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 Fakescientist8000 (talk | contribs) at 20:16, 4 February 2024 (→‎RD: Aston "Family Man" Barrett). 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.

Lawrence Wong in 2023
Lawrence Wong

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

February 4

February 4, 2024 (2024-02-04) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

RD: Barry John

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

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

Welsh and British Lions rugby international The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support GA, article looks to be in good shape. The Kip 19:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The only things that really needed to be edited were the infobox, turning is into was and adding to the personal life section, all of which have been done. Helped rather nicely that it was already GA quality. CommissarDoggoTalk? 19:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Kononenko sets record for most time in space

Article: Oleg Kononenko (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Oleg Kononenko sets new record of 878 days in space and as a result has time travelled 0.021 seconds into the future (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Count Iblis (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Such records (which likely can be easily broken in the future) are not good for ITN. --Masem (t) 17:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article has two unreferenced sections, and is lacking sources in many other places. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Describing it as "time traveling into the future" is okay for pop science, not for an encyclopedia. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 17:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Now He's travelled 878 days into the future. That .021 second is just a tiny speck of bonus time, relative to our lowly scores. It doesn't replace the more impressive number. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose trivia that can be beaten in the future, especially the 0.021 seconds bit. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, maybe better-suited to DYK. The Kip 19:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As this news is better suited for a DYK nom than an ITN nom. Could definitely see it getting approved there. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Senegalese presidential election

Article: 2024 Senegalese presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The President of Senegal Macky Sall indefinitely postpones the presidential election hours before official campaign start (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: 1st time this has happened; a dispute dispute between the national assembly and the constitutional court over rejection of candidates was given as a reason for the postponement. Lawmakers are also investigating two constitutional council judges whose integrity in the election process has been questioned Abcmaxx (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Doesn’t seem like an unjust postponement, which decreases its notability especially since the accused haven’t been charged yet and the headline implies foul play. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not sure if delayment of an election is notable in its own right. Did we post the Haiti elections getting postponed/cancelled/delayed, by any chance? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It doesn't seem like anything has been caused by the postponement yet. Unless some significant event happens due to the postponement, or the election gets cancelled entirely, I don't think we should post, as I don't think the postponement on its own is notable enough. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Namibia's president Hage Geingob dies

Proposed image
Article: Hage Geingob (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Namibia President Hage Geingob (pictured) dies at the age of 82. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ President of Namibia Hage Geingob (pictured) dies at the age of 82, and is succeeded by Nangolo Mbumba.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Nangolo Mbumba (pictured) succeeds President of Namibia Hage Geingob following his death at 82.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Nangolo Mbumba (pictured) succeeds Hage Geingob as President of Namibia, following the latter's death at 82.
News source(s): President Hage Geingob is dead
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: Hage Geingob, the head of state and government, died in office after 9 years in power. He also served many years as prime minister. It probably won't get a lot of coverage in the West but a head of state dying in office is pretty rare. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change in head of state/government, so ITNR item, and proposed altblurb. Reviewing target articles. The Kip 02:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was going to ask if the vice-president automatically takes power until the end of term, or if there is an alternate system in place. If it is the former, absolutely ITNR (but the article has missing citations). Even with that, death of a sitting leader regardless of how the gov't changes would still be a blurbworthy event. --Masem (t) 02:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality as most of Geingob's article is woefully under-referenced, including two wholly-uncited sections. The other two are rather short, but as they're not the targets that's less of a concern. The Kip 02:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Conditional Support once the reference problem is fixed Lukt64 (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality due to 3 unreferenced tags, but when those are fixed, support alt blurb. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it is not fairly cited when it is fixed , Support alt blurb Harvici (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, but yeah, this is going to need work before quality is there to post on the main page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ 45.93.20.250 (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ 45.93.20.250 (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Heinrich Nangolo Klein Mbumba.jpg
  • Post the new president In such cases, we usually emphasise the incoming leader rather than the outgoing one. In this case, that's Nangolo Mbumba (pictured) as there won't be elections for some time. The death of Geingob is not surprising because he was 82 and in ill-health. RD will suffice for that. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the cause of death is cancer
Heatrave (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old Man Lives Per Andrew, there's a new 82-year-old "ruling" Namibia and that's the thing to commemorate, not another death. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurbing new president as that's the ITN/R story, not the death itself. JM (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created alt blurb 2 Seems the support is more towards Nangolo Mbumba then the former president, And the picture, if this blurb is used, is the one above this post in replacement of the one in the box. TheCorriynial (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb 3, clearest of all the alt blurbs, whilst also showing which is the ITN/R event (the new president) as opposed to the one that is more suited for RD (the old president dying). Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 3

February 3, 2024 (2024-02-03) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

RD: Wee Cho Yaw

Article: Wee Cho Yaw (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.

Singaporean businessman. Led United Overseas Bank to one of big 3 banks in Singapore and Southeast Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.74.208 (talk • contribs)

RD: Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples

Proposed image
Article: Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples (pictured), son of the last King of Italy, Umberto II, dies at 86. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
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.
  • RD only, not ready Not a notable event for a death blurb, but notable individuals are eligible for RD. This one needs a lot of sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No blurb, not ready regardless Not a notable person in his own right (neither was his death notable) enough for a blurb, sourcing needs quite some work done (orange tag + CN tags in the article). Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 00:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD when ready, oppose blurb - Non-reigning royals are generally not going to be serious considerations for a blurb. (I would have thought about supporting one for Otto von Habsburg, but he had had a long and distinguished career as a European politician largely separate from his ancestral title.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD Oppose Blurb definitely not death-blurb worthy This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD on quality due to orange tag. Oppose blurb - a controversial figure, sure, but not up to the standard we typically hold for blurbs. The Kip 01:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD when ready, neutral on blurb The quality of article needs to be improved before posting. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, support RD when ready This is not significant enough for a blurb, especially because he was not actually a reigning royal. This is not yet ready for RD due to various sourcing issues throughout the article. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb old man dies, ITN is not an obituary. JM (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, Oppose blurb - RIP, Vittorio IV. But unfortunately, this doesn't warrant a blurb PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Aston "Family Man" Barrett

Article: Aston "Family Man" Barrett (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone
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.

Decent shape. Natg 19 (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak oppose as birthplace is uncited. Otherwise, a bit short, but good to go. The Kip 01:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another editor has subsequently added a massive amount of unreferenced material, so no longer “very weak” from me. The Kip 04:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are four unreferenced tags, so definitely not yet ready to go. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 253 words of prose? That's a bit stubby. Anything more to write about him? After the prose, there is a long string of bullet-points that needs sourcing done. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is far from 'decent shape'. I counted 4 orange tags and an additional CN tag in the prose, and there is quite a miniscule amount of prose. Please fix as soon as you possible can. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New First Minister of Northern Ireland

Proposed image
Article: Michelle O'Neill (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Michelle O'Neill (pictured) becomes First Minister of Northern Ireland, marking the first time the position is held by an Irish republican. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Following a twenty-month Northern Ireland Executive formation, Michelle O'Neill (pictured) becomes First Minister of Northern Ireland, marking the first time the position is held by an Irish republican.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Following a twenty-month Northern Ireland Executive formation, Michelle O'Neill (pictured) becomes First Minister, marking the first time the position is held by an Irish nationalist and by a Republic of Ireland-born person.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Following a twenty-month Northern Ireland Executive formation, Michelle O'Neill (pictured) becomes First Minister, marking the first time the position is held by an Irish nationalist and by a person born in the country of Ireland.
News source(s): BBC News, Sky News, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, DW, NY Times, Washington Post, CNN
Credits:

Article updated

I have decided to nominate on account of "assume good faith". Described as "historic" by several sources, although as for whether it is considered notable enough for ITNR, I'm leaving that for the community to decide. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not ITNR, I checked and this position does not fall into that which is tracked on List of current heads of state and government. There may be merit to indicate this being the first person from N. Ireland to actually serve as a Minister for the gov't of Ireland. (I had considered nominating this but felt this wouldn't meet the consensus here) --Masem (t) 23:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a different blurb based on Altblurb 1. It's the restoration of power-sharing in the Province that's the main headline here, but I do think that if we blurb that, it's worth mentioning Ms O'Neill taking office. Contrary to what Masem has said, Michelle O'Neill is the first person to serve as First Minister of Northern Ireland who was not originally from NI - she was born in the Republic of Ireland. And she's also the first politician of Irish Republican affiliation to hold the post, which is what's being highlighted here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: I would support altblurb3 if 'nationalist' were changed to 'Republican'. It's a less confusing and arguably more specific term. GenevieveDEon (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of the BBC source in the nomination, which is strange because other BBC articles say nationalist, all of the UK sources say nationalist. Additionally, there are three political designations in the NI Assembly; unionist, nationalist, and other. If we're going by the designations used by the NI government, Irish nationalist would be more correct than Irish republican. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a different blurb. As a NI native, the two most notable things about this are that we finally have a devolved government again after 24 months of political deadlock, and that O'Neill is the first Irish nationalist to hold the lead position in the Northern Irish government since the creation of the province in 1921. I'd suggest that the blurb includes both pieces of information. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Following re-writes I'd support alt blurb 2 over the others. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that it's been added, I'd support the new alt blurb 3 over the others. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose While interesting from a historical trivia perspective, politically its significance is doubtful. Sinn Fein got all of 29% of the vote in the last election. The reason they hold the position of FM as I understand it, is because the unionist vote was severely fragmented. They are trying to pretend that this represents a substantial movement towards NI joining the Irish Republic, which is nonsense. A solid majority of NI electorate remain firmly unionist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an unhelpfully partisan interpretation of the story, which is being presented in the terms used above by sources such as the BBC. The blurb, and the story, say nothing about the alleged political adherence of the NI electorate. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While interesting from a historical trivia perspective, politically its significance is doubtful. Hard disagree. O'Neill is the first Irish nationalist politician to be the head of government for Northern Ireland, since its creation in 1921. In terms of the history of the province, this is incredibly significant. If I may be bold in my comparison, this has the same level of significance within Northern Ireland as Barack Obama becoming the first African-American President the US. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with your analogy if Barrack Obama had won election with 29% of the vote on a platform of uniting the United States with Canada. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't directly compare vote percentages between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the US Presidential Election in that manner, as they are two entirely different electoral systems, with two entirely different mechanisms for voting. And the significance isn't that O'Neill advocates for Irish unification, Sinn Fein have been doing that pretty much since the creation of the province. The historical significance is that O'Neill has become the first Irish nationalist politician, of any party, to hold the position as head of the Northern Irish government. Until today, every First Minister for Northern Ireland and every Prime Minister of Northern Ireland had been a unionist politician. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this sounds like historical trivia based on an electoral fluke. I am not seeing the long term significance here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an electoral fluke. Northern Ireland is not a two party state, it is a multi-party state that has 5 major political parties; Sinn Féin, SDLP, DUP, UUP, and Alliance, and three political designations; unionist, nationalist, and Other. Since the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1998, the highest vote share for any political party was 30.1% in the 2007 election. Sinn Féin's vote share of 29% is about average for all of the historical holders of the First Minister role.
The long term historical significance is that in the 103 years since the creation of Northern Ireland, there has never been a non-unionist head of government. Other than going into the deep, and contentious history of Northern Ireland and the intentional demographic choices made during the creation of the province to ensure there would always be a unionist majority government, I don't know how to state it in any other frames of reference than I already have. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically every thing you have said here is misleading at best and incorrect at worst. Both the Republican and Unionist votes are "fragmented" as you put it, and always have been. There are numerous parties with distinction beyond their position on the union. As for "A solid majority of NI electorate remain firmly unionist" it is a plurality, not a majority, let alone a "solid" one, and polling neither asks and nor records a level of "firmness" in that plurality. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it is the end of a long political drama/negotiation in a region that is not sovereign. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ground breaking major news, with the political wing of the Irish Republican Army becoming the First Minister of this country. This is the first republican first minister. And comes with the restoration of democracy and government in Northern Ireland after 2 years of direct rule by London. Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support like others, on the dual significance of the restoration of government and the first republican first minister. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going to nominate this based on the exceptional length of time that Northern Ireland has not had an Executive, and because it lets the Windsor Framework go ahead, which is part of Northern Ireland Brexit terms. The Framework is also part of the reason why Northern Irish political parties agreed to have an Executive again.
    In terms of the blurbs, alt1 is not accurate - power-sharing has been in place since 1999 and the creation of a Northern Ireland Executive. Every N.I. government has had power-sharing and it is not the reason the government has finally been restored. All of the others are fine for use, though alt3 seems bland and doesn't provide the context required for ITN. Kingsif (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following further consideration, I have now adjusted the blurbs and removed alt3. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In future, it is better not to adjust blurbs that people have already !voted on. As alt1 has been changed, I do not outright oppose it, but it lacks some of the context. Kingsif (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt2 Based on comment above. I might prefer an alt that also mentions the Windsor Framework, but trying to summarise that seems difficult and it would make a long blurb too long. The length of time that Northern Ireland has been forming a government, and the first nationalist First Minister, are notable (as much as it is doubtful that the latter will mark a change in how the Executive functions since last time). Kingsif (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose subnational. Banedon (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, while subnational, massive political significance as the first-ever non-unionist First Minister, advocating for Irish unification. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Northern Ireland is not sovereign (in any sense). A US state is more sovereign (in some senses) and we'd never post a governor's election. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you post a governor's election, if the governor in question was from a former terrorist group, and the state had been without a government for 2 years, with the President appointing a governor with unlimited power for that 2 years? Nfitz (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if something like were to happen, federalism would be dead. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 08:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of fatal to your analogy, then. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Support alt0, alt1, or alt3 (which I've added above) and oppose alt2. The term "Republic of Ireland" is a bit odd for Hiberno-English and "Ireland" in indistinguishably the common name of the political entity in which she was born. While the role nominally subnational, it's also an appointment with important international implications given that she's the first Irish nationalist in the role. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As RoI is common, especially when wanting to make sure people know what entity you're referring to (the Island of Ireland is also "just Ireland", there is nothing indistinguishable about RoI claiming this label at all) I have to add that I would oppose alt3, the current version, as with this lack of clarity it could be perceived to be advocating that NI and RoI are or should be unified, taking a partisan stance at the heart of this problem. I also think it is incredible someone would fully oppose an alt because it is, in their view, too accurate. Kingsif (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a matter of local government and, in terms of population, is like being the Mayor of Greater Manchester or Governor of Idaho. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A local jurisdiction in an area that is not sovereign had a politician elected with differing political views from the norm. Think if a Texas secessionist were elected governor. Big news? Probably. Notable for ITN? Probably not. Same thing applies here. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine that if a Texas governor was part of an international political movement to create a new country of Texas, and got elected governor on that basis, we would probably post that at ITN. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have to imagine. We had a similar nomination about Texas recently. That story is still getting plenty of international coverage. In China, it's widely understood as a civil war and there's plenty of other international coverage too. But it still wasn't posted at ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the governments of both Texas and the USA are continuing to function normally, and the 'civil war' stuff is widely understood to be active misinformation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems to be a big story at the NYT: At Rally for Border Security in Texas, Fears of ‘Invasion’ and ‘Civil War’: "Concerns over potential violence followed the convoys as the federal government and Republican state leaders appeared to be on an increasingly imminent collision course..." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Fakescientist. The Kip 01:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose due to this being a regional election. However, I might be swayed to support, particularly due to articles such as this saying that the election is a "landmark moment" for "the broader region". 2G0o2De0l (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what election you are referring to here, User:2G0o2De0l. There has been no election in years. I think you've not fully grasped what this is about. Nfitz (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what's frustrating about the !votes on this nom - a lot of the accompanying commentary shows a complete misunderstanding of the history and context. Some of that is probably deliberate, and some of it is due to ignorance. But it's not encouraging. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are correct in saying I have not "grasped what this is about", so I am just scratching my vote entirely. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose and while I agree that the appointment has regional and ethnic notability (which would also be notable in the Anglosphere and much of Europe), I wonder whether it has global notability. I think that a lot of readers would find it interesting because much of the native English speaking world has ties to Ireland and the UK, but I doubt that English speaking in non-native countries would care so much and Wikipedia has a problem with leaning too much towards native English speaking countries (and US events).
CollationoftheWilling (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN's problem is not "too much" – quite the contrary. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historically important for Northern Ireland doktorb wordsdeeds 09:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There's no point in comparing this to Texas, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Quebec, the Cayman Islands or any other example because Northern Ireland has a very unique history with a very unique political situation and unique devolved powers. It is however a "nation state", even if not fully sovereign, and what happens at Stormont is hugely impactful for both the UK and the Republic of Ireland; both of which are very much sovereign nations. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose she hasn't declared separation from Britain and union with the Republic. Blurb that, not the mere event of a Sinn Fein member becoming FM. JM (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support whilst Northern Ireland isn't a sovereign nation, the fact the 20-month long stalemate has been resolved and their parliament will be back is notable and well covered in traditional news media. Whilst generally the appointment of a new FM of Northern Ireland may not be ITN worthy, this one is because of the long process that has preceded it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spillover of the Israel–Hamas war

Article: Spillover of the Israel–Hamas war (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: It looks like there’s some support in the discussion of the “February 2024 United States bombing of Iraq and Syria” blurb to add this to “Ongoing”. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support adding to "ongoing", as long as it's a replacement for "Red Sea Crisis" and not an addition. Nigej (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but FWIW I'm not a fan of the article title. I posted on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hadn't noticed first time, but "spillover from" is surely better English. Nigej (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d note that “Spillover of…” is the title format used for multiple articles. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, definitely OR to label all Middle-Eastern events as spillover of one specific conflict. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I don't think it's OR to label as such, considering insurgent groups and Iranian proxies have labeled the war in Gaza as motivation for attacking both Red Sea shipping and American bases. Between the airstrikes and Houthi attacks, "spillover" is fast becoming a solid umbrella term barring some sort of generalized "2023–24 Middle East crisis." The Kip 01:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be wise to move the article to 2023-24 Middle East Crisis or a similar title, given that the multiple ongoing conflicts are inter-related and have causes other than the Israel-Hamas war? --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OR isn't about whether it's obvious to deduce or not, it's about if reliable, secondary sources (which the Houtis are not) make that connection. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 02:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If all these are connected, we should be able to readily find sources in media and use their term for it. But I do feel this is more Wikipedians making this an umbrella term, the more I think about it, so this is probably OR to categorize them all under this. There's definitely indication that some of the events were triggered by instability created by the Israeli/Hamas conflict, but I don't think they should be taken as simply spillover, unless that can be readily demonstrated in RSes. Masem (t) 16:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve article, then support The article, as I said in the discussion for the U.S. bombing of Syria and Iraq discussion, does not even mention that event occurring, and has 4 citation needed tags. When the article gets to be of a better quality, I agree with the argument that, at least for now, the events listed in the article really are "spillover" from the Israel-Hamas war. I would be particularly supportive of adding an ongoing item such as this due to it being able to handle the multiple different ongoing confrontations in the Middle East. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - should be one ongoing on the various attacks by Iran and Iranian-supported militias. We've already got one too many. Combine them all into a single target. Nfitz (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The link that's needed is the list of ongoing armed conflicts which includes the entire Middle East and more besides. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article probably won't work at least in the current form, as it doesn't seem to mention the Red Sea crisis or the U.S.-Iran-backed militias conflict in Iraq and Syria, which were the two conflicts that we initially wanted to include in ongoing. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, someone added them in. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support bracketing it next to Israel-Hamas war. Neutral on removing Red Sea crisis; that should be separately nominated as an ongoing removal. JM (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024 United States bombing of Iraq and Syria

Article: February 2024 United States bombing of Iraq and Syria (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States launches airstrikes targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guards and Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria in retaliation for a drone strike in Jordan a week earlier. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters and AP
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran Ecrusized (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This is covered by the Red Sea crisis, also referred to as the "United States–Iran proxy war", already posted onto ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a separate conflict from the Red Sea crisis. Ecrusized (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I may support changing the target article, but definitely not post it separately. It's clear that there's an ongoing proxy war between the United States and Iran, so it stands to reason to wrap it up in a single article which would be posted onto ongoing. There's really no need to post multiple instances of a single conflict. After all, the ongoing section is already full of conflicts, and it's perhaps the right time to verify that each of them should be still there.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After some thought, it's maybe worth considering to post Spillover of the Israel–Hamas war in brackets next to Israel-Hamas War in the same way as Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present) is posted next to Russian invasion of Ukraine. This means that Red Sea crisis should be removed, as it's also considered part of the spillover of that war.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Red Sea Crisis was originally in parentheses next to the Israel-Hamas War, but was made its own item because of consensus that the Red Sea crisis is a separate enough conflict to be considered its own item. However, now that there are three different conflicts in the Middle East that are somewhat inter-related, it may be worth combining their items into Spillover of the Israel-Hamas war or perhaps Conflicts in the Middle East. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    List of modern conflicts in the Middle East is not eligible because as a list of conflicts it is not updated with the frequency necessary for listing in Ongoing. JM (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Iran-U.S. proxy war started years before Israel-Hamas October conflicit, the war in Gaza just made it worse. Actually the Hamas attack on Israel is a spillover of Iran U.S.-Israel proxy war. (: 3000MAX (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 100% covered by the Red Sea Crisis ongoing (unless the caption on that page is wrong that it doesn't cover the US-Iran issues, which doesn't appear to be the case (eg that is covered as well). --Masem (t) 13:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many people are saying this is covered by the Red Sea crisis in ongoing, but the event in question is not listed in that article. I would support condensing the various conflicts in the Middle East into something like Spillover of the Israel-Hamas war in ongoing. However, this article also needs some work, as it, too, does not mention the event in question (some referencing work also needs to be done there). 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we should remove the Red Sea Crisis from ongoing as to fail to make quality (incorporation of all the main events that are contributing towards it). Masem (t) 15:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how Iran bombing US bases in Iraq and Syria has anything to do with Houthis blocking the Red Sea. Yes, both are related to Iran, but they're totally separate events involving Iran. It would make no sense to include Iran bombing bases in Mesopotamia in an article about Houthis blocking the Red Sea in South Arabia. The articles have separate scopes. JM (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead of Red Sea Crisis specifically says it is about the Iran-US proxy war, and this blurb clearly discusses the connection to Iran. The target article indicates its part of the spillover of the Red Sea Crisis. This is not being treated as a wholly new conflict in the media, which I would actually expect to have this as a blurb. — Masem (t) 15:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that both the Red Sea crisis and the article in question have connections with the Iran-US proxy conflict (which they obviously do), does not mean that they are the exact same conflict, or should be treated in the exact same way (included in the same ongoing article). The Red Sea crisis article is specifically dealing with the Houthis, while the bombings in Iraq in Syria deal specifically with Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria, not the Houthis. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak and somewhat reluctant Support Ideally this should be covered somewhere in ongoing, given all the fertilizer that has been flying in that part of the world of late. But it doesn't seem to fit well in any of the currently linked articles. This goes well beyond the Red Sea situation. And it is likely the largest US military operation since the clusterbleep withdrawal from Afghanistan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks fine, definitely a significant event. Not covered by Red Sea crisis in Ongoing, or at least it shouldn't be, as its a separate (but related) conflict involving Iran and the US. JM (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, as this does not neatly relate to I-P or Red Sea ongoing, but represents a new US-Iran confrontation. Mach61 (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, not close enough to the Red Sea Crisis to justify Ongoing. Yet another US-Iran proxy war. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per my comment above, this cannot be adequately covered in the Red Sea crisis, and other candidate articles for ongoing (such as the Spillover of the Israel-Hamas war) are not of sufficient quality. Even if they were of sufficient quality, this event represents a significant response of the US on the Iran-backed proxies that deserves its own blurb. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While it could hypothetically be subsumed by another article within the blurb, the spillover one is too wide in scope and this is definitively not part of the Red Sea crisis. I would support adding (spillover) as an add-on to the war, though, but that’s another discussion. The Kip 17:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Covered by ongoing. We can't cover every specific "spillover". If people are not happy with the "ongoing" section, we should a discussion about that, but to add a blurb doesn't seem at all suitable to me. Nigej (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Another attack on another Iran-supported militia. Something similar is already listed in ongoing. Perhaps the ongoing target needs to shift to cover all the Iranian and Iranian militia attacks. Nfitz (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it has global relevancy in an rapidly escalating "regional" conflict that has actors of virtually all the major global powers. I think numerous news outlets across the political spectrum and from all the major geopolitical powers have started to refer to a merger of numerous conflicts into one major conflict, so while this is not part of the Israel - Hamas war or the Red Sea crisis, it is very much interlinked with the two. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2

February 2, 2024 (2024-02-02) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Closed) Wikipedian and former Wikimedia Russia director is declared foreign agent in Russia

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 00:08, 4 February 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.

Proposed image
Article: Stanislav Kozlovsky (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Wikimedia Russia director and wikipedian Stanislav Kozlovsky is declared foreign agent in Russia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Russia, former Wikimedia Russia director and wikipedian Stanislav Kozlovsky is declared foreign agent.
News source(s): Meduza
Credits:

Article updated

Former Wikimedia Russia director, our fellow renowned wikipedician, university professor and lecturer Stanislav Kozlovsky was declared yesterday a foreign agent in Russia. Wikimedia Ru which was branch of Wikimedia already closed. This is very harsh label, it requires to specify in all publications that author is foreign agent, which is not feasible for university professor. While many famous public figures in Russia were given this label, in this case it is especially harmful, while he can not do educational work in Russia anymore. This event concerns Wikipedia, and not only because he won't be able to edit Wikipedia. This is a clear signal for Wikipedia in Russian language, and for people who edit it. There are many publications and sources on this, but they are mostly in Russian. In Russian Wikipedia, the news was already put on ITN. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose good faith nom. As horrifying as this is, it's run of the mill for the Putin dictatorship. See also WP:NAVEL.-Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean WP:SELF? WP:NAVEL got redirected apparently. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was unanimously approved to be in ITN by community of Russian Wikipedia. BilboBeggins (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, self-referential nom that might seem more important for Wikipedians specifically, but ITN isn't about Wikipedia-related news more than any other news. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This feed is Wikipedia's "In the News", not "Wikipedia's in the news". GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, as well as we should not be giving any "WP"-related topic special consideration for ITN. --Masem (t) 00:03, 4 February 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.

RD: Wayne Kramer (guitarist)

Article: Wayne Kramer (guitarist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Entertainment Weekly, The Detroit 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.

Guitarist and co-founder of MC5. 240D:1A:4B5:2800:9D18:87AB:E445:1974 (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I'll work on sourcing the discography, but the article has significant sourcing issues in a lot of other places. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Significant sourcing issues in the article with an orange tag make this one no bueno, I'm afraid. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 00:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Poonam Pandey

Not dead. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:22, 3 February 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: Poonam Pandey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan Times NDTV
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.
Indian model and actress Lekhak93 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not notable enough to be in the recent deaths LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post, as per policy. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the policy, I'm curious to know how this person is "not notable enough to be in the recent deaths" but is somehow notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entry. --Bedivere (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As noted above, the relevant guidelines state Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. The article meets the standards for updated content, significance, and quality. Einsof (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is of generally good quality and is well-sourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:02, 3 February 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: Jonnie Irwin

Article: Jonnie Irwin (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: English presenter. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 19:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose Added two minor CN tags, but for the most part the article's in good shape. The Kip 23:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an explicitly invalid reason to oppose a nomination. The relevant guidelines say that one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article. Einsof (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP articles are held to a higher standard and in practical terms we always require cleanup of CN tags before posting to RD. The Kip 04:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Provide a link to written policy or to a talk page discussion that reached that consensus. Einsof (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite literally from the page you’ve linked:
    Biographies of living persons are held to higher standards of referencing because of their sensitive nature, and these rules also apply to those recently deceased. Lists of awards and honors, bibliographies and filmographies and the like should have clear sources.
    additionally, from WP:BLP:
    Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed.
    And again, it’s always been practice here to require that BLPs are fully sourced, regardless of whether that’s definitively written down somewhere. Again, not to WP:BITE but many of us have been participating on this page for a long time; you appear to be new to it. The Kip 15:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article meets relevant standards for updated content, significance, and quality. Einsof (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, no longer unreferenced material in the article. Suonii180 (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 02:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Najib Razak's partial pardon

Good faith nomination, however consensus is against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 2 February 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.


Proposed image
Article: Najib Razak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Malaysia's pardons board reduces the prison term of former Prime Minister Najib Razak from 12 years to six years. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Malaysia's pardons board, under outgoing king Abdullah of Pahang, reduces the prison term of former Prime Minister Najib Razak from 12 years to six years.
News source(s): Reuters Al Jazeera
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Significant news in Malaysia, as one of the world's most notably corrupt politicians has had his sentence halved. Tofusaurus (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sources look good, and a former PM. Yoblyblob (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle - major national news in a country, Oppose on quality, some citations needed. — Knightoftheswords 17:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is an amusing combo with the nomination for the new King of Malaysia, who supposedly has no power. But neither the article nor its source make it clear whether this was the outgoing or incoming king. And it's also an amusing combo with the sentencing of Imran Khan which also seems to be determined in a similar "pick a number, double it then halve it..." basis. It seems simpler to just report when these top tier guys get sent to jail or are released. This guy is still in prison and staying there for some years yet, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 17:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"neither the article nor its source make it clear whether this was the outgoing or incoming king" - yes it does. It's right there in the relevant section of the article. I'm neutral on the nomination itself, but I wish to draw ITN regulars' attention to yet another incoherent and inaccurate comment from Andrew Davidson. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point – I missed that somehow in my first reading. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Doesn't change the fact he was already imprisoned. I don't think we've ever posted a pardon following incarceration. (overtunred convictions before incarceration, yes). --Masem (t) 18:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: should be made clear in the blurb that it was from the old king Abdullah of Pahang. I'd support posting it if the pardon led to his release, but it appears that Najib is early enough in his sentence to still be in prison (edited 20:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)) ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 18:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While yes he is an extremely corrupt politician his influence was largely only relevant to Malaysia. Masem is correct was when i went through the archives I do not recall seeing any pardons as far as August 2021 Ion.want.uu (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - nearly no significance at all. nableezy - 19:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see why someone having their sentence reduced, but still having a sentence for multiple years, is significant. The significance seems to be with the initial sentence, not with the reduction. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. WP:SNOW might be taking effect. The Kip 21:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Nowhere near the significance required for the blurb. Nigej (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above and move for SNOW This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:20, 2 February 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) Murder of Brianna Ghey

Consensus to post will not develop. Stephen 07:26, 3 February 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: Murder of Brianna Ghey (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Two teenagers were sentenced to 22 and 20 years for the murder of a transgender teen in the United Kingdom Two teenagers were sentenced to life in prison, with minimum sentences of 22 and 20 years, for the murder of a transgender teen in the United Kingdom (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The two teenagers convicted of murdering transgender teen Brianna Ghey have been life sentences
Alternative blurb II: ​ Two teenagers have been handed life sentences for the murder of a transgender teen in the United Kingdom
News source(s): BBC News, Sky News UK, The Guardian UK, The Telegraph UK, The Independent UK, ABC Australia
Credits:

Article updated
Article was included in recent deaths back in February 2023 under its former title. The conviction of the teens last month was covered by all major UK news publications, as well as The NY Times, AP News, and The Washington Post The sentencing of the two teens has been covered by all major UK news publications, and ABC Australia. Content on the conviction and sentencing has already been included, and more is being added as additional sources are published. The significance of this is perhaps best summed up by Justice Yip's statement that the murder was "sadistic in nature and where a secondary motive was hostility towards Brianna because of her transgender identity." (The Guardian) Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
20 or life which is it? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Life, with a minimum sentence of 22 years for the girl, and 20 years for the boy. I realise now that I worded blurb 1 really badly. I'll tweak it in a moment. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In America we call that 20 to life and 22 to life. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom. We posted the murder. There is nothing unusual about the convictions and/or sentences that justify blurbing the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose posted to RD, so the article was already featured for the same event; also, I know there is no minimum deaths, but ITN has sometimes refused to post mass shootings. I'm not seeing how sentencing for the killing of one person is significant enough for the main page without it being a public figure. Is this really major front-page news? JM (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes this is really major front page news on the UK. Every major UK news publication has at least one article on the sentencing on their websites. Both The Guardian and The Telegraph are running front page stories on it on Saturday's printed editions. Due to the public interest, the sentencing hearing was broadcast by Sky News and BBC Radio 4, something that is quite unusual for a crime of this nature. The killing itself has been described as particularly sadistic in nature, with a secondary motive being anti-trans hatred. Killings perpetrated by teens are also pretty unusual in the UK.
    Were this a crime in the US, or another country where mass shootings are sadly common place, I'd agree that this wouldn't meet the ITN criteria. But I think you have to judge news from each country by their relative standards for what is or is not common or routine. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I don't see anything significant in the sentencing in this case. The significance would come from the event itself, not the trial. In addition, as stated above, we have already posted this to RD, which I think is sufficient coverage for this event. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 03:11, 3 February 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.

February 1

February 1, 2024 (2024-02-01) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

(Ready) RD: Carl Weathers

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

Died three days ago, just announced. Not ready for the usual reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Deadline article is confusing. Did he die on Thursday, or Tuesday? died Tuesday, his family announced. He was 76. “We are deeply saddened to announce the passing of Carl Weathers,” his family said in a statement. “He died peacefully in his sleep on Thursday, February 1st, 2024 Is the "Tuesday" mention a typo? Natg 19 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I just noticed that. They probably meant Thursday but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Other sources are saying Thursday. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the usual reason of an uncited filmography. RIP to an absolute legend. The Kip 20:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. A legend in the film industry who has played in multiple movies and shows LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI (also based on your !vote on another RD nom on significance) RD is not about significance or being a "legend", it's about whether the article is front page quality or not. RD works differently than blurbs. JM (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but when you get those citations straightened out, then baby, you've got a stew! Danthemankhan 23:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unsourced material. Damn. Just got the vinyl albums for first four Rocky films yesterday as a belated Christmas gift. RIP. — Knightoftheswords 23:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks fine. Don't know where this idea arose that you can't post anything with an undercited filmography section, but it seems excessive. Einsof (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to WP:BITE a newcomer to ITN/C, but RDs are required to be fully-cited. It’s just how we do it, especially considering BLP standards. Your insistence that these articles missing citations “look fine” aren’t helping. The Kip 05:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More specifically BLPs (which include BDPs) are supposed to be fully cited, so that extends to RDs for all purposes. It is a shame that entertainer articles don't see the same care and rigor that most other BLP areas typically see, but that's a long-standing problem on WP. — Masem (t) 13:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITNQUALITY reads, among other things, that

    Lists of awards and honors, bibliographies and filmographies and the like should have clear sources.

    —Bagumba (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are plenty of obits to source the article, see Guardian. Top news on Variety. In Sly's tribute there are also some facts. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Filmography has been cited, so the article is now ready to go. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Admins willing to post ITN: Article seems good to go. The Kip 19:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) F1 7 time world champion Lewis Hamilton makes shock move to Ferrari for 2025

Per WP:SNOW. Good faith nomination but there is no chance of consensus developing to post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 1 February 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.

  • Oppose Fairly trivial sports news. The Kip 19:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppse we don't post things like sports trades or similar moves, barring exceptions for cost records. Masem (t) 19:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sportsman moves from one team to another. Difficult to imagine any such move being suitable for the blurb. Nigej (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:40, 1 February 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 31

January 31, 2024 (2024-01-31) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Politics and elections

(Ready) RD: Terry Beasley

Article: Terry Beasley (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
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.

Kafoxe (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Change of head of state of Malaysia

Proposed image
Article: Ibrahim Iskandar of Johor (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ibrahim Iskandar of Johor is sworn in as the 17th Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia. (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:

Change of head of state of Malaysia. Seems to be a ceremonial role, so unclear notability. Natg 19 (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on notability this is a change in the head of state. Monarchs in 21st-century Europe are arguably a ceremonial role, so if we post them, we should post this on the basis of notability. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per WP:ITNELECTIONS, any change of the head of state is notable enough for ITN. From the List of current heads of state and government article, we can see that this change constitutes a change in the head of state of Malaysia. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's any change in the holder of the office which administer the executive, which in Malaysia is the Prime Minister according to that list. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per article, he was elected on 27 October 2023 and, if I understand correctly, the swearing-in ceremony is a formality, similar to presidential inaugurations. Brandmeistertalk 21:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's be honest, the election is a formality too, it's nine monarchs rotating among themselves every 5 years in a predefined order. The next one will very likely be Nazrin Shah of Perak in five years, as Perak comes after Johor in the cycle. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose - Due to this reason. Routine event that doesn't have as much significance as a traditional change in head of state PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He's in the news and seems likely to make a difference. See Malaysia prepares for ‘hands-on’ king... Andrew🐉(talk) 22:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support, provisional oppose on quality; several unsourced statements throughout his article, but similar to European monarchies, it is indeed an alteration of the head of state. — Knightoftheswords 23:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He was elected as king in October & this was a swearing in ceremony that happened. Additionally, I don’t think a change in a ceremonial role is notable unless something that’s out of the ordinary happens (such as the 1st abdication of a Danish monarch since 1146). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support on precedence, and the unique nature of a semi-elective monarchy; however, I do question why we didn’t post this in October. The Kip 02:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Though he may not really be the head of state, ceremonial/monarchial role changes are often posted on ITN as well, so I don't see this as much of a hinderance for posting. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him | talk) 08:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not ITN/R as discussed above, nonetheless notable and comparable to death of a monarch which we do post This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Head of State change, and the Malaysian monarchy is unique, even if this would've been better posted in October.
River10000 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Happens every 5 years. The role is purely nominal. They are not elected either (rotate on a list) so im voting to oppose Kasperquickly (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes, it's 9 monarchs "voting" to rotate the crown in a fixed order (as I stated above), but that's what makes the Malaysian monarchy unique and it would be interesting to highlight this little-known cultural specificity to the readers. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 18:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A head of state change is notable enough for ITN though this would've been better posting when he was elected king Setarip (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • this whole thread seems like a bunch of paid editors bought by the office of this guy, who is, and this is true, a kleptocrat Kasperquickly (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't cast aspersions on people you disagree with. Wanting to highlight a cool fact from across the world doesn't mean anyone here is paid by the guy. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - we do not post heads of state that are not also heads of government. We shouldn't have done it for inconsequential transitions like the King of Denmark, we shouldn't do it now. --RockstoneSend me a message! 00:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get what you mean by "we do not post head of states that are not also heads of government" when we did post both King Charles' accession and coronation. Being a head of state without any executive power doesn't warrant as a reason of not posting something. Tofusaurus (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like we don’t should be read as we shouldn’t. nableezy - 04:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominal support: Sets a precedence as we did not post when the 16th king was installed. Unsure about notability, but transitions of monarchs usually should be posted nevertheless. Tofusaurus (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Change of head of state is generally newsworthy in the relevant sense for ITN. I still don't know why we don't fully translate the Malay king's title, but that's an aside. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. I've posted without the image; I'm extremely skeptical it's a case of own work, and I've tagged the image on Commons as lacking evidence of permission. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Obelisk (life form)

Consensus again is to wait for peer review. Stephen 22:25, 1 February 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: Obelisk (life form) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A new form of life, "obelisks", is discovered. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A new form of non-cellular life, "obelisks", is discovered.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A putative new form of non-cellular life, "obelisks", is announced.
News source(s): https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00266-7
Credits:

Article needs updating
  • Support, as nominator. Perhaps too short at present, but most definitely noteworthy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, "The work was posted on the bioRxiv preprint server on 21 January, and has yet to be peer reviewed." Fram (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Fram, we should probably wait for a peer-reviewed printing. This gives us time to improve the article too. The article is currently too short. This is definitely something I hope we can feature on ITN at some point, however! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meanwhile news outlets from Nature to the popular press, and all around the world, are reporting this news. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP has higher standards to make sure scientific and medical content has been validated, not just claimed. — Masem (t) 14:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, I dont think this level of sourcing is enough to claim anything was actually discovered. Only that a preprint says it was. nableezy - 14:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        How about altblurb2? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        But I dont think a putative new form of life being announced is something we should feature here. Id happily support it when it is peer-reviewed. nableezy - 15:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, Nature is known for its lax standards. Also, what "medical content"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Nature article is simply reporting details from the preprint but acknowledges this is a preprint so that puts an implicit caution these may not be as described. And given its related to the human body, that falls under medical content. — Masem (t) 17:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very very interesting, definitely significant enough if true, but maybe premature - not yet per-reviewed, and the article may be a little short but that could recieve lenience because of how recent it is JM (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, as per User:Maplestrip. For a moment there I thought it was that thing in Space Odyssey Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait As per above, wait for a peer review of the findings. After this, if the findings are true, support as a new form of life seems significant enough for ITN. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per Fram. nableezy - 14:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (edit: Wait), although it would be better to mention that these subviral agents are non-cellular life, which is often considered at the boundary between life and non-life. News outlets are reporting it now, and I'm afraid waiting for a peer-reviewed confirmation would make it stale. As an encyclopedia, it's better to follow what's "the news" in the relevant journals (i.e. peer review) rather than rushing to follow newspaper articles. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 14:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be much more respectable for us to post a month later when the peer reviews come in, rather than now, even if the more usual news sources are reporting on it now. We are not a news website, we are an encyclopedia with an eye on current events. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely understand your point of view, and I would prefer it to be reported once peer-reviewed, but I am afraid it would be considered stale and not be published at all in that case. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 14:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been a problem before, yes, and I am worried too. I think ITN has a systemic problem that makes us "incapable" of featuring most science news if we wait for peer-reviews, and we might need a broader discussion on this... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Disregard the people saying stale when the peer review happens and problem solved. nableezy - 15:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to formalize something like that in the ITN guidelines. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have my support! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the consensus is that a nomination is stale, the posting admin can't just ignore that consensus. JM (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Fram. Without proper validation, would there even be a Wikipedia? ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, leaning oppose per others. If the peer review of this is a newsworthy enough item (on the same level of coverage as this, or greater) and/or can be completed before this story becomes staler than the oldest item on the ITN page, then I think we post it at that time. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the basis of short article. I also wonder about the notability in case this is one of many life forms that are regularly discovered. The article does not mention how rare this sort of discovery is.
CollationoftheWilling (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a whole new category of non-cellular life. There's like a handful of them in total (virus, viroid, satellite, prion, plasmid, obelisk, defective interfering particle and viriform), all stranding the line between life and non-life. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we wait too long, it might get so stale that it dies.... and then we can argue under WP:ITNRD if was really living or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per Fram. Leaning oppose on quality of article. Needs major expansion. Natg 19 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work The "new form of life" hook seems over-hyped. The Nature article says that "obelisks have the same shape as many viroids" and viroids were discovered in the 1970s. So, these things seem to be a new strain rather than something completely new. The claim seems to rest on some novelty in the sequencing but my impression is that down at that level, you get a wild variety of mutation and permutations and so it's just a matter of looking. So, to be significant, I reckon we need more on the implications for their role in human physiology and the gut biome.
On the other hand, waiting on formal peer review is silly because that's just a sanity check by a particular reviewer which proves little and that might take ages. We may already have some similar opinions in the sources such as

The study is “a milestone” because it presents the best available evidence that such elements are widespread in the bacterial world, and not just in more complex organisms, says molecular biologist Joan Marquez-Molins at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Uppsala, who was not involved in the work. “It’s not really something sporadic or isolated in the population — it’s really affecting a considerable amount of the sample,” he says.

But Joan Marquez-Molins just seems to be a new post-doc. Is there a wider consensus out there?
Andrew🐉(talk) 18:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obelisks aren't just a new strain of viroids, and that's where the novelty is. They're structurally more complex, with RNA folding in a different shape including the namesake rod-like structures (in comparison, viroids are a single naked strand of circular RNA). Indeed, researchers never call them "viroid" but only "viroid-like". Also, while mutations do change the genome, they can still be established to be genetically related (even humans and bacteria!), while obelisks are genetically completely unrelated to any lifeform known previously. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the paper, it appears that the study looked for patterns in sequencing databases. The finding seems to have the same circular RNA as viroids. The protein encoding and rod-like structure seems to be a prediction based upon a folding model rather than the result of a direct observation. So, this structural prediction seems to need some confirmation. The overall approach is interesting in that it seems mostly software-based rather than doing the dirty work of collecting stool samples. I'm wary of this approach because, if you look for patterns in a large mass of data, then you will find them but you have to consider artifacts and alternative explanations. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (or, more precisely, Wait). We can wait for the peer-review, Wikipedia is not a news ticker. If people complain that the story is stale at that point, we can just point them back here. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose although this is interesting, it needs to be verified by peer review first, and quality of the article will need to be improved. Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. This study has not been peer-reviewed so has a high chance of being wrong, or that it's over-sold. If/when a peer-reviewed paper describing the results is published in a serious scientific journal (which will be months at least) then we can reconsider. News stories are not enough. Modest Genius talk 19:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We shouldn't report on new scientific discoveries from press releases and pre-prints. Secretlondon (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Did ITN post about the Borg, either preprint or peer-reviewed? 128.91.40.237 (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure, but I'd argue the cases are different: the Borg discovery paper stated that they could neither prove that they are archaeal viruses or plasmids or minichromosomes, nor prove that they are not, but that they may ultimately be classified as megaplasmids, while obelisks are pretty clearly distinct from other subviral agents, even viroids. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Worse, it looks like no one wrote an article on this subject at all. Shame to see us lacking in this field... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Borg (microbiology). Andrew🐉(talk) 14:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until this is peer-reviewed. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for peer review. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per above, if confirmed, support. Great if it pans out, but LK-99 didn't. Bremps... 00:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per all above. The Kip 02:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had closed this discussion because there was strong consensus to wait until a complete peer-review of the discovery before it was re-opened. From my personal experience as an author and a referee, a peer-review in a reputable journal usually takes from several months up to several years, which means that the probability that the wait votes will be satisfied before the nomination gets stale or archived in about a week is almost 0. I have never closed a nomination twice, so I'll urge this to be closed and nominated again when the peer-review is complete and the paper gets published.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're talking about a new form of life here and that's potentially such a major discovery that it merits at least 24 hours of discussion and it hasn't had that yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except there's clear SNOW here to wait for a peer review at minimum. Which anyone in the sciences knows doesn't happen in just a few days. Masem (t) 13:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't seriously talk about anything until it's peer-reviewed. No matter how sensationally it sounds, this may be outright rejected as incorrect.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Peer review is not confirmation and a large proportion of peer-reviewed papers are found to be incorrect -- see the replication crisis &c. That's why WP:MEDRS has a much higher threshold. But we can make the tentative status of such claims clear in our blurbs and so it's better to say something than nothing at all. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this passed peer review, we would still likely make sure the wording on the claim is tentative, as it would require a broad consemsus in the scientific community to assure this is a new form of life. Absolutely should wait to have that peer review to pass the basic level of fact checking. — Masem (t) 14:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neat discovery, but should be closed per Kiril Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose This is one of those noms that has an overblown proposed blurb that completely misrepresents the underlying event. The blurb asserts its importance with the claim "A new form of life". None of the sources I consulted state this, and no, it cannot be taken as read. There is no scientific consensus as to whether even viruses are alive: these new structures share the same problematic nature and yet are are even more primitive. The proposal here is that we can skip peer review and scientific consensus building and call it off our own bat. That isn't encyclopedic: far from being promoted on the front page this is skirting with the margins of being PROD-worthy. 3142 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why the altblurb says non-cellular life, which is to life what dwarf planets are to planets. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose just because the media hyped it as a new discovery despite a lack of scientific rigour in doing so, we shouldn't do the same. No evidence this "discovery" is actually factually correct. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose So few details known that the article is not up to the required standard. Nigej (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend close This discussion was closed due to overwhelming oppose/wait votes, reopened against consensus, and has since garnered a further four opposes. WP:SNOW should apply by now. The Kip 19:42, 1 February 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.

Saravan killings

Article: 2024 Saravan killings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nine Pakistani laborers are killed by unidentified gunmen in the city of Saravan, Iran. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Iran, nine Pakistani labourers are killed in a mass shooting in Saravan.
News source(s): CNN, France24, VOA, Reuters, Al Jazeera
Credits:

Ainty Painty (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Article meets requirements. Einsof (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because the article is to denote a major moment in a possible conflict issue during a period where turbulent Middle Eastern events are front page across the globe. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this is significant in the context of the strained Iran-Pakistan relations . 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as long as the gunman aren't identified, any significance in regard to Iran-Pakistan relations is only speculation. Also, the article is a little short for the main page I think ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The significant isn't based on whether they are working for the Iranians, but on the wider tensions between Pakistanis and Iranians. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but without knowing who or why this shooting took place, there is no way to verifiably link this to the conflict. Saying this event may have an impact on a possible conflict issue would be a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be posted even if there wasn't a link to the Middle East crisis. I just think it is noteworthy that the attack would be perceived (and has been perceived by some media outlets) to be linked to the Middle East crisis. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per mike. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because without knowing who did it or why, the death toll isn't high enough to post this. It was probably done by Baloch separatist insurgents as part of the Sistan and Baluchestan insurgency. The attackers may not have known the victims were Pakistanis. 2A00:23C4:B18A:2E01:DD24:747B:26FE:2AA4 (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now on quality I don’t think there are enough details in the “Incident” section. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mike. Need to be careful that we don’t perform any OR here. The Kip 02:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose terrorist attacks are by no means rare in this region, and the vast majority are not even put into the Current Events portal, let alone nominated for ITN. I don't think that this one is so exceptional as to meet or surpass the standards for significance. Given that there hasn't been a new blurb in a long time now, maybe standards for significance should be lowered, but I don't think that this meets even a lower standard. JM (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CollationoftheWilling (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The insurgency in Balochistan is at the core of the current Iran-Pakistan tensions, given that both states have accused each other of harboring Baloch rebels, and used them as a justification for their respective strikes. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 11:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

January 30, 2024 (2024-01-30) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Jean Carnahan

Article: Jean Carnahan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3]
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) 01:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - citations look good ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article quality is fine, good for RD. Alright length + general overview of the article shows no outstanding issues. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 21:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -Article quality is ok. No issues.BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Melinda Ledbetter

Article: Melinda Ledbetter (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today
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.

Looks good. Natg 19 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Chita Rivera

Article: Chita Rivera (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York 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.

Article needs some work, especially citing her acting roles ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Article meets requirements. Einsof (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bruxton (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Citations still needed, including filmography and awards. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Imran Khan jailed for 10 and 14 years

Proposed image
Article: Imran Khan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan (pictured in 2023) is sentenced to 10 years in prison for leaking state secrets. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan (pictured in 2023) is sentenced to 10 years in prison for leaking state secrets, and to 14 years for corruption.
News source(s): BBC News, BBC News
Credits:

Article updated

A one-sentence update, should perhaps be given its own section with aftermath/reactions, but I think the imprisonment of a recent PM (2018-2022) of a country with almost 250 million people is significant enough for ITN. JM (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suport upon major updates - major effects from one of the largest ostensible democracies on Earth. — Knightoftheswords 16:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added four more sentences and made it a separate paragraph. JM (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, notability is obvious. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A sham trial, if it can be called one. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose When originally sentenced in August 2023, we couldnt post that due to the same POV tag that still persists on the article. Masem (t) 18:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as POV is fixed. While we probably should have posted at conviction, this is still a big enough story given the Khan's reign over Pakistan to still post. (Let's not pretend that should Trump be found guilty of any crime that has a prison sentence attached we'd post that too; same would apply to nearly any major/first-world power country.) --Masem (t) 05:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix POV tag, then Support: The Prime Minister of Pakistan section has a POV tag, but after this is fixed, support due to obvious notability. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability but the article needs improvement. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, but the NPOV dispute has to be solved per above. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb needs changing, the "for leaking state secrets" is too definitive. The BBC source for example words it as "a case in which he was charged with leaking state secrets", we should be similarly circumspect. CMD (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why it'd need to be. He was sentenced for a crime of leaking state secrets. Whether it was a legitimate charge or not is something the article should discuss not the blurb. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the blurb is in WP:Wikivoice, and should not imply the individual leaked state secrets if the source we use to support it does not. CMD (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment below. JM (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The blurb says he was sentenced for leaking state secrets, not that he leaked state secrets. That's factual, that's what he was sentenced for, and I don't see much difference between this and the BBC wording. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 11:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment added altblurb due to another sentence being handed down of 14 years. I've left the blurb alone otherwise, as he was indeed sentenced for those crimes, whether he actually committed them or not. The second BBC article says he was jailed "for corruption" in the headline, without qualifying it elsewhere in the headline. Someone sentenced for murder is sentenced "for murder" regardless of whether or not they actually committed murder. JM (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, the second BBC article was not included in the nomination when I made my comment. Nonetheless, I don't see why less careful wording is being used here than in the last head of state corruption posting regarding the Mauritanian President, for which the BBC article was even more direct. CMD (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I just added the second BBC article for the second sentence for the altblurb. I stand by the wording, but you can add an Alt2 with your preferred wording. JM (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I often tend to think that topics related to Pakistan are over-published on Wikipedia, but he seems to be a controversial leader of a country who has numerous and volatile geopolitical disputes.
Arind8 (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment another editor has added the Lettergate article and bolded it in both blurbs, unfortunately it's also orange-tagged. JM (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There doesn't seem to be a material effect as Khan is already in prison. And these sentences seem these quite political in nature and are easily reversed in Pakistan's unstable polity – see Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan reverse roles. The main context seems to be the forthcoming election and, per WP:SOAP, we shouldn't be pushing a particular POV ahead of this. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew, could you please elaborate on that last part? Bremps... 01:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "material effect" is that instead of 3 years in jail, it's now 14 years (or 24 if the sentences are consecutive). The supposed reversability of the sentences is WP:CRYSTAL, and I don't think it's soapboxing or POV to report his prison sentences (and given that you did not elaborate, I don't know why you think it is, either). JM (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Paroles and pardons make the duration of such political imprisonments quite uncertain and so the putative effect of this additional sentencing is WP:CRYSTAL too. I looked at the Lettergate article but it seems quite unclear and very political. Overall, this seems like the legal hoo-hah around Trump and his time in office. ITN dismisses that as internal politics and this seems much the same. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    14 years is 14 years, right now that's what stands, regardless of speculation about pardons and things. If Trump is sentenced to jailtime I have no doubt that it will be blurbed and only a small minority would dismiss it on the basis of it being internal politics, but it's not a big deal if I can't change your mind. JM (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are appeals in progress, I gather, but it's hard to tell the details from the meagre updates to the articles. For example, the Lettergate article which is bolded in the blurb doesn't seem to have any update about this. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record I didn't add or bold the lettergate article, someone changed the blurbs. JM (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Lettergate article is orange-tagged with multiple issues. I checked the equivalent Toshakhana reference case which ITN is headlining too. The update for that is feeble and the source provided says nothing about that case. The main article about Khan has pathetic updates too. There's no quality control here and this is inexcusable when the matter is so controversial and political. There are numerous red flags here: BLP, an ongoing election, irregular court proceedings, controversial topic sanctions and EPC protection and yet ITN is posting a tendentious headline without adequate context or quality. Instead of checking the lamentable quality of these articles, we see editors engaging in irrelevant arguments about geography. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those articles were in the original blurb I proposed, so they have nothing to do with me. Lettergate was untagged and recently retagged, Toshakhana wasn't even in the blurb when it was posted as far as I'm aware. I don't see where you see BLP issues or anything tendentious, no POV is being taken: he was indeed convicted, corrupt court or not, and it's news, election or not. Context is found in the bolded article, there isn't enough room to give the background. No one else seems to have any issues and it's already up anyway. JM (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The bland presentation of the current blurb gives the impression that these new sentences were issued in a conventional and respectable legal way. But the coverage indicates that this is not the case. For example, see this analysis, "...it was made clear that the military would stop at nothing to sideline Khan and destroy his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. Any pretence of due judicial process being followed was abandoned entirely at both cases where Khan was sentenced this week. Instead of an open courtroom, the trials were conducted inside the jail where Khan is being detained and his lawyers were not allowed to choose or cross-examine any witnesses." Such coverage indicates that these are trumped-up proceedings intended mainly to influence the outcome of the election. The blurb does not present the matter in a balanced way and so is lacking adequate NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When I wrote the blurb I followed the BBC headlines I used for sources. If NPOV indeed means following sources, I don't think I could have done better than rephrasing the BBC headlines for the blurb, which is the equivalent of a headline. JM (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:HEADLINES, "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. ... Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context...". Some context that's missing currently is the general election and the related suppression of the popular PTI party. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sentencing a former prime minister, who exercised power in his country, is significant no matter if he's already in prison.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article meets requirements. Einsof (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because of the ongoing situation in the Middle East. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI Pakistan is not in the Middle East and this situation is unrelated to Middle East or Iranian ongoing situations JM (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistan is variously described as being in the Middle East. Several maps including by respectable outlets such as ABC have put Pakistan in the Middle East. The "situation" in the Middle East refers to turmoil/conflict/controversy that surrounds the Middle East currently. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's like if a Canadian prime minister was jailed and someone said "Support because of the ongoing situation in North America". ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 18:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues here.
Pakistan can be variously described as being in the Middle East, just how Turkey is described as being in the Middle East. In many perspectives of South Asian culture it's impossible to consider them South Asian, but I'll leave this topic considering it's non-negotiable that they are variously considered to be Middle Eastern, and I will concede that they are also variously considered to be South Asian.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-ten-middle-east-conflicts-are-converging-into-one-big-war
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/20/seemingly-disparate-middle-east-conflicts-show-collective-erosion-of-self-restraint
The second point is that what seems to be numerous unrelated conflicts are being perceived to merge into one big conflict. I am one of those perceivers. You're focusing on the Eagle Pass situation as a stand alone conflict, where I am also using the wider US election and asylum crisis in Canada - US border to consider the crisis to be "North American". (though the comparison is silly because the Middle East is very unique geopolitics and comparisons probably won't be found). CollationoftheWilling (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any definition of South Asia that doesn't include Pakistan? I've never encountered one. But it doesn't matter for this nomination anyway. The point is that regardless of where Pakistan is located, the significance of Imran Khan being jailed does not come from "ongoing situations" involving Iran, Israel and Palestine, Yemen, or Syria. JM (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore there are citaions that can be used for the writing that Pakistan is part of the Middle East conflict:
"Violence has erupted across the Mideast, with Iran striking targets in Iraq, Pakistan and Syria, and the U.S. carrying out airstrikes targeting Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels over their attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Some observers fear a new round of strikes targeting Iran could tip the region into a wider war."
https://apnews.com/article/yemen-houthi-us-navy-mideast-tensions-israel-hamas-red-sea-6d5662d09aad8aed0875025b75928ef5 CollationoftheWilling (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Middle East" is a confusing term anyways; some say it's just the Arabian Peninsula, others have it as far reaching as Morocco and India. Personally I use the 'Islamic World' PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support POV tags gone, major news. Bremps... 01:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb per above and the other prison sentence should be mentioned too. Brandmeistertalk 09:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If Donald Trump is convicted and jailed, that will absolutely be posted, and this is no different. (they each claim their cases are politically motivated, too). 331dot (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alternative blurb the arrest of a recent head of state is major news
Setarip (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support arrest of a former head of state is ITN worthy, and the bolded article looks to be good enough to post. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted There's consensus to post and I have put the altblurb onto the main page. Schwede66 18:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment He and his wife have now been sentenced to 7 years in prison for illegal marriage (BBC). --84.252.98.97 (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He has been charged with numerous offences since he was ousted from power and the number has continued to escalate so that it's now stated by recent sources as a remarkable 150. It seems apparent that an order has gone out to throw the book at him and so there's presumably a department of the military government now dedicated to dreaming up new charges. Are we going to keep reporting these? Andrew🐉(talk) 20:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) ECOWAS

Proposed image
Article: ECOWAS (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger announce that they are leaving the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Amidst the Nigerien crisis, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger announce their withdrawal from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
Alternative blurb II: ​ Amidst the Nigerien crisis, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger announce their intention to withdraw from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated

There's some uncertainty about the timing as ECOWAS requires time for an orderly withdrawal but those exiting say that it's immediate Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, major development in the context of a regional cold war (cf. Nigerien crisis (2023–present) and Alliance of Sahel States) ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 10:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - Fairly notable, given the context of the withdrawal. There is an orange-tagged section in the article, though, so perhaps we should work on that first before posting. Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him | talk) 10:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - suggest providing context for ITN readers about this; most will not be aware of the implication of this. --RockstoneSend me a message! 10:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea indeed! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 10:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support article updated, major international event with future consequences for Africa. JM (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(What an odd map.) JM (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Guinea hasn't officially withdrawn from ECOWAS, it was only suspended like the other states a few months back for supporting Niger. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the assortment of European and Asian countries scattered in the north. JM (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah that too lol. Northern Europe has sunk into the ocean, RIP PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the old versions were cropped around Africa, but someone in 2021 uploaded an uncropped version and here we are. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CMD changed it back, looks much better now. It's strange how it ever looked like that, with the uncropped version having the full maps of the countries partially visible in the cropped version while missing entire countries that would then also be visible. I wonder if it has something to do with the way these maps are made, which is totally unknown to me. Anyway, the current version is much better. JM (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - This really is not significant. These states had already de facto left ECOWAS a loong time ago. This is really just a formality, it has no real effect on anything. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The coups and resulting suspension of these members was notable and we blurbed it, this is irrelevant. I also doubt the ECOWAS members will accept this as they still only recognise the previous government as the legal representative of Niger. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is bewildering that you consider this international event - one that actually affects the political status of several major African nations - insignificant compared to the Texas standoff. But then again, I suppose there always have been concerns about systemic bias on ITN/C. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Texas standoff is a serious constitutional crisis in the most powerful democracy in the world that has garnered major global attention. This is nothing more than an irrelevant change in status that had already de facto been enacted months before (and we also blurbed it already). How does this actually affect the political status of West Africa, apart from only confirming legally something that had already been true in the real-world for ages? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Their membership in the African Union, which is the most important supranational union in Africa, was suspended shortly following the coups. There's really no need to post their withdrawal from this regional union.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the AU is virtually irrelevant in African politics and little more a regional forum, whetheras ECOWAS is an almost EU-like political union. Sort of like how the Council of Europe is to the European Union. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t get the same impression from this template. ECOWAS is part of AEC, which in turn is an organisation of the African Union.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In reality ECOWAS has nothing to do with the AU (the AEC is essentially a vague umbrella organisation to promote free trade rather than an organised economic institution). ECOWAS on the otherhand has a passport union, Schengen-like free movement, has organised multiple joint military operations, and continues to integrate further. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Chaotic Enby, albeit the article needs some work - large portions of the “Structure” and “Economic integration” sections appear to be missing refs. The Kip 17:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PrecariousWorlds, do not see much in the way of consequences either. nableezy - 17:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support fairly notable, major international event. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems like another noteworthy flashpoint in the Nigerian conflict. Might just go down as a footnote, but this is another instance of the Alliance of Sahel States distancing themselves from the rest of West Africa. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - I think this is notable enough for ITN, but I agree with Rockstone that a bit more context in the burb would be helpful ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would've liked to mention the proposed ECOWAS military intervention as context, but connecting the two might be a bit close to OR. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to restarting the nigerien crisis Lukt64 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability but the map definitely needs to be improved --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If one country left the EU we would post that; three countries leaving ECOWAS should also warrant posting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, this is a major event. The opposition above relating to the AU is incorrect, the AU is built upon these regional pillars rather than the other way around. ECOWAS is as noted above an organization that actually does things, one of the more effective regional organizations on the continent (in the world?). That said, the blurb should be clear it is reporting on the announcement, rather than implying it has actually happened. Such things are often complicated by politics and time (see Pacific Islands Forum#Micronesian withdrawal for an example), so we should be precise. Not commenting on quality, but I am going to fix that map. CMD (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but it has already de facto happened. These countries have had nothing to do with ECOWAS for months. This changes literally nothing PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, oppose on quality This is notable enough for ITN, but the article’s quality needs a bit of improvement. A better map would also be nice. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think there is a regional notability in terms of Africa, the Middle East (the Arab world), and the link with France and the EU through linguistic, economic and political ties. It's not really a major topic in the Anglosphere however.
CollationoftheWilling (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle but oppose language of original blurb & alt1. In effect, what these countries did is announce their intention to withdraw, but they did not leave, despite claiming to be "withdrawing without delay." The equivalent would be if the UK announced in 2016 after the Brexit vote that they are "leaving the EU without delay" – it isn't exactly that simple, and ECOWAS gave a response clarifying that they are still members at this time. Provided an alt2.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ECOWAS had previously suspended the membership of these countries and can't have it both ways. Also, it doesn't recognise the governments of those countries and so has another bind unless it sponsors governments-in-exile or attempts to occupy the countries. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't accurate. Acknowledging the legal difference between suspended membership and non-membership is not the same as trying to have it both ways. To give another analogy, let's imagine that the EU suspended Hungary and Orbán proceeded to declare "We are withdrawing effective immediately." It just doesn't work like that. If the EU were to respond with a statement that acknowledges they continue to be a member, this wouldn't be them "trying to have it both ways." The original blurb is simply factually incorrect and contradicts what reliable sources say. From the BBC: "According to the [ECOWAS] treaty, member states wishing to withdraw must give written notice a year in advance, and continue to abide by its provisions during that year."  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Regardless of these semantics, I still haven't found any good argument as to what makes all of this legal jargon notable. What use does this story have? There's been absolutely no real-world effect of this, as these states have not been participating in the organisation for months. We have also blurbed the initial suspension of these members already. What's the point? How is a minor change in legal status that has no relevance to anything notable? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There are significant ramifications, as explained by Reuters. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Notable excerpt from said article: But, if carried through, it is set to disrupt the region's trade and services flows, worth nearly $150 billion a year. ... It also raises questions over millions of nationals from the three poor and landlocked nations who settled in neighbouring states as the bloc allows visa-free travel and right to work. I see this as likely to spiral into a economic (and thus humanitarian) crisis with long-lasting ramifications. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:CRYSTAL. If this has major ramifications for trade and a famine ends up happening, then we post. As of yet, nothing has happened. If the story continues to develop into a crisis, we'll post that crisis. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included
      — WP:CRYSTAL

      Aaron Liu (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We still don't post events that haven't happened yet PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We posted when Russia recognized two states because it could lead to war. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Way different situation as there the change had massive real world consequences immediately PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nobody is arguing posting events that haven't happened yet. The argument is does this event alone (three nations leaving the ECOWAS) have major implications for the stability of the continent, and the answer from reliable sources is yes. This is different from trying to post an ITN item of some politician proposing a law to ban cookies, because the law isn't in effect yet. This event is far further along on the Friedrich Glasl's model of conflict escalation. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I can understand the consequence this might have, but as I said, we have already posted the suspension of these members from ECOWAS, and little has changed to the stability of the region in the present. And also, just like the law proposing to ban cookies not being in effect yet, so too is this announcement of withdrawal not in effect yet.
      Even by article quality standards, there are only two lines mentioning the announcement on the article. It's getting barely any media attention, most of the actual fallout from this decision happened months ago. It would be ridiculous to blurb this and not, say, the current rapidly escalating situation in Iran. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Admins willing to post ITN: someone want to evaluate this? Seems to have a solid consensus to post, and quality issues with the article have been addressed. The Kip 20:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting ALT0, since the paragraph update in the article makes no mention of the Nigerian crisis. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

January 29, 2024 (2024-01-29) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: R. Champakalakshmi

Article: R. Champakalakshmi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
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.

Indian historian. Article is a basic start-class biography Ktin (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support Borderline in terms of depth but meets minimum standards and is fully referenced. SpencerT•C 04:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Brian Griffin

Article: Brian Griffin (photographer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone UK
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.

Well sourced. Natg 19 (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready?) RD: N. Scott Momaday

Article: N. Scott Momaday (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post, 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.

Death announced today. Thriley (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first Native American to win Pulitzer Prize. --PFHLai (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Multiple CN tags, and most of the literary career and bibliography sections are unreferened. The Kip 02:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two {cn} tags remaining, but the Literary career section is still orange-tagged for inadequate sourcing, and the Bibliography section is a string of bullet-points that are largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all issues mentioned above have been cleaned up except for the two {cn} tags. Ready? Trauma Novitiate (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Kamila Valieva ruling

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 00:45, 30 January 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: Kamila Valieva (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Court of Arbitration for Sport rules that Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva violated anti-doping rules, banning her from competition until December 2025 and disqualifying her from competitions since December 2021, including at the 2022 Winter Olympics. (Post)
News source(s): NPR
Credits:
Big international news in the world of figure skating. Probably means that the USA wins the team competition now. Natg 19 (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom. A fairly pedestrian sports scandal. We don't really do that on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don’t think we should post individual doping cases. And no-one really cares if the USA win the team event. It’s completely irrelevant who wins when someone is disqualified.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would think that the significance of this would be due to the gold medal being given to the US. However, simply changing the gold medal in only one of the Olympic events doesn't seem significant enough for ITN, as we only post the closing ceremony of the Olympics, not the results of each of the games. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Maybe this would’ve been important enough to post if the ruling had been made during the 2022 Olympics, but it doesn’t seem important enough now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work This seems to be all over the news but the article is hung up by a dispute, is locked down and also tagged as a contentious topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Regardless of the timing, I do not think this rises to a pressing level of importance on its own. Kafoxe (talk) 00:25, 30 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.

(Posted) RD: Jimy Williams

Article: Jimy Williams (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.foxsports.com/stories/mlb/former-blue-jays-red-sox-and-astros-manager-jimy-williams-dies-at-age-80
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.

Former Major League Baseball manager. Will work on this within the next few days. Flibirigit (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will help too. RIP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Arne Hegerfors

Article: Arne Hegerfors (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4], [5]
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.

15:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Icon of the Seas

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Consensus is against posting. Natg 19 (talk) 22:17, 29 January 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.

Proposed image
Article: Icon of the Seas (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The world's largest cruise ship, Icon of the Seas (pictured), starts its maiden voyage. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, DW, NYT
Credits:

Article updated
It's getting coverage because of its size and its use of LNG as fuel. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Reasonable encyclopedic feature. Not the most impressive article, but almost everything is cited. Looks good. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lots of rich people go on holiday on big boat. Nigej (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this is probably simply a matter of perspective, but rich people own their own yachts, whereas the middle class is relegated to cruise ships. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As well as that, "rich people on boat" doesn't disqualify an item. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of argument is this? Do we we have to consider people social class before add a news? 😅 3000MAX (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Half-joking of course, but is this really any different to a lovely new luxury hotel opening somewhere. Not really, it just that this one floats and moves around. Nigej (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess not. It's probably just a personal feeling of disgust that the predictable onward march of capitalism should be on a par with thousands dying in wars/ natural disasters. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...its a cruise ship PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can probably agree on that. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [citation needed] ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They keep making these bigger and bigger, this is not a sustainable record. --Masem (t) 12:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, it seems to be new record every 2 to 6 years. At a 12,000 tons increase, this is the largest jump a long while (ever?). Length-wise the increase is less impressive. Maybe it would make more sense to only feature these sorts of new records if they are particularly well-written? Not that I would mind a single feature every three years. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur, that's no sustainable record. Bremps... 13:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Maplestrip, this is a constantly being broken record. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: as above, rich people on a luxury boat. Hasn't even got Jane McDonald (?) Might support if it sank. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We didn't post a blurb when Wonder of the Seas became the largest cruise ship in 2022. I don't see any reason why this should be different. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it wasn't nominated, was it? I cannot find it in the archives. If it was opposed for "significance" back then too then that would be considered precedent of a sort, though every ship and article is different. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, it wasn't nominated. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wonder was the last of a class of five and wan't significantly bigger or different from her predecessors. Icon is a new class and significantly bigger. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Per @Maplestrip. Interesting encyclopedic entry. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose indistinguishable from advertising. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I'm not in favor of giant cruise ships either but I do think it's interesting news and it does have some innovative technology. News doesn't have to be good to still be news. Because of this ship we're finally starting to get some debate on the merits of having these monstrosities roaming the oceans. I didn't know, for example, that Venice, Amsterdam, and Barcelona are closing cruise terminals and starting to restrict how many visitors can debark at a time. Others have argued that bigger ships seem to arrive every couple of years. It seems that way because the recent expansion of the Panama Canal made these bigger ships possible. Now that Icon of the Seas has gone into service they can't get much bigger, so we will see the pace of these new arrivals start to slow down. It's possible that Icon will be the biggest cruise ship for a while. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose per Masem. Only the largest cruise ship as of 2024. Reading List of largest cruise ships it looks like every couple of years Royal Caribbean International debuts a bigger and bigger ship. Before Icon of the Seas, the #1 largest was Wonder of the Seas, also a Royal Caribbean ship, which unveiled in 2022. Before Wonder of the Seas, the #1 largest was Symphony of the Seas, also a Royal Caribbean ship, which unveiled in 2018. And before Symphony of the Seas, the #1 largest was Harmony of the Seas, also a Royal Caribbean ship, which unveiled in 2016. Not to say that posting something every few years is too frequent, just that this particular record doesn't seem to be too notable. Always having another "brand new largest cruise ship in the world" seems to be the gimmick of one particular company.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Prior to the Icon of the Seas the preceding five largest cruise ships were Oasis-class cruise ships which debuted in 2009 with the Oasis of the Seas. Icon of the Seas is the first Icon-class cruise ship. Next Icon class ship Star of the Seas is coming in 2025 and the third (as yet unnamed) in 2026. Probably the last Oasis class ship Utopia of the Seas debuts later this year. When looking at from the new largest cruise ship class point of view, it has been 15 years between Oasis and Icon classes and that is the reason for excitement and news coverage. IlkkaP (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This added context is appreciated, but the knowledge that this record will be beaten very soon by another ship that's already under construction from the same company (as Chaotic Enby outlines below and you reiterated here) has brought me from a "Weak oppose" to simply an "Oppose" as this puts to bed the idea that this ship's record might last a while as one editor speculated in the !vote above mine.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Vanilla Wizard, mostly a commercial gimmick. Adding that Star of the Seas from the same class is expected to beat this record (at least in gross tonnage) when entering service next year. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, this record is continuously broken every few years. More of a marketing gimmick at this point. The Kip 16:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Not of encyclopedic interest. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just another cruise ship which is a bit bigger than the last one. Sourcing is mostly news sites using press releases. Lots of greenspin re LNG. Let RCI pay for their own advertising Lyndaship (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support She is the lead ship of the Icon-class cruise ships and as such an advancement of the Oasis-class cruise ships that have held the title of largest cruise ship past 15 years. That is the reason for the excitement and extensive news coverage. Disclosure: I am one of the editors of the article in the question. IlkkaP (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the "biggest cruise" is nothing more than pure marketing that every year has to be overcome for the busimessmen. It has no encyclopedic value because of what many have said above. My condolences to the cities that will receive this macro-cruise.. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Vanilla Wizard. BilledMammal (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom. The "world's largest ship" changes with great regularity and they all have maiden voyages. If something especially noteworthy happens during this one, we can revist the nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This doesn’t seem important enough to blurb & it sounds like the record will be beaten fairly soon. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:10, 29 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) Tower 22 drone strike

Consensus to post is unlikely to develop.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:05, 29 January 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: Tower 22 drone attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An Iranian-backed militia group launched a drone strike on a U.S. military outpost in Jordan, killing three U.S. soldiers and injuring more than 30 others. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/28/politics/us-troops-drone-attack-jordan/index.html
Credits:
  • Oppose - covered under ongoing. If this escalates, or the US's response is extreme, then that warrants posting, but at the moment, this is just part of the Red Sea Crisis. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 06:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Red sea crisis is happening under the involvement of Houthis, also the site were the attack occurred is far from red sea, also the perpetrators aren't houthis, it's a part of attacks on U.S. in the region rather then red sea crisis or israeli-hamas conflicit. Also it's worth noting that 3 Americans are dead, which is a rare thing in these kind of attacks, last time Americans died in these attacks resulted in assassination of Qasem Solomani, which gives me a sign that this attack is in another level. 3000MAX (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rockstone. Banedon (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now This seems like spillover from the Israel-Hamas War & can be covered by that for now. That’ll change if this escalates. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per above. This is essentially just spillover from conflicts already covered (Israel-Hamas, and the Red Sea crisis to an extent). This *might* lead to something more major in the future, but in that case, now would be far too early to post this. Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Covered in Ongoing.
Setarip (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Covered by Ongoing - Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just to note, many editors are saying that this is covered by ongoing, but I can only find links to pages containing this event in the Red Sea crisis and the Israel-Hamas war, no explicit mentions of the drone strike. Regardless of whether it is ongoing, I still think the significant impact would be the potential U.S. response, and we could mention the drone strike as something the U.S. retaliated for if a big U.S. response occurs. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:24, 29 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.

Evergrande Group

Article: Evergrande Group (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Evergrande Group, formerly China's largest real estate firm, has been ordered to liquidate. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/business/china-evergrande.html
Credits:
  • Oppose Group has been basically out of cash since 2021, this was (as the article notes) just signing off on its death. --Masem (t) 13:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article says the group went bankrupt in August 2023, and had collapsed financially by 2021. Being liquidated with those details in mind doesn't seem to be that significant. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on principle, weak oppose on update We didn't post this story in 2021 or in August 2023, so I think it's still eligible to be posted. Appears to be the largest non-bank bankruptcy ever. Article quality is fairly good, with one CN tag on a line that doesn't need to be in the article and could easily be deleted by the posting admin. All that's missing is a prose update. This also allows underrepresented business news to be posted to ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN generally doesn't post business news in the first place. Masem (t) 19:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per NorthernFalcon, especially if we didn't previously post this. The Kip 18:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, agree with Masem, we shouldn't start the precedent of posting business news on the main page, especially given the non-profit and volunteer-based status of the project. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no consensus against it. We're only going to tie our hands in serving as a useful news section. What if Apple went bankrupt tomorrow? Bremps... 23:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is plenty of evidence of consensus for it: back when minority topics where a thing and given preferential treatment business was one. Do not confuse genuine business coverage with PR and marketing coverage. 3142 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theoretically support, but it needs more of an update Sometimes business news is important enough for ITN. Given Evergrande’s role in the Chinese property sector crisis, the size of the bankruptcy & the fact that developments in 2021 & 2023 weren’t posted, I think it’s appropriate to post this now. However, the article needs more of an update. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose The business' collapse was big news, but this seems a bit like posting the burial of a man who was hanged 2 years ago. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as the saga of Evergrande's downfall goes, this is less of an important piece of the puzzle then it's collapse in 2021 or bankruptcy last year. Nothing against "financial news", but this isn't big enough at this stage of things, so oppose. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per NorthernFalcon. I don't see why we can't post business news as long as it meets the ITN standards. JM (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I disagree with Masem's insinuation that ITN doesn't post business news. We have posted business news items in the past, and even if we do not, that does not mean we should not. This might be a formality but I doubt anybody had even heard of the Evergrande Group or understood its significance when it ran out of money in 2021, and merely it running out of money would never have been posted as a news item back then. But there is significance to be found in the liquidation of a major real estate group in China. It would be as if Berkshire Hathaway went into receivership. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Evergrande Group's financial problems in 2020 caused a major real estate crisis with falling prices, decreased sales and reduced construction works. I think the story of the Chinese real estate crisis should be considered for posting at some point (we're probably already beyond that point), but it really doesn't seem that this news will severely aggravate the current situation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems like it is in the news, and this doesn't seem to be a duplicate post. This is a major story in the world's second-largest economy and most populous country; just as the Spring 2023 regional banking crisis in the U.S. made its way onto ITN, so too should this Chinese real estate company. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - In general I would support slightly more corporate news getting posted, but unfortunately this particular story is just a formality. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – This has been a big, long fall with a large impact on many people, and this is the end, an appropriate time to feature it. The article is indeed not very impressive, but it does document the past three years of corporate trouble. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am really not impressed by the argument that this is old news. Even if it was known that the company was done-for for a year now, this is just as good a moment to tell our readership of it as any. We're an encyclopedia, I think we should generally focus on getting our article out there at the final conclusion and not in the middle of the story. Even if it doesn't quite emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource, it's still a showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events. I wouldn't be surprised if most of our readers hadn't even heard of the property sector crisis, so featuring this topic would in fact serve as emphasizing Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. The only argument I could understand for not featuring this, would be quality concerns... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

January 28, 2024 (2024-01-28) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Sports

69th Filmfare Awards

Article: 69th Filmfare Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the 69th Filmfare Awards, Animal won 6 awards, while 12th Fail won 5 awards, including the Best Film. (Post)
News source(s): [6],[7]
Credits:

Harvici (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in ITN/R , so it seems notable enough Harvici (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Larry L. Taylor

Article: Larry L. Taylor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2024/02/01/larry-taylor-medal-honor-dies/ , https://www.local3news.com/local-news/medal-of-honor-recipient-captain-larry-taylor-of-signal-mountain-passes-away-at-age-81/article_ae7c7666-bebc-11ee-8c4c-bf5472fc0db5.html
Credits:

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

65.94.213.53 (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article is fine in its length and good in its quality. Seems fine for RD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Quality is ok. No issues.BabbaQ (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Satoshi Kirishima

Article: Satoshi Kirishima (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [8]
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.

65.94.213.53 (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support now that's it confirmed If a mugshot has been around for so long its well known, and its looks okay, the article. TheCorriynial (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks like the article’s good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Open

Article: 2024 Australian Open (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In tennis, Aryna Sabalenka wins the Women's Singles and Jannik Sinner wins the Men's Singles at the Australian Open. (Post)
News source(s): BBC - Men's singles, BBC - Women'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: The Australian Open is ITN/R, but it looks like the article needs some work done before it can be posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on quality like many tennis articles before it, lacks any prose summary in the main article about the events themselves. The fact there is prose in some child articles like 2024 Australian Open – Men's singles doesn't take away from the fact that the main article actually needs some prose rather than just tables and lists of the results from the finals. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The quality concern over the tennis ITNR articles have been rised many times for the past few years. Correct me if I was wrong, the last time we posted a Grand Slam was the 2020 French Open, which demonstrated the standard for how well-written should an ITNR item be. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article is a good example of the sort of quality we should be expecting for ITN to post this. A few sentences summarising the tournaments, with a paragraph or two on the main events (men's and women's singles) would be fine for this to get posted. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality per Joseph2302. Just links to sub-articles and a set of pretty meaningless tables. Nigej (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality per above. Virtually no prose beyond the lead. The Kip 18:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: War in Sudan

No consensus to re-add to ongoing. Stephen 01:19, 29 January 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: War in Sudan (2023–present) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
RSF offensive into West Kordofan started
  • Oppose - ITN isn't an armed conflict ticker. Just because a new offensive happens in a war doesn't mean we put it up, unless it gets a significant amount of attention (which this isn't). For this reason, I also think we should take down the Myanmar Civil War PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Although there was consensus to remove Sudan from the ITN Ongoing 10 days ago, it was removed on the basis that there was an insufficient quantity of updates. To quote JM from the discussion I linked, "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." --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A two sentence update that covered an event from 3 days ago doesn't cut it for ongoing. We also have limited space on the ongoing line, and the conflicts listed have far more worldwide consequences at this point. --Masem (t) 12:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait There have only been two consecutive days in which actual updates about the fighting have been posted. Regardless of whether those updates are notable enough for ongoing, this is simply not enough days in a row to make it an ongoing item. If there are daily fighting updates for multiple more days, I might reconsider, but for now, there are simply not enough updates to make this ongoing. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PrecariousWorlds. TwistedAxe [contact] 15:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The readership stats indicate that this is not as interesting to our readers as other wars such as the Myanmar civil war and neither of them are in the same league as Ukraine or Gaza. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet again, readership numbers do not have any application to whether we include or remove stories on ITN — Masem (t) 20:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If readership stats are low, readers cannot easily access the article, so it makes sense to post it on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • They were low while it was posted, too. Relative to the other features, anyway, might beat a few other wars. That's not to say we (traditionally and generally) care about what the readers want. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The list of ongoing armed conflicts lists 46 different conflicts with deaths so far this year. Ongoing doesn't have space for all of them and so you have to draw the line somewhere and somehow. The nomination provides no sources or other evidence as to why Sudan is special. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
        • Exactly my point, thank you. I also don't think pointing out readership stats is disruptive, I think judging items on what is actually getting media attention is a far better metric than the incredibly arbitrary system we have now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Will you stop, please? You’ve been told an innumerable amount of times how readership stats don’t matter and yet you either don’t understand or have intentionally ignored it. I’m tired of assuming good faith toward you when you continuously ignore your fellow editors. The Kip 23:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a fellow editor, I think it's good to get input from all angles, not just the ones some of us care about. Andrew may be the most prevalent stats reporter around here, but website traffic analysis is far from some nonsense he invented.
    As a fellow badger who's also felt tired of learning about things I don't want to know, I understand you, but (professionally) advise you to "drop the stick". Just "send the pain below", nice and offscreen-like. Disruption is simply not productive. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Readership stats are inherently influenced by the contents of ITN. This is a circular argument: the presence of the Myanmar civil war article in Ongoing makes readers more likely to click it, which means that it will have higher readership stats. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PrecariousWorlds and Masem. The Kip 23:03, 28 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:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1203398177"