Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions
→July 9: new nomination |
|||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| updaters = <!-- Editor(s) who significantly updated the article, separated by commas --> |
| updaters = <!-- Editor(s) who significantly updated the article, separated by commas --> |
||
}} The launch was initially planned for 2020, but was postponed until today. <!-- Additional comments go before here --> [[User:Gödel2200|Gödel2200]] ([[User talk:Gödel2200|talk]]) 21:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)<!-- Do NOT remove the ~ --> |
}} The launch was initially planned for 2020, but was postponed until today. <!-- Additional comments go before here --> [[User:Gödel2200|Gödel2200]] ([[User talk:Gödel2200|talk]]) 21:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)<!-- Do NOT remove the ~ --> |
||
*'''Support'''. Note that the flight was only ''mostly'' successful, with the upper-stage re-entry burn not taking place as scheduled. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] ([[User talk:Carnildo|talk]]) 22:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==== RD: Joe Bonsall ==== |
==== RD: Joe Bonsall ==== |
Revision as of 22:05, 9 July 2024
Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
In the news toolbox |
---|
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. Nomination steps
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
July 9
July 9, 2024
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
Ariane 6
Blurb: Ariane 6 makes a successful maiden flight. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Gödel2200 (talk · give credit)
The launch was initially planned for 2020, but was postponed until today. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Note that the flight was only mostly successful, with the upper-stage re-entry burn not taking place as scheduled. --Carnildo (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Joe Bonsall
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Billboard
Credits:
- Nominated by Rawmustard (talk · give credit)
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.
Tenor of the Oak Ridge Boys. rawmustard (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Jim Inhofe
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Staraction (talk · give credit)
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.
Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, given Inhofe was notable for both representing Oklahoma for decades and climate change denial. I would wait until the article has been finished being edited, given Inhofe recently died, but Inhofe merits inclusion in RD. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
July 8
July 8, 2024
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
Women's high-jump WR
Blurb: In athletics, Yaroslava Mahuchikh breaks the 37-year-old women's high-jump world record (Post)
Alternative blurb: Yaroslava Mahuchikh breaks the women's high-jump world record with 2.10 m, which had not been broken for 37 years.
News source(s): AP
One of the longest-standing records in athletics, from 1987. Women's high jump world record progression 81.196.30.56 (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose provincial sports trivia This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand what "world" means. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- A world record is the exact opposite of a provincial story. Stephen 02:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support This is a notable world record which has been unbroken for 37 years. I've added an altblurb to reduce ambiguity. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support altblurb1 article is in good condition, and it's notable because of how long the record stood; the altblurb reduces ambiguity, so that's why I prefer it over the original blurb. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Altblurb article is in a good shape and breaking decades old record is blurbworthy. PrinceofPunjabTALK 06:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support in principle. Article is also in good shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Issues There are several issues with this:
- The target article doesn't have much of an update and has lots of uncited facts.
- Another athletics world record was broken at the same event – see Guardian
- This was a warm-up for the Olympics which we're about to run. I suppose more world records will be broken at that.
- The record has not been ratified and there can be technical objections.
- There are so many sports with so many stats that records are broken all the time. For example, Lewis Hamilton won the British Grand Prix on Sunday which extended his record of wins and was the first time a driver had won a race for the ninth time. At Wimbledon, there's an new amazing record. There was a recent record at the Tour de France which we didn't run. And so on...
- Andrew🐉(talk) 07:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- From above "This is a notable world record which has been unbroken for 37 years." HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Jumping as high as possible is probably a much more mainstream world record than having the most
victories in which the winning tennis player came back from two sets to zero
. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)- The cycling record had lasted for 55 years but we still didn't post it. These numbers seem fairly arbitrary and there will tend to be a natural plateau as sports are established and become mature. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict)
- If more people here understood Le Tour, we would have posted that cycling record, but comments made it obvious too many didn't and weren't interested in learning. HiLo48 (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is clearly less notable than Cavendish's record, as high jump has less news coverage than Le Tour. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- If more people here understood Le Tour, we would have posted that cycling record, but comments made it obvious too many didn't and weren't interested in learning. HiLo48 (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- The cycling record had lasted for 55 years but we still didn't post it. These numbers seem fairly arbitrary and there will tend to be a natural plateau as sports are established and become mature. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict)
- Comment The article needs a couple of references, especially in the awards sections (the awards articles are cited so this is easy to fix), and some sentences in the prose also need sources. Other than that, all fine. If I remember correctly, we post breaking of long-standing records in athletics, as well as breaking of 100m and marathon whenever they happen (been a while since Usain Bolt but marathon got broken a couple of times in the past decade). --Tone 08:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would be happy to support featuring this if the update was more extensive. I'd expect more details than
"she broke the world record (2.10 metres) in high jump at the Wanda Diamond League in Paris."
I imagine she didn't use a particularly different technique or anything, but surely we can write something about the five-second moment in which she made history? Perhaps even just an interview quote about how she felt about it? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)- I used to write extensive updates on world records in athletics but got fully disparaged after an unfortunate discussion last year, so I decided to give up on it indefinitely because there's simply no point to produce content that some people don't value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- That discussion last year was a very similar case – two world records being broken at the Meeting de Paris. We have a full article for this event – 2024 Meeting de Paris – which is more substantial and would make a better target than just one of the athletes. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am very sad to hear this. This was exactly what I was worried about. I have been active on this front-page feature because I hoped it would inspire people to write more detailed articles, but instead it only demotivates people who put the work in... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I used to write extensive updates on world records in athletics but got fully disparaged after an unfortunate discussion last year, so I decided to give up on it indefinitely because there's simply no point to produce content that some people don't value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose both on WP:ITNSIGNIF and WP:ITNQUALITY. Many world records get broken frequently and don't very often meet the significance to get posted- this has way less media coverage than Mark Cavendish breaking the Tour de France record last week, which didn't get consensus to post. And Mahuchikh's article and 2024 Meeting de Paris each have 2 sentences about it, which is not enough to meet the quality threshold. Picking this world record over any others (including the other one broken at the same event) would be arbitrary as it hasn't demonstrated enough coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, "Many world records get broken frequently", but this one hasn't been. That sort of comment suggests you haven't read the previous discussion. It's quite unhelpful, AND irrelevant! 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)
- Over its complete history of 102 years, the average time between changes to this particular record seems to be about two years. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Unsigned user comment- you have clearly ignored the fact that I pointed out this has not gained significant news coverage as needed for WP:ITNSIGNIF. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Over its complete history of 102 years, the average time between changes to this particular record seems to be about two years. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, "Many world records get broken frequently", but this one hasn't been. That sort of comment suggests you haven't read the previous discussion. It's quite unhelpful, AND irrelevant! 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)
- Weak oppose I don't really have much of a stance on the notability of this event, though only two sentences of an update seems too little to get a blurb. Gödel2200 (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment In 2014 we posted breaking of 20-years old record in men's pole vault. Now the record was unbeaten for almost twice as long. --Jona☎ 13:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Andrew and Joseph; this doesn't have nearly enough coverage or significance to warrant posting on ITN. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose how many sports disciplines are there? a few hundreds at least, right? And each presumably keeps track of more than 1 record. so what makes this any special? "one of the longest standing in athletics" doesnt cut it for me, esp given that it was achieved not that logn ago. I'd presume most records would have stopped around late 80-s if it wasnt for doping Kasperquickly (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as not sufficiently significant. JoseJan89 (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
July 7
July 7, 2024
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Health and environment
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
RD: Bengt I. Samuelsson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SVT
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:95E7:6EC1:9755:1E3E (talk · give credit)
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.
Swedish biochemist and Nobel laureate. 240F:7A:6253:1:95E7:6EC1:9755:1E3E (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose article is orange-tagged. The Kip (contribs) 17:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose two orange tags. PrinceofPunjabTALK 06:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Jane McAlevey
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Staraction (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Infopetal (talk · give credit)
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.
Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Unreferenced date and place of birth. Schwede66 10:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support That has been rectified. Bremps... 13:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 01:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
(Posted) 2024 French legislative election
Blurb: The New Popular Front obtains a relative majority in the National Assembly following the 2024 French legislative election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The New Popular Front wins the most seats in the National Assembly following the 2024 French legislative election.
Alternative blurb II: The New Popular Front obtains a plurality in the National Assembly following the 2024 French legislative election.
Alternative blurb III:
Alternative blurb IV: In the French legislative election the New Popular Front becomes the largest bloc in the National Assembly, but fails to win an overall majority
Alternative blurb V: In France, the legislative election results in a hung parliament, with the New Popular Front obtaining a plurality.
News source(s): Le Monde
Credits:
- Nominated by Chaotic Enby (talk · give credit)
Unexpected result, as the National Rally and their allies were originally predicted to get the most seats, but only came in third place after the NPF and Ensemble. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait. We still need a clearer idea of what the results were; this is a much murkier situation than last week's UK vote. (where Labour clearly won a decisive majority that lined up with expectations; contrast here where we have a surprise result) Also, given that even the article linked for "relative majority" itself is called Plurality, I would recommend the blurb actually use that to avoid confusion. Nottheking (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Wait the results sections is missing information once filled support Shadow4dark (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a result yet? I was literally just looking at a couple of news sites, that says the far-right and fascists weren't doing as well as expected, but I didn't see any breakdowns. But hang on - I'm no expert on France politics - but the New Popular Front is alliance of over 50 political parties - including the Pirate Party and the Guadeloupe Communist Party? I'm not sure I get this one, compared to most countries where there's only up to a half-dozen viable parties. Nfitz (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are indeed many parties under the NPF, although only four of them (La France Insoumise, the Socialist Party, The Greens and the French Communist Party) have a substantial presence in the National Assembly. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm the primary contributor to this article. There isn't an officially aggregated national result yet, but it will be published by the Ministry of the Interior later here and added once that happens. The NFP is a broad electoral alliance of the main parties of the left as well as numerous smaller formations which had their candidates nominated in a small number of districts, as depicted here. It's an unusual situation, but with such a short timeline this was agreed upon quickly to allow the parties of the left to have the best chance of getting candidates elected rather than splitting the vote in the two-round electoral system. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- How long does it take for the vote to be finalized by the government? Here it can take weeks, even if the incumbent conceded within an hour of the polls closing. Surely in the interim, putting in preliminary results from a reliable source suffices in many other places. Should be the same, unless the Pirates steal some poll boxes. Nfitz (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I missed this reply, but results are mostly set here (calculated for the alliances as noted in footnotes B and C, using the Ministry of Interior reference). 73.169.176.209 (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- How long does it take for the vote to be finalized by the government? Here it can take weeks, even if the incumbent conceded within an hour of the polls closing. Surely in the interim, putting in preliminary results from a reliable source suffices in many other places. Should be the same, unless the Pirates steal some poll boxes. Nfitz (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've added alt1, which to me is just the best non-confusing way to explain this result. I do wish to wait for results to be updates to a certain degree we shouldn't post a blurb saying "x coalition won" or similar when most results are not confirmed to prove this yet on our end. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait According to the table in the National results section, 501 seats in the national assembly have yet to be announced, so it is too early to post. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- The table should be updated, all but three seats have been called right now (according to Le Monde). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- They're not aggregated by the Ministry of the Interior just yet (various news outlets create their own classifications of candidates, so the counts of votes and seats won tend to differ between them); we've always used the Ministry of the Interior ones because they're official classifications and the others are unofficial classifications. Also added alt3 but not official until tomorrow 73.169.176.209 (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- The table should be updated, all but three seats have been called right now (according to Le Monde). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support once final results are put forward This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Provisional results have been posted and only slight shifts should be expected at this point. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Alt II pending the appointment of the new prime minister. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I struck alt3 (after proposing it) because it might not happen anytime soon. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Propose ALTV unless a government is somehow formed. The Kip (contribs) 02:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd go with this if it becomes clear in the next few days that they are not going to be able to form a new government. For now I'd stick to Alt II until the dust settles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support any of the proposed blurbs, with alt2 or 5 as my preference. Would support blurbing again if/when a new PM is chosen, since even though Attal resigned (and is continuing as caretaker) it doesn't seem like this will be resolved anytime soon. Davey2116 (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support alt2 or alt4 once it’s ready Those seem like the best blurbs. However, the “Potential outcomes and pre-election comments” subsection in the “Aftermath” section seems like it’s awkward now that the election has happened. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I took a stab at addressing those issues here, feel free to trim or reorganise further. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Deadlock is the word preferred by headlines such as "French Election Yields Deadlock..." and "France Faces Deadlock...". What's going to happen now seems quite unclear. Will France have to resort to a civil servant as PM like the Netherlands or what? One detail of language which is interesting is the word insoumise which appears in the name of one of the many parties. This seems to mean "unruly" and "insubordinate" and the result seems to confirm France's reputation for being ungovernable. We should avoid a blurb which gives the impression that someone has won and perhaps wait until the outcome is clearer. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Insoumise means "unbowed", not "unruly" or "insubordinate". 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:C4C2:46FA:6F20:8082 (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- It literally means not soumise or not submissive. The exact meaning depends on the context but it indicates that they won't be compliant or obedient, i.e. ungovernable. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Insoumise means "unbowed", not "unruly" or "insubordinate". 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:C4C2:46FA:6F20:8082 (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's not my understanding of this at all, and appears to be a fringe interpretation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding comes from the Collins-Robert French Dictionary which is not fringe. It gives the meanings as refractory, rebellious, insubordinate, undefeated, unsubdued. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's not my understanding of this at all, and appears to be a fringe interpretation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the name of one of the parties should be taken as evidence that France has become ungovernable... Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- The NYT report says "France looked near ungovernable ... The result was that ... no governing coalition appeared immediately conceivable..." while the FT headline is "France heads back to its postwar era of ungovernability". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the name of one of the parties should be taken as evidence that France has become ungovernable... Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Posted - I've gone with a bit of a hybrid of some of the alts above. It's been discussed before that we don't use the term plurality at ITN, as it's not widely understood globally, and I thought worth noting that the NPR also didn't achieve a majority in addition to saying they won the most seats. — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's a good solution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good hybrid, thanks! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- 2024 French legislative election currently has Lua-related template errors (likely due to having too many templates), which prevents most references from displaying correctly. Felt like this was important to note here given that the article is currently linked from the Main Page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
July 6
July 6, 2024
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Joe Egan (musician)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NME
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:38AB:9905:A2DA:8D62 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Refsworldlee (talk · give credit)
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.
Scottish musician and co-founder of Stealers Wheel. 240F:7A:6253:1:38AB:9905:A2DA:8D62 (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose not ready, article needs expansion. PrinceofPunjabTALK 06:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with previous comment. Little more than a stub in substance. Ref (chew)(do) 06:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Khyree Jackson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:
- Nominated by Engineerchange (talk · give credit)
- Updated by PeeJay (talk · give credit)
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.
NFL cornerback recent death. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support RIP, a tragic death. Article is in a good enough shape. PrinceofPunjabTALK 14:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support nothing holding back this article about an NFL player. Bremps... 21:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support and André Drege too. Both sportsmen of the same age who had their lives tragically cut short on the same day. Both articles seem good, though Jackson's is more detailed. 1779Days (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- We can nominate that one independently. Bremps... 01:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Date and place of birth are both unreferenced. Schwede66 10:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: Fixed. Typically on NFL player articles that information is pulled from the ESPN or NFL biography and not appropriately cited. --Engineerchange (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Mirta Díaz-Balart
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CiberCuba
Credits:
- Nominated by Gödel2200 (talk · give credit)
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.
First wife of Fidel Castro. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose given the lack of detail in her article, which is rated Start class. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait there are some more references needed otherwise article is okay. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait More citations needed. Bremps... 22:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Masoud Pezeshkian elected President of Iran
Blurb: Masoud Pezeshkian (pictured) is elected President of Iran. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian (pictured) is elected president in the second round of the 2024 presidential election.
Alternative blurb II: In Iran, the reformist candidate Masoud Pezeshkian (pictured) is elected president in the second round of the 2024 presidential election.
Alternative blurb III: In Iran, the reformist candidate Masoud Pezeshkian (pictured) is declared the winner of the second round of presidential elections.
News source(s): New York Times BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by MAL MALDIVE (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Borgenland (talk · give credit) and Boud (talk · give credit)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
He is elected president of Iran. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- comment blurb should mention that this "election" was held by a totalitarian government headed by the dictatorial ayatollahs. Else we risk presenting it as a genuine expression of the will of the people and not a fake election no different from those under the regimes of dprk, china or soviet union which wikipedia AFAIK previously did NOT post Kasperquickly (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- All Iranian presidential elections since 2009 have been posted to ITN. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 07:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- As far as you know wikipedia didn't post any Soviet elections to ITN? That's a bold claim. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:F211:A254:7DA9:FB24 (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Issue is not very notable , anyone can read the whole article if they want to know election legitimacy AlexBobCharles (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
soviet union which wikipedia AFAIK previously did NOT post
- ...you are aware Wikipedia was founded some years after the USSR ceased to exist, right?
- Your personalized commentary is becoming indicative of an attitude unfit for ITN/C, this isn't the first time it's happened. The Kip (contribs) 15:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- nods* Concur with The Kip... This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- We did post Xi Jinping's securing of a third term. Bremps... 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support It seems that there was a significant choice between Pezeshkian and his main hardline opponent. The article is short but seems adequate in providing basic info for our readers. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality article has three orange tags. Will change to support once quality issues are fixed. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 07:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose bold article has three orange tags and Masoud Pezeshkian's article have some paragraphs without footnotes. PrinceofPunjabTALK 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support I want to note that Pezeshkian is the first reformist candidate for quite some time (I've seen The Atlantic's Arash Azizi place that date at 2005, which was the end of Khatami's term), and noting the state that the reformist parties have been as of the 2020s. Might be a potentially good idea to note that he is the reformist candidate in the blurb. Ornithoptera (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Should note that Pezeshkian is a reformist .I will note that some of the bold articles sources dont seem to very reliable and are close to the Iran government. AlexBobCharles (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose due to three orange tags on the article. Also, there is no need to mention that Pezeshkian is a reformist in the blurb. All we should say is the result of the election. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait because Pezeshkian's article is incomplete and needs further detail. 2601:280:5C01:B7E0:E19C:E87A:9597:AE72 (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality as target article is orange-tagged. The Kip (contribs) 16:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support; proposed altblurb to use the "declared winner" language we tend to use for dubious elections This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support; on notability --GodNey (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support with current wording; elections in Iran aren't free, but they are fair. No need to use "declared" or similar phrases. AryKun (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's serious doubts about the fairness of elections as well, they possibly manipulated numbers in the first round, there is valid sources supporting this idea. 3000MAX (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support for its notability. Although the article is currently orange-tagged, this is related to the lack of attention from enough fluent Persian speakers (or people able to use auto-translators sufficiently well). The benefit of the extra attention of ITN may help improve the quality of the article sufficiently to justify the removing the tags, so an exception to the general rule may be acceptable in this case. Boud (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality this election is WP:ITNR, so only consideration is article quality (thus all the "support on notability" votes are irrelevant). And there are 3 valid orange tags that need fixing. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - by which criterion is this WP:ITN/R? The government bit says "Changes in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government", but our article President of Iran notes that "Unlike the executive in other countries, the president of Iran does not have full control over the government, which is ultimately under the direct control of the Supreme Leader". Thus this role is somewhat more of a figurehead and should be judged on its own merits rather than being given an automatic pass. — Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would imagine it was marked as ITNR because it was thought to be a general election. Looking at the three different elections that took place in Iran this year, it is not at all clear to me which one was the general election, so this might not be ITNR. Gödel2200 (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- The president of Iran does not hold the highest political authority, but does have many of the powers of an executive president, and is not just a figurehead. Among the Reformist presidents, Khatami was generally seen as having a big influence; Rouhani's reformist actions were generally seen as less successful; Ahmedinejad's role as a hardliner president was generally seen as him being mostly in control of executive power. Relations between the West and Iran have changed significantly between Reformist and hardliner Iranian presidents. This does satisfy ITN/R in any reasonable interpretation of real political power and both national and international effects. Boud (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any question of whether this election should be posted. But ITNR specifically says changes in the people who administer the executive of their country qualify, and according to the List of current heads of state and government article, that position is the supreme leader, not the president, so the election would technically not qualify for ITNR under that clause. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- In Iran, the president is the head of government. See President of Iran. He chooses all ministers and cabinet members. The supreme leader is the head of state, but not the head of government. 175.159.120.175 (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- The issue with ITN/R is that it assumes that only one position (in this case, the supreme leader) wields all of the executive power; it neglects to consider the fact that there can be other positions with some form of executive power (in this case, the president) that the main position itself lacks. The ITN/R status of "2023 Singaporean presidential election", which had a similar context, was debated under the same rationale (and later removed), though it was still ultimately posted. =JaventheAldericky= (Would you like to talk to me?) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any question of whether this election should be posted. But ITNR specifically says changes in the people who administer the executive of their country qualify, and according to the List of current heads of state and government article, that position is the supreme leader, not the president, so the election would technically not qualify for ITNR under that clause. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- The president of Iran does not hold the highest political authority, but does have many of the powers of an executive president, and is not just a figurehead. Among the Reformist presidents, Khatami was generally seen as having a big influence; Rouhani's reformist actions were generally seen as less successful; Ahmedinejad's role as a hardliner president was generally seen as him being mostly in control of executive power. Relations between the West and Iran have changed significantly between Reformist and hardliner Iranian presidents. This does satisfy ITN/R in any reasonable interpretation of real political power and both national and international effects. Boud (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would imagine it was marked as ITNR because it was thought to be a general election. Looking at the three different elections that took place in Iran this year, it is not at all clear to me which one was the general election, so this might not be ITNR. Gödel2200 (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support altblurb 2 as the orange tags have been addressed. =JaventheAldericky= (Would you like to talk to me?) 14:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
July 5
July 5, 2024
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Liana Isakadze
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Strad
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
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.
Prominent Georgian violinist, child prodigy, all over Europe early, then also conductor and artistic director of the Chamber Orchestra of Georgia, festival creator internationally. The article was practically a mirror of her website, which is no longer live but there in an archived copy in German. Much better since we got a Strad obit today. The long lists of conductors and colleagues are not referenced other than her site, but are credible I think. Help by someone knowing Georgian wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Slight oppose The stuff about Facebook is uncited. Listing a paragraph of names isn't the best way to present info to a reader. Otherwise, the article is alright. Bremps... 12:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- The facebook thing can only be cited to her website, which I try to avoid. We could do it, or drop it, or find another ref. - I hate these lists, I really do, but - as I said above - I have no time to look for more detailed records of her music making. Repeating: help wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I added the cite to her website. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Stanley Moss
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Staraction (talk · give credit)
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.
Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Question Are the books in his bibliography fine if they aren't cited (as they are effectively their own citation)? Anyway, the Amazon links certainly need to be removed so Oppose for now. Bremps... 04:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- They are their own citation, but they require ISBNs. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Vic Seixas
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:64C5:9819:81E5:D319 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Renewal6 (talk · give credit)
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.
American tennis player. 240F:7A:6253:1:64C5:9819:81E5:D319 (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support article is in a good shape. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- The stats tables after the prose could use some sources, please. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Jon Landau (film producer)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:64C5:9819:81E5:D319 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Kire1975 (talk · give credit)
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.
American film producer. 240F:7A:6253:1:64C5:9819:81E5:D319 (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Awards and Filmography section needs sourcing and Career section needs a lot of expansion. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
July 4
July 4, 2024
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) United Kingdom general election
Blurb: In the United Kingdom, the Labour Party (leader Keir Starmer pictured) wins the general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Labour Party (leader Keir Starmer pictured) wins a landslide victory in the United Kingdom general election
Alternative blurb II: Keir Starmer becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom after his Labour Party wins a landslide victory in the general election (after he becomes PM, probably tomorrow morning)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn09xn9je7lt
Credits:
- Nominated by orbitalbuzzsaw (talk · give credit)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Putting this out in front so we can get it ready as and when results come in overnight This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly, we're going to need sources to use the second blurb re being a landslide, though I know the exit polls suggest it will be that way. --Masem (t) 22:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- BBC says "Labour landslide predicted", as do most other sources This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not just the BBC. Sky News, the Telegraph, the Guardian ... in fact most UK news sources ... are already using it on their front pages (although at the moment it of course says "predicted" or "expected"). But yes, stick with the original blurb, we can always change it later. Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Meh. I'm not going to get worked up over it, but FWIW I don't recall the word "landslide" ever being used in an election blurb before. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, we rarely use such terms on the Main Page in my experience. Granted, I have been away for a while. If anything, we may choose to use a less bombastic phrasing such as "significant gain in seats", or something more British. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not just the BBC. Sky News, the Telegraph, the Guardian ... in fact most UK news sources ... are already using it on their front pages (although at the moment it of course says "predicted" or "expected"). But yes, stick with the original blurb, we can always change it later. Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- BBC says "Labour landslide predicted", as do most other sources This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support original blurb. It's factual and to the point. We can update tomorrow after Sir Kier becomes PM. The votes are still being counted but there is no doubt who won. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support either original Blurb or AltBlurb II. (later purely among the implication that's part of ITN/R: that this will mean Keir Starmer becomes PM) Obviously, we'll be waiting for the official results (rather than just the exit polls) and such to make it official. Article appears to be in great shape; hopefully this quality will be maintained through all the official results being added. I'm somewhat neutral (mildly opposed) on whether we should bother describing the margin of the election. However, if there's an applicable superlative, (e.g, it break's Labour's old record for most seats won) then that would have a much more convincing argument to be mentioned on the front page. Nottheking (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support original blurb as it is the most concise. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support original blurb but wait until the full results come out. I don't really see much of a need for the blurb to indicate that the result was a landslide; the reader will see that immediately after going to the page. The blurb only needs to state who won the election. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support original blurb and wait Good article, important event. Results are pretty clear but post after the votes are fully done being counted Hungry403 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think its fair to call it a landslide now Hungry403 (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Sunak just conceded, effectively. Toss-up between original blurb and alt-1. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support original blurb unless the ultimate seat count surpasses Labour's old record for most seats won, in which case support alt-1 or alt-2 and add the superlative, per Nottheking. FlipandFlopped ツ 04:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support original blurb as it's now official. Oppose alt blurbs until sources use the phrase "landslide" — Czello (music) 04:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, with "landslide" wording; they're on course to 400, which is Blair numbers. Sceptre (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Posted As Labour has already got more than 50 per cent of the electorate seats (362 right now, with 326 needed for a majority), it's probably safe to post ALT0 at this point. I don't think it'll be long before "landslide" can be added to the blurb. Schwede66 04:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- There have been other "landslide" elections. Have we ever used that term in an election blurb? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not at all. I don't think we've ever done such a thing, and the Conservatives arguably won a landslide last time. I'm a little baffled as to why Schwede66 has suggested this and strongly recommend that no admin should change this. — Amakuru (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- There have been other "landslide" elections. Have we ever used that term in an election blurb? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support ALT or ALT2 blurb as Labour has now won 400 seats, I think we're now ready to add "landslide" now. 92.27.253.187 (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support landslide. Davey2116 (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support alt-1 as it is more condense. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Majority would be a better word than "landslide". ITN should save the word "landslide" for the actual landslides that kill lots of people (they seem to have stopped counting in New Guinea). For elections, we should stick to words that more accurately describe the result such as supermajority. Simply winning a majority is a significant achievement when so many countries have systems that require complex coalitions such as we see in the current Netherlands blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- We don't generally use the term supermajority for this, in the UK. Secretlondon (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't matter because Labour don't seem to have quite that many seats (433 is two thirds of 650). The point is to use appropriate technical terms rather than colourful journalistic metaphors. In the Westminster system, the key thing is to get a "working majority". Andrew🐉(talk) 07:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- We don't generally use the term supermajority for this, in the UK. Secretlondon (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose landslide or majority or anything else. Longstanding precedent is that we don't attempt to add "nuance" or editorialisation to election results, even those that are "disputed" or "near-unanimous" or whatever, and there's no reason to deviate from that here. The current simple blurb that they won is completely sufficient and should not be changed. — Amakuru (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- The convention in Britain is that a 100-seat majority is a landslide; Labour have won a 170-seat majority. If anything qualifies, this does. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- What convention? See Landslides in the United Kingdom. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- That seems a bit disingenuous, Andrew Davidson. See United Kingdom general election records#Most seats won by party (1945–present). The current result is just barely below the all-time post-war record. (though I don't see a need to change the blurb). Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- What convention? See Landslides in the United Kingdom. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- The convention in Britain is that a 100-seat majority is a landslide; Labour have won a 170-seat majority. If anything qualifies, this does. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose landslide as an editorialising term. "Supermajority" isn't great either as the Parliament does not operate with a supermajority system as far as I know (no equivalent of, say, the 60-vote filibuster in the US Senate). Stating that Labour won a majority by themselves (and, when confirmed, that Starmer becomes PM) is the most objective thing to do. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- In the Westminster system, a substantial majority is significant because it means that the PM can force through legislation without having to appease rebels and rivals in his own party. See the US House of Representatives for the difficulty of getting things done with a narrow majority. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support - I find it funny this was nominated before any seat was even called. It might be good to mention just how historic this win is, the worst result for the Conservative Party I believe in its entire 200 year existence. This is a pretty crazy result as the dominant party in UK politics is going extinct. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- The popular vote for the Conservatives was still quite substantial while the vote for Labour was little changed. The result in seats was a typical quirk of the first-past-the-post system. The main novelty is the advent of Reform UK which got the next largest popular vote and so split the centre-right vote.
- What helped Labour is that their leader looks and sounds like a conservative -- a safe pair of hands, rather than a radical like Corbyn, a wild child like Boris or a city slicker like Rishi. It's interesting that our blurb calls him "Sir Keir Starmer", like a "knight of the shires". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see that the title has been removed now as admins tussle over the blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pull. While obviously this is notable, 2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#Results is not updated. 12:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC) ~~ Jessintime (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Those look like numerical results once the full complete tally is known. The results that Labour won was based on factors like sufficient tallies from the various locals as well as candidates conceding that they lost, all reported in RSes. — Masem (t) 12:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Jessintime There's currently 2 seats to go (out of 650), until those are declared, these "results" figures don't exist. But that doesn't change the outcome that Labour have won, a fact that was confirmed in reliable sources before this was posted. And the article has been updated with this information and aftermath, and so WP:ITNQUALITY is met. We have posted other countries in a similar state i.e. where 95+% of results are known and the election result is assured. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Standard practice for ITN has been to post once the general outcome has been confirmed, since it's rare to instantly get total figures for every single constituent election from any country. There will always be stragglers, so yes, there will be some small gaps in the data as everyone in the world waits for those stragglers. However, it remains that all the RSes have reported that Labour has won a majority of seats, and that won't change. And Keir Starmer has already been appointed Prime Minister. Nottheking (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'll just reply here since this is pretty much moot. My concern is that we posted an article on an election with an entire results table left blank. Did we really need to wait until all 650 seats were called before updating it? I've seen other stories held up for far less. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Those look like numerical results once the full complete tally is known. The results that Labour won was based on factors like sufficient tallies from the various locals as well as candidates conceding that they lost, all reported in RSes. — Masem (t) 12:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
July 3
July 3, 2024
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Jack Rowell
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Needs an infobox but only a few more citations. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose There are CN tags. User:MAL MALDIVE (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose multiple cn tags. PrinceofPunjabTALK 07:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose issue persists. Bremps... 22:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
(Closed) Mark Cavendish
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.
Blurb: British cyclist Mark Cavendish wins a record 35th stage of the Tour de France (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport Guardian USA Today ESPN NBC NEWS WSJ
Credits:
- Nominated by Paul W (talk · give credit)
- Oppose Cool sports trivia, but not what is typically posted at ITN. Natg 19 (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The result of the Tour de France is ITN/R, but individual achievements are way under the bar for notability. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Aficionados regard the result of the Tour de France as much more then the first person to crosss the finish line, but the non-cycling world is generally ignorant of such detail. So sadly, I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral Probably under the bar as a stand-alone entry. However, given it’s broken a 49 year old record would suggest it’s mentioned at race summary e.g. “In the 2024 Tour de France, Joe Bloggs wins the General Classification, while Mark Cavendish breaks the record for stage wins” 92.17.186.116 (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree The tour isn't over and he could win a 36th or 37th, and at the conclusion of the race that number can be announced as part of the blurb. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also agree, solid suggestion. Kingsif (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support It's a monumental achievement that has taken 50 years to break. It's not trivia. There's often major records on ITN, sports or otherwise (longest person in space etc) Torqueing (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Trivia, Better suited to DYK. — Amakuru (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- It can't go on DYK, the article is already a GA and is too long to be expanded fivefold. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose While an impressive achievement, the fact there are only a few sentences of an update on each of the linked articles means that this is not suitable for ITN. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above. While its impressive that he broke a near 50 year old record, these kinds of personal achievements aren't notable enough for the ITN. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 02:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. This is a huge 49 years old record, and yes it's newsworthy. Eddy Merckx should be mention in the blurb too. Mark Cavendish breaks Eddy Merckx’s 49-years-old record for most career Tour de France stage wins with 35th victory. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, while impressive, this still counts as sports trivia in view of ITN. For TDF, we post the winner. --Tone 07:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support a record that has stood for a long time being broken, and a target article Mark Cavendish that's a GA. This is more in the news than the eventual TdF winners usually are (because it's a record that has stood for nearly 50 years that was thought unbreakable for most of that time), and that article is nowhere near the quality of Cavendish's article either. Monumental achievement with worldwide coverage, which is higher enough to meet the threshold of WP:ITNSIGNIF. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Winning a stage in a multiple-day cycling race has absolutely no meaning. One may not win a single stage but eventually win the race. I don't see a reason to post a meaningless record. If it were a record set at one-day classics, it'd be a much stronger argument for posting, but it's clearly not. Note also that he's not finished half of the Tour de France editions he entered and was ranked well below 100th place in all editions he finished, so it's completely worthless to talk about any notable record here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- He's a sprinter, and they often don't complete all three weeks, different physiology. Where he finishes in the general classification is a complete irrelevance. Ericoides (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's why one-day classics exist – to make sprinters more competitive. A sprinter breaking a record in a race that he can barely finish is completely irrelevant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- To claim "Winning a stage in a multiple-day cycling race has absolutely no meaning" suggests you have absolutely no understanding of cycling. See today's L'Equipe, which only devotes seven pages to the Cavendish record. Ericoides (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. I'm not personally supporting this item as of sufficient encyclopaedic interest for ITN, but the achievement itself certainly isn't insignificant. Stage wins on the Tour de France are a big deal and treated as such in reliable sources. Wikipedians' opinions on their relevance is what's "meaningless" here. — Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ericoides: I’ve been avidly following cycling about 18 years now, and that’s why I know that this record isn’t significant at all. In multiple-day cycling races, time is what counts, not the number of stage wins. You may say whatever you want about my understanding of cycling and cite zillion sources stating that this is a big achievement, but that won’t change the established fact that these stage victories won’t help Cavendish ever win Tour de France. This record is trivial as Ronnie O’Sullivan’s 1,000 century breaks achieved in 2019 or LeBron James breaking Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s long-standing record for most points in the NBA.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- He's not trying to win the Tour; it's an event within an event. As David Millar said in his ITV commentary this afternoon, "the Tour de France is the world championships for sprinters." Ericoides (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- To claim "Winning a stage in a multiple-day cycling race has absolutely no meaning" suggests you have absolutely no understanding of cycling. See today's L'Equipe, which only devotes seven pages to the Cavendish record. Ericoides (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's why one-day classics exist – to make sprinters more competitive. A sprinter breaking a record in a race that he can barely finish is completely irrelevant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- He's a sprinter, and they often don't complete all three weeks, different physiology. Where he finishes in the general classification is a complete irrelevance. Ericoides (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is trivia. Winning a record number of tours would be worth mentioning in the tour result post (which is, as noted, ITNR), but this is a mere footnote. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per all above. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose minor sports trivia. An impressive personal achievement but we can't post every similar record in every sport. When the race concludes, the winner can be posted per WP:ITNR. I recommend you work on improving the 2024 Tour de France article so that will be ready to go e.g. by adding prose summaries of each stage. Modest Genius talk 11:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support An amazing achievement, transcending the sport. Ericoides (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Dismissing this as trivia is absolute rubbish. The most notable cycling sporting event in the world has had a longstanding record broken that will go unchallenged for a very long time. The closest competitor to challenge his record is Tadej Pogačar who only has 12 stage wins at the moment. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Final note, after searching the archives I found numerous examples of prior posting of notable sports records being broken, so I don't see how there isn't precedence for posting this in some form or another. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Records based on competing and winning (or whatever the aspect) a number of times, which the chances of improving simply increase with the person participating in more events, are records that are ripe to be broken and not really fair. More approach records that would make sense are breaking race times or other measurable factors in a competitive sport, or achieving a certain type of scoring record within a single game and/or season. But as others have said, when the race is done and we post the result (per ITNR), it makes sense to possibly include this record too. — Masem (t) 16:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Final note, after searching the archives I found numerous examples of prior posting of notable sports records being broken, so I don't see how there isn't precedence for posting this in some form or another. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose I guess you had to be there. Call back when someone actually wins the race. CoatCheck (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
(Closed) 2024 Ukrainian coup attempt allegations
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.
Blurb: An alleged pro-Russian coup is foiled by the Security Service of Ukraine that sought to oust Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Scu ba (talk · give credit)
I noticed that nobody was talking about a foiled coup yesterday in Ukraine that major news outlets are talking about so I decided to make a page for it, I feel that this is just as notable as any other coup and should be included in the news. Scu ba (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Huh. A quite worrying development of the ongoing war, but the (alleged) coup wasn't actually attempted, so oppose on notability. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sadly oppose per above. poor zelenskyy Ion.want.uu (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose There have been a few assassination plots targeting the president as well over the past 2 years. And I believe there was a coup plot foiled shortly before the war. So unless something is at least attempted, like in Bolivia, I don't think it's worth posting. Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose respectfully. It seems like this was simply the arrest of four alleged Russophilic activists who were discussing a coup plot via instant messages. An actual attempted coup that could pose a real threat to Zelenskyy would definitely be notable, but an alleged coup plot that had already failed before anything could have even been attempted is not big enough to warrant a separate blurb for an event already covered in Ongoing. Vanilla Wizard 💙 12:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose This would only not be covered by ongoing if the coup had actually happened. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Vanilla Wizard. I'm not convinced this is notable enough for a stand-alone article, let alone ITN. Modest Genius talk 14:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
July 2
July 2, 2024
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: Rick Cluff
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Globe and Mail
Credits:
- Nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Connormah (talk · give credit), HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk · give credit) and Classicwiki (talk · give credit)
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.
Canadian Radio host and journalist. Ktin (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Article quality seems alright. Bremps... 20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Jean Daubigny
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): L'Union
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Jmanlucas (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Normantas Bataitis (talk · give credit) and Editrite! (talk · give credit)
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.
French civil servant and criminal convicted of tax evasion. Jmanlucas (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support meets bare minimum requirement. PrinceofPunjabTALK 07:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- It has a deprecated controversy section. Probably not postable as is. Bremps... 20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Aydos Sadykov
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:
- Nominated by Gödel2200 (talk · give credit)
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.
Kazakh opposition figure who died after an assassination attempt in Kyiv. Article will need some sourcing work. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose One of the sections does not cite any sources. Needs ref improve. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support I've fixed the last of the CN tags and it appears the page is very well sourced now. I'll ping @MAL MALDIVE to see if they would like to change their opinion. Jmanlucas (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Yes, after the fix, i would support. Looks like the article is in a good standard. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose biography section have some unsourced statements. PrinceofPunjabTALK 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
(Closed) BB(5) discovery
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.
Blurb: In computer science, researchers discover the fifth Busy beaver number. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A group of mathematical researchers announces the discovery of the fifth Busy beaver number.
Alternative blurb II: The fifth Busy beaver number is discovered, establishing a new quantitative limit on the behavior of small computer programs.
News source(s): Quanta Magazine , Shtetl-Optimized
Credits:
- Nominated by Schoen (talk · give credit)
- Support just beat me too it! Big thing in computer science tho Ion.want.uu (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Wow! Didn't follow it too closely, I'm surprised it was actually discovered. Science at ITN is always great, and, as Schoen says, this is likely the largest Busy Beaver number we'll be able to discover (for two-state Turing machines at least). Not only does the state space grow very fast, but these numbers are inherently uncomputable, meaning you can't just throw more computing power to find them, you need to go through mathematical proofs for each Turing machine. By the way, for anyone curious, the number is 47 176 870. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- A lower bound on the sixth Busy Beaver number is 10⇈15, or 1010...15 times...10. Needless to say, we don't have enough space in this universe to even write it down. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose primary because the target article is terribly undersourced and is the symptom of being far too technical for an encyclopedia. Besides that, I'd like to see at least either a peer-review article or a more mainstream news source covering this, because as the Quantum article points out, this is more a curiosity than a breakthrough in mathematics. --Masem (t) 02:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose This does not seem to be in the news. For comparison, I can easily show you more mainstream coverage of real beavers in my area of London (a project that I helped with myself). Andrew🐉(talk) 07:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Target article is extremely poorly sourced (indeed, the main paragraph explaining it has precisely zero sources) and is not written in anything like an accessible manner; we do not expect technical articles to be dumbed down but even the introduction to this article makes assumptions that the reader knows what a halting Turing machine, its "states", or transition tables are. It is unfortunate that a lot of computer science articles are like this. Black Kite (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support in principle, but unfortunately the article is nearly fully unsourced, and is nowhere near being ready for the main page. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. While I'm open to posting mathematical advances, there are multiple problems with this: a) The topic is extremely esoteric and doesn't seem to have any application - the 'applications' section of the article speculates about uses in principle but indicates they are all impossible in practice. b) The fifth BB number has been known since 1990, but was only conjectured not proven [2]. While proving it now is useful, it's hardly a surprise. c) There is no formal publication of this result. The team's own website announcement [3] states "we are currently working on a human-readable paper" i.e. it hasn't been written up yet, let alone peer reviewed. A peer-reviewed publication is a requirement for posting scientific news. d) There's little to no coverage in mainstream media, I couldn't find anything beyond that Quanta article. e) The article is incomprehensible to most of our readers, who would not learn anything from clicking on that bold link. So while I commend the nomination, I don't think this is suitable for ITN. Modest Genius talk 19:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support on notability. There should be more news like this in encyclopedia on the front page. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Except that it's notability is questionable as the only independent source I've seen is the linked quantum magazine article. That fails the actual "ITN" part. — Masem (t) 22:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per all above. Poorly-sourced article that doesn't explain why these numbers matter (certainly not to an extent remotely close to establishing main page notability), and if my bachelor's in mathematics is not nearly enough to comprehend the article, main page readers don't have a chance. -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not hard: I'm in the middle of an infinite coin row (all heads up). I read card 1 of 5. The heads up side says "1. leave tails up" "2. look to its immediate right" "3. do card 2 to it". Card 2-Heads is the same except 3. is "do card 3". Card 3-Heads is the same except 3. is "do card 4". Card 4-Heads says "1. leave tails up" "2. immediate left" "3. card 1". Card 5-Heads says tails/right/END. 1-Tails says tails/left/3 2-Tails says tails/right/2. 3-Tails is heads/left/5. 4-Tails is tails/left/4 5-Tails is heads/left/1. They just proved that you need ≥6 cards to end @ over 4,098 tails or after step 47,176,870 and these are the best possible cards. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it's pretty easy to describe how to emulate the five-state Beaver. But in order for someone to care a lot about the behavior of these "cards", we might also want to connect this to "this is one of the purest ways to model and reason about what computers do, and what computers can potentially do". And indeed "the cards can do math, potentially as well as any other system can do math". Or maybe "computer programs' behavior is complex and hard to predict, in a very fundamental mathematical sense; people have now managed to fully analyze the behavior of some small computer programs, which was extremely difficult, and there's good reason to think humanity will never make it to the next step of fully analyzing the behavior of very slightly larger computer programs". Schoen (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not hard: I'm in the middle of an infinite coin row (all heads up). I read card 1 of 5. The heads up side says "1. leave tails up" "2. look to its immediate right" "3. do card 2 to it". Card 2-Heads is the same except 3. is "do card 3". Card 3-Heads is the same except 3. is "do card 4". Card 4-Heads says "1. leave tails up" "2. immediate left" "3. card 1". Card 5-Heads says tails/right/END. 1-Tails says tails/left/3 2-Tails says tails/right/2. 3-Tails is heads/left/5. 4-Tails is tails/left/4 5-Tails is heads/left/1. They just proved that you need ≥6 cards to end @ over 4,098 tails or after step 47,176,870 and these are the best possible cards. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I apologize if my reasons are short sighted, I know next to nothing about computer science. The article is very hard to understand for the average reader, and I fail to see how this discovery is used outside of the problem itself. Also missing citations Hungry403 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - While the Busy Beaver problem is important in computability theory, and the discovery of a new member in a short and hard-to-determine sequence is very interesting, the combination of the two does not have any wider consequences. The discovery of BB(5) doesn't actually advance computability theory at all, and the number itself has no immediate wider applications. I also think the target article lacks a clear explanation for non-specialists, and is overall not ready for the home page. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Legendary sports competitor breaks a nearly 50 year longstanding record is largely opposed as trivia, but this isn't? Absurd. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not saying that this is the way things should be, but I don't think it should be a surprise that Wikipedia is more nerd than jock. Bremps... 19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
(Posted) Dick Schoof (Netherlands PM)
Blurb: Dick Schoof becomes Prime Minister of the Netherlands. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Dick Schoof is sworn in as Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
Alternative blurb II: In the Netherlands, a new cabinet is sworn in with independent politician Dick Schoof serving as prime minister.
Alternative blurb III: In the Netherlands, Dick Schoof succeeds four-term prime minister Mark Rutte.
News source(s): AP
Credits:
- Nominated by Classicwiki (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jochem van Hees (talk · give credit)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
One interesting thing about this succession is that Schoof is not part of the coalition party. Mark Rutte was PM for 13+ years, will serve as the next SG of NATO (1 October), which was just made official on 26 June. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 19:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support It's interesting that he's not just not a member of the coalition parties but that he's not an elected politician. Instead, he's a civil servant and previously in charge of the security service. Deep state needs a section for the Netherlands... Andrew🐉(talk) 21:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support change of head of government is ITN/R This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support because he succeeded 13-year incumbent Mark Rutte, and this concludes government appointment from the November 2023 Dutch election. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- support blurb II article seems okay and new prime minister after 14 years.. Shadow4dark (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Link it to the election. Doesn't have to be bold, but it's obviously correlated. Not with rutte at nato too.49.205.145.3 (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support alt2 and the article seems to be of decent quality. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Posted ALT2. Schwede66 00:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
(Posted) 2024 Uttar Pradesh stampede
Blurb: At least 121 people are killed in a stampede during a religious event in Uttar Pradesh, India. (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Estreyeria (talk · give credit)
Article will need some work before it's ready. Estreyeria (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree once the article is expanded. Sheila1988 (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support but wait until the event is over and all information has been reported on. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support when ready death toll is quite high but article needs a lot of expansion before it is ready to be posted. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. This could have some form of widespread significance, but we don't know that right now, so we can't support based on that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The article needs work to be as clear as the NYT report. That says that such events are "relatively common" and so WP:NEWSEVENT applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Large number of causalities, and injured. A significant event, not a common occurrencee. Now reached to 121 deaths. TheHindu report. Numancia (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Significant event, with very high number of casualties. Similar to Hajj incident recently. Samuelled (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Big news, article is decent quality Poxy4 (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Tragic accident with a high number of deaths. Article structure looks good enough. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 22:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- What evidence do you have that it was accidental? RS are calling it a disaster and some have been arrested already. We've got to be careful with that word. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose While this event has a high number of casualties, the article gives no indication of lasting significance. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 00:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Post-posting support how often do we update the death toll of disasters? The main page still says 110, while RS says it has risen to 121. Bremps... 17:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- ITN is still technically correct, as it says at least 110. Admins do update death tolls, but I do not expect them to keep track of daily changes. Natg 19 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Post-posting support how often do we update the death toll of disasters? The main page still says 110, while RS says it has risen to 121. Bremps... 17:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com]
rather than using <ref></ref>
tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref>
tags are being used, here are their contents: