Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Cyclone Michaung on December 4
Cyclone Michaung

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]

  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]

  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]

December 9[edit]

International relations


RD: Clyde Butts[edit]

Article: Clyde Butts (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Jamaica Observer
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.

West Indies spinner who made it into a squad when the team was largely relying upon seam attack. Abishe (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 8[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

  • Three people are killed and dozens are evacuated during a fire at a hospital in Tivoli, Italy. (AP)

International relations

Politics and elections


FDA approves first CRISPR-created sickle-cell drug[edit]

Article: Casgevy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Food and Drug Administration approves the drug Casgevy for treatment of sickle-cell disease. (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

This is a major development in sickle-cell treatment and CRISPR technology. 75.81.94.213 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment The article tells us "It was approved in the United Kingdom...in November 2023." This is obviously before the US approval, so we should have posted THAT news, not the FDA approval. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And sadly, no one really developed any article at that time, despite being well-covered then. Masem (t) 01:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per HiLo. _-_Alsor (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per HiLo. The Kip 01:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • IAR Support Yeah, this is stale. We blew it. But honestly, this is significant enough that I think we should post it anyway. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on Quality. Leaning in favor if a "support" along the lines of Ad Orientem's, which goes against my general evaluation process, but either way the article is very thin at the moment and can use to be expanded. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Due to the fact it was previously approved by the MHRA in November. If this were to be published as an ITN item now, it would be effectively saying that the FDA approval is more important than FDA approval. As a secondary matter, I don't believe the UK approval itself was worthy of a blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Needs work WP:MEDRS emphasises the importance of broad coverage such as systematic reviews but this story seems quite narrow and selective. For a better survey of CRISPR developments in 2023, see Pharmaceutical Technology. That was published back in January and so I'm not sure this is a good fit for ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment FWIW, it's estimated that about 15,000 people have the disease in the UK,[2] versus 100,000 in the US.[3]Bagumba (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2023 Guatemalan general election[edit]

Article: 2023 Guatemalan general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Guatemala's Attorney General's Office declares the results of the 2023 general election "null and void", in a move described by the Organization of American States as an attempted coup. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Updated for now, although mostly in the lead. Depending on how the situation unfolds, we could create 2023 Guatemalan coup d'état later down the line and adding it to the blurb. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 00:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose as the Supreme Electoral Tribunal is disputing/refusing the AG’s claims and asserting the transfer of power will go forward as planned. Right now, it’s just the (notoriously corrupt) AG making accusations with no other official backing. The Kip 01:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait same rationale per above but I wouldn't oppose. If there are further developments that we should blurb since this seems to be a significant development. Side note, there's been a protracted period of unrest involving post-election developments in Guatemala so I think we should probably redirect the primary article elsewhere should that article exist. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose/Wait. Can't post right now because of the rationale provided by Kip, though I would wait on account of this potentially becoming a bigger crisis. Going "oppose/wait" rather then normal "wait" because a formal invalidation of results would realistically be it's own nom independent of this one. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait - Per Kip PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ongoing This is the common outcome that the transfer of power to a new government is uncertain and takes some time. I checked what we did the first time around and the nomination was posted as "Bernardo Arévalo is elected as president of Guatemala." but this was removed after just one day. If we get a different final result then we should post an update. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Itziar Castro[edit]

Article: Itziar Castro (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4][5]
Credits:

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

Natg 19 (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Filmography section needs more sources. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Ryan O'Neal[edit]

Article: Ryan O'Neal (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6][7]
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.

Natg 19 (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Leelavathi[edit]

Article: Leelavathi (actress) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/veteran-kannada-actress-leelavathi-passes-away-2803199
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.

Veteran Kannada actress. Srf123 (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 7[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime


RD: Susan Catania[edit]

Article: Susan Catania (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Medium (written by her daughter), Capitol Fax
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.

Former member of the Illinois House of Representatives from 1973 to 1983, known for her advocacy for women's rights issues and feminist causes. She died on November 27, 2023, but her death wasn't announced to the public until her daughter published an article on December 7, which was re-shared by Capitol Fax. Edge3 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Vera Molnár[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Vera Molnár (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Le Figaro
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.

Hungarian-French media artist. Jmanlucas (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak support Article is generally good quality, but could be expanded upon. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment The article isn't terrible, but not great either. I wouldn't be opposed to it being added but the article could use more info.
Manumaker08 (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) The Game Awards 2023[edit]

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


Articles: The Game Awards 2023 (talk · history · tag) and Baldur's Gate 3 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At The Game Awards 2023, Baldur's Gate 3 wins game of the year. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Baldur's Gate 3 wins game of the year at The Game Awards.
News source(s): New York Times, Variety, Deadline, BBC, Sky News, NPR
Credits:
Was also posted in both 2021 and 2022. Mlb96 (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support - Per above. Didn't expect that at all, thought TotK would win PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually fully anticipated BG3 being named Game of the Year by multiple publications. The other two main contenders for the award—TotK and RE4R—are essentially enhanced recreations of previous GOTY winners. BG3 is an entirely new game. Kurtis (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, I'm glad Balders Gate won. While TotK was good, it did feel a bit too similar to BotW PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose This was described as "one long commercial" and so policy WP:NOTPROMOTION applies. There are always lots of trade shows, product launches and releases. For example, we have recently had the release of the Tesla Cybertruck and The Fashion Awards. And there are always new movies being released, getting lots of reviews and readers. But ITN doesn't cover these because they are too numerous and commercial. Videogames are not exceptional or significant and Balder's Gate 3 is yet another uninspired and derivative version of D&D which itself ripped off the actual classics like Tolkien. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Videogames are not exceptional or significant is blatantly incorrect; per [8], VG revenue surpasses the movie and music industries by 4 and 3 times, respectively, using 2019 numbers. It is by all means a major pillar of the broader entertainment industry. Curbon7 (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The same logic would apply to the Oscars, the Emmys, etc.
    Now I will be first in line to complain that the show itself was one long ad, but the process and selection of the awards follows similar routes as with those others, in that the voting members is primarily from leading figures in both development and coverage of video games, and thus should not be seen itself as commercial any more than the Oscars are. Masem (t) 10:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Balder's Gate 3 is yet another uninspired and derivative version of D&D which itself ripped off the actual classics like Tolkien. I could perhaps accept the rest of your argument as being somewhat valid regarding WP:NOTPROMO, but that last assertion there (which itself is quite the violation of WP:NOTFORUM) tips the scales firmly into "old man yells at cloud" territory, and I now question whether or not you intended this argument as anything other than contrarian. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 13:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @WaltCip: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is that way. BangJan1999 16:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please, someone open the case, because I don’t have the time to do it myself. This space will be considerably better once a certain disruptor is removed from it. The Kip 20:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've seen a lot of arguments on ITN, and none of them manages to surpass "I think this video game is unoriginal" for sheer policy compliance. AryKun (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per precedent. PolarManne (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – Articles are both looking good. Baldur's Gate's reception section could probably use more work. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support good article and most recognised awards for gaming Shadow4dark (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per precedent, despite how dreadfully boring it was.
Manumaker08 (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, trade show award basically, without the coverage of the other trade show awards we do cover like the Emmy's, Oscars, BAFTA and so on. nableezy - 15:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has the coverage outside of normal video game sources, and it is absolutely wrong to call it, or the Oscars, Emmys or others as a trade show. --Masem (t) 15:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is absolutely wrong to call my comment absolutely wrong. See how bald assertion works? nableezy - 15:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Things like the Oscars, Emmys, etc are factually not trade shows. You can call all their ceremonies overtly commercial (and as I've said above, this show this year dips far too much into that), but the awards themselves have an actual process for selection, review, voting, and the like that are not functions of trade shows, and that's what the focus is of this blurb is the actual awards, not the mess of advertising around it. Masem (t) 15:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The awards are the advertising. nableezy - 15:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the case of The Game Awards, that couldn't be further from the truth: the awards are the only breathing room away from advertising. Rhain (he/him) 04:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added more coverage from mainstream media sources. Mlb96 (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted per consensus above. I discounted Andrew's argument as they did not demonstrate how anything in this situation falls under the actual text of WP:NOTPROMOTION (particularly in #5 "Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations"), nor did they satisfy WP:ITNATA point #2 and #4. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-Posting Support per above. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-Posting Support This has been posted multiple times in years past. Gestrid (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-Posting oppose. This story is not notable; mainstream news sources are not covering it. I checked the home pages of NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC: none of them mention this story. BluestGreen (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pull Not comparable to the Oscars and much more similar to a trade show award. The depth of the coverage here does not suggest any broader significance and the awards are really just promotional. ~ F4U (talkthey/it) 19:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Out of curiosity, who supported with comparison to the Oscars? DarkSide830 (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pull These award shows are merely advertising and promotion, and that goes for Emmy's, Oscars, etc. Precedent aside, these events just don't seem ITN-worthy any longer. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per the reasoning I provide above. Has received plenty of "mainstream" coverage, as indicated by the sources provided by nom. Perhaps not as physically large or formal as the Oscars, but still significant in its own scope. Curbon7 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would also note that are 7 (!!) WP:ITNR listings for film awards, while this is the only video game event that is routinely posted (not yet ITNR), despite the game industry far outpacing the film industry in reach and revenue. Why should we be WP:SYSTEMICly biased in favor of films? Curbon7 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Remove from ITN/R all of them save for the Oscars, and then remove The Game Awards twice. Omnifalcon (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Source Game Awards 2023 Oscars 2023 Emmys 2023 BAFTAs 2023
NY Times [9] [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] [18][19][20][21][22][23] [24][25][26]
AP N/A [27][28][29][30][31][32] [33][34][35][36] [37][38][39]
Reuters N/A [40][41][42][43][44][45][46] [47][48] [49][50][51][52]
The Guardian N/A 118 results in their Oscars 2023 hub [53][54][55] 25 results in their BAFTAs 2023 hub
These other awards receive international mainstream coverage to a much higher degree than the Game Awards.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 00:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing in ITNCRIT says that an event needs to be massively covered, just covered in independent news sources. Otherwise, many of the disaster articles and election results we should fail for the same reason. The mass of coverage may be a reason to deny ITNR for the Game Awards at this point, but not from general ITN posting. Masem (t) 01:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting support per all above. The Kip 20:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose — Per Nableezy. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose: these video game awards are not on the same level of magnitude as the EGOT awards. Most major publications such as The New York Times, AP, BBC have only one short article each compared to the EGOT awards that can get multiple different articles from these major publications. I mean if the Game Awards were as mainstream as the other film awards, you would think they would at least be the main articles on the arts or lifestyle or culture sections of those publications but most of the time they're not. RTÉ and Al Jazeera have actual topic tags for the Oscars. Both outlets also have 0 mention of the Game Awards. They are not yet at the same level.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 21:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting support I think it should also be noted that the article quality here is rather good, and comprehensively sourced. Kafoxe (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting support The Gaming Awards are not really relevant outside of Anglosphere and Europe. But you have to consider how much games that gain considerable Western attention like most blockbuster Nintendo games, Alex Wake 2, and Baldur's Gate 3 for example, they will get covered by mainstream media and treated as a big deal. GTA 6 trailer, for example, was a big deal in Europe (based on Google Trends) and irrelevant in Indonesia as an Indonesian myself because of GTA's long association with console gaming which seen a complete fall from their heyday in 2000s, but also covered by MSM. While this sounds like I want to pull this, well, no, I don't think we should pull this. While gaming across the world have taste differences, gaming is a big cultural industry like music and films. To be frank, we should change ITN/R like Omnifalcon has proposed. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the avoidance of doubt, I don't want The Gaming Awards on ITN let alone ITN/R. The show is an advertisement, Geoff's friends getting access, and very far from a celebration of the best games. Omnifalcon (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It should be completely possible separate the ad-filled presentation show, and the actual awards, as a matter of distinguishing the "no promotion" issues that have been raised. Otherwise, we'd apply the same to any award that has a presentation ceremony or even things like many sporting events which could be argued as giant ads. Masem (t) 23:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes. And to be frank, ITN/R is full of sporting events that aren't relevant. In particular I have issues with darts championship. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with this. The Game Awards, imo, is pretty much a big ad and (condensed) game trailer show at this point. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 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.

RD: Refaat Alareer[edit]

Article: Refaat Alareer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [56] [57]
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.

Alareer was killed in an Israeli airstrike on December 7. His work appeared on the BBC and ABC News. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know its just me here, but there isnt anything unsourced here, and the article is ready to go. nableezy - 16:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support , though I have a COI here? (Am I allowed vote?) Actually, I was thinking that it could (also?) be a DYK -it qualifies for it, according to my DYK-checker. User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux: what do you think? Huldra (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you mean COI because youre listed as updating the article, no, no COI at all. nableezy - 00:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to make it clear: I never knew Refaat Alareer at all, personally; my only connection to him was that I read his tweets. And I found them very informative. (I live far, far from Gaza). And yeah: when he was killed, it "felt personal", and I went to wp and edited (the newly-made) article about him, And I was therefor nominated as one of the "updaters", above. It was because I was nominated as one of the "updaters", that I thought I had a COI. (I am not familiar with the ITN-procedure at all, sorry).
I still think this could make a DYK? (That is a process I am far more familiar with), cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support DYK nomination if that's a process you're more familiar with, @Huldra. I think the quality is there for either RD or DYK. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both work. nableezy - 16:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Benjamin Zephaniah[edit]

Article: Benjamin Zephaniah (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
  • Prominent British poet. Grnrchst (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support the Books, acting roles and discography sections could do with more sources but that's not a blocker imo. There is a citation needed tag but it's for possibly the least contentious statement in the article, so definitely not something to hold up posting. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, as per Thryduulf. Headline news on BBC Radio 4 this lunchtime, with a tribute from Lemn Sissay. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support The article is well written and up to date, and it is definitely notable. TWM03 (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose Lead section could use some expansion, such as talk about why he's influential, cover some influential works and if possible the themes of his works/impacts of his works. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose. The lead needs expansion. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 16:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • support Article seems fine, the figure is important enough. I don't see any reason not to have him added. Manumaker08 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • support I've expanded the lead and filled in a couple of citation gaps. Lajmmoore (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks, Lajmmoore, a major improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Books, acting, and discography are pretty much unreferenced. Stephen 21:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I don't see why we'd need to add citations for books. They are the citations. Ed [talk] [OMT] 07:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (edit conflict) books are references. Polyamorph (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No they’re not, most of them are not linked and no ISBNs, how does a reader know that they’re real? Stephen 10:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Per my comment below, their bibliographic information could be expanded, but books are absolutely references. No citations needed. Polyamorph (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are ISBNs sufficient? Are ISBNs also required for works that have their own article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ISBNs are sufficient, just like they would be within any reference section on Wikipedia. :-) Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are these places that are full of books, staffed by people who will be able to FIND A BOOK FOR YOU. Some of them (after many years of training and experience) can find a book from nothing more than a description of the contents. They are called libraries and librarians respectively. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support possibly more sourcing needed on acting roles and discography. Citations are not needed for books, although the entries could be expanded to provide fuller bibliographic information. But none of these should prevent posting, IMO. Polyamorph (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted as consensus above is that the article quality is high enough for RD. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 6[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

  • Authorities says that dengue fever is on the rise in Mali, as at least 21 deaths and 600 cases linked to the disease are reported. (AP)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


RD: Ellen Holly[edit]

Article: Ellen Holly (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [58][59]
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.

Article mostly ready, but needs some more citations. Natg 19 (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Vic Davalillo[edit]

Article: Vic Davalillo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): El Extrabase
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.

Venezuelan baseball player, played in Major League Baseball and the Mexican League. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shooting at UNLV[edit]

Article: 2023 University of Nevada, Las Vegas shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A mass shooting occurs at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, leaving 4 people dead and another 3 people injured. (Post)
News source(s): [[60]] [[61]] [[62]]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c4e:1400:8b87:e00a:35ff:9e7d:c29b (talkcontribs) 05:34, 2023 December 8 (UTC)

  • Oppose - not enough victims to warrant posting. Also, you failed to sign your nomination. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 07:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose agree with Rockstone35. Unfortunately this has become a "common occurrence" in the US. Natg 19 (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed it has, but I would oppose posting a mass shooting from anywhere with this few victims. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 08:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rockstone35 Not to be that guy, but WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is not a policy PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4 fatalities in a shooting in Andorra or Italy is not the same as 4 fatalities in the USA. And you know that. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes but the death count shouldn't be the sole reason to oppose. I would oppose this simply because it hasn't generated sufficient coverage or impact PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ups, I was responding Rockstone’s comment. Sorry _-_Alsor (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose sad routine without a high number of victims. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom per Rockstone and Natg. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Tragic, but unfortunately not that huge by the US’ standards at this point. The Kip 03:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A bit depressing that it's consider "not that huge by US' standards" but I understand. Although I still believe that the numbers of victims killed in the shooting doesn't matter, I can see why it's not consider "major" news. 2600:6C4E:1400:8B87:E00A:35FF:9E7D:C29B (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First 4th gen nuclear reactor enters commercial operation[edit]

Article: Shidao Bay Nuclear Power Plant (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Shidao Bay Nuclear Power Plant becomes the first 4th generation reactor to enter commercial operations. (Post)
News source(s): World Nuclear Xinhua Bloomberg Straits Times

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.102.58.6 (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does this have to do with Taylor Swift PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Went ahead and fixed the article link; odd error but probably a copy-paste fail, we've all done stuff like that. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps Taylor Swift is also a nuclear engineer on top of being a singer?? Now I understand why she won Person of the Year PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not ready – Article looks pretty good, but no writing has been done on 2023 yet. Once thoroughly updated, I think this will be a nice feature. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose No precise definition of a Generation IV reactor exists. The concept and claim of a first is therefore mostly hype. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't know the tech, but perhaps we can be more specific in our blurb with a description of the new technologies used? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's just a matter of reading the article. This tells us that this is a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. If you then read that page, you learn that "The Peach Bottom unit 1 reactor in the United States was the first HTGR to produce electricity, and did so very successfully, with operation from 1966 through 1974". So, for the Chinese to claim this as a remarkable new first is hype and that's not new. Remember when Chekov would parody Russian boasts by regularly claiming that everything "was invented in Russia". Andrew🐉(talk) 12:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It sure does exist. Gen-IV reactor designs (whether liquid metal/salt or gas cooled) operate at higher temperatures cf. conventional reactors, therefore have higher operational performance and efficiency. The fast neutron and breeder designs also have the advantage of being able to "burn" long half-life transuranic elements from waste fission products, thereby increasing the overall fuel utilisation and facilitating a sustainable closed nuclear fuel chain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyamorph (talkcontribs) 10:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Provisional Support once the quality issues per Maplestrip are resolved. Polyamorph (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Would like to see stories that are not relying on Chinese state media to confirm this. And more preferably from sources that would meet SCIRS (not necessarily a peer reviewed paper, but some source with a good foundation in reporting science news). --Masem (t) 13:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on Quality per Maplestrip. Noteworthy step forward in reactor tech as long as it can be verified and the article(s) updated. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Good news! Major step forward to have such a plant online This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nuclear power in China explains that "As of February 2023, China has 55 plants with 57GW in operation, 22 under construction with 24 GW and more than 70 planned with 88GW." What's so special about this one? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The aspect of this comment that amused me, is that bringing a plant online is a good step in the process of bringing a plant online :p ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Illia Kyva[edit]

Article: Illia Kyva (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
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: Assassinated in a Moscow suburb today, possibly by the SBUAbcmaxx (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The biography section has a lot of uncited info.LynxesDesmond 🐈 (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support there are some CN tags, but overall relatively RD-ready. Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not Ready The biography section is entirely unsourced and there are other gaps in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Procedural oppose per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait way too many unsourced statements, that's why I didn't nominate it myself. JM (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I can remove the "early life" section as that's the only bit that's unsourced; but do we know of any Ukrainian or Russian speaking Wikipedians that could help rather than doing that? Very hard to find much in other languages, shame because the rest of the article is very good. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Norman Lear[edit]

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

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

Masem (t) 14:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks pretty good, but it has a few too many citation needed tags to be ready just yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support RD: I've dealt with the citation tags (added refs and removed some transaction details I couldn't verify and which were extraneous anyway). Additionally support blurb as a transformative figure in US television: "revolutionized prime time television ... propelling political and social turmoil into the once-insulated world of TV sitcoms" (AP); "leaving a lasting mark with shows that brought the sitcom into the real world" (NYT); "It's impossible to overstate the importance of television producer Norman Lear to American culture ... For at least one generation, television doesn’t exist without Lear's singular vision" (WaPo). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It would be really help to have a paragraph or so specifically talking about his influence on TV, perhaps inthe Awards and Honors section, as to be able to support a blurb. I should be able to clearly identify why he was such an influence on American TV buy reading such a sourced section in the body of the article (I know he is that influential but we need to see that plain and clear) Masem (t) 19:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    On it... Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Masem: OK, begun this para at Norman Lear § Awards and honors. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Definitely a good start Masem (t) 21:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support RD but oppose blurb. Article is cited well enough but I personally don't think he meets notability for blurb mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support RD nice article. Polyamorph (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) 2023 Time Person of the year[edit]

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: Taylor Swift (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: TIME Magazine makes Taylor Swift Person of the year (Post)
News source(s): https://time.com/6342806/person-of-the-year-2023-taylor-swift
Credits:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukt64 (talkcontribs) 14:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I don’t believe we’ve blurbed Person of the Year in recent memory, and I don’t see any special reason to start it now, especially when this one has had less of a definitive global impact than past awardees. The Kip 19:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Kip. A magazine saying "hey, you're slightly better than everyone else" is not ITN worthy qw3rty 20:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per The Kip mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - even the year it was me, hi im the person of the year it wasnt really news. nableezy - 20:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose no way. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support TIME's person of the year is always major worldwide news. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Per the Kip, plus this is only one magazine and wouldn't be that notable even if we had posted it before. Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - good for her, but we never post this. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - We never blurb Person of the Year, and she's been far less influential than most before. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. This is exactly what we are talking about when we say "celebrity news". DarkSide830 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per above JM (talk) 22:52, 6 December 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.

December 5[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

  • The DAX achieves a new record high, increasing by 0.78%, surpassing the previous record from July. (Reuters)

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


(NEW) Former President of Mauritania sentenced to prison[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former President of Mauritania Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz (pictured) is sentenced to prison on charges of corruption. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Africanews
Credits:

Joofjoof (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Wolfgang Wieland[edit]

Article: Wolfgang Wieland (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): rbb
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.
  • Support Article is in good shape, good to go for posting. ~ Tails Wx 13:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) Cyclone Michaung[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Cyclone Michaung (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Atleast 17 deaths have been reported after Cyclone Michaung makes violent landfall in the south-eastern coast of India. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ 17 people have been killed after Cyclone Michaung makes violent landfall.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Cyclone Michaung makes violent landfall, leaves Chennai flooded and 17 dead.
Alternative blurb III: ​ At least 17 people are killed as Cyclone Michaung makes landfall in India.
News source(s): https://indianexpress.com/article/india/chennai-rain-death-toll-cyclone-michaung-landfall-andhra-9055801/
Credits:

Article updated

Leoneix (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment. Added an alt-blurb that better follows typical consensus on cyclone blurbs. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Considering all 17 deaths were there, would 2023 Chennai floods be a better target article, or should a blurb incorporate it? The Kip 19:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Article is of sufficient length. I like alt blurb II the best, tho maybe restructure it a bit, here's my idea: "Cyclone Michaung makes landfall in India, leaving Chennai flooded and 17 dead." LynxesDesmond 🐈 (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • FYI. I BOLDly merged the floods page into the cyclone page on account of the fact that they document the same issue and contained more or less the same content. No need to double-link the same event by separately linking the flooding. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support alt blurb III seems good now that the flood and cyclone articles have been merged. Leoneix (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose There is rain and floods all over the world currently including Brazil, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Pacific NW, the Seychelles, Tanzania, UK. It's the usual autumn weather amped up by climate change and El Niño. See WP:NEWSEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Might be of interest to write detailed articles on other weather situations as well, unless you think this article should be deleted wholesale per NOTNEWS? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Considering the user you’re replying to, I have a strange feeling that the answer is probably no to writing the articles. He’s nothing more than a contrarian. The Kip 03:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Andrew Davidson The news is about a cyclone which caused heavy rain and flood in a major city and not just seasonal rain. Leoneix (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting support. BD2412 T 18:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: William P. Murphy Jr.[edit]

Article: William P. Murphy Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

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

RD: Denny Laine[edit]

Article: Denny Laine (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LBC, The Daily Telegraph
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.
UK 1977 Christmas number one, spent nine weeks there, first single to sell over two million copies nationwide. Not many pop hits have featured the Great Highland bagpipe. Although there was Wizzard's 1974 "Are You Ready to Rock?" Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC) p.s. do you know where Laine was born?Reply[reply]
  • Support Highly notable musician. The article is also looking fine so far except some tags. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    notability is irrelevant for RD, see the note at the bottom of the pale yellow box JM (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait way too many tags and uncited sections right now, must be improved JM (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does every entry in the "Discography" section need an individual source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

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: Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: Despite the fact it's still ongoing, this war reached a stalemate with no major developments for a quite long period, which resulted it to go out of focus. The regular updates of Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 September 2023 – present) consist primarily of reports and claims on run-of-the-mill drone attacks, executed soldiers, pleads for support, minor sanctions and interviews with politicians that are mostly cited with domestic sources (e.g. The Kyiv Independent, The Moscow Times etc.). There haven't been reports on major advances by any side for months, and the timeline tells absolutely nothing about the current battles on the front. It's clear that even the major English-language media outlets have drastically decreased the number of news articles published about the war, and the systematic reporting from the frontline is gone (for instance, if you take a look at the War in Ukraine category on the BBC, there's only a handful of headlines published over the past few days, which document a story told by a Ukrainian soldier, a warning sent by the US to extend support to Ukraine, the killing of a Russian general and wrapping Christmas gifts for Ukrainian children). Furthermore, a quick glimpse at the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2023 reveals that more people died from COVID-19 than from attacks in Ukraine during the past week. In the same way as we did with the pandemic, there's a point in time at which we should concede that it doesn't longer serve the purpose of ongoing. Finally, keeping this posted onto ongoing indefinitely would cause problems to blurb a potential major escalation in the future as the opposition would argue that it's already posted. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I swear the moment we pull this from the main page, a new major offensive is going to start up and the news media will be yuking to blare the "BREAKING NEWS" horn again. I'm not saying the timing for this is wrong, it's more that we seem to have a (coincidental) tendency to trigger this anytime we pull something from ongoing. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 14:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The timing for this is wrong. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What would be a good timing? This event defocussed the COVID-19 pandemic, which was removed from ongoing shortly afterwards, and it was recently defocussed by the Israel-Hamas war. That's simply how the media work. US not approving additional funding to Ukraine partly because they had begun supporting Israel is just a demonstration that it went out of focus in practice.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Putin just signed decree that increases the number of army by 170000, or 15 per cent
[63]
[64]
This is obviously a significant development, one that could lead to another wave of mobilisation. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose
: It is still a Relevant topic with tons of articles everyday coming out of it.
Von bismarck (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose If there was a clear rationale behind the removal, it could have been summed up in one sentence.
It generates enough news and events, with USA funding not approved. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Kirill C1, although I might be more readily convinced with a more concise rationale for removal. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 14:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Still the preeminent conflict in the world in terms or geo-political gravity. Has a much a stronger claim to being in ongoing than either Myanmar or Sudan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral – In the past two weeks, only three sentences have been added to this article. It's a weak growth that doesn't really match what "ongoing" means on Wikipedia, but it's not nothing and I know that articles like this go in waves. Another wave of activity will probably happen. That being said, I don't know how much further this article specifically will evolve. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    what about the timeline article? I think the reason that it's also there is because the main article gets fewer updates (which itself could be a sign that it should be taken down). JM (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Ad & WaltCip; early winter has historically always seen offensives stall in this region. As the mud freezes, it's quite likely we'll start seeing offensive actions start back up. Additionally, we are undoubtedly going to see escalated drone and missile attacks as well. Unless there is a prolonged ceasefire or a peace deal, I see no reason to pull from ongoing. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a crystal-ball argument. If a major offensive starts during the winter, we can easily report it. For now, it's only a speculation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per the above, I'm sure things will heat up again in the Spring, additionally this is still a relevent topic. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. Per WaltClip. Though, I am not convinced to fully "oppose" either on account of what is more or less the fact that it is cold. This discussion is really lacking in strong arguments. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM means NOTFORUM. Contains oppose !vote.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose. Even if this criminal act and the brave defence against it reached a sort of halt that does not make it less ongoing in the grand scheme of things. And it's still a relevant world topic. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ...if it's halted then it is not ongoing. it's either halted or it's ongoing. JM (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ouro: What criminal act?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NOTFORUMM3ATH (See · Say) 17:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m trying to get the meaning of “criminal act” because it’s a very strong phrase that normally violates WP:CIVIL.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies; that seems to have been an indentation mistake on my part. I meant to point out that the phrases "crimminal act" and "brave defence" violated WP:NOTFORUM. —M3ATH (See · Say) 18:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the moment I don't care about NOTFORUM and am considering the question to be put forward in bad faith. For reasons of stating the obdious, the criminal act of the russian invasion of Ukraine. It may be ongoing and stalled just like evolution or climate change is ongoing but you'd be hard pressed to point to any specific things that happened today to make them ongoing. Guys, you needn't reply mentioning that this is not a forum for opinions, I know. It's just that this issue is personally important to me. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consider that there are certain guidelines for what can be in ongoing, which is why evolution and climate change are not there. Look at the current events portal to see a secondary level of ongoing events which are not on the main page, which is where this page would go if a proposal like this ever passed. JM (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you are allowed to violate NOTFORUM and AGF if an issue is personally important to you. Got it. —M3ATH (See · Say) 18:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As noted above, that is not how Ongoing items are evaluated. Significant and frequent updates are important, which is a valid thing to question in this scenario. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Oppose - I do understand where this is coming from, but this would be a bad idea. First of all, the COVID-19 comparison isn't valid because there's no such policy as WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. The notability of the war isn't due to the death toll. It's still regularly in the news and a huge part of global discourse, one of the biggest events in the 21st Century. And finally, I think if there was to be some escalation in the future, we should post it regardless like we posted the annexation of south-east Ukraine to Russia or the Wagner Rebellion. I do agree that Opposing because the war could escalate in the future is Crystal Balling, but still. Unless the war ends or really grinds down to a Korean-style stalemate (which it hasn't yet, still massive battles raging), it should stay up. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe if the status quo remains, we can come back and review in a few months. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose
If nothing major happens by, say, July 2024, then id say this would be a genuine proposal. For now, its still the second-most covered war, only behind the War in Gaza. Lukt64 (talk) 19:49, 5 December 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.

December 4[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections


RD: Suminda Sirisena[edit]

Article: Suminda Sirisena (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Daily News
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

RD: Thomas Ragle[edit]

Article: Thomas Ragle (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): VT Digger
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.

(Posted) RD: Sophie Anderson[edit]

Article: Sophie Anderson (actress) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bristol Post
Credits:

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

RD: Jerome O'Neill[edit]

Article: Jerome O'Neill (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WCAX
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) 07:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support - article looks well-cited mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose Resume in prose format, mostly a list of roles without much depth. What cases was he known for being involved with? SpencerT•C 06:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Juanita Castro[edit]

Article: Juanita Castro (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Univision
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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TDKR Chicago 101 (talkcontribs) 13:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support looks fine to me JM (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) 2023 eruption of Mount Marapi[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2023 eruption of Mount Marapi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A volcanic eruption in Sumatra, Indonesia results in the deaths of 22 hikers. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, BBC
Credits:

Very major natural disaster, the first volcano eruption in 2023 with a death toll. Article is pretty short at the moment, though it will be expanded as more information is reported. LynxesDesmond 🐈 13:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The article is a stub. Schwede66 17:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose First off, such a minimal death toll is not ITN-worthy, second, the article would need to be expanded to fit ITN-Criteria. Editor 5426387 (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support on notability, oppose on article quality. The article needs significant improvements to fulfil ITN criteria. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality Article needs to be expanded and be a bit more fully in-depth before posting. Support on notability. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong support on notability Article lengthwise seems ok. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – Great work @Borgenland: and others for expanding the article to its current state. It looks in a solid state for a main page feature. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support The death of a two-digit number of hikers as a result of a volcanic eruption is a significant disaster. Article looks minimally sufficient for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per above JM (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - and I dont think an argument about a minimal death toll is ever valid here. Needs the target in the blurb, something like Mount Marapi erupts on the island of Sumatra in Indonesia, killing 22 hikers.. nableezy - 18:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted, with Nableezy's improvement to the blurb. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COP 28[edit]

There's a variety of possible blurbs and the president, Sultan Al Jaber, seems to be making waves. Perhaps Ongoing is best to cover all the angles. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support seems to be updated frequently, and is receiving ongoing coverage. Quality is also there. JM (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support The quality of the article is not great, but it's acceptable, and has been updated. The significance is overwhelming, given the climate emergency. This is ongoing for another week, and media coverage is not going to decrease, especially after al-Jaber's opposition to fossil fuel phase out (and mansplaining: I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation) and the revelation that there are 70,000 participants ... Boud (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support This has been a worldwide scandal, with some significant coverage in multiple periodicals. The COP28 article is messy, but not particularly problematic. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per precedent. We waited last year for the conclusion of the event and any major decisions that came out of it. No need to post right now, and honestly, the controversies in question have me seriously doubting the actual value of COP at all. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What happened last year was that an ITN decision was deferred and then nothing was done. This is the common outcome in this matter – procrastination. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per precedent. If something important comes out of this, we can post it, but given that the president is being accused of climate change denial, that is highly unlikely. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 16:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blurb - Put up the event and controversy surrounding PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose If anything significant comes out of this, then maybe a blurb may be more appropriate, but for now, this is not significant enough.Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support ongoing item nomination, many significant things such as the nuclear energy promise and the controversy promise Unknown-Tree (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Overwhelming significance, many updates, and honestly it's great to have something else than wars in Ongoing. The event spans several days and several points can be in the news even before the final decisions, that's exactly what Ongoing is for. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 20:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. It's a two-week conference which will be over in a week. That's not what Ongoing is for. If some actually significant decisions are made there, and not just blowing hot air, then post a blurb. Nsk92 (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ongoing is for when a blurb rolls off but the event is still notable and In The News, or if there is a significant amount of independent news items related to the event coming in. Neither has happened here. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's false as there are plenty of stories coming out of this ongoing event. For example, right now the online NYT has four headlines on its main page:
  1. Climate Summit Leader Tries to Calm Uproar...
  2. Global Fossil Fuel Emissions Are Rising...
  3. Air-Conditioning Use Will Surge in a Warming World...
  4. 1.5 Degrees Is Not the Problem
So, with four front page headlines, that's more than any of the other ongoing ITN entries for which the scores are Gaza=3, Ukraine=2, Myanmar=0, Sudan=0. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah but I'd say 2 of those stories would not be suitable for a blurb. The only two angles that we could go for would be the event happening and surrounding controversy. It's no shock to anyone that fossil fuel emissions are rising, and the other article is an opinion piece. The quantity of headlines does increase notability, but doesn't necessarily indicate it should be ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose until end of the event and then determine if there's anything useful out of it. We have not posted the past COP nor the onset of other G7/G20/equivalent international meetings, but only give a blurb if there is some major, actionable agreement that comes out that, and that's usually not known until the last day of the event. --Masem (t) 01:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support as per reasons above Roma enjoyer (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait until it's over and then blurb it if there is anything worth the notice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose ongoing, support blurb as per Nsk92. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait until the conference ends and post any major conclusions. I don't see reporting on important decisions during the conference in the article to justify posting onto ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Needs work – Currently the lead section exclusive speaks of the background/leadup to the event. More writing needs to be done and the article must be rebalanced before this can be featured. Article has a lot of potential, however. I can see a lot of work has been put into this in the past months! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) Venezuelan referendum[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: 2023 Venezuelan referendum (talk · history · tag) and 2023 Guyana–Venezuela crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In South America, amidst an ongoing diplomatic crisis between the two countries, Venezuelans vote to annex the disputed Guayana Esequiba (shown in green) region in Guyana. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Amidst a diplomatic crisis between the two countries, Venezuelans vote to annex the disputed Guayana Esequiba region of Guyana.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Amidst a diplomatic crisis between the two countries, Venezuelans vote to support their government's position that the disputed Guayana Esequiba region in Guyana (shown in green) is Venezuelan territory.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Amidst a diplomatic crisis with Guyana, Venezuelans vote to support their government's claim on the disputed Guayana Esequiba region (shown in green).
News source(s): CNN - Reuters - AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Major news in South America that will further a diplomatic crisis and may even escalate into a war. It's an intriguing story that isn't getting enough news coverage, so will definately be worth a view to our readers. — Knightoftheswords 04:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Oppose significant because it is an international incident and territorial dispute featuring a military buildup alongside this referendum, but the article needs to be updated; the results tables have no information. done after taking a second look it's clear those sources do not back up those numbers, which are inaccurate. this article cannot be blurbed until there are accurate numbers. JM (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support quality has improved, the significance I outlined in my original review still stands. JM (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality per JM. Those results were not accurate. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I really don't think many realise how bad this situation is getting, and the massive impact it will have on everything. This needs to be put up on the front page. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also it might be good to say that the people """"""voted"""""" to annex, supposedly by a 95% majority (shocking result I know) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - The referendum did not explicitly ask voters to approve the annexation of the Essequibo region, but rather supported the establishment of a state in the disputed area (among other provisions). The referendum is a step towards a potential annexation, but it wasn't asking for it directly. Ornithoptera (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It could be argued that it is a de facto annexation, fully incorporating a neighbouring territory as a part of your state. It's the same thing that the Russians did, Donetsk and Luhansk becoming full fledged republics of the federation. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Even if it could be argued that it is a "de facto annexation", it still is not (the referendum is consultative and therefore voting to approve simply doesn't codify anything other than to send a message of approval), and there is not a significant body of work that directly states the referendum is asking to directly do so (however, there are many other things that are adjacent to a potential annexation or significant action being taken that are at hand in relation to the referendum) and the assertion of such would be a violation of WP:NOR. Ornithoptera (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The big difference is that Venezuela doesn't have de facto possession of the territory. As I understand it, it's controlled by Guyana and they are backed up by Brazil's powerful military. Venezuela is sabre-rattling for domestic consumption as the country is otherwise a shambles. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I've made some improvements on the article, but more is needed on the veracity of the referendum. I highly doubt it was free and fair PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support of clear significance and both bolded articles appear in good shape. I agree that annex is probably not the right word to use as that usually implies some degree of control over the territory. Not quite sure how best to word this - maybe "vote to a establish a state in the disputed region". ITBF (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose This is an ongoing dispute which is still before the ICJ. Venezuela's referendum does not seem significant as what will matter is physical control on the ground and international recognition. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Blurb is a bit long, and two bolded articles might be too much. Also no need to add "shown in green" if the map is already labeled. Support the shorter and more concise altblurb. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 09:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support and I have proposed alt2 to address concerns that the referendum wasn't technically for annexation. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 09:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support altblurb, whatever happens, this appears to be a noteworthy aggressive move by Venezuela, underpinning its claim. Article looks ok. Brandmeistertalk 11:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support alternative blurb II III in principle, Oppose main and alternative blurb: The referendum consisted in five questions, only of which the last one asked to begin steps to incorporate the territory, so the issue is more nuanced than voters asking to annex the territory, as others have mentioned.
Likewise, also commented above already, there's the initial results: while polls estimated a 20% turnout (around 4 million voters) and those figures were even coonsidered an overestimation, the Venezuelan government now says that over 10 million people voted (over 50% turnout). I think there weren't independent observers, but allowing this around 12 hours or so should allow to learn the position of experts and the opposition.
I know that electoral results usually aren't questioned in the ITN, but this should also be considered in the blurb (see (Posted) 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine). If everything else fails, I would support the inclusion of the Guayana Esequiba crisis article in the Ongoing section. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding referendum questions, as shown in the article, all of them are related to Guayana Esequiba which is explicitly mentioned in each of them, not just the last one. The 3rd one is perhaps particularly provocative, about "Venezuela's historical position of not recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to resolve the territorial controversy over Guayana Esequiba". Also, altblurb II looks too verbose and conniving. Brandmeistertalk 11:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support This is an important move by Venezuela, but i understand why some are apprehensive to add it. But it IS a vote to annex a part of another sovereign nation, and should be brought to light.
Manumaker08 (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Altblurb III, Oppose main and alternative blurb Concise and addresses prior WP:SYNTH concerns I've had with the first two blurbs. Potential regional conflict that can arise, and ITN significance is clear. My only concern is that the article is not updated with the final results for any of the 5 questions. I believe Portuguese wiki has the results, but I'm uncertain as to if they have the source for the results. Ornithoptera (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Update The results are in: Maduro vote to claim Guyana’s territory backfires as Venezuelans stay home

    Turnout was minimal ... most voters shunned the issue ... the Venezuelan government has been widely accused by analysts of falsifying the results ... It was a resounding failure for Maduro ... they rigged the results ... massive PR disaster ... firing the propaganda machine ... 7 million people to flee the country ... leaves an enormous gap ...

    So, shall we blurb this as a "resounding failure" for the Maduro regime? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support amendment This has been one of my main points: the nuances of the referendum should be reflected, since the official results are widely distrusted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marking as readyKnightoftheswords 01:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed as premature. Article still hasn't been updated with results, which are in dispute. The Kip 04:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Said results will likely be in dispute for a while; good chance that they will never be released given that we're talking about Chavist Venezuela. The article is otherwise decent. — Knightoftheswords 00:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The results would most likely be skewed twords Venezuela, but we'll see. Rager7 (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support for obvious reasons. It's currently trending on the news and shall be posted. Rager7 (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support conceptually, Oppose all blurbs. The statement that "Venezuelans vote to" support their government is dubious at the very best. Abundant nuance to this situation is evident, I accept, but lack of referendum tampering is improbable. Below example blurb, a modification of alt3, is preferable:
Amidst a diplomatic crisis with Guyana, a Venezuelan referendum succeeds to support the government's claim on the disputed Guayana Esequiba region (shown in green). 180.150.81.68 (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, in case of tampering something like "Venezuelan referendum supports the annexation..." may work, to avoid placing the responsibility on Venezuelan people whose opinion may have been manipulated. Brandmeistertalk 20:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much preferable indeed. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. RSes are making it pretty blunt that the government’s reported turnout/vote count is highly disputed, so to frame it as the referendum legitimately voting to support is to effectively take the government line. The Kip 21:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Results tables updated. The precise amount of votes has not be announed, only the percentages.--NoonIcarus (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgot to ping @Knightoftheswords281 and The Kip:. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I think Maduro declared on TV de facto annexation. 194.102.58.6 (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Per all above. Article’s quality looks good and it is clearly a significant geopolitical event. Good work on the article. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Also it is worth adding that people did not turn out for the referendum. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted a modified version of altblurb3 per Brandmeister's comment above. Further tweaks may be needed. In the future, if you want a significant change to the suggested blurbs it makes it easier on admins if you write it out in full. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This came up at Errors and an even more neutral wording was suggested there, which I have adopted. Schwede66 03:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A bit off topic, but what is Errors? Ornithoptera (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:Errors, for reporting errors on the main page. Stephen 04:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the record, the blurb first posted was

    Amidst a diplomatic crisis with Guyana, a referendum supports the Venezuelan government's claim to the disputed Guayana Esequiba region.

    This was then revised after discussion at WP:ERRORS to

    Amidst a diplomatic crisis with Guyana, Venezuela holds a referendum to advance their claim to the disputed Guayana Esequiba region.

    . Further discussion now continues at WP:ERRORS.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) 2023 attack on the USS Carney[edit]

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 attack on the USS Carney (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A U.S Navy warship and a British military warship reported a explosion in Yemen. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Red Sea, the USS Carney and several commercial vessels are attacked by the Houthi movement.
News source(s): https://apnews.com/article/red-sea-houthi-yemen-ships-attack-israel-hamas-war-gaza-strip-716770f0a780160e9abed98d3c48fbde
Credits:
A U.S Navy warship and a few commercial ships was struck by ballistic missiles fired from Yemen, and a few U.S Navy warships also shot down a few drones in self-defense. NewPedia24 (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Poorly informative blurb, and ideally we should have an article talking about the incident before putting it on ITN. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 00:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Chaotic Enby + fairly mundane incident in the grand scheme of things. The Kip 01:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The "actual" article should be 2023 attack on the USS Carney which might be a bit more relevant than "an explosion", but still. Also borderline under Ongoing. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • SNOW provincial, no article This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Even with the article, my understanding is that all of the US ships and bases in the Persian Gulf have generally seen these types of attacks or attempts at attacks by the various terrorist groups for years, and there's nothing new here outside this taking place at the same time as the active conflict in Gaza. None of these attacks have succeeded in any major issues (no lost of ships, etc) so while nothing to sneeze at, its business as usual. --Masem (t) 01:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom. Trivial incident that probably doesn't pass WP:EVENT. If the article doesn't end up being merged/redirected I may send it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Changed heading and target article, and added altblurb JM (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong Oppose There have been multiple incidents like this in the past few weeks and this one isn't much different. No casualties and the U.S. warship wasn't actually hit. I also think the target article, 2023 attack on the USS Carney, should be nominated for deletion unless all recent attacks are merged into one. Johndavies837 (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh okay. NewPedia24 (talk) 03:46, 4 December 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: Peta Murphy[edit]

Article: Peta Murphy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.9news.com.au/national/peta-murphy-federal-labor-mp-dies-from-cancer/c771ddc2-991e-44b5-8f5d-82003cf9d733
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.

December 3[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and incidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) Mindanao State University bombing[edit]

Article: Mindanao State University bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An Islamist bombing at Mindanao State University in Marawi, Philippines, kills four people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A bombing at Mindanao State University in Marawi, Philippines, kills four people.
News source(s): [65][66]
Credits:

Significant number of injuries. Article in good shape. Natg 19 (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support – Article looks good. The lede section could use a bit of expanding, but the prose has a lot of details. Nice work! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Rep