Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS. Archives of past nominations can be found here.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

A blurb is a one sentence summary of the news story. An alternate suggestion for the blurb is called an altblurb, and any more suggestions get labelled alt1, alt2, etc. A blurb needs at least one target article, highlighted in bold; reviewers check the quality of that article and whether it is updated, and whether reliable sources demonstrate the significance of the event. Other articles can also be linked. The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time. RD stands for the "recent deaths" line, and can include any living thing whose death was recently announced. In some cases, recent deaths may need additional explanation as provided by a blurb; this is decided by consensus.

Nikol Pashinyan
Nikol Pashinyan

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • 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 not...[edit]

  1. add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  3. accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  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. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[edit]

June 24[edit]

Health and environment

Law and crime


RD/Blurb (Ready): Benigno Aquino III[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Benigno Aquino III (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former President of the Philippines Benigno Aquino III (pictured) dies at the age of 61. (Post)
News source(s): PhilStar The Manila 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.

Nominator's comments: Former president of the Philippines. The article needs some additional references. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support blurb. Abrilando232 (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per nom. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 08:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per the other former heads of state. Article looks fine, one cn tag shouldn't stop it being posted. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per nominator --Vacant0 (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD only We don't want to blurb every former head of state. There should be some standard. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb A former head of state of a country with more than 100 million people clearly deserves a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

June 23[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


RD/Blurb: John McAfee[edit]

Proposed image
Article: John McAfee (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Software businessman John McAfee (pictured) commits suicide in his jail cell hours after his extradition to the US is approved by Spain. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​British-American software businessman John McAfee (pictured) dies in prison in a suspected suicide at the age of 75.
Alternative blurb II: John McAfee (pictured) commits suicide in prison after Spanish authorities approve his extradition to the U.S.
News source(s): El Pais (Spanish), BBC, CNBC, Guardian, NBC, NYT
Credits:

  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I know the original blurb is atrocious, but perhaps it can be rewritten. He's been waiting in Spanish prison for American extradition for months now, under controversial circumstances.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support. Count Iblis (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    Support RD, Blurb, or blurb pending improvements? GreatCaesarsGhost 19:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    Support Blurb pending improvements. This is a high profile article, so it will get edited in the coming hours. Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Technical issues Since I usually post rather than nom, I unfortunately signed in the nominator field of the template, hence the garbled mess above. Thanks!  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose proseline mess. RD only, niche influence. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proseline is indeed awful, and there are cite tags. RD only once fixed, not blurb-worthy.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb per comments above. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • RD only, subject to issues being fixed. Mjroots (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD per comments above --Vacant0 (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb if a blurb is posted, it should be “dies by suicide”, not “commits suicide”. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 20:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I think the RfC to that effect failed, and "dies by suicide" always seemed clunky to me (at least it's better than the passive "dies of suicide"). That said, given that this is looking to be another Epstein situation with dubious circumstances (at least according to nutters), perhaps "is found dead in his jail cell" is better for the blurb.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, the RFC ended that "commit suicide" is completely fine to use, and the term that should be used should be typically based on what sourcing uses. That said, I'm finding more "found dead" rather than any word firm on suicide from RSes. --Masem (t) 20:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Is there any opposition to "kills himself"? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
          • Our reliable sources in English have not confirmed it is a suicide. We can't state that yet. --Masem (t) 20:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
            • I was not aware of this RfC, my apologies. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 00:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
              The RfC was a long time ago since then every respectable publication has adopted "dies by suicide". If that is unacceptable, "kills himself" is an obvious choice.
              Many scholarly works and mental health guidelines have clearly stated why the term "commits suicide" should be avoided. Since there is a perfectly good alternative available, we should use our editorial discretion to use "kills himself". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
              • "since then every respectable publication has adopted "dies by suicide"": palpably untrue. If it is, please have another RfC (c.f. The Times a couple of months ago as an example, and there are plenty more from numerous other reliable sources). If you don't like the term itself then have another RfC. Although that one was not that long ago, the question arises on the MoS talk page from time to time and is consistently refuted. Trying to stifle the use at each individual mention against the standing consensus from an RfC isn't the most constructive of moves. 86.155.197.47 (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
                • Was there a clear consensus? Do you have a link to remind us all? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
              • I'd suggest the exact wording should be agreed at the article/ Talk page. The blurb should then reflect the agreed article wording. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
            Note: Reuters says "dies in Spain by suicide" here. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD, neutral towards blurb details surrounding death don't seem clear enough for blurb. –DMartin 20:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. In terms of the early days of anti-virus software provision he was transformative. "Commits suicide" is absolutely fine in normal English and should be retained, unless the aim is to have errors lighting up with complaints about mangled English. 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:D88:7A74:B796:AEDA (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment 5 CN tags. Support blurb when resolved. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment If this doesn't fit the "unusual death" aspect we reserve for blurbs, I don't know what does. But 100% agreed - we need to fix quality first. --Masem (t) 20:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb - meets listing criteria but not blurb-worthy. - Indefensible (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb when ready Whoaaa, what an unexpected twist. Note that this is being proposed as a blurb under the "unusual death" condition, not the "transformative leader" condition (although he was certainly a transformative leader of popups on my desktop). Davey2116 (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if you meant that as sarcasm, but this is not really an unexpected end at all. This is a person who's fame is derived far more from his many (alleged) crimes and being generally "out-there" then his business interests. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree it's a bizarre end to an equally bizarre life (and makes sense as a way to avoid an effective life sentence). But a few months ago I was actually looking forward to his extradition. Davey2116 (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb for multiple reasons. Firstly, this is top news in the media at the moment and BBC's article is really convincing about his notability. Secondly, he pioneered in something that transformed the computer world and impacted billions of people. If that doesn't make him a transforming figure, then we definitely apply double standards. Thirdly, the fact he committed suicide to avoid extradition is story on its own. And finally, the fact some people consider him a criminal has nothing to do with his notability. We don't have a rule to post blurbs for 'good guys'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Blurb when ready. There are too many citation needed tags for this to be posted right now, but because of the nature of his death the additional explanation is needed which a blurb can provide. Uses x (leave me a message) 21:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Blurb Old man dies, but interestingly, long after popularizing and dominating virus protection and shortly after still grabbing crime headlines. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • RD only – Not really a household name, and his demise was due to personal issues. Note that article says "apparent suicide," tho I don't suppose there's much doubt about that. – Sca (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    Apparent means clear and obvious, not the opposite, and his name was literally on household products. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral on blurb I take this opportunity to say that there is a previous nomination pending to be published, in view of the fact that this one in less than 20h will be published. Am I being too much repetitive? Well, a little bit, lol. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support any of the blurbs because the El País article contains good citations from eye witnesses, multiple jurisdictions, and more than one reporter to support the statements. DougEMandy (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I support for consensus to apply WP:BLP, WP:BDP as "exception would be for people who have recently died" + "apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide". Yet I think all info in secondary sources does pass verifiability under WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BLPPUBLIC. Maybe alt1, alt2 with due weight but not false balance for his preemptive denial of alleged circumstances upon imprisonment. DougEMandy (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb when ready - Was a well reported and high profile legal case involving both Spain and the United States. GWA88 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Major influential businessman who played a huge role in the founding and development of one of the largest antivirus companies in the world. His influence has also laid the foundation for how antivirus and computer security companies work in the 21st century. Twistedaxe (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • No blurb. The antivirus software is sort of a household name, but the dude himself isn't. I don't think we can call him transformative in the Thatcher/Mandela mould any more than lots of other people of his ilk.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD when the article is ready.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 23:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, not on the strength of his notability, but on the newsworthiness of his suicide on the cusp of being extradited. BD2412 T 23:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality and BLP. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD, support blurb on notability of event and person, oppose on current quality: I don't think you have to be particularly computer literate to know how popular/groundbreaking McAfee was at the time. However the article is a complete nightmare to read, the lead is far too long, the sections are confusing, the chronology doesn't quite work as personal life is so intertwined with professional whereas the article seperates the two and also the legal troubles are not very well explained. Sources look plentiful and good enough quality if used correctly though. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • RD only huh? I don't see how this reaches the threshold for a blurb at all. Banedon (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    Formerly transformative industry leader, famous last name, international crime context, violent death, oodles of news, timely...just poorly written, apparently. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    Had 47 kids. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article isn't in good shape. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb A transformative figure in deleting softwares that I install to my desktop. (jk, unusual death) Article needs fixing--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs major quality fixes (proseline). Moscow Mule (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Update: NBC is definitively calling this a suicide. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    • That resolves that matter. I've updated alt2 to reflect that. --Masem (t) 04:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb twice over for being a transformative figure + died in unusual circumstances. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation describes him as "one of the first tech millionaires". He pioneered antivirus software, and then later became a household name for his alleged crimes. Steelkamp (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RIP. Schierbecker (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Notable internet entrepreneur, sudden death especially regarding circumstances and gaining international coverage. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD when cleaned up, no blurb - of minority geeky importance only. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Not every day that someone from Cinderford makes the news. My anti-virus seems to have just expired. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD, weak support on blurb although ALT1 is the most appropriate blurb, as it's an apparent suicide (and no official cause of death seems to have been confirmed yet). And I guess he's well known enough for an ITN blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment as is always the case in blurb debates, we have a ton of votes for RD v Blurb that don't specifically mention quality. I don't think these should be taken to assume the editor has reviewed and is okay with the quality. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • RD is only measured on article quality, therefore using Support RD means that you believe it meets the article quality threshold. There is only 1 cn tag, so article quality seems okay to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. All over the news all over the world. I've seen it on the top pages of local town news websites in russia and indonesia. isn't ITNR supposed to represent whats in then news rather than what people who post here regularly feel fits their ideology/worldview the best? 212.74.201.238 (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

(Ready) ICC World Test Championship Final[edit]

Article: 2021 ICC World Test Championship Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In cricket, New Zealand defeat India to win the first World Test Championship Final (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In cricket, New Zealand defeat India to win the inaugural World Test Championship Final
Alternative blurb II: ​In cricket, New Zealand defeat India on the reserve day of the 2021 ICC World Test Championship Final.
News source(s): The Guardian, ICC, BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: no prose on the match yet, but will come and I'll hopefully add some later. Not ITN/R, but maybe it will become so?  — Amakuru (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I would change "first" to "inaugural", but in any event I support in principle making this an ITNR. However, I must oppose on quality given that Days 3 through 6 are empty.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I see that the match prose has not been updated. If no one updates it by later tonight, I will give it a go. Congratulations New Zealand. Ktin (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Ktin: I've got as far as lunch on day 3 so far... will resume tomorrow morning if nobody else picks it up by then! Day 4 was a washout, so around 2.5 days of play left to cover, depending how detailed we want to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: done. Prose for days 4, 5, and 6 added. Looks good imo to go to homepage. Ktin (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not the place to discuss if this should be listed as an ITNR item and posting the conclusion of the inaugural tournament wouldn't make a strong argument for it. I think we'd have to wait for at least a couple of years to see how this tournament develops to make a step forward towards adding it to the ITNR list. As for this nomination, I'd like to support it as inaugural tournament once the article on the final is sufficiently expanded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Question the ICC Men's T20 World Cup is already ITN/R what makes the ICC World Test Championship different? --LaserLegs (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    Different formats of the same game. Former takes around 3-4 hours while the latter takes 5 days to get a result. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    T20 is a form of the game invented in 2001 to attract easily-bored modern sports fans with a "get as many runs as you can in the lesser of 120 "pitches" or 10 outs" format instead of 20 outs in 5 days. This and the 2-outfielder rule makes big hits like homers more frequent (there's also a 3rd length which was invented late 20th century when they jazzed it up by crippling the outfield and speeding the game to like 1 to 9 p.m.). Test is the pure, original, 1870s form of the game that takes at least 30 hours of gametime if they draw from running out of days (which is often, Tests were once untimed and England vs South Africa '39 lasted 12 days with score of 1,011 to 970 and only 35 of the 40 outs happened before they cancelled the game cause they were about to miss the ride home). So a tournament of Tests would take like 2 years and give them hardly any time for regular season Tests, thus they decided that from now on every Test between top 9 teams will add x points for winning, y for depleting your last out while tied and consolation points for being able to force the game to run out of days and every 2 years the top 2 willplay a new "Test champion of the world for 2 years game". (so like the derided college football format but cricket this time so no one complains) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    Uh, yeah, sort of. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    The main reason it's not ITNR is because this is the first tournament, and it was created after the ITNR list was created/last updated. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    I suppose it remains to be seen whether this ends up being a much-loved event or a derided piece of fluff like the 2005 ICC Super Series. Perhaps they'll tweak the format next time, it certainly seems like a series would be better than a single match, which almost ended up being rained out. But personally I think this sort of thing is being overly harsh. Test cricket is the pinnacle of the game, and having a decider between the top two doesn't seem a bad idea to me. And we got lucky this time that this one was a genuinely exciting match that could have gone either way.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Almost there. Prose for Day 5 is left. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    Done! Prose for day 4,5, and 6 added! Looks good imo. Ktin (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The article is in good shape and I also suggested an alt blurb saying New Zealand defeated India on the reserve day (sixth day) of the ICC World Test Championship given the fact that the final was interrupted due to rain and 2 of those days were completely washed out. I would like to see Kyle Jamieson picture in ITN who was awarded the player of the match in WTC final.Abishe (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Abishe: unfortunately we don't seem to have any images of Jamieson available. Unless anyone knows someone who attended the game and took a snap? A friend of mine was supposed to be there on day one, but it was rained off unfortunately......  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: Ah, never mind its okay and I am glad that we can just stick with the blurb only. Abishe (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support pending fixes (but not blurb 2) - Significant event in a significant world sport. Still little fixes needed: article currently still has a citation error, and it has no mention of it being the first or inaugural, which is a major shortcoming. But the reserve day is too trivial a detail to go on ITN front page, especially since its significance will be meaningless to many readers. Adpete (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape. Significant event (and I can confirm that there are a lot of sleep-deprived people in New Zealand today). Schwede66 06:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Schwede66: enjoy the celebrations, it's richly deserved particularly after NZ came so close in the one-day world cup two years ago as well. And @Ktin, Abishe, and Lugnuts: thanks for the updates!  — Amakuru (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: - no problem. Just doing a quick proof-read and there seems to be info missing on the rest of day 3. Ends with "India were 211/7 at lunch" and then day four starts with NZ being 101/2! Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Yep, I've finished those bits off just now. Should be about ready to go now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Great work done overnight (UK time) to add all the summary. I've added some reactions to the lead. Great to see NZ win this! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. One of the ITN criteria is for an article to be well-written.To me the prose summaries don't look particularly well-written. Some examples; from the day 6 summary - Watling is mentioned as the NZ wicket-keeper three times, which seems excessive, and there is inconsistency between the hyphenation of wicket-keeper in those descriptions. From day 5 - a couple of mentions of "leg before the wicket" in full, could be shortened and abbreviated after first use. Day 5 ends with India on 64 for 2 but Day 6 begins with India on 62 for 2.... There's a lot in these daily summaries that could be done overall to tighten and improve the writing, cut out redundancy etc. --Bcp67 (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I've fixed all the over-use of "wicketkeeper" and "leg before the wicket". Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I've also had a bit of a copy-edit for days 5 and 6, tweaking bits that were unencyclopedic or giving value judgements in Wikipedia's voice.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Suppport now - some excellent work there to improve the article, and it's well worth ITN now, good coverage of the match. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Bcp67. Happy to fix any other issues. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I've also tried to do a bit of re-writing and improve the wording, I'm always happiest when an edit of mine removes characters from an article! --Bcp67 (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support article issues mentioned in other comments seem to have been fixed, and there's a good summary for each day that had some play. Importance-wise, this is similar in importance to Cricket World Cup and ICC Men's T20 World Cup, so definitely enough for ITN. If the tournament existed when the ITNR was setup, I imagine it would be on that list. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    We also have The Ashes at ITN/R which, while obviously important, is a Test competition involving only two countries. This Championship aims to be the grand final for all of the Test nations, so from a WP:WORLDWIDE perspective it seems like a no brainer for it to be included. We obviously can't decide that in this thread, but I'll probably propose it formally in the next few days, I don't see much value in waiting two years as suggested above.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • This is ready. Support first two blurbs. Not really important that it was on the reserve day. Aircorn (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment New Zealand cricketer of Samoan descent Ross Taylor hits the winning runs for New Zealand as they lift the inaugural edition of the ICC World Test Championship which is a perfect tribute to former New Zealand cricketer Martin Crowe, the brainchild of World Test Championship format. Abishe (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support alt1. I was a bit sceptical of this competition when it was announced a few years ago, but it has generated interest and the final was excellent. So is the article - lots of detailed prose and well referenced. Looks good to go. Modest Genius talk 10:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support A new tournament but Test matches are usually thought of as the pinnacle of the game. Article is good quality. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Apple Daily[edit]

Article: Apple Daily (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In Hong Kong, the newspaper Apple Daily is forced to close by the government. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In Hong Kong, the pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily closes, after being accused of violating the national security law
News source(s): Guardian, BBC, NYTimes, WSJ, Time, NBC, CBS, Fox, WaPo
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Noteworthy development in China reported by multiple reliable sources worldwide. - Indefensible (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment It seems like last week's raid and arrests are more important than the actual closure. I don't know if the blurb can reflect the events immediately preceding and logically leading to the newspaper's closure but that seems to be the only way of telling why this is notable.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Widely covered, but the actual closure of the paper has been a foregone conclusion for days. – Sca (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    • How does that have any impact on the subject meeting notability or any other criteria? - Indefensible (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. This is the clearest indication yet that the 2020 'security law' has ended freedom of speech in Hong Kong. The article has a decent section on the raid and closure. The rest of the article suffers from recentism, but is sufficiently well-referenced to post. However we need to be careful with the wording of the blurb - 'forced to close by the government' is not quite what happened here. The police raided their offices, arrested their leaders, and froze their assets, but the government can claim that it didn't directly force the paper to close. Adding altblurb. Modest Genius talk 11:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Mila Ximénez[edit]

Article: Mila Ximénez (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RTVE
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: Beloved Spanish gossip journalist and TV personality. I've improved her article and it's ready to be posted. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support good enough for RD, and good that all the TV appearances are sourced (as that's often what stops articles running on RD). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

June 22[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology


RD: René Robert[edit]

Article: René Robert (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.

Nominator's comments: Canadian hockey player. 12 seasons in the NHL. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Parassala B. Ponnammal[edit]

Article: Parassala B. Ponnammal (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
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: 2 citations needed. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

June 21[edit]

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Closed) Carl Nassib[edit]

Consensus to post will not develop. Stephen 04:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
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: Carl Nassib (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Carl Nassib becomes the first active player to publicly come out as gay in the National Football League. (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, BBC, The Independent
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Some people complain there aren't enough everyday life blurbs. —Bagumba (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Which national football league are you referring to? --WaltCip-(talk) 17:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    The one that's linked in the blurb? The one that has the article "National Football League?" You're better than this. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good for him, and the sport, but I don't see how this would be significant enough for ITN. We've not posted the first player to come out in any other league or sport, have we? Modest Genius talk 17:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    Modest Genius: Jason Collins was posted in 2013—first in the NBA.—Bagumba (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks. It appears I opposed that blurb too, so for consistency I'll continue to oppose this one. Modest Genius talk 17:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – At this point in the 21st century, the first outted gay NFLer doesn't seem particularly significant or impactful. – Sca (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sca. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sca's comment --Vacant0 (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Between Collins, Michael Sam, and the bevy of retired players who have come out, I don't think the qualifier "active" is enough to get this over the line. If we posted this, are we going to the first in every sport? GreatCaesarsGhost 21:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is part of his personal life in which he makes decisions that he thinks are best for him. I don't see how this news affects the sport, the league or even his career. Nothing has changed and probably nothing will change. Come back and re-nominate if he gets sacked from his team, banned from the league or suspended for life as a result of his sexual orientation. Otherwise, it's pure trivia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The frenzy surrounding Michael Sam has probably dampened any chances for there to be some unnecessary circus surrounding Nassib's sexuality, which has otherwise no effect on his career or the sport. Glad that he's cool with coming out though. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is personal life and just some sort of celebrity or pop news.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
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: Diego Cortez[edit]

Article: Diego Cortez (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ARTnews
Article needs updating
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: Just needs to be updated and needs the person template. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Usman Kakar[edit]

Article: Usman Kakar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Geonews
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: Looks fine to me IMO. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Tiit Madisson[edit]

Article: Tiit Madisson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ERR
Article needs updating
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: Needs template and could use a little work (plus update). 173.77.201.83 (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Kurvers[edit]

Article: Tom Kurvers (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.

Nominator's comments: NHL defenseman. Lung cancer. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment The Stanly Cup award and the career statistics sections could be sourced, will Support now that is fixed JW 1961 Talk 09:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I've added sources to the article, his career statistics are somewhat sourced although I did find and added this 1 but I'm not sure if that's WP:RS. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose A few sentences on his playing style are unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Bagumba, the unref'd claims on the defensive side looked like OR, so they have been removed. Refs about him as a PP specialist have been added and his productive playoff run in 1988 for the Devils have been added. --PFHLai (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
      OK, striking.—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
      Thanks. Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Mamady Keïta[edit]

Article: Mamady Keïta (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guinéenews
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: Guinean drummer. Played the djembeAllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment lots of unsourced/uncited sections. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Swedish government collapse[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2021 Swedish government crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Swedish government loses a no-confidence vote and collapses, triggering a crisis. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Stefan Löfven (pictured) is ousted as prime minister of Sweden after a vote of no confidence.
News source(s): The Guardian, The Local Sweden, CNN
Credits:

Article updated

 -Twistedaxe (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - HoG being outed in any country is a big deal, and this is our first no confidence outing. Don't like the proposed blurb, added altblurb. Gaioa (T C L) 15:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a major historical event in Sweden as it's the first time a Prime Minister was ousted by the parliament. Manvswow (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait until the new PM is selected.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait per John M Wolfson. The ITNR item is the change, and the change hasn't happened yet. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The PM has not actually changed yet(he is now an acting/caretaker PM). The notability here seems to be that a Swedish PM has never been removed this way before. When the replacement takes office that will be posted as ITNR- I might suggest that this proceed as a regular nomination. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    You're correct in Stefan Löfven being the interim PM, however, there is no longer a clear majority that supports Stefan Löfven as PM. That's what makes this a government crisis. Löfven has a week to declare a snap election or resign as PM, he'd still be the interim PM in the mean time but a new government has to be "developed" by the Speaker of the Swedish Riksdag that has majority support. It's a historic event in the sense that a Swedish PM never being ousted before and at the same time being a major event in Swedish politics because there is no majority for any government alternative at the moment making a snap election the most likely outcome of the situation. In comparision to U.S politics, this would be just as big as the impeachment of a president being successful, well minus the fact that the president can't make talk with the senate and congress for support to continue being president. Manvswow (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    Unless Vänsterpartiet (Left Party) agrees to make a new government with Stefan Löfven in exchange that he lets go of his proposed market rents, then the Riksdag majority will stay right-wing for the most part. Twistedaxe (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Response @John M Wolfson, LaserLegs, and 331dot: I would argue that the change has happened, he's already lost the no confidence vote. The crisis/collapse is not a future event either. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
      • ITN/R is the change. I changed it to "no". If this unique event is "significant" enough to stand on it's own we can post. If not, we'll post his replacement later as ITN/R. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support was about to nominate this myself. It confirms that either way a head of state will change, either through an election or an agreement of a new government leader, therefore just as notable as any other election, coup d'état, coronation etc. Might be worth adding it's the country's first such event. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait I would prefer to wait until he finally resigns and a successor is appointed, or already nominate the hypothetical elections if he decides to dissolve the Swedish parliament. However, this is not the first vote of no-confidence of censure to be passed (or at least I can't see if there are any differences with the 2018 one). _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait until the new prime minister is known. I don't think the no-confidence vote by itself should be posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Is this an idiomatic use of the word "crisis?" While unusual for Sweden, this is routine in parliamentary systems, correct? GreatCaesarsGhost 18:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    If you call this idiomatic, then you should check out the 2014 Swedish government crisis. This is bigger than that. Manvswow (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Without a functioning government, Sweden is in constitutional crisis, correct? Perhaps that's what the articles should be moved to, but we also have the Venezuelan presidential crisis (since it happened during a constitutional crisis, very awkward of them on our naming conventions). Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
See, that's what I was asking. Venezuela literally had two concurrent presidents giving conflicting orders; that's a crisis. A no-confidence vote is a routine act of a functioning government. It's big news, but the Swedes aren't stockpiling canned goods and boarding up windows. `GreatCaesarsGhost 01:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
While "crisis" has meanings open to interpretation, I point out that "constitutional crisis" does not, and Sweden's VONC is the latter. So replace "government" with "constitutional" if it's moved, not that it is necessarily pertinent. Kingsif (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait. It would make sense to post now if the no-confidence vote was going to be start a long drawn-out period of coalition negotiations. But it appears they have exactly one week to either form a new coalition or call elections. Let's post once we know what the outcome is, it won't take long. Modest Genius talk 18:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait – Until a successor is at least named, if not actually confirmed. Per Simeonovski, Genius, Wolfson. – Sca (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Alt On top of everything above, he's smiling in that picture, sends the wrong (as in mixed) message. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support post now, and then update (or simply post a new blurb) when the next episode happens. Banedon (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a better blurb than government collapses triggering a crisis? To Americans "government collapsed triggering a crisis" sounds like the government lost a lot to all de facto power to do anything cause some disagreement or coup or war or some poorly worded constitution parts caused a dysfunction of crisis proportions or something banana republicy like that. Hey if you want to make "constitution says legislature picks their own leader whenever they want" and ">50%" sound like a junta that's your right but maybe could just say the PM's party coalition collapsed or he lost a confidence vote or something like that. Successful impeachment 1. Is explicitly in the constitution 2. Requires far, far more unlikely yea percents than government "collapsing" which just needs >50% which could happen from as little as a coalition collapsing from 1 dude dying or changing his mind etc. Sometimes governments of highly democratic and rich nations even collapse themselves on purpose to get more seats or at least move next forced election later. 3. Successful impeachment of U.S. President has also never happened in quarter millennium history while Sweden was fused with Norway for a lot of that time and king had more power than prime minister till c. 19th century. 4. this kind of thing isn't that unusual even in highly democratic and rich nations right? (I don't mind if this is posted BTW) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    • There's already an altblurb that avoids the 'government ... collapses' phrasing. In parliamentary systems, a vote of no confidence is unusual but not unheard of, see list of prime ministers defeated by votes of no confidence. Threats to hold such a vote are far more common than actually succeeding at one. It's a way for the parliamentary opposition to force a new election or the end of an existing coalition, either because by-elections have changed the composition of the parliament since the government formed, or because the government's behaviour has alienated some of their previous supporters (most often parties in a coalition falling out, which is what happened here). Recent successful examples are Spain 2018, Canada 2011, and Sweden 2018 - Löfven was also the PM in the latter case. I can't think of another example where the same PM was brought down twice. The government intentionally calling a snap election would never be referred to as a 'collapse'. Hope that helps. Modest Genius talk 11:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Alt could do if a better photo of him is available. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Stefan Löfven (2019-04-09) 02.jpg
Lots of options on Commons [1]. Maybe this one? Modest Genius talk 14:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Now that's reasonably approximating a serious look of concern! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait until a new leader is chosen. That's what we have done for other countries' government collapses. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait Löfven still hasn't been replaced yet, we should wait until June 28. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • CommentWait appears to be the clear consensus. – Sca (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Added an additional source from CNN incase needed. -Twistedaxe (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

June 20[edit]

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(New) RD: Jeanne Lamon[edit]

Article: Jeanne Lamon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian/American violinist who led Toronto's famed Tafelmusik Baroque Orchestra for more than three decades

  • Oppose needs a lot more sourcing, which is why it's orange-tagged. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

(New) RD: Anatoly Lysenko[edit]

Article: Anatoly Lysenko (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tass
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: Well sourced (missing a few citations) but close to good. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose article is a stub, with only two sentences on his career. Career section needs significant expansion- if he was active for 62 years like the article suggests, there must be way more content available on his career. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Luis del Sol[edit]

Article: Luis del Sol (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Marca
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: Spanish footballer and football manager. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment There's uncited stuff near the end. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Irene Mambilima[edit]

Article: Irene Mambilima (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ZNBC
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: Incumbent Chief Justice of Zambia. Died unexpectedly on a business trip to Cairo. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment bunch of uncited stuff. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose way too much unsourced content. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 French Grand Prix (withdrawn)[edit]

Withdrawn by nominator. Modest Genius talk 12:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
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: 2021 French Grand Prix (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In motorsport, Max Verstappen wins the French Grand Prix. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC, Der Spiegel, de Volkskrant, Le Monde, The Associated Press
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Article has been expanded to a relatively complete state with a large number of reliable sources. While it doesn't award any more points than any other race in the championship, the French Grand Prix is the original Grand Prix motor race, having first been held 115 years ago. (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I would like to withdraw this nomination. I realise that my reasoning for nominating may have been somewhat WP:POINTy about the often poor quality of sourcing in sport-related articles. Sorry for wasting anybody's time. I think I need a wikibreak. HumanBodyPiloter5 HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a terrifying sports ticker precedent that would open the floodgates to nominations for just about any single non-title-winning sports event. As noted in the nom, the French GP is no more or less worthy than any other GP and we have the F1 overall winner and constructor at ITNR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    • It may sound a bit strange, but as the nominator I don't particularly disagree with you. While formally my nomination presumably counts as supporting its inclusion, I primarily nominated it because I wanted other editors to have the opportunity to discuss it. I am ultimately neutral on the matter. The Indy 500 is also listed at ITNR, which is a similarly old event which forms a round of larger championship. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
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) 2021 Armenian parliamentary election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2021 Armenian parliamentary election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In the Armenian parliamentary election, the ruling Civil Contract, led by Nikol Pashinyan (pictured) wins the majority of seats in the National Assembly. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, Reuters
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: The article is not too bad, but there is room for improvement. I'm working on it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Not every day you see a man resign, reform and replace himself. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    InedibleHulk any comments on the quality? Most of the page is made up of the 3 tables. 70.23.250.135 (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    It's an election. They produce data, data need tables. I agree with Alsoriano, not too bad (and getting better). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    Meh, I guess. I have lots of faith in Alsoriano tho so I'll also support it too. 70.23.250.135 (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support 70.23.250.135 (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Nom. comment Marking "attention required" seeing that few users have expressed their views on this nomination. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Most of the article is lists and tables. The prose in the results section is minimal, but does just about meet our requirements. I would like to see more than one sentence on the accusations of fraud. The lead is inadequate, which I've tagged but should be an easy fix for anyone who wants this posted. Modest Genius talk 13:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    Lead has been fixed. Modest Genius talk 17:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    And the prose has been improved. Switching to full support. Modest Genius talk 11:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Reconvening LaserLegs, Kingsif and 331dot, at the related resignation nomination of April 25, you all indicated some sort of support for mentioning this event whenever it happened. Well, it happened. Any new feelings? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Elections are ITN/R. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Nom. comment I've been expanding some sections and maybe now it's pretty ready to be posted before it becomes stale. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Election happened. Article has satisfactory prose, eventually. Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Updated with sufficient prose. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Nom. Comment Marking it’s ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Question could we use File:Nikol Pashinyan 01 (07-04-2021).jpg rather than the nominated photo? In the nominated one, he just looks bored, and the alternative suggestion looks much more professional. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Nom. Question How long must we wait for a nomination that has been ready for hours to be published? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    I added a couple of words, might stand out on the ToC now. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Your prayers have been answered!!  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gianna Rolandi[edit]

Article: Gianna Rolandi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): parterre.com
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: Known as a coloratura soprano in the opera world in her prime. News of her death is new, - there will be more. The article was written with love in 2006, so many sources were gone, but others additionally there, and some detail too much anyway. Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support well sourced and enough content of her career and life. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Decent article, well sourced JW 1961 Talk 09:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alex Hesegem[edit]

Article: Alex Hesegem (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Kompas
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.

Nominator's comments: Former Vice Governor of Papua. We already had two of these in the past six months: Soedardjat Nataatmadja on 6 December last year and Klemen Tinal on 21 May. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 U.S. Open[edit]

Article: 2021 U.S. Open (golf) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In golf, Jon Rahm wins the U.S. Open (Post)
News source(s): *New York Times
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.

 Compy90 (talk) 22:31, June 20, 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - appears to be adequate prose summarising the event. --LukeSurl t c 08:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support there's round summaries, which is good (a couple of citations needed, but shouldn't hold this up), and so this has enough prose for main page. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait Of course the CNs should hold up posting. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Support Don't be so literal. If you read the rest of the sentence you cited, you'll find "but any contentious statements must have a source." In any case, there is no reason not to wait an hour or two in service to accomplishing the entire point of the project -- quality. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the "Field" section is too large and ungainly, the 2020 article separated it into another article, which greatly improves readability. Chaosquo (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. The prose summaries of the rounds are there and decently cited. The rest of the article is a bit data heavy but that shouldn't disqualify it from posting. Nice to see a sport article that's been updated before nomination. Modest Genius talk 12:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I've marked this as ready. -- Calidum 20:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • PostedBagumba (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Bailey (weatherman)[edit]

Article: Mike Bailey (weatherman) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Australian weatherman, needs work Stephen 04:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment have added a number of cn tags. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I have updated the article with references to reliable sources. Happily888 (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted A bit short, but okay. --PFHLai (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

June 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

  • Six people are critically wounded as a man intentionally drove his pickup truck into a group of cyclists taking part in a charity bike ride in Show Low, Arizona. The driver is shot and arrested. The motive behind the attack is unknown so far. (BBC)

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Champ[edit]

Article: Champ and Major (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Statement by POTUS and FLOTUS, CNN, The Guardian
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.

 Count Iblis (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Note that Champ does not have a stand alone article, he shares an article with Major, who is not dead.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Champ was A Very Good Boy and more for our purposes, has a good article to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks good, rest in peace Champ! --Vacant0 (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • PP comment – Not notable. I venture to say that most readers never heard of this animal until his demise. – Sca (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
You are free to propose the article for deletion if it does not meet the criteria, or propose changing the RD criteria to exclude animals or reestablish a super-notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sca, I venture to say that most readers never heard of Kenneth Kaunda until his demise either. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I had. If 'Champ' had been known for something other than being the pet of a famous person, as could be the case with an animal actor, it might have been OK, but IMO this panders to twee emotions. And BTW, how do two 'supports' (including yours) constitute consensus? – Sca (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Notability is not at issue for RDs so no consensus is required on that point. As I said, you are free to go to AFD. If you are arguing that the quality is poor, that's different. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the item was railroaded in. – Sca (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
"Railroaded" suggests a nefarious intent or bad faith that does not seem to be the case. There is no arbitrary minimum discussion period here, and unless you are arguing a quality issue, there was no procedural violation here. So I respectfully but strongly disagree with the use of the term "railroaded". 331dot (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Nothing nefarious intended. What was meant was "a procedure conducted in haste without due consideration," as in the fourth definition in Wiktionary. – Sca (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Muboshgu Did you genuinely just compare one of the most important African politicians of the 20th century with a dog? FFS. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    Black Kite, had you heard of Kaunda before he died? I hadn't, but did not take my lack of knowledge to mean he was "not notable". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    I had. If you are anywhere near my age and were familiar with African politics (and even international politics involving Africa), Kaunda would have been a very notable figure. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    I'm probably younger than you, and not interested in African politics. My point was that for our purposes here, they're both living organisms with articles, and therefore RD material. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    Well, that's my point, really. I love my pets, but when Wikipedia consders that a random dog is equally as important as a world politician, perhaps we ought to consider WTAF we're actually doing here, do you not think? Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    It's not a random dog, it's a dog that receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, because it is the dog of a world leader. No equivalency is being drawn here with other article subjects. If you feel the dog is not notable, you are free to propose the article's deletion. When RD was expanded to anything alive with an article, this was considered. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F051673-0059, Adolf Hitler und Blondi auf dem Berghof.jpg
  • What 331dot said. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Speaking of 'not random' dogs, Hitler had a German shepherd too, you know. →
Would 'Blondi' have qualified for RD? – Sca (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Any article about something alive qualifies for posting to RD, so yes, Blondi would have qualified. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Was this a deliberate invocation of Godwin's law? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm tempted to hat everything after "Posted" as an entirely unnecessary waste of time. Sca knows (or should know) that animals are eligible for RD.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Gimmie a break, I'm retired. - Sca (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

331dot, you'll want to keep a sharp eye on the status of Muja, then. He's said to be 85. – Sca (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Reminder Any article about something alive does not qualify as a Recent Death. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

June 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

  • Five construction workers are killed and nine more wounded after a school building site collapse pulling down the scaffolding supporting it, in Antwerp, Belgium. (BBC)
  • At least 17 mine workers are killed and 14 others are injured when the bus carrying them to work falls into a ravine in the Department of Ayacucho, Peru. (La Vanguardia)

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: S. Ramesan Nair[edit]

Article: S. Ramesan Nair (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of India
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: Indian poet of the Malayalam film industry. COVID-19. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support good for what it is. No issues (if someone wanted to do something tho maybe the filmography section could use a short blurb with film highlights?) 70.23.250.135 (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The filmography has been pushed to a new article to avoid referencing any of it, but no mention of any of his films remain in the main article. Stephen 00:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    Stephen, that article was made in December 2020 [3]. This was not a WP:GAMING attempt. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    AllegedlyHuman, date of creation is irrelevant, content was moved here. Stephen 06:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Stephen. Moving filmography into a sub-article is not a way to get articles passed for ITN.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Ryan Crouser[edit]

Article: Ryan Crouser (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Ryan Crouser sets a World Record in shot put at 23.37 m (76 ft 8 in). (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Reuters, NBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This is breaking of a world record that has stood for 31 years. We usually post breaking of long-standing records in athletics. Tone 09:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Pending ratification. Stephen 09:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but this will take some time. We posted marathod immediately, for example. Also, look at the sources below, CNN doesn't seem to mind the ratification part. --Tone 11:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. Ratification by the IAAF is a slow bureaucratic process that can take months. E.g. when Mondo Duplantis broke the 6.17m pole vault record on February 8, 2020, it took them until June 29, 2020 to ratify it. We should post stories like these when they actually make the news, not when the bureaucrats finish their paperwork. Nsk92 (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • No sources have been offered demonstrating this is in the news. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
[4], [5], [6], that should cover it. --Tone 11:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Breaking a 31-year world record is a notable achievement. I've added a couple of links to news sources to demonstrate that this is in the news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Breaking one of the oldest records on the books in men's athletics, and breaking it by a significant margin. Nsk92 (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I would support posting now on quality and significance. I am concerned about all those figures being properly sourced. I would guess refs on the page cover everything, but the placement of citations is not ideal? GreatCaesarsGhost 14:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment nice item; but I think the blurb should be amended to add the words, the first in 31 years, or something similar, to emphasise its significance. And the link should probably be to Men's shot put world record progression, not shot put. Adpete (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'll break with the pack here—shot put is a niche enough support that I don't think this is sufficiently important. Records get broken all the time (dozens every Olympics), and the fact this one has stood for a while only makes it marginally more significant. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    We don't pull a posted blurb unless there is a serious issue with the article or a dramatic misreading of the consensus. This was sitting at 4-0 support for over 24 hours before posting, so it's going to stay up. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    "We don't pull a posted blurb" - huh? Where do you get that from? We pull blurbs all the time. WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. I do agree that there's nothing wrong with this one though.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Iran election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2021 Iranian presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Ebrahim Raisi (pictured) is elected president of Iran. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Ebrahim Raisi (pictured) becomes president of Iran.
Alternative blurb II: Ebrahim Raisi (pictured) becomes president-elect of Iran.
News source(s): NYT, Al Jazeera, AP, BBC, Guardian. Reuters
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Many strong would-be opponents were disqualified from running, and turnout was very low. Do we mention this in the blurb? Davey2116 (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  • In Iran, the Guardian Council gets to decide who runs for president, that's how they do it. I'm not sure that needs to be called out here. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – In the case of a patently pantomimic 'election,' perhaps it's best not to elaborate in a mere blurb on the nature of the process. Although, on second thought, instead of "is elected president" maybe we could say "becomes president," which would be succinct and totally accurate. – Sca (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    But he was elected, even though if one thinks it was illegitimate. Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Are there any issues or differences between the candidates that we can note? GreatCaesarsGhost 13:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The article looks good and the news is important.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Sa.vakilian As this event (a change in head of government) is on the recurring events list, importance is not at issue. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – in principle. Favor Alt1 Alt2. – Sca (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support in principle This article has a refimprove tag. Once that's resolved I will give full support. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 14:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Support All reference issues have been resolved. Prefer ALT0. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 14:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose alt1 blurb. "Becomes president" suggests he is currently president. Even if the candidates were all pretty much the same ideologically, it's still an election. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Semantics. "Is elected" could be taken to imply the same thing. Article: "Raisi won with 17.8 million popular votes out of 28 million votes." – Sca (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Disagree that it is semantics. "Elected" means one has won an election, not that they have actually assumed the office. There is a difference between "Joe Biden was elected" and "Joe Biden becomes president". 331dot (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Note Alt2. – Sca (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with 331dot. Alt1 is outright wrong (one "becomes" president on the day of assuming the office and, in virtually all countries, that is when being sworn in). Alt2 is sheer avoidance to accept the legitimacy of the election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    Support per Levivich, improved from my first review. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support He was elected president by winning the most votes. Oppose Alt1 as it does suggest he is currently president. Alt2 may be correct because it may be some time before he is inaugurated. Albertaont (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment in the unlikely event this is cleaned up for posting, the original blurb is fine. There was an election, these are the results. There isn't even a section in the article documenting disputes for it. The alt blurbs are unnecessary. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose due the referencing, as well as no prose on the difference between candidates that may impact the choice. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb only, oppose on quality even if Iran is not a real democracy, an election did nominally take place. Iff reliable sources indicate that there has been international backlash on the conduct then it should be reflected in the article and blurb. In any event there are still far too few citations for my liking.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose On quality. If article is fixed up, I prefer an alt that mentions that the election had the lowest turnout for Iran in history..Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    • We don't generally post election turnout on here, if I'm not mistaken. The high 40s isn't particularly bad; the US tends to be in the 50s and 60s.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Aknell4, The Rambling Man, and GreatCaesarsGhost: At present almost all of the article's content has reliable sources.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 14:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm still an oppose. Both of my prior concerns remain. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support the original blurb. It seems like the election result is valid despite the low turnout which means that Raisi is elected president of Iran. Using "becomes" implies that he's been installed by force but that's not the case. Of course, there are many domestic and foreign organisations, including Amnesty International, complaining about what happened before and during the election but it's irrelevant here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Au contraire, mon ami. "Becomes" carries no implication of force, it simply denotes a process of change.
Cf. Webster:
1: to come into existence.
2: to undergo change or development.
Sca (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I know very well what it means and it was intentionally proposed to contest the legitimacy of the election (disqualified candidates, low turnout and similar nonsense echoed by Biden's administration). There's no reason to replace the standard wording "is elected" with "becomes" when he was elected president by the populace and not in any other way.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree to disagree with you, and stand by my view that "becomes" is NPOV in standard English usage. (AGF!) But it seems that given the state of the article, this point may be moot. – Sca (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I simply follow your own reasoning above to deduce that "becomes" intends to replace "is elected" to highlight the case of "patently pantomimic 'election'". Other than that, there's nothing wrong with that word even though we don't use it in blurbs on presidential elections.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Past practice doesn't always dictate present usage. Each issue must be judged on its merits by reasonable users. Au revoir.Sca (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. The article is a real mess at the moment, with lots of uncited material and also a lack of analysis of the result. I'm sceptical this will make it, but if it does then I'd favour the original blurb. We just discussed all this in the Syrian case, and there was no consensus that we should deviate from our usual election blurb format, which leaves the criticial analysis on legitimacy and turnout etc to the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 - I think the quality is good enough as of this writing (no tags except for the section needs expansion for the election, but I think the section has enough to be useful, and most importantly is cited). Prefer alt2; alt1 is incorrect; alt0 implies a free and fair election; alt2 avoids that implication. Levivich 16:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready - This looks ready to post... though I personally find the use of the word "elected" to be truthiness in this case... more like he was selected. FWIW Alt2 follows the same precedent we use for election blurbs. Inauguration is another matter. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Unmarked as ready Still too many uncited statements in the Candidate list and Opinion polls sections, I'm afraid.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    Please indicate what is unready, perhaps I am missing it. I see nothing wrong with the article. Opinion polls are worthless, try looking outside Iran. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Floydian: The "Candidates" section lists many candidates without citation; if such sources cannot be found then the entries must be removed per the BLP policy on unsourced contentious statements. Otherwise the article, while a bit of a shambles and low on prose, does not appear to have any Main Page-hindering defects (this isn't FAC, after all).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    @John M Wolfson: I have done a couple of edits covering your concerns. Pleas check if it's OK. --Mhhossein talk 07:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment This is getting stale and frankly the remaining CNs could be resolved by just commenting out their associated assertions. Half of them are in the Candidates subsection Declined to run, and what does that even mean anyway? Wouldn't that include nearly every Iranian that has a wiki article? The Rejected subsection is a {{incomplete list}} and if references for more than half of the entries cannot be found, then I seriously question its inclusion. The Announced but not registered seems to suggest that they were not, actually, candidates and as such these should probably be removed from the Candidates section. The bits of encyclopedic information that would be lost from the election article would be better suited in respective BLPs, because they add only marginal information to the election article.130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Needs text updateThis nomination is only 2 days old - not stale. This article still needs a Results section. Joofjoof (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - In general the article seems OK. - STSC (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Still not ready. Where is the prose on the election itself, and the results and aftermath?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Getting stale fast. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Everyone saying that this is getting stale or there's work that have to be done, but none is contributing. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Honestly I have no idea what everyone is talking about. There's no prose?? Of course there's prose. There's no results section?? Yes there is! There's no aftermath?? The election was two days ago! What "aftermath"?! Not every sentence needs an inline citation in order for this to be posted to the main page. Anyone who really thinks it is contentious info about a BLP that an Iranian politician registered in an election (as opposed to bluesky) can go ahead and remove the uncited entries. A country changed its President: this is frickin' news and the article is fine. I've re-tagged it Ready. Levivich 13:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
      • An election is a choice - the whole country is deciding to proceed one direction or another. This is why elections are per se significant. The article has not one word differentiating the candidates from one another. There's mention of a debate having occurred, but no mention of issues. Most of the article is an explanation of the mechanics of the election. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Just googled "what does Ebrahim Raisi's election mean" and found a half dozen solid sources on impact. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
        • GCG's point on "who are candidates" is a good point: even if just a section with a lot of "main"/"seealso", I'd expect a short summary blurb about each of the primary candidates in the table as to understand the significance of the results. At this stage, I don't know if having to get into the issues has to be covered, but we should know who was running and why --Masem (t) 13:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
          • I thought this was ITN not FAC. Also some of you don't seem to understand this was not a real election. An issues section? What differentiates the candidates? In an article about an Iranian election?! Lol! (That doesn't exist in any of the other Iran election articles, you may notice.) Levivich 14:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
            • It's not FAC, but it is something going on main page and is supposed to represented "our best work". The only "developed" section on the article right now is the process of how the election works, which is not unique to this specific election. (And no, we're neutral, we should not be writing this that "this was not a real election"). Beyond that section, its a sentence or two here and there, a bunch of lists, and a bunch of tables. No real prose. A short section to list the 7-odd candidates with a 4-5 sentence bio for each would not have broken the bank to get it to a postable standard. --Masem (t) 14:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
              • I don't know where you got the idea that ITN is supposed to represent our best work, but you didn't get it from WP:ITN, which says Articles are held to a minimum standard of quality.. MINIMUM, not best. Levivich 15:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
                • Second bullet of first section of ITN: "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events." And in what you're quoting, a "minimum standard of quality" would be the key read from that. In addition, the Main Page of Wikipedia is mean to reflect the best work that Wikipedia can produce - doesn't mean every highlighted link has to be FA, but that required a basic level of quality. That's why we have to nearly repeat every day on ITNC "ITN is not a news ticker" -we don't have to post stories in a timely manner if the article is not up to the quality standards. --Masem (t) 15:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support and Ready let's not hold this article to some standard which does not exist. What's there is fine, it's referenced, there is some prose about the results and turnout. The 2021 Somaliland parliamentary election was recently posted without details about candidates or debates and it's not really a country. It's time to post it. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted as I think it meets the bare minimum for Main Page posting (not much more than that, to be honest, but this isn't FAC). I'm sticking with the original blurb for now as election improprieties are not currently adequately explained in the article to justify anything else; besides, "becomes president-elect" is a clunky and quite frankly stupid way of saying "is elected president". If such electoral improprieties become better expressed/justified the blurb should be adjusted to say "is elected president of Iran in election criticized by international observers" or something to that effect.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull. What's the point in us having a discussion and registering our concerns if it's just going to be ignored? The article has zero coverage on the election itself, and the "prose" on the results is just a three sentence summary of the results. The ITN requirements explicitly say the page must "have been substantially updated". Ridiculous.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Amakuru are you talking about the article on the election or the bio of the pres? Levivich 16:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
      @Levivich: I'm talking about the election article. It's the same phenomenon we see over and over at ITN with elections and sports tournaments - a reasonably detailed article of what happened prior to the event, but only tabular or very brief coverage of the during and after. What's in the news is the election and the result, not the Iranian electoral system or the Covid provisions, which seem to form the bulk of the prose at present. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
      Question: when the Tories win the next UK GE, what would we expect to see in the "results" section before posting? I'm curious because it would be similar to this, an inevitable result with a bit of outrage and disappointment. What more, within a few days, would we be expecting to see? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
      Well, we can look back at the last UK election to see what sort of thing we posted at that time: [7] Although the results section in the body did not have prose at that time, there was a decent cited update occupying three paragraphs of the lead - with tidbits such as Corbyn resigning and Swinson losing her seat. If the Iran article had something like that, it'd be fine. Anyway, it looks like everyone thinks I'm being ridiculous so I'll withdraw the "pull" and just register my puzzlement informally instead.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
      I don't think we'd ever expect to see that kind of thing from Iran, would we? I'm not suggesting you're being ridiculous at all, by the way, just curious to see if we're now experiencing a kind of requirement creep on election updates. One imagines (or used to) that the result was the pertinent thing, not the fall-out which could take days/weeks/months/years and hence sits outside the scope of ITN really. Just my opinion, of course. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
      I'm in the same board as Amakuru - I won't ask for a pull, but I really think there were easy fixes, not hard to do, that would have alleviated the issue, with existing material out there, such as simply a short paragraphical bio for each of the main candidates, which could have been done before election day. That would have been enough to highlight the main issues in the election and shouldn't have taken more than an hour of work since all 7-8 appear to be notable people. --Masem (t) 17:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
      That's definitely requirement creep. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
      (I don't think you're being ridiculous either.) Levivich 19:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    • The results prose is adequate as a minimum and combined with the reactions section constitutes substantial updates for the intents and purposes of ITN. There is also coverage on the COVID provisions of the election conduct.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
      @John M Wolfson: - you said yourself earlier that the article is a "bit of a shambles". Just to be clear, ITN does not permit "shambles" pages to be listed. The purpose of ITN explicitly gives as a remit that we "showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events". If it's not quality, then it shouldn't be posted and there is no requirement to post everything that's nominated, even for ITN/R items.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Wolfson called it a "shambles" two days ago, it's no longer a shambles. It's fine, minimalist but fine. Calm down. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The article is no longer in shambles, but he shouldn't be supervoting, either. There quite clearly was not consensus to post. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I think we can safely treat "oppose on quality" !votes act as "support" !votes once the article meets the minimum quality requirements. Mlb96 (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
No you can't. Why would you assume that a particular editor would think the updates are sufficient when others are actively saying they are not? You can certain disregard earlier quality opposes if more recent votes are universally positive. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I think one can, in fact, treat "oppose on quality" !votes as supports given a level of minimal quality as the current election article possesses. Of course, such !votes must be fairly old and predate salient improvements of the article in question, but it would likely be requirement creep as said above to require anything substantially more in an article than due citations, absence of orange tags, and prose updates in order to post on the Main Page given the time-sensitive nature of ITN, and I say this as someone who thinks of ITN significance independently of the surrounding news cycle.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • In case anyone cares about my useless opinion, I Oppose posting. 70.23.250.135 (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It's ITN/R, it's cited, there's enough prose updates, it meets minimum quality standards. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • PP comment – Old news, ZZZzzzz.... – Sca (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vekuii Rukoro[edit]

Article: Vekuii Rukoro (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DW
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: Paramount chief of the Herero peopleAllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Attorney General of Namibia, chief of the Herero – seems very notable. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support article is good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Giampiero Boniperti[edit]

Article: Giampiero Boniperti (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ansa
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: Italian footballer, ranked on the FIFA 100 by PeléAllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support a good article, everything well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Milkha Singh[edit]

Article: Milkha Singh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of India, news18
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.

  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support. Made some edits / adds to sources. Article looks in nick and is ready to go to homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

June 17[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


RD: Shaman Mithru[edit]

Article: Shaman Mithru (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): India 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.

Nominator's comments: Indian cinematographer, COVID-19. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment lede is almost nonexistent and Filmography is uncited. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alex Harvill[edit]

Article: Alex Harvill (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS, CNN
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American daredevil, died practicing a motorcycle stunt. 28. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support good to go. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted A bit short, but okay. --PFHLai (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leroy Jones[edit]

Article: Leroy Jones (American football) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Norfolk State University, The Greenwood Commonwealth
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: Some borderline reliable blogs and social media posts reported earlier, but with no death date. It's now reliably sourced per June 17 sources. —Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support No apparent issues with article. --Masem (t) 01:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted as blurb) RD/Blurb: Kenneth Kaunda[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Kenneth Kaunda (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: First President of Zambia Kenneth Kaunda (pictured) dies at the age of 97. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: 1st and long-time president of Zambia. His article needs a lot of work, so I will be working on it. Maybe he should be nominated for blurb? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose Quality isn't great, with a few Citation Neededs, but I would support a blurb on notability as he was the first president of Zambia, although his term did end 30 years ago. Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb on principle, oppose on quality Kaunda was a key figure in Zambian independence, the founding president of Zambia, president of Zambia for 27 years, and was the third secretary-general of the non-aligned movement. He checks all of the boxes for a blurbable politician. However, the article quality is not there yet. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD only, oppose blurb This people from Zambia doesn't look enough to be posted as blurb given his little significance. 114.125.31.240 (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    Really "little significance", just because you haven't heard of someone does not make them non-notable. Probably one of the most influential and earliest African leaders, it is surprising to know that he was still alive. Gotitbro (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comments The cn tags need to be fixed, would clearly support on significance when done. Gotitbro (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb pending improved referencing. Kenneth Kaunda was essentially the father of the modern nation of Zambia, and a very significant figure in African politics for many decades. He merits a full blurb rather than just a passing mention in RD. Kurtis (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality The article needs improvement in referencing. Once fixed, I would support a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article isn't in good shape. Hanamanteo (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb in principle, oppose on quality significant sourcing improvements needed. If done, this looks blurb-worthy to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb once article improved. A major figure in southern African politics during the transitional era from colonialism to independence, and beyond, and established Zambia as a nation.--Bcp67 (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb if article is improved - Agree with other commenters. The article doesn't look to be in terrible shape but has numerous unsourced statements. The death of a person who was the first head of state of a country, particular one who has reached their late 90s, would seem like a notable enough event to warrant a blurb to me. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I removed a few old CN tags, but the autocracy section needs some work, as it has two CN tags and I'm having trouble finding reliable sources to support those paragraphs.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • No Blurb Died well past the age death becomes normal, of no interesting cause, was far from the top of his field and I'd bet nobody here could have put a face to that name until now. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per InedibleHulk.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • RD only – Per previous two posts – altho I do vaguely recall the name, perhaps from the old Weekly Reader. – Sca (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
    That's why I changed my initial bet, had a hunch there'd be a reader in the house. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I remember reading about plans for construction of Brasília in the WR, too. I was more interested in things like that than playing marbles in the mud. . – Sca (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Kust because you don't know his name or his picture is not recognizable to you, doesn't mean it's not important. Read Gotitbro and Kurtis' comments. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate how he officially founded a modern state, but that modern state never broke into the Top 50, by any global indices I vaguely recall. Good people, surely. But a poor state. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Nom. comment There are currently a maximum of three of us who are trying to improve his article, but I think it is not enough, especially to prevent it from ending up as a stale as it's a pretty large one. So I encourage people to contribute. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb when article is finalized. Per Jackattack1597 the autocracy section needs attention as some of it reads to me like OR hence no sources JW 1961 Talk 22:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb once the article is improved. One of the most prominent African politicians of the 20th century and first head of state who remained in office for 27 years clearly deserves a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Guidelines say one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, and recent editing efforts have brought it up to that standard. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Founding father of a nation and a longstanding head of government. Definitely needs a blurb. My opinion on quality is the same as above. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment There is an orange verification tag at the top of the page: Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link. (WP:ITN)—Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment (and support blurb) - I've added citations for most of the material that wasn't cited, and also removed some bits that were unencyclopedic, POV or seemed dubious per WP:BLP requirements. I think this is good to go now, but happy to hear of any other issues.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb now that it's well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Amakuru, you saved the article from becoming stale.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. There is consensus for a blurb here. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I checked two sections: Economy and Education and both of them are trash. A copy/paste straight from Britannica, inflammatory words like "ineptness" and "disasters results". A dead link in the economic policies section renders it essentially unreferenced and I looked at page 900 of "Encyclopedia of the Developing World" and it doesn't mention anything that is attributed to it in the article. I mean, the Naftali Bennett posting highlighted that missing refs in BLPs actually doesn't matter: am I just wasting my time? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    • If it is a copyvio, I'm not seeing it (this is a serious concern if it was). Using duplicate detector, I'm not seeing anything that looks obvious that would not be expected duplicated phrasing. ([8]) --Masem (t) 17:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) U.S. federal recognition of Juneteenth[edit]

Closing before this develops into another fatuous discussion. Consensus is clearly against posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
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: Juneteenth (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​President Biden signs into law recognition of Juneteenth, June 19, as a federal holiday. (Post)
News source(s): Deadline
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The bill has passed Congress, and Biden plans to sign it on 6/17 at 3:30pm ET, so this is preparatory ahead of that signing ceremony. As for why this is important, it is not just the US get an 11th federal holiday, but Juneteenth has been promoted as recognition of the end of slavery in the U.S. and general recognition of of the trials + tribulations of blacks and other minorities in the U.S. It has become more predominate in the wake of last years George Floyd protests. Masem (t) 04:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Would be nice if they also added Easter Monday or General Lee surrenders day or independence war starts day or ~Apr 15 tax in the Feb 15-21 to May 25-31 gap. And Random 2-Month Summer Gap Filler Day Observed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Long-awaited creation of a federal Emancipation Day in the US. I find it pure symbolism, but humanity loves their symbols. I prefer cymbals - Floydian τ ¢ 05:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose A lot of exposition, for which there isn't room on the Main Page, is going to be needed to show how this is ITN-worthy. At the end of the day, this is still just the US adding another public holiday (which doesn't even work the same as in many other countries, but I digress). It's not like this is the US government acknowledging slavery happened – obviously they have already. So, I'm not seeing this being particularly transformative at even a national level, and I can't imagine us posting a similar story for any other country. -- tariqabjotu 07:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose internal politics. I might change my mind if there are a lot of follow-up stories, but as of right now, this is completely overshadowed by the Geneva summit. Banedon (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The most recently established federal holiday was Martin Luther King Jr. Day in 1983, so it's not that often that a new federal holiday is added. The Juneteenth bill can be seen as part of the aftermath of the George Floyd protests. Davey2116 (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe not in the US, but once you broaden to every country in the world it really isn't that rare, e.g. in 2020 Iraq made Christmas a public holiday [9]. Banedon (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Banedon. We don't usually post internal politics of this nature.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivial and of practically zero encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose whilst it's good that they've done it, this isn't ITN-worthy, as it's only a US Government policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pure symbolic and nothing of importance to the rest of the world. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Disagree that it has "zero encyclopedic value"(if so, it should be nominated for deletion) but the US can decide to have whatever holidays it wishes, just as any country can. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    I said "practically". Thanks for the advice though, really appreciate it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose It recognized the Armenian genocide this past Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day, too, symbolic moments happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Congress had already recognized the genocide; the president doing so had not happened before. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Aye, and this time, they've all acknowledged slavery ended (though the trials and tribulations endure) many times each before. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose A country getting it's 11th official holiday is not in itself notable for this ostensibly international encyclopedia. As for the attrocity propaganda about slavery in the US, what happened there was no doubt tragic, but that happened in a single country to a fairly small number of people compared to the population of the world. Morepower, their "trials and tributations" have been nothing compared to what most people across most countries of the world had suffered in the past few centuries so that's not notable either, in my opinion. Cheers. 212.74.201.238 (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This holiday is unknown outside other English-speaking countries. 114.125.29.40 (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
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) Shenzhou 12[edit]

Article: Shenzhou 12 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​China has launched three astronauts into orbit to begin occupation of the country's new space station. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Shenzhou 12 launches with three Taikonauts and carries the first crew to dock at the Tiangong space station.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian, dpa
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: China's longest crewed space mission to date and the first in nearly five years. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support altblurb Article has been improved from stub. Also successful 1st docking with space station. Albertaont (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Note - changed to ITNR. -- KTC (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality article is just under 1,500 characters, way too short for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The altblurb should be posted, but the article currently has just two sentences about what actually happened. Needs a bit of expansion before being featured on the MP. There are plenty of sources that could be used to do so. Modest Genius talk 12:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Just a bit? Article is barely over 200 words – more or less a stub. – Sca (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
That's my stereotypical British understatement. Modest Genius talk 13:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
You're so modest. – Sca (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
But not a genius. Modest Genius talk 10:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
And I thought you were a genus by yourself. – Sca (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support ― The article has been updated and is OK now. STSC (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting-oppose it's still only 1700 characters- about 2 sentences have been added since all the opposes. This is not good enough article quality for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Translation: 330 words. – Sca (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull I didn't even bother opposing earlier because it would have been a pile-on with an article so far away from being ready. We get one support and it's posted? GreatCaesarsGhost 15:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
    • There are 2 supports, 3 counting the OP. But we already knew that. Albertaont (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pulled The consensus here is that this is not ready. If it is expanded sufficiently the outcome may changes. Jehochman Talk 17:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Guess I should go pull up all the sport articles, RDs, and space mission arrivals that only got posted with a single sentence update. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
    • If the news event was about a change to a long-standing thing or person or whatever (such as recent death, most commonly), we only need a single sentence. Of course this is a case-by-case basis - eg the blocking of the Suez Canal would not have gone up on a single sentence update. For something "new" on the other hand, we do expect a much larger expansion. --Masem (t) 19:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
      • But it is. The item of interest is the Tiangong space station and how it's finally fulfilling its function, not the spacecraft that ferried the crew up to it. ApLundell (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

For comparison, here is the state SpaceX Crew-1 was in, when it went on the main page. To my eyes it looks roughly equivalent. (In both cases, the meat of the information is not in the article for that individual vehicle. It's in the article for the program as a whole.) ApLundell (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Doing page size counts, that diff for the Crew-1 gets me 9000+ bytes of readable prose, while the current article for Shenzhou 12 is only 4100 bytes. It's definitely still on the short side. --Masem (t) 01:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Granted, the "article for the program as a whole" in this case is very bad, and wouldn't get anywhere near the Front Page as a bold link. Whereas the same for Crew-1 is a very good article. There's also no indication in the proposed bold link that is supposed to direct a naïve reader to this supposed article with "the meat of the information", either in this one or in the Crew-I article.130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Re-post — Overall the article meets the minimum standard of quality as per WP:ITNCRIT. - STSC (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment — I have now added three new sections of content to the article. STSC (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Re-post — per STSC, who has done good work expanding the article. Objections on length shold be discounted by admins considering a repost. Jusdafax (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Re-port Diff since the pull shows the changes. I think this could go back up.130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Re-posted Stephen 06:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

References[edit]

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: