Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
In the news toolbox |
---|
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.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
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
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.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat 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...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
August 23
August 23, 2023
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
Ongoing addition: 2023 Hawaii wildfires
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Interstellarity (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Still getting updates. Interstellarity (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
August 22
August 22, 2023
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Heath Streak
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NZ Herald
Credits:
- Nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Abishe (talk · give credit), Jevansen (talk · give credit) and Jguk (talk · give credit)
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: Zimbabwean cricketer. RIP. Gone too early. Ktin (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Italian singer-songwriter Toto Cutugno (pictured) dies at the age of 80. (Post)
News source(s): È morto Toto Cutugno. Aveva appena compiuto 80 anni
Credits:
- Nominated by TheCorriynial (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Unless there is some obvious issues im missing, this could be a quick one. Toto Cutugno was a popular musician in Italy, but to most of the world, mainly Europe, he was known for three things: "L'Italiano", and both of the next two go with each other, being the winner of Eurovision Song Contest 1990 with "Insieme: 1992". TheCorriynial (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Discography is uncited and I'm not seeing a source for the DoB either.Support RD Article quality has improved sufficiently. Weak oppose blurb Article doesn't sufficiently establish impact. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 18:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Oppose One cn tag and discography uncited.Support RD Article looks good. Also weak oppose blurb, there's no indication in the article of him being one of the most famous Italian singers or household name in countries. A legacy section would be great. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)- Here is said how influential.he was[1] Kirill C1 (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Then feel free to boldly add that info to the article with the source, making the required section. The article itself needs to demonstrate the impact, not just external news sources. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 19:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can work on creating a legacy section or incorporate that in the career section. The article needs to show the impact Cutugno had in his field or how he was his country's most renowned singer. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Here is said how influential.he was[1] Kirill C1 (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support blurb. Most famous Italian singer, Eurovision winner, six decades long career, household mame in many countries. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Famous nor household name are valid considerations for blurbing RD. Masem (t) 18:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support RD - Article seems to have been fully-cited, including discography. Oppose blurb per TDKR, as well as just the obvious per my prior RD/blurb votes. The Kip (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support RD - now sourced and ready. RD is appropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support RD per others. --Martin Mystère (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support blurb A true music legend with decades-long career and numerous accolades.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Simply having a long career or a large body of work is not sufficient for a blurb. And as for allocates the one one called out I can see on scanning the text is for Eurovision, so thats definitely not applicable. Masem (t) 21:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- This depends on what you want to (dis)prove. Long career and numerous accolades are not decisive but are most definitely significant indicators for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Simply having a long career or a large body of work is not sufficient for a blurb. And as for allocates the one one called out I can see on scanning the text is for Eurovision, so thats definitely not applicable. Masem (t) 21:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support RD per all of the above. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Thailand prime minister vote and return of Thaksin Shinawatra
Blurb: Following general elections in May, Srettha Thavisin (pictured) is voted in by parliament as Prime Minister of Thailand, while former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra returns to face imprisonment after 15 years of self-imposed exile. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra returns to Thailand to face imprisonment after 15 years of self-imposed exile, while his affiliated Pheu Thai Party's prime ministerial candidate Srettha Thavisin (pictured) is voted in by parliament.
Alternative blurb II: Srettha Thavisin (pictured) is appointed Prime Minister of Thailand while former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra returns from self-imposed exile.
Alternative blurb III: Following general elections in May, Srettha Thavisin (pictured) is voted in by parliament as Prime Minister of Thailand.
News source(s): Reuters, The Guardian, CNN, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Paul_012 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Topeka-GuyWiki (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: The prime minister appointment is ITNR, though Thaksin's return is an equally significant and politically linked development which should also be mentioned, so I've made this a regular nom. The context of this past three months' political wrangling is very complicated, and these are the shortest blurbs I could come up with. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
PS The Srettha Thavisin article has also been updated and could be the bolded item, though I feel that the election article gives better context on the process. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'd support this - ITNR declares HoG changes important - but maybe Shinawatra could be separated or removed to clean it up a bit? I get it's important of course with me having followed these politics for a while, but it's just really long
- Support Oh my, what a convoluted story! Would suggest bolding the new PM Srettha Thavisin and adding a picture of himd, and deleting Thaksin Shinawatra from the blurb (if he gets pardoned by the new gov at some point, we can deliberate posting that). But I'm also fine keeping him in. Khuft (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I have added a shorter but more concise altblurb. The quality of Shinawatra's article needs a lot of work. On the other hand, Thavisin's is good enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I support posting the new PM, but the Shinawatra story is distinct enough where a separate blurb is needed IMO. It's not immediately apparent to a casual reader why he has relevance to Thailand getting a new PM. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support two different blurbs I think each deserve their own blurbs given how long a single blurb might be. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support - PM election is ITN/R (I think) even though the election was posted a few months ago. Support the return of Shinawatra too. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be blurbed together.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support either combined blurb or two different blurbs, but both aspects should be mentioned in some way. —siroχo 21:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support PM Blurb and Oppose Shinawatra blurb. Former is in theory INT/R. I don't see what is so significant however about coming back from a "self-imposed" exile. He has not been in a position of power since 2006. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- He has not been in an official position of power since 2006, but he has been pulling strings from afar, the central polarising figure splitting the fault lines of Thai politics for most of the past two decades. But yes, such background information can't easily be conveyed in a single blurb. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I've adjusted the nom to have Srettha's article as the bolded item instead of the election's per the first three comments. I've also added Alt3, which leaves out Thaksin's return. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
(Closed) Number 1 with a bullet
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.
Blurb: Oliver Anthony breaks a Billboard chart record by reaching #1 immediately with "Rich Men North of Richmond". (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CBC,NYT, Guardian, South China Morning Post, Straits Times, Variety
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Created by Lk95 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Boscaswell (talk · give credit) and XavierItzm (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Comment Even better, it's in French-speaking Swiss media. [ https://www.letemps.ch/culture/musiques/une-chanson-country-contre-les-elites-propulse-un-inconnu-au-sommet-des-ventes-aux-etats-unis] But I don't think nominations are the best place for you to be continuing petty disputes about completely different issues (whether offline headlines in one country means a story should be posted) Unknown Temptation (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- What does "reaching #1 immediately" mean? Lots of songs went to #1 upon release. This record sounds like less of an earth-shattering moment in pop culture than a trivial tidbit thats getting a lot of attention because of its cool factor. Kurtis (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think the point is that it’s the musician’s first song to make the Billboard list at all, and it did so in the #1 position. Looking through the article you linked, most of the songs were not the debut works of the artists (e.g. Michael Jackson was already famous long before 1995). I’m still not sure of the importance of the claimed record however, and a little unsure of its veracity (why wouldn’t, for example, Brandy (You're a Fine Girl) also meet this criterion?). 98.170.164.88 (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The point is that it’s the first ever song to chart immediately at number one for which the artist has never previously had any chart activity at all. Boscaswell talk 10:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The blurb should be reworded for clarity. The quote Bagumba gave from the Guardian is closer to what we're looking for; it specifies the fact that this is the first time an artist's debut single became a chart-topper upon release. Otherwise, I'm neutral as to whether or not this merits a blurb—sort of leaning towards oppose, but I'm open to being persuaded. Kurtis (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @98.170.164.88: - "Brandy" did not enter the chart at number one. It took over two months to reach the top spot...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I think I understand better what the claimed record is. I’m still not convinced it’s important enough to post though, and we don’t usually post items like this. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @98.170.164.88: - "Brandy" did not enter the chart at number one. It took over two months to reach the top spot...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The blurb should be reworded for clarity. The quote Bagumba gave from the Guardian is closer to what we're looking for; it specifies the fact that this is the first time an artist's debut single became a chart-topper upon release. Otherwise, I'm neutral as to whether or not this merits a blurb—sort of leaning towards oppose, but I'm open to being persuaded. Kurtis (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The point is that it’s the first ever song to chart immediately at number one for which the artist has never previously had any chart activity at all. Boscaswell talk 10:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think the point is that it’s the musician’s first song to make the Billboard list at all, and it did so in the #1 position. Looking through the article you linked, most of the songs were not the debut works of the artists (e.g. Michael Jackson was already famous long before 1995). I’m still not sure of the importance of the claimed record however, and a little unsure of its veracity (why wouldn’t, for example, Brandy (You're a Fine Girl) also meet this criterion?). 98.170.164.88 (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Neither the BBC nor the CBC sources make any mention of the Billboard charting, only the political American pop cultural aspects of the song's reception. And as mentioned above, there is no record being broken. The reported historical achievement is specifically for doing so "with no prior chart history in any form", so oppose as worded. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, The Guardian says
...debuted at number 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, making him the first artist to do this with no prior chart history in any form.
[2]—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)- Pedantic I suppose, but surely this would have happened quite a few times in the early days of Billboard? As a comparison, though, it's happened quite a few times in the UK charts. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Also, wouldn't this or this also hit the criterion? Unless I've misunderstood something... Black Kite (talk)
- Rolling Stone cites this announcement on Billboard as the source. That gives a variety of details including six artists who did something similar but not quite so out-of-the-blue. I suppose they have access to a database as they comment on other near-misses like "the singer-songwriter marks a rare unsigned artist at No. 1 on the Hot 100. Lisa Loeb became the first such act, when “Stay (I Missed You)” led in 1994, although the song was released on RCA Records". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- (ec) @Black Kite: Neither of those songs entered the chart at number 1 (i.e. was at number 1 in its very first week on the chart), which is what Anthony's song has done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ah right, gotcha. It does seem like something that's a bit of interesting trivia more suited to DYK than ITN, though. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: I am not a regular at ITN (in fact I think I may have edited it for the first time ever today) so maybe I am not that clued up, but I have to agree this doesn't really seem like something which belongs alongside (takes a glance at the current ITN) massacres, natural disasters and presidential assassinations...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Despite appearances, there is no minimum death requirement for ITN entries and the section often features lots of sport which is similar pop culture. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: I am not a regular at ITN (in fact I think I may have edited it for the first time ever today) so maybe I am not that clued up, but I have to agree this doesn't really seem like something which belongs alongside (takes a glance at the current ITN) massacres, natural disasters and presidential assassinations...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ah right, gotcha. It does seem like something that's a bit of interesting trivia more suited to DYK than ITN, though. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Also, wouldn't this or this also hit the criterion? Unless I've misunderstood something... Black Kite (talk)
- Pedantic I suppose, but surely this would have happened quite a few times in the early days of Billboard? As a comparison, though, it's happened quite a few times in the UK charts. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, The Guardian says
- Oppose This is a political topic due to the nature of the song, and would fall under "day to day" aspects of the current culture war happening in the US. It is the type of story that makes headlines but the encyclopedic nature is fuzzy and unclear. (I can also see that if this was posted as is, that there would likely be some readers and editors offended that we even gave that song the light of day on the main page, but that's not a reason to oppose, just more a caution of where this may go). --Masem (t) 12:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- There have been lots of protest songs of this sort going back some time – see industrial folk music. I always liked Sixteen Tons, which was another big hit back in the day. And the culture war aspects of this one are not that new – see Okie from Muskogee, for example. Anyway, if some readers don't like this genre – see WP:NOTCENSORED. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Is it a protest sing? Perhaps, but most outlets see it having white nationalism/far right ties, and it has become a type of anthem and rallying cry for MAGA. I don't know if it written with that intention, but the result has been this massive attention to the song from the right, which is attributed for why this is #1 on Billboard. While the factoid is onterest (first debut at #1), this is just too politically charged to be a good ITN item. Masem (t) 13:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think we should oppose an item purely because it is politically divisive. In the run-up to the 2024 election there will be a lot of notable, if polarising, events that will be nominated on here. If we didn't want to be politically divisive then we would not have posted the 2020 election, or Jan 6th, or BLM, etc. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Is it a protest sing? Perhaps, but most outlets see it having white nationalism/far right ties, and it has become a type of anthem and rallying cry for MAGA. I don't know if it written with that intention, but the result has been this massive attention to the song from the right, which is attributed for why this is #1 on Billboard. While the factoid is onterest (first debut at #1), this is just too politically charged to be a good ITN item. Masem (t) 13:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The argument that the song is political is spurious. Like The Atlantic (no fire-breathing conservative magazine, that one) said: "Why is so much press coverage of this viral song focused solely on politics? [...] I struggle to imagine a mainstream media site reacting to Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi’s praise of a songwriter by suggesting that the artist is therefore a presumptively leftist act who ought to be covered mainly as a political and politicized phenomenon."[1]). Same is expressed at SFGATE, which also decries the politization of Anthony by third parties: «More likely, he was just singing whatever was on his mind, and then everyone else decided to use it for their own ends».[2]
It is the media that has politicized an artistic product. George Orwell warned about those who believe what they see on the media, and disregard their own eyes and ears.XavierItzm (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC) - Its not that this is a politically conflicting song, but simple underneath the trivia of being the first #1 by a first time artist (that itself is not ITN worthy), it is what politics have driven this song to be #1 that is really the headline here. And because this is a political issue with no clear immediate consequences, its not the type of story we post. Masem (t) 17:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The argument that the song is political is spurious. Like The Atlantic (no fire-breathing conservative magazine, that one) said: "Why is so much press coverage of this viral song focused solely on politics? [...] I struggle to imagine a mainstream media site reacting to Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi’s praise of a songwriter by suggesting that the artist is therefore a presumptively leftist act who ought to be covered mainly as a political and politicized phenomenon."[1]). Same is expressed at SFGATE, which also decries the politization of Anthony by third parties: «More likely, he was just singing whatever was on his mind, and then everyone else decided to use it for their own ends».[2]
- Oppose per Masem above.
- There have been lots of protest songs of this sort going back some time – see industrial folk music. I always liked Sixteen Tons, which was another big hit back in the day. And the culture war aspects of this one are not that new – see Okie from Muskogee, for example. Anyway, if some readers don't like this genre – see WP:NOTCENSORED. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- River10000 (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - Songs charting on a national chart is not for ITN I believe.BabbaQ (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose This is essentially about right-wing American politics and sits with other similar stories in the news, eg Trump/Georgia, Trump/Primary debates. Not for ITN, in my opinion. Nigej (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I think this is better suited for DYK. YD407OTZ (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Have we ever posted such records before? If not, than oppose - at the risk of entering into political territory, as a right-winger myself, it's pretty clear that this was the product of immense astroturfing at the hands of Conservative Inc. — Knightoftheswords 14:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Difficult to answer your question. Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2019#(Closed) Old Town Road ended as "no consensus" despite 17 weeks at number 1. Nigej (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Probably for the best. I don't think ITN should be for music charts PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Difficult to answer your question. Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2019#(Closed) Old Town Road ended as "no consensus" despite 17 weeks at number 1. Nigej (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per above. Good faith nom, but we are not a music charts ticker. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Interesting, but more trivia then actually important. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per all above. Trivial impact and of dubious encyclopedic value. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 16:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose, this is a DYK, not an ITN. Andrew, you seriously need to stop nominating literally everything and consider whether it's even going to stand up to WP:SNOW before posting it here. AryKun (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) New Prime Minister of Cambodia
Blurb: Hun Manet (pictured) is appointed Prime Minister of Cambodia, succeeding his father Hun Sen's 38-year term. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Hun Manet (pictured) is appointed Prime Minister of Cambodia, succeeding his father Hun Sen.
Alternative blurb II: Hun Manet (pictured) is sworn in as Prime Minister of Cambodia, succeeding his father Hun Sen's 38-year term.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, NBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by The Kip (talk · give credit)
- Updated by SovanDara (talk · give credit), Muboshgu (talk · give credit) and Ogiwarahoshi (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Previously nominated on 8/8, but discussion was closed with a consensus to wait until he formally took office on the 22nd, which is today. Article is short but adequate, kept same update credits from the last nom. The Kip (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support—A new head of government, and his article is adequately sourced. 👍🏻 Kurtis (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support as per before, article looks okay – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Adequate article. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 10:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Article looks good, and changes in HoG are important. River10000 (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- support - sourced. Looks ok. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support article looks good to go. I've added an altblurb that seems more accurate to me: today he has been sworn in (he is no longer appointed PM. Hun Manet is now the official and formal Prime Minister) and it's important to add that his father spent almost four decades at the helm of the country. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support - ITN/R PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Got a new leader & a well-sourced article? I give it support. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 16:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem Frankly I think altblurb II was the best option. More accurate. What do you think? _-_Alsor (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- As nom I'm also endorsing ALT2, feel like it's worth noting his father was leader for nearly 40 years. The Kip (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Alsorian@o97 @User:The Kip Done per your request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you!! _-_Alsor (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Alsorian@o97 @User:The Kip Done per your request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
August 21
August 21, 2023
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Sports
|
2023 World Athletics Championships
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): World Athletics; BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Created by Homedesigner2016 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by IHooolla (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is rather like the Olympics in that there are numerous types of event and so there's a lot to keep track of. I'm not sure that we're keeping up but perhaps listing it here will help. It's Day 3 already but it runs for another six. It's WP:ITN/R but the nomination template doesn't seem to handle ongoing and ITNR together. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Ongoing - The World Championships of athletics. Ongoing. BabbaQ (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Unlike the Olympics or the World Cups, this typically does not get major daily news coverage to make it necessary for ongoing. This event is ITNR for its completion. And even with that, comparing this year's article to the 2022 one, this one is nowhere close to be ready for posting to main page. --Masem (t) 12:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support on notability, oppose on quality I don't know about you, but all the newspapers I'm reading do have significant coverage of the athletics championships, especially the marquee events like the 100m, 200m, 4x400m, and other ones with more charismatic athletes like hammer throw and shot-put. 13:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality. Article is a table farm, and very little prose about the events. Tables should supplement prose, not replace it. --Jayron32 14:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality - virtually nothing but tables. The Kip (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Stats - The 2023 World Athletics Championships ranked #39 most read for August 19th, 2023, or 181,291 views. Sandwiched in between XXXX (beer) and Beverley Allitt. Ranked just a little higher at #35 on the 20th. As Bertrand Russell once said, "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." Also, oppose on quality and probably does not merit an ongoing post either. A blurb, yes. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- #35 out of 6 million is quite respectable. That's better than most of the ITN blurbs and comparable with the current top blurb. It would therefore fit right in. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) Lucy Letby sentencing
Blurb: Baby murderer Lucy Letby is sentenced to a whole-life order. (Post)
Alternative blurb: British serial killer of infants Lucy Letby is sentenced to a whole-life order.
Alternative blurb II: Former nurse Lucy Letby receives a whole-life order for seven infant murders and six attempts
Alternative blurb III: In the United Kingdom, former nurse Lucy Letby receives a whole-life order for the murders of seven infants and an attempted six more.
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by Osarius (talk · give credit)
- Created by Philafrenzy (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Notable news, sentencing of murderer after UK's longest murder trial - fourth UK woman to be sentenced to a whole-life order. Osarius 13:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Canada is following. Word is there'll be an inquiry, maybe new laws. Fairly unusual sentence and particularly heinous crimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Hatting WP:SOAP and WP:PA material — Knightoftheswords 15:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Note that this was part of Jayron32's support !vote. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Support - Article is sourced and ready. This case har received attention both national and international, throughout an extensive amount of time.BabbaQ (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support The Letby story has legs as it was still the front page lead in the Times and Telegraph today. It has dropped a bit with our readership (#24 yesterday) but is still getting more views than ITN's blurb topics such as Luna 25. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- The Times and the Telegraph are British newspapers. France is a country of similar population, economy size and foreign policy influence as the UK. Are all these different stories on French front pages therefore suitable to go on ITN? [3] If not, why not? If we're playing the "ITN must serve English-speaking readers' interests" game, where is it in the Australian printed newspapers? [4] Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- this Whataboutism needs to stop. If other article subjects are notable or not based on nationality is irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Unknown Temptation asks whether the stories currently on the front page of French newspapers are suitable to go on ITN. Looking at the first headline listed, which is on the cover of Le Monde, it seems to be this story in their English edition: China's unprecedented economic crisis worries the rest of the world. Wikipedia covers that story in the article 2020–2023 Chinese property sector crisis and, apart from some quality issues, there's no reason why that shouldn't be considered here too -- I've already been wondering whether to nominate it. But obstructing a story set in England isn't going to help in getting a story about another country posted. ITN's problem is that it isn't posting much of anything and one reason is the beggar-my-neighbour obstructionism that we see here. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- The Times and the Telegraph are British newspapers. France is a country of similar population, economy size and foreign policy influence as the UK. Are all these different stories on French front pages therefore suitable to go on ITN? [3] If not, why not? If we're playing the "ITN must serve English-speaking readers' interests" game, where is it in the Australian printed newspapers? [4] Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose and Close. The more important story is the conviction, whose discussion is ongoing. All another nomination does is split the dialogue, which should be redirected to that discussion. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)- This one is today's news and implies the conviction; close that one as outdated and incomplete. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Struck because the previous discussion has since been closed. As of now am neutral, but preferring a blurb that focused on the conviction over the sentencing. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose and close per Darkside, as well as my oppose vote on the other nom. The Kip (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose and close per Darkside & The Kip. TwistedAxe [contact] 15:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose and close per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- All above are based on the notion that a discussion about the conviction is ongoing. That's no longer the case. You're all disqualified. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- The closes are, the opposes are not. Nice power-move attempt, though. The Kip (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- OK, "thanks", now only yours has a reason to oppose (indirectly, but still). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- M8, as stated in my initial closure that you reverted, the conviction and sentencing are inextricably linked; do you really believe that consensus would be against posting the conviction but magically pull an Italy and change their tune when it comes to the sentencing? Considering how this new nom is already looking, I think not. — Knightoftheswords 17:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think this new nom looks like five supporting with reason against four and three-quarters opposing without. Anyway, it was a very close race we had, no hard feelings. Maybe next time just don't worry about Wikilinking and italicizing Latin in your summary (plain English works best, IMO). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Don’t feel too defeated. The article appeared on ITN for half a day. These kind of articles are always going to get opposition.BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Who's feeling defeated? You're a Swede, I'm a Canadian, Jayron's an American. This idea that the other 40% of us are the only sorts on Earth who might care is defeated. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Maybe next time just don't worry about Wikilinking and italicizing Latin in your summary (plain English works best, IMO).
, okay, effective duplicate, happy now? — Knightoftheswords 05:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Don’t feel too defeated. The article appeared on ITN for half a day. These kind of articles are always going to get opposition.BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think this new nom looks like five supporting with reason against four and three-quarters opposing without. Anyway, it was a very close race we had, no hard feelings. Maybe next time just don't worry about Wikilinking and italicizing Latin in your summary (plain English works best, IMO). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Um, the discussion was not closed when most of the above comments were made, but okay then. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- The closes are, the opposes are not. Nice power-move attempt, though. The Kip (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- All above are based on the notion that a discussion about the conviction is ongoing. That's no longer the case. You're all disqualified. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- oppose - per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support per above. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support and added alt3 for clarity. It does seem like a big news story, regardless of where it took place. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support I am becoming very disillusioned with ITN and have cut back my participation due to the constant battles over supposed UK and US bias, with Wikipedia:ITNCDONT point 2 routinely ignored. Andrew is quite right above when he says that opposing a UK based story will do nothing to get stories from other countries posted. A whole life tariff is exceptionally rare and this story is getting widespread coverage. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- My read of the !votes between these two, excluding the issue of the fast posting if the first one, is not an argument about this affecting only one country, only just in one country where this occurs, this will have little impact and is only a matter of closure on a tragic event. It still was only a domestic (not international) crime and did expose flaws in the British health system, but unless I am missing something in the current article, we're not going to see a massive change in the system there. I don't think saying this is like celebrity or gossip news is a fair comparison since this was a serious need for justice to the families that lost their children from this, but at the same type it is more of a spectacle (a highly visible trial) due to the heinous nature of the crime. But it is not going to have a major impact within the UK compared to, say, Boris Johnson resigning. Masem (t) 20:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Reluctant support - I have my gripes over the fact that this would have never even come close to being posted if it was a US story; however, ultimately, I think that this meets WP:ITNPURPOSE and should be posted. I hope that this incident shall be a learning experience and inform us that we shouldn't be creating arbitrary standards on perceived notability requirements over which side of the Atlantic the story occured in. — Knightoftheswords 20:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- The media in the US are reporting this and baby murder on this scale would easily get reported in the US PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Point is that if this was in the US it would likely be rejected as provincial, but alas. The Kip (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- The media in the US are reporting this and baby murder on this scale would easily get reported in the US PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support. A big UK and global news story, which has legs and is sure to become one of the largest scandals in NHS history. Widely covered and of interest. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support This is a prominent headline whose inclusion on ITN is in the interest of our readers. While we're here, the conviction post shouldn't have been pulled, either. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Conviction is the time that we should have posted this, but as that discussion has been closed in favour of this one this is where I have to put my support. I don't know how you can get more significant than the conviction of the most prolific child murderer in the history of a country with a very long history and one of the top 2 cases of individual medical malpractice by an individual since at least the creation of the NHS (the other being Harold Shipman). This case will have a very long-lasting impact. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support, I think the event is notable enough to merit ITN inclusion, as it’s pretty unusual and significant. ⇒ Luminous Person (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose regardless of whether this is a new nomination or supposed to be combined with the one below. It's tabloid news, and has no notable long-term impact. Banedon (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Long term impact. It has been in media since 2017.BabbaQ (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - we didn't post conviction, we shouldn't post this. --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The conviction was posted. For half a day.BabbaQ (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support This is a uniquely heinous crime. Its also unusual in that she was on female serial killer only a handful of which we have pages for . "Letby is the most prolific serial killer of children in modern British history." - To be frank, I don't think the people objecting to this nomination would object to posting the American equivalent of this person.--Llewee (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Uniquely? The article itself mentions multiple other medical practitioner murderers both in the UK and elsewhere, such as Beverley Allitt, who also was also known for more or less the same thing. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Posted. Taking both discussions into account (and also accounting for those who !voted on both) I believe there is consensus to post this again. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure where you get consensus, but there doesn't appear to be any. This really should be pulled. --RockstoneSend me a message! 18:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- There seems to be an idea here that the opening of a new nom wipes the votes from the prior, which I personally find to be somewhat manipulative of consensus, but alas. The Kip (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- ??? Under that logic, if the opposes outnumbered the supports 10:1 in a first nom, but then a later nom occurs when the story has more info, the supports outnumber the opposition 5:1, that story wouldn't be posted if we were to factor the other one. — Knightoftheswords 19:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think that The Kip is partially right in that a new nom should not wipe votes from the prior. But you're also right that could be problematic. Personally, I think that a second nom should only be posted if the support for it is greater than the opposition to the first nom, or if there was a significant amount of opposers that switched to supporters. I don't think that the support here is greater than the opposition to the last nom. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's definitely greater. Just look at how few opposes this one has. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think that The Kip is partially right in that a new nom should not wipe votes from the prior. But you're also right that could be problematic. Personally, I think that a second nom should only be posted if the support for it is greater than the opposition to the first nom, or if there was a significant amount of opposers that switched to supporters. I don't think that the support here is greater than the opposition to the last nom. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- ??? Under that logic, if the opposes outnumbered the supports 10:1 in a first nom, but then a later nom occurs when the story has more info, the supports outnumber the opposition 5:1, that story wouldn't be posted if we were to factor the other one. — Knightoftheswords 19:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- There seems to be an idea here that the opening of a new nom wipes the votes from the prior, which I personally find to be somewhat manipulative of consensus, but alas. The Kip (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure where you get consensus, but there doesn't appear to be any. This really should be pulled. --RockstoneSend me a message! 18:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Haven't taken part in this (or the previous) discussion, but let's please not start a new discussion on pulling this! It's done, it's posted, no harm is done by having this blurbed. Going back and forth posting and pulling this for trivial disagreements on notoriety is what harms ITN's reputation within the broader community and does us no favours. I've shared my opinion previously that Pulling should only be done in extreme cases, where quality issues are present. Khuft (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- ↑↑↑ This. In an ideal world (an ideal ITN/C) it'd get pushed off in 48-72 hours anyway. The article is also now in much better shape than when the verdict was posted. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Post-posting oppose - per my opinion in the last discussion. I also would like to mention that there hardly appears to be a consensus to post here, and accounting for the last nomination (which was pulled), I don't understand how this was posted.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- There certainly was no consensus to post this, but I guess if you keep trying to post something on ITN long enough, you'll eventually get your way. It's frustrating. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- 18 supports (edit: Jayron32's support containing a valid support rationale was hatted due to a rant which spurred unrelated discussion) with only 6 opposes (DarkSide withdrew theirs), 4 of which under the rationale that the previous discussion was open. I'd definitely call that a consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I count 7 opposes, 8 if you include the most recent post-posting oppose. That's not an overwhelming amount of support appropriate for consensus. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Kip's, TwistedAxe's, Alsor's, PrecariousWorlds', Banedon's and yours. Who did I miss? I think 18 to 6 (which is basically 2) is an overwhelming amount of support, not to mention BabbaQ's argument of long term impact against an oppose wasn't addressed. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Counting !votes is the antithesis of how Wikipedia works. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's not the antithesis. It's a convenient way of getting a feel for the discussion at a glance as long as the arguments for each !vote are all valid and not really addressed. In this case I'd only count 1 oppose as unaddressed and 1 support as addressed. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I count 7 opposes, 8 if you include the most recent post-posting oppose. That's not an overwhelming amount of support appropriate for consensus. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment - A whole-life order? Sounds like something my insurance agent is nagging a client to meet his monthly sales goal. Any different than "imprisoned for life"? CoatCheck (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Nice one. According to its article it has no possibility of parole or other premature release. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
August 20
August 20, 2023
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Daniel Cohen (economist)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Le Monde
Credits:
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
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: French economist. Thriley (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose for now - apart from list of works and awards, the article is only 2 sentences. Needs a lot of expansion. ⇒ Luminous Person (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
(Closed) 2023 Ecuadorian general election
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.
Blurb: Luisa González and Daniel Noboa (pictured) advance to the October run-off in Ecuador. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Luisa González and Daniel Noboa advance in Ecuador to a run-off.
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by River10000 (talk · give credit)
- Created by BastianMAT (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Comment I've been working on this article for quiet a bit to make sure it's good for posting once a president is elected. Not sure if we post first round election results on ITN? If so, shouldn't González be the one who's pictured since she came in first place? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I mainly put Noboa since he was an out of a shock to make the second round. It makes reasonable sense to swap them back, though. River10000 (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - ITN usually waits until the election concludes, not when the first round is done. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm aware, but the assassination of Villavicencio being in ITN made me think that maybe the primary deserves also to be there. River10000 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - Wait until the winner is announced. TomMasterRealTALK 21:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment While the presidential election is going to a run-off, the parliamentary election appears to be complete. Curbon7 (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose we should wait for the results of the second round. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) 2023 Guatemalan general election
Blurb: Bernardo Arévalo is elected in the runoff as president of Guatemala. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In Guatemala, Bernardo Arévalo is elected as president in a runoff, while Vamos wins the most seats in the Congress.
Alternative blurb II: Bernardo Arévalo of Movimiento Semilla is elected president of Guatemala.
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by BastianMAT (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Lord Maximoff (talk · give credit), SalvadoranSoldier (talk · give credit), BastianMAT (talk · give credit), 174.165.12.126 (talk · give credit) and FlyingAce (talk · give credit)
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: Big election for Central America. BastianMAT (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC) (UTC)
- There's an orange tag in the Results section that needs to be addressed, but everything else looks well cited on a quick read-through. Once the orange tag is taken care of, I'd support this. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- My opinion isn't very important, I know, but looks good to me. Pretty important to regional stability - that orange tag seems cleaned up also? I support this. River10000 (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - Should the blurb mention the party in general along with the president considering this is a general election? Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support - A very significant election outcome for the country and the region. Nosferattus (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Historic democracy win. Article looks ok.BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support as article seems up to par quality-wise. Proposed ALT1 based on suggestion above. The Kip (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support – I'm working on updating the table for mayor results and will be removing the orange tag once I'm done. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Orange tag now removed. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Just to add to the pile, it's quite notable and the article looks good. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 22:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support and suggest AltBlurb2: short & sweet, focused on the outcome rather than the process, and Arévalo's article is somewhat tidier than the election article. A bit sea-of-bluish, though. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Posted tweaked altblurb 2. The runoff is the only new news because the congressional elections happened with round 1 of the presidential vote in June, so the first altblurb wasn't an option. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
RD: Isabel Crook
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): China Daily
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 anthropologist in China. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose article has multiple CN tags that need to be dealt with. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 19:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- I added citations to address the CN tags, plus some more refs from her obituary in The Guardian. There's a lot more that could be written about someone who lived through 107 years of Chinese history, but I don't think that prevents an ITN inclusion now. @HistoryTheorist and InedibleHulk:: Can you take a look? Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wait It's just two right now. Another might arise, but it's not like waiting for a filmography to never get ready. Fun Facts: She was 107 and also British! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support The article now has the basics of her life (plenty of expansion also possible). When a 107-year-old with a very interesting life history dies, it seems like a good time to bring them to prominence.Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) Luna 25 crash
Blurb: Russian lunar lander Luna 25 crashes on the Moon's surface with the loss of contact. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Russian lunar lander Luna 25 crashes on the Moon's surface.
News source(s): CNN, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Brandmeister (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: In line with ITNR's "arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations" and because of historical failure (Russia’s first lunar landing mission in 47 years, since 1976) I think this is postable anyway. Brandmeistertalk 12:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support There's another moon race warming up and so we'll be hearing more of this. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Exciting times! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support I believe the previous crash landings of lunar probes were posted. The funny part is that we might also end up merging the blurb with the Indian lunar lander blurb(if it succeeds). Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support - signigicant event, article well referenced and good to go. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose The main problem I see is that, even if this is significant enough for ITN, the article says nothing about the significance of the crash, only listing basic event updates. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Strong support - First Russian lunar mission in 47 years, In The News. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have provided ALT1. Schwede66 17:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Since it's ITN/R and the article quality is sufficient. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 18:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support per above supports. Jusdafax (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I think this was discussed when the Spacex rocket exploded a while ago, and the general consensus seemed to be that a failed mission is generally not notable enough for ITN, nor valid for the recurring ITN on rockets. Flyingfishee (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Believe it was decided that launch failures/first launches aren’t worthy (which I agree with, considering the sheer number of new commercially-built rockets); this is something different entirely, in being a mission failure. The Kip (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support I can't even recall the last time a lunar lander even made contact with the moon, let alone a crash. TwistedAxe [contact] 23:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Its been over 40 years since Russia (then the USSR) attempted to land on the moon, hence why its the Luna 25, and it failed. So I see the relevance. Stick to first blurb though, not the alternate. TheCorriynial (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support significant event because this is the first time in 40 years that Russia tried to land on the moon, so this would be significant in the new space race. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support per above, in particular TwistedAxe. The Kip (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support - The space race begins again... and it looks like it's going to be real close this time. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 01:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Posted per the strong consensus in support above. That said, while the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY, per 2G0o2De0l it could definitely be expanded upon. I would particularly love to see more information about the great power politics that got attached to this mission. There's also one citation tagged for needing a non-primary source. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup
Blurb: In association football, the FIFA Women's World Cup concludes with Spain defeating England in the final. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In association football, the Women's World Cup concludes with Spain (player of the match Olga Carmona pictured) defeating England in the final.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Happily888 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Kingsif (talk · give credit)
Second article updated, first needs updating
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Happily888 (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Prose summaries need to be added to both the final and the tournament article before this can be posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Prose summary of the match is needed first. The article for the final also needs more citations so that the orange tag is fixed and preferably the stay on topic tags should be fixed, but they’re not as show stopping.Support Everything’s fixed, looks good to go. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 12:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Possibly the biggest event in women's football yet. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- The event is ITN/R, there's no need to vote on significance, per the little disclaimer on the bottom please say something on the quality of the article or update to contribute meaningfully. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 18:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose until a prose summary is added and citation issues are addressed. Much of the Background section is also filled with statistics with little meaningful context and should be trimmed. SounderBruce 17:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- The prose summary has been added, but several citations in the Background section have been removed due to being cited to a Forbes contributor piece (which are unreliable per WP:RSP). SounderBruce 20:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support - A World Cup final! And this year's Women's World Cup has been much more mediatized than the previous ones. Definitely far above the notability threshold. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- There's no need for comments on significance:
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 20:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)- My bad, didn't notice! You're right. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- There's no need for comments on significance:
- Support! Came here to express shock that it has been a day and a half and this still isn't posted! The articles both look good, and we've posted significantly worse quality articles for men's sports no one cares about. Tens of millions of people watched this live, including me. This was the best WWC yet in my opinion. Post it! e.b. (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Add photo in nombox - literally no argument has been made for not having the photo other than I presume vibes? We've featured screenshots on the MP multiple times; it's not the best, but it doesn't have to be a damn NASA planetary scan either. — Knightoftheswords 05:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
|
- Comment I've added a summary to the final article. The cite issues are still there for now. Kingsif (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Added photo to proposed blurb. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support & remove from Ongoing per WP:ITNR, and remove from Ongoing due to the whole thing concluding obviously. TwistedAxe [contact] 23:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support and remove from ongoing. I had the same opinion as Twistedaxe coming into this discussion. The event is dunzo, and it's time for the blurb. I echo the concerns of Andrew as well on placing the World Athletics Championships over under ongoing also. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Procedural support as article meets FP minimum criteria. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I'd post this, but no one has tackled the issues identified above. 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup is lacking any prose about the final (except in the lead) and 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup final is correctly tagged for needing more citations. I'm thinking this could be posted even with just one article bolded if someone puts in the work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support on notability; oppose as 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup final has an orange maintenance tag. And I agree that if we post, we should simultaneously remove the tournament from "ongoing". Schwede66 03:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- No Photo, Remove Ongoing Regardless The original version is bad, the crop is worse and the tournament is over. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support on notability, oppose on quality As others have already pointed out, 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup final still has a tag for additional citations. Also, I am in agreement that the tournament should removed from ongoing. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- They think it's all over We're still showing the event as Ongoing which is wrong as it's over now. I was amazed to read that the winning team had just two hours to get to the airport afterwards and so they didn't hang about. We should likewise pull the ongoing entry to show that we're on the ball.
- But Oppose posting the link to the final as its prose is too purple and contains several Colemanballs. Here's a good example, "She was seeking to become the first manager to win the tournament with a foreign national team and the oldest manager to win the tournament, having aged 53 years 9 months 25 days during the final."
- Andrew🐉(talk) 07:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ha! Sad. Anyway, No Longer Ongoing (for the record). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support without photo I have finally dealt with all the unsourced statements in the final article, so should be gtg on quality grounds. AryKun (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Listen, like most people, I absolutely don't care about this event. This said, it's so notable to, uh, people who are very fond of football, I guess, that it should be in the news even if the article just says "Viva siempre España!". complainer 14:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's ITN/R, no one's arguing over the notability. What people are discussing is the quality, which is why a statement saying the quality doesn't matter is dumb. AryKun (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Notice that "so" before "notable"? It's there because it's ITNR, but not actually ITN and these discussions about commas and lighting end up having things that should be ITN get YN and straight into WGAFAL before they actually are ITN. And that's why being rude is dumb.
- complainer 21:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's ITN/R, no one's arguing over the notability. What people are discussing is the quality, which is why a statement saying the quality doesn't matter is dumb. AryKun (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Problems mentioned above has been dealt with as far as I can tell. Definitely a event for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support once CN tags are fixed: There's still around 4-5 CN tags on the article about the match, but otherwise both articles are in decent shape for ITN. Should expect them to get fixed very soon. Neutral on the issues about the photo. S5A-0043Talk 02:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support and mark Ready again - CN tags fixed on the final article. Note that Aitana Bonmatí was given Player of the Tournament, a higher accolade than the Player of the Match in the final, and we have a better image of her than we do of Carmona (though I have to say it's still not brilliant!). Black Kite (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support article is more than ready. What are we waiting for? _-_Alsor (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- An admin to post it, probably ;). You could always hit em’ with the good old @Admins willing to post ITN: Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 14:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Posted without an image. A consensus to post the image has not materialised yet. Anarchyte (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
RD: John Warnock
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Business Wire
Credits:
- Nominated by 86.29.163.84 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Normantas Bataitis (talk · give credit) and MonarchOfTerror (talk · give credit)
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: Adobe co-founder 86.29.163.84 (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Should be a blurb. John Warnock is a very influential figure (considering he co-founded Adobe) and his death is being covered heavily in news. Article looks good as well, although death section could use some expanding. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- This will not be a blurb. His product is influential, not him. Focus on finding sources to get this up to quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose with several unsourced statements, but its not too far off. --Masem (t) 20:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support blurb per Iamstillqw3rty as Warnock made quite a difference, garnered many major awards and left a significant legacy, devising the Warnock algorithm and being the prime mover for the PDF format, for example. They are recognised as WP:VITAL but were not a household name and so just putting the name alone in RD is meaningless. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Via various talk page arguments, we have already eliminated the use of Vital Articles to determine who to blurb, because that project itself had haphazard inclusion metrics. Masem (t) 12:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, the interminable arguments have settled nothing and so blurbing is still done on a "sui generis" basis. So, anything goes and if editors wish to respect the prior work and judgement of WikiProject Vital Articles then they may do so. Assertions that the other project is haphazard are just a case of WP:POT. See also not invented here. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Via various talk page arguments, we have already eliminated the use of Vital Articles to determine who to blurb, because that project itself had haphazard inclusion metrics. Masem (t) 12:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose RD due to multiple unsourced statements. Strong oppose blurb - here we go again. Can’t wait for this discussion to get wildly off-topic from the page quality which should be the only concern. The Kip (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment/Support I've done significant sourcing work on the article; there's only one unsourced statement/cn tag left. It can be removed if worst comes to worst. I believe the quality is now sufficient for RD. I'll let other editors decide on blurb. Oh and @The Kip: @Masem: feel free to reevaluate quality. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 18:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
August 19
August 19, 2023
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Science and technology Sports
|
RD: Maxie Baughan
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Philadelphia Eagles
Credits:
- Nominated by BeanieFan11 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Philadelphia Eagles Hall of Famer and one of my all-time favorite players. Needs more work but I'll make sure to get it done. RIP. BeanieFan11 (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
RD: Ron Cephas Jones
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times Now
Credits:
- Nominated by The Herald (talk · give credit)
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: Emmy winning actor. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Major sourcing work needed. Some uncited statements in career, while the filmography section and awards and nominations section are almost entirely uncited. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 12:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above basically. More work needs to be done.BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
(Posted to ongoing, blurb discussion continues) Canadian wildfires
Blurb: British Columbia declares a state of emergency as Canada's worst wildfire season continues. (Post)
News source(s): BBC "Canada wildfires: British Columbia province declares emergency"
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Following the Yellowknife evacuation in the Northwest Territories (which is still in the news), there's now an emergency in British Columbia. The map shows the overall extent of the fires and the BBC has a good graph showing how this is so much worse than previous years. Perhaps an ongoing entry would be best but we might start with a blurb to show the map. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ongoing would be best. Appending an image isn't outside the realm of possibility, either, just subject to a fear of change. Right now, of course, BC and the NWT are the most newsworthy, but Quebec was and might be there again soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- We have had an article on the 2023 heat waves (which should cover the wildfires across the globe too) being suggested multiple times now for an ongoing, but no one has bothered to try to bring this to speed, instead focusing on local situations. I would oppose on just featuring one region's wildfires, outside of a situation like Maui where 100+ died and making it a standalone event. But just having lots of wildfires is not sufficient to make the one region stand out on its own. --Masem (t) 12:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Come on, drop the stick. That article sucks, just like 2022 heat waves and 2021 heat waves. Always have and always will. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- And now we have 2018 heat waves, which is worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- The temperature right now in West Kelowna is 13°C (55°F) which is cool rather than hot. As explained already, these fires are driven by drought and wind, more than heat. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sun heat, anyway. The rains turns the fires to clouds and the clouds pelt the forests with lightning. That's crazy heat, the sort that burns roots underneath wet sand and even melts the sand for good measure. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ongoing It's clearly extremely bad and should be featured while notable events are taking place. Noah, AATalk 13:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ongoing Worst wildfire season on record in North America, and still affecting all provinces of Canada; also, article is well sourced and of fine quality. Because of this (it happening throughout all of Canada), it seems better to post in ongoing, as posting a blurb just about British Columbia would not point to all of the news relating to the fires (for example, Yellowknife being evacuated).
- Ongoing - Regardless of whether it's making news in other parts of the globe in Germany or New Zealand or Djibouti, the worst wildfire season on record in Canada and North America in my opinion counts for something. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Ongoing Seems to be worsening and has been ongoing for well over 6 months. Has also had pretty devastating results internationally. TwistedAxe [contact] 18:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ongoing would be appropriate. The 2023 season is far and away the worst in Canadian history, having burned through triple the hectacres of 2021 (the previous record holder), according to BBC News. There are also significant fires impacting parts of the United States, so an upmerge may be appropriate at some point. SounderBruce 18:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Ongoing - maybe would be best to have it under "North American Wildfires", since the impact crosses national boundaries. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is no article for 2023 North American wildfires. The US wildfires are broken down by state and one of them is already being blurbed. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Ongoing—I agree that we should refer to them as the North American wildfires rather than singling out Canada, as the US has been affected as well. Kurtis (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support ongoing for Canada only. There are ongoing wildfires in many parts of the world (those in Greece are still severe and receive media coverage), so extending this to North America makes a strong argument to go even beyond it, but we cannot go thus far and post “Global wildfires”. Canada seems to be the hot spot these days, and that’s what should be posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose It is summer in the northern hemisphere. Climate change. Wildfires are commonplace, as are evacuations and emergency declarations. In Tenerife there are 26,000 evacuees [5], and the figure may rise. The situation was very serious in Rhodes, as it is and can be throughout the Mediterranean and North America (as it usually is in California and Canada) all this season. Why this exception? _-_Alsor (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Canada has the 3rd most hectares burned in a country in a year (2019-20 Australia is #1) and might even beat it since it has 13 to 15+ million hectares now and the year ends New Years Day. It usually isn't serious in Canada, it's already 3 times their highest hectares in a year. California got soaked by a Noachian rainstorm this spring, this year isn't as bad as the one with the city destroyer or the one with a fire bigger than the combined size of the 7 smallest European countries (Lux to Pope) plus half of New York City. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support ongoing: This has been widely covered internationally and seems genuinely unprecedented, particularly the evacuation of a provincial capital. "Other stuff isn't listed" is an argument for listing those other things - not for not listing this one.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yellowknife is a territorial capital, not provincial, and the Northwest Territories is one territory. This doesn't make it less unprecedented and probably doesn't matter to most people. Just a reminder. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ongoing since it's an ongoing problem; evacuating 20K people from Yellowknife also deserves a mention. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I would prefer it to be blurbed, instead of directly putting it into ongoing. Not sure what the argument is to hide it in the ongoing bar without first blurbing it. Given the slowness of the current news cycle, it's bound to stay blurbed for quite some time anyway. Khuft (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- The article was the target and the fires the cause of this blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ah ok, I see now why people preferred it to be posted directly on ongoing! Tx. Khuft (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The article was the target and the fires the cause of this blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Blurb+Ongoing Similar rationale as Khuft. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ongoing: Article is consistently being updated, and still appears fairly often in the news ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Posted to ongoing per the strong consensus above. Most people supported ongoing without mentioning their thoughts on blurbing it, so that discussion should continue. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Can they be listed as "North American wildfires"? Not a big deal either way, but "Canadian" implies that it's only Canada's problem. --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- The ones in that target article basically are. We appreciate the help from other countries and have already apologized for helping turn New York orange. But most disasters have spillover, somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I suspect that would require a page move, question mark for hesitancy? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Rockstone35: I saw that being discussed above, but there was no consensus and it doesn't seem appropriate to list that as such in ITN without a pagemove. There was consensus to merge several North American wildfire-related articles back in June, and the article includes a section on international effects. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Can they be listed as "North American wildfires"? Not a big deal either way, but "Canadian" implies that it's only Canada's problem. --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Post-Posting Support as Ongoing. This is a valid situation where it's worth posting directly to Ongoing. A sustained story that would probably not be blurbed in it's current state, but is worth featuring somewhere by ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Post-Posting Support as Ongoing - Definitely for Ongoing. BabbaQ (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
August 18
August 18, 2023
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Balltze
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan Times
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Unknown Temptation (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Beloved Internet dog. I know that this page was created post mortem but there was in-depth coverage from around the world over several years before he died. Memes/social media personalities are divisive when it comes to notability but please can the discussion be on ITN and debate the notability by other channels if needs be. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Article is in pretty good shape. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 02:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I like dogs on the internet but my spider-sense starts tingling when I see mention of cryptocurrency. The sources look unconvincing and don't seem to be the quality of links that I want to start clicking on. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Adequate reference coverage, widely known. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Sourcing seems fine. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
RD: Kyle Turner (rugby league)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-19/souths-nrl-premiership-winner-kyle-turner-dies-aged-31/102751148
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: Australian rugby league footballer. Aged 31. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
RD: Alex Cole
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://sports.yahoo.com/former-pirates-outfielder-alex-cole-154715554.html
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 baseball player. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Still needing serious addition of citations and lengthening out. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
RD: Al Quie
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.startribune.com/former-minnesota-gov-al-quie-dies-at-age-99/600298294/
Credits:
- Updated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
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: Governor of Minnesota from 1979 to 1983. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Support The article looks like it's in good shape, but I don't know if his electoral history needs more citations. I'll try to add more myself, and once it gets cited, I'll change my support. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 19:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support per above, article looks good and while the electoral history could use more refs, it is uncontroversial and shouldn't hold up posting. Also, what are the chances that the oldest living governor and the oldest living U.S. senator died on the same day? Davey2116 (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
RD: Cave Rock (horse)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/271126/cave-rock-succumbs-to-post-surgery-laminitis
Credits:
- Updated by Kelisi (talk · give credit)
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 Thoroughbred racehorse. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Lolita (orca)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT AP WaPo Miami Herald
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by MonarchOfTerror (talk · give credit)
- Updated by HapHaxion (talk · give credit), 2601:601:4181:2e0:c53:5486:cac1:dc3c (talk · give credit) and Rebecca Beecham Gotzl (talk · give credit)
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: Orca in captivity at the Miami seaquarium, second-oldest orca in captivity. Article has one cn tag. Article is fully sourced and appears sufficient. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 07:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Great article with lots of sources. TwistedAxe [contact] 18:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Article has lots of sourcing and length. Looks good enough for ITNRD, support. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support It looks pretty good. Plus, I'm from the Pacific Northwest were orcas mean a lot to us. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 20:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support - should be posted as soon as possible, in my opinion. Definitely ready. Even made the top headlines on the BBC! --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support per Rockstone. History6042 (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Hurricane Hilary
Blurb: In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, Hurricane Hilary moves toward Baja California and Southern California, prompting the first-ever tropical storm watch issued by the NWS for Southern California. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Category 4 Hurricane Hilary churns in the direction of northwest Mexico and the Southwestern United States, causing advisories and watches to be issued for the areas.
News source(s): [6]
Credits:
- Nominated by WikiContributor0830 (talk · give credit)
- Oppose The watches are not important in the grand scheme even if historic. Wait for the effects to be felt and then we can revisit this. Noah, AATalk 00:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per Noah. At the moment this is trivia. If there are major impacts we can revisit. And can we please not re-nom this if the impacts are just minor? Simply because a TS [likely to be a TS by then] hits somewhere where it is rare doesn't mean it should be in ITN. Again, that is trivia. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's not merely "trivia" that Southern California has its first ever TS warning. It's climate change. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, it’s an El Niño year in which the Pacific high pressure is pushed further north than usual. Additionally, this storm is taking the only possible path to hit California. If it were further west, it would die over cold water. if it were further East, mountains would shred it. There is no certainty it will even be a tropical storm at landfall either because the NHC has a track record of being biased in the EPAC for weakening storms as a result of models failing to weaken the storms fast enough. It has happened time and time again. Noah, AATalk 02:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, it's not trivia if you live in California, yeah. But this feels like the Cyclone Gabrielle thing, where we nearly went and blurbed the story because it was the first time a national state of emergency was issued - a fact so important that...it isn't even mentioned in the article. Hypothetically speaking, do you really consider this event ITN worthy if, say, the cyclone rapidly deteriorates and produces only minor impacts along its path, or it's path changes and its impacts likewise do not end up being severe? California has had severe weather before - that it is accompanied by a TS warning has fairly little boarder importance. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's not really interesting outside North America. The 2023 South America heat wave, 2023 European heat waves, and 2023 Asia heat wave articles are much better candidates if you want to illustrate rare or unprecedented severe weather closely tied to climate change.
- All three could use improvements too. For instance, the Europe article still says nothing about the current unprecedented Mediterrannean Sea marine heat wave which brought sea temperatures to levels that usually create hurricanes in the Atlantic basin, nor record overnight lows resulting from these sea temperatures. Daß Wölf 15:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Mediterranean hurricanes would have to far enough from the summer dry season to storm but not so far that the water cools down too much. The first one will probably occur within my lifetime. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Medicanes have been happening already, FWIW. Yes their tropical characteristics are disputed, but several have been hurricane strength. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I was meaning more clearly tropical cyclones though the NHC's authority doesn't include the Mediterranean part of the Atlantic, unless it's changed since I last saw the world map (JMA (Tokyo) is the one that says yes or no in this zone, PAGASA (Philippines) is secondary in its subset of E. Pac, NHC (Miami) is the one in these borders and so on) there's no official agency there. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- The Mediterrannean basin is relatively small and fragmented, and its coastline is dominated by mountains, so storm damage is usually caused by rainfall, rather than winds or storm surges. Whether the storms exhibit tropical characteristics and hurricane-force winds is more of a scientific curiosity. Intense storms are named by official agencies (see European windstorm), although not all countries get strong, large and lasting storm systems often enough to take interest in the names.
- I mainly mentioned hurricanes to emphasise how hot the Mediterrannean was in July and early August, considering how much farther poleward it is than the region where Atlantic hurricanes usually form. Daß Wölf 23:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I was meaning more clearly tropical cyclones though the NHC's authority doesn't include the Mediterranean part of the Atlantic, unless it's changed since I last saw the world map (JMA (Tokyo) is the one that says yes or no in this zone, PAGASA (Philippines) is secondary in its subset of E. Pac, NHC (Miami) is the one in these borders and so on) there's no official agency there. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Medicanes have been happening already, FWIW. Yes their tropical characteristics are disputed, but several have been hurricane strength. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Mediterranean hurricanes would have to far enough from the summer dry season to storm but not so far that the water cools down too much. The first one will probably occur within my lifetime. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's not merely "trivia" that Southern California has its first ever TS warning. It's climate change. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wait, renominate if something happens While it is sort of historic that we're seeing a hurricane this side of the Pacific, I would wait until the storm actually touches land. Storm alerts are one thing, but the damage done will determine whether I support this storm being posted. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 01:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wait until impacts are known, currently, impacts are almost non-existent and will be minimal for the next few days. Until impacts are known (likely after a landfall), I'm currently opposing. If the impacts are notable enough, I'll change to support it. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 01:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - While the first blurb suggests that this is the first tropical storm watch to be issued in Southern CA, it isn't, and it isn't the first tropical storm to affect the area. The first occurrence of such events was from Hurricane Nora in 1997. I'm not sure if I'm not noticing something in blurb 1, but that's what I noticed. Mobius Gerig (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Mobius Gerig: As the editor who rewrote Nora earlier in the year, I can confirm that no tropical storm watches or warnings were issued for California or Arizona because of Nora, just your normal day-to-day watches/warnings. From what im told by a well placed Wikipedian inside the NWS, its because of the computer systems in operation back in the day. That being said I am also going to state that we should wait until the system makes landfall and we have a better grip on the impacts.Jason Rees (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- It’s the first tropical storm watch issued by the NHC. That’s it. Noah, AATalk 02:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- There seem to have been a fair number of them. —Cryptic 02:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you look again, it’s almost solely the remnants of a storm rather than a tropical storm or hurricane hitting directly. Noah, AATalk 02:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment There is no way we can say that a storm "churns" in Wikipedia voice. (The altblurb.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose irrelevant for now. _-_Alsor (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Not everything that happens in La La Land is inherently newsworthy. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wait No impacts are known for now. The Kip (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wait/oppose Nothing with actual broader implications has happened yet, so not notable enough to be posted. Wait until further developments. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wait Per above. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wait. Don't need to post stories that haven't gone anywhere yet. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wait for further development. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wait per Noah and DarkSide830. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Catastrophic flash flooding all but certain given the terrain and the expected amounts of rainfall. Count Iblis (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Reaffirming my oppose post-dissipation since the impacts are not severe enough to warrant posting at ITN. Noah, AATalk 15:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose impacts associated with Hilary isn't going to cut it for ITN. Impacts aren't notable enough, I'm looking at flooding, road closures, and 4 fatalities, 3 of them indirect, and that ain't notable for an ITN post. And, Hilary didn't make landfall in southern California so only the watches issued were historic. Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 15:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- It entered California but possibly only from Mexico which wouldn't be a landfall. Possibly the center briefly entered California state waters (cause of the curve of the beach) and came back which would be a landfall. Seems pedantic to me. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose: I'm from the Los Angeles metro area, and although this storm did wreak some havoc namely flooding, fallen trees, washed out roads, I feel that is not enough to warrant inclusion. And I actually decided to wait a day or two to post my decision to assess the impact. Oh, and I'm one that previously supported putting the 2023 Monterey Park shooting on ITN so I'm not those "Oh, that's just US-centric news" fallacy folks.
- Oppose and close Impacts were (thankfully) less than expected despite record rain. 173.23.45.183 (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
(Pulled) Lucy Letby conviction
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.
Blurb: In the United Kingdom, nurse Lucy Letby is found guilty of the murder of seven infants at the Countess of Chester Hospital. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In the United Kingdom, nurse Lucy Letby is found guilty of the murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six more.
News source(s): Guardian, NY Times, India Times, Seattle Times, [7], LA Times, [8], France 24
Credits:
- Nominated by Yorkshiresky (talk · give credit)
- Created by Compoteleon (talk · give credit)
- Updated by BabbaQ (talk · give credit) and This is Paul (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Support Article needs some minor work (Inquiry section needs expansion), but once its up to ITN standards this seems notable and worthy of a blurb (perhaps some alt. blurbs could be proposed, not a huge fan of the current). Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support I question the need for the tag on the inquiry section, it'd work fine as a few sentences in another section, so that seems like a minor detail that doesn't need to hold this up. Quality is fine otherwise, and the story is being widely covered in the news. --Jayron32 17:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Has this made the news outside of the UK? Secretlondon (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- From the instructions above "Please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." Such questions should play no factor in whether or not a story is appropriate for the main page. This is being widely covered by news sources from the US, Qatar, Australia, India, and probably news sources in other languages besides English, but that's what I found by spending less time than it took you to type your condescending question about this. Do some work before commenting here, and actually look for sources like the rest of us did. If you can't be bothered to do a modicum of research before leaving a comment, then don't. --Jayron32 17:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Bro, can you chill?
condescending question
; they LITERALLY just asked a nine word question and you're getting this upset? Yeah, I wonder why ITN has a bad rep, when we act with such exquisite respect and understanding to newbies (and yes, in this context, they are a newbie; despite being on this site since 2003, they've only made a combined total of eight edits on INT/C)? Again, nine words from a non-regular set you off and led to you as an admin making WP:BITEy, WP:PERSONAL ATTACKs, and WP:ASPERSIONS on Secretlondon (talk · contribs), who again, has only made eight edits here. Utterly fucking ridiculous, and immensely disappointing behavior from an admin I typically respect. — Knightoftheswords 03:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Bro, can you chill?
- From the instructions above "Please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." Such questions should play no factor in whether or not a story is appropriate for the main page. This is being widely covered by news sources from the US, Qatar, Australia, India, and probably news sources in other languages besides English, but that's what I found by spending less time than it took you to type your condescending question about this. Do some work before commenting here, and actually look for sources like the rest of us did. If you can't be bothered to do a modicum of research before leaving a comment, then don't. --Jayron32 17:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Extended content, for the people who will complain about WP:TLDR — Knightoftheswords 03:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
|
- Cool story, bro! --Jayron32 13:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support - article is sourced. Case has received attention for a long time, also internationally.BabbaQ (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Support This certainly meets criteria for being significantly covered in the news.
- That being said, I am not at all familiar with this case (and its significance), but it being concerned with the deaths of infants seems to make it unusual, and thus notable enough for ITN. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Article is well-cited and has received significant coverage in the UK, and has seen coverage in various different countries. Tragically, it is the worst case involving babies in the UK in modern times. Fats40boy11 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- As Jayron32 said, I'm seeing it in my country's (US) news too. Below the fold, but there's nothing above the fold that we'd consider posting.The UK news sites I've looked at have it pretty low, too. Which is unsurprising, since they can geolocate me. But it means I have to ask the British editors here instead of checking for myself - is this a top headline for you folks? Has it been generating sustained coverage throughout the trial and leading up to it? If you could, say, blurb one UK-based news story this week, would this be it? I'll take you at your word on importance here. (The article seemed ok to me quality-wise.) —Cryptic 18:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- From a quick check of a few sites, it is currently the leading story on BBC News, Sky News, The Guardian and The Telegraph. It has generated coverage throughout the trial, but I would say it has been in and out of the news due to the length of the trial. In regards to your question about one blurbed story this week from the UK, I'd say this story would be it. Fats40boy11 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thank you. For reference, I'd looked at the BBC and Guardian sites - BBC links this near the top, which I'd overlooked since the main story is four pages down; and it's also a page and a half down on the Guardian's main site for US viewers. Telegraph, which I didn't think to check, shows it as the top story despite redirecting me to https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/ even after I click on "UK edition". Sky News (which I was only vaguely even aware of) is showing me what I assume is the same thing as it does to UK viewers; it's the top four stories there. I wish more international news sites did the same. —Cryptic 19:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- From a quick check of a few sites, it is currently the leading story on BBC News, Sky News, The Guardian and The Telegraph. It has generated coverage throughout the trial, but I would say it has been in and out of the news due to the length of the trial. In regards to your question about one blurbed story this week from the UK, I'd say this story would be it. Fats40boy11 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The article seems far too focused on the trial and not so much about the crimes, reaction to the crimes, or other similar factors related to the public perception of the crimes. In other words, I can't see why this is a major deal within the UK from the state of our article. --Masem (t) 18:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm going to stress that the article is not written to standards we would expect for such a major crime-based story (regardless of location). This should not have been posted in this condition. --Masem (t) 00:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me exactly what your objections are. The article states that she is the most prolific child killer in UK history. I'm not sure what more explanation is needed as to why an NHS nurse murdering babies in a neonatal ward would be seen as a "major deal." Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- 50% of the article is about the day-to-day events of the trial - which is actually excessive detail that we usually don't cover on other trial articles. Going beyond the trial coverage, the article is very thin to explain why this is such a critical case within the UK. Yes, it touches on what you're talking about but I would think there should be more of why this was a landmark judgement within the UK. Sure, one could argue that the virtue of a nurse killing babies should be obvious to why it is bad, but that should be really discussed more from third parties, while purging down the trial coverage. Masem (t) 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me exactly what your objections are. The article states that she is the most prolific child killer in UK history. I'm not sure what more explanation is needed as to why an NHS nurse murdering babies in a neonatal ward would be seen as a "major deal." Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm going to stress that the article is not written to standards we would expect for such a major crime-based story (regardless of location). This should not have been posted in this condition. --Masem (t) 00:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose tragic, but yet another criminal case in the world. No major impact, interest and long-time international coverage. I don't think it's the most remarkable sentence we can include in Main Page so far this year. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support This is a huge news story in the UK, that has been in the news for some considerable time, and is currently top story on all major UK news media. It's also significant not only because of the abhorrent nature of the crimes, but also the extensive use of circumstantial evidence to secure the conviction. Letby's apparently innocent-looking appearance, in contrast to the crimes she's just been convicted of, has also been a big factor in the notoriety of the case. — The Anome (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Article well cited and it's making headlines. Also (at least I think) this not a common event and per The Anome. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support - This now makes Letby the most prolific child killer in UK history and ranks alongside the likes of Harold Shipman, for medical professionals who murder. This is an historic conviction and is far more than "yet another criminal case in the world. No major impact, interest and long-time international coverage." As can be seen by reporting in the United States today United stated 10 months ago India New Zealand 9 months ago Nigeria. There is also now an independent government inquiry launched. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Added alt1. —Cryptic 19:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Posted alt1. Schwede66 21:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support I've not followed this closely but watched the BBC coverage in the main evening news and there were some remarkable features. There seem to have been significant institutional failures and these will be the subject of further inquiry. And this was said to be the longest murder trial in British history. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Exceptional case, widespread coverage, article is fine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Which is why I posted it half an hour before you expressed your support. :-) Schwede66 22:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's a for-the-record-post-posting-support :) I'm hoping there won't be a flurry of post-posting opposes but you never know... Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I see. Maybe you should mark contributions like that as "Post-posting support" for clarity. Schwede66 00:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's a for-the-record-post-posting-support :) I'm hoping there won't be a flurry of post-posting opposes but you never know... Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Which is why I posted it half an hour before you expressed your support. :-) Schwede66 22:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Post-posting oppose — As if U.S.-centrism wasn't enough, there is now a faction of U.K.-based ITN editors willing to support an average criminal case on the basis it's on their front page. I suppose it's acceptable for any moderately covered court case anywhere in the world to be posted on ITN? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- This was the same complaint I had when Queen Elizabeth II died. Felt like all of Wikipedia suddenly became UKpedia. Alas. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Apples and oranges comparison. The Queen was a reigning monarch who happened to be the longest-serving in the United Kingdom's history and who was globally recognized. This is not the same situation. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Strong post-posting oppose - Every support !vote I've seen has been
most prolific child killer in UK history
,huge news story in the UK
,has received significant coverage in the UK
, etc. Personally, I believe ITN blurbs should have some sort of long-term significance. I just don't see this achieving that. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Strong post-posting oppose & pull. Seriously? I mean, this might be big news in the UK, but this is absolutely by no means significant at all. Yeah, absolutely an interesting criminal case to read up on, but how is this exactly long-lasting and even barely ITN-worthy? Holds zero significance whatsoever outside of the UK. US-centrism is a big no-no for ITN, but so is UK-centrism and other types of news that merely have national significance in one country. TwistedAxe [contact] 00:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Post-posting oppose I don't see how this story has sufficient scope. Certainly I don't see how it's of greater societal consequence than the suicide bombings and mass shootings that we frequently don't post. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Request [at least] temporary pull. Discussion lasted for less then 5 hours, with many of the supports saying "notable in the UK', which really does seem to suggest this is only locally notable, and while, yes, scope is not a valid reason to oppose alone, the question remains as to if there will be any longer-term impact to this ruling, for which the answer is likely no. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment To counter the "too-parochial" comments above, this in the news here in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Temporary pull per Darkside. I’m undecided on it myself, but five hours feels extremely rushed for a blurb with not-overwhelming support. The Kip (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I'd say the support was fairly overwhelming, but given we don't post by a vote, the point is moot in the end. Ideally we need more discussion of why this rises beyond the level of a human-interest story (with respect being given to the families of the victims here, obviously, but the obvious point here is we don't just post every tragedy in which 7 are killed, nor does the media proportionally cover such events). The idea that we would post a conviction of a murderer of seven but would ignore an explosion killing 35 simply because one is more frequently covered feels inherently biased. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Post-posting support per the unusualness of this news update and the resulting global headlines. I don't mind the quick posting, as that's within admin discretion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I didn't even !vote in this story when I saw it, partially because when I saw the wave of support votes and it being marked as ready after only a few hours, I was aware of the shitshow that was soon to barrel through. All I ought to say is that this is what occurs when we selectively apply ITN's guideline about not opposing based off national origin to post stories from certain countries and then ignore it when we get to put stories from another down. I honestly am not to opposed to posting this in general, however, let's keep it a buck '50, we all know that it's cope to believe that this would have still been posted, at least in this manner, had the story been from the U.S, or frankly maybe any bedsides the UK. — Knightoftheswords 03:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - Not sure we'd post this if it were happening anywhere other than the UK, honestly. ITN has a very bad UK bias. --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Post-posting oppose - as sad as this is, this really is just a criminal case. A much more complex crime than the average british one, but I don't really see why this should be posted. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Pull and Oppose – Unlike Elizabeth II's death, or Trump's conviction for that matter, this one is mostly irrelevant outside UK/US, given main sequence of events predate the growth of Internet in countries like India, and thus people outside in such countries, especially outside Europe, don't know and don't care. I'm from Indonesia and I'm being serious here. I know the conviction is the biggest news in UK right now, but we shouldn't bring this up to ITN. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Despite my !vote, I think it is right for this to be temporarily pulled due to other editors concerns since posting. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Pulled for now due to popular demand. May the discussion continue. Schwede66 06:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose tabloid news, no long-term impact. Banedon (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- The news coverage is emphasising that there were numerous alarm bells and warnings as these deaths happened but that the institution was slow to act. The doctors who were suspicious were actually forced to apologise to the murderer. So, there will now be a government inquiry and there may well be consequences for the institution(s) and clinical practice. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- "May" is not "guaranteed to". 2603:8001:4542:28FB:2CCD:29ED:DB69:E997 (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- The news coverage is emphasising that there were numerous alarm bells and warnings as these deaths happened but that the institution was slow to act. The doctors who were suspicious were actually forced to apologise to the murderer. So, there will now be a government inquiry and there may well be consequences for the institution(s) and clinical practice. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Restore/oppose pull as significant news for the region with international coverage This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Strong support an exceptional, unusual case of highly notable and significant news; if a case like this were to occur in another country which has low child serial killer death rates (such as the US) it probably should be posted, definitely not just tabloid news. Happily888 (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
|
- There might have eventually been a firm consensus to post this if more time were allowed beyond 5 hours to provide the rest of the world a chance to weigh in on this. As it is, now that it has been both posted and pulled and the footing of this nom has become muddled, it seems almost a guarantee that this discussion will ultimately close as no consensus. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Post-removal support So, for some reason, we are to suppose a train derailment that kills 30 people in Pakistan is of global interest rather than "just another train accident", but an unprecedented case of the mass-murder of children that has achieved global attention, dominates the UK news, and raises serious questions about medical safeguarding and the use of statistics and circumstantial evidence in court cases, and has led to the setting up of a major government enquiry to find out what went wrong and prevent it from happening again, is in Alsoriano97's words merely "tragic, but yet another criminal case"? The entire point of ITN is to point readers to articles about things which are in the news -- and this is not just top of the UK news, it's very much in the news globally: see [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] and many more. I suggest this be added to ITN as soon as possible. — The Anome (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I will point out my comment above that applies here, if this case "raises serious questions about medical safeguarding and the use of statistics and circumstantial evidence in court cases", the article certainly doesn't talk about that at all. It is focused on the events of the trial, which are the last things we should be focused on rather than the impact and results, such as whether there has been new standards in medical licensing in the UK from this, or such. But the article is quiet on these things, and thus fails to meet the expected quality for posting to the Main Page. Masem (t) 13:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Fixing that now. — The Anome (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- The people who opposed this also opposed the Pakistan derailment. In fact both of them are exceedingly similar cases of an admin posting something fast after seemingly unanimous support and then people who disagree with it !voting later, though this time it actually received enough !votes to be pulled. I think it might be worth opening a discussion on the talk page on how to post stories in a timely manner while still retaining article quality and significance standards. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 15:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I will point out my comment above that applies here, if this case "raises serious questions about medical safeguarding and the use of statistics and circumstantial evidence in court cases", the article certainly doesn't talk about that at all. It is focused on the events of the trial, which are the last things we should be focused on rather than the impact and results, such as whether there has been new standards in medical licensing in the UK from this, or such. But the article is quiet on these things, and thus fails to meet the expected quality for posting to the Main Page. Masem (t) 13:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think that individual crime stories will always struggle to meet the standard needed for posting here in the absence of some wider political connection or notable societal response - similar to our policy on US mass shootings. Aside from the redundant "it has lots of press coverage" arguments, I cannot see anything here to explain why this meets the notability threshold. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - Copying and pasting a load of news links from foreign sources means nothing, the number 2 news story on the BBC website this morning was the government of Italy paying for a dine and dash by its citizens on an Albanian holiday, and nobody in their right mind would think "this news story is even top on the BBC, it's got to be on Wikipedia's ITN". [17] In this day and age, it is easy for news websites to save money by including stories that fully rely on another website's sources. What are actual newspapers printing in foreign countries? It's not on any front pages in countries geographically [18] or culturally [19] close to the UK. Even in Ireland [20] it's only on the front page of the Irish Daily Mail, a stablemate of the notorious British tabloid, and the inside coverage starts from page 22. Let's be honest, we would not even consider posting this story if it happened in Slovenia, let alone France or Germany. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Per all above. Tragic, albeit local crime is bad and the perpetrator is caught. Only because this was in the UK was it even considered for a blurb. Keep pulled. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Ultimately decided to formally vote on this. I second a lot of the votes above; while I understand opposition on “we would/wouldn’t post in x country” isn’t the strongest argument, this does truly seem like the more locally-relevant type of criminal case that we likely wouldn’t nominate/post if a large percentage of users here weren’t UK-based (ex. I believe there’d be strong opposition to posting the conviction of Rex Heuermann here). Not sure if it’ll have wide-enough long-term significance either. The Kip (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support/Restore All of the no votes above me which just say that it's only relevant to the UK shouldn't be be counted. ITN has always said that arguments based on an item only appealing to one area are not useful. This comes up on every time so maybe we need to paste WP:ITNATA to the front of the ITN section and make everyone read it before they post. Flyingfishee (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, an admin should re-post this because all the oppose !votes seem to only be arguing UK-centrism and that this blurb is only from a particular region/country/group, which is against WP:ITNATA. Its also the same users who have previously opposed blurbs just because they are or aren't from particular countries, or that they are or aren't 'front-page' news in their own country, both of which are irrelevant and which don't carry any weight in weighing up consensus. Clearly this case is significant and notable internationally in regards to the rare cases of child serial killers in modern/recent times in 'wealthy' countries and is highly likely that inquiries, per the news reports, will lead to changes. Happily888 (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well, if an admin re-posts this now, they'll definitely be going against consensus. The concern is that ITN treats stories from certain places as being more important than other places. I don't see anything indicating that this isn't a legitimate concern. That is only relates to one place is not a reason to post, but that it has no long-term significance is. --RockstoneSend me a message! 06:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, it isn't going against consensus if its posted, because admins don't count !votes to assess consensus but rather look at the arguments made by discussers, the point that oppose !voters are making above about the blurb being based in a specific place is not relevant or an appropriate argument for opposing in an ITN discussion, and so those !votes are annulled. Rather, the significance of this case is already clear and has already been made clear above; also, stories are posted based on significance, not necessarily long-term significance which is hard to determine in a short period of time in regards to ITN – if all stories had to have long-term significance blurbs about sports events and political changes of power should not be posted. Happily888 (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding "the point that oppose !voters are making above about the blurb being based in a specific place". A good faith reading of the points about makes it clear that no-one is arguing that stories in the UK cannot be significant.
- Aside from its sheer nastiness, the argument in favour of significance here seems to be because it is about the "most babies murdered in modern British history". The counterargument is that the significance comes not from the actual event itself but from this perverse "record". Would "most babies murdered in modern Brazilian history", say, be considered similarly significant? I personally doubt it and, while obviously speculative, I don't think it's an unreasonable argument because the significance is drawn from its connection to the country. Substitute Brazil in my example for, say, a "less significant" country like Andorra and you will see what I mean.
- In my view, we have too many stories of all kinds in ITN about the "first Fooian X to do Y" or "most X in Fooian history" which sets an artificial and rather deceptive standard of significance purely because it is defined in local terms. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, it isn't going against consensus if its posted, because admins don't count !votes to assess consensus but rather look at the arguments made by discussers, the point that oppose !voters are making above about the blurb being based in a specific place is not relevant or an appropriate argument for opposing in an ITN discussion, and so those !votes are annulled. Rather, the significance of this case is already clear and has already been made clear above; also, stories are posted based on significance, not necessarily long-term significance which is hard to determine in a short period of time in regards to ITN – if all stories had to have long-term significance blurbs about sports events and political changes of power should not be posted. Happily888 (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well, if an admin re-posts this now, they'll definitely be going against consensus. The concern is that ITN treats stories from certain places as being more important than other places. I don't see anything indicating that this isn't a legitimate concern. That is only relates to one place is not a reason to post, but that it has no long-term significance is. --RockstoneSend me a message! 06:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, an admin should re-post this because all the oppose !votes seem to only be arguing UK-centrism and that this blurb is only from a particular region/country/group, which is against WP:ITNATA. Its also the same users who have previously opposed blurbs just because they are or aren't from particular countries, or that they are or aren't 'front-page' news in their own country, both of which are irrelevant and which don't carry any weight in weighing up consensus. Clearly this case is significant and notable internationally in regards to the rare cases of child serial killers in modern/recent times in 'wealthy' countries and is highly likely that inquiries, per the news reports, will lead to changes. Happily888 (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
|
- Support posting While ITN’s UK-centric bias can be a problem, this is being covered internationally (I’m seeing plenty of coverage in the US). Also, Letby murdered babies, which makes her different from most serial killers. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Post-removal weak oppose While I understand that this disturbing and tragic case has received considerable media attention, I worry that focusing on individual criminal cases could lead to sensationalism overshadowing more substantial news events with lasting implications. Mooonswimmer 20:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Both this situation and the posting of the 2023 Hazara Express derailment does bring an interesting question about posting speed. Both this and the 2023 Hazara Express derailment were posted quickly with seemingly unanimous support, only to be afterwards hit with a flurry of post-posting opposes and in this case also being pulled. It might be worthwhile discussing how to balance posting blurbs in a timely manner while still attaining consensus on article quality and significance. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 20:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support pulling / oppose restoring a tragic story, now it's over. SN54129 12:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Restore Her sentence was announced today and the story is in the headlines (again). Most of the opposes fail to adhere to the rules of WP:ITNATA. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Restore - worldwide news, with even her declining to appear at sentencing making headlines around the world. A country's most prolific child killer is convicted and sentenced, and it is covered around the world, how does that not merit posting here? nableezy - 15:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Restore' Article in good shape, sentence was announced today, this is not that common event and this news is receiving worldwide coverage. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: James L. Buckley
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WaPo
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
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) 15:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Ready to go. Fully sourced. Sources are correct. Overall good.BabbaQ (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Posted – Schwede66 22:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
August 17
August 17, 2023
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: John Devitt
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/sports/olympics/john-devitt-dead.html
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: Australian swimmer 65.94.213.53 (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
RD: Kunwar Naveed Jamil
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://pakobserver.net/kunwar-naveed-jamil-passes-away-in-karachi/
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: Pakistani politician 65.94.213.53 (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
RD: Karol J. Bobko
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-081823a-nasa-astronaut-karol-bo-bobko-obituary.html
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: NASA Space Shuttle astronaut. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
RD: Gary Young (drummer)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone Billboard The Indepedent
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by MonarchOfTerror (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Doc Strange (talk · give credit)
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 musician and music producer best known for being the original drummer of Pavement. I've fixed the remaining sourcing issues and the article looks good to go. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 12:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
RD: Rick Jeanneret
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Buffalo Sabres, The Buffalo News, ESPN
Credits:
- Nominated by The Kip (talk · give credit)
- Updated by JMyrleFuller (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Legendary Buffalo Sabres broadcaster. Article needs ref work. The Kip (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: John L. Carroll
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AL.com
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Kafoxe (talk · give credit)
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 U.S. magistrate judge and law school dean from Alabama Kafoxe (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient enough for RD. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 22:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support 0 CN tags though someone should do a spotcheck. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support - looks good to go. Sources checks.BabbaQ (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 20:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
(Re-posted) RD: Nami Sano
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Oricon ANN
Credits:
- Nominated by Ahiijny (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Harushiga (talk · give credit)
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: Manga artist for Haven't You Heard? I'm Sakamoto. Passed away from cancer at age 36. Ahiijny (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Well-referenced and just long enough. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support. It's a stub, but my experience in manga biographies has me expect that this is pretty much all there is to say about a (tragically) young manga artist, even one nominated for a significant award, so it's as comprehensive as I expect for the subject area. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support - referenced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I thought we did not post stubs, The ed17? I shall remove the listing with my next edit; please revert if I've got that wrong. Schwede66 23:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've had a look and WP:ITNQUALITY says:
Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page.
Schwede66 23:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I believe this is a case of the articles Start-status having not been updated. BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it looks Start class to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have updated the article to Start class. It can now be posted again.BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- No. It is the case of the article having been expanded since I posted my comment above. I agree that it is now start class and I shall repost it. BabbaQ, please note that when you upgrade an article from stub to start on the talk page, you should simultaneously remove any stub tags from the article itself. I will do that for you. Schwede66 00:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have updated the article to Start class. It can now be posted again.BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it looks Start class to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I believe this is a case of the articles Start-status having not been updated. BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Are there any details that can be added about her art background (i.e. art college or apprenticeship)? That would help buff this out. Curbon7 (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Like this? This wikibio now has 304 words of prose, per DYK check. Good enough? -- PFHLai (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly like that! Curbon7 (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Great! Thank you for the suggestion. --PFHLai (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly like that! Curbon7 (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Like this? This wikibio now has 304 words of prose, per DYK check. Good enough? -- PFHLai (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
(Closed) Canadian wildfires -- Yellowknife evacuation order
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.
Blurb: The entire city of Yellowknife is being evacuated due to the threat posed by wildfires approaching the city (Post)
News source(s): The Globe and Mail
Credits:
- Nominated by Count Iblis (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
- Oppose for now. A precautionary evacuation is not typically ITN material. Hopefully we will not have cause to revisit this subject due to it becoming something more serious. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Evacuations are common in association with natural disasters (and unnatural ones) all over the world. HiLo48 (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per above, not even close to ITN material at the moment. The Kip (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Only an evacuation right now, for a relatively small city (20,000 people). Johndavies837 (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ongoing The nomination was closed without much discussion but it's not a good look to be shutting down discussion of wildfires in Canada when we're running a similar story about the US. The proposed blurb focussed on the capital of Yellowknife but it seems that there are currently hundreds of major fires in the Northwest Territories. This adds to the many major fires earlier in the year and so the general topic is 2023 Canadian wildfires. Perhaps this should be in Ongoing? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- The proper ongoing should have been 2023 heat waves, which has been mentioned at least twice before in prior ITNCs give how there are wildfires across the global, not just Canada. However, no one has bothered to improve that article to be beyond just a listing of records broken. (The Maui fire would have likely still be called out on its own due to the scale of devastation and impact on human life compared to the other fires around the world). It would be inappropriate to call out this single one. Masem (t) 12:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wildfires seem to be driven more by drought than by heat. Heat with humidity is a big deal too but it's different. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hot droughts tinderize plants faster than cold. Consider how only 23 inches a year gave damp forests to London, England while 23 inches in a year would dry out and probably kill equatorial forests even if evenly distributed. The droughts are unnaturally bad for the same reason as the heat anyway (fossil fuels). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wildfires seem to be driven more by drought than by heat. Heat with humidity is a big deal too but it's different. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- The proper ongoing should have been 2023 heat waves, which has been mentioned at least twice before in prior ITNCs give how there are wildfires across the global, not just Canada. However, no one has bothered to improve that article to be beyond just a listing of records broken. (The Maui fire would have likely still be called out on its own due to the scale of devastation and impact on human life compared to the other fires around the world). It would be inappropriate to call out this single one. Masem (t) 12:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose If it were somewhere like Ottawa or Toronto, I'd certainly consider. But a relatively (at least internationally) obscure city evacuation seems mundane as they happen all the time as standard during wildfires. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Yellowknife is the capital of the Northwest Territories and the second-largest city in the Canadian north. I am floored that they're evacuating the capital as I'm not sure how the territorial government is supposed to function without the capital. I'm leaving my vote neutral for now, but I can't think of another more important city to have been evacuated due to a wildfire during my lifetime. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality WP:ITNCRIT not met for updated content.—Bagumba (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose not notable for now. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wait The wildfires may develop into something nasty like the 2023 Hawaii wildfires or it could be another run-of-the-mill wildfire. If the city gets destroyed and/or a ton of casualties result, then I'll support. Furthermore, the specific fire doesn't have its own article yet. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 16:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose for now, pending any major developments like the ones HistoryTheorist mentions—which, for the record, I hope do not transpire. Kurtis (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Suggest Close at least for now. Barring some dramatic development, consensus to post is not going to develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- We already have dramatic developments with plenty of international coverage. The drama is the threat to the city with evacuation plans being complicated by there being just one highway which is already in the fire zone. But I get the impression that the nay-sayers want to see a body count before posting. Why do we require there to be death and disaster? Why can't we cover the issue when it's managed better too? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's not that we "
want to see a body count
," it's that as it stands, this is a non-story. A large town/small city is evacuated due to potential threat, that isn't an infrequent occurrence and there's absolutely nothing at the moment to suggest it will have any significant present and/or long-term notability. Not everything is motivated by some bloodthirsty interpretation of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. The Kip (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's not that we "
- It's obviously not a non-story. Here's a selection of the international coverage:
- Al Jazeera "Huge wildfire forces evacuation of Canada’s Northwest Territories capital"
- BBC "Race to evacuate city as blaze approaches"
- France24 "Canada's northernmost city ordered to evacuate as wildfires approach"
- Guardian "Traffic clogs road out of town as residents race to evacuate"
- Irish Times "Yellowknife in Canada evacuated as wildfire nears"
- NY Times "As Wildfire Nears, Entire Canadian City Is Ordered to Evacuate"
- South China Morning Post "Residents flee, airlifts begin as wildfire nears capital of Canada’s Northwest Territories"
- Times of India "Military airlifts provide escape as wildfires sweep Canada's far north"
- Andrew🐉(talk) 21:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
A story highlighted in many newspapers or news channels has a good chance of being significant for ITN, but we do not base the posting primarily on how many such sites have covered it or consider it important.
- WP:ITNCRIT.
- Let’s not let one editor overrule the clear consensus. The Kip (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- We already have dramatic developments with plenty of international coverage. The drama is the threat to the city with evacuation plans being complicated by there being just one highway which is already in the fire zone. But I get the impression that the nay-sayers want to see a body count before posting. Why do we require there to be death and disaster? Why can't we cover the issue when it's managed better too? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Clearly a story, and one whose significance/impact/whatever is highlighted in many newspapers and channels, but we post on how many Supports a story gets around here. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
August 16
August 16, 2023
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
RD: Johaar Mosaval
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.news24.com/news24/community-newspaper/peoples-post/we-honour-him-as-a-legend-ballet-icon-johaar-mosaval-has-died-at-95-20230816
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: Apartheid-era South African ballet dancer. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
RD: Ronald Whittam
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/139/main-news/153010/eminent-scientist-born-and-raised-at-butler-green-in-chadderton-dies-aged-98
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 physiologist 65.94.213.53 (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Weak support Could use a bit more source work, but acceptable. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 10:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Renata Scotto
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): "Renata Scotto, starring soprano of 20th-century opera, dies at 89" Washington Post, + Le Monde + FAZ ++
Credits:
- Updated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: One of the best-known Italian sopranos of the 1960s and 1970s, "heir to Maria Callas", later active as opera director and voice teacher, mourned by many. - It took me a while because the article, though detailed, had practically no references. It could still be expanded, but I think we shouldn't wait longer. - Also, I'm busy this weekend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support The article is good enough for RD. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 10:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
(Closed, Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Michael Parkinson
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by The Herald (talk · give credit)
- Updated by 195.226.50.88 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
- Blurb The nomination doesn't make this clear but he was quite a major figure in UK media, comparable with Larry King or Barbara Walters, say. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Neither Larry King (Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 2021#(Posted as RD) RD/Blurb: Larry King) nor Barbara Walters (Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2022#(RD Posted) RD, Blurb: Barbara Walters) were blurbs. —Cryptic 17:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Larry King was posted as a blurb but then pulled by a notorious admin – a typical ITN SNAFU. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Neither Larry King (Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 2021#(Posted as RD) RD/Blurb: Larry King) nor Barbara Walters (Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2022#(RD Posted) RD, Blurb: Barbara Walters) were blurbs. —Cryptic 17:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support RD Very famous in the UK, but retired and elderly, his death doesn’t seem notable enough to blurb. Article is good enough. 80.169.25.168 (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support blurb I don’t expect this will be a popular view but Parkinson was the chat show host / interviewer in his country. He was the UK’s top chat show host for over 30+ years - his programme was ranked eighth in the BFI TV 100 in 2000, the highest lifestyle / light entertainment programme in the list and the only chat show there. He was most certainly the top of his field in the country, and knighted for services to broadcasting in 2008. His encounters with figures like Muhammed Ali and Billy Connolly became notable cultural threads in themselves - in UK public consciousness, those people are quite strongly linked with Parkinson and that speaks to his domination of his field. Apologies if this sounds condescending but I think an equivalent in American culture would be something like Carson and Cavett rolled into one. Letterman might even be the most accurate considering his career at the top lasting into the 21st century.
In the recent past, we’ve blurbed television figures who are incredibly well-known in their home country but are not A-list anywhere else (Betty White, who was chiefly known for supporting roles in sitcoms, for example). I think Parkinson, host of a long-running eponymous chat show considered the greatest of all time by the BFI, the revered top of his field in the UK, would justify one, or perhaps a Photo RD. Humbledaisy (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support blurb: One of the most influential chat show hosts in history. Article is in sufficiently good shape. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Barbara Walters was mentioned above, and her death was not blurbed. At that nomination, you opposed a blurb, with the rationale
A notable journalist within the US but barely known in the rest of the world.
Can you explain how Parkinson is different for you?—Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)- Man, I love seeing blatant hypocrisy pointed out. Good show. Kicking222 (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- She had a much smaller reach whereas Parkinson was able to get big international stars come over to him. No hypocrisy here and need I remind you of WP:NPA too please? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Identifying a hypocritical statement is not a personal attack. Calling someone a hypocrite is. I'm not sure where "pointing out blatant hypocrisy" falls on that spectrum. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting how, when she died, Walters was the 2nd story on BBC News's site (https://web.archive.org/web/20221231090027/bbc.com/news) while Parkinson is currently the 6th story.
- It's worth noting that I did not support Walters getting posted, either. Kicking222 (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- She had a much smaller reach whereas Parkinson was able to get big international stars come over to him. No hypocrisy here and need I remind you of WP:NPA too please? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- As Walters isn't known internationally, having only hosted and reported for American shows/news broadcasts. Parkinson's show was internationally broadcast and he also hosted international shows too. Happily888 (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Man, I love seeing blatant hypocrisy pointed out. Good show. Kicking222 (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Barbara Walters was mentioned above, and her death was not blurbed. At that nomination, you opposed a blurb, with the rationale
- Support RD article quality is good enough. no blurb material. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose blurb The epitome of "old man dies". I have stated that a death should only be blurbed if it's the #1 story in international media, and this isn't even the #1 story in British media- not on BBC News, not in the Times or Evening Standard, not in the tabloids. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where you're looking, but it's the lead story on the BBC.co.uk news website and the second lead on The Times and Evening Standard websites. - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support on notability, certainly. Very important figure in the UK. Secretlondon (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Enough with the blurb suggestions. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support RD; oppose blurb. A fine broadcaster, but I'd like to see us make far more sparing use of blurbs for deaths than we have hitherto. Ham II (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support blurb. There is certainly a parallel with Barbara Walters and Betty White here. Parky has enough cultural impact that not only was he highly regarded as a talk show host, he also portrayed himself as a talk show host in Love Actually and The Damned United. - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- To add the the cultural impact, I'll point out that the British Film Institute consider he "helped pioneer the celebrity interview format, which few on UK TV have been so successful at since". Industry professionals voted his programme 8th in the list of 100 Greatest British Television Programmes, and they conclude that "His contribution to broadcasting remains incalculable: he revolutionised the chat show on UK television, giving it a depth and reach never accomplished before".(See here). When words like "pioneer", and "revolutionised" are being used by a respected industry body, the idea of a blurb needs to be taken seriously. - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose RD on quality - I’m seeing a lot of unsourced statements that I’ll add CN tags to momentarily. Oppose blurb - good lord people, do I even need to explain anymore? The Kip (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Given we're all !voting based on loose guidelines and our own opinions, "good lord people, do I even need to explain anymore" is just patronising: there's no need for it - you have your opinion, others have theirs, and there's no need for the snark. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies, but I’ve become quite frustrated with the tidal wave of blurb noms for figures that do not rise to the level of one. It seems nearly any recent RD nom that was somewhat famous at somepoint in their lives has had someone come charging in arguing they’re blurb-worthy, setting off a discussion that turns wildly off topic and in turn ignoring the actual RD criteria in favor of “do I think this person is notable enough.” Virtually none of these have reached the (admittedly informal) “transformative figure” criteria, instead being nominated because “well, I liked them.” The Kip (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Just because people hold a different opinion doesn't mean they should be abused. Just to remind you of what WP:ITNRDBLURB actually says, it makes no claim as to a "transformative figure", but states "The death of major figures may merit a blurb" and that any posting is based on a consensus from the discussion. The definition of "major figure" varies as to what field in which they were active (and in terms of talk show hosts, Parkinson certainly reaches that level), and the opinion of each individual !voting here will always vary. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Did I really "come charging in"? I have not contributed to ITN very much in the past - I think this is the first time I've ever nominated someone for a blurb. I was nervous about doing it because I expected pushback, but it's been ruder than I was expecting. My reasoning was not “well, I liked them." and I don't appreciate the suggestion. It's not nice to be made to feel unwelcome, like I'm the wrong kind of person to contribute to ITN. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- You also weren't the one who nominated the blurb - that was Andrew, who has a bit of a history at ITNC and isn't exactly looked on favorably by some as a result. Apologies for anything that felt excessively hostile toward you. The Kip (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Andrew nominated Parkinson for RD I believe, it was me who proposed a blurb. No worries. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Did I really "come charging in"? I have not contributed to ITN very much in the past - I think this is the first time I've ever nominated someone for a blurb. I was nervous about doing it because I expected pushback, but it's been ruder than I was expecting. My reasoning was not “well, I liked them." and I don't appreciate the suggestion. It's not nice to be made to feel unwelcome, like I'm the wrong kind of person to contribute to ITN. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Just because people hold a different opinion doesn't mean they should be abused. Just to remind you of what WP:ITNRDBLURB actually says, it makes no claim as to a "transformative figure", but states "The death of major figures may merit a blurb" and that any posting is based on a consensus from the discussion. The definition of "major figure" varies as to what field in which they were active (and in terms of talk show hosts, Parkinson certainly reaches that level), and the opinion of each individual !voting here will always vary. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies, but I’ve become quite frustrated with the tidal wave of blurb noms for figures that do not rise to the level of one. It seems nearly any recent RD nom that was somewhat famous at somepoint in their lives has had someone come charging in arguing they’re blurb-worthy, setting off a discussion that turns wildly off topic and in turn ignoring the actual RD criteria in favor of “do I think this person is notable enough.” Virtually none of these have reached the (admittedly informal) “transformative figure” criteria, instead being nominated because “well, I liked them.” The Kip (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Given we're all !voting based on loose guidelines and our own opinions, "good lord people, do I even need to explain anymore" is just patronising: there's no need for it - you have your opinion, others have theirs, and there's no need for the snark. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb was a popular talk-show host in the UK 30 years ago, so what? But feel free to post it in line with our proud tradition of blurbing random American/British actors/singers who nobody born after 1990 has heard of before the obituaries were published. AryKun (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I think this has got downright unpleasant. Comments like "enough with the blurb suggestions" and "good lord people, do I even need to explain anymore?" don't strike me as fair at all. I thought people were going to engage. In response to AryKun, he was a popular talk-show host in the UK much more recently than 30 years ago - Parkinson ended in 2007. I was also, incidentally, born well after 1990. I don't think that assumption about younger people rings true. Humbledaisy (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- With all due respect, we would not even be considering blurbing a Filipino presenter who hosted a show for 30 years and invited Muhammad Ali over once if they were practically unknown outside the Philippines, even though the UK and the Philippines have comparable English-speaking populations. What’s happening here is people tired of blurb nominations for somewhat famous American and British entertainers when we don’t give this treatment to people from any other part of the world. Betty White was probably the dumbest blurb we’ve ever done, and it’s created a precedent that would lead to ITN being a 24/7 death ticker if we applied it uniformly across the globe. AryKun (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the Betty White blurb was an example of too many driveby !votes in favor just because she was famous and popular, which are neither metrics we use per WP:ITNATA. And I think editors here want people to think more about when we actually should blurb deaths when the death or impact of that death that significant. Masem (t) 03:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- With all due respect, we would not even be considering blurbing a Filipino presenter who hosted a show for 30 years and invited Muhammad Ali over once if they were practically unknown outside the Philippines, even though the UK and the Philippines have comparable English-speaking populations. What’s happening here is people tired of blurb nominations for somewhat famous American and British entertainers when we don’t give this treatment to people from any other part of the world. Betty White was probably the dumbest blurb we’ve ever done, and it’s created a precedent that would lead to ITN being a 24/7 death ticker if we applied it uniformly across the globe. AryKun (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb - Article is cited well enough ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Being famous or well-recognized by awards is not sufficient for being a blurb RD, no apparent importance or transformative nature to television as a whole.
Oppose RD with numerous CN tags.--Masem (t) 18:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)- The CNs have been fixed so Support RD. --Masem (t) 03:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support RD and blurb on notability in the United Kingdom Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support RD, weak oppose blurb Article appears to be in good shape. In terms of blurb, while reading the comments here it seems Parkinson has some notability in his field, but his article doesn't show his impact on his field, no legacy section or anything that demonstrates he was transformative in his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Any other entertainment-related nomination would get shut down immediately. Don't understand why obit blurbs for actors/singers/entertainers are so popular here (while literary figures or scientific figures, including Nobel Prize winners, get the "Never heard of her/him" treatment). While I understand from supporters here that he was a beloved figure in Britain, I'm not sure people outside Britain have ever heard of him - for me that would be key to assess notability. When Larry King died, he made the news in Germany and France at least; haven't come across any news related to Parkinson in DE or FR media so far. Khuft (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support blurb as he hosted the most notable chat show in the UK and has appeared on television and film internationally, would also support RD posting whilst a blurb discussion is ongoing. Happily888 (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- OMD The update is ten words long, omitting consequence and cause. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- And three of those words are numerals. Even if this should be posted, that's plainly insufficient to meet WP:ITNCRIT. —Cryptic 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- To be fair, they are substantial numerals. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- We do not expect a significant update when only an RD is being considered, just that the death is mentioned and sourced, atop all other quality factors. Of course, obits that provide additional details not yet included can be used to expand the article but that's not always possible nor is expected. --Masem (t) 03:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- "OMD" means "Old Man Dies" and should not be construed as opposition or support for RD consideration. If you must ask, though, yes. I'm Strong Neutral. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Updates refer to more than just updates to death information, per WP:ITNRDBLURB the death doesn't necessarily have to be the main story when nominating a major figure. Happily888 (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- What else do you see happening in that article that's in any way related to this breaking news/developing story/whatever-this-is? Verb changes to past tense? Needed citations appearing to "get tweaked"? Timothy Cooper's comma?!? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- "a substantial quantity of directly relevant information" does, yeah, mean the article has to have significant updates about the death. Right now we have no usable update at all, since even those seven words and three substantial numerals are excluded by "updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb". If more can't be written without unnatural padding written solely to get a blurb, doomed to be removed from the article just as soon as it rolls off the main page, then the criteria are clear that we can't post this no matter how many people vote support. —Cryptic 04:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think you're misreading the guidelines here, but as we are unlikely to agree and this is partly the wrong venue to discuss the guidelines, I won't push the point. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Playing devil's advocate, two of those numerals and three of the words relay where and when he died, which this unwritten but easily predictable blurb never could. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- And three of those words are numerals. Even if this should be posted, that's plainly insufficient to meet WP:ITNCRIT. —Cryptic 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb Article well cited and was a notable figure in the UK, and to a lesser extent, Australia. However, despite this, I do not support the use of a blurb. Fats40boy11 (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Stats FYI, Parkinson's article was already rated as vital. There were many readers yesterday, making it the #2 top read article, behind an Indian movie. For comparison, note that most of existing blurbs are getting almost no readers. For example, the 2023 Hazara Express derailment got just 1284 views which is derisory. We keep running such news events long after they have fallen out of the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Posting RD, I see we have no consensus for a blurb. I suggest the discussion is closed. --Tone 08:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
(Closed) UEFA Super Cup result
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.
Blurb: Manchester City wins their first UEFA Super Cup title, after defeating Sevilla on penalties. (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Nxavar (talk · give credit)
- Updated by S.A. Julio (talk · give credit), RavenRTC (talk · give credit) and Island92 (talk · give credit)
- Oppose We never post the results of super cups, these are relatively unimportant matches with little prestige. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Association football is one of the most well-represented sports on ITN. The super cup is not a major competition in association football, even the article for the super cup itself says in the lead "It is not recognised as one of UEFA's major competitions". We don’t need to post minor competitions, especially when it's association football. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 12:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- The referenced clip from the trophy's article was corrected using the given source!!! It's not a major competition, it is a major trophy. 12:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- How can it be a major trophy without being a major competition? Even hypothetically conceding that point, its recognition and prestige amongst fans is pretty low and the fact that association football has so many fans are what makes its competitions important. If this one isn’t as recognized as the other competitions we post, then it isn’t worth posting. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 12:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- OK, no problem with not posting. I have not been following football closely for many years now and, you're right, it's not really important even among football fans. Nxavar (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's an important trophy, since it's a match between UEFA 2 major competitions winners. That being the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League, the match has millions of people watching. 2601:58A:8E82:1FF0:15FF:72F8:3C0B:C0F (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- How can it be a major trophy without being a major competition? Even hypothetically conceding that point, its recognition and prestige amongst fans is pretty low and the fact that association football has so many fans are what makes its competitions important. If this one isn’t as recognized as the other competitions we post, then it isn’t worth posting. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 12:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- The referenced clip from the trophy's article was corrected using the given source!!! It's not a major competition, it is a major trophy. 12:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per S.A. Julio. The Kip (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Gennady Zhidko
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): UK Times, Moscow Times
Credits:
- Updated by Kges1901 (talk · give credit)
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: Once in charge of Russian forces during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Article appears sufficient. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 16:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Article looks good. The names of the publishers in the sources aren't in English though, feels like they were copied and pasted from the Russian wiki. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Post-posting Support Article looks good, this really seems good for RD. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) Geneina massacre
Blurb: In Geneina, Sudan, 30 mass graves with over 1,000 bodies are found. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In Geneina, Sudan, at the location of a battle which took place during the ongoing conflict in the country, 30 mass graves containing over 1000 bodies are found.
Alternative blurb II: Over 1000 corpses are discovered in mass graves as result of the battle of Geneina, in Sudan.
Alternative blurb III: In Sudan, approximately 1,000 corpses are discovered in mass graves after the Battle of Geneina.
News source(s): AllAfrica, Dabanga Sudan,
Credits:
- Nominated by 2601:183:4081:FEA0:80E6:43D5:FCEF:63E9 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Just writing down here to clarify my decision, over 1,000 bodies were found in 30 mass graves in El Geneina, Sudan surpassing the level of deadliness we saw from the Bucha massacre last year and probably this centurie’s most deadly massacre yet confirmed.
Thank you. 2601:183:4081:FEA0:80E6:43D5:FCEF:63E9 (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
PS: If anyone would like edit the blurb or improve it be free to do so!
- Weak oppose The article needs some work (2 cn tags, some bare URLs and some permanent dead links). Also the section in the article which covers this, is only two sentences. I'm sure it can be expanded further, maybe cover some reactions and more details about the discovery. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as covered by Ongoing. The battle itself is also stale. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- The battle and the discovery of mass graves are two separate events, even if one was caused by the other. That being said, Support on principle, but article needs work first. DrewieStewie (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- The discovery does not have its own article and is a relatively small update to the larger article. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think it would be reasonable to post if it was a major update to the article (we use similar logic when evaluating ongoing, just with an added time aspect). The trick is making that update happen. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- The discovery does not have its own article and is a relatively small update to the larger article. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- The battle and the discovery of mass graves are two separate events, even if one was caused by the other. That being said, Support on principle, but article needs work first. DrewieStewie (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Covered by Ongoing It's not much, but there are a few vague sentences in May, June and July about the clashes, hundreds of deaths and suspected killers themselves (also more mass grave discovery). I presume they were added between May and July. That would have been the "major" part of the ongoing story; finding the bodies is pretty clearly (to me) the epilogue/aftermath/tail end. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, a few vague sentences about massacres may have been mentioned in the article previously, but nothing about the massacres got posted to ITN as far as I can tell from searching the archive. To my mind, this is a pretty substantial update. Note that these are largely graves of civilians of one particular ethnic group, so this could be considered genocide/ethnic cleansing. Note that the only previous ITN posting about the 2023 Sudan conflict was this initial tidbit back in April (which gives no indication of mass war crimes against civilians):
- Clashes erupt after fighters from the Rapid Support Forces attack several army camps in Sudan.
- Now that we don't have vague statements but rather confirmed existence of mass graves attesting to a killing of such huge magnitude, I think it's definitely the right time to post this. I agree it's the epilogue/aftermath but better late than never, and it could even be argued to be the perfect time to post because we have specific information on the incident with solid confirmatory sources instead of vague statements. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Nothing got posted because it was covered by Ongoing, same as now. When I said vague statements, I didn't mean incredible or dubious ones. The BBC, the UN, the victims themselves...all have been telling us that many thousands are being massacred in the last three months and covered up. I'm pretty sure there's some video evidence, but haven't looked for any. In news, late is never better. And even if we weren't late, it'd still best be covered in the already-posted article (it's just late again now). You're not going to sway me on this. But I don't blame you for trying. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, a few vague sentences about massacres may have been mentioned in the article previously, but nothing about the massacres got posted to ITN as far as I can tell from searching the archive. To my mind, this is a pretty substantial update. Note that these are largely graves of civilians of one particular ethnic group, so this could be considered genocide/ethnic cleansing. Note that the only previous ITN posting about the 2023 Sudan conflict was this initial tidbit back in April (which gives no indication of mass war crimes against civilians):
- Support on notability,
oppose on qualityMassacre section needs some expansion, but easily notable enough. The Kip (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)- Section's been expanded and sourced.
I personally support ALT2 for the blurb.The Kip (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)- Instead proposed ALT3. The Kip (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Section's been expanded and sourced.
- Strong support on notability. Yes, there's a related "Ongoing" item, but a horrific war crime of this scale definitely merits mention IMO. I agree the article could use some work before posting. Also, maybe the blurb could mention that the dead were largely civilians of Masalit ethnicity. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I've done some tidying of the article and would suggest that article quality is sufficient for ITN. I shall leave it up to others to decide on notability. Schwede66 05:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support In addition to the thousands of civilians killed in the battle itself (this aspect is covered through ongoing, similar to the Siege of Mariupol), an additional at least 10,000 civilians (figure according to a local tribal leader [21]) were murdered in the subsequent massacre, when the RSF was literally killing any black person they saw. Absolutely blurb-worthy, though I feel like focusing on just the mass graves aspect may be understating it and would personally prefer a broader scope. Curbon7 (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you're referring to Sultan Saad Bahar al-Deen, he seems to me to mean 10,000 or more people were killed in West Darfur since violence erupted in April, not since the battle of Geneina ended (see preceding paragraph). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- You seem to be correct on that ([22]), though the majority of that is concentrated in this city. I do still think that the way it is being covered demonstrates significance beyond the ongoing section; for example, this horrific CNN article was posted just yesterday. Curbon7 (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- It certainly has been concentrated on the capital and CNN does have a history of pouncing on mass grave discoveries in places it normally underreports. This will likely happen the next time, too, considering the last. Remember, thousands more bodies are still unrecovered. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I look forward to seeing how you might broaden the scope beyond the four current blurbs, though, might reconsider that. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- You seem to be correct on that ([22]), though the majority of that is concentrated in this city. I do still think that the way it is being covered demonstrates significance beyond the ongoing section; for example, this horrific CNN article was posted just yesterday. Curbon7 (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you're referring to Sultan Saad Bahar al-Deen, he seems to me to mean 10,000 or more people were killed in West Darfur since violence erupted in April, not since the battle of Geneina ended (see preceding paragraph). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support per above, on notability standards, article looks OK. Massive war crime. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support—Ongoing exists to highlight highly publicized events that are developing over the course of several days or weeks, but that doesn't mean it's a substitute for blurbing something as significant as the massacre of thousands of people. Kurtis (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support I just gave it a once over but there was very little left to be done, so well done, everyone. The subject's clearly notable, it seems up to date without touching WP:NOTNEWS and the MOS queries have been resolved. SN54129 13:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Alt 3, though I would change the wording to "around 1000" rather than "over 1000" as that matches what the source says here, stating "Civil leaders in West Darfur have uncovered 30 hidden mass graves containing roughly one thousand bodies" We need to be scrupulous on things like this. Otherwise, Alt 3 is the best blurb, with that tweak. --Jayron32 13:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Posted alt3. Schwede66 22:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I'm a little concerned that this appears to be creating a neologism, particularly the way it is capitalised presents it as a proper noun phase rather than a purely descriptive term. None of the sources I have sampled refer to this as the "Battle of Geneina". It is not the place of this project to "name" battles nor implciitly define what subset of actions in a wider conflict constitute that battle (particularly when as here the "battle" is arguably more than one battle over a period). I've no dispute with the substance of the story but its treatment is outright sloppy. 3142 (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
(Closed) Marion County Record
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.
Blurb: Local newspaper Marion County Record raided by police after the paper received a tip on a drunken-driving conviction, and the co-owner died the next day (Post)
News source(s): CNN, The Guardian, KWCH, The Independent
Credits:
- Nominated by SWinxy (talk · give credit)
- Oppose She was 98. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's also not a crime to receive a tip about someone else's conviction; the pertinent allegations here are identity theft and unlawful use of a computer, and it's typical to wait for a conviction (of private figures, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
It's best for everybody involved that we close this sidebar. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Oppose I fail to see how this will receive any lasting coverage or is of encyclopaedic value. This is barely in the news and is basically local news, yes it's receiving some coverage from outside the US but not anything major and even news sources from the US don’t seem to have this as a top story. Yes we don’t evaluate based on whether something is a top story, but if something isn’t even a top story in the country where it happened and it’s a story of this type(even more so in a country where people will scream systemic bias when people nominate events from it, though honestly if this gets posted it probably is bias) it probably isn’t notable enough. The death is tragic but it is what it is. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 20:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Effectively local news. The Kip (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Good-faith nom, and this event has been surprisingly heavily covered by the news. But yes, lacking lasting impact. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose good faith, but provincial. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
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:
- ^ Conor Friedersdorf. "The Misguided Debate Over "Rich Men North of Richmond"". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 18 August 2023. Retrieved 20 August 2023.
Oliver Anthony / RadioWV [from photo caption]
- ^ Drew Magary (16 August 2023). "Was 'Rich Men North of Richmond' planted by conservative media? Probably not". SFGATE. Retrieved 20 August 2023.