022 when it was first announced and (some of) consensus was to wait till it comes into force, which is today. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - big news in South Korea; a millenia old tradition has finally been abolished in favor for the standard format. I too actually just read your December nom a few days ago and for the folks dismissing this as administrative trivia, this is actually been a big issue within Korea; for example, their COVID vax policy was all over the place due to inconsistencies in age measuring and was what actually finally led to them switching. Arguments about this just being an administrative change not only aren't true (since this system was in common use amongst SK populace) seem to be setting an exceptionally and rather idiosyncratic standard for what should be posted here, and it also comes off as reeking of the WP:ITNCDONT clause of please do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive, since I frankly doubt it would be considered "no big deal" if it occured in the US or UK. In fact, I wonder if this is considered "just an administrative change," how many of you would object to the US formally converting to the metric system being featured on ITN "because its just an administrative change?" - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 09:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please please please shorten your !votes?? I know you can make a concise point without writing a vote longer than two paragraphs. But these long, ranty !votes aren't helpful at all. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are bordering on disruptive, as they repeat the same arguments over and over, against the principles of WP:TE,too Masem (t) 13:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After multiple calls from you and FakeScientist, I shortened my responses from a max of one or two. The in #(Posted) Wagner Group mutiny, you responded to one of my replies with Second, could you maybe trim the length of your posts a bit? If your !vote is longer than one paragraph, consider whether it's too long. I haven't included a second paragraph since, and this paragraph was shorter than the bigger one from that reply. Now that's apparently not enough either? Are y'all doing this in a completely arbitrary manner or do y'all think this works best incrementally? I'm following what y'all stated. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 15:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's just -- can you find a way to communicate your point in a concise fashion without railing against other users? This isn't just arbitrary technicalities. Anyone can identify your !votes by the fact that they're needlessly long and rambling, and you go on tirades against opposing arguments. Masem is right, it's disruptive, and this is not the first time it has been brought up. I'm not sure what's being missed here; maybe I need to provide diffs so you can see what's being referred to? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I don't think they're really that disruptive. I think Knight makes some good points actually. I'd say that debating over the appropriate lengths that an ITN vote should be is equally as "disruptive" as the long votes themselves, but that's just my opinion. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I can almost always tell if a comment, !vote, or even a nomination is from you if the comment lengths exceeds that of 2 sentences. In my previous request, I said maybe 2 paragraphs at most is fair (assuming on the rare occasion), not every time you comment (and as mentioned by others, they always repeat the same exact points). Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needlessly verbose, certainly, but this is not disruptive by any stretch of the imagination. AryKun (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
^ PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, a gimmick. nobody’s actually getting younger. Changing the way they count age in a way which affects nothing else in the world. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, interesting, in the news, and significant if you live in Korea. BilledMammal (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's not a major story but the article update is ok and it's more in-the-news than several of the existing blurbs (for example, the US Open finished 10 days ago). The Titan submersible story should be considered newer as that didn't climax until 22 June – four days later – and is still getting attention. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:ITNCRIT:

    a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable

    I don't see any updates since the announcement. What is the anticipation? What are the preparations? What is the expected impact?—Bagumba (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck oppose, per expansion (mentioned below).—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both on the gimmicky nature of this (better for DYK as an interesting fact) and the lack of any significant update to explain the significance per Bagumba. --Masem (t) 12:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To those supporting thus, if it is that significant, there needs to be far more than a one sentence update to the article. We need to know what govt services and other facets of life are now changed in a significant manner. On the surface, this adjustment appears as a plain as when we have a leap year. Masem (t) 15:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree that this is more suitable for DYK.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I disagree with everyone who is suggesting this is only appropriate for DYK. I think this could be a perfect addition both for the ITN and DYK. It's a tradition that has been in Korea for like a thousand years now, and it has come to a halting end. Big news. TwistedAxe [contact] 13:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on significance This is a drastic cultural change that has local ramifications. Easy support. DrewieStewie (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding my Support too. It's interesting and newsworthy.
    2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:2C39:AF7F:1A62:CA6F (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's a bookkeeping move, plain and simple. If South Koreans want to celebrate their birthdays like they had in the past, they are not prevented from doing so, so the "cultural impact" here is dubious. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Significant, interesting, and has permanent ramifications. Article needs a touch-up though. There are some unresolved tags and a cite templates error. Folly Mox (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - does not meet notability standard, this blurb entry is basically for a 1-sentence update in the article. - Indefensible (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality as it's a one-sentence update. The Kip (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support.
Is this gimmicky? Kinda. Is this internationally significant? No. But it is an interesting story, one that has quite significant impact in South Korea, is making some headlines, and I honestly do not see the harm in posting it. Perhaps I'm wrong though. I better stop writing before this becomes too long, otherwise I shall be labeled Tendentious! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps tendentious was the wrong word to use, but it's a valid complaint to make when you see nearly every other editor on this page concisely sum up their vote in 2-3 lines at most, except for one often leaving a 5-7 line paragraph. The Kip (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, quality over quantity, I do agree. But I think in this day an age a man should be judged not by the size of his comment, but by the content of his vote.
I don't think Knight is making his votes deliberately long or in bad faith, and I've seen him make some good points.
Regardless, it seems lessons have been learnt, so let us all move on. Cheers! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear possibly significant, but i'm not sure just a sentence on the relevant article counts as enough prose to make this a good quality posting. Could it be spun off into a separate article or section? Idk just some ideas. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've expanded the update to 6 sentences, above the minimal requirement for updated articles. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 19:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - if something of this magnitude were happening in (for example) the US, I'd support it. I don't see why this is any different. It is big news, and it's not like this is something that happens every day. See you in 1000 years. :-) --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a long-time DYK contributor, I can say that "DYK ... that, after 1000 years, all South Koreans became a year younger?" would actually be fantastic content over there. Sometimes, yes, the suggestion something belongs at DYK is a bad one, but here it's a genuine response to, particularly, the nomination comment. Also, no need to go all-bold text, please. Kingsif (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a long-time DYK contributor, you should know that it's an uphill battle for this to be approved. The article is already pretty lengthy, so a 5x expansion is pretty much impossible. You can probably split the South Korean reckoning to a separate article; perhaps that's more plausible. This article, at its current state can be WP:GA, but that may take sometime, and once this is promoted to GA status, the newsworthiness of this event has subsided. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb This is a unique event with ramifications on an entire culture. Article needs a bit more work though (sourcing wise). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Calling it a gimmick is a bit too flippant, but there's a comparison above saying in principle there is little difference between this and a leap year that I agree with. I imagine if ITN had been around when leap years were introduced, we would have blurbed that news, or I would have !supported, at least - because the little difference is that leap years affect the whole world indefinitely. And this doesn't. Kingsif (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this has consensus to post, both in strength of the arguments and in numbers alone (10 in support and 6 in opposition, once opposes based on the lack of an update are omitted). However, I'm leery to do so because there are multiple tags in that section, and there's a lot of reading to get through before a reader sees the update. Is it possible to create a new subsection specifically for this update? (Beyond the scope of this ITNC nomination, I'd also wonder if this article is ripe for splitting.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose purely on quality. No issue with the subject matter, but all other sections are poorly sourced. We're bolding an anchored section, but the rest of the article isn't in great nick. Anarchyte (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - The more I think about it, the more I kind of enjoy the nature of this story and how interesting it is, and the impact on an entire population is almost axiomatic! That said, I hope the quality can be brought up to par to permit for this. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb per above. Very interesting and uncommon event. Davey2116 (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support., It is an interesting story and the article looks ok. Alex-h (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support based on quality; I think it's juuuuust about what I think the baseline quality for a posted article should be. I support posting in general based partly on significance and partly because, honestly, i just like the story. It's interesting and different. Kicking222 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as a Korean. This is largely a gimmicky law that doesn't change anything of legal significance. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per PrecariousWorlds and WaltCip. It's one of those difficult borderline cases, but in such cases I think it is appropriate to recognize the interesting/unique factor. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

June 27, 2023 (2023-06-27) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Ryan Mallett

Article: Ryan Mallett (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2][3][4]
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 NFL quarterback and high school football coach. 35. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 22:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD/blurb Julian Sands

Proposed image
Article: Julian Sands (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  In the United States, British actor Julian Sands (pictured) is found dead near Mount Baldy, California in the San Gabriel Mountains after a five-month long search. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the United States, British actor Julian Sands (pictured) is found dead near Mount Baldy, California in the San Gabriel Mountains after a five-month long search.
News source(s): The Independent BBC [5]
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: Needs a bit of work to sort out the usual problems. Sad case: missing on a hike five months ago, his remains have only just been found. (Addendum: Nominated for RD, not a blurb: I oppose the blurb, but support the RD once the article is sorted) SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per WP:ITNRDBLURB, blurb RDs can be posted if it fits the following criterion:

Death as the main story: For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of a prominent figure by homicide, suicide, or accident) or where the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation (such as ongoing investigations, major stories about memorial services or international reactions, etc.) a blurb may be merited to explain the death's relevance. In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb.

This is about as textbook of an example as it gets: a famous actor that contrary to @Nfitz's claims, has had widespread (CNN, The Guardian, Sky News, NPR, NBC, WaPo, NYT, Reuters) international (France24, Euronews, DW, Al Jazeera, El Pais, Le Monde) coverage of his disappearance. That fact that you personally never heard of it is not and shall never be a valid rationale (that's literally as WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND WP:IDONTLIKEIT as it gets), nor should the fact that he's a dreaded "celebrity" (because based on how much fear mongering their is about ITN turning into a celebrity newsticker, there will likely be people who will reflexively oppose on that basis) disqualify him. Additionally, @Kiril Simeonovski, I don't understand this idea that I've seen where events nominated her have to have a standalone article; hell, {{ITN candidate}} literally has a |update= parameter in part for non standalone articles. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 09:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to post a blurb, it'd be because the death is the main story, not that the person was notable. In that case, we require a standalone article that'd be bolded in the blurb. If we bold Julian Sands, it'd give undue weight on the person, who's not supposed to be the main target in the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we require a standalone article that'd be bolded in the blurb.

Where in any of the ITN policy pages does it state that? In fact, considering the above excerpt is extracted from the Recent Deaths policy page, which solely focus on the article of the deceased individual, I'd say that it heavily implies the opposite; in the instance of a "death as primary story" blurb, you don't need a separate article. In fact, I don't understand the argument that by not having one, we're giving WP:UNDUE weight with a blurb considering the whole story literally revolves around him. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 09:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no specific policy stating when a standalone article should exist, but it's oftentimes mentioned as a principal requirement in ITN discussions. I've proposed an alternative blurb to illustrate why that standalone article is needed. Moreover, even having a standalone article may not be sufficient for a blurb. The disappearance of Emiliano Sala was top news in all media, and the story is well documented in 2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash, but it was posted only to RD.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no specific policy stating when a standalone article should exist, but it's oftentimes mentioned as a principal requirement in ITN discussions.

Then those arguments should be disregarded for violating policy. For example, we've run blurbs about countries re-establishing diplomatic relations and we don't require a specific article for that; just a link to the article on their relations (e.g, France-Germany relations [btw, we didn't run a blurb on Germany and France establishing diplomatic ties, I'm just using that article as an example]). - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 19:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, planty of things are oft-mentioned at ITN without actual consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like comparing apples and oranges. Deaths are different from other news we post, and we even have different criteria for posting death blurbs. Whether a standalone article is necessary depends on common sense and experience, not on any kind of a policy or a rule written in stone, so disregarding arguments because of lacking policy depth is sort of rules-lawyering. In this particular case, the standalone article is required for a practical reason, that is, to document the notable death as argued by other editors in this discussion. I don't think the story about the disappearance and death make this person outstandingly notable. It's the disappearance and death that merits inclusion, and it needs to be evaluated separately.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Knightofthewords assessment that a"bout as textbook of an example as it gets". Looking at For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of a prominent figure by homicide, suicide, or accident) or where the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation (such as ongoing investigations, major stories about memorial services or international reactions, etc.) a blurb may be merited to explain the death's relevance, we have neither ongoing investigations, memorial services, nor international reactions. And we are hard-pressed to even say prominent. I do agree though that this should be opposed because the death happened months ago. Nfitz (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Moore v. Harper

Good faith nom but consensus to post will not develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Moore v. Harper (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the United States, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court rules that the Elections Clause of the U.S constitution does not grant state legislatures power over elections. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the United States, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court rejects the independent state legislature theory, prohibiting state legislatures from interfering in elections.
News source(s): WaPo - PBS - Politico - MSNBC - Slate
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is (and has been recognized as such by political analysts and legal scholars as) probably one of the most critical SCOTUS decisions in a hot minute. It essentially rejects this idea that American state legislatures have ultimate power over elections without ay checks and balances; effectively allowing them in practice to interfere with the electoral process. The decision in the case will have ramifications persisting for a while, and while you can argue that we just retained the status quo, this was a surprisingly up in the air and close ruling. Additionally, the ruling has raised concerns about interference within elections, but instead from states, from SCOTUS. Finally, for the people rushing to oppose due to accusations of U.S centrism (in violation of WP:ITNCUSA), considering how much of the global system is determined by America and these days its incumbent federal government, I'd say that this is somewhat relevant globally with the 2024 elections. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 17:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this under RD? Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Certainly relevant to the U.S. (as an American) but not sure it rises to the significance needed for ITN. If it gets significant international coverage a la Dobbs, I could be persuaded to support. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've looked at a number of heavyweight news sources outside the US, and the biggest US story from most of those is Trump babbling about state secrets (i.e. BBC. Indeed, this story isn't on the BBC's US page at all. I am guessing it will appear at some point (I note it's on Le Monde, but below the fold), but at the moment this doesn't seem to rise to the importance required for ITN. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Presidentman. Yes, opposing because “only one country” is against rules, but I’m not sure if this is generally notable enough to be blurbed. The Kip (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Thanks for bringing this to my attention Knight, it's a very interesting story indeed. I have to concur with the other editors here that this probably isn't notable, but as per @Presidentman, we shouldn't immediately oppose. Let's wait and see the international reaction!
"Moore v. Harper had been described as one of the highest-profile cases the Supreme Court has taken in recent years; former federal judge Michael Luttig called it the "single most important case on American democracy—and for American democracy—in the nation's history"." - A quote from the article. Seems pretty big! Let us all wait and see :) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Cok Budi Suryawan

Article: Cok Budi Suryawan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.balipuspanews.com/cok-budi-suryawan-mantan-bupati-gianyar-berpulang.html
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: Balinese politician. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Manipur violence

Consensus is against posting primarily due to inconsistent updating. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2023 Manipur violence (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: A significant event that has resulted in the loss of many lives and displacement of thousands of people. Ainty Painty (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Carmen Sevilla

The following is an archived discussion for an In the news candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors or Wikipedia Talk:In the news.
The result of the discussion was: posted. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 22:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Article: Carmen Sevilla (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC, La Vanguardia, Europa Press
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Very popular Spanish actress and TV presenter. Article seems ready to me. Alexcalamaro (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nomination and the updatings. I'm in the process of expanding the content and sources, I hope to have it finished tonight. A true icon of Spain has passed away. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The In the news nomination above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors or Wikipedia Talk:In the news. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 26

June 26, 2023 (2023-06-26) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Tony Bouza

Article: Tony Bouza (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) 22:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Turkish economic crisis (2018–current)

WP:SNOW close. This is not the type of story that needs to be in ongoing- if it was, we would have a plethora of ongoing items- and the article hasn't even been updated in two weeks. If there is relevant news about the crisis, it should be nominated as a regular ITN item, though I don't think a currency hitting a record low would get posted in and of itself. -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Turkish economic crisis (2018–current) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The Turkish lira falls to a record low against the United States dollar, while the central bank stops using its reserves to support the lira. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No updates to the article to show any key events in 2023. Absolutely required against a five-year ongoing event. Masem (t) 12:09, 27 June 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.

2023 Guatemalan general election

Article: 2023 Guatemalan general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Vamos win a plularity of votes in the Guatemalan general legislative election (Post)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: there's a presidential election yet to be concluded but parliamentary results are in. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now as there's no prose on the results/aftermath. Definitely post separate from the presidential election, though, as the runoff isn't for another two months. The Kip (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Re-opened) RD: Lew Palter

Article: Lew Palter (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter CalArts
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.

(Posted) RD: Richard Ravitch

The following is an archived discussion for an In the news candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors or Wikipedia Talk:In the news.
The result of the discussion was: posted. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 22:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Article: Richard Ravitch (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
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: former Lieutenant Governor of New York and chairman of the MTA, amongst other leadership roles in private businesses. Needs cause of death in body of article. 3rd RD nomination ever, let’s see if this goes better than the last two times. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 21:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The In the news nomination above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors or Wikipedia Talk:In the news. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: David Bohrman

Article: David Bohrman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article needs updating
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 news executive. Needs a few citations. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 21:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Raanan Gissin

Article: Raanan Gissin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): JP
Credits:

Article needs updating
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: Israeli political analyst. Needs serious rework. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 20:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Lloyd Erskine Sandiford

Article: Lloyd Erskine Sandiford (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Jamaica Observer
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: Barbadian PM. Might I ask, since the PM of Barbados holds executive power, making him a "world figure" in a sense, would that make him eligible for a blurb? - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 20:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support a RD, Not a Blurb I do not see this person being blurb able, not super well known. TheCorriynial (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barbados achieved independence independence in 1966. I'm assuming this is referring to their status as a commonwealth nation, which seems to be a somewhat absurd criteria to me (so if Trudeau dropped dead today, we wouldn't blurb?). - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 21:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trudeau is the current leader of Canada, Sandiford was the former leader of Barbados, so there is a clear difference in scope. Anyways, politicians are not considered for death-blurbs by mere virtue of holding an office, they are considered for the actions they do in that office. Curbon7 (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: James Crown

Article: James Crown (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS - CNN - USAToday
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: American businessman and heir who died while driving on a race track. Not a great way to go. Article is a little stubby ATM. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 20:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Hugo Blanco (politician)

Article: Hugo Blanco (politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Infobae
Credits:

Article needs updating
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: Peruvian political figure. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 19:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed, RD posted): John B. Goodenough

RD posted and no consensus for a blurb. While he was an important figure, there was a large opposition regarding the level of fame sufficient for a blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 04:50, 28 June 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: John B. Goodenough (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American physicist and Nobel chemist John B. Goodenough (pictured) dies at the age of 100. (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu Businessline
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: Article updated and well sourced. Death announced today. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is well cited and well sourced. Great name, btw. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Prof. Goodenough's legacy extends far beyond lithium-ion batteries and Random Access Memory. As I write this, I want to point to his strong work ethic taking into account that he worked as long as he could to further improve materials science. As far as I know, he was working on solid-state batteries up until his death paving the way to replace the very batteries he helped to create.
From one longhorn to another, Hook 'em! SlavicNarwal (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That Forbes piece is from a contributer so it is unreliable, before people start jumping on adding it to the article. However, on the blurb, I don't think he represents the top of the field, as while receiving the Novel is important, we aren't blurbing the deaths of all Nobel winners. If anything, the article needs a clear section of his work's impact on the field of batteries, which otherwise right now is buried across the article. Masem (t) 19:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Craig Brown

The following is an archived discussion for an In the news candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors or Wikipedia Talk:In the news.
The result of the discussion was: posted. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 22:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Article: Craig Brown (footballer, born 1940) (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: Longest-serving Scotland international football manager. Needs quite a bit of work. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The In the news nomination above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors or Wikipedia Talk:In the news. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Cameron Buchanan (politician)

Article: Cameron Buchanan (politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Midlothian View
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: Scottish politician. Needs expansion - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 01:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: José Antonio Sistiaga

Article: José Antonio Sistiaga (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): eitb.eus
Credits:

Article needs updating
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: Spanish Basque artist and experimental filmmaker. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 01:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Tapas Das

Article: Tapas Das (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TOI
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Indian singer-songwriter, and guitarist. Needs some citation work. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 01:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Robert "Say" McIntosh

Article: Robert "Say" McIntosh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): KARK
Credits:

Article needs updating
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 political activist. Needs citation work. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 01:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

June 25, 2023 (2023-06-25) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Wilhelm Büsing

The following is an archived discussion for an In the news candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors or Wikipedia Talk:In the news.
The result of the discussion was: posted. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 22:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Article: Wilhelm Büsing (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): St.Georg
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: Olympic medalist, 102. Would appreciate if this is reviewed quickly (WikiCup). BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The In the news nomination above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors or Wikipedia Talk:In the news. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Ready) RD: Simon Crean

Article: Simon Crean (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-25/former-labor-leader-simon-crean-dies-aged-74/102521856
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: Former Australian Labor Party leader HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Dean Smith (sprinter)

Article: Dean Smith (sprinter) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 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.

23:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose as the article's quality is quite subpar. There are quite a few CN tags, and the overall length of the article is quite stubby. Improvement is needed, and fast. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Worth noting that there were no CN tags when the article was nominated. Now there's a lot because you added them. Granted, some of these may be required but I think you might have gone a bit overboard with some of them. Sometimes it's just as easy to add a ref/citation as it is to add a tag. Plus the refs already in the article cover a lot - if not all - of the info now tagged. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:AD4D:4C49:94D1:E651 (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now there's a lot because you added them...I think you might have gone a bit overboard some of them: I think that's good; now editors/readers know what needs sourcing. On the flip side, editors might only fix what is minimally tagged, and complain later on when they're fixed, but more is added: "But, you didn't tag it before". Plus the refs already in the article cover a lot or all of the info now tagged It's possible that WP:INTEGRITY of the sources declined with new text being added over time. If an existing source is applicable, by all means re-use it with a new footnote.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - all the CN tags have now been fixed with sources. Plus new sources have been added. So no issue there. As for the length of the article itself, I've added headings and expanded it a bit with some info from sources. There's plenty of references with lots more info to draw from if other editors feel like expanding it more. Not sure if I'll have time to myself but might take a look if I find any. In the meantime, all the issues - except maybe length - seem to have been addressed. If more CN tags are added, I'll try to fix them with additional sources. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:AD4D:4C49:94D1:E651 (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greek snap election

Proposed image
Article: June 2023 Greek legislative election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Greece, the New Democratic party (leader Kyriakos Mitsotakis pictured) wins the legislative election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Greece, Kyriakos Mitsotakis (pictured) becomes prime minister after his New Democratic party in wins a majority of seats in the Greek parliament.
News source(s): BBC - NYT - Politico - The Guardian - AP
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: Greeces New Democratic party has triumphed in today's elections, with it being hailed as a major victory for conservatism. The latter half of the article is a tablewall, which needs to be remedied. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 22:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General elections are already presumed to be inherently notable.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Support as every other UN country when they elect a head of state or government. Smaller countries have been covered so not including Greece is racist by definition. —Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 08:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps read the rest of the discussion before you start throwing random accusations of "racism" around... As it literally says at the top of this section - "Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance". And that's what the opposition so far is regarding.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think screaming "racist" having never once contributed to ITN and clearly not knowing how it works is an incredible violation of WP:AGF... not least because you have no idea what races other people are! Kicking222 (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Racist to whom? The Greeks are not a race. They're an ethnicity. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some analysis is needed to explain the result for general readers. I had to read the BBC report – which is a professionally written explanation. Our article doesn't come close. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the reason that alot of people in this discussion seem to be forgetting that this is a snap election. There's plenty of prose in the article for being a relatively new article, and not to mention that this election is a follow-up of the previous election from May, which has a TON of prose and is more than enough to post in ITN. The reason why we didn't post it the last time around was solely because of the fact that we knew these June snap elections were imminent and were posting to post them too. I opposed the last nom regarding these elections, and will be supporting this one for the reasons I stated before. TwistedAxe [contact] 12:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The May 2023 election article has a few uncited sources, and we aren't bolding/blurbing that. The prose on this nominated article, that being June 2023 Greek legislative election, has a considerable lack of prose in places needing prose. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 14:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite ready I think it'd benefit from at least a brief paragraph about the aftermath or some analysis about what the results will mean. Not every election article we post needs to have this, but given that other editors have already located quality RS that provide this (e.g. the BBC article Andrew linked) we have the potential to make the article better before putting it on the main page.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would want to see some prose in the results section. It must be explained what the data mean. Schwede66 20:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Yang Ti-liang

Article: Yang Ti-liang (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SCMP
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: Hong Konger judge. Need more sources. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 02:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Margaret McDonagh, Baroness McDonagh

Article: Margaret McDonagh, Baroness McDonagh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
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 Labour party politician. Article seems decent, though it could do with some lengthening. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 02:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dahrran Diedrick

The following is an archived discussion for an In the news candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors or Wikipedia Talk:In the news.
The result of the discussion was: posted. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 22:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Article: Dahrran Diedrick (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC
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: Canadian football player. It actually looks ready to go thanks to the work of @Cmm3:. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 01:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The In the news nomination above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors or Wikipedia Talk:In the news. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Claude Barzotti

Article: Claude Barzotti (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Le Monde
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: Italian-Belgian singer. Suffers from the usual issues regarding sources. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 01:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Blurb Change: Wagner rebellion

The following is an archived discussion for an In the news candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors or Wikipedia Talk:In the news.
The result of the discussion was: posted. Consensus emerged for a blurb change, which was why many in the prior discussion were voting pull anyway. One user wanted to pull, but his arguments didn't convince anyone. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 22:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Proposed image
Article: Wagner Group rebellion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Russia, the Wagner Group mercenary group rebels against the government, before standing down. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Russia, after revolting against the Russian military, the paramilitary company Wagner Group (leader Yevgeny Prigozhin pictured) agrees to stand down.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In Russia, after brokering a deal with Belarussian president Alexander Lukashenko, the mercenary company Wagner Group (leader Yevgeny Prigozhin pictured) ends its revolt against the the Russian military.
Alternative blurb III: ​ In Russia, the Wagner mercenary group (leader Yevgeny Prigozhin pictured) stands down after rebelling against the government.
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Hello my friends! I have been following this recent episode of Earth quite closely, and I think it's fair to say that the rebellion is pretty much over by now. The Wagner forces have stood down, and are retreating. So, I think the blurb should reflect that, by making it clear that the whole escapade has ended. I may be wrong, and if so I'll be on my merry way. Just a suggestion and a thought. Cheers! :)) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - RSes are reporting that Prigozhin is withdrawing from Rostov-on-don. Seems like many of the people voting pull in the below discussion aren't realizing that this exists so I'm adding Prigozhin's image as a sort of marker. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 02:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Knight! I am absolutely awful at adding images to blurbs. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - #1 news story in the world for agencies Associated Press and Reuters. [8] [9] starship.paint (exalt) 03:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's still the top story 12 hours since the capitulation. Impressive. Very nice. Let's see the American coup now. 5.44.170.53 (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's been 12 hours, the deal hasn't fallen thru, i think it's time we can change the blur. 5.44.170.53 (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposing & supporting alt blurb 3 It describes what happened & is based on the current blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb 3.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb 3 with thanks to Blaylockjam10 for proposing it. Succint and gets the point across effectively. Kurtis (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Big numbers for this yesterday as this and other related articles were top read. It's interesting that the titles Wagner Group mutiny and Wagner Group rebellion were roughly tied with about half a million views each. But the most common title search was for just Wagner Group with over two million views. Suggested blurb 3 includes all the most popular links and so fits what readers are looking for. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any of the above. Time to get the outdated version of the MP. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted altblurb 3 -- Kicking222 (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support of altblurb 3 - Though I have my qualms about significance overall, that altblurb is the most appropriate to describe the course of events that took place. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull - all the above, non-story of no real consequence. nableezy - 14:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-story of no real consequence that is still #1 story in Reuters [10] and Associated Press [11] Russian mercenaries’ short-lived revolt could have long-term consequences for Putin? starship.paint (exalt) 14:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or it could not. And either way, covered by ongoing. This is mostly people, Wikipedians, wishing for things to be true that arent true, but this blurb isnt going to make them true. Nothing happened here, we have a blurb that literally says the thing we so breathlessly reported to you as some major story yesterday ended without anything happening today. nableezy - 15:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not saying nothing happened, things that stop still have impact. The aforementioned AP article details the impact. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That article you linked does not really make any conclusions, for example it states the rebellion "could have long-term consequences" which indicates things are pretty much up in the air. Nothing could happen like nableezy said, or it might turn into something more. All of that seems like WP:CRYSTAL either way. I agree with pulling the blurb as it seems redundant with the ongoing item, but clearly the blurb has consensus so it does not really matter. - Indefensible (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to name a few:
    severely dented Putin’s reputation as a leader who is willing to ruthlessly punish anyone who challenges his authority which is true since Wagners don't have punishments yet and the leader will not face prosecution
    Several world leaders say even the halt shows something big is coming which is also part of the reason why 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis became ongoing back before the war started.
    resulted in some of the best forces fighting for Russia in Ukraine being pulled from the battlefield: Prigozhin’s own Wagner troops, who had shown their effectiveness in scoring the Kremlin’s only land victory in months in Bakhmut, and Chechen soldiers sent to stop them on the approach to Moscow. The Wagner forces’ largely unopposed, rapid advance also exposed vulnerabilities in Russia’s security and military forces. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is still largely unproven conjecture, for example U.S. Secretary of State Blinken said that "It is too soon to tell exactly where they go and when they get there" and if Wagner troops can be moved that quickly then putting them back may not be hard either. We do not yet know whether this event will turn out to have been nothing much or have bigger consequences. - Indefensible (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor did we know when we put 2021 – 2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis into ongoing. I think just that most world leaders think this will amount to something big (like the former) would be enough Aaron Liu (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The function of a blurb vs. an ongoing entry are different, and this event is a relatively small element of that larger subject. In any event they both have support, it does not really matter than much either way. - Indefensible (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most world leaders publicly state that this is something big. We have to remember that when it comes to war, the party line from every country is going to have a different take on the events, based on their systemic ideological bias or their need to shape events in their favor. When it comes to ITN and stories like these, I tend to lean the same way as Masem -- we should report the actions iif they are individually noteworthy and significant, and try not to rely on our own biases and conjecture to explain events. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to this, a major problem across all of WP which also affects ITN is too many editors writing for the here and now, and not fir the 10-year view. We are supposed to summarize events from a backwards-looking view...Wikinews was created for those that want to write in the here and now. Thats when it comes to ITN we need to focus on the encyclopedic quality of events more than timeliness, and why we can wait to post something to make sure it is an actual, long term impact event than the knee jerk reactions of the media. Masem (t) 13:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still oppose pull. This is a major development that deserves a mention outside of ongoing as it reveals internal tensions and popular anti-support. Yes it may have been posted prematurely, but that doesn't mean we need to pull it now. For one, it means that a lot of Russian citizens got first-hand influence against the war and there may not be popular support for the war (indicated by how the citizens welcomed the coupers) Aaron Liu (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support blurb 3. I've been on the fence about how to address this, but I think we've found a good compromise. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I've ever seen a "blurb change" nomination before. I thought WP:ERRORS was the venue for that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Errors is normally for literal errors (spelling, formatting, etc) while this was an update on a changing event. The Kip (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blurb updates are regularly suggested at ERRORS. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen any bigger blurb changes suggested at ERRORS. Most of the blurb changes at WP:ERRORS were at most just a word. Also, Sca is banned from this page so they must suggest at ERRORS. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Major blurb changes clearly go here, ERRORS is for either small tweaks or factual inaccuracies.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The top of ITNC says:

    For more complex updates that involve a major change in the blurb's intent, that should be discussed as part of the current ITNC nomination.

    —Bagumba (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A nomination which is usually closed if a contentious consensus is reached, usually with the comment "please discuss any issues with the blurb at WP:ERRORS". Bit of a catch-22. I think a standalone discussion is appropriate. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is the "current ITNC nomination", given the technicality of the original being already closed. —Bagumba (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The In the news nomination above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors or Wikipedia Talk:In the news. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 24

June 24, 2023 (2023-06-24) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: K. R. Parthasarathy (probabilist)

The following is an archived discussion for an In the news candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors or Wikipedia Talk:In the news.
The result of the discussion was: posted. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 22:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Article: K. R. Parthasarathy (probabilist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express
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: Indian mathematician. Death announced in WP:RS on this day. Article requires some work, but, not terribly far away. Basic edits done. Article meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The In the news nomination above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors or Wikipedia Talk:In the news. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Desmond Junaidi Mahesa

Article: Desmond Junaidi Mahesa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.tvonenews.com/berita/nasional/132529-politikus-gerindra-desmond-mahesa-meninggal-dunia-disemayamkan-di-karawang-sabtu-siang
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: MP since 2009. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Cédric Roussel

Article: Cédric Roussel (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport
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: Football player Pharaoh of the Wizards — Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing removal: 2023 Sudan conflict

Article: 2023 Sudan conflict (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: No recent updates. Interstellarity (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - still receiving daily updates. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 14:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've thought about if it should be removed before since the map hasn't really changed at all since the conflict started, but the revision history is incredibly active. Things are still happening and being documented on Wikipedia.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Wagner Group mutiny

Blurb changed, refer to above discussion if you want to comment. starship.paint (exalt) 14:47, 25 June 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: Wagner Group mutiny (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the pro-Russian mercenary company Wagner Group (leader Yevgeny Prigozhin pictured) mutinies after being shelled by Russian forces. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the pro-Russian mercenary company Wagner Group mutinies after being shelled by Russian forces, prompting the Russian Federal Security Service to open a criminal investigation into it's leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin (pictured).
Alternative blurb II: ​ Russia issues arrest warrant for Wagner mercenaries chief Yevgeny Prigozhin (pictured) on charges of mutiny
Alternative blurb III: ​ In Russia, the pro-Russian mercenary company Wagner Group (leader Yevgeny Prigozhin pictured) revolts against the Russian government.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ In Russia, the pro-Russian mercenary company Wagner Group (leader Yevgeny Prigozhin pictured) mutinies and launches a coup d'etat against the Russian government.
News source(s): Reuters - The Guardian - France24 - DW - VOA - WSJ - BBC - NBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Yes, "tHiS iS oNgOiNg," but this is a major development in the war: one of Russia's closest allies in the war and Putin's biggest buddies being shelled by Russian troops and mutinying against them. I mean, Yevgeny Prigozhin on Telegram went so far to literally to completely dismiss Russia's invasion rationale, saying that Ukraine and NATO were never going to attack Russia, accused Sergei Shoigu, the minister of defense, for fucking up the war effort, and other stuff so shocking, he's now had a criminal investigation opened about him by the Russian Federal Security Service. We've established with the ICC Putin charges, the recent dam explosion, the Crimean bridge and the like that just because an item is ongoing, extremely major news stories can still be blurbed. This seems like a textbox example of major blurb worthy news from an ongoing news event. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 01:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait the situation is too unclear for any blurb to be accurate. 217.180.228.188 (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A major ally of Putin rejecting his now-former allyship is a major development of the war. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post shortly The top news stories so far seem to be mostly focusing on informational statements made by the Russians. We should wait until more physical effects (such as fighting, arrests, etc.) are seen.
2G0o2De0l (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — No sign of any developments. As you said yourself, already covered in ongoing regardless. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait I agree that this is a major development and that this would definitely make it to ITN when things develop further, but I would call for some more time to pass before the situation is a bit more resolved. I would also consider adding "allegedly" before shelled because to the best of my knowledge this is an allegation that Prigozhin shared but is disputed, I may be wrong though. Ornithoptera (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait As stated above, it's unclear precisely what is happening. Obviously fighting between Wagner and the Russian military is noteworthy and likely to attract significant media coverage, but thing are still developing, so it's too early to post a blurb. Gust Justice (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait but eventually Support. Currently developing and the media environment makes it difficult to see what is actually happening. We should probably exclude the alleged shelling, which is disputed and just simply say that the Wagner Group has mutinied. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose pull. Once reliable sources confirmed that Wagner had taken Rostov-on-Don (Russia's 10th largest city and a major military hub), this was suitable for posting independently of the war in Ukraine ongoing item. It seems with recent developments, the blurb might need to be updated, but the significance threshold for is met. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we need a better blurb. Mutinies seems to be the wrong word. Need something about the increasing rhetoric and accusations and threats about this side. I haven't got the words though. Nfitz (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Definitely a major development but more details need to be known. Alrdead (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for more details/the fog of war to clear, then Support. Yeah, it’s somewhat covered by ongoing, but this is the type of major development that justifies a blurb in itself. The Kip (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as both covered by ongoing and failing any significance unless and until something actually happens as a result of it. If he deposes the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation then sure post. If he shuts up or is shut up then who cares? nableezy - 02:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic then we shouldn't have had any ITN on the Ukraine War yet, because they haven't deposed the Ukrainian president. Wagner forces have now moved 100s of kilometres along the road to Moscow, with little to no resistance. But the blurb needs work. I'm not sure why the Russian charges are that relevant at this point in time. Nfitz (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, by this logic you dont breathlessly rush to the main page for every piece of fast changing information that may, and did, amount to nothing. Believe I had that one. nableezy - 14:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They’ve effectively seized Rostov-on-Don including the Southern Military District HQ, I fail to see how that has “no significance.” This is arguably the most significant development of the war since the invasion itself. The Kip (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem, you were saying? nableezy - 14:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight Oppose It hurts me to say this to something so important, but it is Covered by ongoing. Still, I can see why this is important, and I truly hope that this can be an ITN as soon as the situation becomes clear. Once things clear up, I may change my vote to Support. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The ongoing covers the invasion of Ukraine. These are Russians fighting (or at least moving unopposed) hundreds of kilometres up the highway to Moscow. It's either notable on it's own, or not; but this isn't part of the Ukrainian War ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So why does the blurb say "In the Russian invasion of Ukraine..."? HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I keep saying the blurb need a rewrite. Nfitz (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to change my vote to Support due to the fact that the Government of Russia has already stated this as a Coup attempt, which has not really been common since 1993, and that they have captured Rostov-on-Don. Based on this, the event goes far beyond Ongoing. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, bordering on Support The situation is probably clear enough to post now, but I'm not positive. I think the notability and news coverage are both there. I should note that the original blurb and alt 1 are way too long. -- Kicking222 (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait We have lots of unclear results, probably another 12 hrs will give us sufficient details to know if this was a successful coup or event that falls outside ongoing. --Masem (t) 03:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. If I remember correctly, a Russian missile attack got posted here once. This is orders of magnitude more important than those individual attacks, and the article in question is written adequately, especially considering it's such a quickly changing scene. - Mebigrouxboy (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is NOT obvious that "this is a major development in the war". Only time will tell us that. Lots of time. HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bro, they've effectively captured Rostov-on-Don, and do you really think Wagner is just going to go back fighting Ukraine if defeated? This seems like WP:POINTY behavior. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 06:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Support -the removal of Wagner from Bahkmut will have major consequences by itself. Schierbecker (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when ready If what I'm reading is correct, this is an ongoing coup attempt. It's not "covered" by the ongoing, regardless of its impact on the Ukraine War. The article isn't good enough to post as it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a better blurb: The shelling may be staged and/or a false flag operation; the arrest warrant is not the main story. The blurb needs to focus on the mutiny. --Carnildo (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I favor altblurb 3: Prigozhin's statements have been about replacing the Minister of Defense, not Putin, so "coup" is overstating things right now. --Carnildo (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait This clearly deserves a blurb, but we need to wait to know what the proper blurb will be. Once that's clear & the article's quality is improved, I'll support a blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. The article should be improved though. --Bedivere (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted with provisional generic blurb: "In Russia, the Wagner mercenary group mutinies against the government." There is consensus to post in principle, and the article seems to be of reasonable quality now for a breaking news story. Discussion about what the blurb should read can continue. Sandstein 06:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword The wording of the posted blurb seems inaccurate. "mutinies" is not the right word because Wagner Group is an independent force, not part of the Russian Army. The latter has been trying to get it into the chain of command and this may have provoked the conflict. It's very like the fighting in Sudan which we posted as "Clashes erupt after fighters from the Rapid Support Forces attack several army camps in Sudan." Andrew🐉(talk) 06:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently there are no clashes. Mellk (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Blurb is not even accurate. He is saying he will topple the military leadership, not the government.[12] Specifically he is after the chief of general staff and minister of defence. So these blurb options are poor. It can be summarized as following: Prigozhin makes accusations and blames MoD, says he is after Shoigu (there was a feud between them), criminal charges filed against him, Wagner forces are sent to Rostov-on-Don. No reports of fighting or anything. Mellk (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support Undoubtedly a significant event. A good blurb is hard to write for this developing situation; for the reasons stated by others above, I suggest "... revolts against the military leadership" instead of "... mutinies against the government". Davey2116 (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be a better way to rephrase it. Mellk (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mutiny is the correct word. Rebellions, revolts, and revolutions have at least a component of the general populace involved. This is a mutiny against the military leadership. Abductive (reasoning) 08:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it was changed to "rebels" now, though it still says "government" rather than military leadership. Mellk (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and include “mutiny” or “revolt”. The blurb will need occasional updating as things develop. Both Putin and Prigozhin are garbage. I hope neither wins. Jehochman Talk 11:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Historic event. Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Before we go running off to close this because "consensus won't change", I'd just like to ask one question. I understand the timeline of events that took place. What I do not understand is what the impact and consequences of this course of events will be. What is the outlook of the Russo-Ukrainian War as a result of the mutiny? How many troops does this take off the table, and how easily replaceable is this? I'd just like to have some details; I'm agnostic as to whether I support or oppose. Tell me why I ought to support. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is history in the making and its significance is political – its effect on hearts and minds and control of Russia. Times Radio reports "Russia coup: reports Putin is 'fleeing' to St. Petersburg as Prigozhin continues towards Moscow". Is this rumour wishful thinking? What will happen when push comes to shove? We shall see... Andrew🐉(talk) 14:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one really knows what Wagner is doing except Prigozhin, and we can't really predict what the rank-and-file Russians in Russia would do. We'll just have to wait and see. starship.paint (exalt) 14:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to guess, since much of the fighting in the recent parts of the war have been done by Wagner and considering that they've occupied much of the area around the Russo-Ukrainian border and cut key supply lines, I would probably suggest that we may see Ukrainian incursions westward as the Russian occupied zone within the country becomes at least somewhat abandoned for the time been, with troops possibly being pulled back or having to deal with supply issues. Additionally, Wagner is already more than halfway along the route to Moscow, and with reports of Russian troops not doing anything to stop them, it seems like the Russian government may just be stacking all its energy in a defense of Moscow (damn, I can't believe I'm using that to refer to an ongoing event). This is all speculation however; Starship.paint (talk · contribs) is right: No one really knows what Wagner is doing except Prigozhin, and we can't really predict what the rank-and-file Russians in Russia would do. We'll just have to wait and see. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 14:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the reason why there were a lot of wait !votes, because we shouldn't be posting stories until there's clear understandings of the ramifications. We don't know what the endgame is here so we should wait until it is clear what the Wagner Group's ultimate goal is. Is it a coup of the entire country or just the military? it is not clear, and thus this posting was premature. Masem (t) 15:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even a coup of just the military would be newsworthy enough, methinks. starship.paint (exalt) 15:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most others coups or equivalent actions we have posted have been after either after the coup was successfully completed or was successfully quashed. Masem (t) 15:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of these answers are interesting but it's all rumours and crystal-ballery. In keeping with my principles that post-pull-post is a bad way to operate, I'll accede to the consensus but will note I would have opposed this item. It's a bit like if, during World War 2, we would have reported on the July 20th bombing but didn't actually confirm whether Hitler was alive or dead. The confirmation of an outcome is a vital part of the story, because right now, we don't know what is going to happen and whether this is even a big deal or not. (Yes, I just invoked Godwin's Law for something almost completely unrelated.) Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We cannnot know what the ramifications of this will be. The news is the mutiny/rebellion, and it's a significant event whether it succeeds in toppling Putin or not, whether it results in the replacement of Shoigu and Gerasimov or not, whether it impacts the invasion of Ukraine or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then really, shouldn't it be an ongoing item if we are going to post it, and not a blurb? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly? We also cannot know how long it will be until this resolves. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is another flaw in ITN that tends to get lost when we're discussing the many, many other flaws. By it's very nature, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Content shouldn't be added to Wikipedia until after it's been demonstrated that it's WP:NOTABLE and/or WP:DUE (depending on where you add it). ITN creates a perverse incentive to add content before significance can be demonstrated and then posts this content of questionable significance to the main page. WP:RECENTISM is a bad thing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I also do not feel this item has demonstrated why it is significant for ITN's purposes, I have to take umbrage with the premises of your argument once again, as I feel it is contrary to how Wikipedia works.
Per WP:RAPID, as there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. That same page also notes that many articles on events are indeed created as they are breaking, in anticipation of notability. The way you say things should be is just now how consensus operates on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with creating an article only to delete it later once it turns out the anticipated notability has not come to pass. Yes, we are not a newspaper, but as facts become more readily available about a story, we should trust in our editors to be appropriate stewards to make those decisions as to whether to keep or delete.
I also disagree with the idea that ITN incentivizes unfinished content. We still have guidelines for entry that need to be met before an item can be posted, just as WP:NEVENTS has guidelines as to what merits a notable topic. We should understand that the guidelines are there for a reason, and that taking the stance of a total stonewall against developing news is unproductive and restrictive to our principles of being a living encyclopedia. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if this is true [13] (that Wagner has stopped its advance as as a de-escalation deal has been made), then this was a flash in the pan incident and wouldn't have been on ITN in the first place. Masem (t) 17:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they deescalate, this is still an item of significant interest that we should be posting. Our armchair analysis of what is a "flash in the pan" and what isn't is inappropriate, I believe. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are never in any rush to post news, which actually gives us time to understand if an event is just a flash in the pan. That's the point of those wait !votes, to make sure this was actually something that seriously altered the direction of the war that was already covered by ongoing. Masem (t) 18:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a serious event regardless of what happens next and we overinflate our importance and intelligence in claiming that we know what is "significant" and what is not. We're a bunch of Wikipedia editors. We have no geopolitical experts here (I assume). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that articles about current events aren't allowed to be created. I didn't say that we should immediate nominate them for deletion in violation of WP:RAPID. I also didn't say anything about "unfinished content" (all content on Wikipedia is unfinished). The only argument I'm making here is that WP:DELAY is best practice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No - in my skim I saw your bold request at the end, and what a counter-ITN outlook. You asked people to speculate on possible future implications and their potential impact as a barrier to posting. Judge an item on its own - present - merits. Next time just say "oppose without prejudice to supporting if more comes of it" or "wait until more develops", please. Kingsif (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speculating on possible future implications and their potential impact is basically how we decide significance at ITN. If this speculation isn't allowed, then WP:DELAY/WP:TOOSOON would apply to most current events content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't, or it shouldn't be if that's what you do. WP:CRYSTALBALL is mentioned in enough discussions that should be known by now. If based on present known facts you can't decide if something is (not will be) notable, !vote wait. Kingsif (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is the approach I'd like to see more often. I'll typically !vote "oppose" or "wait" if present facts don't indicate significance (with the understanding that I'd switch to support once those facts became clear), but I get the impression that a lot of editors !vote support based on speculation that an event will be significant before the facts are clear. Not out of bad faith, of course, but because there's no real guidance at ITN. Just look at how this discussion has developed below when things changed and the significance got called into question after being posted. It shouldn't be how we decide these things, but it often is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting strong support This potentially has implications far beyond the invasion of Ukraine. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote the above before the advance on Moscow was halted, or at least before I became aware of that development. But I stand by my support for posting. It's highly relevant world news that lots of people in many countries were/are following closely, and which likely has lasting implications even if the coup were to end completely right now. As far as I know, Wagner still holds the territory of Rostov, which in itself is pretty significant. As for future developments, who knows. I would support updating the blurb, of course.

    We posted the 2021 US Capitol riots which really only lasted for one day, involved one building, and weren't organized by a paramilitary force (and it was a good move to post it); I would argue that this is perhaps even more significant. This would be like if a US militia or renegade military group took over a major city (say, Philadelphia), shot down military helicopters, and then started a march on DC, and I'm sure we would post that even if it fizzled out. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair though, the US is a much more stable country than Russia is. See the Fragile State Index --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over already? Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There you go, that's why I wasn't satisfied with the answers to my question... Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull — Premature to post and now less than significant for the Russian invasion of Ukraine itself. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The significance is mostly as its own event - the largest country in the world just went through a military rebellion, and it's hard to overstate what happened. The developments relative to the invasion of Ukraine are covered by the Ongoing item, but what happened inside Russia itself is definitely notable. Looking at the significance through the lens of Ukraine is how we got into this irrelevant debate of subsuming it into a tangentially relevant "Ongoing" news item. Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading back over how the consensus was gathered for this item, I now have to agree that pulling is the only appropriate course of action, for the blurb in the ITN template is now incorrect in the face of recent developments. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the blurb needs to be changed. But this is still a major event. BabbaQ (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again I ask: What are the impact and consequences of this event? That question needs to be answered in order to justify its significance. The blurb mentions an attempted mutiny but it's not the regular army, and it never seemed that Moscow or Putin was under any direct threat. As long as we are exploring crystal-ball possibilities: Considering that the negotiation came an hour after Ukraine decided to counter-attack in the Donbas region, I'm actually starting to consider the possibility that this was a ruse de guerre. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also it is not a coup attempt. I am still not sure why "government" has not been changed to "military" in the blurb. Mellk (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull. I'm not going to debate the notability of this schism, but it's very clear that we still don't know the full extent of these events and that we should have simply waited before posting. The variety of blurb choices reflects this. If as is said this is a notable event, then we should not be afraid of news coverage not being sustained and as such this mutiny will remain eligible for posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Pull This is still a massive story which is dominating major media like the BBC and NYT. The armistice which has been agreed means that suspense will continue and all eyes will be on further developments. Reverting to make the Chinese restaurant the top story again would be absurd as that was more of a flash in the pan which has already fallen out of the news cycle and is now getting no attention from the media or our readers. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not pull Obviously relevant enough for a blurb. --Bedivere (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with do not pull. Since we've already collectively jizzed our pants. www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/wagner-chief-prigozhin-says-hes-accepted-truce-brokered-by-belarus/ar-AA1cZ4yU — hako9 (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support. Huge development and definitely not going away within the next day or so. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull Over already. Seriously? Little to no active significance now. If we absolutely cannot pull under any circumstances (like us jizzing ourselves, as brilliantly stated by Halo9), then at least change blurb.Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Pull - we already posted what is the largest story in the world at the moment. Why would we pull it? --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not a real !vote because I really don't know where I stand on this. Rephrasing the blurb is fine, but I don't think I'd go as far as to agree that this is no longer a notable or consequential story. I was initially inclined to support pulling it when I heard Wagner stood down, but the counterarguments from Muboshgu and Andrew are convincing. It may be true that this could have been a ruse de guerre, but this does not make it unimportant or inconsequential; we can't see through the fog of war what's going to happen next, but we know that something did happen and is happening, and that something was and continues to be major news being closely monitored by major outlets. We may have been collectively duped by Wagner here, but the highly unusual nature of this story contributes to its notability rather than diminishes it. But at the same time, a story being a confusing spectacle doesn't make it important in the long-term, it just makes it interesting. Was it premature to post this? Maybe. But would it right that wrong to pull it now? I don't know if I completely agree with that. Will this be remembered as one of the more unusual moments in the Russo-Ukrainian war in the history books, or will this be forgotten by tomorrow? We don't know, nor should we play armchair strategist and pretend to. I say we just follow the sources. If all the major news outlets are still following this story tomorrow and the day after, then we should leave the story up tomorrow and the day after. If it falls off immediately, that'll be our indication that it was just a blip. I guess you could consider this a keep for now !vote. (got into a whole lot of edit conflicts writing this one up)  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pulling now does not really really serve a purpose. But let this strongly remind us that "Ongoing" was created for a purpose and that media sensationalism and hype should be carefully dissected before any ITN postings. I could not post my comment in time which would have stated that anything below a credible coup/coup attempt should be off-limits to be severed from Ongoing at ITN. This is the third-time I am seeing that we have given in to media bias regarding this war: Putin indictment, the dam explosion and now this.
Also, wait comments are not supports, they are an analysis that further significance needs to be proven, as such they should be taken as neutral or negative votes (between this and the dam posting, it appears these votes were factored in as support votes which is incorrect).
Lastly, I would like to ask are we giving in to systematic bias? This is the most covered war/news item on ITN by far despite a prominent Ongoing listing. We did not even fractionally cover the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic as compared to this. Gotitbro (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Oppose Pull - I just can't fathom how people don't think this wasn't significant. Nor in the news. Good grief, if two years ago, he'd shot down one Russian plane or helicopter this would be ITN. There's reports they shot down 6 to 12. Nfitz (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pull per Rockstone35. we already posted what is the largest story in the world at the moment. Why would we pull it? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support per Rockstone35. That the coup attempt/mutiny/whatever you want to call it appears to have failed doesn't mean that this isn't still a significant event with international importance. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull, obviously Posted wayyyyyy too prematurely (what, 6 hours at ITN/C?). No consensus to post it, either. Meanwhile, User:GreatCaesarsGhost was absolutely right in their posting above which User:Novem Linguae has felt it necessary to collapse. Do the same to this, if you want; it won't make either comment less true. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    GreatCaesarsGhost didn't say anything that could be construed as either supporting or opposing pulling, all they said was "lol it'll be really funny when ITN gets shut down forever". That's not constructive. That's disruptive and doesn't belong here. You should be thanking Novem Linguae for improving the overall quality of ITN by shutting down the types of comments that make this a worse environment to edit in.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull. Looks like a small spat that the Kremlin has caved into. I agree with the comment that it was posted “'wayyyyyy too prematurely”.- SchroCat (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pull In hindsight we probably wouldn't have posted it, and I do think it was posted a tad too early (should have waited a day). But the story itself still is in the news and as such still qualifies in my view. If you look at the media coverage, it received (and still is receiving) significant media coverage. Gust Justice (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong post-posting support - largest story in the world, will and definitely have major ramifications even if you entertain the idea of it being a ruse de war. The largest country in the world just experienced a major revolt (which contrary to WaltCip (talk · contribs) stated, did indeed threaten Moscow; they were practically at the gates), leaving Putin humiliates, and definately affecting the course of the war, and yet in classic ITN fashion, we like to pretend that were somehow so much smarter than "the common rabble who are so stupid that they think this is important." I ought to ask, where is the WP:CRYSTAL crowd that has emerged out of the woodwork here anywhere else on ITN? When are y'all this pedantic anytime else? Who's to say that we should be posting the majority of items on ITN considering they are often based upon "this will have historic ramifications and x y and z?" This is the news; things are not automatically clear, that's just the truth. If y'all want ITN to shift into being super timid about posting until everything was %100 clear, than please, open a centralized WP:Village Pump poll and close it down because you don't have an In the news section of the project, you have Last month's yearly herald. Besides, whose to say that the opposition, who're already cumming at the opportunity to pull (as Fake and Hako have stated on the other side), aren't violating WP:CRYSTAL themselves by claiming there won't be any long term impact?
Additionally, can we please stop immediately insinuating that any admin decision that you didn't like is automatically a supervote? Consensus on this project is determined by the quality of your arguments; maybe its not the admin/closer's being malicious and instead you made weak arguments. Stop acting like petulant children and actually evaluate the discussion before casting wild aspirations; WP:PONY applies here. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 01:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, you were the nominator so it's assumed you would support. Second, could you maybe trim the length of your posts a bit? If your !vote is longer than one paragraph, consider whether it's too long. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 01:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider striking cumming at the opportunity to pull too. The atmosphere around here could use some work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will strike that out, though that also means that @Fakescientist8000 and @Hako9 should strike their comments about jizzing as well, which was where the idea behind the above excerpt came from. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 02:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong post-posting support - Just because it's over doesn't mean it never happened. It's the biggest story in the world today. Just update the blurb (there's already another proposal for this) and it will be fine. Johndavies837 (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support This has been a major news story & reportedly had important consequences for Prigozhin & the Wagner Group. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change blurb Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull in full - shouting into the void at this point in the discussion but this should not have been posted so quickly. Now that it's over, we can rectify our mistake and take it off the main page. It's an important event (not in doubt), but it's covered by ongoing. Anarchyte (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking good This was clearly the major, dominant story yesterday and we don't seem to have a fresher one yet. By running this, ITN looks like it's on the ball. If it were to remove all mention of the matter and just lead with a stale and minor story like the Chinese restaurant, it would give the impression that ITN is controlled by Russian censors (who shut down Google News during this crisis). That would not be a good look. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pull. This is a major development that deserves a mention outside of ongoing as it reveals internal tensions and popular anti-support. Yes it may have been posted prematurely, but that doesn't mean we need to pull it now. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:30, 25 June 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.

Welkom mining explosion

Article: Welkom mining explosion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In South Africa, the government reveals that at least 31 people in a mine in Welkom are estimated to have been killed from a methane gas explosion in May. (Post)
News source(s): WaPo - Fox News - Al Jazeera - ABC (Australia) - Reuters - Seattle Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The South African government just revealed that 31 people are estimated to have been killed last month in a mine from a methane gas explosion. The article may need additional expansion, but seems to be fine otherwise. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 01:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be noted that I do not see any initial reports circa one month ago about this explosion, which would make this the first reporting and not stale. Masem (t) 01:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, hence he government reveals part; part of the news is that this was just confirmed by the South African government. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 01:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: i should note that it does not seem to be currently clear whether or not the miners died in a gas explosion. this notice that the south african government published seems to have deliberately avoided mentioning how they died, and a number of other reliable sources seem to also be similarly uncertain. for example, agence france-presse (via bangkok post) states that "the cause remains unknown". deutsche welle has reported that an explosion occurred, but only states that "[a]t least 31 people are believed to have died in a methane explosion". as there currently is a gas explosion that killed 31 people featured on itn, it is easy to conclude that these miners were also killed in a gas explosion, and although i would presume that it is likely that they did actually die in either such an explosion or its aftermath, i would hesitate to make such an assertion on the main page at this time.
    please note that the page was moved without discussion by Jim 2 Michael. i had originally titled it "2023 South Africa mining disaster", and am unsure if it should be called "Welkom mining explosion" while it is on the main page. i have started a discussion on this issue here. (i have also removed Jim 2 Michael from the credits as Jim 2 Michael only moved the article and changed the name used in the infobox; Family27390 at least added an infobox and a couple of categories. anyone who believes that Jim 2 Michael's contribution to the article is deserving of credit is welcome to revert my removal.) dying (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because the death toll makes it notable enough & the article is good enough. It's eligible here because although the explosion happened 5 weeks ago, it was first reported yesterday. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, needs expansion. - Indefensible (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on principle, weak oppose on quality The article is close, but it needs a little bit of expansion. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's barely more than a stub. Schwede66 20:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 23

June 23, 2023 (2023-06-23) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Bev Risman

Article: Bev Risman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sky Sports
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: English rugby player - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 19:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sheldon Harnick

Article: Sheldon Harnick (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
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: American lyricist and songwriter. The stage productions and parts of the honors and awards sections need additional citations. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 19:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshineisles2, do you think you could find a source for this statement: Beginning in 1964, this award "established to bring a declaration of appreciation to an individual each year that has made a significant contribution to the world of music and helped to create a climate in which our talents may find valid expression."? Please, and thanks. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the quote is from the citation in the sentence before. I have moved the citation after the second sentence to show where the quote is coming from. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. Will change my !vote to support. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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=1162597268"