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.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
American food delivery platform DoorDash announces that it will pay $1.6 million to its workers after a Seattle Office of Labor Standards investigation finds that the company failed to implement the city’s required sick and safe time policy. (AP)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support I see two "needs update" statements but I don't think that is as major an issue if we were looking at unsourced statements. Thus the article appears ready to go. --Masem (t) 16:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added two CN tags in the "Awards and honors" section. These, along with the two "needs update" tags should be fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is probably a borderline case of someone getting a blurb or not. Bob was absolutely at the top of his field as far as television presenters goes in terms of his career and his longevity, but he’s a very US-Centric personality who probably would not be as well known intentionally Spman (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two telecommunication companies in Haiti, Digicel and Access Haiti, said their fiber optic cables were severed this week, temporarily disrupting service in suspected acts of sabotage by criminal gangs. (AP)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: The release of the infamous mugshot is generating immense coverage of this. I know many will oppose us becoming "Trumppedia" but I think it's worth taking a look at this story. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The BBC article says It was his fourth arrest in five months in a criminal case, but this was his first police booking photo., so I suppose the main story worth considering here is his mugshot. Unfortunately, it's a trivial funny thing that doesn't make any significant changes in the process.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That adds to media circus. Normally a person is placed in custody or detention after the first arrest, but here we had four arrests and still basically nothing until conviction. Almost like WWE pantomime. Brandmeistertalk11:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Germanfederal court rejects an appeal by a military officer who posed as a asylum-seeker and was convicted of plotting to attack prominent politicians. (AP)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Utterly tragic, and another wrestler gone far too soon. Article is extremely well-cited for a wrestler's page, and should be ready for RD shortly. The Kip (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's a couple spots that need a bit more sourcing, such as in the section on the developmental territories, but otherwise this is a well-sourced page (over 300 citations!) and looks ready for RD. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook19:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Major expansion of bloc of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) nations, aimed at creating a counterweight to Western organisations such as the G7. Widely reported and commented upon. Khuft (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These countries actually asked to join. Their joining date is set for 1. Jan 2024 - when no news media will be reporting on it. The news about the expansion of the bloc is happening now. Khuft (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - though I like to shit on BRICS all the time, this is notable and is personally one of the few instances where they have actually done stuff. For the people who oppose on the basis of "it hasn't occurred yet," everytime we invoke that "rule," it never gets posted when the event actually goes down. The newsworthy event is when the change is made, not when the formalization occurs. — Knightoftheswords18:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blurb is misleading, the invitations have appeared to been accepted, ands now just process that will delay their actual participation. --Masem (t) 21:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. This is not major news unless some or all of these countries are actually admitted. Assumption that it will happen or what coverage will be like when admissions happen are CRYSTAL. Just because it is covered now does not mean this is the right time to run this story. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not Now & Oppose. These countries were just invited and aren't members yet. This should probably be nominated again when they officially become members. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 (話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 02:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the emphasis on expansion. The organisation is already quite ineffectual and adding countries like Ethiopia isn't going to help. Its acronym is also going to collapse into chaos as there will be too many vowels. The best I can find is ICE_ABUSERS but there's still an extra I left over.
No offense but "Oppose because the acronym won't work anymore" is probably the funniest argument I've seen in a while. (And whenever they find a new acronym, that one should definitely go to ITN!) Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Warsaw Pact was somewhat inaptly named given the fact that the seat of power was concentrated in the USSR and not in Poland, but in any case: You do recognize of course that those sources, reliable as they are for purposes of secondary reporting, would naturally have a Western-centric political and ideological bias towards blocs such as BRICS. The United States is no stranger to such viewpoints; you need only look back a few decades when the hammer and sickle still flew outside the Kremlin. So even if the expansion appears "ineffectual", it's still newsworthy, otherwise there wouldn't be a counter-narrative. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)13:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per HenricArryn. It's arguable that we should post when it happens, but there's a good chance it will not get as much coverage when it happens compared to now, in which case it makes sense to post now, especially since there are no major obstacles I'm aware of to them actually joining. This compares to, say, Sweden joining NATO. Banedon (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Article is in decent shape, but the updated text that the blurb references should be expanded a bit. Still, probably good enough for the main page. --Jayron3211:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A pretty significant shifting of the world order, with many of the countries listed (Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE) having strong economic footholds in the Middle East. Encyclopedic in nature as it will no doubt result in major alterations to existing important Wikipedia articles. As to whether to post it now or at the formal introduction of these countries, my preference would be to post it now, but I'm not opposed to waiting. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)19:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be misinterpreting the meaning of "invitation" here. It's diplomatic language to say that the 5 current BRICS countries accept the new ones (who had expressed interest already) to join. Ramaphosa's speech says the following: "We have decided to invite the Argentine Republic, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to become full members of BRICS. The membership will take effect from 1 January 2024." It doesn't mention any acceptance or ratification process, nor does it leave any doubt that the 6 new countries will become members on 1 Jan 2024. Needless to say, no news media will be reporting on this on New Year 2024. We either post this now, or we will never post it. Khuft (talk) 07:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What the Saudi foreign minister has said already is that they'll think about it and so it's not a done deal. The Saudis are naturally more cautious than the others as they are the rich ones with the money while the other entrants would be more supplicant. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Important news, and, in the same way we posy elections of heads of state rather than their inagurations, I think it's best not to wait and to post this now. DecafPotato (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose Mostly well-cited in the body (only one CN tag), but the Books and Filmography sections are mostly to entirely unsourced. The Kip (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done some work to source the books section and also replaced letterboxd and IMDb sources in the filmography (since IMDb is unreliable per WP:IMDB and Letterboxd gets its data from TMDB which is user-generated and unreliable per WP:UGC). There’s still the one cn tag in the body and one uncited book, I could not find sources for these. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror17:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Before anyone comments on the fact that the war has not ended, yes, I know that the war has not ended, and that there are still news articles about it being published. The cornerstone of the Ongoing section, however is that there is a regularly updated Wikipedia article we are linking to on the main page. The current linked article, Russian invasion of Ukraine, last received a substantive update about the war on 1 August 2023, using this source (currently source 448). In the past three weeks, the only changes to the article have been cosmetic or grammatical, or have been someone incrementing the dates on the maps and in tables to the current date, with no substantive changes describing any new events. The article itself appears to not be receiving updates, and so is no longer eligible for ongoing. If someone has a different article on the same subject which is being updated, please feel free propose that article to be swapped out for this one, which is approaching a month stale at this point. Jayron3213:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose & WP:SNOW close This type of nom has been nominated before, we don't need to open another one. Quick summary of what I said last time in a nom like this; the war is still ongoing, just because that specific article isn't receiving any major updates doesn't mean nothing is happening on the battlefield. Supplies are still being sent to the frontlines from Western countries, the killing of Prigozhin will definitely escalate tensions between the Russian military and Wagner itself, and bloody battles like in Bakhmut are still being fought. Absolutely no reason to remove it. TwistedAxe[contact]13:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then why didn't you add all of that information to the article? If it is so important to you that this remain on the main page, why couldn't you put in 5 minutes of effort each day or so to update the article with all of this information? --Jayron3213:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Time for the monthly Ukraine war ongoing removal
This is a good faith nom though, and you raise good points. But my personal opinion is that this item is far too important and is making so many headlines every day that it would be ridiculous to take it off, even if the article is not being updated. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Common sense says that fir a topic that has been going in for this long and this well covered, the updates are going to be on subpage of the main topic and not the main topic itself. We had this issue before with I think the Hong Kong protests, and I am pretty sure that acknowledge that subpage being updated was appropriate. Masem (t) 13:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still definitely ongoing. And will be ongoing for a long time. A big crucial battlefield update could happen tomorrow, right now the main article might be a bit slow on updates though. I also remind everyone that this article have several articles about individual battles and event which might get updates through the main articles appearance on Ongoing.BabbaQ (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - COVID is still ongoing as well, but when that stopped being regularly updated, with substantial updates, it was likewise dropped. nableezy - 14:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Russia-Ukraine is still receiving regular updates. Yesterday's plane crash, for example. The situation continues to develop on the regular. Kurtis(talk)14:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Conflict regularly makes headlines, and while the main article may not get updated every day, the 2023 Ukrainian Counteroffensive is getting many updates daily (but we should not solely post the counteroffensive article, as this does not capture the full picture of what is ongoing). 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and please link to the timeline article so that we can't get a regular removal nom for this topic based on a technicality. Good faith nom, but per above, it's still somewhat foolish to remove this, though as I've repeatedly stated, at this point, linking to the TL article is much better, as the home article barely gives any info on recent developments and the former is being updated daily. — Knightoftheswords14:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Post-closure discussion
I object to this closure, and the comments in opposition are based on a false premise. Kurtis the plane crash does not appear once in Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is the last significant update to the article, and that isnt really all that substantial an update. And it was on August 6. People are claiming something that is not true, that the article is being updated regularly, and then the discussion is closed on the basis of those false claims. nableezy - 15:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, perhaps the meaning of my comment was unclear—the linked article might not be getting regular updates anymore, but the topic itself is still very much ongoing. It continues to receive widespread attention, and the situation is developing by the day. I like Fram's suggestion that we pipe the link to the recent timeline rather than the main article, but I am very much against removal at this juncture.
In two hours it’d amassed nine oppose votes, all on solid rationale grounds, to just one single support outside of the nom. That’s the very definition of how WP:SNOW works. The Kip (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if the Sudan conflict can't get a consensus for removal, this sure as hell won't. Wasting the communities time/energy on this is absurd. Until there is a peace accord I don't see consensus ever forming and we should very well consider trouting the next person who brings it up. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a completely absurd comparison. The last time someone proposed removing the article Sudan conflict, the article was receiving substantive updates every 2-3 days. This one hasn't received an update in weeks. If we are telling our readers we have up-to-date information on a story, why are we sending them to read an article that doesn't? If you think the story deserves to be covered by an ongoing link, either edit the article in question regularly to add the new information or give us the link to an article where that is happening. --Jayron3216:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be in support of discussing whether to pipe or not (and in weak support of piping). However, I agree that discussing removal is pointless. Nobody in the discussion challenged the notability of the topic, only the quality of the linked article. DaßWölf15:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with not removing the item, but there were several proposals to change the link. Can we discuss perhaps doing that? If the story is in the news, but some other Wikipedia article is receiving all of the updates rather than this one is, perhaps we can link to that one instead? --Jayron3216:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other article is just a chronicle of day-by-day events, without any context. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to link to that. The currently linked article is the main one that covers the war, and from which readers can navigate further to get more in-depth details. It's probably more useful to the casual Wikipedia user than a war journal. Also, didn't we treat covid in the same way? (Honest question: I don't really remember). Khuft (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other article is just a chronicle of day-by-day events, without any context. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to link to that.
As opposed to a vague overview article that essentially goes over all the things everyone knows about and doesn't even highlight any of the events that are in the news? — Knightoftheswords17:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have supported removal. Jayron is making points which I don't think have been sufficiently addressed - if this is an ongoing event, why is the main article not receiving substantive updates? The discussion needs to be reopened. Two hours to declare WP:SNOW is silly. The guidelines on WP:ITN state outright: In general, articles are not posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. (bolded mine). ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)17:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two hours to declare WP:SNOW is silly.
With all due respect; the proposal had garnered nine opposes, with solid rationale (as opposed to simply "lol no" or similar), to just a single support. If it was something like three opposes it'd be premature, but not SNOWing it then and there would've just extended the inevitable, and the lone support voter force-reopening this discussion feels like sour grapes to a degree. The Kip (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The war is ongoing. It’s time to stop these nominations that are snow closed anyway. And yes there was a clear and loud consensus to not remove this article from ongoing. If anyone want to discuss if another article about this war is better for the section, then have that discussion at the appropriate talk page.BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um, this is the appropriate page for that. And whether or not the war is ongoing is immaterial to the question of is the article we are linking receiving updates. It is not, and as such it is ineligible for inclusion in ongoing. And i dgaf if a thousand people say oppose, that is not consensus, we base "consensus" on adherence to our policies and guidelines, and this is one of the few instances here where we actually have some guidance. WP:ONGOING: In general, articles are not posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status. All the opposes here are invalid and should be ignored. And this should be reopened. nableezy - 17:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removal at this point is clearly premature. This is where a strict following of policy to remove the entry would actually be unencyclopedic and of no productive benefit in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. Jayron32 and Nableezy make good points, but there is even more to be said. We removed the COVID-19 pandemic at times when there were containment measures in place in half of the world, tens of thousands of deaths were reported on a daily basis, there was wide media coverage and hundreds of Wikipedia articles were regularly updated, but the main argument was that the world got used to the pandemic and began to gradually normalise. The same is happening with this story now. While it’s undeniably still ongoing, the world got used to it and, more importantly, Ukrainians went back to normal life. The incremental updates in the past few weeks consist of run-of-the-mill drone attacks, planned future operations, pleads for weapon and some statements about alleged losses. That’s definitely not newsworthy. I’d rather remove it from ongoing and post when something major happens in the same way we do with the Gaza–Israel conflict.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strikes affect the quality of life, but people already got used to it. People go to work as they did before the invasion, and refugees began returning to the country (please read this news article). Shootings affect the quality of life of Americans, but it doesn’t mean they don’t live a normal life.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your "every day" is a strong argument that this should be removed. While it's certainly tragic and I personally acknowledge it as someone who helped Ukrainians who left the country to find shelter, those strikes have definitely become routine, and editors here should divorce from their emotions. The case was same with the pandemic. It was urgent when several hundreds of people tested positive and several dozens died daily, but then it became routine when tens of thousands of people tested positive and thousands died daily, so it was removed from ongoing at times when the situation was more severe compared to when it was posted. We all know it's ongoing, but it can't stay posted forever.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be kept in the Ongoing section as it seems now, with the addition of the fork article about every day updates. So a good compromie for now.BabbaQ (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted) Proposal: link timeline to ongoing section
Nominator's comments: Per guidelines, ongoing items must receive substantial updates on a daily basis; otherwise, it should be pulled. A major reason why the mother article's edit count has declined is that it has since been absorbed by various fork articles. Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (8 June 2023 – present) is updated on a daily basis with lots of material; it would make sense to at least retarget or add an additional link to the ongoing section. — Knightoftheswords17:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt Yes, did we not have something similar during the pandemic. That the main article also included other fork articles in italics or whatever they were formatted as. Maybe that is a solution. I would support that.BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal - Is there any way we could make some 'Portal' page that links all of these articles together and have that be the main article? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The timeline article is most definitely a better target, but there have been really no major developments in the past few weeks. Ongoing was practically introduced to prevent posting multiple blurbs pertaining to a single ongoing story. I don’t see that happening.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When one says "per guidelines" and then says we "must" do something, that's a fallacy in using P&G. Guidelines (which ITN's are) guide us but are not prescriptive, but descriptive. Yes, we typically require the linked article to be the one updated while it sits at Ongoing, but there is no one holding us to that, and in a case like the Ukraine-Russia war, the topic is so huge that it is reasonable to expect subpages to be updated more often than the main page. The ITN guideline would be interpreted to allow that. As such I'm not saying we can't link to the timeline, but it should be a second useful link, presented as "Russian invasion of Ukraine (timeline)". --Masem (t) 12:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They're just different tournaments. World Cup is one of FIDE's (the organizing body of chess) marquee events, with major funding (see the prize pool) and global representation (there are qualifying tournaments all over the world). It's similar to the FIFA world cup in that sense. World Chess Championship is a different event that awards the World Chess Champion title, it has its own qualification paths (World Cup is one way to qualify).
To me it's simply a question of whether we want to post more than one chess event in ITN. If yes then this is the obvious one to post. If no then just keep the WCC (which is in ITNR anyway). Banedon (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Giant table farm, almost no prose about the event at all. There isn't even a full sentence describing the final match or who won. Article needs a LOT of work to be main page ready. --Jayron3212:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a qualifying event for the Candidates, which itself is the qualifying tournament for the world championship. Grandiose name aside, it's just another tour event that happens to be directly organised by FIDE. The equivalent of the 'world cups' held in other sports is the Chess Olympiad, not this. Modest Geniustalk14:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on importance and quality. This is, at most, the fourth-most-important chess event in the biannual cycle (behind the Championship, Candidates, and Olympiad). Also, the article is mostly a giant table of results. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order @ The C of E—! The FIDE top 15 currently comprises players from Norway, USA, China, Russia, France, Netherlands, India, Romania, Azerbaijan, and Vietnam. That's a greater global representation than a helluva lot of sports that claim the same moniker. Which hardly applies to Cluedo (World champion one Josef Kollar... probably rightly red-linked). Just an FYI. SN5412917:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Meta, Facebook’s parent company, and 184 of its content moderators based in Kenya agree on a mediation attempt to settle in a lawsuit seeking $1.6 billion in compensation, alleging poor working conditions, insufficient mental health support and low pay. (AP)
A presidential decree extends voting by one day in 40 wards across the country due to delayed distribution of ballot papers, which the electoral commission attributes to late printing caused by court challenges. (Reuters)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support RD and blurb. The article quality seems good enough for RD, no major issues tagged. My reasoning for a blurb is that Prigozhin is a figure who has been in world news a lot over the past years and especially last few months, and so his death itself is quite a newsworthy event, whether it was just an accident or due to intentional human machinations. The Wagner group has been involved in the Ukraine invasion, various other conflicts around the world (e.g., Sudan) and an attempted internal coup in Russia, just this year. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for confirmation, but this a blurb if all true, should be about the plane crash that included Prigozhin. --Masem (t) 17:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWait per my comments here. There is confirmation that the plane crashed, and that he was on the passenger list, but there is not confirmation that he was on the plane. Giraffer(talk·contribs)17:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait than Support blurb If it is confirmed, than it should be a blurb given recent events and the nature of the death, but we can afford to wait a bit for that, since things are still unclear now. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions17:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have proposed a blurb making his death more ambiguous, simply referring to the crash. There are also some unconfirmed reports that the plane was shot down. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When did they confirm it, User:Daikido? I just turned off the TV, and both CNN and BBC were only reporting he was on the passenger list, with pundits clearly saying that they need confirmation of his death. Nfitz (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - CNN and BBC are both reporting that he was on the passenger list, but no confirmation he was on the plane. And what's the bigger story - if it's just an unfortunate crash, then it's not otherwise ITN. But if Russia has now started shooting down planes departing from Moscow - than that may be the bigger story. Nfitz (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We might not get unambiguous official confirmation that it was an intentional act of shooting down a plane. People will undoubtedly still speculate about it anyway. Russia tends to pass deaths off as accidents even when they clearly aren’t. (IMO it’s newsworthy enough to be blurbed even if it was in fact just an accident, but I can see why some may disagree. Prigozhin is a name that would evoke strong emotional reactions from residents of many Eastern European countries, to say nothing of his relevance to other regions. His relevance to world affairs is greater than that of many other individuals whose deaths were blurbed.) 98.170.164.88 (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support when ready. The big issue, 98.170.164.88 was whether they were actually on the plane - with the long history of body doubles, deceptive movements, and the false claims by the state-controlled media, then we should be cautious. But with the Wagner group itself reporting the deaths, this seems sure enough, that it's time to post. The key question is how Russia destroyed the plane; but we might not get the details on that for decades - unless foreign powers have evidence; I'd think missiles that close to the NATO border will be well monitored. Nfitz (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and then weak support RD and blurb - Confusing vote, I know. I think we should wait until there is more details on this story, as this is such a rapidly developing situation with confusing and conflicting info. But as it stands, I do think the situation is notable. First of, plane crashes like this, regardless of global impact, are often posted on ITN. Second, one of the biggest players in this conflict, head of a major component of Russia's fighting force, and also deeply involved in other global conflicts like the Niger crisis being killed is pretty big.
While you could argue that this is covered by ongoing, I do think a development as big as this that also has significant effect elsewhere shouldn't be grouped as just another phase of the war. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a consensus for a blurb. I suggest we wait at least 12 hours or until his death is confirmed before posting. Thriley (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb IV - he's been universally been presumed dead, with even our own article stating that he's deceased; it's not ITN's job to editorialize and state "WeLl AkShulLy" an be contrary to all the WP:RSes. — Knightoftheswords18:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Situation is changing too quickly. At least wait for an official confirmation of death. After that, and maybe a confirmation of a shootdown, then Support. Bremps...18:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of the support !votes engage in a non sequitur argument, namely, they assume that since Prigozhin is on the passenger list, he must have boarded the plane. There is, however, no obligation to board even if you booked the flight, and we have no firm confirmation that Prigozhin was on the plane. None of the blurbs take this into account.
According to WP:BLP, biographies must be written conservatively and responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. What the majority votes on so far is a definite overstatement that is not supported by any of the RSs. It is only suggested that he was a passenger, we are not sure, like, 100%, and we should be to claim he is dead.
Wait for official confirmation that he was on the plane, or that he died. Situation is still unclear and we don't lose much by waiting a couple of hours instead of jumping the gun. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose In context this is a small blip on the radar of the war and even smaller in international relations. This is not much different from a plane crash on which a somewhat famous person happend to be. Not at all a significant world event by any stretch. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is beyond significant, and this will definitely have a big impact on the war in Ukraine. Wagner supplied Russia with much needed firepower and manpower. Not to mention, Putin now definitely has a stronger hand over his military command. TwistedAxe[contact]22:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle several media are now edging towards stating he died, on the basis that Wagner group Telegram channel and Russian aviation authority claim it. See e.g. The Guardian. Khuft (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support & comment Wagner has since confirmed the death of both individuals in their official Telegram channel. I've edited both articles to reflect this change, however there might be some reverts. I fully support posting this, HUGE news and its all over every global news outlet. Will have big influence both in and outside of Russia, and especially in the war. TwistedAxe[contact]22:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen unconfirmed tweets that Wagner group had wartime plans in effect and are beginning to engage them should Prigozhin be killed. This may require a rescope of the current article if there is a new offensive front again Putin that was triggered by the crash, but for now keep the blurb focused on the estashlibrd fact that the plane he was in crashed with aboard killed. --Masem (t) 22:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are still unconfirmed reports with both Wagner Telegram Channels and mainstream media regarding their deaths, but considering that we've already updated both of their statuses to "deceased", we should put it in the news for now.
I'm on board if we want to include a comment about these reports not being 100% confirmed, but considering how much this would affect in and outside of Russia if true, it should be in the news. MateoFrayo (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on Notability, but Wait the articles don't really cover their deaths much, and I'm not 100% certain what exactly has happened to them. If nothing develops (i.e. they are not actually dead or something crazy like that) and the articles are brought up to snuff, I'd definitely want it on ITN. ❤HistoryTheorist❤22:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support but Wait for now. Considering Prigozhin was a notable figure during the invasion (especially the munity) his death sounds very notable but for now, wait until his death is confirmed and other details are released. I've read many news sources but so far, none has confirmed his death and only presumed that he died. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 (話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 23:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Highly notable, one would have no idea how long I have been waiting for this, and I'm not trying to bring personal opinion into this or anything, but this should be immediately posted as a blurb due to the notability. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until verified one way or the other. Wikipedia would look ridiculous if we front-page declared the death of a person who turns out to be still alive. If Prigozhin is still alive and was not on the plane, then chances are that this was a failed FSB attempt to assassinate him - but that likely wouldn't become WP-verified info for months or years. Boud (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for RD until the deaths are independently confirmed. As for a blurb, I would support Alt3, due to Wagner (and thus their founders) being very significant and influential, as well as the good quality of the founders' articles. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the waits above, as I think consensus is close to postable. Would tracking with the sources and saying "are presumed dead" in the blurb address your concerns? Ed[talk][majestic titan]03:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presumption of death is not listing impact. If Prigozhin isn't dead, this story doesn't mean a whole lot. We lose nothing here by being patient and waiting. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what editors are supporting or opposing. Because there are a blurb and a RD nom at the same time. Is Prigozhin ready for RD for example.BabbaQ (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. CNN,Updated 3:11 a.m. ET, August 24, 2023,"Wagner boss listed among plane crash passengers as Russia wages Ukraine war" and ALJAZEERA, Reported:"Prigozhin reported dead: Former Wagner chief on plane crash passenger list" AbDaryaee (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose until we have a clear factual evidence, or, at least, a Russian official statement on this. Everything presented so far was speculation based on a list of passengers. All 10 bodies have been recovered, and can be easily identified by the authorities. Materialscientist (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and strongly disagree that our posting this should be dependent on an "official Russian statement", just post the original blurb with the wording "presumed dead" instead of "killed". It's in the news now. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱08:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We still have a disparity between the blurbs which say he has died (or at least, was on the aeroplane) and the reports which generally say that he is presumed dead. Nigej (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, post now but only bold the crash article. Reliable sources are pretty clear that Prigozhin was listed as a passenger and there were no survivors. If by some bizarre circumstance it turns out to be a body double or he survived by some other means, we can update the blurb or post a new one. I think that's highly unlikely though. If we wait for confirmation from official Russian government sources, it might never come - there's clear incentive for a cover-up. Post now. Modest Geniustalk10:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being on the list of passengers, and that no one survived, is not confirmation that he died. That's the worst type of OR we can be doing at ITN. This is Russia, and I would not put it pass any one there to try to fake their death if they wanted. Masem (t) 12:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Both bolded articles are in decent shape, this is exactly the kind of death that needs a blurb, because of the unusual manner of the death, which needs context and explanation. --Jayron3212:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not confirmed (no new source):WSJ only attributes its source with Prigozhin was killed in a plane crash northwest of Moscow, according to Russian authorities. and attributes TASS as the source in the earlier brief with A business jet that had Yevgeny Prigozhin ... Tass news agency said citing aviation authorities. We're no closer to an official statement than before. This is just WSJ clickbait. Boud (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC) It's not credible that WSJ has better info from Russian authorities than reliable Russian newspapers such as The Moscow Times and Meduza. Boud (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support since he seems to have been confirmed to have died in this, and this is a very notable event following the Wagner mutiny which happened. River10000 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support No need to (re!)affirm to the outside world how completely retentive we can be over a couple of words. For all the hand-wringers, stick 'presumed' or 'reported' in front of the claimallegation assertion already. SN5412913:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about hand-wringing its about saying someone's dead when it's not confirmed. (see WP:BLP). The thing could have been posted in half-an-hour with a more precise wording (and the exclusion of the RDs). Nigej (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it was any other source but Russia media reporting, we may do that (I think we did that after US forced claimed a terrorist leader was killed in a strike, once). But we can't trust Russia media one bit here. Masem (t) 14:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, but Id personally go with something like Yevgeny Prigozhin, who led a short-lived mutiny in Russia, is killed along with Dmitry Utkin and eight others in a plane crash in Russia. Kinda missing the story here with the proposed blurbs. If we can also add shocked Pikachu face at the end that would also work. nableezy - 14:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - The mental gymnastics we go through to avoid being possibly wrong to the extent that we don't say even just the confirmed things can be amazing. There is general consensus that this is worthy of posting. The disagreement arose from the lack of certainity/confirmation of the death of certain individuals. There is no neutral official party that can give that confirmation here. The West (and non-aligned countries) are outsiders here. So is Ukraine, unless they did it, in which case they're definitely wouldn't be a neutral source. The crash happened in Russia, but they are suspected by many to have caused it, so what they say cannot be trusted on this either. There's Telegram channels affiliated with The Wagner Group but it's debateable whether we would consider any of them reliable source, and if we did, they're saying Prigozhin et al. are indeed dead in any case. So posted a blurb that says what no one can disagree with as facts. -- KTC (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse posting. I don't have strong opinions about this one way or the other, and for all we know there might be more than has currently been reported, but the closing/posting admin is correct to disregard comments based on speculation or personal interpretation beyond what is reported by the sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mental gymnastics we go through to avoid being possibly wrong to the extent that we don't say even just the confirmed things can be amazing. Not sure I could have ever possibly put it anymore succinctly than you have, KTC. What ever happened to WP:VNT? Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)12:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the posted blurb do not mention Prigozhin and Utkin was simply the disagreement over confirmation of their deaths. I would suggest that if there's consensus to post that they're dead, then just change the blurb rather than have them as separate RDs. -- KTC (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure when we will get confirmations. If soon, yes. If the blurb scrolls off first, then names can go onto the RD line on MainPage after the wikibios get reviewed again. Hopefully by that time, we don't have to deal with problems like new unreferenced text or neutrality tags, etc. These things will need to be dealt with then. --PFHLai (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW some sources now claim Prigozhin has been identified by a Wagner commander by a body feature(a missing portion of a finger) and that Utkin was identified by his tattoos. ([2]) 331dot (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose His biography has a hatnote saying "This article is about a person who has been presumed dead" As such I don't believe he should be a RD. Nigej (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now I'm onboard with the blurb due to it going purely off what we know, but I don't feel that "presumed dead" is a bridge we should cross for RDs. Vote will change if/when it's actually confirmed. The Kip (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. No need to double-dip here. If we have a blurb saying they are dead or presumed to be so, then we don't need a RD as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose first off, this person is only Presumed dead, and secondly, his "death" was already posted in ITN in the form of the 2023 Tver plane crash, so there would be no reason to post his death twice, although if his death is confirmed by outside sources, it may be RD-worthy due to the widespread media coverage. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose, very little updates about his recent (post-2017) activities and current status in the Wagner group, which feels like an important part that is currently missing. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose His biography has a hatnote saying "This article is about a person who has been presumed dead" As such I don't believe he should be a RD. Nigej (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose although this is RD-quality and worthy of RD in every sense, and is very big news to me due to some personal reasons, this is already posted in the form of ITN, and there is no reason why it should be posted twice. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Valery Chekalov (talk·history·tag) Recent deaths nomination (Post) News source(s):Reuters Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strong Oppose This is the 3rd Indian lunar exploration mission, so not significant. Also, the 100th+ overall lunar exploration mission. Footnotes like this shouldn't take up ITN space just because the article is "full enough". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombie Philosopher (talk • contribs) 12:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can but it should at least be grounded in some rationale to make us diverge from policy. Yes multiple lunar missions but how many of them that were for a landing and especially since ITN started (which has posted every single one). We did not create an exception to ITNR for China, UAE, Russia etc. and there is no substantiation to do so now, besides WP:I don't like it as expressed by the above user (like most ITNR opposes). Gotitbro (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITNR, so your argument is invalid. Plus, the previous two didn't land on the moon (okay, Chandrayaan-2 did land technically, but it crash-landed). Tube·of·Light13:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the arbiter of what is or isn't a valid argument. My argument is valid based on my opinion that it is not significant. The text from the ITN page reads exactly: "Events are added based on a consensus on the ITN candidates page, using two main criteria: a) the quality of the article, including material added or updated to reflect the recent event, and b) the general significance of the developments." B is my contention despite what the contradictory text in ITNR says. By my vote in the consensus, I do not regard B to be satisfied, by extension its inclusion in ITNR. Your opinion of which argument is or isn't valid is thus meaningless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rulesZombie Philosopher (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the program's first *landing*. Which makes it more significant than the other two, not less. (After all, Apollo 11 is more significant than its predecessors.) ApLundell (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, following the landing. The refs for the "first soft landing near the lunar south pole" seem out of date. Probably the "India achieved multiple landmarks with Chandrayaan-3" etc section will need to be deleted unless sources are added. Nigej (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support! - One of the biggest leaps in Lunar exploration this decade! ISRO's progress has been truly inspiring. The first rover on the south pole, making a lot of headlines. What a story! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I believe Altblurb III is the best one to post as the fact that this is the first spacecraft on the lunar south pole and the first Indian spacecraft on the Moon is very notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledging that there are a few unsourced statements, Support Alt1. The other blurbs are too wordy in trying to fit in being the first the land at the lunar south pole, we can't just acknowledge it. --Masem (t) 15:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Good article and amazing day for the world and India. A spacecraft made with the fraction of the money NASA uses makes history like this! Support altblurb1. Rushtheeditor (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - But lets be clear that it has not "explored" the south pole. It just landed and is starting to test its instruments. Only Original and Atl1 are correct. 103.247.13.214 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support only the fourth country overall to land on the moon and the first to do so at the poles, need I say more? I’ll be waiting for the opposers here to show up on the Artemis II nom on the basis of that being the tenth manned moon mission and the US’s sixth.AryKun (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: First mission to successfully land on the south pole, please see The Time update (or search on the web yourself). This is a major achievement. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is on the WP:ITNR list so notability does not need to be argued. If you disagree with this being on the ITNR list, raise it at the talk page, not here. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is good enough, subject is in the news. Altblurb III is best because it really illustrates the significance. Bremps...18:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to remove at this time is unlikely to develop while noting that some editors have indicated a willingness to take a second look down the road aways. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose. Timeline of the 2023 Sudan conflict is being updated almost every day, and I see significant activity on the main page as well (the last 50 edits go back only ~a week, which shows more active editing than even the main Ukraine invasion article, ignoring the numerous more specific battle pages and timelines). I don’t think it should be removed. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now; "daily" updates are not the standard as listed at WP:ONGOING states " Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status." This more than exceeds that standard. Willing to reconsider if no updates are made when that milestone occurs. --Jayron3215:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose It looks like while there are still flames around Lahaina, most of the wildfires have been extinguished or run dry. Thus, at this point, it is now in the rescue and recovery phase, which could last months - that it, not well suited for ongoing. --Masem (t) 02:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We simply have never kept a disaster article with a long-term search and rescue effort well after the triggering event is over as ongoing because while there may be daily updates to, for example, the death toll, the actual event has been completed. Perhaps, if that toll drastically increases to 1000, a new blurb to say "Over 1000 people are consider dead or missing from the Hawaii wildfires." might be appropriate. Masem (t) 03:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Continuing and future updates seem to most likely be solely incrementing the confirmed deaths. Does not seem to be significant enough. --Jayron3215:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More than 200 fishermen stage a protest on the docks of Gaza’s seaport after the arrest of at least six fishermen and the seizure of multiple boats by Israeli forces, requesting immediate international intervention. (Al Jazeera)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose Significant sourcing work needed. Early life section has one uncited statement, many unsourced paragraphs and statements in career, a good amount of uncited awards and an uncited selected publications section. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror14:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Extremely notable, top in the field of statistics.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Unless there is some obvious issues im missing, this could be a quick one. Toto Cutugno was a popular musician in Italy, but to most of the world, mainly Europe, he was known for three things: "L'Italiano", and both of the next two go with each other, being the winner of Eurovision Song Contest 1990 with "Insieme: 1992". TheCorriynial (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One cn tag and discography uncited.Support RD Article looks good. Also weak oppose blurb, there's no indication in the article of him being one of the most famous Italian singers or household name in countries. A legacy section would be great. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can work on creating a legacy section or incorporate that in the career section. The article needs to show the impact Cutugno had in his field or how he was his country's most renowned singer. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - Article seems to have been fully-cited, including discography. Oppose blurb per TDKR, as well as just the obvious per my prior RD/blurb votes. The Kip (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simply having a long career or a large body of work is not sufficient for a blurb. And as for allocates the one one called out I can see on scanning the text is for Eurovision, so thats definitely not applicable. Masem (t) 21:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This depends on what you want to (dis)prove. Long career and numerous accolades are not decisive but are most definitely significant indicators for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but let's make sure in providing rationales of this type, that the article reflects how those aspects have translated into significance (which when I last looked, lacked that), rather than just stating it in the !vote rationale. Masem (t) 02:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb RD is sufficient for noting that a person died, there's no extra context that needs to be provided by a blurb. --Jayron3212:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Posted) Thailand prime minister vote and return of Thaksin Shinawatra
Article updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: The prime minister appointment is ITNR, though Thaksin's return is an equally significant and politically linked development which should also be mentioned, so I've made this a regular nom. The context of this past three months' political wrangling is very complicated, and these are the shortest blurbs I could come up with. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this - ITNR declares HoG changes important - but maybe Shinawatra could be separated or removed to clean it up a bit? I get it's important of course with me having followed these politics for a while, but it's just really long
Support Oh my, what a convoluted story! Would suggest bolding the new PM Srettha Thavisin and adding a picture of himd, and deleting Thaksin Shinawatra from the blurb (if he gets pardoned by the new gov at some point, we can deliberate posting that). But I'm also fine keeping him in. Khuft (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a shorter but more concise altblurb. The quality of Shinawatra's article needs a lot of work. On the other hand, Thavisin's is good enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support posting the new PM, but the Shinawatra story is distinct enough where a separate blurb is needed IMO. It's not immediately apparent to a casual reader why he has relevance to Thailand getting a new PM. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 21:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - PM election is ITN/R (I think) even though the election was posted a few months ago. Support the return of Shinawatra too. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be blurbed together.--estar8806 (talk) ★21:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support PM Blurb and Oppose Shinawatra blurb. Former is in theory INT/R. I don't see what is so significant however about coming back from a "self-imposed" exile. He has not been in a position of power since 2006. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He has not been in an official position of power since 2006, but he has been pulling strings from afar, the central polarising figure splitting the fault lines of Thai politics for most of the past two decades. But yes, such background information can't easily be conveyed in a single blurb. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've adjusted the nom to have Srettha's article as the bolded item instead of the election's per the first three comments. I've also added Alt3, which leaves out Thaksin's return. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt III The PM change is WP:ITNR, and the article quality is sufficient. Thaksin's page has a ways to go to meet sourcing standards, and should not hold up the main item.—Bagumba (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My intent was to reflect the unusualness of the situation a bit, as in Following three months of unprecedented post-election wrangling in which the party that won the most seats was blocked from forming a government by the unelected senate..., but that's not really possible to convey within constraints of a blurb, so shortening might be for the best. That said, more of the relevant info is in 2023 Thai general election#Government formation than the Srettha Thavisin article, so I would rather that a link be somehow included. How about "Srettha Thavisin(pictured) becomes Prime Minister of Thailand after an election by the National Assembly."? (Personally I try to avoid using election for the parliamentary vote as it's a bit confusing, but some news sources do use it so I guess it shouldn't really be a problem. Also, parliament is an unofficial term used quite commonly by news sources to refer to the National Assembly, but let's stick to the more technically correct term as you suggested.) --Paul_012 (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...leading with 'following general elections in May' makes it sound like this all happened in May: If it "all happened in May", it wouldn't still be posted now. The delay is a major part of the story. The New York Times article begins with: After a three-month delay, Thailand’s Parliament chose the country’s next prime minister on Tuesday, picking a real estate tycoon from a party seen as acceptable to conservative elites. The move ends, for now, a prolonged period of uncertainty that had pushed the country to the cusp of a political crisis.[4]Parliament is interchangeable with National Assembly, and is probably better understood globally, without needing a click. For example, The Bangkok Post headline was "Parliament elects Srettha prime minister"[5]—Bagumba (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: Re: May: yes, I understand what's happening. Unfortunately, the ambiguous wording muddles the timing and doesn't make it clear to readers that there were two separate votes by different things. If you have a better way of conveying the timing and complex political dynamics here, I'm all ears. On parliament: on a quick scan sources appear to mostly use the phrase "Thailand's parliament" as their wording, like The New York Times. The original altblurb did not use "Thailand" until the final word.
I think the delay can be clarified as Three months after general elections..., though the above short suggestion is also Fine by me (but maybe pipe out the last Thailand as it reads as a bit redundant?) --Paul_012 (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: This seems to be getting reasonable international coverage though I'm not sure if it has reached the French press yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does "reaching #1 immediately" mean? Lots of songs went to #1 upon release. This record sounds like less of an earth-shattering moment in pop culture than a trivial tidbit thats getting a lot of attention because of its cool factor. Kurtis(talk)09:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that it’s the musician’s first song to make the Billboard list at all, and it did so in the #1 position. Looking through the article you linked, most of the songs were not the debut works of the artists (e.g. Michael Jackson was already famous long before 1995). I’m still not sure of the importance of the claimed record however, and a little unsure of its veracity (why wouldn’t, for example, Brandy (You're a Fine Girl) also meet this criterion?). 98.170.164.88 (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it’s the first ever song to chart immediately at number one for which the artist has never previously had any chart activity at all. Boscaswelltalk10:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb should be reworded for clarity. The quote Bagumba gave from the Guardian is closer to what we're looking for; it specifies the fact that this is the first time an artist's debut single became a chart-topper upon release. Otherwise, I'm neutral as to whether or not this merits a blurb—sort of leaning towards oppose, but I'm open to being persuaded. Kurtis(talk)11:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I understand better what the claimed record is. I’m still not convinced it’s important enough to post though, and we don’t usually post items like this. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Neither the BBC nor the CBC sources make any mention of the Billboard charting, only the political American pop cultural aspects of the song's reception. And as mentioned above, there is no record being broken. The reported historical achievement is specifically for doing so "with no prior chart history in any form", so oppose as worded. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, The Guardian says ...debuted at number 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, making him the first artist to do this with no prior chart history in any form.[6]—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantic I suppose, but surely this would have happened quite a few times in the early days of Billboard? As a comparison, though, it's happened quite a few times in the UK charts. Black Kite (talk)10:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wouldn't this or this also hit the criterion? Unless I've misunderstood something... Black Kite (talk)
Rolling Stone cites this announcement on Billboard as the source. That gives a variety of details including six artists who did something similar but not quite so out-of-the-blue. I suppose they have access to a database as they comment on other near-misses like "the singer-songwriter marks a rare unsigned artist at No. 1 on the Hot 100. Lisa Loeb became the first such act, when “Stay (I Missed You)” led in 1994, although the song was released on RCA Records". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: I am not a regular at ITN (in fact I think I may have edited it for the first time ever today) so maybe I am not that clued up, but I have to agree this doesn't really seem like something which belongs alongside (takes a glance at the current ITN) massacres, natural disasters and presidential assassinations...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Despite appearances, there is no minimum death requirement for ITN entries and the section often features lots of sport which is similar pop culture. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a political topic due to the nature of the song, and would fall under "day to day" aspects of the current culture war happening in the US. It is the type of story that makes headlines but the encyclopedic nature is fuzzy and unclear. (I can also see that if this was posted as is, that there would likely be some readers and editors offended that we even gave that song the light of day on the main page, but that's not a reason to oppose, just more a caution of where this may go). --Masem (t) 12:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a protest sing? Perhaps, but most outlets see it having white nationalism/far right ties, and it has become a type of anthem and rallying cry for MAGA. I don't know if it written with that intention, but the result has been this massive attention to the song from the right, which is attributed for why this is #1 on Billboard. While the factoid is onterest (first debut at #1), this is just too politically charged to be a good ITN item. Masem (t) 13:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should oppose an item purely because it is politically divisive. In the run-up to the 2024 election there will be a lot of notable, if polarising, events that will be nominated on here. If we didn't want to be politically divisive then we would not have posted the 2020 election, or Jan 6th, or BLM, etc. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that the song is political is spurious. Like The Atlantic (no fire-breathing conservative magazine, that one) said: "Why is so much press coverage of this viral song focused solely on politics? [...] I struggle to imagine a mainstream media site reacting to Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi’s praise of a songwriter by suggesting that the artist is therefore a presumptively leftist act who ought to be covered mainly as a political and politicized phenomenon."[1]). Same is expressed at SFGATE, which also decries the politization of Anthony by third parties: «More likely, he was just singing whatever was on his mind, and then everyone else decided to use it for their own ends».[2] It is the media that has politicized an artistic product. George Orwell warned about those who believe what they see on the media, and disregard their own eyes and ears.XavierItzm (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that this is a politically conflicting song, but simple underneath the trivia of being the first #1 by a first time artist (that itself is not ITN worthy), it is what politics have driven this song to be #1 that is really the headline here. And because this is a political issue with no clear immediate consequences, its not the type of story we post. Masem (t) 17:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is essentially about right-wing American politics and sits with other similar stories in the news, eg Trump/Georgia, Trump/Primary debates. Not for ITN, in my opinion. Nigej (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have we ever posted such records before? If not, than oppose - at the risk of entering into political territory, as a right-winger myself, it's pretty clear that this was the product of immense astroturfing at the hands of Conservative Inc. — Knightoftheswords14:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is a DYK, not an ITN. Andrew, you seriously need to stop nominating literally everything and consider whether it's even going to stand up to WP:SNOW before posting it here. AryKun (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Previously nominated on 8/8, but discussion was closed with a consensus to wait until he formally took office on the 22nd, which is today. Article is short but adequate, kept same update credits from the last nom. The Kip (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks good to go. I've added an altblurb that seems more accurate to me: today he has been sworn in (he is no longer appointed PM. Hun Manet is now the official and formal Prime Minister) and it's important to add that his father spent almost four decades at the helm of the country. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The United Nations Middle East envoy says the conflict has killed over 200 Palestinians and nearly 30 Israelis this year, surpassing the previous year. (AP)
Two people are injured by falling debris from a Ukrainian drone strike on Moscow and flights are disrupted at the city's airports. Russia says they shot down one drone and jammed another. (Reuters)
Cypruspolice rescue 18 Syrian migrants after their boat started taking on water off the island's southeastern coast. (AP)
Greekpatrol boats rescue nearly 80 migrants in the eastern Aegean Sea who were trying to cross from Turkey in inflatable dinghies in two separate incidents. (AP)
Twelve people are killed and 19 others are injured when a bus crashes into a roadside ditch in Yozgat, Turkey. (AP)
Eleven people are killed in an explosion at a coal mine in Yan'an, Shanxi, China. (AP)
One person is killed and two others are injured in a high-rise building explosion in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. (AKIPress)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment There’s a paragraph that doesn’t have any references. I put a cn tag at the end of the paragraph. That needs to be fixed before it can be posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is rather like the Olympics in that there are numerous types of event and so there's a lot to keep track of. I'm not sure that we're keeping up but perhaps listing it here will help. It's Day 3 already but it runs for another six. It's WP:ITN/R but the nomination template doesn't seem to handle ongoing and ITNR together. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unlike the Olympics or the World Cups, this typically does not get major daily news coverage to make it necessary for ongoing. This event is ITNR for its completion. And even with that, comparing this year's article to the 2022 one, this one is nowhere close to be ready for posting to main page. --Masem (t) 12:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, oppose on quality I don't know about you, but all the newspapers I'm reading do have significant coverage of the athletics championships, especially the marquee events like the 100m, 200m, 4x400m, and other ones with more charismatic athletes like hammer throw and shot-put. 13:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose on quality. Article is a table farm, and very little prose about the events. Tables should supplement prose, not replace it. --Jayron3214:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stats - The 2023 World Athletics Championships ranked #39 most read for August 19th, 2023, or 181,291 views. Sandwiched in between XXXX (beer) and Beverley Allitt. Ranked just a little higher at #35 on the 20th. As Bertrand Russell once said, "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." Also, oppose on quality and probably does not merit an ongoing post either. A blurb, yes. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)18:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Notable news, sentencing of murderer after UK's longest murder trial - fourth UK woman to be sentenced to a whole-life order. Osarius13:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that part of this was Jayron32's support !vote.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This exact article was posted, and pulled, just a few days ago. As a note, I supported it then, and I still do. But some large group of people will come along to tell you that your country ain't worth shit, and news from your country needs to be squashed and kept off the main page, which is largely what caused it to be pulled. --Jayron3214:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the supports said something to the effect of "big news in the UK", which isn't a reason that is going to convince international editors, especially when the impact of the story is questionable. No one is saying the UK's news means nothing, but we're clearly looking for more here beyond "it's a big story in x country". DarkSide830 (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's right in the instructions of this page. It says, and I quote "Please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." Literally everyone who says "Oppose, because this is only important in the UK" should be summarily ignored by the admins who post articles, and it's a major failure of the system that they aren't. It literally says that argument is invalid. --Jayron3215:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True does not mean relevant to the discussion. Lots of things are true, but unless they matter, they just distract from the discussion at hand, which should be an assessment of article quality and an assessment of how the news is covering the story, and NOT a chance for people to flex their cultural gatekeeping muscles. --Jayron3211:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is sourced and ready. This case har received attention both national and international, throughout an extensive amount of time.BabbaQ (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Letby story has legs as it was still the front page lead in the Times and Telegraph today. It has dropped a bit with our readership (#24 yesterday) but is still getting more views than ITN's blurb topics such as Luna 25. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Times and the Telegraph are British newspapers. France is a country of similar population, economy size and foreign policy influence as the UK. Are all these different stories on French front pages therefore suitable to go on ITN? [7] 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? [8]Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown Temptation asks whether the stories currently on the front page of French newspapers are suitable to go on ITN. Looking at the first headline listed, which is on the cover of Le Monde, it seems to be this story in their English edition: China's unprecedented economic crisis worries the rest of the world. Wikipedia covers that story in the article 2020–2023 Chinese property sector crisis and, apart from some quality issues, there's no reason why that shouldn't be considered here too -- I've already been wondering whether to nominate it. But obstructing a story set in England isn't going to help in getting a story about another country posted. ITN's problem is that it isn't posting much of anything and one reason is the beggar-my-neighbour obstructionism that we see here. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Close. The more important story is the conviction, whose discussion is ongoing. All another nomination does is split the dialogue, which should be redirected to that discussion. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck because the previous discussion has since been closed. As of now am neutral, but preferring a blurb that focused on the conviction over the sentencing. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
M8, as stated in my initial closure that you reverted, the conviction and sentencing are inextricably linked; do you really believe that consensus would be against posting the conviction but magically pull an Italy and change their tune when it comes to the sentencing? Considering how this new nom is already looking, I think not. — Knightoftheswords17:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this new nom looks like five supporting with reason against four and three-quarters opposing without. Anyway, it was a very close race we had, no hard feelings. Maybe next time just don't worry about Wikilinking and italicizing Latin in your summary (plain English works best, IMO). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t feel too defeated. The article appeared on ITN for half a day. These kind of articles are always going to get opposition.BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who's feeling defeated? You're a Swede, I'm a Canadian, Jayron's an American. This idea that the other 40% of us are the only sorts on Earth who might care is defeated. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe next time just don't worry about Wikilinking and italicizing Latin in your summary (plain English works best, IMO)., okay, effective duplicate, happy now? — Knightoftheswords05:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am becoming very disillusioned with ITN and have cut back my participation due to the constant battles over supposed UK and US bias, with Wikipedia:ITNCDONT point 2 routinely ignored. Andrew is quite right above when he says that opposing a UK based story will do nothing to get stories from other countries posted. A whole life tariff is exceptionally rare and this story is getting widespread coverage. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My read of the !votes between these two, excluding the issue of the fast posting if the first one, is not an argument about this affecting only one country, only just in one country where this occurs, this will have little impact and is only a matter of closure on a tragic event. It still was only a domestic (not international) crime and did expose flaws in the British health system, but unless I am missing something in the current article, we're not going to see a massive change in the system there. I don't think saying this is like celebrity or gossip news is a fair comparison since this was a serious need for justice to the families that lost their children from this, but at the same type it is more of a spectacle (a highly visible trial) due to the heinous nature of the crime. But it is not going to have a major impact within the UK compared to, say, Boris Johnson resigning. Masem (t) 20:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant support - I have my gripes over the fact that this would have never even come close to being posted if it was a US story; however, ultimately, I think that this meets WP:ITNPURPOSE and should be posted. I hope that this incident shall be a learning experience and inform us that we shouldn't be creating arbitrary standards on perceived notability requirements over which side of the Atlantic the story occured in. — Knightoftheswords20:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a prominent headline whose inclusion on ITN is in the interest of our readers. While we're here, the conviction post shouldn't have been pulled, either. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Conviction is the time that we should have posted this, but as that discussion has been closed in favour of this one this is where I have to put my support. I don't know how you can get more significant than the conviction of the most prolific child murderer in the history of a country with a very long history and one of the top 2 cases of individual medical malpractice by an individual since at least the creation of the NHS (the other being Harold Shipman). This case will have a very long-lasting impact. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regardless of whether this is a new nomination or supposed to be combined with the one below. It's tabloid news, and has no notable long-term impact. Banedon (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a uniquely heinous crime. Its also unusual in that she was on female serial killer only a handful of which we have pages for in every country. "Letby is the most prolific serial killer of children in modern British history." - To be frank, I don't think the people objecting to this nomination would object to posting the American equivalent of this person.--Llewee (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uniquely? The article itself mentions multiple other medical practitioner murderers both in the UK and elsewhere, such as Beverley Allitt, who also was also known for more or less the same thing. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Taking both discussions into account (and also accounting for those who !voted on both) I believe there is consensus to post this again. Black Kite (talk)18:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an idea here that the opening of a new nom wipes the votes from the prior, which I personally find to be somewhat manipulative of consensus, but alas. The Kip (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
??? Under that logic, if the opposes outnumbered the supports 10:1 in a first nom, but then a later nom occurs when the story has more info, the supports outnumber the opposition 5:1, that story wouldn't be posted if we were to factor the other one. — Knightoftheswords19:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that The Kip is partially right in that a new nom should not wipe votes from the prior. But you're also right that could be problematic. Personally, I think that a second nom should only be posted if the support for it is greater than the opposition to the first nom, or if there was a significant amount of opposers that switched to supporters. I don't think that the support here is greater than the opposition to the last nom. estar8806 (talk) ★22:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Haven't taken part in this (or the previous) discussion, but let's please not start a new discussion on pulling this! It's done, it's posted, no harm is done by having this blurbed. Going back and forth posting and pulling this for trivial disagreements on notoriety is what harms ITN's reputation within the broader community and does us no favours. I've shared my opinion previously that Pulling should only be done in extreme cases, where quality issues are present. Khuft (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
↑↑↑ This. In an ideal world (an ideal ITN/C) it'd get pushed off in 48-72 hours anyway. The article is also now in much better shape than when the verdict was posted. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose - per my opinion in the last discussion. I also would like to mention that there hardly appears to be a consensus to post here, and accounting for the last nomination (which was pulled), I don't understand how this was posted.--estar8806 (talk) ★21:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
18 supports (edit: Jayron32's support containing a valid support rationale was hatted due to a rant which spurred unrelated discussion) with only 6 opposes (DarkSide withdrew theirs), 4 of which under the rationale that the previous discussion was open. I'd definitely call that a consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kip's, TwistedAxe's, Alsor's, PrecariousWorlds', Banedon's and yours. Who did I miss? I think 18 to 6 (which is basically 2) is an overwhelming amount of support, not to mention BabbaQ's argument of long term impact against an oppose wasn't addressed. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the antithesis. It's a convenient way of getting a feel for the discussion at a glance as long as the arguments for each !vote are all valid and not really addressed. In this case I'd only count 1 oppose as unaddressed and 1 support as addressed. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment - A whole-life order? Sounds like something my insurance agent is nagging a client to meet his monthly sales goal. Any different than "imprisoned for life"? CoatCheck (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CoatCheck: I believe this is a WP:ENGVAR situation, where we defer to British usage although American would differ. The words "whole-life order" are blue-linked in the blurb for anyone who wants more of an explanation. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Indian police stop a meeting of activists, academics and politicians discussing global issues ahead of a summit of the G20 that will be hosted in New Delhi. (AP)
A special election is held to elect the president and the National Assembly to complete the current four-year terms. Presidential candidates Luisa González and Daniel Noboa will face off in a second round vote on 15 October. (CNN)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment I've been working on this article for quiet a bit to make sure it's good for posting once a president is elected. Not sure if we post first round election results on ITN? If so, shouldn't González be the one who's pictured since she came in first place? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
My opinion isn't very important, I know, but looks good to me. Pretty important to regional stability - that orange tag seems cleaned up also? I support this. River10000 (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and suggest AltBlurb2: short & sweet, focused on the outcome rather than the process, and Arévalo's article is somewhat tidier than the election article. A bit sea-of-bluish, though. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted tweaked altblurb 2. The runoff is the only new news because the congressional elections happened with round 1 of the presidential vote in June, so the first altblurb wasn't an option. Ed[talk][majestic titan]14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
I added citations to address the CN tags, plus some more refs from her obituary in The Guardian. There's a lot more that could be written about someone who lived through 107 years of Chinese history, but I don't think that prevents an ITN inclusion now. @HistoryTheorist and InedibleHulk:: Can you take a look? Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait It's just two right now. Another might arise, but it's not like waiting for a filmography to never get ready. Fun Facts: She was 107 and also British! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article now has the basics of her life (plenty of expansion also possible). When a 107-year-old with a very interesting life history dies, it seems like a good time to bring them to prominence.Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Luna 25 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Russian lunar landerLuna 25 crashes on the Moon's surface with the loss of contact. (Post) Alternative blurb: Russian lunar landerLuna 25 crashes on the Moon's surface. News source(s):CNN, BBC Credits:
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: In line with ITNR's "arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations" and because of historical failure (Russia’s first lunar landing mission in 47 years, since 1976) I think this is postable anyway. Brandmeistertalk12:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe the previous crash landings of lunar probes were posted. The funny part is that we might also end up merging the blurb with the Indian lunar lander blurb(if it succeeds). Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main problem I see is that, even if this is significant enough for ITN, the article says nothing about the significance of the crash, only listing basic event updates. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this was discussed when the Spacex rocket exploded a while ago, and the general consensus seemed to be that a failed mission is generally not notable enough for ITN, nor valid for the recurring ITN on rockets. Flyingfishee (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it was decided that launch failures/first launches aren’t worthy (which I agree with, considering the sheer number of new commercially-built rockets); this is something different entirely, in being a mission failure. The Kip (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its been over 40 years since Russia (then the USSR) attempted to land on the moon, hence why its the Luna 25, and it failed. So I see the relevance. Stick to first blurb though, not the alternate. TheCorriynial (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support significant event because this is the first time in 40 years that Russia tried to land on the moon, so this would be significant in the new space race. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted per the strong consensus in support above. That said, while the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY, per 2G0o2De0l it could definitely be expanded upon. I would particularly love to see more information about the great power politics that got attached to this mission. There's also one citation tagged for needing a non-primary source. Ed[talk][majestic titan]03:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second article updated, first needs updating One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Oppose Prose summary of the match is needed first. The article for the final also needs more citations so that the orange tag is fixed and preferably the stay on topic tags should be fixed, but they’re not as show stopping.Support Everything’s fixed, looks good to go. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror12:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until a prose summary is added and citation issues are addressed. Much of the Background section is also filled with statistics with little meaningful context and should be trimmed. SounderBruce17:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The prose summary has been added, but several citations in the Background section have been removed due to being cited to a Forbes contributor piece (which are unreliable per WP:RSP). SounderBruce20:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A World Cup final! And this year's Women's World Cup has been much more mediatized than the previous ones. Definitely far above the notability threshold. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for comments on significance: One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror20:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support! Came here to express shock that it has been a day and a half and this still isn't posted! The articles both look good, and we've posted significantly worse quality articles for men's sports no one cares about. Tens of millions of people watched this live, including me. This was the best WWC yet in my opinion. Post it! e.b. (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add photo in nombox - literally no argument has been made for not having the photo other than I presume vibes? We've featured screenshots on the MP multiple times; it's not the best, but it doesn't have to be a damn NASA planetary scan either. — Knightoftheswords05:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moot This article has already been run daily in ITN for an entire month now (with about 5 million views). Further discussion of quality and/or significance is therefore largely pointless as it's a done deal. All that remains is a formality as the wording of the blurb is stereotyped. What needs attention now is the 2023 World Athletics Championships which started yesterday, is ITN/R and seems to need some TLC. Shouldn't that now take the Ongoing slot? Andrew🐉(talk) 21:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and remove from ongoing. I had the same opinion as Twistedaxe coming into this discussion. The event is dunzo, and it's time for the blurb. I echo the concerns of Andrew as well on placing the World Athletics Championships over under ongoing also. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They think it's all over We're still showing the event as Ongoing which is wrong as it's over now. I was amazed to read that the winning team had just two hours to get to the airport afterwards and so they didn't hang about. We should likewise pull the ongoing entry to show that we're on the ball.
But Oppose posting the link to the final as its prose is too purple and contains several Colemanballs. Here's a good example, "She was seeking to become the first manager to win the tournament with a foreign national team and the oldest manager to win the tournament, having aged 53 years 9 months 25 days during the final."
Support without photo I have finally dealt with all the unsourced statements in the final article, so should be gtg on quality grounds. AryKun (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Listen, like most people, I absolutely don't care about this event. This said, it's so notable to, uh, people who are very fond of football, I guess, that it should be in the news even if the article just says "Viva siempre España!". complainer14:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's ITN/R, no one's arguing over the notability. What people are discussing is the quality, which is why a statement saying the quality doesn't matter is dumb. AryKun (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that "so" before "notable"? It's there because it's ITNR, but not actually ITN and these discussions about commas and lighting end up having things that should be ITN get YN and straight into WGAFAL before they actually are ITN. And that's why being rude is dumb.
Support once CN tags are fixed: There's still around 4-5 CN tags on the article about the match, but otherwise both articles are in decent shape for ITN. Should expect them to get fixed very soon. Neutral on the issues about the photo. S5A-0043Talk02:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bonmati - Golden Ball winner
Support and mark Ready again - CN tags fixed on the final article. Note that Aitana Bonmatí was given Player of the Tournament, a higher accolade than the Player of the Match in the final, and we have a better image of her than we do of Carmona (though I have to say it's still not brilliant!). Black Kite (talk)08:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment Should be a blurb. John Warnock is a very influential figure (considering he co-founded Adobe) and his death is being covered heavily in news. Article looks good as well, although death section could use some expanding. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb per Iamstillqw3rty as Warnock made quite a difference, garnered many major awards and left a significant legacy, devising the Warnock algorithm and being the prime mover for the PDF format, for example. They are recognised as WP:VITAL but were not a household name and so just putting the name alone in RD is meaningless. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Via various talk page arguments, we have already eliminated the use of Vital Articles to determine who to blurb, because that project itself had haphazard inclusion metrics. Masem (t) 12:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the interminable arguments have settled nothing and so blurbing is still done on a "sui generis" basis. So, anything goes and if editors wish to respect the prior work and judgement of WikiProject Vital Articles then they may do so. Assertions that the other project is haphazard are just a case of WP:POT. See also not invented here. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD due to multiple unsourced statements. Strong oppose blurb - here we go again. Can’t wait for this discussion to get wildly off-topic from the page quality which should be the only concern. The Kip (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Support I've done significant sourcing work on the article; there's only one unsourced statement/cn tag left. It can be removed if worst comes to worst. I believe the quality is now sufficient for RD. I'll let other editors decide on blurb. Oh and @The Kip:@Masem: feel free to reevaluate quality. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror18:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oupeye, Liège Province, Belgium, bans gatherings of more than four people following riots. The riots spread to the neighboring commune of Herstal. A school and various homes were damaged and garbage can fires were reported. (7Sur7)(Le Soir)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Thanks to the IP for the nomination that I came to make. As for the works: they are referenced to an offline source, and we can do two things: believe that source, or create an extra works list, leaving only the recorded ones which would still be more symphonies than Beethoven ever wrote. All recorded works are referenced by Muziekweb summarily (listed by alphabet, but can be sorted for other criteria), some have now extra reviews. I'd love to add more reviews, and extract information from them, but not today, and time is running out. - I believe she's worth pointing to as it is. The article was one of the strangest I've seen: detailed musical analysis, no bio. I added to bio, and trimmed the analysis, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spencer, I found it, relief! Even online. It's in German, I checked structure and samples, and it looks fine to me, please check. I commented out the articles, - they seem to be small stuff from the 1970s, not defining her work, - I have no time for that right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Philadelphia Eagles Hall of Famer and one of my all-time favorite players. Needs more work but I'll make sure to get it done. RIP. BeanieFan11 (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Following the Yellowknife evacuation in the Northwest Territories (which is still in the news), there's now an emergency in British Columbia. The map shows the overall extent of the fires and the BBC has a good graph showing how this is so much worse than previous years. Perhaps an ongoing entry would be best but we might start with a blurb to show the map. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing would be best. Appending an image isn't outside the realm of possibility, either, just subject to a fear of change. Right now, of course, BC and the NWT are the most newsworthy, but Quebec was and might be there again soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have had an article on the 2023 heat waves (which should cover the wildfires across the globe too) being suggested multiple times now for an ongoing, but no one has bothered to try to bring this to speed, instead focusing on local situations. I would oppose on just featuring one region's wildfires, outside of a situation like Maui where 100+ died and making it a standalone event. But just having lots of wildfires is not sufficient to make the one region stand out on its own. --Masem (t) 12:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The temperature right now in West Kelowna is 13°C (55°F) which is cool rather than hot. As explained already, these fires are driven by drought and wind, more than heat. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sun heat, anyway. The rains turns the fires to clouds and the clouds pelt the forests with lightning. That's crazy heat, the sort that burns roots underneath wet sand and even melts the sand for good measure. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing Worst wildfire season on record in North America, and still affecting all provinces of Canada; also, article is well sourced and of fine quality. Because of this (it happening throughout all of Canada), it seems better to post in ongoing, as posting a blurb just about British Columbia would not point to all of the news relating to the fires (for example, Yellowknife being evacuated).
Ongoing - Regardless of whether it's making news in other parts of the globe in Germany or New Zealand or Djibouti, the worst wildfire season on record in Canada and North America in my opinion counts for something. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)15:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing would be appropriate. The 2023 season is far and away the worst in Canadian history, having burned through triple the hectacres of 2021 (the previous record holder), according to BBC News. There are also significant fires impacting parts of the United States, so an upmerge may be appropriate at some point. SounderBruce18:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ongoing—I agree that we should refer to them as the North American wildfires rather than singling out Canada, as the US has been affected as well. Kurtis(talk)23:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing for Canada only. There are ongoing wildfires in many parts of the world (those in Greece are still severe and receive media coverage), so extending this to North America makes a strong argument to go even beyond it, but we cannot go thus far and post “Global wildfires”. Canada seems to be the hot spot these days, and that’s what should be posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is summer in the northern hemisphere. Climate change. Wildfires are commonplace, as are evacuations and emergency declarations. In Tenerife there are 26,000 evacuees [9], and the figure may rise. The situation was very serious in Rhodes, as it is and can be throughout the Mediterranean and North America (as it usually is in California and Canada) all this season. Why this exception? _-_Alsor (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Canada has the 3rd most hectares burned in a country in a year (2019-20 Australia is #1) and might even beat it since it has 13 to 15+ million hectares now and the year ends New Years Day. It usually isn't serious in Canada, it's already 3 times their highest hectares in a year. California got soaked by a Noachian rainstorm this spring, this year isn't as bad as the one with the city destroyer or the one with a fire bigger than the combined size of the 7 smallest European countries (Lux to Pope) plus half of New York City. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing: This has been widely covered internationally and seems genuinely unprecedented, particularly the evacuation of a provincial capital. "Other stuff isn't listed" is an argument for listing those other things - not for not listing this one.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yellowknife is a territorial capital, not provincial, and the Northwest Territories is one territory. This doesn't make it less unprecedented and probably doesn't matter to most people. Just a reminder. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer it to be blurbed, instead of directly putting it into ongoing. Not sure what the argument is to hide it in the ongoing bar without first blurbing it. Given the slowness of the current news cycle, it's bound to stay blurbed for quite some time anyway. Khuft (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to ongoing per the strong consensus above. Most people supported ongoing without mentioning their thoughts on blurbing it, so that discussion should continue. Ed[talk][majestic titan]03:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ones in that target article basically are. We appreciate the help from other countries and have already apologized for helping turn New York orange. But most disasters have spillover, somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Posting Support as Ongoing. This is a valid situation where it's worth posting directly to Ongoing. A sustained story that would probably not be blurbed in it's current state, but is worth featuring somewhere by ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
In the news toolbox
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Done per your request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
