Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

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

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

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

Uttarakhand tunnel
Uttarakhand tunnel

view — page history — related changes — edit

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers[edit]

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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do...[edit]

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. Maybe the previous reviewer has missed a problem, or an identified problem has now been fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes may also help administrators identify items that are ready for promotion to the ITN template on MainPage.
  3. Point out problematic areas in the nominated article and, if appropriate, suggest how to fix them. If you know exactly what to do, by all means, go ahead and fix it as you see fit.

Please do not...[edit]

Shortcut
  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. Oppose an item 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.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page.
  6. Use the discussion section of an item as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome of a nomination and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates[edit]

A posted ITNC item that needs correcting can be addressed in two ways:

  • Simple updates, such as updated death tolls in a disaster, linking issues, spelling or grammar corrections, or otherwise anything that does not change the intent of the blurb should be discussed at WP:ERRORS in the ITN section.
  • More complex updates that involve a major change in the blurb's intent should be discussed as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[edit]

November 29[edit]

November 29, 2023 (2023-11-29) (Wednesday)

Disasters and accidents

November 28[edit]

November 28, 2023 (2023-11-28) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Mali (elephant)[edit]

Article: Mali (elephant) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rappler
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.

KTerPalmers (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

support i see no quality issues. JM (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose A lot of the content is completely unsourced. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Charlie Munger[edit]

Article: Charlie Munger (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNBC
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.

Thriley (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Article looks good. Davey2116 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - article is missing a couple of references currently but seems to meet requirements overall. - Indefensible (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support "Of all the deadly sins, the dumbest is envy. It's the only one you can't have any fun with." Charlie Munger -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support article looks good and Munger was a very prominent figure. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support . Count Iblis (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hold on there’s (only) two cn tags. _-_Alsor (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    i thought 1 or 2 CN tags was fine for RD JM (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed. The overall quality of the article is solid. The two CN tags are not attached to especially controversial claims. If someone can fix them that would be good. But the article is in better shape than most we see nominated here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per above JM (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) India tunnel collapse rescue[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2023 Uttarakhand tunnel rescue (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ All 41 workers who were trapped in the under construction Silkyara-Barkot tunnel are rescued after 17 days. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ After 17 days trapped in a collapsed tunnel in Uttarkashi, all 41 workers are rescued.
News source(s): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/28/indian-rescuers-reach-41-men-trapped-in-tunnel
Credits:

Article updated
  • Support some good news Fdfexoex (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Article looks good and this is making some headlines. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. But as per e.g. Tham Luang cave rescue, should the title be changed to 2023 Uttarakhand tunnel rescue? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Not crazy about the phrasing of either blurb, but I would take Martin's suggestion either way. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support preferably altblurb, article looks good. Maybe include the rescue operation name? ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Some very minor copyediting needed, but article overall seems good enough for ITN. Would prefer a different blurb, though - the wording feels off with the current two. The Kip 19:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Wow! Absolutely incredible story, definitely deserves to go up! Change of pace from the usual depressing news stream PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 27[edit]

November 27, 2023 (2023-11-27) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

NZ New PM[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Christopher Luxon (talk · history · tag) and Sixth National Government of New Zealand (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Christopher Luxon becomes Prime Minister of New Zealand after forming a coalition government. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In New Zealand, Christopher Luxon is elected prime minister after his New Zealand National Party wins a majority of seats in New Zealand Parliament. Factually inaccurate.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In New Zealand, Christopher Luxon becomes the country's prime minister after the New Zealand National Party forms a coalition with 2 other parties in the New Zealand Parliament.
News source(s): AP News Radio New Zeland New Zealand Hearld
Credits:

Kiwiz1338 (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support - granted, this is skimming through due to limited time, but I don't see any unsourced sections. Oppose - already posted election, there's a longstanding consensus against posting inaugural type of events. — Knightoftheswords 15:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think that the election was posted, we don't normally post the mere assumption of office. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ITNR election was posted, we do not blurb formalities of their aftermath. Gotitbro (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Forming the coalition was not a formality. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It kinda was, as it was known after the election who National was going to have to partner with. That they now crossed the T's and dotted the I's is a formality. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    With Spain and the Netherlands there is/was much less certainty about what the coalition will be. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We posted both the Italian election and Meloni's government formation earlier this year, so it is not a "we do not" situation, but rather a "is this an appropriate case to double-post" situation. Curbon7 (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Needs work Work done This is WP:ITN/R because he had to form a coalition to become PM – see recent discussions about Spain and Netherlands. But the target article needs work to explain the coalition. For example, the big news which the BBC is highlighting is reversal of the policy of banning tobacco as "...National's partners in the governing coalition- the populist New Zealand First and libertarian Act - had been "insistent" on reversing the laws. Despite election victory, the centre-right National party has struggled for weeks in policy negotiations to form a government with the two minor parties." Andrew🐉(talk) 16:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Gotitbro. The Kip 18:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Good work has been done by Andykatib and others, creating a substantial and detailed article about the new coalition government. I have added this to the nomination which looks good to go now. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment We don't "elect" a prime minister in New Zealand and therefore, the altblurb is wrong. What happens is that the leader of the largest party that is part of the governing coalition becomes prime minister by convention, and that is not necessarily the leader of the party with the most votes (as was the case after the 2017 New Zealand general election). Schwede66 21:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    i just copied the Jacinda Ardern one that got onto the news. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And to be fair, I did not write the altblurb. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose this is not even ITN/R since the election was covered. And also like Schwede66 says the altblurb is factually incorrect, the PM is appointed by the governor-general, not elected by anyone. JM (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The choosing of the PM can be posted outside of the election, but there was no doubt here that Luxon would be the PM. In the case of some other countries elections, it was not at all clear who the PM would be at first(Spain and now the Netherlands) 331dot (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I wonder in gov't systems where the Prime Minister is selected by a coalition or majority of the elected Parliament at some point after the general election to elect those Parliament members, that the ITNR should be the selection of the PM, and not the results of the general election. I am sure that a near majority of the time, the likely PM can be predicated off the results of the general election, but if there is this official process of the second election/vote getting to actually being named PM, that seems the more significant result. Masem (t) 01:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose -the election was already posted, so it's incorrect to post that this is ITN/R. --RockstoneSend me a message! 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment FYI I didn't write the alt blurb, and it isn't factually correct either so whoever added it, wasn't me. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per above, election was already posted. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. I don't think there is anything objectionable about posting a government formation, even if we had the election. Assuming the formation of a coalition government feels very CRYSTAL to me. Granted, I see SNOW falling already on this nom. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. The coalition article is worth showcasing. Moscow Mule (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support We just posted the same story recently in regards to Spain, so I see no reason not to post this one either. The article appears to be good as well. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Basically because the person who won the elections and the person who became PM are not the same. The political context in Spain is far from being comparable to that of NZ. _-_Alsor (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also due to the surrounding internal strife in Spain as well. 86.188.230.178 (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In Spain the second place party made a deal with Catalan parties to stay in power even though they did not win the election. It was not at all clear that would occur beforehand. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Considering it took a month for this coalition to form, one could also say "it was not at all clear" what would happen in New Zealand either. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It took a month to agree on the particulars(such as agreeing to end the cigarette ban even though National did not campaign on that), but there was little doubt those were going to be the partners or that Luxon was going to be the PM, as the alternative would probably have been a new election. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support - Only because we already posted the election, but I think this is notable enough in of itself to slap on the front page. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support for the topic on the basis of notability and good article quality. Oppose altblurb since it's incorrect: the National party didn't win a majority of seats; they formed a coalition with two other parties. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Added altblurb 2 which is just altblurb but correct. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 16:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, it’s incorrect! We do not elect a prime minister. That position is appointed by the governor general. Schwede66 16:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe make it …becomes prime minister? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You would either say "appointed" or "sworn in". The former is what the GG does, and the latter is what happens during the formal process. Schwede66 18:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jalapeño Would you like to change it? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 19:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Done. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 19:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per JM. The elections have already been covered and there are no changes. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose- As consensus states, the election already occurred hence it's no longer a current event. Rager7 (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The election isn't a current event, but the forming of the government is. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Jean Knight[edit]

Article: Jean Knight (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone, People, The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
R&B and soul singer from New Orleans, Louisiana, best known for her 1971 hit single, "Mr. Big Stuff" on Stax Records. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: Orange needs more references tag, which I agree with Aaron Liu (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Valid orange maintenance template. Article needs more references. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 26[edit]

November 26, 2023 (2023-11-26) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

(Posted) RD: Geordie Walker[edit]

Article: Geordie Walker (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NME
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.

Freetown attacks[edit]

Article: 2023 Freetown attacks (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Sierra Leone declares a nationwide curfew after attacks on military facilities in Freetown. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Sierra Leone's capital Freetown, militants attack barracks and a prison.
News source(s): Reuters, The Guardian, France 24
Credits:

Still a Start-class article, hoping to bring a bit of attention to help bring it up to ITN quality. Very recent development, possible attempted coup, identity of the group responsible still unknown. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose for now, due to the lack of info about it. We don't know who the attackers are, how many of them there are, how many prisoners they released, nor how many casualties there are. X2023X (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait due to lack of info and stub state of article. The Kip 20:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait until it becomes clearer what happened. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 21:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support on notability, but wait for more information becomes known. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support on notability but more info is needed - consider this a full support when its considered to have enough info JM (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait - From what I'm seeing nobody knows what on Earth is actually going on here. Coup d'tat, terrorists. Completely unknown at this point. We can't post something like this when we have so little information PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Pulled) 2023 MotoGP World Championship[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2023 MotoGP World Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In motorcycle racing, Francesco Bagnaia wins the MotoGP World Championship. (Post)
News source(s): Autosport
Credits:

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

Acticle waiting for updates. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the fourth series in Spain, Bagnaia won the sprint race, then in the main race despite the drama of the red flag on the first lap due to an incident that occurred between Miguel Oliveira and Fabio Quartararo, finally from the race that was repeated Bagnaia won his second victory at this season. Followed by Brad Binder and Jack Miller.
Further examples abound ("Bagnaia made a mistake that crash in the gravel trap"). This isn't main page quality. Moscow Mule (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pull - I agree with the comment above. One of the ITN criteria for article quality is that the article should be "well written with clear prose". The season summary is well-written in places but not everywhere - the section about the Australian race is still in the future tense, and from the Qatar race - "The next round is in Qatar, Luca Marini secured seconds career pole positions with all new time lap record at this track.". This isn't suitable quality for an article linked from the main page, sorry. There is excessive linking too - e.g. Jorge Martin is linked 11 times in the season summary section. Bcp67 (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pulled – please ping me when the quality issues have been resolved (but I'll be out of coverage for half a day, so someone else needs to reinstate this if it gets resolved quickly). Schwede66 18:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support now @Schwede66:. The season summary looks a lot better, credit to User:Grdijk for their work on it. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments. Excellent work by Grdijk on the summary prose. But per Bcp67 a lot of the names are still linked repeatedly. And the article is still largely impenetrable to the uninitiated: compare the introductory sentence here with other blurbs currently up:
The 2023 FIM MotoGP World Championship was the premier class of the 75th FIM Road Racing World Championship season.
The 2023 ICC Men's Cricket World Cup was the 13th edition of the Cricket World Cup, a quadrennial One Day International (ODI) cricket tournament contested by men's national teams and organised by the International Cricket Council (ICC)
The 2023 Booker Prize is an annual literary award given for the best English-language novel of the year published in either the United Kingdom or Ireland.
I'd like to see a mention of the vehicles involved, or some useful links, at the very least. What exactly is going on here? A bit more context.
The Calendar section tells me this is a competition that takes place in various places across the world over a number of months. That should be explained at the start of the Season summary, too. And some of the 20 races listed don't get a mention in the summary, which smacks of over-reliance on the tables. The first sentence draws a distinction between the "sprint race" and the "main race" (with the former an innovation, as we learn later) but doesn't explain that distinction. The article as it stands still assumes too much on the part of the reader: What does a "red-flagged race" entail? And "the black flag with orange disk"? What is "P2"? (Link or explain, please.) And tonally: does this read like an encyclopedia article or motorsports journalism? ("Legendary", in particular, is listed on MOS:Words to watch.) Moscow Mule (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are requesting details of a kind that would never be included in an article on F1 motor racing, Word Cup Football, or the Superbowl. If people want details like that, they can click on links to find out. HiLo48 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no links to click on to find out. "The 2023 FIM MotoGP World Championship was the premier class of the 75th FIM Road Racing World Championship season": nothing other than the expansion of the acronym for FIM. Compare it to the introductory sentence of the Cricket World Cup article. 2023 MotoGP World Championship doesn't even have a link to motorcycles in general, let alone the specific class of motorcycle that's eligible to compete. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK< so it needs links, but I still believe you're asking for details that the fans already know. I can assure you that when I see articles about some American sports, I often have no idea what some of the terms mean, but I don't complain, because I know that fans do. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I normally don't look at sports articles, but are they really meant for fans only? No casual/curious readers allowed? Because elsewhere (eg. Milei and the Argentine election) we explain the electoral system, the structure of parliament/congress, the rules governing presidential terms & eligibility, the parties' ideological leanings, immediate historical background, etc., etc., etc. And anything opaque or potentially so (ballotage system, d'Hondt method) is linked or glossed. Nothing is assumed: even 2024 United States presidential election tells us "Voters will elect a president and vice president for a term of four years" -- well, duh. And no one would assert an article like either of those is for fans of elections and politics (or of South and North America) only. Moscow Mule (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:TECHNICAL: Wikipedia articles should be written for the widest possible general audience. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Karachi mall fire[edit]

Consensus is that the event does not get support on ITN notability. Schwede66 21:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 Karachi mall fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 11 people have been killed and 35 injured in a fire at a shopping mall in Karachi, Pakistan. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian, Reuters, NY Times, AP News, Al Jazeera, FOX News, ABC
Credits:

Ainty Painty (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose for now. The article does not provide sufficient information. Maxxies (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose on both notability and quality, minor disaster and the article isn't up to shape. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 13:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose At this point, seems like an unfortunate fire, but details are too thin to know if there are other major issues. --Masem (t) 15:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Chaotic Enby. Article’s a stub and disaster seems fairly small-scale/non-notable. The Kip 19:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose on notability --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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: Terry Venables[edit]

Article: Terry Venables (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.
“Meets all requirements” The entirely unsourced sections don’t bother you? 83.80.192.174 (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support with 2 refs added to the above queried section, I thinks it's covered now Josey Wales Parley 20:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted I Opposed this, but I think this is now good enough to post; I removed one sentence that was unsourced and looked a bit trivial. Black Kite (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) 2023 Booker Prize[edit]

Article: Prophet Song (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The novel Prophet Song by Paul Lynch wins the Booker Prize. (Post)
News source(s): [1], [2]. [3]
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
  • I believe it's 2023 Booker Prize that is ITN/R, not the article of the book itself. Neither is ready for the main page. Both are stubs. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Muboshgu see the quote below, even though the event is what’s ITNR the target article would be what won the award. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We really should have one of either the author or the book as a bold link. The update to the Booker Prize list is a trivial matter, so we should see a quality article on either or both the author or book. Here, I see all but a couple of awards that Lynch would need to be cited to be ready, and the book article just needs some more expansion (for example, Lynch's explanation of the book from here or perhaps from here. There's clearly more sourcing available to expand the book a notch more. Masem (t) 01:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we add primary sources, ie. interviews with Paul Lynch? Golan1911 (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lynch and the book are both independently notable via secondary sources, so adding primary source interviews to add more information is completely fine. Primary sources are not something to avoid, you just don't want an article based only on primary sources. Masem (t) 03:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Wikipedia page/article for the book was expanded upon. Golan1911 (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality it's just a stub. Definitely not enough for ITN. Support per below JM (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Article is terrible. Essentially just a list at the moment PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Because of the significant updates to both the book article (for Prophet Song) and to the Paul Lynch article. And because the updates include references and citations to credible sources. So both articles can be used for the blurb. The article for the 2023 Booker Prize is Ok, too.Trauma Novitiate (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support: Prophet Song article is of good quality. Not sure about the prize. It doesn’t have much but doesn’t have much potential either. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Now that the target article is the great book article instead of the not-so-great prize article, Im changing my vote to support. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support Prophet Song and Paul Lynch articles are short but adequate. Booker Prize article is a disaster length-wise, but as mentioned above I'm not sure it can really be expanded further than its current state. The Kip 18:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Updated vote now that BP article is de-targeted. The Kip 23:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Correct me if I’m wrong you all, but I just want to reiterate what Masem said above: “The update to the Booker Prize list is a trivial matter, so we should see a quality article on either or both the author or book.” That’s correct because per ITN/R “both the author and translator, as well as the work, should be included in blurb”. It seems to me the oppose votes above (eg., JM & PrecariousWorlds) are to the quality of the 2023 Booker Prize article (or just now “weak support“ from Kip), but that shouldn’t factor in here. So can we get these changed to Support? Thank you.Trauma Novitiate (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At the time of writing the articles for both the book and the writer weren't great, I should have clarified that I was referring to all three, not just the Booker Prize (though I did think that a little more was needed apart from the list). They've much improved now and could be put up. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The article for the 2023 Booker Prize was also expanded upon. Golan1911 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you PrecariousWorlds for taking another look at this. - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for calling it to my attention, should have clarified before PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I noticed that. Thank you for your work on this Golam1911 - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Depends. @Golan1911 may I unbold the booker prize article and change the target to be the book itself? Per ITN/R usually the target article is the winner and not the prize. That would make this a whole lot easier. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think that would be great. Thank you. Golan1911 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can anyone add the article to the In The News section? If it is ready. Golan1911 (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Per ITN/R usually the target article is the winner and not the prize @Aaron Liu: While it seems to have been the de facto practice for Booker blurbs, I don't think it is formally noted anywhere. —Bagumba (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:ITNAWARDS: Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks. It's what I get for skimming it all these years. —Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. The novel's article passes muster; the other two are unobjectionable. Moscow Mule (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted Consensus exists that the blurb is supported. Schwede66 16:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks for posting Schwede66. However my fellow ITN editors: this could’ve been posted 24 hours ago, and should’ve been. I marked it as “Ready” before the MotoGP World Championship item was marked Ready and posted. As the editor of the nomination Golan1911, I don’t know what your opinion is. But I checked back thru the archives. Two years ago is the last time the Booker Prize winner was posted to ITN. Here’s the link. The same argument that happened 2 years ago happened again now. Check out the archive for November 3, 2021. I see that Masem gives a very detailed explanation of how this ITN/R should work, just as it was above explained by this same editor. The target article in each case is the article about the novel that earned the prize. The book itself. Just like 2 years ago. Not the author and not the Booker Prize article. Per ITN/R “both the author and translator, as well as the work, should be included in blurb.” Can we get this altered to read that the book itself should be the target article for the Booker item if (or when) it is posted so that we don’t go another 2 years before we post this to ITN? Trauma Novitiate (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I unmarked your ready because when you marked this item as such, it definitely did NOT have consensus to post. Even if the opposers were opposing due to confusion about the proper target article, you do not post if we don’t have consensus to post. As for the blurb itself, I do not see what needs alteration. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I never said the blurb needs alteration. I said the ITN/R rationale needs alteration. You very clearly understand what the issue is here: and you already addressed it above with Muboshgu: “even though the event is what’s ITNR the target article would be what won the award”.
    I’m saying that in future, ITN editors should be able to go here Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items and under the Booker Awards section see something like this:

    “even though the event is what’s ITNR the target article would be the work that won the award. Both the author and translator, as well as the work, should be included in blurb.”

    Clearly there’s a lot of confusion about this issue, both now and in years past. Muboshgu’s statement is the first comment made under this nomination and, imo, led to the initial confusion and many oppose votes.
    Yes it’s true I did mark it Ready, and I did it two different times. The first time I marked it Ready, there was not consensus. I was incorrect. However, I did mark it Ready a second time but only after consensus was reached, maybe 12 hours ago: it was at the same time editor Black Kite posted the RD for Terry Venables but before Bagumba posted the 2023 MotoGP World Championship winner (perhaps prematurely). - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The entire awards section in ITNR says the target article should be the prize winner unless otherwise noted. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah and that’s the point. Because in the case of the Booker Prize it’s not otherwise noted. The Booker Prize is awarded to a single book of fiction. So that’s what needs to be the target article. And it needs to say so explicitly in the ITNR. But hey it’s all good. I take it that now we’re just talking past each other, anyhow. So see you this time next year when we’ll be debating the same issues. Because I looked back through the archives re: Booker ITN nominations and it happens almost every year, the confusion, except last year when the nomination went stale. I’m finished talking about this unless anyone can tell me who’s the arbiter I can petition to get the wording changed on this ITN/R for the Booker, so as to help us out in the future. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you to the editors for your thoughtful suggestions and assistance in getting these articles reading for the ITN section.Golan1911 (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Golan1911Reply[reply]
    My pleasure. I enjoyed the process. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 25[edit]

November 25, 2023 (2023-11-25) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

Smoking ban scrapped to fund tax cuts[edit]

Article: Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The incoming New Zealand government scraps the world's first generational smoking ban to fund tax cuts. (Post)
News source(s): New Zealand’s New Government Says It Will Scrap Smoking Ban The New York Times
Credits:

Article updated

This is causing quite a stir in New Zealand and the reason I'm nominating this is that last night's main TV news led with this article, focussing on the strong and widespread international reaction. Given that, and that the rather recent New Zealand legislation has already been copied by the UK government, indicates that it's got an impact far beyond domestic politics. Nominated for 25 November as it was on Saturday that the link to the tax cuts became known. Schwede66 08:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Marty Krofft[edit]

Article: Sid and Marty Krofft (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MSN, Variety{
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 World of Sid and Marty Krofft trippy children's program producers. He and his brother Sid were a major part of why the 70s was the best decade to be a kid. CoatCheck (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The prose has a handful of {cn} tags. The Works and Awards sections are largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Reviewers needed) RD: Russell Norman (restaurateur)[edit]

Article: Russell Norman (restaurateur) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Prominent restaurateur in Britain. Abishe (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support, New, autopatrolled, start class article. Pretty well referenced with some behind paywalls (to me anyway) so AGF. Maybe could use a reference where it is stated his first book received the inaugural Waterstones Book of the Year award. Josey Wales Parley 20:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Admins willing to post ITN: BangJan1999 22:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Excellent work done on this article. It holds up well. Yes, some of the citations run up against paywalls. I’ll check to see if the web archive & the Wayback machine have anything available. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 24[edit]

November 24, 2023 (2023-11-24) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Rd: Douglas Ahlstedt[edit]

Article: Douglas Ahlstedt (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
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: Lyric tenor, who appeared in leading (and small) roles in the Americas and Europe, a member of the Met and the Deutsche Oper am Rhine. Long list of roles, and theatres. The article was already detailed and sourced! I exchanged a lost ref by something better, and a copied ref by the original. Private info was found in the obit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support: article seems good enough. There’s an unsourced sentence at the end of the United States section about how well he performed on the gameshow, should we remove that? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I commented it out, couldn't find a ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somalia joins the East African Community[edit]

Proposed image
Article: East African Community (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Somalia is admitted as the eighth member of the East African Community. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Somalia joins the East African Community as its eighth member.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Major geopolitical development in East Africa, with the East African Community admitting Somalia after 11 years of negotiations. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 09:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please consider crediting (co-crediting?) ItzSyther if possible, who noted the need for updates on the talkpage before I edited the page. CMD (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, thanks for noting! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 09:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I think this is ITN-worthy as this is a pretty significant change to the political landscape of East Africa. LynxesDesmond (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support - I do think this can potentially be notable enough to warrant a blurb, but only just. With the ongoing project of the East African Federation I think this could have quite a significant effect (though at risk of POV I would mention that it's very unlikely Somalia will be integrated into this IMO due to how unstable the state is, same as South Sudan or DRCongo) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose only on the basis of the two orange tags in the article. These must be resolved first, but this is appropriate for posting otherwise. --Masem (t) 15:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support on notability but the article is not ready per Masem. Moazfargal (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support per above as in Moazfargal Lukt64 (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality per the aforementioned orange banners. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 21:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support. Good work, CMD. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 02:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The BBC report says that "To be admitted into the EAC, new countries are supposed to show that they adhere to the principles of good governance ... Last year, Somalia was ranked the most corrupt country in the world by Transparency International." But the EAC article says little about this discrepancy. And the EAC article appears to need some significant fact-checking as the things it does say include "Tanzania has more land than all the other EAC nations combined ..." – a claim which seems about 15 years out-of-date. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support on notability but quality must be improved. Andrew says there is "a claim 15 years out of date". JM (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I have boldly added more information to the two tagged sections and removed the tags. The outdated information noted relates to the early integration period (pre-expansion), I added a bit on the end of that enthusiasm before expansion began. I've also removed a bunch of cruft that had little to do with the topic. A general outdatedness in some areas may remain (not sure how this interacts with ITN requirements), although it's worth noting that in some cases issues simply stalled and continue to stall forever. CMD (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Congratulations, thanks a lot! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 13:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Relatively unknown organisation without much influence.
Do we always post ascensions of countries to some organisations, even not famous?
I don't think so. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has a ton of influence on East Africa. It's famous enough. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is the equivalent of the European Union for the African states, so definitely significant that a new country is introduced. Just because its not in the news as much as the EU doesn't make it less significant. Masem (t) 16:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The European Union is a massive confederation of global powers, the EAC is little more than a small regional forum PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's among the most influential African organizations (with the African Union), with a much higher level of integration between members and prospects for federalization (although the last three members complicate that point). ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 17:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • the core group of the EAC makes some sense but Somalia's accession seems more like annexation of a failed state than a marriage of equals. See Eurasia Review for an eye-opening critique. A key issue is that Somalia is not part of the Swahili language region. Our article does not explain this. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In term of personal opinions, I'd say everything past the first 5 members was an absolute mess that only prevented the "core" EAC from progressing towards a federation. In terms of Wikivoice, I don't think that's what belongs in the article (also the link doesn't work for me, unfortunately). ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wikipedia is supposed to summarise secondary sources with some analysis, rather than just presenting PR platitudes as if they are a sure thing. Note that the EAC has collapsed completely before and so the success of its plans can't be taken for granted. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of course no future plan should be taken for granted (WP:CRYSTAL after all) but using the argument of "it collapsed before" to support this point is in the range of being OR ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 00:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, to me this excessive rate of expansion to barely-functioning states is only jeopardizing prospects of a Federation, but I'll leave it at that PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support on notability, oppose on quality. Article needs a lot of work. The Kip 19:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What should be improved most urgently? I see that the last two sections are basically just tables, but the rest appears pretty clean? Thanks! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Ross McDonnell[edit]

Article: Ross McDonnell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Irish 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.

Irish filmmaker. Article was recently created and needs work. He was missing for two weeks before parts of his remains were discovered on a beach in Queens, NY. Thriley (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Ron Hodges[edit]

Article: Ron Hodges (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://apnews.com/article/ron-hodges-dies-obituary-mets-fbf289ed74be7079624f16ac20f63451
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.
  • Oppose Article is currently an under-cited stub. The Kip 19:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 23[edit]

November 23, 2023 (2023-11-23) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Reviewers needed) RD: Fathima Beevi[edit]

Article: Fathima Beevi (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 jurist. First woman judge of the Supreme Court. Ktin (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Charles Peters[edit]

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

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

Thriley (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Harald Hasselbach[edit]

Article: Harald Hasselbach (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  2-time Super Bowl champion and Grey Cup champion has died. Notable enough to have his name on the ticker (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
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.

Blurb not really necessary, but eligible for ticker.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak Support for RD Article is adequate for RD, if barely. Oppose blurb A prominent athlete but not on a level justifying a blurb and article quality is also not up to scratch for a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose blurb, notable life, non-notable death. Also not a household name for a non-American/Canadian like me. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 23:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, oppose blurb on notability. The article should be expanded, I find it too short for someone who, apparently, was so notable in his field. But he is far from having a blurb, from what Chatoic says. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose RD on quality, oppose blurb on notability per all above. Article's 6 paragraphs (if you count two sentences as a paragraph). qw3rty 13:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We've got no consensus for a blurb - no more voting for that as that is just going to bring down the RD nomination. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Six decent-sized paragraphs and over 2,500 bytes of prose is definitely above stub class and enough to post – a currently featured item (Claude Kahn) is actually shorter than this (if you don't count a list of works). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Article is adequate enough for RD, if only barely. The Kip 19:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The claims of quality do not seem well founded. For example, one of the sources is a fantasy site and the link doesn't work for me. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If it's just the one, tag it, but that alone doesn't seem like a showstopper, unless there are more. —Bagumba (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed. Nonetheless, I've replaced the dead link with another source that mentions the information. Tails Wx 16:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The replacement citation does not fully support the existing sentence. This is not quality; it's fudging. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Which part of the sentence isn't supported? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I misread the source, originally the part to have been a part of a winning team wasn't supported. I did modify the sentence thereafter per the ESPN reference, sorry about the confusion. Tails Wx 00:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I mean, if you win a team sport, you were part of the winning team, but sure, this reads better. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Andrew Davidson This is not quality; it's fudging: Gentle reminder to assume good faith. Otherwise, be prepared to show diffs that an individual's behavior is habitually and intentionally deceiving. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I’m pretty sure it was not really an accusation and trying to say there was a mistake in the sourcing. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fudge can mean to fake, falsify or cheat... —Bagumba (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    wikt:fudge#Verb To alter something from its true state, as to hide a flaw or uncertainty, deliberately but not necessarily dishonestly or immorally. There’s also a dated definition of botch, which I thought was the main. It’s weird how we need to do this in an AGF discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Article has been expanded sufficiently past stub-class and is well-sourced. Good to go for ITN posting. Tails Wx 16:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If any other editor wants to pitch in to qualify this for a WP:DYK co-nom, we still have 4 days to get this to 3100 characters. I don't see that much more that needs to be added, but welcome help in that regard.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 22:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Dublin riot[edit]

WP:NAC
Consensus unlikely to develop. BangJan1999 17:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 Dublin riot (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Dublin, a riot occurs after a woman and three children were stabbed outside a school. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Protesters riot in Dublin after a woman and three children were stabbed outside a school.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In Dublin, a mass stabbing is followed by a riot.
News source(s): RTE News, Irish News, Irish Independent, BBC News, New York Times, CNN, ABC (Australia), ABC (US), Al Jazeera
Credits:
  • Pretty widely reported in Irish and international news sources. This level of rioting is fairly uncommon in Dublin, and the Garda Commissioner has said that the protestors were "driven by far-right ideology". I could use some assistance with the blurbs, as I'm not an ITN regular and I'm not sure what the style is here. We expect there will be more to add tomorrow afternoon, particularly surrounding the actions of a Brazilian Deliveroo driver who reportedly intervened in the stabbings, we're just waiting on stronger sourcing for that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Anyone know what the last time a riot was posted was? I fully doubt this is greater than that, even if it's getting a lot of press right now. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Garda sources told the Irish Times that level of violence and criminal damaged "far eclipsed" the 2006 Dublin riots and was "unprecedented in the modern era in Dublin". Otherwise the most recent riot that I know of was 2021 Dublin riots. Unless I've misunderstood the question, and you're referring to the last time a riot was posted on ITN? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I was referring to all demonstrations in ITN. - Mebigrouxboy (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Looking through the archives I've found a June 2023 Honduran prison riot. It also looks like the 2021 Northern Ireland riots were added on 8 April 2021, but I can't find a discussion for that one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    FWIW, the Honduran one was between 2 well-known gangs and killed 46 and the NI one only ran on its tenth day. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 06:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose An unrest of about 200 ppl (based on our article) is very small in the larger scope of things, particularly in response to a domestic, non-terrorism related crime, is not really notable in the larger scale of things, at this point. If the unrest continues for several days, that might be something. --Masem (t) 03:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Procedural oppose. Article is now at RM. RM has been closed. I'll give this a proper review later. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 06:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think that is much important as it's only changing "unrest" to "riot". Aaron Liu (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support alt. This was a pretty major event in Ireland; they don't have riots like this often. Also per Nableezy. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 01:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose riots are not ITNR per se, wherever they occur. They are usual and ordinary. In this case, I don't see that they have a remarkable impact even if the motive is execrable. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This isn't usual and ordinary. Secretlondon (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose article fails to explain why this particular stabbing incident led to riots. Though careful to mention the national origin of the person who helped stop the attacker, and quick to blame "right wing ideology" it suspiciously doesn't state the national origin of the attacker despite the attacker being a naturalized citizen. This is likely a key detail as to why the stabbings resulted in riots and is missing from the article. --142.116.102.110 (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The media is doing the same. Secretlondon (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Support - Front page news, high quality article, major event. This is the quintessential ITN blurb PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support altblurb: A lot more out of the ordinary than elections or sports. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
^^ PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: Article is of decent quality and event is highly covered in the news. Moazfargal (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: Seeing as how this is the biggest riot Ireland has seen in modern times (besides the 2006 Dublin riot), I think that this deserves a spot LynxesDesmond (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But it was only 200 people, which is quite small compared to other protests or riots like those in Hong Kong, India, or the US. Masem (t) 19:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that's still larger than what we currently have in the ITN column. Plus Ireland has less people than any of the places you listed, so it logically follows that the rioter count would be smaller. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't force things into ITN because other blurbs are stale or lacking. And yes, with Ireland being a small country, a riot that involves a larger proportion of their population is still small scale. Masem (t) 21:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since this event does have a bigger impact than every current item, I don't see why we shouldn't "force" it in. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do not force news to happen, simply to progress stale blurbs out of the box. That's been discussed multiple times on the talk page before and rejected. Masem (t) 21:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not forcing news to happen, it already is news. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is like saying "There's only 24 footballers in the Grey Cup Finale, so we shouldn't post it". It's the international reaction and significance that makes this notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Small-scale incident that didn't last very long. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It lasted longer than the Grey Cup. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    C'mon Aaron, you know that argument makes no sense. Obviously sports events rarely last as long as riots, but duration and volume or persons in a riot tends to have a big impact on the incident's effect. And you asked a question below about "damage" that I will answer. That answer is "no". A small-scale tropical storm can do that damage and might actually kill people. No one died, and while I can't say that this is a "small" incident for anyone effected, the effects seem fairly contained and the impacts of this event going forward are indeterminate. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The point is that sports events rarely have as much impact as better news. If there was a small-scale tropical storm in this month, that would be news! If there was one during the hurricane season, it wouldn't be because there are a ton of other, similar and larger news. The same does not go for these weeks, which is why we should post this. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support major event, lots of destruction, significant as a flash point of anti-immigrant sentiment in Ireland. Many politicians are reacting strongly negatively, so this is having repurcussions in Irish politics. Although I think we should have a blurb which explains the reasons ("stabbed by an Algerian immigrant") regardless of whether the reason is valid; the entire event is being characterized as a far-right anti-immigrant protest and the blurb ignores that. JM (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    On the proposed change to the blurb, the nationality of the suspect has not officially been released by the Gardaí. Conversely there are several reliable sources (New York Times, Daily Telegraph UK, The Guardian UK) who have reported on this being misinformation that precipitated the riot. As with other details surrounding the stabbings, until the Gardaí release the information and it is published in reliable sources, we cannot report upon it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Interestingly the article now states: He was later reported to be a man in his 50s who had lived in Ireland for 20 years, had become a naturalised Irish citizen in 2014, and had been living in homeless accommodation in Dublin’s north inner city. The origin country of the attacker has not been announced by the authorities. So we could at least put immigrant for context, or, like I said below, specify that the rioters believed the attacker was a MENA immigrant. I believe it's important to clarify that this riot is not just over a stabbing, its motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment. JM (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Although I support a blurb, I Oppose Altblurb II. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on which of the other two get posted. JM (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - front page around the world (NYT has this on its front page for example). We should let our sources determine significance, not our own personal opinions. nableezy - 22:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose 200 people is too small for ITN. Elisecars727 (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The amount of people participating in a protest shouldn't be the criteria for posting, only the coverage. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Per above, a small-scale flash in the pan that could lead to further unrest, at which point we can always reintroduce. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question: What, exactly, do the current editors at ITN deem enough to post as news? I know there's quality and the vague principle of impact, but isn't 30+ shops, vehicles and infrastructure damaged impact enough? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Right now I believe the current standards for significance are too high. So something like this which is front page news and being talked about everywhere is being opposed as not significant enough - fine, if we had many more important things to blurb, but we don't. I've come to believe that standards for significance should be determined by volume of newsworthy events, with more news meaning higher significance standards to maintain the same influx of new blurbs. But I know some people here disagree because we've just discussed it not that long ago (I know Masem in particular strongly disagrees and considers it to be "forcing news" which I disagree with - it is news regardless). These beliefs apply here since I believe this blurb meets my current standards, considering all that I wrote above. I also believe people who say there are often too many sports blurbs should support this non-sports blurb. JM (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yep, the current standards seem to be "either have a massive lasting importance, or be a sports event". ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 09:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom. A brief and nasty riot in a country that, at least in recent times, is not well known for that sort of thing. But the scale and numbers are not enough for ITN. Larger disturbances occur routinely all over the world and we pay no attention to them. Long term significance is likely low to nil. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then also nominate the larger disturbances with similarly loaded emotion. It's often said that the solution to too much sports and elections is to nominate more news, and this is indeed news. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree, that's what I was considering saying. JM (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a news ticker and ITN shouldn't be one either. Not everything that gets enough news coverage for an article needs to be posted at ITN. I realize that is not a popular position in some quarters, but that's where I stand. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What should In the news be then? The stated purpose is to highlight quality articles and help news people quickly find the Wikipedia article they're looking for. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Something being In The News shouldn't be a criteria in a section called...In The News? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as a definitely newsworthy event and front-page news in many sources. Disagree with mentioning the alleged nationality of the suspect in the blurb, although agree that context is welcome. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 09:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How do you propose contextualizing anti-MENA-immigrant riots without mentioning that the cause was the rioters' belief that the attack was perpetrated by a MENA immigrant? JM (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Saying "anti-immigrant riots" would make the point clear enough in my opinion. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 15:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Promoting something to ITN means it'll stay there for a good while. I don't see why we should give publicity to a very minor piece of disorder by a couple of hundred racists that has already largely disappeared from the news. Oh, and can we give it a rest with the "but it's so much more important than sport" stuff? That's not helping. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The 2023 Liberian election was barely covered and it's still up, this isn't a reason to oppose. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was not a "very minor piece of disorder". Central Dublin was seriously damaged and disrupted and extra riot police are still on standby in the street to suppress any recurrence, which did happen, if you follow the details in the latest version of the article. And, it has not "largely disappeared from the news". Spideog (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. I am bewildered as to how this hasn't been featured yet. This kind of hatred has been brewing for years in Ireland and this level of civil disorder is unprecedented. Salmoonlight (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. In the proposed blurb, I would add the word "major" ("In Dublin, a major riot occurs...") because it swelled from the original "between 100 and 200" in earlier versions of the article to 500, which is huge in Irish terms (it is a small country). This 500 is documented with citations in later versions of the article since the original proposal here in ITN. Riots are extremely rare in Ireland and are not on this scale. Spideog (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Doesn't matter if it is a rare event in a country, or if its proportion of those involved is larger for the given country, it was still domestic event that had an irrational domestic response that was quelled quickly. It does not compare to the type of riots or protests that we have features in contrast to those that we have rejected. Masem (t) 23:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It would be interesting to watch you trying to prove convincingly that the response was "irrational" as opposed to simply your drive-by opinion. The havoc called for the expressions of horror and disgust that followed. Your attempt to minimise its significance by referring twice to "domestic" news is meaningless: the invention of the telescope by Galileo was domestic news in Italy and 9/11 in the United States was also a domestic event. The term "domestic" is a useless indicator of notability. Leaders of the United Kingdom and France reacted to it and it received widespread coverage in international media: were their responses also "irrational"? The event was highly notable in Irish terms which cannot be calibrated by misleading comparisons to countries with much more violent societies. Spideog (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    People reacted to misinformation before getting confirmation. That's irrational behavior, and actually very common across a range of issues nowadays. Masem (t) 00:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    People acted irrationally when they attacked the United States Federal Capitol Building, and that is still in the news three years later. Responses to the Irish riot by media and public figures internationally, not to mention the Irish public, were entirely rational. Spideog (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe Masem is calling the riots irrational, not the response to the riots irrational, and that you're misinterpreting them. But I suppose only Masem knows for sure. JM (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Even if you are right, irrational motives are not a helpful measure of newsworthiness. How many major wars and other major historical events have been ignited by irrationality? Spideog (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ask Masem. JM (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, those that rioted acted irrationally. I am non-plussed by the kudzu of Reaction sections that are just international leaders sending the equivalent of their condolences, without any type of actual participation (like, actually sending aid in terms of people, money, or property), a long-standing problem with event articles. The fact that none of the Reactions are anything but simple statements leads to how little impact this even had on the overall world, though I am not judging my ITN oppose based on that. Simply that a riot of even 500 people with some small-scale level of vandalism and injuries due to people acting on misinformation is not really something that we'd post. Masem (t) 00:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are inventing personal criteria for ITN inclusion out of thin air with all your talk of irrationality and dismissing international leader behaviour (no aid, no money) and dreaming these pseudo-criteria might be taken seriously.
These "yardsticks" of yours are so random and left-field you could as well dismiss any candidate for ITN because beetles were not observed during the event, "so it is not newsworthy".
Going by your most recent comment, it seems necessary to repeat the fact that "small-scale level of vandalism" is incorrect. I already corrected you on this point: it didn't take, apparently. Repeating the error won't magically make it true. Spideog (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's currently 11-8 in Support (including the Support below this), which is in the unclear range. I'm not going to post it because I commented. I'd argue that it's disappeared from the news tickers, outside Ireland, though, which could suggest that its impact is marginal. I'd also suggest that if it is posted, the far-right nature of the riot needs to be in the blurb; this wasn't ordinary people who just happened to riot. Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If the blurb is going to call the riot far-right it definitely needs to point out what triggered it: the fact that the attacker was an immigrant and perhaps even the rioters' belief that the immigrant was a MENA immigrant. "Far-right" is so vague, it doesn't even tell us why the rioters rioted about this particular stabbing. It's like blurbing J6 without saying that they were motivated by their belief in election fraud. JM (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't look like consensus to me. Schwede66 18:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per Nableezy.
𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 08:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose stale and little in the way of long term significance. Polyamorph (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    An item is not stale unless it is older than the oldest ITN blurb, which was 14 November. It's in fact newer than the newest blurb. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's stale news. Polyamorph (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It’s still better than the way staler news we currently have listed. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Newsworthy and encyclopedic candidate, well written. ——Serial 17:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - doesn't seem to have lasting significance appropriate for ITN. I suggest that someone close this since I don't think consensus to post will form. --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How is this not closed yet? At this point its stale, why has nobody closed this as no consensus (which seems like the obvious choice to me) or post it? We are four days after an event arguing about if it is in the news? nableezy - 15:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While I disagree that it is stale, I do agree that consensus is unlikely to develop. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose and close - Unfortunately, with ephemeral events such as this, the time to post this would have been within a day of its occurrence. As it currently stands, it doesn't seem to carry the significance and impact we tend to look for on ITN/C. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

November 22[edit]

November 22, 2023 (2023-11-22) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

  • Sam Altman returns as CEO of American artificial intelligence company OpenAI, only days after being dismissed by the company's Board of Directors on November 17. The surprise dismissal had resulted in major pushback, with 95% of company workers saying that they would quit if Altman was not brought back as CEO. (BBC News)

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

RD: Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie[edit]

Article: Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

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

Thriley (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. (Pretty) good article; long and referenced. Some paragraphs are a bit long but that's far too picky for ITN. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 06:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Article needs some ref improvement and copyediting in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The final section has zero footnotes, and the long list of bullet-points that follows is also unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) 2023 Dutch general election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2023 Dutch general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Party for Freedom led by Geert Wilders (pictured) is the largest party in the 2023 Dutch general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Netherlands, the Party for Freedom, led by Geert Wilders (pictured) receives a plurality of votes in the general election.
News source(s): [4]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Exit polls show a pvv victory. Most votes will be counted in the next few hours. Haris920 (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait a bit for the official count then. Article looks alright. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait I just looked through the article and it seems that this round of voting is just the start as there are likely to be 16+ parties with seats and so the permutations needed to form a coalition will be large. Given what happened in Spain, perhaps we should wait until a government is formed. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • support once full results is ready Shadow4dark (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support once the electoral authority releases full results This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support once results are there (also for some reason the reply button is broken?) ChaotıċEnby(talk) 02:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Changing my vote to not ready, not enough prose and some sections like "Results" aren't really well-organized at all. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 10:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Quality issues Like some other recent elections, the last half of the article are nearly bare tables and charts. There needs to be more prose. And Andrew's point of how this gets resolved, in that they need a collalition with 75 seats (as I see it), will not happen overnight, but perhaps I'm not clear on this system. --Masem (t) 02:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think they'll get their coalition anytime soon, and it's not even a given that they'll manage to make one. If it takes too long, from what I understand of ITN/R, the nomination of a Prime Minister (either Wilders or the leader of a potential grand coalition) should be made into a separate blurb. Otherwise, if it's done in the next few days, we could update the blurb to include it. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 03:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Last time, it took them 299 days to figure out a coalition. And it seems quite possible that the largest party will not be part of it this time. That's what happened in Spain and so our initial announcement of a winner was misleading. In such systems, it seems better to wait until the new coalition and leader is established. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yep, that's why we should be careful of only mentioning they received the most votes/seats rather than implying a "win" or definitive leadership of some sort. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 11:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Election results are ITNR. The article looks decent, and also the aftermath section is informative and explains a lot about possible coalitions. Post now, and if a government without PPV is eventually formed later, post that as well, as we did with Spain recently. --Tone 09:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support ITNR, and who knows how long the parties will take to sort out the coalition government. Per above, we can always post an update or new blurb if something significant changes. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per ITNR. Article quality is adequate. I am not unsympathetic to the point about likely delays in forming a government. But the election results are what we routinely blurb. And irrespective of the likelihood of Mr. Wilders or his party being a part of the next cabinet, they did quite well and the results of this election have been front page news globally. If it's newsworthy in its own right, we can blurb the next government separately once formed. But for now, the election results are the story. Let's get this up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The article quality is not ready, the bottom half is mostly tables without prose. This needs to be fixed before posting. Masem (t) 18:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While I supported earlier on, the article could indeed benefit of some more text in the said lines. If anyone wants to give it a go, some suggestions:
    • Parties: not much to be added here, relevant things are in the Background already
    • Debates: again, nothing essential missing
    • Opinion polls: a couple of sentences explaining in words what the graph says
    • Results: some summary as well, such as Party A won more than last time, Party B lost many seats, Party C is new to the Parliament etc. Then, the Aftermath is good.
    Tone 22:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not ready a lot of tables, not so much prose. In the section on political parties I would almost prefer prose, prose that should also be in the results section whose table on results by provinces is empty. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support the blurb after the official announcement. 3000MAX (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not ready. As stated by @Alsoriano97 and @Masem, there's too many tables and little prose. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality Virtually no prose on the campaign/election itself, it's almost all tables in between background and aftermath. The Kip 19:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait The article has some serious issues:
  1. The map and the proposed alternative do not suit the Dutch system of counting votes at a national level. The map gives the false impression that the PVV gained a large majority by winning so many electoral districts and could govern the country alone. 37 of 150 seats is far below a majority. The PVV needs to find at least 2 coalition partners.
  2. The graph shows a weighted average, which fails to show the sudden changes at the end of the campaign.
  3. The sections campaign and opinion polls fail to describe what happened. What caused the dive of BBB and NSC in the polls? What happened in the final weeks of the campaign before the sudden rise of PVV?
Uwappa (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1- The precedent for Dutch politics has always been the electoral district map. There is just no other way to display it clearly.
3- I have added a paragraph to the aftermath explaining this. Haris920 (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support national elections are ITN/R. JM (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @JM2023: Yes. But !voters are discussing whether WP:ITNQUALITY has been met. —Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I got ahead of myself and had my approval of its quality implicit in my vote. But yes, the quality is sufficient per above. JM (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, though someone being able to get that first graph in "Results" centered a bit better would be great. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support This is very important news, massive political upset. Article looks good enough.Civciv5 (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Admin comment There are a significant number of editors pointing out that the article isn't ready. Although numerically outnumbered by support voters, I don't think this can be ignored on the strength of the concerns. If somebody has the time to add a couple of sentences to the "Results" and "Opinion polls" sections, I'd be happy to post this. Please ping me when it's done. Schwede66 21:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As said by someone above I added explanation of BBB decline and added some pose on opinion polls. If someone could take care on results the article is ready Shadow4dark (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't see any need for additional prose. The results are the results. The 2021 article has some basic numerical data, but anyone could calculate it if they so desired to. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it is ready Shadow4dark (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Schwede66: "Results" and "Opinion polls" now have some text. —Bagumba (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support and marking "ready": "Results" and "Opinion polls" sections now have some text. Even before, the core of the election, including the key parties and their finishes, was already covered with sufficient prose in "Background" and "Aftermath", even if some sections with tables did not have prose in their immediate sections. At worst, a {{Too many charts}} tag might be placed for more prose, but that's a yellow tag, not the ITN showstopping orange variety. This page is, at worst, on par with the recent 2023 Argentine general election, which was posted with tables without immediately adjacent prose as well. What's more important is the actual content, not merely a cursory check for any sections of tables without prose.—Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted – thanks everyone for getting this ready. Schwede66 09:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Return of the Altman[edit]

The issue is not considered notable for ITN. Schwede66 16:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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: Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Sam Altman returns as CEO of OpenAI after an internal crisis (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67494165
Credits:

All over the news, attracting huge reader interest, article looks pretty good. It's a unique, interesting news story that would greatly diversify what we post and be actually useful to the general reader. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Needs work It's certainly in the news still but the latest developments are not yet reflected in the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - notability. I'm not exactly sure if CEOs being reinstated is ITN worthy. Also, everyone on the face of the earth is voting to merge the article. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose it is not ITN-worty his cessation, nor his return. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose This is the type of news that gets magnified in the short term, but in the long term may be just a paragraph in the history of the company from an encyclopedic perspective. This whole situation is exemplary of how bad we are failing summarizing news events as per NOT#NEWS, and instead trying to document every tiny detail, and why stories like day-to-day business and politics are not good ITNC candidates. --Masem (t) 13:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reopened closed nomination: There was a procedural close as "the article is currently listed at Articles for Deletion". The article has been kept and is in good shape, so there is merit in restarting this discussion. Schwede66 21:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    there isn't a single support vote yet, and since it was reopened there have been 3 more opposes and 0 supports. I believe WP:SNOW applies and it should be closed again at this point. JM (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose not significant. CEO comes back after 4 days being fired. intra-corporate drama. JM (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose There was a minor kerfuffle in the business world. It got resolved. Nothing meriting a blurb at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per all above. Shouldn't have been renominated in the first place. The Kip 23:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Israel-Hamas ceasefire and prisoner exchange[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 22:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 Israel–Hamas ceasefire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A four-day ceasefire and prisoner exchange is agreed between Israel and Hamas. (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post The Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Yes. I know it's covered by ongoing, but it's a significant development in the war. Moazfargal (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conditional oppose - I think this should be blurbed on notability grounds, but as of now the link directs you to a minor paragraph. There needs to be a lot of expansion on the article in order to post this. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PrecariousWorlds: I have expanded the section since. According to Wikipedia:ITNCRIT, I think the update is enough. Moazfargal (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changing my vote to Support PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose on grounds of ongoing entry – robertsky (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ongoing The deal has been structured in stages so there may be batches of hostages released and further extensions of the ceasefire. So, this seems likely to be another progressive/ongoing situation. Ongoing seems best for such an uncertain development. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)Reply[reply]
    We don’t even have a separate article for this. An ongoing would be way too much for this minor paragraph. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Separate articles for this include 2023 Israel–Hamas ceasefire and 2023 Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis. The current ongoing entry could be supplemented as suggested by Chaotic Enby recently. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The ceasefire article is absolutely unnecessary at this point, given this is only a 4 day ceaseation. Masem (t) 14:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks! I think this is the best compromise between having a blurb for each new development, and not mentioning them at all. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 16:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Conditional Oppose The ceasefire will only last for 4 days. Most blurbs that are posted last longer than that period of time, so posting this after the ceasefire ends will make the blurb look obsolete. I am a little more considerate in an alternate blurb suggesting that “50-ish hostages were released as part of the ceasefire” though. 24.166.251.29 (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I got no issues with such altblurb, but it would have to mention that 150 Palestinians would also be set free. Moazfargal (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality (minimal update per PrecariousWorlds), but weak support. Its only a short term ceasefire, but it is the first major agreement between the two sides here. However, also agree that ongoing should cover this. --Masem (t) 13:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Masem: I have expanded the section since. According to Wikipedia:ITNCRIT, I think the update is enough. Moazfargal (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support blurb: Probably enough of an update, definitely notable enough beyond ongoing as it will stop for a while for the first time in this iteration Aaron Liu (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support blurb on notability, weak oppose on quality This is a large development in the war, but as I'm not all too familiar with ITN, I don't know if a tiny subsection of an article would suffice. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 16:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Per Wikipedia:ITNCRIT, a five-sentence update with three references to an already existing article is more than enough. Moazfargal (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose given the short duration and unknowns surrounding lasting impact, this would likely be best covered in ongoing unless something of lasting significance happens. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Covered by Ongoing, plus the ceasefire will last only a short while. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Supplement ongoing as mentioned by Andrew above as a good compromise between full blurbing and nothing. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 17:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - ongoing, when something more permanent happens then another blurb makes sense. But a four day pause for a limited exchange isnt that. nableezy - 17:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Ongoing is >>>> that way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on the basis of low article quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose unless it extends longer-term, otherwise it's sufficiently covered by ongoing. The Kip 19:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References[edit]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1187451649"