Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ollieisanerd (talk | contribs) at 20:43, 10 June 2024 (→‎June 9). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

KP Sharma Oli
KP Sharma Oli

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

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

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

Nomination steps

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

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

Voicing an opinion on an item

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

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

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

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

Archives

June 10

June 10, 2024 (2024-06-10) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: James Lawson (activist)

Article: James Lawson (activist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tennessee Lookout,Los Angeles Sentinel
Credits:

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

American activist and university professor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Steele Hall

Article: Steele Hall (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Credits:

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

Premier of South Australia and Australian Senator.

NB: I created this article (20 years ago). Hall is perhaps most famous for changing electoral laws to remove the gerrymander that had kept his party in government for decades, thus all but ensuring his defeat at the next election. There can't be too many examples of politicians willing to do such a thing. --Roisterer (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Roisterer, could you address the CN tags in the article please? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 09:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European Parliament election

Proposed image
Article: 2024 European Parliament election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The European People's Party Group wins the most seats in the European Parliament election (outcome pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The European People's Party Group (main candidate Ursula von der Leyen pictured) obtains the most seats in the European Parliament election.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

I see lots of news reports about this so what exactly are we waiting for? It might help to make a start. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Might be good to mention the surge in support of right-wing parties in the European Parliament, which has been a massive talking point in this election PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ursula von der Leyen did not run in this election, and the leader of the EPP is currently the German politician Manfred Weber. --2.248.103.101 (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure of all the details but the BBC live report indicates that she's in the driving seat, e.g.

    European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen says she will approach social democratic and liberal parties that she has worked with in the past to form a majority in the European Parliament.

    The nominated article lists seven alliances and four of them are shown to have leaders who were not running as MEPs. If there's a better way of explaining the result, I expect there will be alt blurbs suggested. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment von der Leyen is the main candidate, but not the leader of the EPP group. It should as such not say "led by" in the text. I would instead replace it with "The European People's Party Group (main candidate Ursula von der Leyen pictured) wins the most seats in the European Parliament election." I will also say that I would be cautious with writing anything which could imply that UvdL is guarenteed to continue as Commission President. So I would prefer using the term "win" if it is possible. Gust Justice (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To understand this, I read Ursula von der Leyen in pole position.... This indicates that her getting a second term as President is decided by national leaders and then endorsed by the parliament. So, that seems to be a separate process, just as election of the US President is separate from the election of Congress. Right? I'm therefore not convinced that we ought to personalise this by showing a particular politician but it's good to have an image of some sort. I'll adjust the nomination... Andrew🐉(talk) 19:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 9

June 9, 2024 (2024-06-09) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Simon Cowell

Article: Simon Cowell (conservationist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: British conservationist. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Belgian federal election

Article: 2024 Belgian federal election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Belgian federal election, the incumbent coalition government led by prime minister Alexander De Croo lose their parliamentary majority. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, AP News, Politico
Credits:

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

Part 1 of Europe's "Super Sunday" elections. Curbon7 (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an ENGVAR issue that shouldn't interfere with posting. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French Open

Proposed image
Article: 2024 French Open (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In tennis, Iga Świątek wins the Women's Singles and Carlos Alcaraz wins the Men's Singles at the French Open. (Post)
News source(s): Women's singles, Men's Singles
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: This year's article has prose which various previous grand slam nominations lacked. PrinceofPunjabTALK 17:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Siri Kannangara

Article: Siri Kannangara (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Sunday Times, Daily FT
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Inducted to the Football Australia Hall of Fame in 2002. He was also conferred with a Member (AM) in the General Division of the Order of Australia during 2013 Queen's Birthday Honours (Australia). Abishe (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD/blurb: Michael Mosley

Proposed image
Article: Michael Mosley (broadcaster) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Michael Mosley's body is found after he went missing on Symi for several days. (Post)
News source(s): ABC, BBC, ITV, NYT, NZ Herald
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Date found dead. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 08:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:ITNDONT, "Please do not... Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country". Andrew🐉(talk) 07:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you're getting at, but isn't that aimed at "Irrelevant for me/I don't like country X, so therefore I oppose." opposes? I'm not trying game, but what I'm getting at is that I don't think his death is particularly meaningful to the vast majority of people outside the UK to warrant a blurb, compared to that of major world leader or similarly internationally well known person. 31.44.224.73 (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See How the presenter transformed people's lives, "It is not an exaggeration to say Dr Michael Mosley transformed people’s lives. ... Tributes are now pouring in..." Andrew🐉(talk) 07:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Not a transformative figure, which is the general criteria for a death blurb to be posted. And Television section needs more sources before being posted to RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't support a blurb either, but surely in this case the criteria would be "death is the story" rather than him being "transformative." Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, the death isn't a major news story either. Unusual, yes, front-page story, probably not. And not every unusual RD has to be a blurb. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The story was on the front page of most UK papers today. And that's after days of similar coverage. And all that's before the body was found so there will be even more tomorrow. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And today, following discovery of the body, the news is on the front page of every UK newspaper except the FT. The coverage is mostly the main photo story or takes the entire front page. While on Wikipedia, it was the top read article for the day, getting half a million views while William Anders got just 40K. The RD picks that ITN is actually running got comparatively few views; they are obviously not prominent in the news and readers aren't interested in a dry list of unknown names. Useless.
We can expect yet more coverage tomorrow as the news is still breaking. The latest is that they've found CCTV of him falling down... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ITN, and especially RD, isn't just about how many views the articles are getting. Especially since we're not picking RDs based on fame or anything, but based on article quality. And, for some people outside of the UK, Michael Mosley can be just as much of an unknown name as any of them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew keeps pushing this argument, and it's nonsense. The number of views an article receives should have no impact whatsoever on whether we post it to ITN. I think perhaps we should update ITNCDONT to reflect this, because it's getting tiresome. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GenevieveDEon: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is that way. BangJan1999 13:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ITNRDBLURB, the posting of RD blurbs is determined on a "a sui generis basis" which seems to mean that anything goes and so editors may support or oppose for their own reasons. Chaotic Enby's reason for not posting was that "the death isn't a major news story either. Unusual, yes, front-page story, probably not". Evidence is therefore needed to show that this claim is false. The story is, in fact, all over the front pages and the evidence is that it's dwarfing the recent accidental death of William Anders for whom a blurb has also been suggested. See evidence-based practice. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD oppose blurb Article looks good and was a notable figure in the uk Sharrdx (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb Extensively covered in British news for the last few days. Death very unlikely to be foul play, probably not notable enough for blurb. Angusgtw (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb: Very extensive media coverage. No issues with article quality (although now stuck with an inappropriate image).Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: post-mortem has established that he died on 5 June. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

June 8, 2024 (2024-06-08) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Chet Walker

Article: Chet Walker (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

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

N.B.A. Player and Movie Producer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks good with the additional references. Ready to post. Natg 19 (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ramoji Rao

Article: Ramoji Rao (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Economic Times
Credits:

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

Need Work .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

June 7, 2024 (2024-06-07) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Warren Winiarski

Article: Warren Winiarski (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Warren Winiarski, whose Napa wine triumphed over France, dies at 95
Credits:

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

As the then owner of Stag's Leap Wine Cellars, in 1976, his wineries 1973 vintage Cabernet Sauvignon was entered into the Judgement of Paris (wine), where it won, and made it famous and Napa Valley wines as well. He also seems to be a well known Preservationist. TheCorriynial (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(RD posted) RD/blurb: William Anders

Proposed image
Article: William Anders (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  William Anders, who took the Earthrise photograph (pictured) in 1968 dies in a plane crash aged 90 (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Apollo 8 astronaut William Anders, who took the Earthrise photo (pictured), dies in a plane crash aged 90
News source(s): Fox, AP, CNN
Credits:

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

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support RD, support alternate blurb per Ollieisanerd. I feel as though most people know of Apollo 8 as at least a moon mission. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, weak oppose blurb - By no means a household name, but I do understand the arguments about the photograph. We should post something, though. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus for RD, I don't see a consensus for a blurb. Posting RD. --Tone 13:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My heart says blurb, but that's filtered thru the fact that he is one of the few famous people I've ever met in person, and he was very cool to a young awkward teenage doofus 45-50 years ago. If ITN was set up more like I think it should be, I'd say blurb. But it is run a different way, and the way it's currently run, a blurb is probably not going to happen. Reasonable call, Tone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Rose-Marie (singer)

Article: Rose-Marie (singer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

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

Northern Irish singer and television personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevabelle40 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose selected discography section do not have any sources. PrinceofPunjabTALK 04:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Nicholas Ball (actor)

Article: Nicholas Ball (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The National
Credits:

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

English actor known for EastEnders and Hazell. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 09:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose article is a stub and filmography is unsourced. PrinceofPunjabTALK 13:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

June 6, 2024 (2024-06-06) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

RD: T. D. Allman

Article: T. D. Allman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

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

Obit published 6 June. Thriley (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait there is one cn tag and there are works that are unsourced, otherwise article is alright. PrinceofPunjabTALK 04:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Sooners four-peat

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 06:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2024 NCAA Division I softball tournament (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Oklahoma Sooners win the 2024 Women's College World Series with the first-ever four-peat. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Oklahoma Sooners win the 2024 Women's College World Series for the fourth consecutive season in a row.
News source(s): ESPN, NY Times, USA Today, KFOR
Credits:

The first ever four-peat in college softball history. Even the NY Times called it "historic". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can support this (women's sports fights systemic bias) but (1) it needs a lot of prose describing what happened and why a four-peat is historic and (2) a lot of images to add interest to all the tables. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please keep slang/jargon such as "four-peat" out of ITN. I think I can guess what it means, but I shouldn't have to guess. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: to note, the “four-peat” is used by all RS and is why it is notable. Google “four-peat” or “4-peat” and you see dozens of RS news articles, including those listed here. So I disagree that it should not be used in ITN, since RS uses it way more than not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also to note, “four-peat” is an actual term in the merriam-webster dictionary. So, it is not “slang” or “jargon”. Just because you don’t know what it means, doesn’t mean the rest of the world doesn’t. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: So what? NY Times and ESPN lied? If I misread the sources, please explain what the Sooners won according to NY Times and ESPN. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NCAA tournament calls itself the "World Series", probably named after MLB World Series, but is just an American collegiate tournament rather than an international professional one. Curbon7 (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The C of E: Alt-blurb without “slang” added. Please strike the part of your oppose for that. Also, clearly you can’t read what was posted just above yours on how “four-peat” is a dictionary term and not slang. Lol… The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that in response to your "Just because you don’t know what it means, doesn’t mean the rest of the world doesn’t" quote. Just to prove the rest of the world doesn't, for its not in the Oxford English Dictionary. Must be some US-specific term. Anyway, the !oppose still stands for it not being on ITN/R. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For your reference, it isn’t just an US thing. Manchester City's Premier League four-peat on ESPN. I still disagree that just because it isn’t on ITN/R, doesn’t mean it can’t be listed. ITN/R is a guideline for things guaranteed to be listed. For a first-time in history event, one would think it should be listed, despite not being on ITN/R. But, I shall respect your opinion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Sergei Novikov (mathematician)

Article: Sergei Novikov (mathematician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Semenov, Kirill Vladimirovich (6 June 2024). "Скончался Сергей Петрович Новиков". Moscow State University (in Russian). Retrieved 6 June 2024.
Credits:

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

The first Fields Medal recipient from the Soviet Union and a Wolf Prize recipient. — MarkH21talk 00:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support article looks alright to me. PrinceofPunjabTALK 13:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Starship successful flight test

Consensus will not develop to post. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 4 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ SpaceX conducts a successful flight of Starship, with a landing for the Booster and Ship (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ SpaceX Starship successfully launches, culminating in a re-entry and ocean landing for both the Booster and Ship.
News source(s): New York Times, The Guardian
Credits:
Come ON! This is one of the most insane and incredible spaceflights in human history. Completely successful orbital launch followed by a successful atmospheric re-entry and hard landing for BOTH the Booster and Ship. The most powerful rocket in history. We have to post this PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Is this even a question? Couple very small failures, but still hugely successful, and they both landed for the first time. This was the most anticipated spaceflight event of the decade. qw3rty 14:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I highly recommend everyone go and watch the replay of this, one of the most amazing things I've ever seen. Ship the size of the Statue of Liberty plummeting through the atmosphere, green and blue plasma flying all over the feed, the craft literally melting away live but still manoeuvring for landing. Just insane. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'most anticipated spaceflight event of the decade' no it isn't, not even close. That's Artemis 3, which will land humans on the Moon. Modest Genius talk 17:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a massive step towards that mission too PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not every SpaceX launch deserves a blurb. Even Boeing Starliner's very first crewed flight is being heavily debated below, so a test flight into orbit for a prototype Starship isn't really blurb-worthy. (Edit 14:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC): Not even into orbit as per below) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Starliner is coming to a consensus [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This was the first actually successful flight of Starship. Very important milestone in spaceflight. Note that this was not an orbital flight though. Agile Jello (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Chaotic Enby. Not even into orbit. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being on an orbital trajectory is a rather arbitrary requirement, especially as by all metrics Starship made it to space, just not at an orbital velocity (which wasn't the goal of the flight). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The main test objectives of this flight were to simulate a booster landing in the Gulf of Mexico, and for the Starship to survive reentry and soft-land in the Indian Ocean. Both of which were accomplished.
    This is not just a major milestone in SpaceX development, but a significant milestone in human spaceflight history as the largest ever rocket's first successful flight. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Other nominations regarding Starship were opposed due to a failure to complete the entire test or meet some arbitrary requirement. Of course, now opposes are citing some other random arbitrary requirement to meet ITN. By all measures, this was a historic moment which may very well mark the beginning of human effort to establish an extra-terrestrial settlement. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every test flight is a step towards human effort to establish an extra-terrestrial settlement, this one is only one more small incremental improvement, and I don't see why it is any more historic than any other. It's not about a random arbitrary requirement, it's about the fact that we don't blurb test flights achieving slightly more than the previous test flight. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First fully successful test flight of the first fully reusable and most powerful rocket in history, as well as the largest vehicle to ever make a controlled landing, as well as being all over the news. We've posted a lot less. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's easy to describe every test flight as a "first" in something as they each do incrementally better than the previous one, but until there's an actual payload, or maybe even manned mission, not every Starship first should be ITN-relevant. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So the first commercial satellite launch of Starship would be notable for ITN in your view? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly. I don't believe in posting every Starship "first", but if there's one to pick, it's either that or the first manned flight. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, though I personally believe this is notable enough to be posted PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not just a major milestone in SpaceX development, but a significant milestone in human spaceflight history as the largest ever rocket's first successful flight. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus the first successful flight and landing of a fully reusable rocket, which is a game-changer. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Another incremental test flight, still not to orbit and still without a payload. 'Successful hard landing' is a euphemism for 'intentionally destroyed on impact'. I'm getting pretty fed up of every test being nominated. If Starship actually achieves something useful then I'll reconsider; gradually getting closer to a usable state isn't blurb-worthy. Modest Genius talk 17:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did "hard landing" come from? The article claims soft landings for both the ship and the booster, and the CBS News source it links to appears to confirm that (although for the ship it simply quotes Musk's claim on that). 167.24.104.189 (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'Hard landing' is in the nomination above. The article calls it a 'virtual landing' i.e. not a real landing. Modest Genius talk 17:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From the article: "B11 successfully splashed down in the Gulf of Mexico, in what SpaceX has confirmed was a soft landing" and "S29 splashed down softly in the Indian Ocean." If that's wrong, it should probably be corrected, but the sources given seem to confirm it. 167.24.104.189 (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both the Booster and Ship appeared to land intact based on the telemetry (though the ship had taken damage on the flaps), I don't think we've gotten confirmation yet as to their status now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mention of "hard landing" in nomination appears to be in error? Both vehicles performed soft touchdowns successfully [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ITNCDONT point 4 [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read the article - at the time of my comment it said nothing about the landings, only plans for the landings. We can argue semantics if you like, but being destroyed when they enter the ocean does not constitute a soft landing to me, even if they slowed down first. There's no evidence either craft was in the intended location either - the upper stage almost certainly wasn't, given its fins were completely shredded during re-entry. Anyway, none of this makes this more than a test flight, so it isn't suitable for ITN. Modest Genius talk 10:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an uninformed analysis. Starship was orbiting the earth at 26.000 km/h and slowed down to 50km/h performing a vertical soft landing. The same happened for the booster. The entire stack is the largest and most powerful rocket ever built. This is a monumental achievement and an historic first in human spaceflight technology. Nothing similar has ever been attempted in history. We just had in the news the Boeing Starliner launch which is a routine ISS crew mission (performed by an extremely delayed but totally ordinary launch platform) and not this? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Starship was orbiting the earth It was not, this was a suborbital flight
    Nothing similar has ever been attempted in history I remember SpaceX attempting this three times already, and claiming each time that it was the first "true" success
    We just had in the news the Boeing Starliner launch which is a routine ISS crew mission And, more importantly, is Boeing Starliner's first manned flight, rather than its fourth test flight Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The news here is that both the booster and the launch vehicle of the most powerful rocket ever achieved orbital re-entry and performed the first vertical soft water landings in history. Calling that flight "sub orbital" is farcical. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So jarring that the Starliner launch is the first item and this is not even mentioned... unfortunately the topic at this point is absurdly polarised and the results are simply comical. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it was not an orbital flight. They weren't on an orbital trajectory at any point. That's literally the definition of suborbital. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. I also get the feeling that this is an incremental improvement, which is exactly what Starship's development approach really is. This is the fourth integrated flight test in less than a year, and there's going to be a fifth one by the end of this month. I really don't see why this one warrants inclusion. When it achieves something beyond the current limits of spaceflight development, then that would be the right news to post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If IFT-5 is another flight like this, even if the full system is recovered, I would be against posting, but this is the first fully successful flight, and previous tests were shut down due to not all objectives of the mission being met.
    The booster catch, if performed successfully on IFT-5, would definitely fit ITN imo PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per PrecariousWorlds and Kcmastrpc. Alexcalamaro (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose another week, another SpaceX launch. Starship is launching test flights so often now that it is hard to keep track (expected to have 4 more this year). So what that this one did not explode. When Starship has its first crewed launch, then we can post. Natg 19 (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Surely it's not necessary to have every space flight included here. Got to be something really out of the ordinary. Nigej (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not just an ordinary space flight; it is the first fully successful flight test of the largest spacecraft currently operational. Surely the complete success of IFT-4 deserves a brief mention in current events, as opposed to the incremental successes of the last two Starship flights. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. I'll consider supporting if/when they do a crewed launch, but this is just another incremental test. The Kip (contribs) 19:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While we'd posted IFT-1, it quickly came in retrospect to have been viewed as a mistake, and neither IFT-2 or IFT-3 were posted. This is merely an incremental test flight that doesn't mark any big turning point. The only difference being claimed is that the vehicles mostly remained intact/capable up to the point they were expected to blow up; it still had a number of "partial failures," so it doesn't even cross the bar as a 100% success, even before acknowledging that an internal test isn't exactly particularly newsworthy. ITN is not a ticker for SpaceX activities; it's a venue for news, not press releases. Nottheking (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What? All test objectives were accomplished? [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 21:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no they were not all accomplished. You can read the list we have on them here. Those yellow items indicate objects only partly completed. "All objectives completed" would mean that list would consist only of green items, with zero yellow, red, or grayed-out.
    The actual qualified statement is that, for the first time, Starship wasn't precluded from even attempting its final objectives. It's notable that it still had engine failures, and most critically, while it was mostly in one-piece on reentry, it did still suffer a heat-shield breach, that resulted in one of its maneuvering flaps burning partly through. (a decent amount of material was observed to have broken free of S28 during reentry & descent) Given that the focal objective repeatedly talked about was to avoid any burning up during reentry, this constitutes only a partial success. Nottheking (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The main test objectives of this flight were to simulate a booster landing in the Gulf of Mexico, and for the Starship to survive reentry and soft-land in the Indian Ocean. Both of which were accomplished.
    Not sure what you mean by partial success, even major news networks are hailing the flight as the first successful Starship flight. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would also like to point out that those are huge first accomplishments in the history of spaceflight... those are monumental steps forward in the history of spaceflight. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe that this fully successful flight test of the largest spacecraft constructed deserves a brief mention. This story has been covered by multiple major American and international news networks and hailed as a completely successful test flight, including CNN, BBC, CBS, NSBC, etc.
Besides, the opposers seem to be riding on a shaky precedent set by the last three Starship launches that failed. This one is a complete success, very different from the previous IFT-2 and IFT-3. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I do agree that IFT-4 was amazing, the exact notability of the mission isn't really that much (especially compared to IFT-1). Frankly, I don't think we should be nominating Starship launches until a major milestone is achieved (such as first full reuse, first ship-to-ship prop transfer, or even first HLS demo mission). Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 21:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Successful flight test and big milestone in spaceflight towards fully-reusable rockets. 2607:FEA8:E31F:D2C6:932B:262A:AD:4D20 (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, incremental improvement over the previous flight but it looks like NASA and the media consider this to be a Big F***ing Deal owing to the controlled landing of both vehicles, especially the controlled reentry and landing of the upper stage being the largest spacecraft ever re-entered (semi?)-successfully [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be pretty curious having 3 notable spaceflight-related blurbs on the front page although this shouldn't be a factor in consensus finding [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've not seen much from NASA. I've seen a lot of SpaceX asserting it's a "full success," even though it's still heavily qualified. Expect it to drop out of the news cycle once it's no longer the day of, just like with IFT-2 and IFT-3. Nottheking (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Expect it to drop out of the news cycle once it's no longer the day of, just like with IFT-2 and IFT-3" isn't this the same as 50% of the items we post? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Modest Genius and Stoplooking9 Sharrdx (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. PrinceofPunjabTALK 13:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support having the Boeing Starliner launch in the news section and not this launch which is the first successful complete launch of the most powerful (and advanced) rocket ever built is crazy. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because Boeing Starliner is the actual first manned mission, while this is just another, slightly more successful test launch. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the two is farcical. Starliner is a totally routine and ordinary mission. The only notable aspect of that mission is that the first launch was so delayed. Starship is the world's most powerful rocket. Nothing similar to Starship was ever attempted in the history of human spaceflight and this test resulted in many "firsts" and many records and a huge step forward in human spaceflight technology. In the words of NASA Administrator Bill Nelson: “Congratulations SpaceX on Starship’s successful test flight this morning! We are another step closer to returning humanity to the Moon through Artemis—then looking onward to Mars.” {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing similar to Starship was ever attempted in the history of human spaceflight - this is not evident. You're bludgeoning this thread with peacock terms and SpaceX boosterism, accompanied by crystal-ball claims about the Moon and Mars - but the evidence just doesn't support it. It's a decent test, don't get me wrong - but it just doesn't deserve the exaggerated hype you're heaping on it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is not evident I understand that. Hence this absurd discussion exists. Unfortunately, to anyone with basic knowledge of spaceflight technology this is abundantly clear. See for example: SpaceX Starship launches on nail-biting 4th test flight of world's most powerful rocket https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-4-test-launch-success
What you call "boosterism" and "peacock terms" are actually reality. This is:
  • the biggest rocket ever launched
  • the most powerful rocket ever launched
  • the first successful re-entry of a booster of this class
  • the first successful vertical soft landing of a booster of this class
  • the first successful orbital re-entry of a space vehicle of this class
  • the first successful vertical soft landing of a booster of this class
And many other firsts (more technical). This is a monumental achievement in the history of spaceflight. But sure, let's talk about Boeing Starliner. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand why in unbiased and good faith you are actively against posting this blurb about Starship. IFT-1 and IFT-4 are subjectively notable to the same degree. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Modest Genius. Not every single test needs to be posted. Seems like a recurring theme that "ooh-la-la! cool spaceship launched!" is taken into consideration here. Kline • talk • contribs 17:28, 7 June 2024 (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.

(Closed) Israel–Maldives relations

No consensus to post. Stephen 06:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Israel–Maldives relations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Maldives bans Israeli passport holders from entering the country, following the war in Gaza. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera CNN Times of Israel The President's Office Sky News
Credits:

MAL MALDIVE (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Minor development in the war, and the Maldives already didn't have diplomatic relations with Israel. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good attempt but oppose per Modest Genius Ion.want.uu (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Rosa (sea otter)

Article: Rosa (sea otter) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Monterey Bay Aquarium
Credits:

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

Sea otter at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Jbvann05 01:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready but I support it when it is. The "care" section has some fluff that needs removed too. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RIP, article is in a good shape. PrinceofPunjabTALK 13:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

June 5, 2024 (2024-06-05) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) Starliner, for real this time

Article: Boeing Crewed Flight Test (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Boeing Starliner spacecraft conducts its maiden crewed flight, launching two astronauts to the International Space Station. (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article needs updating

Just about to enter orbit (only took 14 years). Article needs updating. qw3rty 15:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that this is ITN-worthy specifically for being the first such flight by Boeing; routine crewed flights (they're on contract to provide NASA with six more) aren't inherently newsworthy, the same as applies with routine Crew Dragon or Soyuz launches; we get a few of each for each year. However, the first by an entity is newsworthy, and (while this isn't the proper venue) is something that is a glaring absence from the ITN/R criteria. After all, as it stands India's upcoming first crewed Gaganyaan flight (on track for next year) would, in fact, not be ITN/R, as bewildering as that sounds. So that's a clear indicator that right now, there's a huge gap for spaceflights in ITN that aren't ITN/R. Nottheking (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now that they have successfully docked. --Carnildo (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for notability and reliable sourcing -- Rauisuchian (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 03:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull per Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs).wound theology◈ 19:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: having this up while not mentioning Starship's launch on the same day looks ridiculous. The contrast in coverage is jarring especially since many have obviously compared the two launches (since the two companies are competitors) [2]. At this point we should probably remove this as well. It looks like a paid ad for Boeing. Either mention the two (even together) or remove both. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 19:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a false equivalency. It's entirely logically consistent to think Boeing's launch is ITNworthy, while thinking SpaceX's latest isn't. Whether one (or both) actually are ITNworthy are two separate questions, but it does not look ridiculous to draw the line between them. As we've apparently done. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye. As I repeated summarily while closing the other Starbird, it was only a test. This Starcraft is "for real". A test can still be posted if consensus develops, of course. Likewise, "the real thing" can just as easily fail. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference in significance of the two launches is so vast that highlighting one versus the other is comical. One is a "for real" routine ISS crew flight (albeit with a new vehicle). The other is the first successful test of the most powerful rocket in history and the achievement of many firsts in rocketry history (full reusability, vertical landing etc.). I understand if we don't want to report all tests. But then we shouldn't highlight the Starliner ISS crew flight as it is pretty much irrelevant. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: John Blackman

Article: John Blackman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

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

Australian TV and radio personality HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Asmatullah

Article: Asmatullah (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BOL News
Credits:

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

Ainty Painty (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

June 4, 2024 (2024-06-04) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) 2024 Indian general election

Proposed image
Article: 2024 Indian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In India, the Bharatiya Janata Party led by Narendra Modi loses its parliamentary majority in the Lok Sabha elections, but it still has a path to form a government with its allies in the National Democratic Alliance. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Indian general election, the Bharatiya Janata Party (leader Narendra Modi pictured) wins the most seats but loses its majority in the lower house of parliament
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the Indian general election, Prime Minister Narendra Modi (pictured) is reelected for a third term with support from coalition parties, after his ruling Bharatiya Janata Party fails to secure a majority on its own.
Alternative blurb III: ​ After the Indian general election, the Bharatiya Janata Party loses 63 Lok Sabha seats and its majority while the opposition Indian National Congress wins 47.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ In the Indian general election, the National Democratic Alliance led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is re-elected with a reduced majority.
News source(s): CNN, BBC, The Hindu
Credits:

Article needs updating
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.

I couldn't figure out how to phrase the blurb in a brief way (I think the fact that the BJP lost its own majority but still has a path to form a government via alliance is significant), someone else will have to do it. Tube·of·Light 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not ready. Although final results were scheduled for today, it seems counting still hasn't been concluded. We can't post this until the final results are in, and the article has been updated with them. The article also needs to have at least a full paragraph of referenced prose describing the outcome, which is currently missing. I've added an altblurb. Modest Genius talk 18:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some summary results have now started to appear, but the detailed results table is still incomplete. Modest Genius talk 12:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The results table is still incomplete. Is this a problem with updating the article, or is counting still going on? Modest Genius talk 17:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Counting ended two days ago, I have no idea what is going on with that article (and I also don't have the time to complete that on my own). Tube·of·Light 03:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait if the whole idea is about a possibly alliance wait Ion.want.uu (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: William Russell

Article: William Russell (English actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
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 Actor best known as Ian Chesterton in the first couple seasons of Doctor Who, and later came back 57 years after leaving for a cameo that later led to a World Record. But he also appeared in many other tv shows of the era. TheCorriynial (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I watched him back in the day. But the name is quite common and so it won't work well at RD. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it might be worth doing like what's been done with ongoing with maybe putting William Russell (Ian Chesterton) or English Actor instead of (Ian Chesterton). TheCorriynial (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't remember him at all, but the parenthetical in his title strongly suggests he's not the William Russell, so no blurb (regardless of whether he was 99). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the important thing is to keep the readers in the dark, right? Looking at RD currently, we have a serial killer, a hooker, Obama's mother-in-law, a mercenary colonel and some basketball players. But who's who? You can't tell any of that from just a list of names. It's useless. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is business as usual, you've seen it. For those who want light and timeliness, the important thing is Deaths in 2024. Here, we have space restraints and a quality bar holding things back. "Wiiliam Russell" fits, but an extra "(English actor)", "(Ian Chesterton)" or "(Sir Lancelot)" does not. Barwise, even the William Russell can't shine through multiple unsourced paragraphs. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose His filmography section is entirely unsourced. PrinceofPunjabTALK 13:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Support. Article looks in decent enough shape, a very long acting career, most notably as a character from the very beginning of a certain long-running TV show. Challenger l (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn. Challenger l (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: "There's more than one William Russell" doesn't seem a valid reason for not including him. There are plenty of occasions when I've looked at the box and gone "Who's dead?!" only to click on the link and find it's someone else with the same name that I've never heard of. As noted in the box above, the policy is that anyone prominent enough to have an article on Wikipedia is notable enough to be included. The only issue should be the quality of the article. Skteosk (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I really don't understand why we wouldn't. He's got a decent article, and that's that. We usually don't include disambiguation brackets in the RD text of people's names - we just pipelink to the correct article, and I don't think that needs to be any different here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple footnote-free paragraphs. Filmography is unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Janisa Johnson

Article: Janisa Johnson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): GMA News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American volleyball player. Died 25 May but announced publicly on 4 June. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose two orange tags. PrinceofPunjabTALK 13:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka floods

Article: 2024 Sri Lanka floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 16 people have died and more than 12,000 houses have been destroyed by floods in Sri Lanka. (Post)
News source(s): France 24, BBC, AP, EFE, Independent, ABC
Credits:

Ainty Painty (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose article is not blurbworthy. PrinceofPunjabTALK 13:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Prince Ahmad Shah Khan

Article: Ahmad Shah Khan, Crown Prince of Afghanistan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Persian
Credits:

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

Titular head of the Barakzai dynasty and son of the last king of Afghanistan Mohammad Zahir Shah. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose article is a stub and has orange tags. PrinceofPunjabTALK 13:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

June 3, 2024 (2024-06-03) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Jürgen Moltmann

Article: Jürgen Moltmann (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

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

One of the leading Christian theologians.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention needed) RD: Brother Marquis

Article: Brother Marquis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today
Credits:

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

American Rapper Filmman3000 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support All sections seem to be well-sourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose accolades section needs sources. PrinceofPunjabTALK 13:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PFHLai, @TDKR Chicago 101 and @PrinceofPunjab I have sourced the accolade section as well as other citations missing. Hope you find it satisfactory. Thank you. Filmman3000 (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Brigitte Bierlein

Article: Brigitte Bierlein (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
Credits:

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

Former Austrian chancellor Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose There's five cn tags. Otherwise, article looks ready once they're resolved. Support One cn tag shouldn't keep the article from getting posted IMO. I think her chancellor section is expanded to the best it can given her short tenure. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is work to be done: the cn tags need to be fixed and the content relating to her, albeit short, tenure as Chancellor should be expanded. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is indeed ready to be posted. PrinceofPunjabTALK 13:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Colin Gibb

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

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

Black Lace band singer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose two orange tags. PrinceofPunjabTALK 13:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

  1. ^ Coveney, Michael (4 June 2024). "William Russell obituary". The Guardian. Retrieved 4 June 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1228361640"