Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2023

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

August 31[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: Bill Pinkney[edit]

Article: Bill Pinkney (sailor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS
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: American sailor. - Indefensible (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Gil Brandt[edit]

Article: Gil Brandt (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP, CBS, ESPN, Dallas News, NFL, USA Today, WaPo
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American sports executive. Needs some updating but I assume will be ready soon. - Indefensible (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support once improved There is a few spots needing sources, but I do think it is closer than maybe the Nom may have thought. TheCorriynial (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Refs have been added. - Indefensible (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Appear sufficient for the purposes of RD. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 13:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some tagged sourcing issues e.g. not supported by exisiting citation, or multiple statements not all covered by the single cite.—Bagumba (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Citations lacking, and article format is also somewhat poor. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Johannesburg building fire[edit]

Article: 2023 Johannesburg building fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In South Africa, a fire in a building inhabited by squatters in Johannesburg kills 73 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Johannesburg, South Africa, a residential fire kills at least 73 people.
News source(s): CNN - NYT - WaPo
Credits:

Nominator's comments: A fire has occured in South Africa, leaving 73 dead and 52 injured. The article needs lengthening. — Knightoftheswords 12:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is not an abandoned building then there are probably more than 125 people in it Abo Yemen 13:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was abandoned; there were just some squatters there. — Knightoftheswords 13:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh
people who know nothing about the incident would probably confused too Abo Yemen 13:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Article is a stub. Ping me when it isn't. I'll reassess then. --Jayron32 14:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support now. Article has been destubbified. --Jayron32 12:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now per Jayron. estar8806 (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Per above. It's a tragic disaster but the article needs to be expanded more. Once expanded, I'll reconsider. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう!) 15:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per above. Article remains a stub. The Kip 16:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Post-posting support due to expansion. The Kip 18:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The effects are limited to one building and less than 200 people. As of yet, there are no wider ramifications at even the local level. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


  • ...What? routinely post incidents killing 10-15 people. ITN has no "MINIMUMDEATHS" requirement. --RockstoneSend me a message! 19:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're only posting something because people died, then we shouldn't post it at all. It's the overall ramifications that matter, not how it affected a small handful of people. ITN has a poor track record on this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I typically at least sympathize with your comments regarding this but come on. This is like not posting the Boston bombings because only a handful of people died. Not to accuse anyone of WP:SYSTEMIC, but I doubt the same argument would be used if around 150 casualties occured in America or the UK. — Knightoftheswords 00:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it's ridiculously false to say it has no wider ramifications. This has massive ramifications which are already all over the national press. Zaian (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this has resulted in mass displacement, the government passing a law, etc, then you should include it in the article. Right now, the article makes no indication that the subject is significant except for a WP:BIGNUMBER argument, which as far as I'm concerned has zero weight. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doing exactly that now. I know this is going to sound like lacking WP:AGF, but is there a counter rule, WP:FARAWAY or WP:NOTENOUGHAFRICANS? Zaian (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't added any content to suggest that it even meets the bare minimum of having an article at all, let alone significance to post on the front page. And yes, this is about as blatant of an AGF violation as you can get, especially since this is a position I've held quite consistently for all geographic regions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon man, it really feels like you are starting to bend over backwards to oppose events like this. You can't just keep citing policies and hope one of them sticks. This is another event where we would have this posted very quickly if it happened in a Western country, more or less per what KotS and Zaian note. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well that I consider meeting WP:N to be a requirement for posting. And these veiled accusations of racism are growing rather tiring when you've seen me apply this standard to every instance that comes up, regardless of country. I understand that you have very little experience with Wikipedia outside of ITN, but I assumed that the recent village pump discussions would have made it quite clear that yes, these policies do apply, and Wikipedia as a whole is getting impatient with ITN's belief that it's above policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • The blurb is excessive in my opinion, suggested altblurb1. - Indefensible (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support notability / Oppose quality An incident that seems similar to the Greenfell Tower tragedy a few years ago, which was posted. Article is very short, however, so I would only fully support if/once it's expanded.Khuft (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its hard not to make that comparison, but I think that we're seeing a massive difference in the verified response that makes this far less notable - Grenfell involved rented flats and launched a massive investigation into why the building burned as it did. Here was an abandoned warehouse being used by homeless, and unlikely to draw the same type of attention Grenfell did. I'm not saying this is a reason not to post, but I don't see this getting the same type of attention in the media. Masem (t) 01:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a story to be told here (president's visit to the site, hijacked buildings under cartel control and rented out to the desperate, locked gates and blocked exits, ongoing housing crisis, inner-city decay, the affluent fleeing to the 'burbs...) but unfortunately, 24 hours on, this sad little stub isn't telling it. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Working on it. And there is a huge story here. For instance, people displaced by the fire refusing to trust government-provided buses to emergency accommodation, as they feared they were being used to round up undocumented migrants (with some justification, based on previous actions by officials). And the specific building is notable as it was built at the peak of apartheid as a Pass Office to enforce the pass laws, which regulated the movement of Africans to restrict their presence in "white" cities. Zaian (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Every major disaster like this has a Swiss cheese effect. In other words a variety of small circumstances, which by themselves wouldn't cause a catastrophe, does when combined together. These types of stories are always interesting and encyclopedic, and should merit inclusion on ITN regardless of "long-term global significance", which really at this point in ITN/C's history, is just a polite euphemism for "doesn't affect me in any way". Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 15:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the "sad little stub" comment. It was borderline untrue when I wrote it and is now certainly no longer the case. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is quite short but it is perfectly good enough now. And the notability is clearly there per Moscow Mule and Zaian. Black Kite (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because the article is good enough & the fire notable enough. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 15:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted altblurb (with updated death total) as the article is no longer a stub. Kudos to Zaian for their work on this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The blurb count needs to be updated again unfortunately; easier to just use "at least" in my opinion. Also maybe we can switch the picture? - Indefensible (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 30[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


(Posted) RD: Mohamed Al-Fayed[edit]

Article: Mohamed Al-Fayed (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 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: Former billionaire owner of Harrods, Fulham FC etc. Largely cited but a number of cn tags to deal with Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment tagged to the article's talk page. Khuft (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; preemptive oppose blurb since I can see the blurb noms coming. Blurbs only go out for massively influential people (IMO we should have a blanket ban on them for people other than heads of state/gov't but that's a discussion for another day). Important though he was, Nelson Mandela al-Fayed was not This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - Sometimes seeing RD's posted can really shock you. Never knew until now he died, RIP. Not notable for a blurb though PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would have straightforwardly voted to "support RD" had it not been for the plenty of {cn} tags that still needs to be worked on. A notable figure, but some cleanup is needed for his article. Vida0007 (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor adjustment: as his death occurred on August 30, I moved this nomination to that date. (Also did the same for the Jimmy Buffett and Bill Richardson RD noms). Vida0007 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 11 cn tags, work needs to be done on sourcing before this is ready. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 13:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no more CN tags, please check now (@Vida0007:, @MonarchOfTerror:). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Filelakeshoe: It says in the lead and infobox that he was married to Heine Wathen and had four children with her; this is unsourced and not mentioned in the rest of the article. Also the Infobox and start of article says he was born on the 27 January but the prose in early life (which should serve as a source for those) only mentions his birth year. Once these issues are fixed it gets my full support. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 09:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved that sentence about his wife and kids out of the intro and into the main prose, and copied a few footnotes from the wife's wikibio. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks good now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per TDKR. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jan Jongbloed[edit]

Article: Jan Jongbloed (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN; NOS.nl; Associated Press; AFP; Corriere della Sera; ABC 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.

Nominator's comments: A former Dutch international goalkeeper, who was best known for being part of the Netherlands squad that lost two consecutive FIFA World Cup finals, as well as the player with the highest number of appearances in the Eredivisie. The article is in shockingly poor conditions, given Jongbloed's CV, but the sources I've retrieved should be useful enough to at least bring the page in decent shape. Oltrepier (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ok, I think I've managed to make slight progress with my latest edits, but there's still so much work to do... Oltrepier (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose While it's well sourced, the article is a stub. Could use some expansion in terms of his career. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TDKR. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jack Sonni[edit]

Article: Jack Sonni (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN, ABC, Billboard
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: Dire Straits guitarist --Vacant0 (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) The worm in the brain[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: Ophidascaris robertsi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Australia, an 8-inch long parasitic nematode is found in a woman's brain, marking the first time a live parasitic worm has been found within the human brain. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters - CNN - The Guardian - BBC - Al Jazeera - Euronews - CBC - Le Monde - France24
Credits:
Nominator's comments: In Canberra, Australia, a live parasitic worm (a giant one at that - 8 inches!) was discovered in a local woman's brain during a surgical operation, marking the first time they have been discovered within a human's brain. I think this would be a great bit of science news to add to ITN, with it likely to have major ramifications (not this specific infection, but future studies relating to it and increasing the potential for an actually dangerous infection), and also emphasizes Wikipedia as a dynamic resource, or point IV of WP:ITNPURPOSE. Additionally, it's an interesting story that will likely intrigue our readers, or point III of ITNPURPOSE. The article could do with some lengthening however. — Knightoftheswords 15:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to put this to DYK, as the article meets the criteria. The blurb is technically incorrect, this is probably the first time for a worm in the brain but not in humans in general, those are rather common. Tone 15:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Parelaphostrongylus tenuis is common enough in deer, though AFAIK, it hasn't been found in humans. --Jayron32 15:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While lots of news sources picked this up, the sources all seem to cover this as a "human interest" or "weird news" kind of story. Not the sort of coverage I'd expect from an ITN post. --Jayron32 15:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Jayron points out, this is more in the weird news category (which often does get wide coverage but fails to be actually much of scientific value) rather than serious news. --Masem (t) 15:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others said, it's not an important news story. Rager7 (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, because as Tone has pointed out, this is exactly the sort of thing that's more suited for DYK than it is for ITN. 118.107.244.120 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as per above. 4me689 (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This actually IS a candidate for DYK because this story and the surrounding scientific coverage results in significant expansion to the article. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 17:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lots of international coverage so it's in the news. DYK has no need of such as that section has such a surfeit of articles that its backlog is over a hundred and they are running 2x8 sets every day to try to clear it. ITN is quite the opposite with just four blurbs in a week making DYK about thirty times more productive. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) 2023 Gabonese coup d'état[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: 2023 Gabonese coup d'état (talk · history · tag) and 2023 Gabonese general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The military command a coup d'état in Gabon following the results of the 2023 Gabonese general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Gabon, President Ali Bongo Ondimba is deposed by a military coup d'état shortly after being declared the winner of the 2023 Gabonese general election.
Alternative blurb II: ​ President of Gabon Ali Bongo is deposed by a military coup d'état shortly after being declared the winner of the recent general election.
News source(s): Africa News RFI.fr Le Monde BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This is not yet in any major news outlet, it's just coming in. The military has ousted current president just after the results of the 26 August election were announced! There are some recordings on X (Twitter) showing the military apparently reading a declaration [1] [2]. Now on major media! [3] Bedivere (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support - obviously meets three of the points pf WP:ITNPURPOSE; many are likely looking for this article, it's receiving little coverage from most western outlets due to it being night rn, and compounded with the current ITN listings, emphasizes Wikipedia as a dynamic resource, However, the article needs serious lengthening. — Knightoftheswords 05:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have done my best with the little information that has surfaced in the last few hours. I hope someone can expand it as more details emerge. It's a little late at my place and need some sleep! Bedivere (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I would like to acknowledge all people who have worked on the article and have expanded it significantly both in prose and referencing in the last few hours. It certainly looks good enough for ITN! Bedivere (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, oppose on quality The article needs some work before it's ready to be posted. Pretty clearly notable as change in head of state. Also doesn't this count as ITN/R as Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government? Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 05:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability per above. Article's too short at the moment, but details are scarce for now and they'll filter in over time. Proposed ALT1. The Kip 06:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support has the basic details, as we know them at this early stage, so I think good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT ITNR combine it with the ITNR election article in bold.37.252.92.217 (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This happened before in 2019 and the coup was not successful. Rushing to announce this as a done deal is therefore improper per WP:CRYSTAL. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But…this time the coup is successful… _-_Alsor (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a bit, from the sources, it is not clear how this will end, so we better be careful with the blurb. In any case, even an attempted coup where "the president is removed from power" is ITN material. --Tone 09:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, combine with ITN/R The coup appears to be a done deal, and is definitely a watershed event in Gabonese history, bringing down the ruling family that has held power since 1967. Support having the election also in bold as the two events are directly connected. Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The news is covering the coup, AND the coup article is of sufficient quality. Do NOT bold the election article, however, as it is of bad quality; there's entire sections that lack any prose. --Jayron32 12:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. And comment: Do we need to include the "Ondimba" part of the name? He's much more commonly known as just "Ali Bongo". And (w/r/t both suggested blurbs) specifiying "Gabonese" in the election article link seems redundant. AltBlurb2 suggested. Moscow Mule (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Successful coup, and articles appears in good shape. --Masem (t) 13:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clearly a notable event, significant not only in history of Gabon but in the amount of press attention this is getting. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support the coup was successful and the news is on it perfect for me. 4me689 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support coups d'état (at least the successful ones) should be ITNR per se (I think that this debate was already opened, I don't know how it ended). The article is good, with enough information for what has happened at this time, taking into account that the Reactions section may be expanded in the next hours. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 15:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Tone. I think you forgot to give credit :-P Bedivere (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is required to give credit for an ITN nomination. If you really want to receive credit, you can click on the link yourself; nobody will mind. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 17:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. Tone did give the credit in less than a minute. Thanks by the way Bedivere (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Should the blurb make it clearer that he was president before the election? It could be read that he had just taken office. Maybe "Incumbent President Bongo Ondimba" or "following his reelection in the 2023 Gabonese general election"? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the second suggestion, I will modify it. Good point. Tone 16:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but wait—the article needs more work before it's officially posted, not to mention a previous failed coup occurred in 2019. Until there's more confirmation on the situation, I recommend waiting another day or so. MateoFrayo (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Wait-this article itself appears to be about ITN ready, and there appears to already be consensus as well. This may have been posted a bit prematurely, but the article seems ready reguardless so it should have no impact. We need to fix the link for President Bongo Ondimba, however, there seems there was some vandalism or something of the sort it appears and that should be fixed immediately if it hasn't already - yikes. Daneellis114 19:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability—I haven't reviewed the article's quality or sourcing, but in terms of overall notability, this is a major event for Gabon. The country has been ruled by the Bongo family for 57 years, and the fact that they've been removed from power will have significant ramifications for Gabon's political (and possibly economic) trajectory. Kurtis (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 29[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Mike Enriquez[edit]

Article: Mike Enriquez (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rappler, Inquirer, GMA News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Died last Tuesday, there's an orange tag at the top of the article, but apart from one {cn} tag remaining, the article looks good to be posted for RD. Vida0007 (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose 3 unsourced statements in prose aside from the one cn tag, but the television programs and awards section needs refs (5 uncited programs and 11 uncited awards). Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 13:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose needs more references. Bedivere (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Nancy Buirski[edit]

Article: Nancy Buirski (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline, Variety
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: American filmmaker & producer. - Indefensible (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose Needs some ref work, DOB is uncited and there's like 2 uncited statements. Would also like less end of paragraph citations but not a major problem. Support Looks good enough now. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 05:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added refs. - Indefensible (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose One-sentence lead is too short.—Bagumba (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems an extra sentence was added, but not supported in the body. —Bagumba (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be prose elaborating on items listed as "Notable works" in the infobox. --PFHLai (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Refs, too! --PFHLai (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC) And things in the intro are supposed to be only highlights or summaries, and should be explained in more details in the main prose, where footnotes should go. --PFHLai (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Katalin Rényi[edit]

Article: Katalin Rényi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Magyar Nemzet, Index (both in Hungarian)
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: Hungarian artist Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Guillermo Teillier[edit]

Article: Guillermo Teillier (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): El Pais (Spanish), L'Humanité (French)
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: Chilean politician - Indefensible (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 28[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

  • Iran says it has reached an agreement with Iraq to disarm and relocate Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq and shut down bases run by the groups in the semi-autonomous region. (Al Jazeera)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Robert Hale (bass-baritone)[edit]

Article: Robert Hale (bass-baritone) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deutsche Oper Berlin
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Legendary American bass-baritone, known as Wotan in Wagner's Ring cycle. His death was announced on 28 August. The article was more or less a list of famous places, people and orchestras. It could be more detailed, with more reviews and colleagues mentioned for performances and recordings, also his first wife Inga Nielsen is still missing, but I have no more time for him right now. Help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The biggest issue is the unreferenced list of videos. Schwede66 00:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Schwede66, I'm sorry. I found the section as it is, - the same information once in prose, once in a table, which may be good for different types of readers. All recordings in both sections are referenced by Muziekweb (with the exception of the Schumann, for which I already found a review). I copied the ref now to the list of videos, for clarity, - sorry that I missed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I see one statement without a source but it shouldn't prevent this from being posted. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 08:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a ref to that sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It looks like this is good enough to be posted as a RD. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: August 08 (musician)[edit]

Article: August 08 (musician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Yahoo, Complex, Billboard
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: American musician and singer-songwriter who died last Monday; saw no {cn} tags on this article. Vida0007 (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Discography needs refs. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 13:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This stubby wikibio currently has only 139 words of prose. Stubs are not supposed to be used on the RD line. Please expand this wikibio. Noms with less than 300 words rarely get much support. --PFHLai (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still 139 words long after two days. Time running out soon. --PFHLai (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tina Howe[edit]

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

Nominator's comments: American playwright. Article needs some sourcing work (especially plays and awards section), I plan to work on it now or later today if nothing comes up. I've done some work and the article looks alright now. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 10:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article is well written and sourced. Meets requirements. Golem08 (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • PostedBagumba (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Alan Haworth[edit]

Article: Alan Haworth, Baron Haworth (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Standard
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: British politician. Article is a bit stubby and undercited, I will look at this now. All cited now, though still a little short. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The article is sufficient for the purposes of RD. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 10:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article’s sourcing is good, could use some more length but current length is fine for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose One-sentence lead is too short.—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jayanta Mahapatra[edit]

Article: Jayanta Mahapatra (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Pragativadi
Credits:

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

 Fahads1982 (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Article needs some work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many bullet-points of unsourced materials. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 27[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports


RD: Rich Stubler[edit]

Article: Rich Stubler (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://3downnation.com/2023/08/27/long-time-cfl-defensive-coordinator-rich-stubler-dead-at-74/
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: Canadian football coach. -- 205.189.58.89 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I see nothing wrong with it. Looks well-cited. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 01:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Oppose At the time there were no glaring citation problems but the orange header says otherwise. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 21:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A few unsourced sections as well as sentences here and there.—Bagumba (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are currently 7 {cn} tags in the prose. The table of his coaching record (one row?) is also unsourced. Please add more REFs and footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Pat Corrales[edit]

Article: Pat Corrales (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MLB AP ESPN
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American professional baseball catcher, manager, and coach. The article has one cn tag but is otherwise fine. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 12:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article is in good shape. That cn tag has been fixed too. Golem08 (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article has enough sourcing and depth to meet ITNRD standard. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing addition: 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup[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 FIBA Basketball World Cup (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Major global world cup of a major global sport. Pretty standard/routine addition to ITN, like how the FIFA Women's World Cup was included in ongoing recently. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 06:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not the biggest names, but objectively the biggest tournament for basketball outside of the Olympics. Prose feels adequate enough. The Kip 08:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The FIBA World Cup has always been just a qualifying tournament for the Olympics with very little to no significance. This description has gained additional importance after FIBA decided to move the World Cup to odd years, only a year before the Olympics, which discouraged many world-class players to play in order to avoid playing tournaments two summers in a row. United States with youngsters looking for an opportunity to compete for the Olympic squad, Serbia without Jokić, Greece without Giannis, Latvia without Porziņģis, Canada without Jamal Murray all support that description.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Kiril. Also, I would argue that the US's NBA finals and even the college playoffs are far more famous than this, even though neither has the global impact. --Masem (t) 12:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support ongoing, strong support blurb - ITN doesn't require stories to be of "global significance" or be subject to (largely unfounded and editorialized) claims of having very little to no significance. I'd say that this meets points I and III of WP:ITNPURPOSE; not to go full Andrew Davidson, but it's received half a million views in the past week and is receiving extensive coverage from the likes of the BBC, Forbes, CNN, AP, SCMP, ABC, The Guardian, Huff Post, etc, and it's also likely attracting the interest of readers who may not be aware of this but may be interested by say, perhaps misreading it as FIFA. — Knightoftheswords 14:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This tournament is an ITN/R item, so a blurb on its conclusion should be posted. As for ongoing, those arguments that you present make a much stronger case for posting US Open, but we simply can't and don't overload ongoing with sport events.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So overload with elections and natural disasters? — Knightoftheswords 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please tell me what was the last election or natural disaster posted onto ongoing? I don't remember that we've ever posted such events there.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is literally one election on {{ITN}} RN, plus an adjacent item where Cambodia has sworn in a new PM, amounting to effectively half of the template. Until very recently, ITN was basically more natural disaster porn than anything else, since that was effectively the only thing we could agree to post that wasn't WP:ITNR; it wasn't until some users raised a fuss about the trillions of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:DISASTERSTUBS that were being created as a result. — Knightoftheswords 15:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you about the "Ongoing" section, i.e. the penultimate line between the blurbs and the "Recent deaths" section, not about ITN overall. This is a nomination for ongoing, not for a blurb (as I already mentioned, a blurb should be posted when the tournament concludes as it's an ITN/R item).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, hence why it was a weak support; I'm not sure if we should broaden the scope for ongoing as much as we should for blurbs. Perhaps make any long-term ITNR blurb item ongoing? — Knightoftheswords 17:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, blurb on conclusion. It's ITN/R, but it doesn't rise to the level of continuous news coverage that an Ongoing requires. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ongoing, weak support for a blurb on the competition's conclusion. The Olympics is the far more prestigious international competition, with most of the major basketball powers (USA, France, Serbia etc) sending their B or C teams to FIBA. With the exception of Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, none of the worlds top players are participating.--Newtothisedit (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ongoing, support blurb on conclusion—Literally just copy and paste Black Kite's rationale as my own. He put it succintly and I have nothing more to add. Kurtis (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Denyse Plummer[edit]

Article: Denyse Plummer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Trinidad and Tobago Newsday, Trinidad Express
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: Influential calypso singer, pioneer for women in the genre, recipient of the Hummingbird MedalGorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Discography is uncited. Rest of the article looks good, AGF on the offline sources. Curbon7 (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discography is available over at Discogs, which is included in the article under the external links subheader. Kurtis (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kurtis Discogs is not a reliable source per WP:RSDISCOGS and WP:UGC. Discogs works as an external link but not a source to something. The discography needs proper sourcing before this can be posted. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 07:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware that Discogs is not generally considered a reliable source, but the discography section is just a list of albums. The only thing a citation would add to it is verification that it exists, and for that, I think the Discogs external link is sufficient (though perhaps not ideal). Kurtis (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kurtis Well, WP:ITNQUALITY says Lists of awards and honors, bibliographies and filmographies and the like should have clear sources. Sources themselves should be checked for reliability. I don't think that discogs counts as a "clear" or "reliable" source in line with this criteria. Even if it's just as verification that an album exists, we need reliable inline sources for it. I recall many articles have a simple discography (just album and year) and don't get posted because the discography isn't sourced. I see no reason to change that. It's not like RD is desperate to post more noms, we only have a quality standard for RD, so that standard should matter. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 15:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MonarchOfTerror: You know, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2007 and registered in 2008, yet I didn't know you needed high-quality sources used as inline citations to verify the existence of albums or other creative works. I had thought that this would've been one of the limited situations in which user-generated websites, such as Discogs or IMDb, would be acceptable to be used as sources.
    Goes to show that even a veteran editor like myself can still have a lot to learn. Kurtis (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kurtis Using WP:UGC for even basic facts is controversial, but not necessarily wrong. It might be an appropriate exception to the general rule of WP:UGC. For example WP:Citing IMDb says it's disputed, IMDb content which is in dispute about whether it is appropriate to reference on Wikipedia: Released films only: Sections such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications. My real main point is that such ambiguities should be avoided entirely when we're posting it on the main page, highlighting it and telling our readers this article about a recent death was high enough quality to put here. RD is solely about quality, that's what makes it great and cordial, but that quality standard should matter then. If it's debatable on reliability then it isn't main page worthy. But don’t sweat it, experienced editors are humans too and I enjoyed this civil and cordial conversation with you. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 20:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise—collegiality is something that ITN could use a lot more of, so to have an exchange with someone that doesn't involve having anyone's opinions denigrated is a welcome breath of fresh air. Kurtis (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Article appears to be well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—A well-written article with adequate referencing. Kurtis (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Discography is still uncited. Article looks fairly good otherwise. Support The quality now is alright for RD. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 07:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nom I've cited what I could in the discography, removed what I couldn't, and marked the list as incomplete since it's definitely missing items ("Plummer has made an album every year for eighteen years", Munro 2016). Hopefully that's sufficient @Curbon7 and MonarchOfTerror:. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Joe the Plumber[edit]

Article: Joe the Plumber (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BNO News Daily Caller
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Well-known figure in the final days of the 2008 U.S. election. Johndavies837 (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose there is one statement that I think needs better citation work, but other than that, the article's in pretty good shape. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 03:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cited the statement about the event in Mentor.
    I can find sources that back up that he was a "divorced father of a 13-year-old boy" as of 2008. Is that good enough to support the statement you tagged under "Early life, education, and business career"? The only part of this sequence of events which I can date using the sources I found is the birth of his son, so maybe the claim would have to be weakened to avoid uncitable (but eminently plausible) extrapolation about the timeline.
    Anyway, the statement I find much harder to find a source for is the one about working for Global Crossing. I can only find WP clones mentioning that he worked there. Maybe he said it in a TV interview or something, but I can't find anything on Google right now. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My vote was kind of late at night, but from my 15 minute Google search, that uncited info was hard to come by, unless you wanted to risk using sites like Breitbart which Wikipedia generally doesn't allow using. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 19:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—But on a personal note... wow. I remember commenting on his article's talk page during the 2008 election, and I even made a suggestion on the BLP noticeboard (both under my former username) relating to BLP concerns on his article. And here we are, fifteen whole years later, discussing an RD for him. (Fun fact: the "recent deaths" section of the main page didn't even exist back then, and wouldn't become a thing for several years.) Feels a bit surreal. Kurtis (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural support Meets minimum requirements This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Don Sundquist[edit]

Article: Don Sundquist (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American politician, former governor of Tennessee. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed)Spanish women’s football team refuse to play, Spanish football federation head suspended by FIFA[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: Spain women's national football team (talk · history · tag) and Disputes involving the Spain women's national football team (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A week after winning the World Cup, the Spain women's national football team and all staff, except coach Jorge Vilda, quit. [better blurb needed] (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Spanish women's football team refuse to play and all staff except coach Jorge Vilda resign due to alleged sexual harassment by Spanish football federation president Luis Rubiales.
Alternative blurb II: FIFA suspends Spanish football president and UEFA vice-president Luis Rubiales following alleged sexual harassment.
News source(s): BBC; DW; Euronews; France24; NBC;NYT; Observer;
Credits:
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c6:ed8f:101:ac61:ec7e:2a4a:54df (talkcontribs) 05:54, 2023 August 27 (UTC)
@The ed17: How about something like "Spain women's national football team refuse to play and all staff except coach Jorge Vilda resign due to alleged sexual harassment by president of Royal Spanish Football Federation Luis Rubiales." Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 11:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now wait until and if he quits. Otherwise a blurb would be premature. Gust Justice (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not to be rude, but this really feels like tabloid news. We posted the world cup, and minor dramas like this regarding one football team aren't really relevant. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created the disputes article, and at the time I didn't think it should be posted. It's been a bad week to have a busy week, and obviously there's now a lot more, but I now wonder if it's appropriate to post an ongoing situation as a blurb, or to post it to ongoing when the dimensions of what's ongoing seems to be often-changing. I disagree that it's tabloid news; while I would guess that if this had happened to the Spain men's team in 2010 it would be even bigger, Rubiales is quite a high-level executive in European football anyway. Besides that, the response is becoming the slightly-delayed MeToo movement of a stereotypically-macho nation where feminism has had a very rapid rise.
    But that begs the question: what is the story we would post. The eligible players refusing to play and the support staff resigning? FIFA suspending Rubiales? The growing social movement? I don't think the unconvincing nomination has helped in the decision-making (sorry IP), but I wouldn't know what to even put in the box that isn't "there's a lot going on in Spanish football and it's spreading to society". Kingsif (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rubiales' attitude at the World Cup final has generated a wave of indignation in Spanish society, involving the entire political chessboard and generating regrettable headlines in the international press. The president of the Consejo Superior de Deportes recently declared that this was the first case of Me Too in Spanish sport, the Spanish government has initiated proceedings for Rubiales to be dismissed, complaints have been lodged with the sports court, a regional president has asked for his resignation and Rubiales has been suspended by FIFA. I would like to say, therefore, that it has been a particularly high-profile case in Spain, without any doubt. Rubiales is likely to fall soon and, just by looking at the reaction of several sports clubs and the leaders of the regional soccer federations, it seems that it could end there. In other words, the impact of this is not transcendental for Spanish sport, but just another embarrassing event that has lasted too long and has overshadowed the truly historic event. Therefore, I believe that ITN is not the space for this news, as it does not transcend, either, the purely local aspect of a shocking local news item. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
has been suspended by FIFA ... purely local – famously small local organisation, FIFA. Really, though, there's a difference between 'local news', i.e. social interest stories in a region that make headlines on slow news days, and major news that is still regional. You already acknowledged this is the latter, so a reminder of "Do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country". Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb proposed by MonarchOfTerror This is getting international coverage and not just from tabloids as alleged above. If it had been a minor incident, that would be one thing. But we're now a week out from the incident and coverage continues. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't see where there is enough coverage or interest to blurb. We are not a tabloid or sports page. --RockstoneSend me a message! 19:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could've started with the source list in the nom. Kingsif (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb (also I think it should be added at the top with the original blurb?). This is a massive scandal making international news, and shouldn't be minimized here. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb written by MonarchOfTerror, which I've added a slightly modified version of to the nom as an altblurb. It's gotten enough press at this point that it's notable enough for ITN. The Kip 00:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait It feels like this is a situation that could end up with something more significant as a result, but the present actions are currently not really at a major level of affecting women's association football, since the World Cup is already over. It's gotten attention, but the full story doesn't feel told at this point. --Masem (t) 01:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the suspection, I will remind people that WP presumes innocent until proven guilty, and so that AltII blurb is a definite Oppose for this purpose. It is standard practice that an agency will dismiss or suspend a person accused of sexual harassment until a full investigation can be performed - not just in sport but this happened with numerous celebs, so this is definitely not a topic appropriate for ITN. --Masem (t) 12:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A minor sports scandal that doesn't even rate its own article. This is not the sort of thing we post at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem. Nothing like significant enough for ITN. Nigej (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt2 Added and support alt2. While the status of the team itself is a developing story and I'd !vote to wait on that, the sports business side is on firmer ground. Clearly notable, and anyone who is !opposing with "only of tabloid interest" comments, despite clear evidence otherwise, needs to re-examine their own sexist biases. That's not an accusation, that's asking - or saying the commenters should ask themselves - where such an illogical line of 'argument' came from. Kingsif (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though I support, can you please cool it with the immediate WP:ASPERSION casting? Just because one opposes this story doesn't mean that there is a decent chance they're a misogynist. — Knightoftheswords 15:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't suggest that, and you (should) know it. Everyone has sexist biases: Wikipedia has an issue with sexist bias, that's why we have WiR, that doesn't suggest it's misogynistic. Kingsif (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what does needing to re-examine their own sexist biases mean? Unless your saying their misandrists, or both? I fail to understand how supposed underlying sexist biases are to blame for people opposing? — Knightoftheswords 15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you re-read the full sentence. Sexist biases – I would have said gender biases but thought that could be taken the wrong way – refers to the perpetual issue of having to perceive the world through a patriarchal lens because of history. That's very different from hating a whole gender. In this instance, I was suggesting that users saying the item is only of interest to tabloids, when that is patently false based on the sources already listed before those !opposes were written, could indicate that those !voters simply expect news based around women's sports etc. to be of that low level of importance, and so they haven't bothered to appreciate that this is more significant. They maybe have !voted based on bias expectations due to having seen women's sports etc. get low-level coverage before, and haven't challenged their expectations by actually looking at this item's individual merits. I think I know where your reaction came from, but remember sexist =/= misogynist or misandrist. Kingsif (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think that people would have been voting oppose if something of a similar calibir occurred in male sports; ITN has always had an enormous aversion to what can be considered as "celebrity news;" hell, its often used in the vaguest sense to oppose noms (for example, you had people comparing the Titan submersible incident to Anne Heche's death). — Knightoftheswords 01:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I encouraged you to read my full !vote again – I didn't say any !oppose came from bias, just the ones invoking clearly false reasoning.
    And perhaps more to the point, what I perhaps didn't expand enough on, is I see this very clearly as a sports story, not a sports scandal: between the business side of a powerful European executive being forced out and the sporting side of the new World Cup winners taking their (bat and) ball home, it's much more than "ongoing BTS drama in [sport]". Kingsif (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar scandals in mens' sports don't make it to ITN either, stop trolling. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coming out of nowhere to insult someone? Classic troll. But seriously, if you're going to try write-off people with whom you disagree like that when they're clearly in good faith and good standing, what are you doing here. Kingsif (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The trigger incidents occurred at the World Cup and that's ITN/R so its significance is unquestionable. They have released a remarkably intense civil war as there's a long history of hostility to women's football in Spain where it was initially suppresssed. There's legal action on both sides, the vitriol is flowing freely and multiple authorities are involved, including FIFA and the Spanish government. This is big news with lots of heavyweight international coverage which is much more serious than the routine reporting of results. The article update and altblurb seem adequate and so it's good to go. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. (edit conflict) Per Ad Orientem. Yes, the players refuse to play for the national team because of the harassment but this if frankly not notable for ITN. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう!) 09:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - nowhere in ITN are events ineligible for posting if they lack an article; a relevant article can suffice. Per #How to nominate an item, 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.. {{ITNcandidate}} literally has |updated= partially for this reason, so any closer should ignore any !votes stating or citing !votes that use the fact that this event doesn't have a dedicated article as an argument for opposing. — Knightoftheswords 12:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rubbish. Editors have long cited criteria not spelled out in black and white. And, conceding odd exceptions, the community has more often than not rejected nominations on the basis of insufficient notability to justify a standalone article. While you are certainly free to disagree with it, that doesn't mean you can simply tell closers to ignore an argument. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have a problem with people calling out your shoddy vote, then you shouldn't have said it. You've been here long enough to know better. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indeed been here for a longtime. Long enough to know and recognize long established precedent. I have also been around long enough to recognize rude comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not precedent; multiple times have we promoted articles that don't fully focus on the noteworthy event, such as the malaria vax or the Finnish nuclear reactor. If you want to amend ITN's guidelines regarding this, then organize a consensus on WT:ITN; this willingness to abuse WP:IAR and casually ignore rules when it gets in the way of our !vote is arguably the primary reason why ITN is on the gallows on the moment, and also why we can barely attract any new users. Additionally, I wasn't being rude, I was just saying that !votes like your's (and HistoryTheorist (talk · contribs), who was actually the user that initially prompted me to make a comment) are contradictory to ITN's guidelines. — Knightoftheswords 14:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Knightoftheswords281. As I said, you are certainly within your right to disagree with my vote and its rational. Telling closers to ignore it along with concurring votes is a different matter. I also noted that there have been exceptions where we have posted blurbs without a standalone article. But they are exceptions. ITNC is not an exercise in legalism and editors have long been free to apply what criteria they think is appropriate as long as it isn't flatly proscribed in the guidelines. The closers will determine the reasonableness of the arguments when assessing consensus. The reference to rudeness was not directed towards you. It was in response to GCG's rather snarky comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will concede that it was probably a little overboard to directly state that !votes should be ignored (though, that is somewhat common in !vote discussions), but just because ITN isn't some almalgamation of Qin China and the Stalinist USSR, doesn't mean that it has to be like Rojava or Somalia either. We are not legalist, nor are we anarchist; we ought to have guidelines that need to be followed. ITN's current passiveness and vagueness in its rules and enforcement of said rules is the major reason why ITN is in its current state, and we need to centralize the process into a comprehensible guide set that you typically cannot deviate from just because one feels like it. — Knightoftheswords 15:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one have found the process here to be mostly functional, though I have had moments where I felt a certain level of frustration. And FWIW I am no anarchist. One of my personal rules is that invoking IAR should be safe, legal and rare. That said, I am not a supporter of turning ITN into a news ticker. There have been discussions about revamping the guidelines with a view to taking a more expansive approach to what gets posted. Those have almost always failed to gain broad support which I tend to view as an indication that the community is not keen on the idea. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Knightoftheswords281 I'm sorry if I did anything wrong. I usually avoid voting on controversial things, especially if it has nothing to do with things I'm familiar with because I really have no clue if they are worthwhile for ITN. I'm not all too well versed in this side of ITN, so if I made any mistakes, please forgive me. I guess my !vote was kind of to nullify my !vote which was a bit premature, when there was no article whatsoever and no news sources attributed. I honestly have no opinion at this point and I don't want to see discussion closed at this point. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 19:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @HistoryTheorist:, no problem, we all take time to understand the new. I also apologize for being a bit harsh in my comment above. — Knightoftheswords 01:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The merits of posting items that are updates has already been debated, but I would point out specifically that this situation would be notable enough for its own article, it just doesn't need one (yet?) IMHO. Kingsif (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Looks to be fairly fleeting news. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the news coverage is ramping up. For example, the NYT is running two prominent stories today while the BBC coverage is extensive and now has a timeline with 13 entries across 8 days.
Andrew🐉(talk) 07:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because people are talking about it now doesn't mean this will be an enduring story. And, yeah, it would be CRYSTAL to assume it will or will not be, but is this something people will really remember, say, a year from now. This story seems to be part of a larger problem in soccer and perhaps Spanish soccer, but this particular story doesn't feel like anything but a symptom of said disease. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sports scandals don't belong in ITN unless it results in truly global ramifications for their sport. Meanwhile, this is largely (almost entirely) still constrained to Spain and the Spanish football federation. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's easy to find prior examples of similar scandals being run at ITN:
Andrew🐉(talk)
I think there is a huge difference in scale between those events and this one. Both of those were multi-decade institutionalized incidences with many hundreds of victims, while this incident was just one creep. I'm not arguing against a blurb or downplaying this, but there is a fundamental difference between this and those. Curbon7 (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely downplaying and again it's false. The nominated article details a pattern of abuse and oppression by multiple officials going back many years and affecting many players. Note that we also have a List of 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup controversies including "Sexual misconduct allegations" against other countries besides Spain. There's clearly a lot of institutional issues here and so the scandal here seems even bigger than those others. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - overblown (c.f. [4]). This doesn't mean that action shouldn't be taken, but rather that the action does not need fanfare, and it should not be posted to ITN as a result. Banedon (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More downplaying of yet another incident. What's noteworthy is that I'm not hearing any women in this discussion. ITN seems even more male-dominated than usual on Wikipedia. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, and? As someone who is on the suport side, I must say that the attempt to imply that this is only receiving opposition solely because we're talking about women's soccer is bogus and bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS at the very least. Why is it mandatory that we have to have women (or realistically, known women; there's a chance that it's at the very least a bit bold for you to assume that everyone in this discussion is female)? It's just like the argument that men can't speak on abortion because it (somehow) doesn't affect them; it's a argument yelled from the bleechers when you can't play in the field. — Knightoftheswords 14:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for Andrew but it seems to me he was not asking to have less men, only more women. That with the item linked to gender so critically, men should not be the only voices. Really, KotS, you are (again!) either accidentally or deliberately misreading the simple observation that gender bias exists; either way, the tone of your response is unwarranted. Kingsif (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Never did I say that men should be the only voices, nor did I state the opposite. I still fail to see the distinction between sexism and misogyny and misandry; from our article on the first:

    Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one's sex or gender.

    From our article on the former:

    Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls

    From our article on the latter:

    Misandry (/mɪsˈændri/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men or boys.

    Via stating that the opposition may be sexist, which using the definitions above, are objectively what you and Andrew are stating, you're saying that they are, in this case, misogynistic. Let's lay down the culture-war axe-grinders for once and go by Occam's Razor and state that the reason this is receiving massive amounts of opposition is that it's viewed as tabloid drama, which historically on ITN, whether regarding men or women, has been scorned here on ITN. — Knightoftheswords 17:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that you said anything, just that your interpretation of what Andrew said was wrong. If you're not going to bother reading, it's really out of place for you to be so vociferously replying.
    As for your own aspersions, I (again, can't speak for Andrew) said sexist biases, i.e. gender bias on Wikipedia, which is not an accusation towards any user nor of their own alignment. If you're still stuck for the distinction: misogyny in women's sport could be someone in the crowd shouting abuse, sexism in women's sport could be historic underfunding. Besides sexist/gender bias being its own concept.
    Yes, there are people opposing because they see it as "tabloid drama" – the thing you're so outraged by was me simply saying those !voters could ask why they consider it tabloid drama when it's getting ongoing topline coverage in broadsheets around the world. Kingsif (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments like Andrew's is why I would never reveal my gender online. If I say I'm male then I get accused of bias, if I say I'm female then I am still accused of bias, by a separate group of editors. Same goes for whether I am e.g. Spanish or non-Spanish or follow/don't follow soccer, etc. Banedon (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps the article needs an update, and perhaps that's on me, but I still think there are gender biases causing people to assume this item is little more than a dramatic reaction to (alleged) sexual harassment – or perhaps those responses are dictated by social media now dedicating more coverage to Rubiales' mother being dramatic.
    I do not see the key of this story as being "scandal", though, and I encourage others to see it the same. In terms of business, a vice-president of UEFA has been suspended and Spain has no football officials. In terms of sports, the newly-crowned World Cup champion team just doesn't exist anymore and seems like it might not before they have to play in qualifiers. Spain has tried to uncover systemic abuse in women's football before; that an unwanted kiss had to pull back the curtain rather than a landmark investigative report doesn't make it ultimately more tabloid-y. Kingsif (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - After reading all of the above discussion, I find myself thoroughly unconvinced that this is suitable for ITN on the basis of impact, consequences, or encyclopedic coverage. I align with those who feel like this may be a situation where WP:NOTATICKER is applicable, and I'm further revolted by accusations of sexism. Enough with the WP:ASPERSIONS. Maybe general sanctions truly are necessary for ITN. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 16:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is accusing users of sexism; it's revolting (or at least disruptive) that one user is continuing to mischaracterise simple requests for !voters to have awareness of inherent bias (and perhaps reconsideration with that in mind). Kingsif (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but "examine your sexist bias" is an implied accusation. Whether you intended it or not, that is how the wording comes across. I'm sympathetic to your overall message, but not your methodology. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't deny there could have been better execution, that's fair, but there was still no intentional implication of sexism, let alone misogyny. I think most users, like yourself, understood the point I was trying to make; I say this to say I do AGF of KotS, who has explained they don't know the difference between concepts. Suffice it to say, I would advocate for awareness of sexist/gender bias in every discussion at ITN, and remind everyone that it's not bad to admit such biases exist as long as we're aware of and trying to counter them. Kingsif (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Close Consensus to post is not going to develop and the discussion has reached the point of generating more heat than light. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not important enough for ITN. Tradediatalk 05:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing coverage There's a nice analysis of Why is it so hard to unseat Spain's football boss?. Amongst the structural details, it explains that "Of the 140 members, only six are women." Andrew🐉(talk) 07:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still making the news in the US, which mostly only covers soccer while their womens' team is winning - CNN ran this yesterday and this today, for example. Fits all four points of Wikipedia:In the news#Purpose, and does so better than 100% of the sports blurbs we do post. —Cryptic 14:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Quite a national (and international) scandal that has sustained, safe to say apprehension that this was minor do not hold. Gotitbro (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

RD: Arleen Sorkin[edit]

Article: Arleen Sorkin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood, The Hollywood Reporter
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: Actress best knowing for voicing Harley Quinn and appearing on The Days of Our LivesTheClubSilencio (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As a note, we do not know the exact date of her death, only that it is likely recent. Only now are sources talking about it. --Masem (t) 05:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From the second article linked above: "Sorkin died Thursday, a source told The Hollywood Reporter." Is this not credible enough? 98.170.164.88 (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that THR story had come out by the time I posted my comment. If they are saying that, then that's the date we should use. There was a WP:BLPN thread about her death which due to having first been from Twitter posts was making the details unsure, and last I read that it was now a question of when she died. Masem (t) 13:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the usual poorly cited filmography and awards and nomination section. Needs sourcing improvements. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 20:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Interesting article and person. I have dealt with the only {{citation needed}}. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The filmography and awards and nomination sections still need sourcing. Please add more REFs and footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 26[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: MC Marcinho[edit]

Article: MC Marcinho (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Globo, Agência Brasil
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: Prominent singer/funkeiro from Brazil. Just translated article and updated sources. Should be good to go, save for it being sort of late to add. PootisHeavy (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Andrii Pilshchykov[edit]

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

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

 Count Iblis (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support article looks good enough. I wish there was a bit more info on when he started service and when he was born, but that info is probably quite hard to come by. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 01:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this article says he was 29 as of May 2022, which would imply that he was born between May 1992 and May 1993. I've been unable to find a specific birth date, but maybe it's out there or will be soon enough. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think the article is good enough to post. This is currently the #1 story on the BBC website, FWIW. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is sufficient in depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 11:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Paragraphs like "As of 7 May 2022, Juice had 500 hours of combat flight time." and "In June 2023, Juice was quoted in a CNN article." makes me think that this is not a finely-tuned article, but perhaps good enough and hopefully more work is in progress. Nigej (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for now. Too many colloquialisms used. I can fix this, but for now this article can not be posted. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support i think it's a good article, mini-problems are corrected quickly --白猫しろ ねこОбг. 17:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What more needs to be done for this to be posted? 98.170.164.88 (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article is properly sourced and looks ready to go. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう!) 03:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted RD) RD: Bob Barker[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: Bob Barker (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [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.
Nominator's comments: Come on down. Remember to help control the pet population — have your pets spayed or neutered. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I see two "needs update" statements but I don't think that is as major an issue if we were looking at unsourced statements. Thus the article appears ready to go. --Masem (t) 16:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just adding Oppose blurb here. Well-known but that doesn't equate to significant or transformative or the like. Masem (t) 02:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A well written article, Come on down to ITN. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added two CN tags in the "Awards and honors" section. These, along with the two "needs update" tags should be fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are referenced now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sad support. Article is now at least ITN level of quality. spryde | talk 18:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks good and remember to have your pets spayed or neutered. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Ks0stm (TCGE) 18:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is probably a borderline case of someone getting a blurb or not. Bob was absolutely at the top of his field as far as television presenters goes in terms of his career and his longevity, but he’s a very US-Centric personality who probably would not be as well known intentionally Spman (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the inevitably proposed blurb. Not clearly influential enough. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb I'm 68 years old and have never heard of him. Single country (ie USA) interest only. Nigej (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have to tap the sign again? There's a good reason to not blurb him (his death was not at all unexpected, given his age), but that it's relevant to only a single country isn't one of them. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb per Darkside. This continues to get out of hand. The Kip 20:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Just because someone is well-known does not mean they are sufficiently significant to warrant a blurb. I agree with The Kip and Darkside830, these blurb nominations for dead people (especially old people dying) are getting out of control. If Bob Barker deserves a blurb, does that mean Larry Emdur deserves a blurb when he dies? Chrisclear (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Blurb, Post Support RD I checked Alex Trebek's nom back in 2020 to see if the blurb was even brought up for him, and while it did, it was pretty hard oppose. I don't think its likely Bob will be getting it either. It may be worth closing it here.
    TheCorriynial (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb—But I'm not opposed to having a discussion about it. If someone is a high-profile public figure, or the case could be made for them being a highly transformative figure in their field, we shouldn't shut an editor down for even suggesting the idea. Discussion harms no one—I mean, how else are we supposed to establish consensus? Telepathy? Kurtis (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Being well-known by itself is not sufficient to merit a blurb. I wonder if we need to revisit the blurb criteria and be more specific as to what "transformative" means. Certainly I have no problem with the discussion either. After all, only through a discussion can a consensus be reached. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 00:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The claims made by Knightoftheswords281 that editors are "start[ing] shit", that "No one was calling for a blurb" and that "Literally no one has called for any blurb" are misguided at best. It is quite clear that with this edit http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1172393479#(Posted_RD)_RD/Blurb:_Bob_Barker the "blurb" header was added. Furthermore, prior to the addition of that header, one editor had written in support the ITN entry - it is just unclear whether that editor was in support of a RD entry or a blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KOTS281, you're riding a fine line between bluntness and patent incivility. The discussion was quite civil until you closed and then took the extra step of editorializing in your close hinting that people are "starting shit." Spman mentioned that this was a borderline case of a blurb, and even with reasonable doubt, that in itself would be sufficient to prompt the discussion. You mentioned before that you (and I) were part of the problem regarding the toxic atmosphere on ITN/C; why not now try to be part of the solution? Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 13:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that this close was rather hostile to the calm, civil discussion that was ongoing about a potential (albeit highly unlikely) blurb, a discussion at least worth having per Spman. Ks0stm (TCGE) 13:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spman suggested there may have been a case for a blurb, I said if it was proposed I would oppose, and someone then put blurb in the header. Seems harmless enough to me. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as DarkSide, I took it that Spman posited the idea of a blurb and I voted in opposition as such. If anyone's "starting sh*t" or "instigating unnecessary drama," it's KOTS' unnecessarily inflammatory closure message and hat. The Kip 00:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 25[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Ismet Ahmad[edit]

Article: Ismet Ahmad (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://kalsel.antaranews.com/berita/384450/mantan-sekdaprov-kalsel-ismet-ahmad-meninggal-dunia
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: Indonesian member of parliament. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I think it's good enough to post. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On closer examination, I wasn't able to find a citation to support the Rockefeller Foundation/Ohio State University connections, only the University of Florida. The rest of the article is supported by the sources. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. I think I mixed some things up, I shouldn't have written down the Ohio State University one. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The second paragraph in the "Education and academic career" section is entirely uncited. Curbon7 (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks good enough for RD now. AGFing Indonesian sources. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 20:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • PostedBagumba (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(closed) Donald Trump arrested in Georgia, mugshot taken[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: Donald Trump (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Georgia, United States, former president Donald Trump is arrested for plotting to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66612345
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: The release of the infamous mugshot is generating immense coverage of this. I know many will oppose us becoming "Trumppedia" but I think it's worth taking a look at this story. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The BBC article says It was his fourth arrest in five months in a criminal case, but this was his first police booking photo., so I suppose the main story worth considering here is his mugshot. Unfortunately, it's a trivial funny thing that doesn't make any significant changes in the process.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That adds to media circus. Normally a person is placed in custody or detention after the first arrest, but here we had four arrests and still basically nothing until conviction. Almost like WWE pantomime. Brandmeistertalk 11:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We really should only post convictions. Banedon (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I still don't know what is not understood. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the nomination originally had a non-free image (File:Donald Trump mug shot.jpg), which I have now removed as a violation of WP:NFCC#9. (Oinkers42) (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 24[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports


RD: Bernie Marsden[edit]

Article: Bernie Marsden (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, The Independent, GuitarWorld
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: Whitesnake guitarist --Vacant0 (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now top level CN banner is present. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 03:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Still a large amount of uncited information. Nigej (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article is very unbalanced in terms of importance; it spends less than a paragraph on his time in Whitesnake, arguably the most well-covered part of his career outside of Wikipedia, it doesn't even discuss the well-publicized shake-up in the band that led to Marsden being fired, years of strained relations with Coverdale, reconciliations and reunions, etc. Instead of being an integral part of his notability, it comes off as a minor part of his career. It spends almost as much text on Paice Ashton Lord, a band he was only in briefly as a hired gun for one album and a few shows, as it does on Whitesnake, a band he was a founding member of, and for which he served as a principle songwriter for a long time. Really below quality standard I would expect for the main page. --Jayron32 16:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bray Wyatt[edit]

Article: Bray Wyatt (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Wrestling Observer - Figure Four Online, CBS Sports, Triple H via Twitter
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: Utterly tragic, and another wrestler gone far too soon. Article is extremely well-cited for a wrestler's page, and should be ready for RD shortly. The Kip (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BRICS Expansion[edit]

Article: BRICS (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The BRICS countries invite Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to join their association. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The BRICS countries admit Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE beginning in 2024.
News source(s): The Guardian Der Spiegel
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major expansion of bloc of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) nations, aimed at creating a counterweight to Western organisations such as the G7. Widely reported and commented upon. Khuft (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support significant expansion of a major global bloc. HenricArryn (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Extending an invitation != accepting an invitation. Will support when the bloc widens Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These countries actually asked to join. Their joining date is set for 1. Jan 2024 - when no news media will be reporting on it. The news about the expansion of the bloc is happening now. Khuft (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, major geopolitical expansion and the relevant countries are already set to join. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article could do with some work, but clearly an important development. Nigej (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - though I like to shit on BRICS all the time, this is notable and is personally one of the few instances where they have actually done stuff. For the people who oppose on the basis of "it hasn't occurred yet," everytime we invoke that "rule," it never gets posted when the event actually goes down. The newsworthy event is when the change is made, not when the formalization occurs. — Knightoftheswords 18:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Until it happens PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At which point there'll be no reporting on it, and it won't be posted.
It's now or never, effectively. The Kip (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Blurb is misleading, the invitations have appeared to been accepted, ands now just process that will delay their actual participation. --Masem (t) 21:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. This is not major news unless some or all of these countries are actually admitted. Assumption that it will happen or what coverage will be like when admissions happen are CRYSTAL. Just because it is covered now does not mean this is the right time to run this story. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until this actually happens Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Now & Oppose. These countries were just invited and aren't members yet. This should probably be nominated again when they officially become members. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう!) 02:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Its more newsworthy now as the change has been made and reported on, rather than the formalization of it. Happily888 (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Argentina formally joins the BRICS countries" is something I would support blurbing PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the emphasis on expansion. The organisation is already quite ineffectual and adding countries like Ethiopia isn't going to help. Its acronym is also going to collapse into chaos as there will be too many vowels. The best I can find is ICE_ABUSERS but there's still an extra I left over.
There are other aspects of the summit which are attracting coverage such as the strange voice of Putin and the failure of Xi to make a planned speech. Perhaps a more general blurb about the summit might work.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No offense but "Oppose because the acronym won't work anymore" is probably the funniest argument I've seen in a while. (And whenever they find a new acronym, that one should definitely go to ITN!) Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The acronym is the organisation's brand and raison d'être and so is fundamental. See The BRICs and the power of the acronym and BRICS Shows It’s Little More Than a Meaningless Acronym. There's over a hundred different international economic organizations and so you need a strong brand to stand out and seem important. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Warsaw Pact was somewhat inaptly named given the fact that the seat of power was concentrated in the USSR and not in Poland, but in any case: You do recognize of course that those sources, reliable as they are for purposes of secondary reporting, would naturally have a Western-centric political and ideological bias towards blocs such as BRICS. The United States is no stranger to such viewpoints; you need only look back a few decades when the hammer and sickle still flew outside the Kremlin. So even if the expansion appears "ineffectual", it's still newsworthy, otherwise there wouldn't be a counter-narrative. Cheerio, WaltClipper -(talk) 13:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per HenricArryn. It's arguable that we should post when it happens, but there's a good chance it will not get as much coverage when it happens compared to now, in which case it makes sense to post now, especially since there are no major obstacles I'm aware of to them actually joining. This compares to, say, Sweden joining NATO. Banedon (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Article is in decent shape, but the updated text that the blurb references should be expanded a bit. Still, probably good enough for the main page. --Jayron32 11:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - ITN-worthy notability, opposers unconvincing. Jusdafax (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wait until the formal expansion of the BRICS. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A pretty significant shifting of the world order, with many of the countries listed (Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE) having strong economic footholds in the Middle East. Encyclopedic in nature as it will no doubt result in major alterations to existing important Wikipedia articles. As to whether to post it now or at the formal introduction of these countries, my preference would be to post it now, but I'm not opposed to waiting. Cheerio, WaltClipper -(talk) 19:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amending my vote, per Khuft's rationale below. It would not be worthwhile at this point to wait. Cheerio, WaltClipper -(talk) 13:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - Until those countries formally join, there is no point in posting an invitation that has not even been accepted by any of said countries.TomcatEnthusiast1986 (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may be misinterpreting the meaning of "invitation" here. It's diplomatic language to say that the 5 current BRICS countries accept the new ones (who had expressed interest already) to join. Ramaphosa's speech says the following: "We have decided to invite the Argentine Republic, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to become full members of BRICS. The membership will take effect from 1 January 2024." It doesn't mention any acceptance or ratification process, nor does it leave any doubt that the 6 new countries will become members on 1 Jan 2024. Needless to say, no news media will be reporting on this on New Year 2024. We either post this now, or we will never post it. Khuft (talk) 07:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the Saudi foreign minister has said already is that they'll think about it and so it's not a done deal. The Saudis are naturally more cautious than the others as they are the rich ones with the money while the other entrants would be more supplicant. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Important news, and, in the same way we posy elections of heads of state rather than their inagurations, I think it's best not to wait and to post this now. DecafPotato (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not significant like UN or EU quite yet. Also it's only an invitation, and also BRICS hasn't flexed its muscles on anything yet. This isn't news yet QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can it... not be news when it's... in the news? Real question. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 21:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge amounts of coverage here in Indonesia. The usual opposes are bordering on SOAPbox. 103.238.200.178 (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It seems okay to post the news now. The January 1 date is a formality, and I'm not sure that when the new year starts the community will still care about posting this update. A lot of agreements are worded such that they come into effect on January 1, but I guess it makes more sense to post them when they are agreed upon. I don't blame people who disagree though. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark my words, on January 1st, 2024, I will post this nomination again. And if someone else has posted it before me, I will give it a whole hearted support.
    See you all in 126 days, 10 hours, 12 minutes, and 22 seconds. I'm a man of my word. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's great, hope there's plenty of depth in news coverage at that time. 😊 Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 13:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is one of the best examples of the type of major geopolitical news that has serious ramifications, but is so big picture that it can be hard for people who, to put it bluntly, are not well-versed in international politics to grasp the tangible impact of, and therefore too often receives opposition at ITN/C for being "insignificant" or "incremental." Article update isn't massive, but I don't think it needs to be or should be. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is not done yet, and it is not clear what the practical implications of this will be, beyond cheap talk and the usual anti-West leftist propaganda. It is a group of very different countries that will have a hard time agreeing on anything or achieving anything. Tradediatalk 03:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Support I find BRICS laughable as an organization, and agree that it will get very little (potentially nothing) done, but it still is, practically, the expansion of a major geopolitical block; about the most blatantly notable event imaginable. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major news making global headlines. Would be the same is another nation joined NATO/G7/EU, etc. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are military alliances, BRICS is an economical alliance. History6042 (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one of those is a military alliance. BRICS is very explicitly being described as a formidable rival to the G7. Curbon7 (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you're right. History6042 (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a big difference between NATO/G7/EU and BRICS. NATO has conducted wars. EU has created a top 2 currency and economic system. G7 has done a lot of important things. On the other hand, BRICS has not achieved much since its creation. Tradediatalk 01:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Significant event which is still IN THE NEWS now. Wiki does not report what people WANT (i.e. collapse of the BRICS per the above), but rather what happens. 2607:9880:2D28:108:E5C1:DAB4:C5E2:2C2 (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but with the altblurb I just added, which is I think explains the situation much better. The "invite" language is what I think a lot of the opposes are arguing against, but it is the fact this is a done deal, and simply like the election of most state leaders, the formal start of their term aligns with the BRACS calendar. --Masem (t) 00:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That still feels like WP:CRYSTAL though, it should be "BRICS plans to admit...beginning in 2024." - Indefensible (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ebrahim Golestan[edit]

Article: Ebrahim Golestan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/persian/iran-66578117
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: Iranian filmmaker and literary figure History6042 (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Mostly well-cited in the body (only one CN tag), but the Books and Filmography sections are mostly to entirely unsourced. The Kip (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cited the Filmography section. History6042 (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've done some work to source the books section and also replaced letterboxd and IMDb sources in the filmography (since IMDb is unreliable per WP:IMDB and Letterboxd gets its data from TMDB which is user-generated and unreliable per WP:UGC). There’s still the one cn tag in the body and one uncited book, I could not find sources for these. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 17:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Modified) Ongoing: 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.


(closed) Proposed wholesale removal[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: Before anyone comments on the fact that the war has not ended, yes, I know that the war has not ended, and that there are still news articles about it being published. The cornerstone of the Ongoing section, however is that there is a regularly updated Wikipedia article we are linking to on the main page. The current linked article, Russian invasion of Ukraine, last received a substantive update about the war on 1 August 2023, using this source (currently source 448). In the past three weeks, the only changes to the article have been cosmetic or grammatical, or have been someone incrementing the dates on the maps and in tables to the current date, with no substantive changes describing any new events. The article itself appears to not be receiving updates, and so is no longer eligible for ongoing. If someone has a different article on the same subject which is being updated, please feel free propose that article to be swapped out for this one, which is approaching a month stale at this point. Jayron32 13:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose & WP:SNOW close This type of nom has been nominated before, we don't need to open another one. Quick summary of what I said last time in a nom like this; the war is still ongoing, just because that specific article isn't receiving any major updates doesn't mean nothing is happening on the battlefield. Supplies are still being sent to the frontlines from Western countries, the killing of Prigozhin will definitely escalate tensions between the Russian military and Wagner itself, and bloody battles like in Bakhmut are still being fought. Absolutely no reason to remove it. TwistedAxe [contact] 13:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then why didn't you add all of that information to the article? If it is so important to you that this remain on the main page, why couldn't you put in 5 minutes of effort each day or so to update the article with all of this information? --Jayron32 13:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no way. And even if formally it does not have the required regular updating, I would certainly apply the IAR rule. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Time for the monthly Ukraine war ongoing removal
This is a good faith nom though, and you raise good points. But my personal opinion is that this item is far too important and is making so many headlines every day that it would be ridiculous to take it off, even if the article is not being updated. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Common sense says that fir a topic that has been going in for this long and this well covered, the updates are going to be on subpage of the main topic and not the main topic itself. We had this issue before with I think the Hong Kong protests, and I am pretty sure that acknowledge that subpage being updated was appropriate. Masem (t) 13:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Still definitely ongoing. And will be ongoing for a long time. A big crucial battlefield update could happen tomorrow, right now the main article might be a bit slow on updates though. I also remind everyone that this article have several articles about individual battles and event which might get updates through the main articles appearance on Ongoing.BabbaQ (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, obviously, but perhaps the link can be (piped) changed to point to Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (8 June 2023 – present), which gets updates all the time? Of course, then people don't get the main overview and central article, but they do get the latest enwiki updates. Fram (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - COVID is still ongoing as well, but when that stopped being regularly updated, with substantial updates, it was likewise dropped. nableezy - 14:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that Russia-Ukraine is still receiving regular updates. Yesterday's plane crash, for example. The situation continues to develop on the regular. Kurtis (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Per my reply to Nableezy directly above. Kurtis (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Conflict regularly makes headlines, and while the main article may not get updated every day, the 2023 Ukrainian Counteroffensive is getting many updates daily (but we should not solely post the counteroffensive article, as this does not capture the full picture of what is ongoing). 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and please link to the timeline article so that we can't get a regular removal nom for this topic based on a technicality. Good faith nom, but per above, it's still somewhat foolish to remove this, though as I've repeatedly stated, at this point, linking to the TL article is much better, as the home article barely gives any info on recent developments and the former is being updated daily. — Knightoftheswords 14:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Post-closure discussion[edit]
  • I object to this closure, and the comments in opposition are based on a false premise. Kurtis the plane crash does not appear once in Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is the last significant update to the article, and that isnt really all that substantial an update. And it was on August 6. People are claiming something that is not true, that the article is being updated regularly, and then the discussion is closed on the basis of those false claims. nableezy - 15:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, perhaps the meaning of my comment was unclear—the linked article might not be getting regular updates anymore, but the topic itself is still very much ongoing. It continues to receive widespread attention, and the situation is developing by the day. I like Fram's suggestion that we pipe the link to the recent timeline rather than the main article, but I am very much against removal at this juncture.
    I agree that this discussion was closed prematurely, and should be allowed to run for a longer period of time. Kurtis (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In two hours it’d amassed nine oppose votes, all on solid rationale grounds, to just one single support outside of the nom. That’s the very definition of how WP:SNOW works. The Kip (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, if the Sudan conflict can't get a consensus for removal, this sure as hell won't. Wasting the communities time/energy on this is absurd. Until there is a peace accord I don't see consensus ever forming and we should very well consider trouting the next person who brings it up. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a completely absurd comparison. The last time someone proposed removing the article Sudan conflict, the article was receiving substantive updates every 2-3 days. This one hasn't received an update in weeks. If we are telling our readers we have up-to-date information on a story, why are we sending them to read an article that doesn't? If you think the story deserves to be covered by an ongoing link, either edit the article in question regularly to add the new information or give us the link to an article where that is happening. --Jayron32 16:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be in support of discussing whether to pipe or not (and in weak support of piping). However, I agree that discussing removal is pointless. Nobody in the discussion challenged the notability of the topic, only the quality of the linked article. Daß Wölf 15:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am fine with not removing the item, but there were several proposals to change the link. Can we discuss perhaps doing that? If the story is in the news, but some other Wikipedia article is receiving all of the updates rather than this one is, perhaps we can link to that one instead? --Jayron32 16:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The other article is just a chronicle of day-by-day events, without any context. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to link to that. The currently linked article is the main one that covers the war, and from which readers can navigate further to get more in-depth details. It's probably more useful to the casual Wikipedia user than a war journal. Also, didn't we treat covid in the same way? (Honest question: I don't really remember). Khuft (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The other article is just a chronicle of day-by-day events, without any context. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to link to that.

    As opposed to a vague overview article that essentially goes over all the things everyone knows about and doesn't even highlight any of the events that are in the news? — Knightoftheswords 17:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have supported removal. Jayron is making points which I don't think have been sufficiently addressed - if this is an ongoing event, why is the main article not receiving substantive updates? The discussion needs to be reopened. Two hours to declare WP:SNOW is silly. The guidelines on WP:ITN state outright: In general, articles are not posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. (bolded mine). WaltClipper -(talk) 17:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Two hours to declare WP:SNOW is silly.
    With all due respect; the proposal had garnered nine opposes, with solid rationale (as opposed to simply "lol no" or similar), to just a single support. If it was something like three opposes it'd be premature, but not SNOWing it then and there would've just extended the inevitable, and the lone support voter force-reopening this discussion feels like sour grapes to a degree. The Kip (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The war is ongoing. It’s time to stop these nominations that are snow closed anyway. And yes there was a clear and loud consensus to not remove this article from ongoing. If anyone want to discuss if another article about this war is better for the section, then have that discussion at the appropriate talk page.BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, this is the appropriate page for that. And whether or not the war is ongoing is immaterial to the question of is the article we are linking receiving updates. It is not, and as such it is ineligible for inclusion in ongoing. And i dgaf if a thousand people say oppose, that is not consensus, we base "consensus" on adherence to our policies and guidelines, and this is one of the few instances here where we actually have some guidance. WP:ONGOING: In general, articles are not posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status. All the opposes here are invalid and should be ignored. And this should be reopened. nableezy - 17:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily ITN and Ongoing are based on consensus. Secondly, take a look at the suggestion below which seems ok.BabbaQ (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notably the suggestion is taking place here and not an article talk page. Cheerio, WaltClipper -(talk) 18:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removal at this point is clearly premature. This is where a strict following of policy to remove the entry would actually be unencyclopedic and of no productive benefit in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. Jayron32 and Nableezy make good points, but there is even more to be said. We removed the COVID-19 pandemic at times when there were containment measures in place in half of the world, tens of thousands of deaths were reported on a daily basis, there was wide media coverage and hundreds of Wikipedia articles were regularly updated, but the main argument was that the world got used to the pandemic and began to gradually normalise. The same is happening with this story now. While it’s undeniably still ongoing, the world got used to it and, more importantly, Ukrainians went back to normal life. The incremental updates in the past few weeks consist of run-of-the-mill drone attacks, planned future operations, pleads for weapon and some statements about alleged losses. That’s definitely not newsworthy. I’d rather remove it from ongoing and post when something major happens in the same way we do with the Gaza–Israel conflict.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ukrainians went back to normal life
    The near-every day rocket strikes on civilians is "normal life?" The Kip (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Strikes affect the quality of life, but people already got used to it. People go to work as they did before the invasion, and refugees began returning to the country (please read this news article). Shootings affect the quality of life of Americans, but it doesn’t mean they don’t live a normal life.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    America is not bombed with missiles every day. Just to make it clear.BabbaQ (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "every day" is a strong argument that this should be removed. While it's certainly tragic and I personally acknowledge it as someone who helped Ukrainians who left the country to find shelter, those strikes have definitely become routine, and editors here should divorce from their emotions. The case was same with the pandemic. It was urgent when several hundreds of people tested positive and several dozens died daily, but then it became routine when tens of thousands of people tested positive and thousands died daily, so it was removed from ongoing at times when the situation was more severe compared to when it was posted. We all know it's ongoing, but it can't stay posted forever.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article will be kept in the Ongoing section as it seems now, with the addition of the fork article about every day updates. So a good compromie for now.BabbaQ (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted) Proposal: link timeline to ongoing section[edit]
Nominator's comments: Per guidelines, ongoing items must receive substantial updates on a daily basis; otherwise, it should be pulled. A major reason why the mother article's edit count has declined is that it has since been absorbed by various fork articles. Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (8 June 2023 – present) is updated on a daily basis with lots of material; it would make sense to at least retarget or add an additional link to the ongoing section. — Knightoftheswords 17:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt - IMO, it makes sense to link to both the overarching article as well as the well-updated timeline. The Kip (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt Yes, did we not have something similar during the pandemic. That the main article also included other fork articles in italics or whatever they were formatted as. Maybe that is a solution. I would support that.BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt gives both the bigger picture of the conflict and the latest developments.Khuft (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt per above. It's better than what we currently have. Cheerio, WaltClipper -(talk) 18:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt A great solution to the problem. Thank you for proposing it. --Jayron32 18:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt This works a lot better than just having the main article as the ongoing article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal - Is there any way we could make some 'Portal' page that links all of these articles together and have that be the main article? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The timeline article is most definitely a better target, but there have been really no major developments in the past few weeks. Ongoing was practically introduced to prevent posting multiple blurbs pertaining to a single ongoing story. I don’t see that happening.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a reasonable solution to the concerns in the closed delist thread This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alternate proposal is updated daily, and (unlike the 2023 counteroffensive page) in principle covers all aspects of the war. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a reasonable alternative fulfilling the conditions of daily updates. Chaotic Enby (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Better. The timeline seems more reasonable as it is updated daily. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう!) 02:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt The link to Russian invasion of Ukraine should be kept, as it is the main article. Davey2116 (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When one says "per guidelines" and then says we "must" do something, that's a fallacy in using P&G. Guidelines (which ITN's are) guide us but are not prescriptive, but descriptive. Yes, we typically require the linked article to be the one updated while it sits at Ongoing, but there is no one holding us to that, and in a case like the Ukraine-Russia war, the topic is so huge that it is reasonable to expect subpages to be updated more often than the main page. The ITN guideline would be interpreted to allow that. As such I'm not saying we can't link to the timeline, but it should be a second useful link, presented as "Russian invasion of Ukraine (timeline)". --Masem (t) 12:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I see no reasonable argument to maintain link to the main article, only an adherence to convention. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since consensus is nearly universally in favor of the above proposal, I'm pinging @Admins willing to post ITN: . — Knightoftheswords 14:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add parenthesis with the text “timeline” within the parenthesis. Ktin (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Chess World Cup 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.


Article: Chess World Cup 2023 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Chess World Cup 2023 concludes with Magnus Carlsen defeating Praggnanandhaa in the final. (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu, The Times of India
Credits:

Article updated
 --Anp222 (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What is the difference between the World Chess Championship and the Chess World Cup? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The World Cup is a qualifying trampoline for the Candidates Tournament, itself a qualifying stage for the World Championship. Brandmeistertalk 12:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then Oppose PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're just different tournaments. World Cup is one of FIDE's (the organizing body of chess) marquee events, with major funding (see the prize pool) and global representation (there are qualifying tournaments all over the world). It's similar to the FIFA world cup in that sense. World Chess Championship is a different event that awards the World Chess Champion title, it has its own qualification paths (World Cup is one way to qualify).
To me it's simply a question of whether we want to post more than one chess event in ITN. If yes then this is the obvious one to post. If no then just keep the WCC (which is in ITNR anyway). Banedon (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Giant table farm, almost no prose about the event at all. There isn't even a full sentence describing the final match or who won. Article needs a LOT of work to be main page ready. --Jayron32 12:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Significant event in the chess world. Numancia (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Huge amount of work required to get it up to the required standard. Nigej (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - would be like posting group stage results of the Champions League. nableezy - 14:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a qualifying event for the Candidates, which itself is the qualifying tournament for the world championship. Grandiose name aside, it's just another tour event that happens to be directly organised by FIDE. The equivalent of the 'world cups' held in other sports is the Chess Olympiad, not this. Modest Genius talk 14:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on importance and quality. This is, at most, the fourth-most-important chess event in the biannual cycle (behind the Championship, Candidates, and Olympiad). Also, the article is mostly a giant table of results. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all above. Comparatively less important event. The Kip (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Men play board games" is hardly a major world event. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of order @ The C of E—! The FIDE top 15 currently comprises players from Norway, USA, China, Russia, France, Netherlands, India, Romania, Azerbaijan, and Vietnam. That's a greater global representation than a helluva lot of sports that claim the same moniker. Which hardly applies to Cluedo (World champion one Josef Kollar... probably rightly red-linked). Just an FYI. SN54129 17:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Is kicking a ball at a goal while someone tries to stop it a major world event. History6042 (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I oppose this proposal, downplaying the importance of an event by snarkily describing it isn't really an argument. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per most of the above. It's not really a major tournament that is notable. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう!) 01:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above. Not notable. --MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 23[edit]