Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 00:00, 20 August 2023 (Adding section for August 20 and archiving August 12. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/ITNCArchiver). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

Azerbaijan Airlines aircraft
Azerbaijan Airlines aircraft

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

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

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

Nomination steps

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

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

Voicing an opinion on an item

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

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

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

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

Archives

August 20

August 20, 2023 (2023-08-20) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

August 19

August 19, 2023 (2023-08-19) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports

Canadian wildfires

Proposed image
The extent of wildfires in 2023 up to mid-August
Article: 2023 Canadian wildfires (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ British Columbia declares a state of emergency as Canada's worst wildfire season continues. (Post)
News source(s): BBC "Canada wildfires: British Columbia province declares emergency"
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Following the Yellowknife evacuation in the Northwest Territories (which is still in the news), there's now an emergency in British Columbia. The map shows the overall extent of the fires and the BBC has a good graph showing how this is so much worse than previous years. Perhaps an ongoing entry would be best but we might start with a blurb to show the map. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ongoing would be best. Appending an image isn't outside the realm of possibility, either, just subject to a fear of change. Right now, of course, BC and the NWT are the most newsworthy, but Quebec was and might be there again soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have had an article on the 2023 heat waves (which should cover the wildfires across the globe too) being suggested multiple times now for an ongoing, but no one has bothered to try to bring this to speed, instead focusing on local situations. I would oppose on just featuring one region's wildfires, outside of a situation like Maui where 100+ died and making it a standalone event. But just having lots of wildfires is not sufficient to make the one region stand out on its own. --Masem (t) 12:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, drop the stick. That article sucks, just like 2022 heat waves and 2021 heat waves. Always have and always will. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And now we have 2018 heat waves, which is worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The temperature right now in West Kelowna is 13°C (55°F) which is cool rather than hot. As explained already, these fires are driven by drought and wind, more than heat. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sun heat, anyway. The rains turns the fires to clouds and the clouds pelt the forests with lightning. That's crazy heat, the sort that burns roots underneath wet sand and even melts the sand for good measure. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing It's clearly extremely bad and should be featured while notable events are taking place. Noah, AATalk 13:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing Worst wildfire season on record in North America, and still affecting all provinces of Canada; also, article is well sourced and of fine quality. Because of this (it happening throughout all of Canada), it seems better to post in ongoing, as posting a blurb just about British Columbia would not point to all of the news relating to the fires (for example, Yellowknife being evacuated).
2G0o2De0l (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 18

August 18, 2023 (2023-08-18) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Lolita (orca)

Article: Lolita (orca) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT AP WaPo Miami Herald
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Orca in captivity at the Miami seaquarium, second-oldest orca in captivity. Article has one cn tag. Article is fully sourced and appears sufficient. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 07:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Hilary

Article: Hurricane Hilary (2023) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, Hurricane Hilary moves toward Baja California and Southern California, prompting the first-ever tropical storm watch issued by the NWS for Southern California. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Category 4 Hurricane Hilary churns in the direction of northwest Mexico and the Southwestern United States, causing advisories and watches to be issued for the areas.
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
  • Oppose The watches are not important in the grand scheme even if historic. Wait for the effects to be felt and then we can revisit this. Noah, AATalk 00:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Noah. At the moment this is trivia. If there are major impacts we can revisit. And can we please not re-nom this if the impacts are just minor? Simply because a TS [likely to be a TS by then] hits somewhere where it is rare doesn't mean it should be in ITN. Again, that is trivia. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not merely "trivia" that Southern California has its first ever TS warning. It's climate change. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it’s an El Niño year in which the Pacific high pressure is pushed further north than usual. Additionally, this storm is taking the only possible path to hit California. If it were further west, it would die over cold water. if it were further East, mountains would shred it. There is no certainty it will even be a tropical storm at landfall either because the NHC has a track record of being biased in the EPAC for weakening storms as a result of models failing to weaken the storms fast enough. It has happened time and time again. Noah, AATalk 02:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, it's not trivia if you live in California, yeah. But this feels like the Cyclone Gabrielle thing, where we nearly went and blurbed the story because it was the first time a national state of emergency was issued - a fact so important that...it isn't even mentioned in the article. Hypothetically speaking, do you really consider this event ITN worthy if, say, the cyclone rapidly deteriorates and produces only minor impacts along its path, or it's path changes and its impacts likewise do not end up being severe? California has had severe weather before - that it is accompanied by a TS warning has fairly little boarder importance. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, renominate if something happens While it is sort of historic that we're seeing a hurricane this side of the Pacific, I would wait until the storm actually touches land. Storm alerts are one thing, but the damage done will determine whether I support this storm being posted. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 01:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until impacts are known, currently, impacts are almost non-existent and will be minimal for the next few days. Until impacts are known (likely after a landfall), I'm currently opposing. If the impacts are notable enough, I'll change to support it. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 01:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While the first blurb suggests that this is the first tropical storm watch to be issued in Southern CA, it isn't, and it isn't the first tropical storm to affect the area. The first occurrence of such events was from Hurricane Nora in 1997. I'm not sure if I'm not noticing something in blurb 1, but that's what I noticed. Mobius Gerig (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mobius Gerig: As the editor who rewrote Nora earlier in the year, I can confirm that no tropical storm watches or warnings were issued for California or Arizona because of Nora, just your normal day-to-day watches/warnings. From what im told by a well placed Wikipedian inside the NWS, its because of the computer systems in operation back in the day. That being said I am also going to state that we should wait until the system makes landfall and we have a better grip on the impacts.Jason Rees (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s the first tropical storm watch issued by the NHC. That’s it. Noah, AATalk 02:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There seem to have been a fair number of them. —Cryptic 02:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look again, it’s almost solely the remnants of a storm rather than a tropical storm or hurricane hitting directly. Noah, AATalk 02:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no way we can say that a storm "churns" in Wikipedia voice. (The altblurb.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Pulled) Lucy Letby conviction

Article: Lucy Letby (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the United Kingdom, nurse Lucy Letby is found guilty of the murder of seven infants at the Countess of Chester Hospital. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the United Kingdom, nurse Lucy Letby is found guilty of the murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six more.
News source(s): Guardian, NY Times, India Times, Seattle Times, [2], LA Times, [3], France 24
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major story in UK, Letby most prolific child serial killer in modern UK history. Article on her crimes, links back to Letby. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article needs some minor work (Inquiry section needs expansion), but once its up to ITN standards this seems notable and worthy of a blurb (perhaps some alt. blurbs could be proposed, not a huge fan of the current). Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I question the need for the tag on the inquiry section, it'd work fine as a few sentences in another section, so that seems like a minor detail that doesn't need to hold this up. Quality is fine otherwise, and the story is being widely covered in the news. --Jayron32 17:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has this made the news outside of the UK? Secretlondon (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From the instructions above "Please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." Such questions should play no factor in whether or not a story is appropriate for the main page. This is being widely covered by news sources from the US, Qatar, Australia, India, and probably news sources in other languages besides English, but that's what I found by spending less time than it took you to type your condescending question about this. Do some work before commenting here, and actually look for sources like the rest of us did. If you can't be bothered to do a modicum of research before leaving a comment, then don't. --Jayron32 17:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bro, can you chill? condescending question; they LITERALLY just asked a nine word question and you're getting this upset? Yeah, I wonder why ITN has a bad rep, when we act with such exquisite respect and understanding to newbies (and yes, in this context, they are a newbie; despite being on this site since 2003, they've only made a combined total of eight edits on INT/C)? Again, nine words from a non-regular set you off and led to you as an admin making WP:BITEy, WP:PERSONAL ATTACKs, and WP:ASPERSIONS on Secretlondon (talk · contribs), who again, has only made eight edits here. Utterly fucking ridiculous, and immensely disappointing behavior from an admin I typically respect. — Knightoftheswords 03:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content, for the people who will complain about WP:TLDR — Knightoftheswords 03:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, yes, as someone who created the shortcut links for those very guidelines I think ITN stories shouldn't be decided via geographic location, and SL is somewhat wrong for doing that... but bro, let's be real frank here, where do you believe that they got that conception from? Do not throw stones in a glass house. It's no surprise that newcomers will come onto ITN not believing in the de jure rule that ITN noms aren't dependant on a story's location when in practice, regulars regularly (ha) reject stories on the basis of location all the time. It's apart of the ITN canon, and for us to bathe in this behavior when we're isolated in our small echo-chamber but then go apeshit when a monkey does what he sees is absurd and duplicitous. In fact to add on to this, tying back into those shortcut links, I also created WP:ITNUSA, specifically because this is disproportionately done to U.S based stories. Tying back to SL's comment above, I think that asking for global significance is an understandable concern given the literal years worth of editors (many, if not a majority of which are from the UK) habitually opposing stories from the US with the sole rationale of "it occured in America." Yeah, American mass shootings are also reported globally, yet they rarely get posted in 5 hours.
    Overall, this behavior of dunking on newbies on ITN needs to fucking stop. It's funny going back a decade plus in ITN's history and see that like at least 60% of the people present here then are still active on ITN now (which ties into a point I've been thinking about regarding Wikipedia gerontocracy but that's for another time), and behavior like this, as well as frequently attempting to shift blame for ITN's structural ills off regulars to newbies, is definitely a major contributor. We as regularls cannot make our bed and then get pissed when we're confronted with the reality that we actually have to lie in it. ITN's issues was caused by regulars, and comments like yours are a prime example of the issue wrong. — Knightoftheswords 03:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support This certainly meets criteria for being significantly covered in the news.
That being said, I am not at all familiar with this case (and its significance), but it being concerned with the deaths of infants seems to make it unusual, and thus notable enough for ITN. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is well-cited and has received significant coverage in the UK, and has seen coverage in various different countries. Tragically, it is the worst case involving babies in the UK in modern times. Fats40boy11 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Jayron32 said, I'm seeing it in my country's (US) news too. Below the fold, but there's nothing above the fold that we'd consider posting.
    The UK news sites I've looked at have it pretty low, too. Which is unsurprising, since they can geolocate me. But it means I have to ask the British editors here instead of checking for myself - is this a top headline for you folks? Has it been generating sustained coverage throughout the trial and leading up to it? If you could, say, blurb one UK-based news story this week, would this be it? I'll take you at your word on importance here. (The article seemed ok to me quality-wise.) —Cryptic 18:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From a quick check of a few sites, it is currently the leading story on BBC News, Sky News, The Guardian and The Telegraph. It has generated coverage throughout the trial, but I would say it has been in and out of the news due to the length of the trial. In regards to your question about one blurbed story this week from the UK, I'd say this story would be it. Fats40boy11 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, thank you. For reference, I'd looked at the BBC and Guardian sites - BBC links this near the top, which I'd overlooked since the main story is four pages down; and it's also a page and a half down on the Guardian's main site for US viewers. Telegraph, which I didn't think to check, shows it as the top story despite redirecting me to https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/ even after I click on "UK edition". Sky News (which I was only vaguely even aware of) is showing me what I assume is the same thing as it does to UK viewers; it's the top four stories there. I wish more international news sites did the same. —Cryptic 19:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article seems far too focused on the trial and not so much about the crimes, reaction to the crimes, or other similar factors related to the public perception of the crimes. In other words, I can't see why this is a major deal within the UK from the state of our article. --Masem (t) 18:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to stress that the article is not written to standards we would expect for such a major crime-based story (regardless of location). This should not have been posted in this condition. --Masem (t) 00:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not clear to me exactly what your objections are. The article states that she is the most prolific child killer in UK history. I'm not sure what more explanation is needed as to why an NHS nurse murdering babies in a neonatal ward would be seen as a "major deal." Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      50% of the article is about the day-to-day events of the trial - which is actually excessive detail that we usually don't cover on other trial articles. Going beyond the trial coverage, the article is very thin to explain why this is such a critical case within the UK. Yes, it touches on what you're talking about but I would think there should be more of why this was a landmark judgement within the UK. Sure, one could argue that the virtue of a nurse killing babies should be obvious to why it is bad, but that should be really discussed more from third parties, while purging down the trial coverage. Masem (t) 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose tragic, but yet another criminal case in the world. No major impact, interest and long-time international coverage. I don't think it's the most remarkable sentence we can include in Main Page so far this year. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a huge news story in the UK, that has been in the news for some considerable time, and is currently top story on all major UK news media. It's also significant not only because of the abhorrent nature of the crimes, but also the extensive use of circumstantial evidence to secure the conviction. Letby's apparently innocent-looking appearance, in contrast to the crimes she's just been convicted of, has also been a big factor in the notoriety of the case. — The Anome (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article well cited and it's making headlines. Also (at least I think) this not a common event and per The Anome. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This now makes Letby the most prolific child killer in UK history and ranks alongside the likes of Harold Shipman, for medical professionals who murder. This is an historic conviction and is far more than "yet another criminal case in the world. No major impact, interest and long-time international coverage." As can be seen by reporting in the United States today United stated 10 months ago India New Zealand 9 months ago Nigeria. There is also now an independent government inquiry launched. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added alt1. —Cryptic 19:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted alt1. Schwede66 21:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've not followed this closely but watched the BBC coverage in the main evening news and there were some remarkable features. There seem to have been significant institutional failures and these will be the subject of further inquiry. And this was said to be the longest murder trial in British history. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Exceptional case, widespread coverage, article is fine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Which is why I posted it half an hour before you expressed your support. :-) Schwede66 22:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a for-the-record-post-posting-support :) I'm hoping there won't be a flurry of post-posting opposes but you never know... Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Maybe you should mark contributions like that as "Post-posting support" for clarity. Schwede66 00:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose — As if U.S.-centrism wasn't enough, there is now a faction of U.K.-based ITN editors willing to support an average criminal case on the basis it's on their front page. I suppose it's acceptable for any moderately covered court case anywhere in the world to be posted on ITN? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges comparison. The Queen was a reigning monarch who happened to be the longest-serving in the United Kingdom's history and who was globally recognized. This is not the same situation. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong post-posting oppose - Every support !vote I've seen has been most prolific child killer in UK history, huge news story in the UK, has received significant coverage in the UK, etc. Personally, I believe ITN blurbs should have some sort of long-term significance. I just don't see this achieving that. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong post-posting oppose & pull. Seriously? I mean, this might be big news in the UK, but this is absolutely by no means significant at all. Yeah, absolutely an interesting criminal case to read up on, but how is this exactly long-lasting and even barely ITN-worthy? Holds zero significance whatsoever outside of the UK. US-centrism is a big no-no for ITN, but so is UK-centrism and other types of news that merely have national significance in one country. TwistedAxe [contact] 00:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose I don't see how this story has sufficient scope. Certainly I don't see how it's of greater societal consequence than the suicide bombings and mass shootings that we frequently don't post. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request [at least] temporary pull. Discussion lasted for less then 5 hours, with many of the supports saying "notable in the UK', which really does seem to suggest this is only locally notable, and while, yes, scope is not a valid reason to oppose alone, the question remains as to if there will be any longer-term impact to this ruling, for which the answer is likely no. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To counter the "too-parochial" comments above, this in the news here in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary pull per Darkside. I’m undecided on it myself, but five hours feels extremely rushed for a blurb with not-overwhelming support. The Kip (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'd say the support was fairly overwhelming, but given we don't post by a vote, the point is moot in the end. Ideally we need more discussion of why this rises beyond the level of a human-interest story (with respect being given to the families of the victims here, obviously, but the obvious point here is we don't just post every tragedy in which 7 are killed, nor does the media proportionally cover such events). The idea that we would post a conviction of a murderer of seven but would ignore an explosion killing 35 simply because one is more frequently covered feels inherently biased. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support per the unusualness of this news update and the resulting global headlines. I don't mind the quick posting, as that's within admin discretion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I didn't even !vote in this story when I saw it, partially because when I saw the wave of support votes and it being marked as ready after only a few hours, I was aware of the shitshow that was soon to barrel through. All I ought to say is that this is what occurs when we selectively apply ITN's guideline about not opposing based off national origin to post stories from certain countries and then ignore it when we get to put stories from another down. I honestly am not to opposed to posting this in general, however, let's keep it a buck '50, we all know that it's cope to believe that this would have still been posted, at least in this manner, had the story been from the U.S, or frankly maybe any bedsides the UK. — Knightoftheswords 03:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - Not sure we'd post this if it were happening anywhere other than the UK, honestly. ITN has a very bad UK bias. --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose - as sad as this is, this really is just a criminal case. A much more complex crime than the average british one, but I don't really see why this should be posted. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull and Oppose – Unlike Elizabeth II's death, or Trump's conviction for that matter, this one is mostly irrelevant outside UK/US, given main sequence of events predate the growth of Internet in countries like India, and thus people outside in such countries, especially outside Europe, don't know and don't care. I'm from Indonesia and I'm being serious here. I know the conviction is the biggest news in UK right now, but we shouldn't bring this up to ITN. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Despite my !vote, I think it is right for this to be temporarily pulled due to other editors concerns since posting. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled for now due to popular demand. May the discussion continue. Schwede66 06:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose tabloid news, no long-term impact. Banedon (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The news coverage is emphasising that there were numerous alarm bells and warnings as these deaths happened but that the institution was slow to act. The doctors who were suspicious were actually forced to apologise to the murderer. So, there will now be a government inquiry and there may well be consequences for the institution(s) and clinical practice. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's driving this readership is that Letby is in the news. She's dominating the front pages today, just as Michael Parkinson did yesterday.
Andrew🐉(talk) 07:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
as we have mentioned multiple times, ITN is not driven by page views or popularity. We don't care what gets the most attention or lack thereof. Masem (t) 12:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To put it bluntly: we do not care. You should know by now that ITN isn’t driven by page views. The Kip (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There might have eventually been a firm consensus to post this if more time were allowed beyond 5 hours to provide the rest of the world a chance to weigh in on this. As it is, now that it has been both posted and pulled and the footing of this nom has become muddled, it seems almost a guarantee that this discussion will ultimately close as no consensus. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-removal support So, for some reason, we are to suppose a train derailment that kills 30 people in Pakistan is of global interest rather than "just another train accident", but an unprecedented case of the mass-murder of children that has achieved global attention, dominates the UK news, and raises serious questions about medical safeguarding and the use of statistics and circumstantial evidence in court cases, and has led to the setting up of a major government enquiry to find out what went wrong and prevent it from happening again, is in Alsoriano97's words merely "tragic, but yet another criminal case"? The entire point of ITN is to point readers to articles about things which are in the news -- and this is not just top of the UK news, it's very much in the news globally: see [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and many more. I suggest this be added to ITN as soon as possible. — The Anome (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will point out my comment above that applies here, if this case "raises serious questions about medical safeguarding and the use of statistics and circumstantial evidence in court cases", the article certainly doesn't talk about that at all. It is focused on the events of the trial, which are the last things we should be focused on rather than the impact and results, such as whether there has been new standards in medical licensing in the UK from this, or such. But the article is quiet on these things, and thus fails to meet the expected quality for posting to the Main Page. Masem (t) 13:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixing that now. — The Anome (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The people who opposed this also opposed the Pakistan derailment. In fact both of them are exceedingly similar cases of an admin posting something fast after seemingly unanimous support and then people who disagree with it !voting later, though this time it actually received enough !votes to be pulled. I think it might be worth opening a discussion on the talk page on how to post stories in a timely manner while still retaining article quality and significance standards. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 15:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think that individual crime stories will always struggle to meet the standard needed for posting here in the absence of some wider political connection or notable societal response - similar to our policy on US mass shootings. Aside from the redundant "it has lots of press coverage" arguments, I cannot see anything here to explain why this meets the notability threshold. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Copying and pasting a load of news links from foreign sources means nothing, the number 2 news story on the BBC website this morning was the government of Italy paying for a dine and dash by its citizens on an Albanian holiday, and nobody in their right mind would think "this news story is even top on the BBC, it's got to be on Wikipedia's ITN". [12] In this day and age, it is easy for news websites to save money by including stories that fully rely on another website's sources. What are actual newspapers printing in foreign countries? It's not on any front pages in countries geographically [13] or culturally [14] close to the UK. Even in Ireland [15] it's only on the front page of the Irish Daily Mail, a stablemate of the notorious British tabloid, and the inside coverage starts from page 22. Let's be honest, we would not even consider posting this story if it happened in Slovenia, let alone France or Germany. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per all above. Tragic, albeit local crime is bad and the perpetrator is caught. Only because this was in the UK was it even considered for a blurb. Keep pulled. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ultimately decided to formally vote on this. I second a lot of the votes above; while I understand opposition on “we would/wouldn’t post in x country” isn’t the strongest argument, this does truly seem like the more locally-relevant type of criminal case that we likely wouldn’t nominate/post if a large percentage of users here weren’t UK-based (ex. I believe there’d be strong opposition to posting the conviction of Rex Heuermann here). Not sure if it’ll have wide-enough long-term significance either. The Kip (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Restore All of the no votes above me which just say that it's only relevant to the UK shouldn't be be counted. ITN has always said that arguments based on an item only appealing to one area are not useful. This comes up on every time so maybe we need to paste WP:ITNATA to the front of the ITN section and make everyone read it before they post. Flyingfishee (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: James L. Buckley

Article: James L. Buckley (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WaPo
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 17

August 17, 2023 (2023-08-17) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Gary Young (drummer)

Article: Gary Young (drummer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone Billboard The Indepedent
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 musician and music producer best known for being the original drummer of Pavement. I've fixed the remaining sourcing issues and the article looks good to go. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 12:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Rick Jeanneret

Article: Rick Jeanneret (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Buffalo Sabres, The Buffalo News, 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: Legendary Buffalo Sabres broadcaster. Article needs ref work. The Kip (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John L. Carroll

Article: John L. Carroll (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AL.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: Former U.S. magistrate judge and law school dean from Alabama Kafoxe (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Re-posted) RD: Nami Sano

Article: Nami Sano (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Oricon ANN
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: Manga artist for Haven't You Heard? I'm Sakamoto. Passed away from cancer at age 36. Ahiijny (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a case of the articles Start-status having not been updated. BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks Start class to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article to Start class. It can now be posted again.BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is the case of the article having been expanded since I posted my comment above. I agree that it is now start class and I shall repost it. BabbaQ, please note that when you upgrade an article from stub to start on the talk page, you should simultaneously remove any stub tags from the article itself. I will do that for you. Schwede66 00:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Canadian wildfires -- Yellowknife evacuation order

There's no consensus to post this. If the situation gets more serious, we can always nominate this again. Schwede66 01:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


Articles: Yellowknife (talk · history · tag) and 2023 Canadian wildfires (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The entire city of Yellowknife is being evacuated due to the threat posed by wildfires approaching the city (Post)
News source(s): The Globe and Mail
Credits:

Article needs updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. A precautionary evacuation is not typically ITN material. Hopefully we will not have cause to revisit this subject due to it becoming something more serious. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Evacuations are common in association with natural disasters (and unnatural ones) all over the world. HiLo48 (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, not even close to ITN material at the moment. The Kip (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Only an evacuation right now, for a relatively small city (20,000 people). Johndavies837 (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing The nomination was closed without much discussion but it's not a good look to be shutting down discussion of wildfires in Canada when we're running a similar story about the US. The proposed blurb focussed on the capital of Yellowknife but it seems that there are currently hundreds of major fires in the Northwest Territories. This adds to the many major fires earlier in the year and so the general topic is 2023 Canadian wildfires. Perhaps this should be in Ongoing? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The proper ongoing should have been 2023 heat waves, which has been mentioned at least twice before in prior ITNCs give how there are wildfires across the global, not just Canada. However, no one has bothered to improve that article to be beyond just a listing of records broken. (The Maui fire would have likely still be called out on its own due to the scale of devastation and impact on human life compared to the other fires around the world). It would be inappropriate to call out this single one. Masem (t) 12:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wildfires seem to be driven more by drought than by heat. Heat with humidity is a big deal too but it's different. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hot droughts tinderize plants faster than cold. Consider how only 23 inches a year gave damp forests to London, England while 23 inches in a year would dry out and probably kill equatorial forests even if evenly distributed. The droughts are unnaturally bad for the same reason as the heat anyway (fossil fuels). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If it were somewhere like Ottawa or Toronto, I'd certainly consider. But a relatively (at least internationally) obscure city evacuation seems mundane as they happen all the time as standard during wildfires. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yellowknife is the capital of the Northwest Territories and the second-largest city in the Canadian north. I am floored that they're evacuating the capital as I'm not sure how the territorial government is supposed to function without the capital. I'm leaving my vote neutral for now, but I can't think of another more important city to have been evacuated due to a wildfire during my lifetime. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have dramatic developments with plenty of international coverage. The drama is the threat to the city with evacuation plans being complicated by there being just one highway which is already in the fire zone. But I get the impression that the nay-sayers want to see a body count before posting. Why do we require there to be death and disaster? Why can't we cover the issue when it's managed better too? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that we "want to see a body count," it's that as it stands, this is a non-story. A large town/small city is evacuated due to potential threat, that isn't an infrequent occurrence and there's absolutely nothing at the moment to suggest it will have any significant present and/or long-term notability. Not everything is motivated by some bloodthirsty interpretation of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. The Kip (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's obviously not a non-story. Here's a selection of the international coverage:
  1. Al Jazeera "Huge wildfire forces evacuation of Canada’s Northwest Territories capital"
  2. BBC "Race to evacuate city as blaze approaches"
  3. France24 "Canada's northernmost city ordered to evacuate as wildfires approach"
  4. Guardian "Traffic clogs road out of town as residents race to evacuate"
  5. Irish Times "Yellowknife in Canada evacuated as wildfire nears"
  6. NY Times "As Wildfire Nears, Entire Canadian City Is Ordered to Evacuate"
  7. South China Morning Post "Residents flee, airlifts begin as wildfire nears capital of Canada’s Northwest Territories"
  8. Times of India "Military airlifts provide escape as wildfires sweep Canada's far north"
Andrew🐉(talk) 21:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A story highlighted in many newspapers or news channels has a good chance of being significant for ITN, but we do not base the posting primarily on how many such sites have covered it or consider it important.
WP:ITNCRIT.
Let’s not let one editor overrule the clear consensus. The Kip (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 16

August 16, 2023 (2023-08-16) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) RD: Renata Scotto

Article: Renata Scotto (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): "Renata Scotto, starring soprano of 20th-century opera, dies at 89" Washington Post, + Le Monde + FAZ ++
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: One of the best-known Italian sopranos of the 1960s and 1970s, "heir to Maria Callas", later active as opera director and voice teacher, mourned by many. - It took me a while because the article, though detailed, had practically no references. It could still be expanded, but I think we shouldn't wait longer. - Also, I'm busy this weekend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed, Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Michael Parkinson

Per Tone. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: English author and journalist. One section with cn tag. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the recent past, we’ve blurbed television figures who are incredibly well-known in their home country but are not A-list anywhere else (Betty White, who was chiefly known for supporting roles in sitcoms, for example). I think Parkinson, host of a long-running eponymous chat show considered the greatest of all time by the BFI, the revered top of his field in the UK, would justify one, or perhaps a Photo RD. Humbledaisy (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add the the cultural impact, I'll point out that the British Film Institute consider he "helped pioneer the celebrity interview format, which few on UK TV have been so successful at since". Industry professionals voted his programme 8th in the list of 100 Greatest British Television Programmes, and they conclude that "His contribution to broadcasting remains incalculable: he revolutionised the chat show on UK television, giving it a depth and reach never accomplished before".(See here). When words like "pioneer", and "revolutionised" are being used by a respected industry body, the idea of a blurb needs to be taken seriously. - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD on quality - I’m seeing a lot of unsourced statements that I’ll add CN tags to momentarily. Oppose blurb - good lord people, do I even need to explain anymore? The Kip (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given we're all !voting based on loose guidelines and our own opinions, "good lord people, do I even need to explain anymore" is just patronising: there's no need for it - you have your opinion, others have theirs, and there's no need for the snark. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, but I’ve become quite frustrated with the tidal wave of blurb noms for figures that do not rise to the level of one. It seems nearly any recent RD nom that was somewhat famous at somepoint in their lives has had someone come charging in arguing they’re blurb-worthy, setting off a discussion that turns wildly off topic and in turn ignoring the actual RD criteria in favor of “do I think this person is notable enough.” Virtually none of these have reached the (admittedly informal) “transformative figure” criteria, instead being nominated because “well, I liked them.” The Kip (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because people hold a different opinion doesn't mean they should be abused. Just to remind you of what WP:ITNRDBLURB actually says, it makes no claim as to a "transformative figure", but states "The death of major figures may merit a blurb" and that any posting is based on a consensus from the discussion. The definition of "major figure" varies as to what field in which they were active (and in terms of talk show hosts, Parkinson certainly reaches that level), and the opinion of each individual !voting here will always vary. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I really "come charging in"? I have not contributed to ITN very much in the past - I think this is the first time I've ever nominated someone for a blurb. I was nervous about doing it because I expected pushback, but it's been ruder than I was expecting. My reasoning was not “well, I liked them." and I don't appreciate the suggestion. It's not nice to be made to feel unwelcome, like I'm the wrong kind of person to contribute to ITN. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You also weren't the one who nominated the blurb - that was Andrew, who has a bit of a history at ITNC and isn't exactly looked on favorably by some as a result. Apologies for anything that felt excessively hostile toward you. The Kip (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew nominated Parkinson for RD I believe, it was me who proposed a blurb. No worries. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb was a popular talk-show host in the UK 30 years ago, so what? But feel free to post it in line with our proud tradition of blurbing random American/British actors/singers who nobody born after 1990 has heard of before the obituaries were published. AryKun (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this has got downright unpleasant. Comments like "enough with the blurb suggestions" and "good lord people, do I even need to explain anymore?" don't strike me as fair at all. I thought people were going to engage. In response to AryKun, he was a popular talk-show host in the UK much more recently than 30 years ago - Parkinson ended in 2007. I was also, incidentally, born well after 1990. I don't think that assumption about younger people rings true. Humbledaisy (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, we would not even be considering blurbing a Filipino presenter who hosted a show for 30 years and invited Muhammad Ali over once if they were practically unknown outside the Philippines, even though the UK and the Philippines have comparable English-speaking populations. What’s happening here is people tired of blurb nominations for somewhat famous American and British entertainers when we don’t give this treatment to people from any other part of the world. Betty White was probably the dumbest blurb we’ve ever done, and it’s created a precedent that would lead to ITN being a 24/7 death ticker if we applied it uniformly across the globe. AryKun (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the Betty White blurb was an example of too many driveby !votes in favor just because she was famous and popular, which are neither metrics we use per WP:ITNATA. And I think editors here want people to think more about when we actually should blurb deaths when the death or impact of that death that significant. Masem (t) 03:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb - Article is cited well enough ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Being famous or well-recognized by awards is not sufficient for being a blurb RD, no apparent importance or transformative nature to television as a whole. Oppose RD with numerous CN tags. --Masem (t) 18:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The CNs have been fixed so Support RD. --Masem (t) 03:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD and blurb on notability in the United Kingdom Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, weak oppose blurb Article appears to be in good shape. In terms of blurb, while reading the comments here it seems Parkinson has some notability in his field, but his article doesn't show his impact on his field, no legacy section or anything that demonstrates he was transformative in his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Any other entertainment-related nomination would get shut down immediately. Don't understand why obit blurbs for actors/singers/entertainers are so popular here (while literary figures or scientific figures, including Nobel Prize winners, get the "Never heard of her/him" treatment). While I understand from supporters here that he was a beloved figure in Britain, I'm not sure people outside Britain have ever heard of him - for me that would be key to assess notability. When Larry King died, he made the news in Germany and France at least; haven't come across any news related to Parkinson in DE or FR media so far. Khuft (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb as he hosted the most notable chat show in the UK and has appeared on television and film internationally, would also support RD posting whilst a blurb discussion is ongoing. Happily888 (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMD The update is ten words long, omitting consequence and cause. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • And three of those words are numerals. Even if this should be posted, that's plainly insufficient to meet WP:ITNCRIT. —Cryptic 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not expect a significant update when only an RD is being considered, just that the death is mentioned and sourced, atop all other quality factors. Of course, obits that provide additional details not yet included can be used to expand the article but that's not always possible nor is expected. --Masem (t) 03:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updates refer to more than just updates to death information, per WP:ITNRDBLURB the death doesn't necessarily have to be the main story when nominating a major figure. Happily888 (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • What else do you see happening in that article that's in any way related to this breaking news/developing story/whatever-this-is? Verb changes to past tense? Needed citations appearing to "get tweaked"? Timothy Cooper's comma?!? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "a substantial quantity of directly relevant information" does, yeah, mean the article has to have significant updates about the death. Right now we have no usable update at all, since even those seven words and three substantial numerals are excluded by "updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb". If more can't be written without unnatural padding written solely to get a blurb, doomed to be removed from the article just as soon as it rolls off the main page, then the criteria are clear that we can't post this no matter how many people vote support. —Cryptic 04:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb Article well cited and was a notable figure in the UK, and to a lesser extent, Australia. However, despite this, I do not support the use of a blurb. Fats40boy11 (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stats FYI, Parkinson's article was already rated as vital. There were many readers yesterday, making it the #2 top read article, behind an Indian movie. For comparison, note that most of existing blurbs are getting almost no readers. For example, the 2023 Hazara Express derailment got just 1284 views which is derisory. We keep running such news events long after they have fallen out of the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting RD, I see we have no consensus for a blurb. I suggest the discussion is closed. --Tone 08:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(closed) UEFA Super Cup result

consensus against posting, nomination also withdrawn --Jayron32 12:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: 2023 UEFA Super Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Manchester City wins their first UEFA Super Cup title, after defeating Sevilla on penalties. (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Major sporting event in association football, winner team is from one of the English-speaking countries and it's their first win. Nxavar (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We never post the results of super cups, these are relatively unimportant matches with little prestige. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Association football is one of the most well-represented sports on ITN. The super cup is not a major competition in association football, even the article for the super cup itself says in the lead "It is not recognised as one of UEFA's major competitions". We don’t need to post minor competitions, especially when it's association football. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 12:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The referenced clip from the trophy's article was corrected using the given source!!! It's not a major competition, it is a major trophy. 12:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
How can it be a major trophy without being a major competition? Even hypothetically conceding that point, its recognition and prestige amongst fans is pretty low and the fact that association football has so many fans are what makes its competitions important. If this one isn’t as recognized as the other competitions we post, then it isn’t worth posting. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 12:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem with not posting. I have not been following football closely for many years now and, you're right, it's not really important even among football fans. Nxavar (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an important trophy, since it's a match between UEFA 2 major competitions winners. That being the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League, the match has millions of people watching. 2601:58A:8E82:1FF0:15FF:72F8:3C0B:C0F (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Gennady Zhidko

Article: Gennady Zhidko (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): UK Times, Moscow 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: Once in charge of Russian forces during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article appears sufficient. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 16:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Geneina massacre

Article: Battle of Geneina (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Geneina, Sudan, 30 mass graves with over 1,000 bodies are found. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Geneina, Sudan, at the location of a battle which took place during the ongoing conflict in the country, 30 mass graves containing over 1000 bodies are found.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Over 1000 corpses are discovered in mass graves as result of the battle of Geneina, in Sudan.
Alternative blurb III: ​ In Sudan, approximately 1,000 corpses are discovered in mass graves after the Battle of Geneina.
News source(s): AllAfrica, Dabanga Sudan,
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Just writing down here to clarify my decision, over 1,000 bodies were found in 30 mass graves in El Geneina, Sudan surpassing the level of deadliness we saw from the Bucha massacre last year and probably this centurie’s most deadly massacre yet confirmed.

Thank you. 2601:183:4081:FEA0:80E6:43D5:FCEF:63E9 (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If anyone would like edit the blurb or improve it be free to do so!

  • Weak oppose The article needs some work (2 cn tags, some bare URLs and some permanent dead links). Also the section in the article which covers this, is only two sentences. I'm sure it can be expanded further, maybe cover some reactions and more details about the discovery. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as covered by Ongoing. The battle itself is also stale. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The battle and the discovery of mass graves are two separate events, even if one was caused by the other. That being said, Support on principle, but article needs work first. DrewieStewie (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discovery does not have its own article and is a relatively small update to the larger article. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be reasonable to post if it was a major update to the article (we use similar logic when evaluating ongoing, just with an added time aspect). The trick is making that update happen. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Covered by Ongoing It's not much, but there are a few vague sentences in May, June and July about the clashes, hundreds of deaths and suspected killers themselves (also more mass grave discovery). I presume they were added between May and July. That would have been the "major" part of the ongoing story; finding the bodies is pretty clearly (to me) the epilogue/aftermath/tail end. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, a few vague sentences about massacres may have been mentioned in the article previously, but nothing about the massacres got posted to ITN as far as I can tell from searching the archive. To my mind, this is a pretty substantial update. Note that these are largely graves of civilians of one particular ethnic group, so this could be considered genocide/ethnic cleansing. Note that the only previous ITN posting about the 2023 Sudan conflict was this initial tidbit back in April (which gives no indication of mass war crimes against civilians):
    Now that we don't have vague statements but rather confirmed existence of mass graves attesting to a killing of such huge magnitude, I think it's definitely the right time to post this. I agree it's the epilogue/aftermath but better late than never, and it could even be argued to be the perfect time to post because we have specific information on the incident with solid confirmatory sources instead of vague statements. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing got posted because it was covered by Ongoing, same as now. When I said vague statements, I didn't mean incredible or dubious ones. The BBC, the UN, the victims themselves...all have been telling us that many thousands are being massacred in the last three months and covered up. I'm pretty sure there's some video evidence, but haven't looked for any. In news, late is never better. And even if we weren't late, it'd still best be covered in the already-posted article (it's just late again now). You're not going to sway me on this. But I don't blame you for trying. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, oppose on quality Massacre section needs some expansion, but easily notable enough. The Kip (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Section's been expanded and sourced. I personally support ALT2 for the blurb. The Kip (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead proposed ALT3. The Kip (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support on notability. Yes, there's a related "Ongoing" item, but a horrific war crime of this scale definitely merits mention IMO. I agree the article could use some work before posting. Also, maybe the blurb could mention that the dead were largely civilians of Masalit ethnicity. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've done some tidying of the article and would suggest that article quality is sufficient for ITN. I shall leave it up to others to decide on notability. Schwede66 05:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In addition to the thousands of civilians killed in the battle itself (this aspect is covered through ongoing, similar to the Siege of Mariupol), an additional at least 10,000 civilians (figure according to a local tribal leader [16]) were murdered in the subsequent massacre, when the RSF was literally killing any black person they saw. Absolutely blurb-worthy, though I feel like focusing on just the mass graves aspect may be understating it and would personally prefer a broader scope. Curbon7 (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're referring to Sultan Saad Bahar al-Deen, he seems to me to mean 10,000 or more people were killed in West Darfur since violence erupted in April, not since the battle of Geneina ended (see preceding paragraph). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be correct on that ([17]), though the majority of that is concentrated in this city. I do still think that the way it is being covered demonstrates significance beyond the ongoing section; for example, this horrific CNN article was posted just yesterday. Curbon7 (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly has been concentrated on the capital and CNN does have a history of pouncing on mass grave discoveries in places it normally underreports. This will likely happen the next time, too, considering the last. Remember, thousands more bodies are still unrecovered. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I look forward to seeing how you might broaden the scope beyond the four current blurbs, though, might reconsider that. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above, on notability standards, article looks OK. Massive war crime. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Ongoing exists to highlight highly publicized events that are developing over the course of several days or weeks, but that doesn't mean it's a substitute for blurbing something as significant as the massacre of thousands of people. Kurtis (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I just gave it a once over but there was very little left to be done, so well done, everyone. The subject's clearly notable, it seems up to date without touching WP:NOTNEWS and the MOS queries have been resolved. SN54129 13:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt 3, though I would change the wording to "around 1000" rather than "over 1000" as that matches what the source says here, stating "Civil leaders in West Darfur have uncovered 30 hidden mass graves containing roughly one thousand bodies" We need to be scrupulous on things like this. Otherwise, Alt 3 is the best blurb, with that tweak. --Jayron32 13:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted alt3. Schwede66 22:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Marion County Record

Consensus to post is unlikely to develop.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Marion County Record (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Local newspaper Marion County Record raided by police after the paper received a tip on a drunken-driving conviction, and the co-owner died the next day (Post)
News source(s): CNN, The Guardian, KWCH, The Independent
Credits:
Nominator's comments: First ITN nom, so my blurb isn't great. Please be soft. This happened a few days ago, with today the seized items were returned to them. SWinxy (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's best for everybody involved that we close this sidebar.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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.

August 15

August 15, 2023 (2023-08-15) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Sports

(Posted) RD: Ada Deer

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

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

Nominator's comments: Native American scholar and advocate. Article has appropriate depth but work on improving referencing is in progress. SpencerT•C 23:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: 2023 Women's European Volleyball Championship

Consensus against. We can post the champion. --Tone 19:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2023 Women's European Volleyball Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Credits:
 Martin Mystère (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Bobby Baun

Article: Bobby Baun (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sportsnet, CBC
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: Toronto Maple Leafs legend. Article is orange-tagged and needs extensive ref work. The Kip (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mohammed Habib (footballer)

Article: Mohammed Habib (footballer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Indian football player and captain Fahads1982 (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bindeshwar Pathak

Article: Bindeshwar Pathak (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Business Today
Credits:

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

 Fahads1982 (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 14

August 14, 2023 (2023-08-14) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

Mahach Kala gas station explosion

Article: 2023 Makhachkala gas station explosion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A gas station explosion in Mahach Kala, Dagestan kills 35. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A gas station explosion in Makhachkala, Dagestan, Russia, kills 35.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In Russia, an explosion at a gas station in Makhachkala kills 35.
News source(s): https://apnews.com/article/russia-explosion-dagestan-0565233354e942ad1481eb5ade1aa53c
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: fairly high death toll (35) for Europe imo, if this was like Congo or India I'd get not posting it, but I was shoked that a day after there wasn't even an article about it on the english wiki, let alone a discussion on this forum about posting it onto the wikipedia's main page --Daikido (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "if this was like Congo or India", really? We're not here to reinforce the Euro-American bias, a tragedy doesn't become more or less tragic just because of where it happened. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same user that opposed a prior nom because, and I quote, “global warming’s fake imo,” bluntly WP:FRINGE. This user also has prior warnings for inappropriate behavior at ITNC, edit wars, and so on (including apparently using a slur in a prior nom).
I would strongly recommend they read and review ITNC do’s and dont’s before they continue to contribute in this manner, and I’m honestly somewhat convinced at the moment they’re WP:NOTHERE. If someone else proposes sanctions or the like, I'd be inclined to support as well. The Kip (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually meant it in the sense that other people wouldn't post it here because it happened outside of the usual first world/west/europe whatever, sort of like on this meme: https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/tragedy-world-map.png
Like how i remember there's been numerous appearance of gas tank trucks exploding in africa or asia or latin america over the past like decade or so with far more deaths usually (often 100+ sometimes even 300+), and those were only rarely posted here
I definately did not mean to say it as if I personally think Africa or asia shouldn't be posted!!! Daikido (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping things from getting too derailed. The Kip (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At the risk of severely derailing this whole nom, I am strongly opposed to any proposed sanctions; Daikido's recent contributions to ITN have been fairly mundane; all of the issues Kip referred to on his talk page are at least a year old and these incidents are often separated from each other by like half a year. The exception was the WP:FRINGE climate change denial, which while indefensible on an argumentative basis, is not grounds to levy sanctions against someone. Not to cast any WP:ASPERSIONS, but these accusations of WP:NOTHERE behavior and the like seems to stem from a disagreement on one editor's (admittedly wrong) belief regarding climate change, or in other words reeks of WP:DEADHORSE. Once you remove the global warming comment, nothing in Daikido's presence on ITN substantiates any sanctions. — Knightoftheswords 17:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
all of the issues Kip referred to on his talk page are at least a year old
The use of a slur in a prior nom occurred last month. The section of the talk page is quite directly named "July 2023." Their oppose vote to blurbing a stabbing attack in Canada because such incidents are common in the US was also less than a year ago.
Anyhow, I'm striking my NOTHERE/sanctions comment and hatting these two so as not to derail things too badly. The Kip (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support 115 casualties in an unusual explosion; though I'm not sure why the argument is being made that we wouldn't post if it was from Congo or India (the opposite is probably true). — Knightoftheswords 17:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Knightoftheswords281 Where did you get 115 casualties from? When I was editing this articles all the RSes were saying 35. If it’s increased that much the article and blurb should definitely be updated. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 17:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
35 died and 80 were injured. Do the math. — Knightoftheswords 17:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought casualties only referred to deaths. Sorry. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 17:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Common mistake, no problem. — Knightoftheswords 19:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'd probably post this in India, but in sub-Saharan Africa, there's a disturbingly common pattern of "fuel tanker crashes -> people congregate to gather spilled fuel -> fuel ignites, killing a hundred people". --Carnildo (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Trump indictment

No consensus to post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Articles: 2020 Georgia election investigation (talk · history · tag) and Prosecution of Donald Trump in Georgia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia indicts former U.S. president Donald Trump on racketeering and other charges in connection with an investigation into his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Former U.S. president Donald Trump and 18 others are indicted for attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia.
News source(s): AP, NYT, CNN, NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, BBC, France24, DW, Sydney Morning Herald
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The most important of the four indictments in my view. Davey2116 (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Fortunately, this should be the last time that a Trump indictment is nominated. In fairness, the indictment is sprawling, but the legal issues of Trump have already been covered on ITN. The role of the other eighteen defendants is far too intricate for the average reader—particularly outside of the United States—to properly give the same weight to as Trump, i.e. Kenneth Cheseboro's involvement into the attempts to overturn the election is not a particularly well-known fact. On a more general scale, an indictment is an allegation, not a conviction. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if he is being investigated in Arizona. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is the fourth indictment, and the third one is for essentially the same thing but at the federal level and didn't have a consensus to post. [18] Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping on reply) 05:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a RICO indictment of a former POTUS. The cop out false equivalency is certainly a reason to oppose, just because they both share traits. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We need convictions now. We wouldn't post a similar legal status for a former leader of another country. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose We are not Trumpedia. The first one might have been justified based on the novelty of a former POTUS being criminally indicted. But we are way past that. These repeated nominations that would never even be made for most other world leaders serve as strong evidence of the projects systemic bias. Enough. We can post the verdicts when they are handed down, which is what should have been our approach from the start. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would love to consider and support other nominations for former world leaders who are indicted for alleged crimes that occurred while they were in office, or related to their seeking office. We can't consider what isn't nominated. Too many postings is not a problem right now. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—I supported posting the first indictment because it was an exceptional circumstance; up to that point, no American president had ever been indicted for a crime. The novelty of the first indictment has worn off now that there have been four. The next time we should post about Trump's legal issues is if/when there's a verdict in one of the trials. Kurtis (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - It's a RICO indictment of a former POTUS. But who are we kidding. Wikipedia's ITN is run randomly (if X random people log on and comment, no matter the logic, the numbers of Support/Oppose will decide the outcome). It's a RICO indictment of a former POTUS and a vote tally will decide if it is posted. Laughable, shameful, and contemptible does not begin to describe this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombie Philosopher (talk • contribs) 07:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't a thing random about how ITN runs. —Cryptic 09:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah-ha right. Because the 10th train derailment of this year is more noteworthy news than a RICO indictment (or any indictment) of a former POTUS. lol k Zombie Philosopher (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Week-old sports tournaments that were never meaningfully in the news aren't more noteworthy either. I'm not saying it's ok that this is being opposed. I'm saying it's not random. —Cryptic 10:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It is random in the fact that the decision to post or not post is largely based on the # of people supporting and # opposing, which is extremely gameable based on the few dozen people that post their vote, and it is extremely based on the amount of random people paying attention at any given time to what is up for consideration. Furthermore, people with agendas can be watching and skewing the tally which is the main consideration. Not the logic. Not some quantifiable objective metric of "what is actually in the news" aka "newsworthy enough to be featured on the #5 biggest website in the world". It isn't based on this. It is based on the random factor of how many people happen to be paying attention and decide to cast their vote. It's useless. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      We should really have more precise guidelines for what gets or doesn't get ITN. Right now, a few anonymous votes can decide what is deemed newsworthy enough for one of the biggest websites in the world, without any clear policy behind. I suggest this should be discussed with the wider community as to whether the current system should be kept or a more explicit set of guidelines be drafted. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Totally agree. Not every story is important enough for ITN, and it shouldn't be a live news ticker, but I will never understand why nominations like this are opposed, when the item is clearly notable and In The News. Relatively minor sports events get featured with nearly no discussion, ones I didn't even know existed. And sure, that's just my personal experience, but I don't think I'm the only one. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah it is a little strange how ITN is run atm. It's weird how a story like this is struck down for being almost routine at this point, yet we post the National Darts Championships or high death toll disasters without question. Not to say that these events aren't notable, but for a section called 'In The News' we don't seem to post what is actually In The News often, sometimes out of some moral point about the prevalence of domestic American politics in international discussion.
      For the record, I'm inclined to oppose this story, but I think we should honestly have some kind of convention to determine how exactly this section should be run. It feels like everyone has different ideas and philosophies about what deserves to be posted, and sometimes notability criteria gets a little ridiculous (see WP:MINIMUMDEATHS). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all above. Thanks God this is not Trumpedia or USApedia. _-_Alsor (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm astonished at the opposition here. Is this ITN or isn't it? These people(and in this case, not just Trump) were nominated for allegedly running a criminal enterprise to overturn a democratic election. It's particularly ironic for Rudy Giuliani who jailed people as a federal prosecutor for RICO violations. ITN is withering on the vine here and it's sad. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant support I hate him and I hate talking about him, but it's not just the #1 story in the US, it's the #1 story on BBC News and ABC (Australia) and Le Monde and El Pais and... look, this is called In The News, and the story is the news right now. If the target article is up to snuff- which I think this one is, barely- then it's what we should be posting, whether we like it or not. -- Kicking222 (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per ITNATA, we don't consider if a story is the top headline across news sources (or not) with ITNC, as we are not a news ticker. Masem (t) 12:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is a section literally called 'In The News' not a news ticker? Genuine question, not trying to be snarky. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument is that ITN doesn't just post whatever news happens, even if it's top news, it has a higher significance standard that needs to be met. That's why celebrity gossip or certain other types of stories (low death toll disasters, subnational politics, arbitrary records etc.) don't get posted. See WP:NOTATICKER for more details. Some people of course disagree with this philosophy. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 12:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't disagree with it, but I do think the insistence of not being a news ticker is sometimes taken to extremes. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank god ITN isn't nearly as important as its gatekeepers think it is. Kicking222 (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's the top story in the English-speaking world right now. Trump might lead the story, but the 18 others like Mark Meadows are a significant development. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and idea I think this would definitely be noteworthy if it were the first one, but now that there've been multiple indictments I'm not sure it's worth posting them anymore. Perhaps an alternative solution would be to add Indictments against Donald Trump to "Ongoing". That way it wouldn't look like we were ignoring the situation, but we wouldn't have to post every update. That said, I'm not sure I even fully support this idea, just throwing it out there for discussion. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ongoing would not work at this point as there are no presently waiting grand juries or similar that could add additional indictments, so now is just the waiting game while there are orders and other legal mumbo-jumbo that will go on prior to any trial date (with possibly the DC one as early as Jan). Ongoing stories are expected to have near-daily major updates which won't happen here. Masem (t) 12:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IF there were an active trial and new things happening just about every day in said trial and IF there was a Wikipedia article that were being equally actively updated with said information, I could support that. This is not where we are right now. --Jayron32 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Good arguments to support, but personally I do think that a Trump-related story is nominated every week at this point. I think we should wait until these cases are settled in a court of law and post the result. I also think that there is a case to post the Trump Indictments to ongoing, however as others have pointed out the updates probably aren't frequent or consistent enough. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/wait The general policy has always been that we post the conclusion of legal processes, not incremental steps along the way. Once any trial or legal proceedings has been completed, I would be fully on-board with posting, whatever the results. --Jayron32 12:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I thought the last one was the most important one? Also, per others, call back when there's a conviction. CoatCheck (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This story is by far the most covered story in major news outlets as of now, and the article is of good quality. Some of the above opposing arguments say we should wait to post this until some decision in a possible trial arises. Now, if this was the first indictment, it seems reasonable to conclude that we would have posted (as we did post the real first indictment). This is of course not the first indictment, but I think labeling this as just another indictment of Trump is misleading. This is, for example, the first indictment for 18 other co-defendants. And even if it should be counted as just the fourth indictment of Trump, it being covered as the top story in the major news outlets, IMO, means it should be published.
2G0o2De0l (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, this story is NOT by far the most covered story in major news outlets as of now. My country has quickly moved on. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated articles do indeed name numerous defendants besides Trump and many of these don't seem to have articles. So, WP:PERP applies, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Andrew🐉(talk) 21:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly, weakest possible oppose to the point it's almost neutral. The time to post an indictment was the first one for its uniqueness or the third one for its relationship to attempts to overturn the 2020 election. I would not be upset if this gets posted, but I think at this point the thing to post is a conviction. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Clearly in the news around the world and a major story which will continue to get a lot of coverage. Personally, I also think it's notable that Rudy Giuliani is among those indicted. To non-Americans, he might be the most recognizable co-conspirator behind Trump because he was mayor of New York City when 9/11 happened. I'm not sure if that's important enough to mention. Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was indicted too. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it's not in the news around the world. Just checked my local major news service, and it's gone. (It did appear yesterday for a while.) Trump indictments are passe these days. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 24 hours since the indictment, of course it's not going to be the top story forever. If being the top story for more than 24 hours was a requirement, ITN would be empty, because that rarely happens (none of the current 4 items would qualify). I just checked my own local news sources and they all have Trump on the home page, just not the top story anymore. Also, Trump and other co-defendants will be booked and arraigned soon, so it won't be long until it's the top story again. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the legal affairs of a president not from your country, appeared in major news sources in your country? Must've been very noteworthy. The legal affairs of other presidents don't appear in major news in most countries. Something to reflect upon while you hate on how America is disproportionately represented in media, the news, world culture, etc. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zombie Philosopher Can you dial down on the snarky stuff, please? Practically every comment of yours in this thread is like this and it's getting boring. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's your personal interpretation and preference. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it will be my personal preference to block you from the page if you carry on, so knock it off. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Block me, to save me from your silly self-righteousness and busy-body opinionating. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a scroll or two with the mousewheel down the ABC page for me still. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:1183:7021:B7C4:8F1F (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Alex Collins

Article: Alex Collins (American football) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Baltimore Ravens
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: Another tragically young sports passing today, after Rodion Amirov. Article seems fine; considering the only two other Alex Collins-es with Wikipedia pages are long-dead, I don’t think the qualifier is necessary if/when he’s posted. The Kip (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is contradictory information on DoB. The article about his death at the NFL news section says "Collins, who would have turned 29 on Aug. 28", whereas other sources like USA Today say "Collins would have turned 29 on Aug. 26." Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 07:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All other reputable sports sources (PFRef, U of Arkansas, ESPN.com, etc) list his date of birth as the 26th; I'd be willing to bet the NFL.com editor simply made a typo/error. The Kip (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where the birth date is cited in the article as it stands. --Engineerchange (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
External links. Career statistics/biographical information are from PFRef as with almost all other football pages. The Kip (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Tom Jones (writer)

Article: Tom Jones (writer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Lyricist for The Fantasticks (not that Tom Jones) Kafoxe (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rodion Amirov

Article: Rodion Amirov (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sportsnet, TSN
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: Absolutely tragic loss for the hockey community. Article's a little short and needs some refs. The Kip (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Delwar Hossain Sayeedi

Article: Delwar Hossain Sayeedi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Dhaka Tribune
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: Bangladeshi Islamic scholar, lecturer, MP (1996 to 2006) and convicted war criminal. Article has a cn tag and a BSN tag. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 17:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Clarence Avant

Article: Clarence Avant (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Daily MailVariety
Credits:

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

 The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No longer relevant since original user changed their mind on blurb, off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I really don't think he is. But to avoid what happened with Friedkin (ie, opinions on RD readiness lost amidst a sea of blurb-worthiness debate), could we start a ===== subsection===== below to keep the two discussions – one technical and essentially objective, the other highly subjective – separate? Here and henceforth? Moscow Mule (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscow Mule: There is a relevant discussion about this topic on the talk section of ITN that you might be interested in. It's better to contribute your thoughts about it there rather than here. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 21:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly that is proposed. Thanks for the pointing me in that direction. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im just going to undue my blurb thought. I'd thought maybe he might be a borderline, with having signed Bill Withers, produced several films, the nickname, and revleance in the African American sphere, but... it seems it may not be close enough. TheCorriynial (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If User:MonarchOfTerror agrees, we could delete this entire nest. Might save some confusion. Moscow Mule (talk)
@Moscow Mule: If there’s no objections I could hat this discussion since it's off topic and irrelevant now. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 08:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MonarchOfTerror: Works for me. Thanks. Moscow Mule (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan new PM

There's no support for posting a caretaker PM. Schwede66 06:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


Article: Anwar ul Haq Kakar (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Anwar ul Haq Kakar became the Caretaker Prime Minister of Pakistan successing Shehbaz Sharif. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Anwar ul Haq Kakar becomes the Caretaker Prime Minister of Pakistan, succeeding Shehbaz Sharif.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Anwar ul Haq Kakar succeeds Shehbaz Sharif as the Caretaker Prime Minister of Pakistan.
News source(s): NY Times, Reuters, AL Jazeera, Gulf News, Times Now, France 24
Credits:
 Ainty Painty (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is there any precedent to posting interim heads of state? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and close the appointment of an acting HoG is never ITNR and shouldn’t be. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't think this should be posted, arguing to close a discussion about a legitimate topic before anyone else has had a chance to weigh in is unnecessary at best and rude at worst. Letting a discussion breathe for a few hours won't hurt us. (Also, this wasn't an ITNR nomination, so why even mention it?) Kicking222 (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is everyone so gung-ho all of a sudden to rush through nominations at the speed of light? Let people have a conversation. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply because it is my opinion. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrecariousWorlds: I don't know, but I've definitely seen an uptick in the incidence of ITN regulars attempting to shut down discussions before they're even allowed to happen. What this communicates to the person on the receiving end is that their idea is so bad, it's not even worthy of the bandwidth used to type "oppose" over it. That is antithetical to how we do things here, and shouldn't be an accepted part of the discourse at ITN. Kurtis (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To argue that a discussion should be closed because it is unlikely to succeed because the reason is too obvious is an opinion just as respectable as betting on leaving it open for a longer period of time. Let's not exaggerate or claim unethical opinions that we do not share. _-_Alsor (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is there is no harm in keeping this discussion open, and there is possible harm in closing it early. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "To argue that a discussion should be closed because it is unlikely to succeed because the reason is too obvious"—Obvious to whom? You? Me? We are both on the record as being opposed to a blurb in this case, but maybe other editors have opinions that are different from ours, and they should have the opportunity to speak before someone preemptively invokes WP:SNOW. Also, which "unethical opinions" are you referring to? The only thing anyone here is saying is that it comes across as dismissive—and even a little bit contemptuous—for someone to call for a discussion to be closed before it even begins. Kurtis (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it's obvious to me, that's why I called to close it. I doubt very much that calling to close a discussion early could hurt anyone, but in any case we can't be constantly offended by opinions contrary to our own. Just because I ask for it to be closed, it does not imply that it must be closed at that very moment. Therefore, the debate is not over. It’s my opinion, I have reasons to raise it and I would not change it. Btw, I was not the one who said that some arguments are antiethical. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you say "it does not imply that it must be closed at that very moment", what does "Oppose and close" add rather than a simple "Oppose"? The debate is on whether the story should be posted, we are not here to have a parallel debate on whether to close the debate early - the votes should speak for themselves, and, if they stay unanimously "Oppose" (as they are now), there isn't anything lost in not closing it as the story wouldn't be posted either way. But we couldn't have known that that would be the case if it had been closed early.
    In any case, you're the one who is suggesting to cut off the conversation early, you don't have a standing for calling others "constantly offended by opinions contrary to our own". Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alsoriano97: The word I used was antithetical, which is a somewhat fancy way of saying "the antithesis of". Basically, suggesting that we close the discussion early runs counter to how things are done on Wikipedia. Kurtis (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Caretaker PM until next elections, unlikely to have much significance. The Kip (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it's an interim position. But the Prime Minister (HoG) is the head of the political executive in most parliamentary democracies including Pakistan, not the President (HoS) who's a figurehead. So that's the right position for ITN. A modicum of research would've cleared that up, but some editors would rather dogpile. 5.151.106.3 (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Barring exceptional circumstances, we generally don't post the appointment of interim heads of state and government, as it is intended to be a brief transition period. I don't think there is anything different about this case that would warrant a full blurb. Kurtis (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, interim head of state until the next elections. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 13

August 13, 2023 (2023-08-13) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

RD: Patricia Bredin

Article: Patricia Bredin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-humber-66509586 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2023/08/15/patricia-bredin-first-uk-entry-eurovision-died-obituary/
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: English actress and the first representative of the United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bill Schlesinger

Article: Bill Schlesinger (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.mrfh.com/obituary/william-bill-schlesinger
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 professional baseball player. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Norman Drew

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

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

 Fahads1982 (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1171253005"