Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎January 23: demolition of the Arch of Reunification
Line 62: Line 62:
:::Three unfortunate deaths, but too few to be ITN-interesting. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 16:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Three unfortunate deaths, but too few to be ITN-interesting. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 16:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
* Oppose - The region where the earthquake took place was somewhat rural and had minimal impact on humanity. [[User:CollationoftheWilling|CollationoftheWilling]] ([[User talk:CollationoftheWilling|talk]]) 15:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
* Oppose - The region where the earthquake took place was somewhat rural and had minimal impact on humanity. [[User:CollationoftheWilling|CollationoftheWilling]] ([[User talk:CollationoftheWilling|talk]]) 15:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''—The Chinese province of Yunnan was [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/22/landslide-buries-47-people-in-chinas-southwestern-yunnan-province beset by a landslide] yesterday, which resulted in the deaths of no less than 30 people. It doesn't seem like there's been any confirmation that this landslide is a direct result of the 7.1 earthquake, but if it ''does'' turn out that they are related, we should probably consolidate the two events into a single blurb. Thoughts?


== January 22 ==
== January 22 ==

Revision as of 21:16, 23 January 2024

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.

Nemo
Nemo

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...

  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...

  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

January 23

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


Arch of Reunification demolition

Proposed image
Article: Arch of Reunification (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Arch of Reunification (pictured) in North Korea is demolished. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The North Korean government demolishes the Arch of Reunification (pictured).
News source(s): Reuters, Forbes, NK News
Credits:

Article updated

Demolished some time between 19 and 23 January, but reported today. Rather a historical move, regardless of further developments. Brandmeistertalk 21:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Charles Osgood

Article: Charles Osgood (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

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

– Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Uqturpan earthquake

Article: 2024 Uqturpan earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A 7.1 magnitude earthquake occurs in Uqturpan County, Xinjiang, China. (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:

7.1 magnitude earthquake. Minimal damage so far, but notable based on the size of the quake. Natg 19 (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oppose per “minimal damage”. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one's even died in this earthquake, so I oppose. Quake1234 (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ITN isn't a natural disaster ticker. Good faith nom, but not notable PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no one died Setarip (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the casualties have been updated, that 3 peoples died. Are you still going to oppose? Bakhos2010 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three unfortunate deaths, but too few to be ITN-interesting. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The region where the earthquake took place was somewhat rural and had minimal impact on humanity. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—The Chinese province of Yunnan was beset by a landslide yesterday, which resulted in the deaths of no less than 30 people. It doesn't seem like there's been any confirmation that this landslide is a direct result of the 7.1 earthquake, but if it does turn out that they are related, we should probably consolidate the two events into a single blurb. Thoughts?

January 22

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD/Blurb: Norman Jewison

Article: Norman Jewison (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2]
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.

Notable director, some citations still needed. Flibirigit (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support blurb. Very influential film director, was nominated for Oscar staggering seven times and won Thalberg Award. Won other important honours — BAFTA, David Donatello Award, Berlin Silver Bear and others. Made Fiddler on the Roof, Moonstruck, and In the Heat of the Night, the latter starring Sidney Poitier and being the staple of anti-racism work. From Guardian obit by Peter Bradshaw — "For five extraordinary decades, Norman Jewison’s film-making was the beating heart of Hollywood drama: he could do anything and supercharged it with idealism, confidence and style. Jewison has been behind an extraordinary array of classics and hits: for half the time the cinema has been in existence, Norman Jewison was the gold standard of a night at the movies." In Thomas Crown Affair and Cincinnati Kid "he invented the stylish presence of Steve McQueen"[3]. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. This is exactly what RD is for. He was nothing like important enough for the blurb. Nigej (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Gigi Riva

Article: Gigi Riva (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): la Repubblica
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.

Considered to be one of the best players of his generation, as well as one of the greatest strikers of all time. --Martin Mystère (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support most definitely, as a fellow Italian! I must address, though, that the "Club career" section needs to be cleaned up of some really sketchy sourcing: I hope I'll be able to help myself. Still, what a terrible loss... Oltrepier (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - heavily sourced! mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks good enough to me. Nigej (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Dexter King

Article: Dexter King (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN Associated Press
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 youngest son of Martin Luther King Jr.  RONIN  TALK  19:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - A few bits still need citations (working on it). Funcrunch (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - article looks much better than it did earlier. Good enough to go now I think mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ready) Ram Mandir

Proposed image
Article: Ram Mandir (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Ram Mandir is consecrated at Ram Janmabhoomi at Ayodhya in India. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Ram Mandir is consecrated at the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi at Ayodhya in India.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Ram Mandir temple is consecrated at the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya, India.
Alternative blurb III: ​ A temple to Rama (pictured) is consecrated at his disputed birthplace in India.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ A temple to Rama (pictured) is consecrated at his birthplace in India.
News source(s): Hindu Hindustan Times Times of India NBC CNN CNN BBC Independent Reuters Bloomberg Bloomberg Washington Post Washington Post Foreign Policy Wall Street Journal Wall Street Journal Strait Times New York Times New York Times RFI Al Jazeera Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article needs updating

Needs some updating post it's actual consecration that happens in exact 4 hours from now

Significant religious event that marks the culmination of long drawn movement to build the Ram temple in India. It's history has been mired in long drawn legal battles that has spanned over more than 200 years in 2019. Hailed as an event of lifetime for the fellow Indians, was also a political movement for many organizations based out of India. Has been covered in epic proportion by the media from all around the world. Regards, theTigerKing  03:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Once the event is completed and necessary updates are made to the article, we can put it up on ITN. Leoneix (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support to Alt blurb and alt blurb 3. Leoneix (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We posted the court decision to allow the building, and also the start of the building. Stephen 05:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It has been inaugurated. Interesting story that I hadn't heard of until now PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work To understand the significance, see Why India’s New Ram Temple Is So Important. But the main article has future tense statements which may now be in the past or present. And the proposed blurbs try to cram in too many links to other articles. But none of them have the essential English word "temple" which is needed as context for the general reader. An image is needed too but I'm adding one now. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above; I have also added another altblurb taking into account Andrew Davidson's comment as well as ITN wikilink conventions. DecafPotato (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mandir and temple mean the same Regards, theTigerKing  15:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC) 10:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however "Mandir" may be unfamiliar to the general English-speaking audience expected on the front page of Wikipedia. DecafPotato (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposition by formality We have already posted the groundbreaking ceremony in August 2020. No need to post its inauguration. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability The inauguration itself is massively important, and the fact that we posted about it 4 years ago doesn't mean it isn't in the news today. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 11:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb3 I think it's the clearest at explaining the importance of the event to a global audience. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it Ram Mandir or "The Ram Mandir"? The article has "The Ram Mandir" but the blurb just has "Ram Mandir." QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBIP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Support - This is a major symbolic topic for Hindus and has been a major agenda in politics for many years, with the version of "Ram Mandir is consecrated at Ayodhya in India." I oppose using the "dispute" word because it's too unclear as to what is actually disputed because it's no worse than Temple Mount in Jerusalem which is actually disputed, and the argument in this debate seems to be more about how to apply property law to the site. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be several disputes including:
  1. Was this really the birth place of Rama?
  2. Is his name Ram or Rama?
  3. The exact history of the site and its previous mosque/temples
  4. The credit for making this happen
  5. The implications of the event – is this the Ram Rajya?
  6. On Wikipedia the topic is subject to WP:ARBIP sanctions and especially extended confirmed protection. So, the opinions of new editors should perhaps be discounted.
Andrew🐉(talk) 13:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, Ram, Krishan, Yog is more common in North India while Rama, Krishna, Yoga is more common in South India (specifically Dravidian language speakers) and in Europe/US. --84.252.98.62 (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The questions asked seems to relevant (Ram or Rama and so on ); either we declare them in the beginning and use them consistently thereafter to mantain the flow and avoid confusion to the readers of the articles.Regards, theTigerKing  15:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I would also add that "Rama" seems to be the most common in East Asia and South East Asia as well. In fact I have always heard the term as Rama and not Ram except in the context of the Ram Temple. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this related to India vs Pakistan? There was a mosque on the site but that's related to Indian Muslims. Indian Muslims don't identify any more with Pakistanis than they do with Persians or Arabs, similar to Indonesians relationship with Arabs. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
India/Pakistan/Afghanistan as a whole is designated as a CTOP, regardless of whether this article has anything to do with more than one. The Kip 18:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. You could make a similar argument about anything related to history, mythology and religion. The original use of Stonehenge is disputed for example. Did Jesus exist? etc...
2. Ram and Rama are the same word. It's no difference to Jesus and Yesus.
3. Scientifically there is no dispute about what was there. As to who should be allowed to use it is a case for property law.
4. I think there is virtually no dispute about who is taking credit for this in the eyes of the Indian public; the right wing is viewed as supporting the Mandir and the left wing as opposing the Mandir.
5. There is no discussion about the Ram Rajya. It's seen as a milestone in the political conflict between Hindus and Muslims, and the aftermath of removing the negatives of colonialism for the Hindu side.
6. This is more related to the Hindu - Muslim conflict than anything to do with Pakistan. Rama is important for Buddhists and Jains to, and is widely understood in countries like Nepal, Burma and Sri Lanka. Pakistan should not have a big say in this article. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWould rather not recommend the word "dispute" in the blurb considering it has been "resolved" by the final authority which is the Supreme Court of India and "Accepted to" by all the parties involved. Period! Regards, theTigerKing  15:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the alt blurbs Surely the news here is the "dispute", otherwise I don't see this as any different to any other temple/church/whatever opening around the world. Nigej (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The main article was super unstable and is currently under full protection due to persistent editwarring and content dispute. Multiple discussions are underway right now for the resolutions. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to the "Alternative blurb". The event is notable on its own despite we posting about the groundbreaking 3 years ago. But the full protection on the page makes it difficult to copy edit it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom, the consecration ceremony was completed. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support, per above. This has received significant coverage and is definitely notable. Article needs minor updates but don't see anything that should prevent us from posting. Schwinnspeed (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb 1, but should it be "The Ram Mandir" not "Ram Mandir"? Not sure. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would recommend NOT posting Alt Blurb 3. The original blurb or Alt. blurb 2 would suffice - the land itself is the reason behind the long and ongoing dispute. The way Alt Blurb 3 reads, it oversimplifies the dispute by narrowing it down to a single argument (ie., whether its his birthplace or not) Schwinnspeed (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Altblurb1 The construction of Ram's Temple is internationally defined by how it was hotly contested for decades, highlighted by how many articles covering this ceremony discussed it to various lengths. To downplay or ignore it is ludicrous and (ironically) pretty biased. Mount Patagonia (talkcontributions) 21:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Altblurb2 I'm unfamiliar with a lot of Indian current events, so I'm not the best judge of notability, but from my brief look at the article, I think it deserves a place in ITN. I specifically support Alt2 because it specifies what type of site it is to the uninitiated (yes, it's repetitive for people familiar for the topic) and it also mentions that the birthplace is disputed. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 00:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt3 It is short, acknowledges the question on the site's history but without touching onto anything overly controversial. --Masem (t) 05:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt3 , given the immense coverage in news and article receiving over a million views in just a span of a week. [4]Ratnahastin (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb, i.e. Ram Mandir is consecrated at Ram Janmabhoomi at Ayodhya in India. The dispute ceased to exist after Supreme Court ruling. Even the legal parties don't call it a dispute any longer after they got alternative land for mosque. ShaanSenguptaTalk 05:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT2. AryKun (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb, main one. Satisfies ITN and other guidelines; no longer a disputed site since the SC verdict. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT3, as this is the clearest. The blurb should explain why it's disputed, but the event is definitely noteworthy and in the news enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Alt3 is likely the most appropriate and concise. The article on the dispute itself seems to me to be detailed and of high-quality. Bolding Ram Janmabhoomi would be appropriate if that article had been more thoroughly updated, but it isn't. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but we need to include that it was constructed on the site of a mosque destroyed by rioters - absent that background it would not be receiving the level of international coverage it is receiving. BilledMammal (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt or Alt2, not the original blurb or Alt3 As BilledMammal says above, unless we mention the extremely controversial aspect of it being built, the reader has no idea why the story is prominent in the news at all (because it wouldn't really be that important). Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It feels like the landmark event for India's descent into religious fascism. Must be why it's getting worldwide interest. I am not happy with any of the blurbs. I would suggest people who know good English and good blurb turn the following into a something usable: Ram Mandir is consecrated at the site of the demolished Babri Mosque at Ayodhya in India. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt1 or Alt2 These blurbs do the best job of describing the dispute. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The addition of the word - once disputed should solve the discussion and will also be aligned with the status quo. Regards, theTigerKing  13:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once disputed" suggests it isn't disputed any more, which is clearly not the case. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb with the suggestion that we change it to "Ram Mandir is consecrated at the disputed site Ram Janmabhoomi at Ayodhya in India" mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment & added alt blurb 4 Added alt blurb 4 since the contention that the birth place is contentious is in itself heavily contentious. Support alt blurb 4 (I've already voiced my geneeral support above), also marking this as ready since it's clearly ready for posting. 28 supporting votes to only ONE (1!) opposing vote. Kasperquickly (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the thing that makes this notable is the demolition of the mosque and the involvement of Indian political parties in it. Any blurb needs to mention and link to the demolition of the mosque as well. Secretlondon (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    not really, i didnt even hear about the moscue at all and im from india :) Kasperquickly (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Roger Rogerson

Article: Roger Rogerson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.smh.com.au/national/corrupt-former-police-officer-roger-rogerson-dead-at-83-20240119-p5eyqq.html https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-22/former-nsw-detective-roger-rogerson-dies-aged-83/102683994
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 police officer. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 20

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and Accidents


RD: Piedad Córdoba

Article: Piedad Córdoba (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
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.

Prominent Colombian politician: deputy between 1992 and 1994, senator between 1994 to 2010, and presidential candidate in 2018. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are currently two "citation needed" templates that should be resolved before posting. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: David L. Mills

Article: David L. Mills (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5]
Credits:

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

David Mills, creator of NTP, among many other internet things. This is my first time nominating, so apologies if I missed something. BreMea (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait The article is in generally good quality, but has a couple of cns. It should be good to post once the cns are dealt with. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well-sourced article of decent quality. Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to see the lead expanded with what he's notable for, without having to add the {{lead too short}} tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 19

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology


RD: Ewa Podleś

Article: Ewa Podleś (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TNYT
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.

Legendary Polish ccloratura contralto, rare voice type, international performances and recordings. - There was a detailed article, but without using GSL. The focus was on the Metropolitan Opera where she appeare (too) soon, and then not for decades. Most old refs didn't work anymore. She made tons of recordings, none had a ref, but now only few are missing one. Someone with time can search further, but we could also drop the few without harm. I can't access TNYT, but it tells me off her status. There should be more reviews but I'm on vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Raymond Apple

Article: Raymond Apple (rabbi) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.australianjewishnews.com/rabbi-raymond-apple-passes-away-in-jerusalem/
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 Australia's highest profile rabbis and the leading spokesman for Judaism in Australia. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Marlena Shaw

Article: Marlena Shaw (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Angeles Times, Billboard
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 singer best known for "California Soul". 240D:1A:4B5:2800:292A:99E6:CD1D:8006 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jack Burke Jr.

Article: Jack Burke Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
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.

Only a few unsourced comments remain, which probably shouldn't hold up posting. I'll try to plug the holes anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Burke Jr. was the winner of two majors, the 1956 Masters Tournament, and the 1956 PGA Championship, and was that last living PGA winner in the Match Play era, and last winner of the Masters from the 50s. He was also the first known Major Winner to turn 100. Based on above, Support once fixed TheCorriynial (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be good to go now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mary Weiss

Article: Mary Weiss (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NPR Yahoo 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.

Mary Weiss, lead singer of The Shangri-Las. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Pluto Shervington

Article: Pluto Shervington (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Gleaner
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.

Jamaican reggae musician, singer, engineer and producer. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose - Article has two minor CN tags, but overall looks to be in good shape. The Kip 22:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CN tags have been resolved, good to go. The Kip 22:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, so it does. Who could have added those. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: The Soft Moon

Article: The Soft Moon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Pitchfork
Credits:

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

Thriley (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - massive amount of uncited material. The Kip 22:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears that @Humanlikeu, the article's main author, was Vasquez himself (per early edit summaries), which makes me question the article's content as a whole. It seems he never received a CoI warning. The Kip 22:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! Thriley (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above - article was probably edited by the subject himself, double orange tags, and quite a bit of stuff is uncited. qw3rty 18:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Smart Lander for Investigating Moon

Article: Smart Lander for Investigating Moon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: JAXA's SLIM lunar module successfully lands on the moon. (Post)
Alternative blurb: JAXA's SLIM lunar module successfully lands on the moon, though it struggled with solar power issues once deployed.
Alternative blurb II: JAXA's SLIM lunar module successfully lands on the moon, after struggles with solar power issues.
News source(s): CNBC, CNN
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.

Needs some updating Masem (t) 16:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support in principle, but the history section uses future tense for past events. That should be fixed before posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Pretty tense atm. JAXA has lost contact with SLIM, we're still awaiting details... PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait to know if it's past tense or pretty tense. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I checked over and the sourcing seems good. (not just a lack of CN tags, but nothing that should merit them as well) Orange tag is about the status... For which there are no sources. So it's impossible to actually give an answer on whether it succeeded at a soft landing or not for the time being. Once JAXA provide an answer one way or the other, it can be updated to reflect this, and then would be ready to post. Nottheking (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait status is still unclear. JAXA will hold a conference soon. We should wait for that. Harvici 17:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG SUPPORT - IT MADE IT!! Though the solar panels are pretty busted, still notable PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb wording Support in principle, but the wording of the blurb needs to reflect the solar panels/electricity issue. Nigej (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really think we need to clarify as it was considered a successful landing, but I have given an altblurb to reflect the power issues. --Masem (t) 22:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a more concise altblurb --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Congratulations! A few copyedits left to fix the future tense but that should be good, and yes I agree that the blurb can be improved. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all above. The Kip 22:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. If any more info needs be included in the blurb, the mission is more important than the minor issues to me, but I'd rather just add the mlre concise blurb. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 23:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability Article quality is good. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a note: This is ITN/R, (indicated by the green nomination box) given it covers "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations". Notability is automatically assumed for events like this. (which are incredibly rare; typically just one or two a year, especially given how, as we've seen of late, many spacecraft fail to even make it to the destination) Nottheking (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Bashkortostan protests

Article: 2024 Bashkortostan protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Protests break out in the Republic of Bashkortostan, Russia (Post)
Alternative blurb: Protests break out in Russia's Bashkortostan following the imprisonment of Fail Alsynov
News source(s): The Guardian, NY Times, CNN, ABC, DW, Reuters
Credits:
  • Support I'm usually familiar with the places that we highlight here but Bashkortostan is new to me. So, this item is quite encyclopædic in expanding our horizons. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Notability is debatable but as you say this is enyclopedic (I already knew of Bashkotostan but I didn't know they had such a large independence movement), and protests in Russia are certainly rare these days. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two independence movements actually, Free Idel-Ural and the Committee of Bashkir Resistance ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 09:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a 'Judean People's Front' and 'People's Front of Judea' situation? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, the Committee of Bashkir Resistance is a Bashkir-specific organization, while Idel-Ural is an alliance of seven ethnic groups from six different republics in the region, a successor to the Russian Civil War-era Idel-Ural State. The latter nominally included four ethnic groups but was mostly Tatar and Bashkir-dominated, but its modern incarnation appears to be more representative of the different peoples and aims at a EU-like confederation between the states. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody hell Russia is complex. Every time I look at a map I see 5 new cultures and breakaway states I never knew about. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - Seems notable enough, plus encyclopedic as noted above. The article is a little short, but that may just be because it's covering a recent event, and that can certainly be worked on. If we want to be cautious on notability, we could wait to see if it leads to something more major. Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Definitely encyclopedic and from a place we unfortunately don't hear that much about. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 09:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Protests like this are very rare in Russia. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Significant due to the rarity of such events occurring. Article will need to be expanded but overall still ITN-worthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality there's not been any updates on the protests section since 17 January, and that section is quite thin considering it's meant to be the main details of what's been happening. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality per Joseph2302, and if you're going to call the Bakshir government "corrupt" in Wikivoice it would be a really good idea to actually source that... Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Protests where the Russian Government actually gives in to any demands are very rare. First time this big of a protest has happened since 2022. Lukt64 (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Condition is that the article quality is improved. Lukt64 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of the main editors of the article, I fully acknowledge your needs which is what me and few editors are watching closely and trying to update this article considering not a lot of people are committed to it. ShadZ01 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Nancy Adler

Article: Nancy Adler (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.

NY Times obit published 18 January. Thriley (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Sudan Removed) Ongoing Removal: Myanmar Civil War and War in Sudan

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.


Articles: Myanmar Civil War (talk · history · tag) and War in Sudan (2023–present) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
These conflicts are not being updated enough and are also not getting sufficient media coverage to warrant ongoing. Ongoing is for a constant stream of blurb-worthy events, it's not an armed conflict ticker. If we were to keep these conflicts up then I think wars of similar intensity like the Maghreb Insurgency and Somali Civil War should also be put up. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Sudan, Oppose for Myanmar. I haven't seen much out of Sudan, but active warfare is very much so going on in Myanmar to an extensive degree still. River10000 (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for Sudan, Oppose for Myanmar given there is very much ongoing developments there. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 14:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enough to warrant multiple blurbs? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fall of Laukkai and of the Northeast Command Headquarters on January 5, tentative ceasefire negotiated by China on January 12 (soon broken by the junta), fall of Paletwa on January 15... ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every single individual event of these could warrant a blurb? Dubious imo PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The negotiated ceasefire would've definitely been blurb-worthy if not for the fact it was ongoing. But these were just the last few examples, many more (and more blurbworthy ones) if you go back to December, like Chinland being proclaimed as an independent state, ... ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 09:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of these articles are still seeing active updates in the past week, moreso than I'm used to from long-standing Ongoing articles. In fact, they are more actively updated and expanded than the main Russian invasion article is. Whether our level of activity on any of these articles is sufficient to keep promoting them, I have no clue. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We dont just want updates tk the article but also that these are new breaking events that are being added. The Ukraine/Russia war still gets daily headlines, but both of these seem far beliw tye fold with little daily coverage to warrant ongoing. Masem (t) 14:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose both With recent developments in South Kordofan, it looks like an RSF offensive is about to begin there. Myanmar is still a warzone, with town captures happening almost daily. Lukt64 (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CRYSTAL. When/if it happens, we put it up. Also there are many more warzones than Myanmar, that doesn't automatically mean notability. ITN isn't a conflict ticker PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion it may be time to consider putting the Maghreb insurgency in Ongoing. Lukt64 (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you’re talking the Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002-present)… there’s not even a 2022 section in there, let alone 2023/4. You sure about that? The Kip 18:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i meant Sahel insurgency Lukt64 (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which has one listed incident this month. The Kip 21:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we might as well put every armed conflict in ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Sudan, Neutral for Myanmar, due to the war in Sudan being old news and nothing significant recently, however the Myanmar war is still very much ongoing. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are still things happening. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing items need to show ongoing news coverage, not simply that the event is continuing. — Masem (t) 20:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Just because there are events happening in the world doesn't automatically mean notability. My main point is that if we are to keep these on the main page, we might as well put every significant armed conflict up. I just want consistancy. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Sudan, Neutral for Myanmar. Sudan was removed once already, but then put back up when the conflict picked back up again. No reason that we can't do that again. JM (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there are now 6 articles listed in the Ongoing section now that Houthi involvement in the 2023 Israel-Hamas war has been added. Probably at least one should be removed, and given that it's the Sudan one with the least amount of updates, I think it should be that one. JM (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Sudan as most recent updates seem to be on the diplomatic issues related to the war, rather than the war itself. Oppose on Myanmar as there's been a solid amount of recent combat-focused updates. The Kip 20:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oppose for both. Rebels in myanmar captured another town three days ago and in sudan a lot of attention is being drawn to fighting by a world heritage sight and ethnic conflict. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Sudan, Oppose for Myanmar. Theres not much going in Sudan but Myanmar still has active developments. Setarip (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for Sudan, oppose for Myanmar—The former doesn't seem to be getting too many major updates these days, but Myanmar's civil war has been experiencing quite a few developments in recent times, to the extent where I'd honestly say that the Tatmadaw is facing the greatest threat to its supremacy over Burmese politics in the 60+ years since they took over the country under Ne Win. Myanmar is still very much ongoing. Kurtis (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sudan's article has recent updates about fighting in Kordofan & Myanmar's article has recent updates about fighting throughout Myanmar. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sudan, neutral on Myanmar for same reasons as others with the same votes. Also, is the purpose of ITN ongoing just to list wars, as that's all we seem to be using it for? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ongoing has previously listed the pandemic, the Olympics & the World Cup. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sudan Removed; Myanmar discussion still in process. SpencerT•C 21:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion What if the displayed text "Ongoing" was made into a link to the List of ongoing armed conflicts article? (Similar to what is done for "Recent deaths" below it in the template.) Farolif (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Conditional support when a solution to a problem is found Thing is, it already makes a redirect to Current Events. Maybe we could have list of ongoing armed conflicts made into an article thats just "List of ongoing conflicts" that includes protests and strikes. Lukt64 (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that or something similar was proposed and rejected. Ongoing is not just for ongoing conflicts, it just happens that ongoing conflicts are usually all that is listed there, but previously the COVID-19 pandemic was listed for a long time. JM (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a section on the List of ongoing armed conflicts article talk page. This is an issue that should be discussed there. Lukt64 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, I also added a "Major conlicts" section in the ongoing events to Portal:Current_events/Sidebar Lukt64 (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any major additions to critical parts of the CE portal more than likely need consensus to add. GWA's removed it anyways. The Kip 01:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ongoing is also used for major sports events (like FIFA, Olympics), was used for COVID, etc; i.e., it is not just a war-ticker. Curbon7 (talk) 01:35, 21 January 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.

January 17

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: César Suárez

Article: César Suárez (Ecuadorian prosecutor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN CBS 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.

Ecuadorian prosecutor investigating TC Televisión newsroom takeover. Shot dead by hitmen. Article looks good. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Shawnacy Barber

Article: Shawnacy Barber (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
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.

world champion pole vaulter.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Dejan Milojević

Article: Dejan Milojević (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN Daily Mail
Credits:

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

Assistant coach for the Golden State Warriors. Coached Jokic in Euro League, Article looks good. - RockinJack18 20:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose 18 paragraphs that end without a reference. Stephen 21:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article does not look good. Per Stephen. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2024 Iranian strikes in Pakistan

Article: 2024 Iranian strikes in Pakistan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Air strikes by the Iranian military killed 2 children and 3 injured around Panjgur area of Balochistan, Pakistan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Iran launches missile strikes against Pakistan, and aerial strikes against Iraq and Syria
Alternative blurb II: Iran launches missile strikes against Baloch separatist group Jaish ul-Adl based in Pakistan leaving 2 dead and 3 injured . In retaliation, the Pakistan Air Force launches Operation Marg Bar Sarmachar against Iran, leaving 7 dead.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Iran launches missile strikes in Pakistan, and aerial strikes in Iraq and Syria. In response, Pakistan conducts retaliatory airstrikes in Iran.
Alternative blurb IV: Iran launches missile strikes against Baloch separatist group Jaish ul-Adl based in Pakistan, as well as strikes in Iraq and Syria. In response, Pakistan airstrikes several targets in Iran.
News source(s): VOA, CNN, BBC, AP, NY Times
Credits:

Ainty Painty (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Totally irrelevant and insignificant from ITN's point of view. Fahads1982 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – totally relevant and significant from ITN's point of view. It represents an expansion of existing tensions around Iran and in the Middle East. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a notable increase in tensions, and the article is of reasonable quality for ITN --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Attack by Iran on foreign (Pakistani) soil leading to a flare-up of tensions between the two countries in the context of the Balochistan conflict, definitely ITN material. The blurb could mention that it was the IRGC (Sepah) that was responsible, rather than the Iranian army (Artesh), as Iran maintains two parallel armies (with separate navies, air forces, etc.). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support resulted in the recall of an ambassador, seems significant enough. JM (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is in good shape. Significant event with global coverage. Schwinnspeed (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per above supports. Jusdafax (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could mention that Iran has attacked Iraq, Pakistan and Syria in the last couple of days, and link 2024 Erbil attack as well. Stephen 02:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. This was not done in isolation from other recent Iranian strikes. JM (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there sources connecting these attacks? The ones in Iraq and Syria are allegedly related to the Iran-Israel proxy conflict, while the Pakistan one is part of the Balochistan conflict. While they all happened relatively recently, it might be OR to connect them all as part of the same blurb. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we should wait till further escalation Iran is indirectly attacking Pakistan, it is directly attacking the terrorists(Jaish-ud-Adl) Even though Pakistan's government said 'it was a breach of their airspace' , I think this matter would not escalte with Israel-Hamas was going on. So, I say it is not ITN worthy until the matter escalates Harvici 04:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support added Alt Blurb II , since Ainty Painty nominated Operation Marg Bar Sarmachar for ITN , since both are related , I think Alt Blurb II would be the best to be posted on ITN. Harvici 07:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added Alt Blurb IV to mention the strikes in Iraq and Syria. Other blurb states that these strikes are "against Pakistan, and Iraq and Syria", which would imply that they were targetted at the UN-recognised governments of these countries, which Iran strongly denies. Much better to say 'in', same with the Houthi conflict. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Precarious 's Alt Blurb IV, but we can edit the second sentence from 'In response, Pakistan airstrikes several targets in Iran' to 'In response, Pakistan Air Force launches Operation Marg Bar Sarmachar , leaving 7 dead. Harvici 12:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally prefer a simpler headline along the lines of Alt Burb III, without going into too much details; the articles are there to provide context. If we mention Iran’s targeting of Jaish-ul-Adl, then by extension we’d also have to mention Pakistan’s targeting of Baluch insurgents bases, and the blurb will get too long. That’s besides the fact, of course, that both Iran and Pakistan have not alluded to any militant deaths as of yet (on their own side) and have only acknowledged civilian casualties. Mar4d (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt3 - definitely a notable event that highlights the rise of tensions in the Middle East mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • support alt3 only. nableezy - 14:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted alt3 with the strong support above. I tweaked the link placement slightly to avoid MOS:EGG and removed an unnecessary comma. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation Marg Bar Sarmachar is probably still not quite at the level it should be for the front page. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked each article before posting. That one is indeed short, especially after some recent paring back, but nevertheless it is comprehensive and fully cited. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tony Lloyd

Article: Tony Lloyd (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sky News, BBC 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.

British Labour MP. Fats40boy11 (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support , the article looks good now . I had a little misunderstanding earlier
Support, the article looks in great shape. @User:Harvici, the DoB and the Trafford Council job are both sourced in the body (cites 9 and 8 respectively). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support article appears well sourced Dantus21 (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ongoing nomination: 2024 missile strikes in Yemen

Article: 2024 missile strikes in Yemen (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

This is likely to go on even after the blurb rolls off. Interstellarity (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support/Wait if they do something akin to the 12th, or if the Houthis retaliate, definitely support. If not, insignificant. The sum of all human knowledge (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is the involvement of Houthi in Israel - Hamas war; there is no need to include it in ongoing unitl it escalates and becomes Ansar Allah vs USA (etc) , then it can be ongoing worthy Harvici 13:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - I said this in the original nom as well, but I think we should first wait and see if the situation actually escalates further into a more long-term conflict before deciding on whether or not to put it in Ongoing. Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until further escalation, Conditional Support on notability if it does escalate. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion – Add "(Houthi involvement)" to the Israel-Hamas War ongoing. Having a secondary article in ongoing can be nice, as we see with the Russian invasion timeline. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By far the best proposal! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Nice suggestion but if the matter escalates , this can change. Harvici 16:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Mable's idea. By far the best solution to including the matter of the Houthis. River10000 (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as a concise proposal until further escalation. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for now, seems reasonable enough. JM (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I think this is a great solve Schwinnspeed (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Good idea! We could certainly keep it like that until anything major happens. Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, very good idea. Lukt64 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. @Admins willing to post ITN: I feel like there's a consensus to do these parentheses now. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as proposed by Maple. The Kip 20:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose While the initial escalation by the Houthis was made in relation to the Israel-Hamas war, multiple reliable sources indicate that the Houthi attacks have become indiscriminate, targeting vessels with no discernible connection to Israel. No source that I am aware of currently makes the strong statement that the ongoing fighting between the US/UK and the Houthis is a direct part of the Israel-Hamas war. I think lumping them together as the same "ongoing" is not defensible with reliable sources. eyal (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The article in question is subject to a proposed move, so I wonder that if it ends up getting moved to Red Sea crisis that it should be un-bracketed and listed separately. JM (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wow, I'm a bit overwhelmed by all the Supports on an idea I had forgotten I posted, haha. Feels very good. Yes, I expect the setup will change shortly, and Red Sea Crisis sounds likely to work as a separate Ongoing too. Our coverage evolves faster than we can make decisions. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this is an ongoing conflict now, but I would suggest a broader focus on the conflict than just the missile strikes. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Maplestrip's suggestion of adding ([[Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war|Houthi involvement]]) as there is consensus for it. That brings me to the interesting issue of credits, though, with Interstellarity having nominated 2024 missile strikes in Yemen, but a different article being posted that Interstellarity has never edited. If that's ok with you, Interstellarity, I hand out credits to two other editors instead who I have added to this nomination. If there are diverging ideas on how to handle the credits, please discuss and ping me when a resolution has been reached. Schwede66 22:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense to me. Although it came out of the original nomination, it was an altogether different article by a different nominator that got consensus to post. JM (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, can you please clarify how you determined that consensus was reached (WP:DETCON)? I raise the concern that this decision violates WP:VER, and so far this point has gone unaddressed. eyal (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NYT says [Houthi] has claimed it is acting in response to the Israeli military response in the Gaza Strip. I don't think the fact that the attacks became indiscriminate means it's not a part of the war (plus NYT reports it as part of the war) Aaron Liu (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the fact that it kinda violates WP:VER, I'm thinking of changing my vote but it's hard to word it as on the one hand it was absolutely a reaction to the Israel-Hamas war, on the other hand Houtis are kinda doing their own thing now despite claiming it's about Israel, so if there's an elegant solution that wraps up all of this I'd be interested. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I'm not convinced that this is a problem, given that there's an active proposal to change the article title to Red Sea crisis, that could be the solution you're looking for. It would mean that the article is no longer directly subordinate to the Israel-Hamas war and therefore would no longer be bracketed, while also maintaining that it's otherwise the same article which is listed as Ongoing. JM (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. Anything that improves upon my nomination helps out a lot. Interstellarity (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support adding the Red Sea crisis to Ongoing, though oppose doing so as a parenthetical add-on to Israel–Hamas war, per Eyal 3400. DecafPotato (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 16

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) 2024 Comorian presidential election

Proposed image
Article: 2024 Comorian presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Azali Assoumani is re-elected president of the Comoros. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Incumbent Comorian president Azali Assoumani is re-elected in a disputed election.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Incumbent Comorian president Azali Assoumani is re-elected in a presidential election that had 16% turnout due to an opposition boycott.
News source(s): France 24 AP 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.

Was going to nominate this on the day of the election, but soon realized that election results weren't out yet. Added an altblurb in case weight should be given to the controversies that erupted after the election, not sure though since international observers have commented on the election and did not condemn it for alleged irregularities. Some work may still need to be done before posting, but the aftermath section has an acceptable amount of prose in my opinion and the material seems to be well-sourced.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alt1 looks fine. Every paragraph ends with a citation except the last sentence of one, I'm assuming the citations at the end of each paragraph are meant to give a source for the whole paragraph. Table is cited. Given the disputed results, Alt1 is better in my opinion. JM (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT1, albeit the article feels a tad short. The Kip 22:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the original blurb or Alt2, oppose Alt1 Since international observers called this a free & fair election, I think it’s probably inappropriate to label this a disputed election without going into more details. What seems more appropriate to me is noting that the presidential election had a 16% turnout because it was boycotted by some opposition candidates. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there is consensus that the article is up to shape but not consensus for a particular blurb variant, I recommend using the short and to-the-point original blurb until a clearer consensus emerges regarding how to describe the controversies surrounding the election.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT1 the article looks fine and is listed in WP:ITN/R , we should definetly post it. Harvici 07:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Peter Schickele (P.D.Q. Bach)

Article: Peter Schickele (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

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

Better known under his pseudonym P.D.Q. Bach, so I think we should include it as parenthetical in the Recent deaths entry Smurrayinchester 12:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The article has plenty of sources, including for the death. Einsof (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Although I am sad to see him go, there are a few sources that could use some citations before posting but overall, it looks alright. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 04:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I’m concerned about the uncited sentence about his repertory. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Claire Fagin

Article: Claire Fagin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Phi Inq, WaPo, 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.

Needs a little bit of work. Natg 19 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support This looks okay now. Secretlondon (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Intro mentions that she was a consultant but does not mention this in the article body. It also mentions "She was an early advocate of family-centered care, with major contributions to psychiatric nursing, nursing education and geriatric care, which were underlined with a strong belief in the power of the activist consumer." but outside of mentioning her doctoral dissertation has no other detail about her research contributions. SpencerT•C 15:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spencer: WRT her research, I added info about a research position that she held in the 1950s & that she co-authored an analysis in 2022 suggesting that the cause of burnout among health care workers during the pandemic was inadequate hospital staffing. WRT being a consultant, I added that she was an advisor to the WHO. However, that didn’t seem important enough for the intro, so I removed the part about her being a consultant from the intro. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Sergio Sebastiani

Article: Sergio Sebastiani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Vatican 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.

A cardinal and diplomat , article is also good Harvici 10:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There's an unsourced paragraph and a cn tag. DoB unsourced as well. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 12:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The death is sourced and the quality is good enough. Putting it on the main page may encourage new editors to source other parts of the article. Einsof (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article is not good yet: some lines and paras are unsourced. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: José Agustín

Article: José Agustín (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.

Noted Mexican writer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The bibliography and the filmography are missing some sources, the life and career section has some unsourced info. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 10:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The death is sourced, the article quality is fine, and it is not nominated for deletion. Those are the three criteria for posting, per WP:ITNRD. Einsof (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article should be fully sourced. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2024 US Republican presidential primaries

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 Republican presidential primaries (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
I know, I can see the incoming comments already. "Not a US Politics ticker", "Needs international significance", etc., but hear me out. This is an item that, like it or not, is getting way more public and media attention than most blurbs that have been put up. The Iowa caucus is front-page news on every major outlet. I think while Haley, DeSantis, and Trump continue to face each other off, it's useful to the general reader to link this. Once the candidate pool thins and a presumptive nominee is established, we can take it off. In any case, it's worth considering. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We post the election of the president. Trump is going to be the nominee without any doubt unless the Supreme Court deems him ineligible to run. This result in Iowa was clearly expected.
Noah, AATalk 14:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing or Weak oppose, it is of some interest to the general reader (given US influence and the potential consequences of the election) but highlighting Iowa in particular doesn't bring too much. In any case, there isn't much suspense and Trump will likely be nominated, so not that interesting either. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The syntax must've changed because I put ongoing as 'yes'. This is an ongoing nom PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it wasn't an ongoing nom when I replied. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as we do not cover the run ups to any election, and in the cade if the Republican caucuses, it's pretty much assured who's going to win. — Masem (t) 15:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose We'll have primaries/caucuses going on the next few months, but none of them (either individually or collectively) have the significance of the general election in November (which is INT/R). rawmustard (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose totally irrelevant and insignificant from ITN's point of view. We are going to post only the presidential election. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest snow close This is a ridiculous nomination, because, as the nominator has observed, this is not a US politics ticker. In case anyone needs reminding, Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia. People in every other country would never dream of nominating pre-election party politics as an ITN. Just because it happened in the US doesn't make it more special. Chrisclear (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you; you've made your point in every other U.S.-related nom you've opposed for this reason. ITN/C is not your soapbox. Oppose the nom and move on. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 15:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but I don't quite understand your comment, I opposed the nomination and moved on - just as you suggested. The only reason I am back here is because of your strange comment. Chrisclear (talk) 15:57, 16 January 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) Narges Mohammadi

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


Proposed image
Article: Narges Mohammadi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Iranian government has extended Nobel laureate Narges Mohammadi's jail term of 12 years for 'spreading propaganda'. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67986227
Credits:
John Cummings (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality article not updated, blurb unclear about whether the sentence has been extended from an original 12 years or by a further 12 years. Neutral for now on significance. JM (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Blurb is potentially misleading as she is only sentenced to an additional 15 months. We did not post similar news when Hong Kong pro-democracy activists like Joshua Wong received additional sentences. Tofusaurus (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - little international significance. Banedon (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose little significance Setarip (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Insignificant as per above, Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not significant enough for the blurb. Nigej (talk) 17:16, 16 January 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.

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: