*'''Wait''' - support if confirmed, wait till then (although it seems probable). [[User:Banedon|Banedon]] ([[User talk:Banedon|talk]]) 00:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Wait''' - support if confirmed, wait till then (although it seems probable). [[User:Banedon|Banedon]] ([[User talk:Banedon|talk]]) 00:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Wait''' for RD until the deaths are independently confirmed. As for a blurb, I would support Alt3, due to Wagner (and thus their founders) being very significant and influential, as well as the good quality of the founders' articles. [[User:2G0o2De0l|2G0o2De0l]] ([[User talk:2G0o2De0l|talk]]) 01:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Wait''' for RD until the deaths are independently confirmed. As for a blurb, I would support Alt3, due to Wagner (and thus their founders) being very significant and influential, as well as the good quality of the founders' articles. [[User:2G0o2De0l|2G0o2De0l]] ([[User talk:2G0o2De0l|talk]]) 01:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Wait''': the Associated Press and Reuters are both still using phrases like "presumed" or "on the passenger list". --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] ([[User talk:Carnildo|talk]]) 02:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
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.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
A Germanfederal court rejects an appeal by a military officer who posed as a asylum-seeker and was convicted of plotting to attack prominent politicians. (AP)
Meta, Facebook’s parent company, and 184 of its content moderators based in Kenya agree on a mediation attempt to settle in a lawsuit seeking $1.6 billion in compensation, alleging poor working conditions, insufficient mental health support and low pay. (AP)
A presidential decree extends voting by one day in 40 wards across the country due to delayed distribution of ballot papers, which the electoral commission attributes to late printing caused by court challenges. (Reuters)
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support RD and blurb. The article quality seems good enough for RD, no major issues tagged. My reasoning for a blurb is that Prigozhin is a figure who has been in world news a lot over the past years and especially last few months, and so his death itself is quite a newsworthy event, whether it was just an accident or due to intentional human machinations. The Wagner group has been involved in the Ukraine invasion, various other conflicts around the world (e.g., Sudan) and an attempted internal coup in Russia, just this year. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for confirmation, but this a blurb if all true, should be about the plane crash that included Prigozhin. --Masem (t) 17:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWait per my comments here. There is confirmation that the plane crashed, and that he was on the passenger list, but there is not confirmation that he was on the plane. Giraffer(talk·contribs)17:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait than Support blurb If it is confirmed, than it should be a blurb given recent events and the nature of the death, but we can afford to wait a bit for that, since things are still unclear now. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions17:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have proposed a blurb making his death more ambiguous, simply referring to the crash. There are also some unconfirmed reports that the plane was shot down. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When did they confirm it, User:Daikido? I just turned off the TV, and both CNN and BBC were only reporting he was on the passenger list, with pundits clearly saying that they need confirmation of his death. Nfitz (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - CNN and BBC are both reporting that he was on the passenger list, but no confirmation he was on the plane. And what's the bigger story - if it's just an unfortunate crash, then it's not otherwise ITN. But if Russia has now started shooting down planes departing from Moscow - than that may be the bigger story. Nfitz (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We might not get unambiguous official confirmation that it was an intentional act of shooting down a plane. People will undoubtedly still speculate about it anyway. Russia tends to pass deaths off as accidents even when they clearly aren’t. (IMO it’s newsworthy enough to be blurbed even if it was in fact just an accident, but I can see why some may disagree. Prigozhin is a name that would evoke strong emotional reactions from residents of many Eastern European countries, to say nothing of his relevance to other regions. His relevance to world affairs is greater than that of many other individuals whose deaths were blurbed.) 98.170.164.88 (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support when ready. The big issue, 98.170.164.88 was whether they were actually on the plane - with the long history of body doubles, deceptive movements, and the false claims by the state-controlled media, then we should be cautious. But with the Wagner group itself reporting the deaths, this seems sure enough, that it's time to post. The key question is how Russia destroyed the plane; but we might not get the details on that for decades - unless foreign powers have evidence; I'd think missiles that close to the NATO border will be well monitored. Nfitz (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and then weak support RD and blurb - Confusing vote, I know. I think we should wait until there is more details on this story, as this is such a rapidly developing situation with confusing and conflicting info. But as it stands, I do think the situation is notable. First of, plane crashes like this, regardless of global impact, are often posted on ITN. Second, one of the biggest players in this conflict, head of a major component of Russia's fighting force, and also deeply involved in other global conflicts like the Niger crisis being killed is pretty big.
While you could argue that this is covered by ongoing, I do think a development as big as this that also has significant effect elsewhere shouldn't be grouped as just another phase of the war. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a consensus for a blurb. I suggest we wait at least 12 hours or until his death is confirmed before posting. Thriley (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb IV - he's been universally been presumed dead, with even our own article stating that he's deceased; it's not ITN's job to editorialize and state "WeLl AkShulLy" an be contrary to all the WP:RSes. — Knightoftheswords18:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Situation is changing too quickly. At least wait for an official confirmation of death. After that, and maybe a confirmation of a shootdown, then Support. Bremps...18:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of the support !votes engage in a non sequitur argument, namely, they assume that since Prigozhin is on the passenger list, he must have boarded the plane. There is, however, no obligation to board even if you booked the flight, and we have no firm confirmation that Prigozhin was on the plane. None of the blurbs take this into account.
According to WP:BLP, biographies must be written conservatively and responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. What the majority votes on so far is a definite overstatement that is not supported by any of the RSs. It is only suggested that he was a passenger, we are not sure, like, 100%, and we should be to claim he is dead.
Wait for official confirmation that he was on the plane, or that he died. Situation is still unclear and we don't lose much by waiting a couple of hours instead of jumping the gun. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose In context this is a small blip on the radar of the war and even smaller in international relations. This is not much different from a plane crash on which a somewhat famous person happend to be. Not at all a significant world event by any stretch. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is beyond significant, and this will definitely have a big impact on the war in Ukraine. Wagner supplied Russia with much needed firepower and manpower. Not to mention, Putin now definitely has a stronger hand over his military command. TwistedAxe[contact]22:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle several media are now edging towards stating he died, on the basis that Wagner group Telegram channel and Russian aviation authority claim it. See e.g. The Guardian. Khuft (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support & comment Wagner has since confirmed the death of both individuals in their official Telegram channel. I've edited both articles to reflect this change, however there might be some reverts. I fully support posting this, HUGE news and its all over every global news outlet. Will have big influence both in and outside of Russia, and especially in the war. TwistedAxe[contact]22:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen unconfirmed tweets that Wagner group had wartime plans in effect and are beginning to engage them should Prigozhin be killed. This may require a rescope of the current article if there is a new offensive front again Putin that was triggered by the crash, but for now keep the blurb focused on the estashlibrd fact that the plane he was in crashed with aboard killed. --Masem (t) 22:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are still unconfirmed reports with both Wagner Telegram Channels and mainstream media regarding their deaths, but considering that we've already updated both of their statuses to "deceased", we should put it in the news for now.
I'm on board if we want to include a comment about these reports not being 100% confirmed, but considering how much this would affect in and outside of Russia if true, it should be in the news. MateoFrayo (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on Notability, but Wait the articles don't really cover their deaths much, and I'm not 100% certain what exactly has happened to them. If nothing develops (i.e. they are not actually dead or something crazy like that) and the articles are brought up to snuff, I'd definitely want it on ITN. ❤HistoryTheorist❤22:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support but Wait for now. Considering Prigozhin was a notable figure during the invasion (especially the munity) his death sounds very notable but for now, wait until his death is confirmed and other details are released. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 (話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 23:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Highly notable, one would have no idea how long I have been waiting for this, and I'm not trying to bring personal opinion into this or anything, but this should be immediately posted as a blurb due to the notability. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until verified one way or the other. Wikipedia would look ridiculous if we front-page declared the death of a person who turns out to be still alive. If Prigozhin is still alive and was not on the plane, then chances are that this was a failed FSB attempt to assassinate him - but that likely wouldn't become WP-verified info for months or years. Boud (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for RD until the deaths are independently confirmed. As for a blurb, I would support Alt3, due to Wagner (and thus their founders) being very significant and influential, as well as the good quality of the founders' articles. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strong Oppose This is the 3rd Indian lunar exploration mission, so not significant. Also, the 100th+ overall lunar exploration mission. Footnotes like this shouldn't take up ITN space just because the article is "full enough". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombie Philosopher (talk • contribs) 12:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can but it should at least be grounded in some rationale to make us diverge from policy. Yes multiple lunar missions but how many of them that were for a landing and especially since ITN started (which has posted every single one). We did not create an exception to ITNR for China, UAE, Russia etc. and there is no substantiation to do so now, besides WP:I don't like it as expressed by the above user (like most ITNR opposes). Gotitbro (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITNR, so your argument is invalid. Plus, the previous two didn't land on the moon (okay, Chandrayaan-2 did land technically, but it crash-landed). Tube·of·Light13:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the arbiter of what is or isn't a valid argument. My argument is valid based on my opinion that it is not significant. The text from the ITN page reads exactly: "Events are added based on a consensus on the ITN candidates page, using two main criteria: a) the quality of the article, including material added or updated to reflect the recent event, and b) the general significance of the developments." B is my contention despite what the contradictory text in ITNR says. By my vote in the consensus, I do not regard B to be satisfied, by extension its inclusion in ITNR. Your opinion of which argument is or isn't valid is thus meaningless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rulesZombie Philosopher (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the program's first *landing*. Which makes it more significant than the other two, not less. (After all, Apollo 11 is more significant than its predecessors.) ApLundell (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, following the landing. The refs for the "first soft landing near the lunar south pole" seem out of date. Probably the "India achieved multiple landmarks with Chandrayaan-3" etc section will need to be deleted unless sources are added. Nigej (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support! - One of the biggest leaps in Lunar exploration this decade! ISRO's progress has been truly inspiring. The first rover on the south pole, making a lot of headlines. What a story! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I believe Altblurb III is the best one to post as the fact that this is the first spacecraft on the lunar south pole and the first Indian spacecraft on the Moon is very notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledging that there are a few unsourced statements, Support Alt1. The other blurbs are too wordy in trying to fit in being the first the land at the lunar south pole, we can't just acknowledge it. --Masem (t) 15:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Good article and amazing day for the world and India. A spacecraft made with the fraction of the money NASA uses makes history like this! Support altblurb1. Rushtheeditor (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - But lets be clear that it has not "explored" the south pole. It just landed and is starting to test its instruments. Only Original and Atl1 are correct. 103.247.13.214 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support only the fourth country overall to land on the moon and the first to do so at the poles, need I say more? I’ll be waiting for the opposers here to show up on the Artemis II nom on the basis of that being the tenth manned moon mission and the US’s sixth.AryKun (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: First mission to successfully land on the south pole, please see The Time update (or search on the web yourself). This is a major achievement. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is on the WP:ITNR list so notability does not need to be argued. If you disagree with this being on the ITNR list, raise it at the talk page, not here. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is good enough, subject is in the news. Altblurb III is best because it really illustrates the significance. Bremps...18:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to remove at this time is unlikely to develop while noting that some editors have indicated a willingness to take a second look down the road aways. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 23 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.
Oppose. Timeline of the 2023 Sudan conflict is being updated almost every day, and I see significant activity on the main page as well (the last 50 edits go back only ~a week, which shows more active editing than even the main Ukraine invasion article, ignoring the numerous more specific battle pages and timelines). I don’t think it should be removed. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now; "daily" updates are not the standard as listed at WP:ONGOING states " Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status." This more than exceeds that standard. Willing to reconsider if no updates are made when that milestone occurs. --Jayron3215:14, 23 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.
Oppose It looks like while there are still flames around Lahaina, most of the wildfires have been extinguished or run dry. Thus, at this point, it is now in the rescue and recovery phase, which could last months - that it, not well suited for ongoing. --Masem (t) 02:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We simply have never kept a disaster article with a long-term search and rescue effort well after the triggering event is over as ongoing because while there may be daily updates to, for example, the death toll, the actual event has been completed. Perhaps, if that toll drastically increases to 1000, a new blurb to say "Over 1000 people are consider dead or missing from the Hawaii wildfires." might be appropriate. Masem (t) 03:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Continuing and future updates seem to most likely be solely incrementing the confirmed deaths. Does not seem to be significant enough. --Jayron3215:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More than 200 fishermen stage a protest on the docks of Gaza’s seaport after the arrest of at least six fishermen and the seizure of multiple boats by Israeli forces, requesting immediate international intervention. (Al Jazeera)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose Significant sourcing work needed. Early life section has one uncited statement, many unsourced paragraphs and statements in career, a good amount of uncited awards and an uncited selected publications section. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror14:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The 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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The 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 posted, blurb disc. cont.) RD/Blurb: Toto Cutugno
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: Unless there is some obvious issues im missing, this could be a quick one. Toto Cutugno was a popular musician in Italy, but to most of the world, mainly Europe, he was known for three things: "L'Italiano", and both of the next two go with each other, being the winner of Eurovision Song Contest 1990 with "Insieme: 1992". TheCorriynial (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One cn tag and discography uncited.Support RD Article looks good. Also weak oppose blurb, there's no indication in the article of him being one of the most famous Italian singers or household name in countries. A legacy section would be great. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can work on creating a legacy section or incorporate that in the career section. The article needs to show the impact Cutugno had in his field or how he was his country's most renowned singer. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - Article seems to have been fully-cited, including discography. Oppose blurb per TDKR, as well as just the obvious per my prior RD/blurb votes. The Kip (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simply having a long career or a large body of work is not sufficient for a blurb. And as for allocates the one one called out I can see on scanning the text is for Eurovision, so thats definitely not applicable. Masem (t) 21:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This depends on what you want to (dis)prove. Long career and numerous accolades are not decisive but are most definitely significant indicators for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but let's make sure in providing rationales of this type, that the article reflects how those aspects have translated into significance (which when I last looked, lacked that), rather than just stating it in the !vote rationale. Masem (t) 02:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: The prime minister appointment is ITNR, though Thaksin's return is an equally significant and politically linked development which should also be mentioned, so I've made this a regular nom. The context of this past three months' political wrangling is very complicated, and these are the shortest blurbs I could come up with. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this - ITNR declares HoG changes important - but maybe Shinawatra could be separated or removed to clean it up a bit? I get it's important of course with me having followed these politics for a while, but it's just really long
Support Oh my, what a convoluted story! Would suggest bolding the new PM Srettha Thavisin and adding a picture of himd, and deleting Thaksin Shinawatra from the blurb (if he gets pardoned by the new gov at some point, we can deliberate posting that). But I'm also fine keeping him in. Khuft (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a shorter but more concise altblurb. The quality of Shinawatra's article needs a lot of work. On the other hand, Thavisin's is good enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support posting the new PM, but the Shinawatra story is distinct enough where a separate blurb is needed IMO. It's not immediately apparent to a casual reader why he has relevance to Thailand getting a new PM. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 21:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - PM election is ITN/R (I think) even though the election was posted a few months ago. Support the return of Shinawatra too. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be blurbed together.--estar8806 (talk) ★21:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support PM Blurb and Oppose Shinawatra blurb. Former is in theory INT/R. I don't see what is so significant however about coming back from a "self-imposed" exile. He has not been in a position of power since 2006. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He has not been in an official position of power since 2006, but he has been pulling strings from afar, the central polarising figure splitting the fault lines of Thai politics for most of the past two decades. But yes, such background information can't easily be conveyed in a single blurb. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've adjusted the nom to have Srettha's article as the bolded item instead of the election's per the first three comments. I've also added Alt3, which leaves out Thaksin's return. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt III The PM change is WP:ITNR, and the article quality is sufficient. Thaksin's page has a ways to go to meet sourcing standards, and should not hold up the main item.—Bagumba (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My intent was to reflect the unusualness of the situation a bit, as in Following three months of unprecedented post-election wrangling in which the party that won the most seats was blocked from forming a government by the unelected senate..., but that's not really possible to convey within constraints of a blurb, so shortening might be for the best. That said, more of the relevant info is in 2023 Thai general election#Government formation than the Srettha Thavisin article, so I would rather that a link be somehow included. How about "Srettha Thavisin(pictured) becomes Prime Minister of Thailand after an election by the National Assembly."? (Personally I try to avoid using election for the parliamentary vote as it's a bit confusing, but some news sources do use it so I guess it shouldn't really be a problem. Also, parliament is an unofficial term used quite commonly by news sources to refer to the National Assembly, but let's stick to the more technically correct term as you suggested.) --Paul_012 (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...leading with 'following general elections in May' makes it sound like this all happened in May: If it "all happened in May", it wouldn't still be posted now. The delay is a major part of the story. The New York Times article begins with: After a three-month delay, Thailand’s Parliament chose the country’s next prime minister on Tuesday, picking a real estate tycoon from a party seen as acceptable to conservative elites. The move ends, for now, a prolonged period of uncertainty that had pushed the country to the cusp of a political crisis.[2]Parliament is interchangeable with National Assembly, and is probably better understood globally, without needing a click. For example, The Bangkok Post headline was "Parliament elects Srettha prime minister"[3]—Bagumba (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: Re: May: yes, I understand what's happening. Unfortunately, the ambiguous wording muddles the timing and doesn't make it clear to readers that there were two separate votes by different things. If you have a better way of conveying the timing and complex political dynamics here, I'm all ears. On parliament: on a quick scan sources appear to mostly use the phrase "Thailand's parliament" as their wording, like The New York Times. The original altblurb did not use "Thailand" until the final word.
I think the delay can be clarified as Three months after general elections..., though the above short suggestion is also Fine by me (but maybe pipe out the last Thailand as it reads as a bit redundant?) --Paul_012 (talk) 15:32, 23 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.
Nominator's comments: This seems to be getting reasonable international coverage though I'm not sure if it has reached the French press yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does "reaching #1 immediately" mean? Lots of songs went to #1 upon release. This record sounds like less of an earth-shattering moment in pop culture than a trivial tidbit thats getting a lot of attention because of its cool factor. Kurtis(talk)09:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that it’s the musician’s first song to make the Billboard list at all, and it did so in the #1 position. Looking through the article you linked, most of the songs were not the debut works of the artists (e.g. Michael Jackson was already famous long before 1995). I’m still not sure of the importance of the claimed record however, and a little unsure of its veracity (why wouldn’t, for example, Brandy (You're a Fine Girl) also meet this criterion?). 98.170.164.88 (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it’s the first ever song to chart immediately at number one for which the artist has never previously had any chart activity at all. Boscaswelltalk10:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb should be reworded for clarity. The quote Bagumba gave from the Guardian is closer to what we're looking for; it specifies the fact that this is the first time an artist's debut single became a chart-topper upon release. Otherwise, I'm neutral as to whether or not this merits a blurb—sort of leaning towards oppose, but I'm open to being persuaded. Kurtis(talk)11:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I understand better what the claimed record is. I’m still not convinced it’s important enough to post though, and we don’t usually post items like this. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Neither the BBC nor the CBC sources make any mention of the Billboard charting, only the political American pop cultural aspects of the song's reception. And as mentioned above, there is no record being broken. The reported historical achievement is specifically for doing so "with no prior chart history in any form", so oppose as worded. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, The Guardian says ...debuted at number 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, making him the first artist to do this with no prior chart history in any form.[4]—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantic I suppose, but surely this would have happened quite a few times in the early days of Billboard? As a comparison, though, it's happened quite a few times in the UK charts. Black Kite (talk)10:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wouldn't this or this also hit the criterion? Unless I've misunderstood something... Black Kite (talk)
Rolling Stone cites this announcement on Billboard as the source. That gives a variety of details including six artists who did something similar but not quite so out-of-the-blue. I suppose they have access to a database as they comment on other near-misses like "the singer-songwriter marks a rare unsigned artist at No. 1 on the Hot 100. Lisa Loeb became the first such act, when “Stay (I Missed You)” led in 1994, although the song was released on RCA Records". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: I am not a regular at ITN (in fact I think I may have edited it for the first time ever today) so maybe I am not that clued up, but I have to agree this doesn't really seem like something which belongs alongside (takes a glance at the current ITN) massacres, natural disasters and presidential assassinations...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Despite appearances, there is no minimum death requirement for ITN entries and the section often features lots of sport which is similar pop culture. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a political topic due to the nature of the song, and would fall under "day to day" aspects of the current culture war happening in the US. It is the type of story that makes headlines but the encyclopedic nature is fuzzy and unclear. (I can also see that if this was posted as is, that there would likely be some readers and editors offended that we even gave that song the light of day on the main page, but that's not a reason to oppose, just more a caution of where this may go). --Masem (t) 12:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a protest sing? Perhaps, but most outlets see it having white nationalism/far right ties, and it has become a type of anthem and rallying cry for MAGA. I don't know if it written with that intention, but the result has been this massive attention to the song from the right, which is attributed for why this is #1 on Billboard. While the factoid is onterest (first debut at #1), this is just too politically charged to be a good ITN item. Masem (t) 13:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should oppose an item purely because it is politically divisive. In the run-up to the 2024 election there will be a lot of notable, if polarising, events that will be nominated on here. If we didn't want to be politically divisive then we would not have posted the 2020 election, or Jan 6th, or BLM, etc. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that the song is political is spurious. Like The Atlantic (no fire-breathing conservative magazine, that one) said: "Why is so much press coverage of this viral song focused solely on politics? [...] I struggle to imagine a mainstream media site reacting to Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi’s praise of a songwriter by suggesting that the artist is therefore a presumptively leftist act who ought to be covered mainly as a political and politicized phenomenon."[1]). Same is expressed at SFGATE, which also decries the politization of Anthony by third parties: «More likely, he was just singing whatever was on his mind, and then everyone else decided to use it for their own ends».[2] It is the media that has politicized an artistic product. George Orwell warned about those who believe what they see on the media, and disregard their own eyes and ears.XavierItzm (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that this is a politically conflicting song, but simple underneath the trivia of being the first #1 by a first time artist (that itself is not ITN worthy), it is what politics have driven this song to be #1 that is really the headline here. And because this is a political issue with no clear immediate consequences, its not the type of story we post. Masem (t) 17:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is essentially about right-wing American politics and sits with other similar stories in the news, eg Trump/Georgia, Trump/Primary debates. Not for ITN, in my opinion. Nigej (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have we ever posted such records before? If not, than oppose - at the risk of entering into political territory, as a right-winger myself, it's pretty clear that this was the product of immense astroturfing at the hands of Conservative Inc. — Knightoftheswords14:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is a DYK, not an ITN. Andrew, you seriously need to stop nominating literally everything and consider whether it's even going to stand up to WP:SNOW before posting it here. AryKun (talk) 17:13, 22 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.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Previously nominated on 8/8, but discussion was closed with a consensus to wait until he formally took office on the 22nd, which is today. Article is short but adequate, kept same update credits from the last nom. The Kip (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks good to go. I've added an altblurb that seems more accurate to me: today he has been sworn in (he is no longer appointed PM. Hun Manet is now the official and formal Prime Minister) and it's important to add that his father spent almost four decades at the helm of the country. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The United Nations Middle East envoy says the conflict has killed over 200 Palestinians and nearly 30 Israelis this year, surpassing the previous year. (AP)
Two people are injured by falling debris from a Ukrainian drone strike on Moscow and flights are disrupted at the city's airports. Russia says they shot down one drone and jammed another. (Reuters)
Cypruspolice rescue 18 Syrian migrants after their boat started taking on water off the island's southeastern coast. (AP)
Greekpatrol boats rescue nearly 80 migrants in the eastern Aegean Sea who were trying to cross from Turkey in inflatable dinghies in two separate incidents. (AP)
Twelve people are killed and 19 others are injured when a bus crashes into a roadside ditch in Yozgat, Turkey. (AP)
Eleven people are killed in an explosion at a coal mine in Yan'an, Shanxi, China. (AP)
One person is killed and two others are injured in a high-rise building explosion in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. (AKIPress)
Nominator's comments: This is rather like the Olympics in that there are numerous types of event and so there's a lot to keep track of. I'm not sure that we're keeping up but perhaps listing it here will help. It's Day 3 already but it runs for another six. It's WP:ITN/R but the nomination template doesn't seem to handle ongoing and ITNR together. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unlike the Olympics or the World Cups, this typically does not get major daily news coverage to make it necessary for ongoing. This event is ITNR for its completion. And even with that, comparing this year's article to the 2022 one, this one is nowhere close to be ready for posting to main page. --Masem (t) 12:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, oppose on quality I don't know about you, but all the newspapers I'm reading do have significant coverage of the athletics championships, especially the marquee events like the 100m, 200m, 4x400m, and other ones with more charismatic athletes like hammer throw and shot-put. 13:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose on quality. Article is a table farm, and very little prose about the events. Tables should supplement prose, not replace it. --Jayron3214:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stats - The 2023 World Athletics Championships ranked #39 most read for August 19th, 2023, or 181,291 views. Sandwiched in between XXXX (beer) and Beverley Allitt. Ranked just a little higher at #35 on the 20th. As Bertrand Russell once said, "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." Also, oppose on quality and probably does not merit an ongoing post either. A blurb, yes. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)18:19, 21 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.
Nominator's comments: Notable news, sentencing of murderer after UK's longest murder trial - fourth UK woman to be sentenced to a whole-life order. Osarius13:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that part of this was Jayron32's support !vote.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This exact article was posted, and pulled, just a few days ago. As a note, I supported it then, and I still do. But some large group of people will come along to tell you that your country ain't worth shit, and news from your country needs to be squashed and kept off the main page, which is largely what caused it to be pulled. --Jayron3214:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the supports said something to the effect of "big news in the UK", which isn't a reason that is going to convince international editors, especially when the impact of the story is questionable. No one is saying the UK's news means nothing, but we're clearly looking for more here beyond "it's a big story in x country". DarkSide830 (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's right in the instructions of this page. It says, and I quote "Please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." Literally everyone who says "Oppose, because this is only important in the UK" should be summarily ignored by the admins who post articles, and it's a major failure of the system that they aren't. It literally says that argument is invalid. --Jayron3215:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True does not mean relevant to the discussion. Lots of things are true, but unless they matter, they just distract from the discussion at hand, which should be an assessment of article quality and an assessment of how the news is covering the story, and NOT a chance for people to flex their cultural gatekeeping muscles. --Jayron3211:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is sourced and ready. This case har received attention both national and international, throughout an extensive amount of time.BabbaQ (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Letby story has legs as it was still the front page lead in the Times and Telegraph today. It has dropped a bit with our readership (#24 yesterday) but is still getting more views than ITN's blurb topics such as Luna 25. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Times and the Telegraph are British newspapers. France is a country of similar population, economy size and foreign policy influence as the UK. Are all these different stories on French front pages therefore suitable to go on ITN? [5] If not, why not? If we're playing the "ITN must serve English-speaking readers' interests" game, where is it in the Australian printed newspapers? [6]Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown Temptation asks whether the stories currently on the front page of French newspapers are suitable to go on ITN. Looking at the first headline listed, which is on the cover of Le Monde, it seems to be this story in their English edition: China's unprecedented economic crisis worries the rest of the world. Wikipedia covers that story in the article 2020–2023 Chinese property sector crisis and, apart from some quality issues, there's no reason why that shouldn't be considered here too -- I've already been wondering whether to nominate it. But obstructing a story set in England isn't going to help in getting a story about another country posted. ITN's problem is that it isn't posting much of anything and one reason is the beggar-my-neighbour obstructionism that we see here. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Close. The more important story is the conviction, whose discussion is ongoing. All another nomination does is split the dialogue, which should be redirected to that discussion. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck because the previous discussion has since been closed. As of now am neutral, but preferring a blurb that focused on the conviction over the sentencing. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
M8, as stated in my initial closure that you reverted, the conviction and sentencing are inextricably linked; do you really believe that consensus would be against posting the conviction but magically pull an Italy and change their tune when it comes to the sentencing? Considering how this new nom is already looking, I think not. — Knightoftheswords17:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this new nom looks like five supporting with reason against four and three-quarters opposing without. Anyway, it was a very close race we had, no hard feelings. Maybe next time just don't worry about Wikilinking and italicizing Latin in your summary (plain English works best, IMO). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t feel too defeated. The article appeared on ITN for half a day. These kind of articles are always going to get opposition.BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who's feeling defeated? You're a Swede, I'm a Canadian, Jayron's an American. This idea that the other 40% of us are the only sorts on Earth who might care is defeated. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe next time just don't worry about Wikilinking and italicizing Latin in your summary (plain English works best, IMO)., okay, effective duplicate, happy now? — Knightoftheswords05:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am becoming very disillusioned with ITN and have cut back my participation due to the constant battles over supposed UK and US bias, with Wikipedia:ITNCDONT point 2 routinely ignored. Andrew is quite right above when he says that opposing a UK based story will do nothing to get stories from other countries posted. A whole life tariff is exceptionally rare and this story is getting widespread coverage. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My read of the !votes between these two, excluding the issue of the fast posting if the first one, is not an argument about this affecting only one country, only just in one country where this occurs, this will have little impact and is only a matter of closure on a tragic event. It still was only a domestic (not international) crime and did expose flaws in the British health system, but unless I am missing something in the current article, we're not going to see a massive change in the system there. I don't think saying this is like celebrity or gossip news is a fair comparison since this was a serious need for justice to the families that lost their children from this, but at the same type it is more of a spectacle (a highly visible trial) due to the heinous nature of the crime. But it is not going to have a major impact within the UK compared to, say, Boris Johnson resigning. Masem (t) 20:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant support - I have my gripes over the fact that this would have never even come close to being posted if it was a US story; however, ultimately, I think that this meets WP:ITNPURPOSE and should be posted. I hope that this incident shall be a learning experience and inform us that we shouldn't be creating arbitrary standards on perceived notability requirements over which side of the Atlantic the story occured in. — Knightoftheswords20:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a prominent headline whose inclusion on ITN is in the interest of our readers. While we're here, the conviction post shouldn't have been pulled, either. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Conviction is the time that we should have posted this, but as that discussion has been closed in favour of this one this is where I have to put my support. I don't know how you can get more significant than the conviction of the most prolific child murderer in the history of a country with a very long history and one of the top 2 cases of individual medical malpractice by an individual since at least the creation of the NHS (the other being Harold Shipman). This case will have a very long-lasting impact. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regardless of whether this is a new nomination or supposed to be combined with the one below. It's tabloid news, and has no notable long-term impact. Banedon (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a uniquely heinous crime. Its also unusual in that she was on female serial killer only a handful of which we have pages for . "Letby is the most prolific serial killer of children in modern British history." - To be frank, I don't think the people objecting to this nomination would object to posting the American equivalent of this person.--Llewee (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uniquely? The article itself mentions multiple other medical practitioner murderers both in the UK and elsewhere, such as Beverley Allitt, who also was also known for more or less the same thing. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Taking both discussions into account (and also accounting for those who !voted on both) I believe there is consensus to post this again. Black Kite (talk)18:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an idea here that the opening of a new nom wipes the votes from the prior, which I personally find to be somewhat manipulative of consensus, but alas. The Kip (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
??? Under that logic, if the opposes outnumbered the supports 10:1 in a first nom, but then a later nom occurs when the story has more info, the supports outnumber the opposition 5:1, that story wouldn't be posted if we were to factor the other one. — Knightoftheswords19:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that The Kip is partially right in that a new nom should not wipe votes from the prior. But you're also right that could be problematic. Personally, I think that a second nom should only be posted if the support for it is greater than the opposition to the first nom, or if there was a significant amount of opposers that switched to supporters. I don't think that the support here is greater than the opposition to the last nom. estar8806 (talk) ★22:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Haven't taken part in this (or the previous) discussion, but let's please not start a new discussion on pulling this! It's done, it's posted, no harm is done by having this blurbed. Going back and forth posting and pulling this for trivial disagreements on notoriety is what harms ITN's reputation within the broader community and does us no favours. I've shared my opinion previously that Pulling should only be done in extreme cases, where quality issues are present. Khuft (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
↑↑↑ This. In an ideal world (an ideal ITN/C) it'd get pushed off in 48-72 hours anyway. The article is also now in much better shape than when the verdict was posted. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose - per my opinion in the last discussion. I also would like to mention that there hardly appears to be a consensus to post here, and accounting for the last nomination (which was pulled), I don't understand how this was posted.--estar8806 (talk) ★21:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
18 supports (edit: Jayron32's support containing a valid support rationale was hatted due to a rant which spurred unrelated discussion) with only 6 opposes (DarkSide withdrew theirs), 4 of which under the rationale that the previous discussion was open. I'd definitely call that a consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kip's, TwistedAxe's, Alsor's, PrecariousWorlds', Banedon's and yours. Who did I miss? I think 18 to 6 (which is basically 2) is an overwhelming amount of support, not to mention BabbaQ's argument of long term impact against an oppose wasn't addressed. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the antithesis. It's a convenient way of getting a feel for the discussion at a glance as long as the arguments for each !vote are all valid and not really addressed. In this case I'd only count 1 oppose as unaddressed and 1 support as addressed. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment - A whole-life order? Sounds like something my insurance agent is nagging a client to meet his monthly sales goal. Any different than "imprisoned for life"? CoatCheck (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CoatCheck: I believe this is a WP:ENGVAR situation, where we defer to British usage although American would differ. The words "whole-life order" are blue-linked in the blurb for anyone who wants more of an explanation. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 23 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.
Indian police stop a meeting of activists, academics and politicians discussing global issues ahead of a summit of the G20 that will be hosted in New Delhi. (AP)
A special election is held to elect the president and the National Assembly to complete the current four-year terms. Presidential candidates Luisa González and Daniel Noboa will face off in a second round vote on 15 October. (CNN)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The 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.
Comment I've been working on this article for quiet a bit to make sure it's good for posting once a president is elected. Not sure if we post first round election results on ITN? If so, shouldn't González be the one who's pictured since she came in first place? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:35, 21 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.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
My opinion isn't very important, I know, but looks good to me. Pretty important to regional stability - that orange tag seems cleaned up also? I support this. River10000 (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and suggest AltBlurb2: short & sweet, focused on the outcome rather than the process, and Arévalo's article is somewhat tidier than the election article. A bit sea-of-bluish, though. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted tweaked altblurb 2. The runoff is the only new news because the congressional elections happened with round 1 of the presidential vote in June, so the first altblurb wasn't an option. Ed[talk][majestic titan]14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added citations to address the CN tags, plus some more refs from her obituary in The Guardian. There's a lot more that could be written about someone who lived through 107 years of Chinese history, but I don't think that prevents an ITN inclusion now. @HistoryTheorist and InedibleHulk:: Can you take a look? Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait It's just two right now. Another might arise, but it's not like waiting for a filmography to never get ready. Fun Facts: She was 107 and also British! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article now has the basics of her life (plenty of expansion also possible). When a 107-year-old with a very interesting life history dies, it seems like a good time to bring them to prominence.Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted) Luna 25 crash
Article:Luna 25 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Russian lunar landerLuna 25 crashes on the Moon's surface with the loss of contact. (Post) Alternative blurb: Russian lunar landerLuna 25 crashes on the Moon's surface. News source(s):CNN, BBC Credits:
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: In line with ITNR's "arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations" and because of historical failure (Russia’s first lunar landing mission in 47 years, since 1976) I think this is postable anyway. Brandmeistertalk12:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe the previous crash landings of lunar probes were posted. The funny part is that we might also end up merging the blurb with the Indian lunar lander blurb(if it succeeds). Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main problem I see is that, even if this is significant enough for ITN, the article says nothing about the significance of the crash, only listing basic event updates. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this was discussed when the Spacex rocket exploded a while ago, and the general consensus seemed to be that a failed mission is generally not notable enough for ITN, nor valid for the recurring ITN on rockets. Flyingfishee (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it was decided that launch failures/first launches aren’t worthy (which I agree with, considering the sheer number of new commercially-built rockets); this is something different entirely, in being a mission failure. The Kip (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its been over 40 years since Russia (then the USSR) attempted to land on the moon, hence why its the Luna 25, and it failed. So I see the relevance. Stick to first blurb though, not the alternate. TheCorriynial (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support significant event because this is the first time in 40 years that Russia tried to land on the moon, so this would be significant in the new space race. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted per the strong consensus in support above. That said, while the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY, per 2G0o2De0l it could definitely be expanded upon. I would particularly love to see more information about the great power politics that got attached to this mission. There's also one citation tagged for needing a non-primary source. Ed[talk][majestic titan]03:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second article updated, first needs updating One or both nominated events are 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.
Oppose Prose summary of the match is needed first. The article for the final also needs more citations so that the orange tag is fixed and preferably the stay on topic tags should be fixed, but they’re not as show stopping.Support Everything’s fixed, looks good to go. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror12:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until a prose summary is added and citation issues are addressed. Much of the Background section is also filled with statistics with little meaningful context and should be trimmed. SounderBruce17:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The prose summary has been added, but several citations in the Background section have been removed due to being cited to a Forbes contributor piece (which are unreliable per WP:RSP). SounderBruce20:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A World Cup final! And this year's Women's World Cup has been much more mediatized than the previous ones. Definitely far above the notability threshold. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for comments on significance: One or both nominated events are 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.Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror20:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support! Came here to express shock that it has been a day and a half and this still isn't posted! The articles both look good, and we've posted significantly worse quality articles for men's sports no one cares about. Tens of millions of people watched this live, including me. This was the best WWC yet in my opinion. Post it! e.b. (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add photo in nombox - literally no argument has been made for not having the photo other than I presume vibes? We've featured screenshots on the MP multiple times; it's not the best, but it doesn't have to be a damn NASA planetary scan either. — Knightoftheswords05:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moot This article has already been run daily in ITN for an entire month now (with about 5 million views). Further discussion of quality and/or significance is therefore largely pointless as it's a done deal. All that remains is a formality as the wording of the blurb is stereotyped. What needs attention now is the 2023 World Athletics Championships which started yesterday, is ITN/R and seems to need some TLC. Shouldn't that now take the Ongoing slot? Andrew🐉(talk) 21:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and remove from ongoing. I had the same opinion as Twistedaxe coming into this discussion. The event is dunzo, and it's time for the blurb. I echo the concerns of Andrew as well on placing the World Athletics Championships over under ongoing also. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They think it's all over We're still showing the event as Ongoing which is wrong as it's over now. I was amazed to read that the winning team had just two hours to get to the airport afterwards and so they didn't hang about. We should likewise pull the ongoing entry to show that we're on the ball.
But Oppose posting the link to the final as its prose is too purple and contains several Colemanballs. Here's a good example, "She was seeking to become the first manager to win the tournament with a foreign national team and the oldest manager to win the tournament, having aged 53 years 9 months 25 days during the final."
Support without photo I have finally dealt with all the unsourced statements in the final article, so should be gtg on quality grounds. AryKun (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Listen, like most people, I absolutely don't care about this event. This said, it's so notable to, uh, people who are very fond of football, I guess, that it should be in the news even if the article just says "Viva siempre España!". complainer14:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's ITN/R, no one's arguing over the notability. What people are discussing is the quality, which is why a statement saying the quality doesn't matter is dumb. AryKun (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that "so" before "notable"? It's there because it's ITNR, but not actually ITN and these discussions about commas and lighting end up having things that should be ITN get YN and straight into WGAFAL before they actually are ITN. And that's why being rude is dumb.
Support once CN tags are fixed: There's still around 4-5 CN tags on the article about the match, but otherwise both articles are in decent shape for ITN. Should expect them to get fixed very soon. Neutral on the issues about the photo. S5A-0043Talk02:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bonmati - Golden Ball winner
Support and mark Ready again - CN tags fixed on the final article. Note that Aitana Bonmatí was given Player of the Tournament, a higher accolade than the Player of the Match in the final, and we have a better image of her than we do of Carmona (though I have to say it's still not brilliant!). Black Kite (talk)08:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Comment Should be a blurb. John Warnock is a very influential figure (considering he co-founded Adobe) and his death is being covered heavily in news. Article looks good as well, although death section could use some expanding. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb per Iamstillqw3rty as Warnock made quite a difference, garnered many major awards and left a significant legacy, devising the Warnock algorithm and being the prime mover for the PDF format, for example. They are recognised as WP:VITAL but were not a household name and so just putting the name alone in RD is meaningless. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Via various talk page arguments, we have already eliminated the use of Vital Articles to determine who to blurb, because that project itself had haphazard inclusion metrics. Masem (t) 12:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the interminable arguments have settled nothing and so blurbing is still done on a "sui generis" basis. So, anything goes and if editors wish to respect the prior work and judgement of WikiProject Vital Articles then they may do so. Assertions that the other project is haphazard are just a case of WP:POT. See also not invented here. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD due to multiple unsourced statements. Strong oppose blurb - here we go again. Can’t wait for this discussion to get wildly off-topic from the page quality which should be the only concern. The Kip (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Support I've done significant sourcing work on the article; there's only one unsourced statement/cn tag left. It can be removed if worst comes to worst. I believe the quality is now sufficient for RD. I'll let other editors decide on blurb. Oh and @The Kip:@Masem: feel free to reevaluate quality. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror18:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oupeye, Liège Province, Belgium, bans gatherings of more than four people following riots. The riots spread to the neighboring commune of Herstal. A school and various homes were damaged and garbage can fires were reported. (7Sur7)(Le Soir)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article 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: Philadelphia Eagles Hall of Famer and one of my all-time favorite players. Needs more work but I'll make sure to get it done. RIP. BeanieFan11 (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: Following the Yellowknife evacuation in the Northwest Territories (which is still in the news), there's now an emergency in British Columbia. The map shows the overall extent of the fires and the BBC has a good graph showing how this is so much worse than previous years. Perhaps an ongoing entry would be best but we might start with a blurb to show the map. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing would be best. Appending an image isn't outside the realm of possibility, either, just subject to a fear of change. Right now, of course, BC and the NWT are the most newsworthy, but Quebec was and might be there again soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have had an article on the 2023 heat waves (which should cover the wildfires across the globe too) being suggested multiple times now for an ongoing, but no one has bothered to try to bring this to speed, instead focusing on local situations. I would oppose on just featuring one region's wildfires, outside of a situation like Maui where 100+ died and making it a standalone event. But just having lots of wildfires is not sufficient to make the one region stand out on its own. --Masem (t) 12:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The temperature right now in West Kelowna is 13°C (55°F) which is cool rather than hot. As explained already, these fires are driven by drought and wind, more than heat. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sun heat, anyway. The rains turns the fires to clouds and the clouds pelt the forests with lightning. That's crazy heat, the sort that burns roots underneath wet sand and even melts the sand for good measure. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing Worst wildfire season on record in North America, and still affecting all provinces of Canada; also, article is well sourced and of fine quality. Because of this (it happening throughout all of Canada), it seems better to post in ongoing, as posting a blurb just about British Columbia would not point to all of the news relating to the fires (for example, Yellowknife being evacuated).
Ongoing - Regardless of whether it's making news in other parts of the globe in Germany or New Zealand or Djibouti, the worst wildfire season on record in Canada and North America in my opinion counts for something. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)15:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing would be appropriate. The 2023 season is far and away the worst in Canadian history, having burned through triple the hectacres of 2021 (the previous record holder), according to BBC News. There are also significant fires impacting parts of the United States, so an upmerge may be appropriate at some point. SounderBruce18:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ongoing—I agree that we should refer to them as the North American wildfires rather than singling out Canada, as the US has been affected as well. Kurtis(talk)23:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing for Canada only. There are ongoing wildfires in many parts of the world (those in Greece are still severe and receive media coverage), so extending this to North America makes a strong argument to go even beyond it, but we cannot go thus far and post “Global wildfires”. Canada seems to be the hot spot these days, and that’s what should be posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is summer in the northern hemisphere. Climate change. Wildfires are commonplace, as are evacuations and emergency declarations. In Tenerife there are 26,000 evacuees [7], and the figure may rise. The situation was very serious in Rhodes, as it is and can be throughout the Mediterranean and North America (as it usually is in California and Canada) all this season. Why this exception? _-_Alsor (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Canada has the 3rd most hectares burned in a country in a year (2019-20 Australia is #1) and might even beat it since it has 13 to 15+ million hectares now and the year ends New Years Day. It usually isn't serious in Canada, it's already 3 times their highest hectares in a year. California got soaked by a Noachian rainstorm this spring, this year isn't as bad as the one with the city destroyer or the one with a fire bigger than the combined size of the 7 smallest European countries (Lux to Pope) plus half of New York City. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing: This has been widely covered internationally and seems genuinely unprecedented, particularly the evacuation of a provincial capital. "Other stuff isn't listed" is an argument for listing those other things - not for not listing this one.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yellowknife is a territorial capital, not provincial, and the Northwest Territories is one territory. This doesn't make it less unprecedented and probably doesn't matter to most people. Just a reminder. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer it to be blurbed, instead of directly putting it into ongoing. Not sure what the argument is to hide it in the ongoing bar without first blurbing it. Given the slowness of the current news cycle, it's bound to stay blurbed for quite some time anyway. Khuft (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to ongoing per the strong consensus above. Most people supported ongoing without mentioning their thoughts on blurbing it, so that discussion should continue. Ed[talk][majestic titan]03:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ones in that target article basically are. We appreciate the help from other countries and have already apologized for helping turn New York orange. But most disasters have spillover, somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Posting Support as Ongoing. This is a valid situation where it's worth posting directly to Ongoing. A sustained story that would probably not be blurbed in it's current state, but is worth featuring somewhere by ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The city of Kelowna, British Columbia, declares a state of emergency and evacuations, as wildfires engulf parts of the city and surrounding area. Lake Okanagan Resort and several residential buildings are destroyed. (CTV News Vancouver)
In Oupeye, Liège Province, Belgium, a man on a quad bike is shot dead by police after running over a policeman and refusing to stop at a police control. Anti-police riots break out in the village and eleven people are arrested. (Le Soir)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article 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: Beloved Internet dog. I know that this page was created post mortem but there was in-depth coverage from around the world over several years before he died. Memes/social media personalities are divisive when it comes to notability but please can the discussion be on ITN and debate the notability by other channels if needs be. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like dogs on the internet but my spider-sense starts tingling when I see mention of cryptocurrency. The sources look unconvincing and don't seem to be the quality of links that I want to start clicking on. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Weak Support The article looks like it's in good shape, but I don't know if his electoral history needs more citations. I'll try to add more myself, and once it gets cited, I'll change my support. ❤HistoryTheorist❤19:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, article looks good and while the electoral history could use more refs, it is uncontroversial and shouldn't hold up posting. Also, what are the chances that the oldest living governor and the oldest living U.S. senator died on the same day? Davey2116 (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Oppose The watches are not important in the grand scheme even if historic. Wait for the effects to be felt and then we can revisit this. Noah, AATalk00:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Noah. At the moment this is trivia. If there are major impacts we can revisit. And can we please not re-nom this if the impacts are just minor? Simply because a TS [likely to be a TS by then] hits somewhere where it is rare doesn't mean it should be in ITN. Again, that is trivia. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s an El Niño year in which the Pacific high pressure is pushed further north than usual. Additionally, this storm is taking the only possible path to hit California. If it were further west, it would die over cold water. if it were further East, mountains would shred it. There is no certainty it will even be a tropical storm at landfall either because the NHC has a track record of being biased in the EPAC for weakening storms as a result of models failing to weaken the storms fast enough. It has happened time and time again. Noah, AATalk02:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's not trivia if you live in California, yeah. But this feels like the Cyclone Gabrielle thing, where we nearly went and blurbed the story because it was the first time a national state of emergency was issued - a fact so important that...it isn't even mentioned in the article. Hypothetically speaking, do you really consider this event ITN worthy if, say, the cyclone rapidly deteriorates and produces only minor impacts along its path, or it's path changes and its impacts likewise do not end up being severe? California has had severe weather before - that it is accompanied by a TS warning has fairly little boarder importance. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All three could use improvements too. For instance, the Europe article still says nothing about the current unprecedented Mediterrannean Sea marine heat wave which brought sea temperatures to levels that usually create hurricanes in the Atlantic basin, nor record overnight lows resulting from these sea temperatures. DaßWölf15:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mediterranean hurricanes would have to far enough from the summer dry season to storm but not so far that the water cools down too much. The first one will probably occur within my lifetime. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Medicanes have been happening already, FWIW. Yes their tropical characteristics are disputed, but several have been hurricane strength. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was meaning more clearly tropical cyclones though the NHC's authority doesn't include the Mediterranean part of the Atlantic, unless it's changed since I last saw the world map (JMA (Tokyo) is the one that says yes or no in this zone, PAGASA (Philippines) is secondary in its subset of E. Pac, NHC (Miami) is the one in these borders and so on) there's no official agency there. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediterrannean basin is relatively small and fragmented, and its coastline is dominated by mountains, so storm damage is usually caused by rainfall, rather than winds or storm surges. Whether the storms exhibit tropical characteristics and hurricane-force winds is more of a scientific curiosity. Intense storms are named by official agencies (see European windstorm), although not all countries get strong, large and lasting storm systems often enough to take interest in the names.
I mainly mentioned hurricanes to emphasise how hot the Mediterrannean was in July and early August, considering how much farther poleward it is than the region where Atlantic hurricanes usually form. DaßWölf23:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, renominate if something happens While it is sort of historic that we're seeing a hurricane this side of the Pacific, I would wait until the storm actually touches land. Storm alerts are one thing, but the damage done will determine whether I support this storm being posted. ❤HistoryTheorist❤01:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until impacts are known, currently, impacts are almost non-existent and will be minimal for the next few days. Until impacts are known (likely after a landfall), I'm currently opposing. If the impacts are notable enough, I'll change to support it. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 01:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While the first blurb suggests that this is the first tropical storm watch to be issued in Southern CA, it isn't, and it isn't the first tropical storm to affect the area. The first occurrence of such events was from Hurricane Nora in 1997. I'm not sure if I'm not noticing something in blurb 1, but that's what I noticed. Mobius Gerig (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mobius Gerig: As the editor who rewrote Nora earlier in the year, I can confirm that no tropical storm watches or warnings were issued for California or Arizona because of Nora, just your normal day-to-day watches/warnings. From what im told by a well placed Wikipedian inside the NWS, its because of the computer systems in operation back in the day. That being said I am also going to state that we should wait until the system makes landfall and we have a better grip on the impacts.Jason Rees (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you look again, it’s almost solely the remnants of a storm rather than a tropical storm or hurricane hitting directly. Noah, AATalk02:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose impacts associated with Hilary isn't going to cut it for ITN. Impacts aren't notable enough, I'm looking at flooding, road closures, and 4 fatalities, 3 of them indirect, and that ain't notable for an ITN post. And, Hilary didn't make landfall in southern California so only the watches issued were historic. TailsWx (they/them) ⚧ 15:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It entered California but possibly only from Mexico which wouldn't be a landfall. Possibly the center briefly entered California state waters (cause of the curve of the beach) and came back which would be a landfall. Seems pedantic to me. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I'm from the Los Angeles metro area, and although this storm did wreak some havoc namely flooding, fallen trees, washed out roads, I feel that is not enough to warrant inclusion. And I actually decided to wait a day or two to post my decision to assess the impact. Oh, and I'm one that previously supported putting the 2023 Monterey Park shooting on ITN so I'm not those "Oh, that's just US-centric news" fallacy folks.
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.
Nominator's comments: Major story in UK, Letby most prolific child serial killer in modern UK history. Article on her crimes, links back to Letby. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article needs some minor work (Inquiry section needs expansion), but once its up to ITN standards this seems notable and worthy of a blurb (perhaps some alt. blurbs could be proposed, not a huge fan of the current). Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I question the need for the tag on the inquiry section, it'd work fine as a few sentences in another section, so that seems like a minor detail that doesn't need to hold this up. Quality is fine otherwise, and the story is being widely covered in the news. --Jayron3217:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the instructions above "Please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." Such questions should play no factor in whether or not a story is appropriate for the main page. This is being widely covered by news sources from the US, Qatar, Australia, India, and probably news sources in other languages besides English, but that's what I found by spending less time than it took you to type your condescending question about this. Do some work before commenting here, and actually look for sources like the rest of us did. If you can't be bothered to do a modicum of research before leaving a comment, then don't. --Jayron3217:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, can you chill? condescending question; they LITERALLY just asked a nine word question and you're getting this upset? Yeah, I wonder why ITN has a bad rep, when we act with such exquisite respect and understanding to newbies (and yes, in this context, they are a newbie; despite being on this site since 2003, they've only made a combined total of eight edits on INT/C)? Again, nine words from a non-regular set you off and led to you as an admin making WP:BITEy, WP:PERSONAL ATTACKs, and WP:ASPERSIONS on Secretlondon (talk·contribs), who again, has only made eight edits here. Utterly fucking ridiculous, and immensely disappointing behavior from an admin I typically respect. — Knightoftheswords03:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, yes, as someone who created the shortcut links for those very guidelines I think ITN stories shouldn't be decided via geographic location, and SL is somewhat wrong for doing that... but bro, let's be real frank here, where do you believe that they got that conception from? Do not throw stones in a glass house. It's no surprise that newcomers will come onto ITN not believing in the de jure rule that ITN noms aren't dependant on a story's location when in practice, regulars regularly (ha) reject stories on the basis of location all the time. It's apart of the ITN canon, and for us to bathe in this behavior when we're isolated in our small echo-chamber but then go apeshit when a monkey does what he sees is absurd and duplicitous. In fact to add on to this, tying back into those shortcut links, I also created WP:ITNUSA, specifically because this is disproportionately done to U.S based stories. Tying back to SL's comment above, I think that asking for global significance is an understandable concern given the literal years worth of editors (many, if not a majority of which are from the UK) habitually opposing stories from the US with the sole rationale of "it occured in America." Yeah, American mass shootings are also reported globally, yet they rarely get posted in 5 hours.
Overall, this behavior of dunking on newbies on ITN needs to fucking stop. It's funny going back a decade plus in ITN's history and see that like at least 60% of the people present here then are still active on ITN now (which ties into a point I've been thinking about regarding Wikipedia gerontocracy but that's for another time), and behavior like this, as well as frequently attempting to shift blame for ITN's structural ills off regulars to newbies, is definitely a major contributor. We as regularls cannot make our bed and then get pissed when we're confronted with the reality that we actually have to lie in it. ITN's issues was caused by regulars, and comments like yours are a prime example of the issue wrong. — Knightoftheswords03:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support This certainly meets criteria for being significantly covered in the news.
That being said, I am not at all familiar with this case (and its significance), but it being concerned with the deaths of infants seems to make it unusual, and thus notable enough for ITN. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is well-cited and has received significant coverage in the UK, and has seen coverage in various different countries. Tragically, it is the worst case involving babies in the UK in modern times. Fats40boy11 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Jayron32 said, I'm seeing it in my country's (US) news too. Below the fold, but there's nothing above the fold that we'd consider posting.The UK news sites I've looked at have it pretty low, too. Which is unsurprising, since they can geolocate me. But it means I have to ask the British editors here instead of checking for myself - is this a top headline for you folks? Has it been generating sustained coverage throughout the trial and leading up to it? If you could, say, blurb one UK-based news story this week, would this be it? I'll take you at your word on importance here. (The article seemed ok to me quality-wise.) —Cryptic18:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick check of a few sites, it is currently the leading story on BBC News, Sky News, The Guardian and The Telegraph. It has generated coverage throughout the trial, but I would say it has been in and out of the news due to the length of the trial. In regards to your question about one blurbed story this week from the UK, I'd say this story would be it. Fats40boy11 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thank you. For reference, I'd looked at the BBC and Guardian sites - BBC links this near the top, which I'd overlooked since the main story is four pages down; and it's also a page and a half down on the Guardian's main site for US viewers. Telegraph, which I didn't think to check, shows it as the top story despite redirecting me to https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/ even after I click on "UK edition". Sky News (which I was only vaguely even aware of) is showing me what I assume is the same thing as it does to UK viewers; it's the top four stories there. I wish more international news sites did the same. —Cryptic19:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article seems far too focused on the trial and not so much about the crimes, reaction to the crimes, or other similar factors related to the public perception of the crimes. In other words, I can't see why this is a major deal within the UK from the state of our article. --Masem (t) 18:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stress that the article is not written to standards we would expect for such a major crime-based story (regardless of location). This should not have been posted in this condition. --Masem (t) 00:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me exactly what your objections are. The article states that she is the most prolific child killer in UK history. I'm not sure what more explanation is needed as to why an NHS nurse murdering babies in a neonatal ward would be seen as a "major deal." Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
50% of the article is about the day-to-day events of the trial - which is actually excessive detail that we usually don't cover on other trial articles. Going beyond the trial coverage, the article is very thin to explain why this is such a critical case within the UK. Yes, it touches on what you're talking about but I would think there should be more of why this was a landmark judgement within the UK. Sure, one could argue that the virtue of a nurse killing babies should be obvious to why it is bad, but that should be really discussed more from third parties, while purging down the trial coverage. Masem (t) 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tragic, but yet another criminal case in the world. No major impact, interest and long-time international coverage. I don't think it's the most remarkable sentence we can include in Main Page so far this year. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a huge news story in the UK, that has been in the news for some considerable time, and is currently top story on all major UK news media. It's also significant not only because of the abhorrent nature of the crimes, but also the extensive use of circumstantial evidence to secure the conviction. Letby's apparently innocent-looking appearance, in contrast to the crimes she's just been convicted of, has also been a big factor in the notoriety of the case. — The Anome (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This now makes Letby the most prolific child killer in UK history and ranks alongside the likes of Harold Shipman, for medical professionals who murder. This is an historic conviction and is far more than "yet another criminal case in the world. No major impact, interest and long-time international coverage." As can be seen by reporting in the United States todayUnited stated 10 months agoIndiaNew Zealand 9 months agoNigeria. There is also now an independent government inquiry launched. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've not followed this closely but watched the BBC coverage in the main evening news and there were some remarkable features. There seem to have been significant institutional failures and these will be the subject of further inquiry. And this was said to be the longest murder trial in British history. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose — As if U.S.-centrism wasn't enough, there is now a faction of U.K.-based ITN editors willing to support an average criminal case on the basis it's on their front page. I suppose it's acceptable for any moderately covered court case anywhere in the world to be posted on ITN? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)23:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges comparison. The Queen was a reigning monarch who happened to be the longest-serving in the United Kingdom's history and who was globally recognized. This is not the same situation. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)06:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong post-posting oppose - Every support !vote I've seen has been most prolific child killer in UK history, huge news story in the UK, has received significant coverage in the UK, etc. Personally, I believe ITN blurbs should have some sort of long-term significance. I just don't see this achieving that. estar8806 (talk) ★00:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong post-posting oppose & pull. Seriously? I mean, this might be big news in the UK, but this is absolutely by no means significant at all. Yeah, absolutely an interesting criminal case to read up on, but how is this exactly long-lasting and even barely ITN-worthy? Holds zero significance whatsoever outside of the UK. US-centrism is a big no-no for ITN, but so is UK-centrism and other types of news that merely have national significance in one country. TwistedAxe[contact]00:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose I don't see how this story has sufficient scope. Certainly I don't see how it's of greater societal consequence than the suicide bombings and mass shootings that we frequently don't post. Vanamonde (Talk)00:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request [at least] temporary pull. Discussion lasted for less then 5 hours, with many of the supports saying "notable in the UK', which really does seem to suggest this is only locally notable, and while, yes, scope is not a valid reason to oppose alone, the question remains as to if there will be any longer-term impact to this ruling, for which the answer is likely no. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary pull per Darkside. I’m undecided on it myself, but five hours feels extremely rushed for a blurb with not-overwhelming support. The Kip (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd say the support was fairly overwhelming, but given we don't post by a vote, the point is moot in the end. Ideally we need more discussion of why this rises beyond the level of a human-interest story (with respect being given to the families of the victims here, obviously, but the obvious point here is we don't just post every tragedy in which 7 are killed, nor does the media proportionally cover such events). The idea that we would post a conviction of a murderer of seven but would ignore an explosion killing 35 simply because one is more frequently covered feels inherently biased. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I didn't even !vote in this story when I saw it, partially because when I saw the wave of support votes and it being marked as ready after only a few hours, I was aware of the shitshow that was soon to barrel through. All I ought to say is that this is what occurs when we selectively apply ITN's guideline about not opposing based off national origin to post stories from certain countries and then ignore it when we get to put stories from another down. I honestly am not to opposed to posting this in general, however, let's keep it a buck '50, we all know that it's cope to believe that this would have still been posted, at least in this manner, had the story been from the U.S, or frankly maybe any bedsides the UK. — Knightoftheswords03:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose - as sad as this is, this really is just a criminal case. A much more complex crime than the average british one, but I don't really see why this should be posted. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull and Oppose – Unlike Elizabeth II's death, or Trump's conviction for that matter, this one is mostly irrelevant outside UK/US, given main sequence of events predate the growth of Internet in countries like India, and thus people outside in such countries, especially outside Europe, don't know and don't care. I'm from Indonesia and I'm being serious here. I know the conviction is the biggest news in UK right now, but we shouldn't bring this up to ITN. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The news coverage is emphasising that there were numerous alarm bells and warnings as these deaths happened but that the institution was slow to act. The doctors who were suspicious were actually forced to apologise to the murderer. So, there will now be a government inquiry and there may well be consequences for the institution(s) and clinical practice. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support an exceptional, unusual case of highly notable and significant news; if a case like this were to occur in another country which has low child serial killer death rates (such as the US) it probably should be posted, definitely not just tabloid news. Happily888 (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
as we have mentioned multiple times, ITN is not driven by page views or popularity. We don't care what gets the most attention or lack thereof. Masem (t) 12:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There might have eventually been a firm consensus to post this if more time were allowed beyond 5 hours to provide the rest of the world a chance to weigh in on this. As it is, now that it has been both posted and pulled and the footing of this nom has become muddled, it seems almost a guarantee that this discussion will ultimately close as no consensus. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)12:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-removal support So, for some reason, we are to suppose a train derailment that kills 30 people in Pakistan is of global interest rather than "just another train accident", but an unprecedented case of the mass-murder of children that has achieved global attention, dominates the UK news, and raises serious questions about medical safeguarding and the use of statistics and circumstantial evidence in court cases, and has led to the setting up of a major government enquiry to find out what went wrong and prevent it from happening again, is in Alsoriano97's words merely "tragic, but yet another criminal case"? The entire point of ITN is to point readers to articles about things which are in the news -- and this is not just top of the UK news, it's very much in the news globally: see [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and many more. I suggest this be added to ITN as soon as possible. — The Anome (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out my comment above that applies here, if this case "raises serious questions about medical safeguarding and the use of statistics and circumstantial evidence in court cases", the article certainly doesn't talk about that at all. It is focused on the events of the trial, which are the last things we should be focused on rather than the impact and results, such as whether there has been new standards in medical licensing in the UK from this, or such. But the article is quiet on these things, and thus fails to meet the expected quality for posting to the Main Page. Masem (t) 13:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The people who opposed this also opposed the Pakistan derailment. In fact both of them are exceedingly similar cases of an admin posting something fast after seemingly unanimous support and then people who disagree with it !voting later, though this time it actually received enough !votes to be pulled. I think it might be worth opening a discussion on the talk page on how to post stories in a timely manner while still retaining article quality and significance standards. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror15:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think that individual crime stories will always struggle to meet the standard needed for posting here in the absence of some wider political connection or notable societal response - similar to our policy on US mass shootings. Aside from the redundant "it has lots of press coverage" arguments, I cannot see anything here to explain why this meets the notability threshold. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Copying and pasting a load of news links from foreign sources means nothing, the number 2 news story on the BBC website this morning was the government of Italy paying for a dine and dash by its citizens on an Albanian holiday, and nobody in their right mind would think "this news story is even top on the BBC, it's got to be on Wikipedia's ITN". [19] In this day and age, it is easy for news websites to save money by including stories that fully rely on another website's sources. What are actual newspapers printing in foreign countries? It's not on any front pages in countries geographically [20] or culturally [21] close to the UK. Even in Ireland [22] it's only on the front page of the Irish Daily Mail, a stablemate of the notorious British tabloid, and the inside coverage starts from page 22. Let's be honest, we would not even consider posting this story if it happened in Slovenia, let alone France or Germany. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per all above. Tragic, albeit local crime is bad and the perpetrator is caught. Only because this was in the UK was it even considered for a blurb. Keep pulled. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist800019:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ultimately decided to formally vote on this. I second a lot of the votes above; while I understand opposition on “we would/wouldn’t post in x country” isn’t the strongest argument, this does truly seem like the more locally-relevant type of criminal case that we likely wouldn’t nominate/post if a large percentage of users here weren’t UK-based (ex. I believe there’d be strong opposition to posting the conviction of Rex Heuermann here). Not sure if it’ll have wide-enough long-term significance either. The Kip (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Restore All of the no votes above me which just say that it's only relevant to the UK shouldn't be be counted. ITN has always said that arguments based on an item only appealing to one area are not useful. This comes up on every time so maybe we need to paste WP:ITNATA to the front of the ITN section and make everyone read it before they post. Flyingfishee (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, an admin should re-post this because all the oppose !votes seem to only be arguing UK-centrism and that this blurb is only from a particular region/country/group, which is against WP:ITNATA. Its also the same users who have previously opposed blurbs just because they are or aren't from particular countries, or that they are or aren't 'front-page' news in their own country, both of which are irrelevant and which don't carry any weight in weighing up consensus. Clearly this case is significant and notable internationally in regards to the rare cases of child serial killers in modern/recent times in 'wealthy' countries and is highly likely that inquiries, per the news reports, will lead to changes. Happily888 (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if an admin re-posts this now, they'll definitely be going against consensus. The concern is that ITN treats stories from certain places as being more important than other places. I don't see anything indicating that this isn't a legitimate concern. That is only relates to one place is not a reason to post, but that it has no long-term significance is. --RockstoneSend me a message!06:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't going against consensus if its posted, because admins don't count !votes to assess consensus but rather look at the arguments made by discussers, the point that oppose !voters are making above about the blurb being based in a specific place is not relevant or an appropriate argument for opposing in an ITN discussion, and so those !votes are annulled. Rather, the significance of this case is already clear and has already been made clear above; also, stories are posted based on significance, not necessarily long-term significance which is hard to determine in a short period of time in regards to ITN – if all stories had to have long-term significance blurbs about sports events and political changes of power should not be posted. Happily888 (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding "the point that oppose !voters are making above about the blurb being based in a specific place". A good faith reading of the points about makes it clear that no-one is arguing that stories in the UK cannot be significant.
Aside from its sheer nastiness, the argument in favour of significance here seems to be because it is about the "most babies murdered in modern British history". The counterargument is that the significance comes not from the actual event itself but from this perverse "record". Would "most babies murdered in modern Brazilian history", say, be considered similarly significant? I personally doubt it and, while obviously speculative, I don't think it's an unreasonable argument because the significance is drawn from its connection to the country. Substitute Brazil in my example for, say, a "less significant" country like Andorra and you will see what I mean.
In my view, we have too many stories of all kinds in ITN about the "first Fooian X to do Y" or "most X in Fooian history" which sets an artificial and rather deceptive standard of significance purely because it is defined in local terms. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting While ITN’s UK-centric bias can be a problem, this is being covered internationally (I’m seeing plenty of coverage in the US). Also, Letby murdered babies, which makes her different from most serial killers. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-removal weak oppose While I understand that this disturbing and tragic case has received considerable media attention, I worry that focusing on individual criminal cases could lead to sensationalism overshadowing more substantial news events with lasting implications. Mooonswimmer20:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both this situation and the posting of the 2023 Hazara Express derailment does bring an interesting question about posting speed. Both this and the 2023 Hazara Express derailment were posted quickly with seemingly unanimous support, only to be afterwards hit with a flurry of post-posting opposes and in this case also being pulled. It might be worthwhile discussing how to balance posting blurbs in a timely manner while still attaining consensus on article quality and significance. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror20:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - worldwide news, with even her declining to appear at sentencing making headlines around the world. A country's most prolific child killer is convicted and sentenced, and it is covered around the world, how does that not merit posting here? nableezy - 15:37, 21 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.
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.
In the Yellow Corporation bankruptcy proceeding, the court names financing lenders. Hedge funds Citadel and MFN Partners will together provide $142.5 million in debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing, which will give Yellow’s estate the funds necessary to liquidate assets. (Reuters)
Wildfires near Kelowna, British Columbia, cause the mandatory evacuation of over 2,400 properties and result in multiple structural losses. (Kelowna Now)
In the United States, Herman Andaya resigns as Maui's top emergency official amidst reproval for not activating the emergency sirens during the wildfires. (NBC News)
The former and current heads of Slovakia’s spy agency and five other police and intelligence officers are being investigated for abuse of power and criminal conspiracy in two separate cases. (AP)
A wikibio with almost 1200 words of prose but only 10 footnotes. Multiple paragraphs have zero footnotes. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The stubby wikibio currently has only 220 words of prose. Anything more to write about? What did he do for 5 years as Mayor of Hyderabad? What did he do in his other elected offices? --PFHLai (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support. It's a stub, but my experience in manga biographies has me expect that this is pretty much all there is to say about a (tragically) young manga artist, even one nominated for a significant award, so it's as comprehensive as I expect for the subject area. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol17:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is the case of the article having been expanded since I posted my comment above. I agree that it is now start class and I shall repost it. BabbaQ, please note that when you upgrade an article from stub to start on the talk page, you should simultaneously remove any stub tags from the article itself. I will do that for you. Schwede6600:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there any details that can be added about her art background (i.e. art college or apprenticeship)? That would help buff this out. Curbon7 (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose for now. A precautionary evacuation is not typically ITN material. Hopefully we will not have cause to revisit this subject due to it becoming something more serious. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing The nomination was closed without much discussion but it's not a good look to be shutting down discussion of wildfires in Canada when we're running a similar story about the US. The proposed blurb focussed on the capital of Yellowknife but it seems that there are currently hundreds of major fires in the Northwest Territories. This adds to the many major fires earlier in the year and so the general topic is 2023 Canadian wildfires. Perhaps this should be in Ongoing? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The proper ongoing should have been 2023 heat waves, which has been mentioned at least twice before in prior ITNCs give how there are wildfires across the global, not just Canada. However, no one has bothered to improve that article to be beyond just a listing of records broken. (The Maui fire would have likely still be called out on its own due to the scale of devastation and impact on human life compared to the other fires around the world). It would be inappropriate to call out this single one. Masem (t) 12:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hot droughts tinderize plants faster than cold. Consider how only 23 inches a year gave damp forests to London, England while 23 inches in a year would dry out and probably kill equatorial forests even if evenly distributed. The droughts are unnaturally bad for the same reason as the heat anyway (fossil fuels). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it were somewhere like Ottawa or Toronto, I'd certainly consider. But a relatively (at least internationally) obscure city evacuation seems mundane as they happen all the time as standard during wildfires. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)11:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yellowknife is the capital of the Northwest Territories and the second-largest city in the Canadian north. I am floored that they're evacuating the capital as I'm not sure how the territorial government is supposed to function without the capital. I'm leaving my vote neutral for now, but I can't think of another more important city to have been evacuated due to a wildfire during my lifetime. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The wildfires may develop into something nasty like the 2023 Hawaii wildfires or it could be another run-of-the-mill wildfire. If the city gets destroyed and/or a ton of casualties result, then I'll support. Furthermore, the specific fire doesn't have its own article yet. ❤HistoryTheorist❤16:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have dramatic developments with plenty of international coverage. The drama is the threat to the city with evacuation plans being complicated by there being just one highway which is already in the fire zone. But I get the impression that the nay-sayers want to see a body count before posting. Why do we require there to be death and disaster? Why can't we cover the issue when it's managed better too? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that we "want to see a body count," it's that as it stands, this is a non-story. A large town/small city is evacuated due to potential threat, that isn't an infrequent occurrence and there's absolutely nothing at the moment to suggest it will have any significant present and/or long-term notability. Not everything is motivated by some bloodthirsty interpretation of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. The Kip (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously not a non-story. Here's a selection of the international coverage:
A story highlighted in many newspapers or news channels has a good chance of being significant for ITN, but we do not base the posting primarily on how many such sites have covered it or consider it important.
Oppose Clearly a story, and one whose significance/impact/whatever is highlighted in many newspapers and channels, but we post on how many Supports a story gets around here. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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:
In the news toolbox
Done per your request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
