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.
Hurricane Beryl, the earliest-recorded Category 5 Atlantic hurricane in a calendar year, leaves at least 15 people dead in the Caribbean, Venezuela, and the United States.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
Atarget 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).
ARussian warship and a nuclear-powered submarine conduct military drills in the Caribbean sea simulating a missile strike on enemy ships after passing near the coast of Florida in order to reach Havana, Cuba. (AP)
Disasters and accidents
The general secretary of the miners' confederation in Mali announces that at least 22 miners have died in Kalana, Mali, following the collapse of a mine tunnel five days ago. (Reuters)
Health and environment
A heatwave forces Greek authorities to close the Acropolis for visits during the afternoon. (AP)
Support The death toll is on par with other natural and anthropogenic disasters that we typically post. Also since many of the victims were Indian, the fire has more international significance. Scaramouche33 (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the page has been moved. The new title "Kuwait Mangaf" strikes me as analogous to "Germany Bavaria" or "Canada Quebec". Though I guess that's a discussion for another page. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russia launches a wave of cruise missiles and drone attacksatKyiv. Ukraine claims to have intercepted all missiles and drones, although debris did cause some damage to infrastructure. (Reuters)
A court in the Netherlands sentences three men to up to 28 years in prison for the murder of reporter Peter R. de Vries in 2021, and three other men to 14 years for aiding in the murder. (Reuters)
A man in Hudson, Florida, United States fatally shoots a family of four with a 9 mm gun before burning their bodies in a fire pit. The perpetrator was identified as 25-year-old Rory John Graeme Atwood.(WTSP)
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.
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-ish looks ok, but some of the sources rely on information likely provided by the individual to organizations (introductions to speakers) and do not represent independent sourcing. However, I will still support. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.02:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I agree with Classicwiki and I feel that the article should have a better balance of independent and primary sources. A good amount of the article's sources are from articles/sources that are likely from info he provided himself. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2024 (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 Corvette ZR1: Looks like an IP removed my source. I readded it, and the page has been protected.
@Rawmustard: The statistics are supported by the "external links" section, which links to statistical sites such as Basketball-Reference pbp14:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that whenever an actor/other film personnel is nominated, typically the filmography needs to have inline citations prior to the article being posted to front page, so I would presume the same would have to apply to a sportsperson's statistics. rawmustard (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb - Forget about the logo story. He still has many achievements as both player and executive and was one of the greatest of his time. I think that's worthy enough of a blurb. Prodrummer619 (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, leaning support blurb. The rare subject who was top tier both as a player and as an executive in their sport, and therefore transformative of the sport. BD2412T18:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb. West is borderline notable for me, even as someone who probably isn't even top 5 on notability ever within their sport. To me though, I can't stop thinking about how we didn't post Bill Russell. IMO, Bill Russell's impact was greater, maybe nit within basketball solely, but with his civil rights impact factored in. So if we are to believe Russell wasn't transformative enough, then West isn't either, I'd say. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a shame that Russell did not get blurbed. I thought for sure that he did. Who is the most recent sportsman to get blurbed? Maradona? or was it Jim Brown? (OJ did, but for non sports reasons.) Natg 19 (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Natg 19 The last one was Franz Beckenbauer in January this year. Given that he, Pele and Maradona (also blurbed) were generally regarded as the three greatest players of their generation, those were no-brainers really. The only living footballers that I can think of who might deserve a blurb are Messi, C.Ronaldo, Zidane and possibly the original Ronaldo, and hopefully we won't be meeting any of those here any time soon. Black Kite (talk)09:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt this is getting blurbed, as the soccer (football) players you listed above who were blurbed also have a claim to be the GOATs at their position. But Jerry was one of the greatest of his generation (1960s), along with Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Oscar Robertson. Natg 19 (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should ever deathblurb people whose death as an event isn't notable (e.g. a serving head of government whose death causes a change in leadership, or a notable murder, etc). By that metric, almost no sportspeople qualify. I do not think this is a failure of the system, RD line exists for a reason. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with orbitalbuzzsaw, ideally, deaths should be blurbed if the death has a tangible impact, "famous person dies" is otherwise what RD is for. I won't oppose the exceptional blurbing of someone of the Thatcher/Mandela standard, as their death will likely have some level of impact (a good rule of thumb is whether the person has an article for their death, like death of Nelson Mandela). It really should be about impact, not about popularity and/or unusualness of the death. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that sentiment, but in the sense of there being no hard and fast distinction for deaths where the death itself wasn't the main story, I personally think a bar should be set, and when x is less notable than y with both persons within the same field, and y didn't get posted, then justifying posting for x's death is hard for me. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Article is in good quality. Supporting blurb because West is highly influential in his field and not to mention he's the NBA logo too! Article definitely reflects his influential status/impact he had. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, weak support RD there's some unsourced lines. And, really, it is getting out of hand to propose blurbs lightly. Opposing for DarkSide. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb The article is of sufficient quality for RD, but there isn't anything particularly noteworthy about the death in itself. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb This is the type of person for whom Recent Deaths was created. We should not be blurbing the death of every basketballer (or every sportsperson generally) just because they were better than average. Chrisclear (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb He was elected to the Basketball HOF on 3 separate occasions, is the only person to be enshrined as a player & a contributor (the latter is for his accomplishments as a GM) & his silhouette is the basis for the NBA’s logo. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. Not of Thatcher or Mandela stature, and it's really time to stop proposing blurbs for all and sundry, just because they were successful sportsmen or whatever. — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, weak oppose RD, while his achievements are noteworthy within basketball, he's completely unknown for people who isn't into basketball. 31.44.224.73 (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. There don't seem to be quality concerns, so no need to wait on the RD. Discussion can continue on possible blurbing, although I'd imagine consensus isn't in favour of that as yet. (disclaimer: I'm involved on that score as I already opined on the question above). Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - the idea that it needs to be Mandela or Thatcher (seriously, why is Margaret Thatcher cited here lol) is not one that has any basis in the guidelines or our past history. West was transformational in his sport, no less so than Shane Warne for example. nableezy - 18:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Mandela-Thatcher standard is very much based in our history. The effect was effectively effected in December of 2012, while they were only mostly dead in a roughly contemporary fashion. Sure, there've been other timely pairs since that could've taken the title, but the people have spoken and the stickiness has stuck (OMD). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb: No doubt he's an important part of the history of the NBA, but for such a young sport/league, I think it's tough to argue that a guy who's not a consensus top 3 of the most important NBA people should be blurbed. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?19:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wreckage of an aircraft which went missing yesterday in Malawi amid bad weather is found. All ten people on board, including the country's Vice-PresidentSaulos Chilima, are confirmed dead. (Reuters)
Sri Lanka's foreign ministry says that the country has received assurances from Russia that it would stop recruiting Sri Lankan citizens to fight in Ukraine. (Al-Arabiya)
Riots occur in Tiaret, Algeria, in opposition to water rationing as a government response to prolonged droughts. (AP)
Eight individuals from Tajikistan with suspected ties to Islamic State are arrested across several United States cities for border immigration violations. (AP)
Hunger strikes occur in at least 16 prisons in Venezuela to protest against poor living conditions such as overcrowding as well as delays in the reviews of the prisoners' judicial processes. (MSN via 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.
Comment unfortunately the tables are mostly unsourced (and I am unlikely to tackle). Prose looks decent though. Not ready yet. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.02:33, 13 June 2024 (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.
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: Article is updated and well sourced. Seeing how the article definitely reflects her legacy, impact on French culture and also impact on the modern-day music industry, not sure if it warrants a blurb? Regardless, article (IMO) is good for RD. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb The article is of more than sufficient quality for RD, but the manner of death was not notable, and thus a blurb is not warranted. In my opinion, death blurbs should only be in place when the death itself is a notable event. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, as the legacy section states : Hardy was celebrated as a "French national treasure" and one of the greatest figures in French music of all time., I think that it's enough to deserve a blurb. Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. Loads of people are labelled "national treasures", that doesn't mean we blurb them. There's too much of the "this person is famous, let's blurb them" going on these days. Is Hardy a major figure of the Thatcher / Mandela stature? No. So we don't blurb her, it's that simple. If people want to lower the bar across the board or impose a different standard such as "major contributor" then that should be agreed at WT:ITN first. — Amakuru (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks fine on that score. The only issue I can see is length. At 12,000 words, it's halfway between "probably should be trimmed" and "almost certainly should be trimmed", per WP:TOOLONG guidelines, but I won't object to ITN on that basis. Support RD. — Amakuru (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, we have posted Tina Turner and Tony Bennet as blurbs before, based in the "major contributors" or "transformative in their field" rationale. Hardy may belong to the same league. Alexcalamaro (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb per Amakuru. Was she famous in France? Yes. Was she important enough for her death to be blurbed as a standalone news item? No. *Support RD on quality. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:17, 12 June 2024 (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, as much as some politicians are trying to make this into a big deal, this is no different than any other low level crime. Yes, it’s a felony. No, it’s not a relevant felony, and it doesn’t become so just because he’s the President’s son. If Joe himself were convicted of this maybe it’d be newsworthy but probably not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - he's a private citizen convicted of something inconsequential in the national or international grand scheme of things and bears no real meaning other than providing obvious partisan talking points. If he was convicted over something related to his father's presidency, that might be another matter. RPH (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Hunter Biden is only a public figure because his father is a public figure; absent increased involvement from his father (for example, a presidential pardon) then this doesn't warrant posting. BilledMammal (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The events of his life have little real world impact. Compare it to the recent Indian election, where hundreds of millions of people voted in a democratic election to form a new government. You can't compare the scale of the two events. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2024 (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.
Wait There's more info in the two headlines I read than in the current article, and who knows what might grow from those entire articles? For now, though, yeah. Way too stubby. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least 50 people are killed and an unknown number are kidnapped, including women and children, when gunmen attack the village of Yargoje in Katsina State, Nigeria. (Al Arabiya)
It is reported that wildfires have burned around 32,000 hectares (79,000 acres) of tropical wetland in Brazil's Pantanal so far this year, a 935% increase in the number of fires that occurred in the same period last year. (BBC News)
Poland announces a "no-go zone" in the Białowieża Forest in order to prevent migrants from crossing the border from Belarus. In response, concerns are raised about the potential impact on tourism during the summer. (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 blurb However, shouldn't the target article be the plane crash itself? Also worth noting, former first lady was also among the casualties. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pull Blurb, leave RD Current precedent seems to be that deaths generally shouldn't be blurbed unless they're ITN/R. As Saulos Chilima was not a Head of Government, (or even a Head of State) this means it's not ITN/R. And as for overall notability, Chilima wasn't exactly a "transformative" figure, or at least there's nothing to indicate that in the article. I feel that this was posted far too hastily, given that it spent less than 12 hours since nomination. Nottheking (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the blurb is centering around the plane crash itself not just his death. The crash itself is notable enough as it killed a sitting VP, a former first lady and eight others. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2024 (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.
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.
Premier of South Australia and Australian Senator.
NB: I created this article (20 years ago). Hall is perhaps most famous for changing electoral laws to remove the gerrymander that had kept his party in government for decades, thus all but ensuring his defeat at the next election. There can't be too many examples of politicians willing to do such a thing. --Roisterer (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose on quality. Article is in bad shape with many empty sections and very little content on the results, reactions and implications. There's long way to go before this gets posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait/Oppose on quality. Too many empty sections. Wait until the article is expanded and provisional election results/seat breakdowns are available. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.08:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Might be good to mention the surge in support of right-wing parties in the European Parliament, which has been a massive talking point in this election PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of all the details but the BBC live report indicates that she's in the driving seat, e.g.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen says she will approach social democratic and liberal parties that she has worked with in the past to form a majority in the European Parliament.
The nominated article lists seven alliances and four of them are shown to have leaders who were not running as MEPs. If there's a better way of explaining the result, I expect there will be alt blurbs suggested. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment von der Leyen is the main candidate, but not the leader of the EPP group. It should as such not say "led by" in the text. I would instead replace it with "The European People's Party Group (main candidate Ursula von der Leyen pictured) wins the most seats in the European Parliament election." I will also say that I would be cautious with writing anything which could imply that UvdL is guarenteed to continue as Commission President. So I would prefer using the term "win" if it is possible. Gust Justice (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To understand this, I read Ursula von der Leyen in pole position.... This indicates that her getting a second term as President is decided by national leaders and then endorsed by the parliament. So, that seems to be a separate process, just as election of the US President is separate from the election of Congress. Right? I'm therefore not convinced that we ought to personalise this by showing a particular politician but it's good to have an image of some sort. I'll adjust the nomination... Andrew🐉(talk) 19:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This indicates that her getting a second term as President is decided by national leaders and then endorsed by the parliament. Leaders of the 27 member states (on June 27) and majority of MEPs (secret ballot voting; tentative July 18) [2]. So imo, delay this ITN to July 18.— hako9 (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the blurb which was posted in 2019 was as follows:
Comment The article is about the elections to the European Parliament. Because of the unusual institutional setup of the EU, the election of the Commission President is a separate, later election (as noted above), and in any case the Commission isn't exactly equivalent to a government in function and form. I would therefore strongly suggest a blurb focusing only on the parliamentary elections and the outcome in terms of party groups, and leave VDL out of this for now. There is however no reason to delay the article until she is reelected (or not) as that election is another affair, strictly speaking. Yakikaki (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready. There are five orange-tagged sections and no prose at all about the results. The empty sections could simply be removed or merged into others, but there also needs to be at least a full referenced paragraph describing the outcome, reactions etc. Modest Geniustalk11:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's not ready, but the article is in such a terrible shape that all of the questions in the foregoing discussion should've not been raised because the article is supposed to provide the answers.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voters in Switzerland reject limits on healthcare spending and an initiative against compulsory vaccination, while approving the initiative of a new law on electricity. (Swissinfo)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support – Article looks fine. I would even hover the idea of a blurb for her impact on computer technology, but I don't think the quality of the article is appropriate for it yet. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:07, 13 June 2024 (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 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.
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.
This is not an argument for opposing. You can create a discussion on the talk page to change the "usual RD way" if that is an issue for you. Natg 19 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue has come up before but I don’t recall exactly how disambiguation was done. The point is that we need to make it clear which Simon Cowell we’re talking about. It’s a significant BLP issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martinevans, but as to Andrew's concerns, I do think the (conservationist) disambiguator should be included in the listing. TheKip(contribs)23:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I tried to address the CN tags in the article. I am a little iffy on the alumni verification. Room for improvement, but looks ok. I think going with the current parenthetical, (conservationist) or (wildlife conservationist), would be enough of a disambiguator. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.01:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Stephen altered this back to the "regular" format (Simon Cowell), but then switched it to its current form (Simon M. Cowell). This seems to be a workable compromise to me. Natg 19 (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Comment: this is almost sufficient, but there's an orange-tagged section and I'd like to see a bit more referenced prose in the 'results' and 'aftermath' sections. Modest Geniustalk11:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose on quality - the bottom four sections of the results - Boys' singles, Girls' singles, Boys' doubles and Girls' doubles - are lacking prose at the moment. I'm also not convinced we need that "Champions" section at the bottom; that is nonstandard, uncited and seems to be almost just a glorified gallery. — Amakuru (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For the first time I can remember, a nominated tennis article has proper prose summaries of the tournament, not just tables. This looks good to me, thanks for the much better article this time around. I think this is ready to post. Modest Geniustalk11:10, 11 June 2024 (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.
Wait for confirmation. Most sources I'm seeing are saying it's "believed to be" him so shouldn't post prematurely as a BLP issue. — Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the mayor has said it was likely him.
Seeing that they're saying cause of death is likely heat and dehydration.
A mayor is not a coroner and the key word is likely. Nothing will happen if we wait a few hours for a formal identification and declaration. Think how you would feel if the world's online encyclopedia confirmed your loved one dead before you had been to inspect the body Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb If he is all that great of a British journalist, his article is nowhere close to a standard that would be appropriate for a blurb. I see some facets that might lead to that impression but nowhere close to demonstrating him as a great figure in British TV news presenting. We also, again, do not use page views to judge ITN appropriateness. --Masem (t) 12:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're getting at, but isn't that aimed at "Irrelevant for me/I don't like country X, so therefore I oppose." opposes? I'm not trying game, but what I'm getting at is that I don't think his death is particularly meaningful to the vast majority of people outside the UK to warrant a blurb, compared to that of major world leader or similarly internationally well known person. 31.44.224.73 (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Not a transformative figure, which is the general criteria for a death blurb to be posted. And Television section needs more sources before being posted to RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support a blurb either, but surely in this case the criteria would be "death is the story" rather than him being "transformative." Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The story was on the front page of most UK papers today. And that's after days of similar coverage. And all that's before the body was found so there will be even more tomorrow. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And today, following discovery of the body, the news is on the front page of every UK newspaper except the FT. The coverage is mostly the main photo story or takes the entire front page. While on Wikipedia, it was the top read article for the day, getting half a million views while William Anders got just 40K. The RD picks that ITN is actually running got comparatively few views; they are obviously not prominent in the news and readers aren't interested in a dry list of unknown names. Useless.
ITN, and especially RD, isn't just about how many views the articles are getting. Especially since we're not picking RDs based on fame or anything, but based on article quality. And, for some people outside of the UK, Michael Mosley can be just as much of an unknown name as any of them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew keeps pushing this argument, and it's nonsense. The number of views an article receives should have no impact whatsoever on whether we post it to ITN. I think perhaps we should update ITNCDONT to reflect this, because it's getting tiresome. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ITNRDBLURB, the posting of RD blurbs is determined on a "a sui generis basis" which seems to mean that anything goes and so editors may support or oppose for their own reasons. Chaotic Enby's reason for not posting was that "the death isn't a major news story either. Unusual, yes, front-page story, probably not". Evidence is therefore needed to show that this claim is false. The story is, in fact, all over the front pages and the evidence is that it's dwarfing the recent accidental death of William Anders for whom a blurb has also been suggested. See evidence-based practice. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb his disappearance was in the news for a few days, while he probably died of natural causes. This isn't a Lord Lucan or a Madeleine McCann. I don't know a lot about dieting, but I highly doubt that Mosley's work was as noted in the field as Dr Atkins, for example. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An unfortunate accident for sure, but no more significant than an individual of his fame dying in a car accident. The section is good, but it's not enough for a blurb at his level. I think a lack of responses to the death described in the article is part of the issue. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb - While the story of his disappearance has been a nine days' wonder, the actual circumstances are not such as to merit a blurb here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb Extensively covered in British news for the last few days. Death very unlikely to be foul play, probably not notable enough for blurb. Angusgtw (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Television section is heavily missing references, some items are cited, most are not. The rest is fine and once fixed, a consensus seems to be for RD. --Tone13:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is clear consensus against a blurb so I am removing that option to avoid any more unneeded pile-on. Instead, reviewers should focus on if the article meets the RD criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat, @Joseph2302, @Tone, @Amakuru, I have tried to source the television section. I am marking it as ready (at least for RD), feel free to remove if you think more needs to be done.
Many Palestinians, including women and children, are killed and injured during the raid, with Palestinian officials claiming 236 killed and 400 wounded, while Israeli sources claim under 100 casualties. It is unknown how many casualties were civilians and how many were militants. (Reuters)(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.
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.
A glass railing collapses outside the overcrowded RICH nightclub in Mexico, causing several concertgoers to fall three stories, killing two and injuring 15. (El Universal)
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.
Article:William Anders (talk·history·tag) Recent deaths nomination Blurb:William Anders, who took the Earthrise photograph (pictured) in 1968 dies in a plane crash aged 90 (Post) Alternative blurb: Apollo 8 astronaut William Anders, who took the Earthrise photo (pictured), dies in a plane crash aged 90 Alternative blurb II: No blurb needed. The photo is more famous than the photographer. Simply display Earthrise photo at top of ITN section, and under Recent Deaths, since William Anders is already posted, just add in parentheses (Earthrise photographer): William Anders (Earthrise photographer). News source(s):Fox, AP, CNN Credits:
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
At the time, the only publication that reported on the incident was a television station which used his aircraft to make the connection. Now that it's been confirmed by family and more widespread publication, it's good now. B3251(talk)03:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternate Blurb (which mentions Apollo 8), Anders was one of the first three humans to fly to and orbit the Moon, he participated in the Apollo 8 Genesis reading and, iconically, took the Earthrise photograph. Extremely worthy of having a lead blurb with Earthrise as an image. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb One of the most notable astronauts, on the first mission which flew to the Moon, and he also took an iconic photo of Earth. The way he died is also unusual. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb Article is in great shape, as I'd expect for a GA-tier article. He had a very significant and transformative career; as Randy mentioned, the Earthrise photograph itself had a lasting impact. (the fact that it's a Featured Picture is a testament to that)) On top of that, the death is unusual; it was for that reason that we blurbed the death of Kobe Bryant back in 2020. I echo that we should also use Earthrise as the photo. Nottheking (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb While the Earthrise photo is indeed extremely well-known, the person behind it is far from a household name, and doesn't fit the high standards of a death blurb. Although, if it is possible, it would be great to have Earthrise as our image even if he is only in RD. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)\[reply]
Will say only once more, again, one of the first three humans to fly to and orbit the Moon. If he is not blurb worthy then nobody is, and Wikipedia should stop publishing blurbs. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an "all or nothing", and many people (even in the field of astronautics) are more well-known than him. Yes, that one accomplishment is impressive, but he was not the only one on this mission, and they aren't as well-remembered as, say, Neil or Buzz. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You act like we can only blurb the deaths of incumbent heads of government or state, when this is fact not so. I distinctly remember we recently posted OJ Simpson's Death as well as that of Peter Higgs, in spite of neither man having been an incumbent anything at the time of their death.
The key thing to recognize here is that we routinely blurb deaths (and other events) that aren't ITN/R; that's why this has a yellow box, rather than green. An incumbent head of government dying inherently means a change of head of government, thus it's ITN/R and green. Deaths can very much be elevated to blurbing, for any reason of the deceased being "transformative" in their field, as well as the death itself being unusual/newsworthy. The former has a strong argument (if still debatable) but as for the latter, the rule does seem to be that anyone with a Wikipedia article dying in an aircraft accident (such as Ted Stevens or Kobe Bryant) is almost always blurbed, even when they're well beyond being in the spotlight. Nottheking (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you can possibly say Kobe Bryant shouldn't have been posted. A NBA superstar who recently retired unexpectedly dying in a helicopter crash is a massive story and the way he died was undeniably a big part of why the death was so big. Death blurbs aren't just limited to heads of state or government. Jbvann0517:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can support a blurb, but focusing on the Earthrise photo when he's far more recognized for a distinguished military/astronaut career overall, is inappropriate. Focus on him and the sudden death. --Masem (t) 04:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - RIP to one of humanity's greatest heroes. He died as he lived. But yeah, the first human to fly to the Moon (along with Lovell and Borman) is definitely notable enough for a blurb. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb per Chaotic Enby. I think the only astronaut we should blurb his passing is Buzz Aldrin. The others don't reach the level of notability we should demand and ITN is for. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb A notable and tragic ending for one of the few living men (only 6 left now) to have been to the Moon. The articles themselves look good. CDE34RFV (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb per Chaotic Enby. This is what RD is for. Not every event connected to space flight needs to be in the blurb. Nigej (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Not every every event connected to spaceflight...". Anders is one of the three people to first leave Earth's orbit, Earth's gravitational influence, to be captured by another astronomical bodies gravitational field, to arrive at the Moon, and to personally see the far side of the Moon. Yes, just an average spaceflight event (!???). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The event was important, as were other Apollo program milestones, and would itself have obviously been blurb-worthy, but it doesn't make every person on board worthy of a death blurb's extremely high notability bar. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chaotic Enby, there were three persons on board, the first to go the Moon (a human race civilizational milestone of extraordinary proportion). How do all three not pass what you call an extremely high notability bar? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mission is clearly very notable but that doesn't necessarily mean that all the people on it are so important. There's a big difference. Nigej (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of a catch-22 argument there. Because under those grounds, it's used to just dismiss all people from being important. William Anders was the one that gave us the photo & quotes that brought the mission into the public memory. Nottheking (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Notability is not inherited and being one of a notable group doesn't of itself make anyone notable. The members of the group may or may not be notable enough. Nigej (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Article's in good shape, one of the few people to leave low Earth orbit and his death is quite uncommon especially given his age. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photo RD This isn't a classic case of OMD, given the plane crash. But as the death toll is one man of an advanced age, (relatively) far from civilization, any presumed aftermath shan't exactly be a long, hard nor winding trip for the FAA, FEMA or SJCC, either. OMPC, if you will, and the story seems to check out, sourcewise. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. One of many Apollo astronauts, did great work but not a Thatcher or Mandela figure in his own right. Quite something to go all the way to the moon, make it to 90 and then to sadly die in a plane crash... — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, weak oppose blurb - By no means a household name, but I do understand the arguments about the photograph. We should post something, though. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My heart says blurb, but that's filtered thru the fact that he is one of the few famous people I've ever met in person, and he was very cool to a young awkward teenage doofus 45-50 years ago. If ITN was set up more like I think it should be, I'd say blurb. But it is run a different way, and the way it's currently run, a blurb is probably not going to happen. Reasonable call, Tone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb2 - The photograph is more famous than the photographer. Therefore no blurb is necessary. Just display the photo Earthrise (ie., replace photo of Narendra Modi). - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2024 (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.
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.
A stubby wikibio with only 184 words of prose. Anything else to write about this actor's career? Filmography is unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least 40 Palestinians, including fourteen children, are killed and more than 70 injured after an Israeli airstrike on a United Nations school that was sheltering refugees in central Gaza. (Al Jazeera)
Six fishermen are killed and one is critically injured after a boat's engine exploded and caught the wooden hull on fire off the coast of Nagainthe Philippines. (AP)
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.
Six {cn} tags remaining in the prose. Multiple bullet-points in the lists after the prose are also unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2024 (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.
I can support this (women's sports fights systemic bias) but (1) it needs a lot of prose describing what happened and why a four-peat is historic and (2) a lot of images to add interest to all the tables. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please keep slang/jargon such as "four-peat" out of ITN. I think I can guess what it means, but I shouldn't have to guess. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: to note, the “four-peat” is used by all RS and is why it is notable. Google “four-peat” or “4-peat” and you see dozens of RS news articles, including those listed here. So I disagree that it should not be used in ITN, since RS uses it way more than not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)05:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NCAA tournament calls itself the "World Series", probably named after MLB World Series, but is just an American collegiate tournament rather than an international professional one. Curbon7 (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "College team wins national tournament in minor sport for 4th time". Not exactly world news. Its not in WP:ITN/R and uses slang in its proposed form. (What on earth is a "four-peat"? Certainly not a term we use here in the UK). The C of E God Save the King! (talk)06:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The C of E: Alt-blurb without “slang” added. Please strike the part of your oppose for that. Also, clearly you can’t read what was posted just above yours on how “four-peat” is a dictionary term and not slang. Lol… The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)06:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For your reference, it isn’t just an US thing. Manchester City's Premier League four-peat on ESPN. I still disagree that just because it isn’t on ITN/R, doesn’t mean it can’t be listed. ITN/R is a guideline for things guaranteed to be listed. For a first-time in history event, one would think it should be listed, despite not being on ITN/R. But, I shall respect your opinion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)06:20, 7 June 2024 (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 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.
Come ON! This is one of the most insane and incredible spaceflights in human history. Completely successful orbital launch followed by a successful atmospheric re-entry and hard landing for BOTH the Booster and Ship. The most powerful rocket in history. We have to post this PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is this even a question? Couple very small failures, but still hugely successful, and they both landed for the first time. This was the most anticipated spaceflight event of the decade. qw3rty14:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I highly recommend everyone go and watch the replay of this, one of the most amazing things I've ever seen. Ship the size of the Statue of Liberty plummeting through the atmosphere, green and blue plasma flying all over the feed, the craft literally melting away live but still manoeuvring for landing. Just insane. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not every SpaceX launch deserves a blurb. Even Boeing Starliner's very first crewed flight is being heavily debated below, so a test flight into orbit for a prototype Starship isn't really blurb-worthy. (Edit 14:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC): Not even into orbit as per below) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This was the first actually successful flight of Starship. Very important milestone in spaceflight. Note that this was not an orbital flight though. Agile Jello (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being on an orbital trajectory is a rather arbitrary requirement, especially as by all metrics Starship made it to space, just not at an orbital velocity (which wasn't the goal of the flight). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main test objectives of this flight were to simulate a booster landing in the Gulf of Mexico, and for the Starship to survive reentry and soft-land in the Indian Ocean. Both of which were accomplished.
This is not just a major milestone in SpaceX development, but a significant milestone in human spaceflight history as the largest ever rocket's first successful flight. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Other nominations regarding Starship were opposed due to a failure to complete the entire test or meet some arbitrary requirement. Of course, now opposes are citing some other random arbitrary requirement to meet ITN. By all measures, this was a historic moment which may very well mark the beginning of human effort to establish an extra-terrestrial settlement. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every test flight is a step towards human effort to establish an extra-terrestrial settlement, this one is only one more small incremental improvement, and I don't see why it is any more historic than any other. It's not about a random arbitrary requirement, it's about the fact that we don't blurb test flights achieving slightly more than the previous test flight. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First fully successful test flight of the first fully reusable and most powerful rocket in history, as well as the largest vehicle to ever make a controlled landing, as well as being all over the news. We've posted a lot less. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to describe every test flight as a "first" in something as they each do incrementally better than the previous one, but until there's an actual payload, or maybe even manned mission, not every Starship first should be ITN-relevant. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just a major milestone in SpaceX development, but a significant milestone in human spaceflight history as the largest ever rocket's first successful flight. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Another incremental test flight, still not to orbit and still without a payload. 'Successful hard landing' is a euphemism for 'intentionally destroyed on impact'. I'm getting pretty fed up of every test being nominated. If Starship actually achieves something useful then I'll reconsider; gradually getting closer to a usable state isn't blurb-worthy. Modest Geniustalk17:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where did "hard landing" come from? The article claims soft landings for both the ship and the booster, and the CBS News source it links to appears to confirm that (although for the ship it simply quotes Musk's claim on that). 167.24.104.189 (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: "B11 successfully splashed down in the Gulf of Mexico, in what SpaceX has confirmed was a soft landing" and "S29 splashed down softly in the Indian Ocean." If that's wrong, it should probably be corrected, but the sources given seem to confirm it. 167.24.104.189 (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Booster and Ship appeared to land intact based on the telemetry (though the ship had taken damage on the flaps), I don't think we've gotten confirmation yet as to their status now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the article - at the time of my comment it said nothing about the landings, only plans for the landings. We can argue semantics if you like, but being destroyed when they enter the ocean does not constitute a soft landing to me, even if they slowed down first. There's no evidence either craft was in the intended location either - the upper stage almost certainly wasn't, given its fins were completely shredded during re-entry. Anyway, none of this makes this more than a test flight, so it isn't suitable for ITN. Modest Geniustalk10:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an uninformed analysis. Starship was orbiting the earth at 26.000 km/h and slowed down to 50km/h performing a vertical soft landing. The same happened for the booster. The entire stack is the largest and most powerful rocket ever built. This is a monumental achievement and an historic first in human spaceflight technology. Nothing similar has ever been attempted in history. We just had in the news the Boeing Starliner launch which is a routine ISS crew mission (performed by an extremely delayed but totally ordinary launch platform) and not this? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk13:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starship was orbiting the earth It was not, this was a suborbital flight Nothing similar has ever been attempted in history I remember SpaceX attempting this three times already, and claiming each time that it was the first "true" success We just had in the news the Boeing Starliner launch which is a routine ISS crew mission And, more importantly, is Boeing Starliner's first manned flight, rather than its fourth test flight Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The news here is that both the booster and the launch vehicle of the most powerful rocket ever achieved orbital re-entry and performed the first vertical soft water landings in history. Calling that flight "sub orbital" is farcical. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk13:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So jarring that the Starliner launch is the first item and this is not even mentioned... unfortunately the topic at this point is absurdly polarised and the results are simply comical. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk13:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Modest Genius. I also get the feeling that this is an incremental improvement, which is exactly what Starship's development approach really is. This is the fourth integrated flight test in less than a year, and there's going to be a fifth one by the end of this month. I really don't see why this one warrants inclusion. When it achieves something beyond the current limits of spaceflight development, then that would be the right news to post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If IFT-5 is another flight like this, even if the full system is recovered, I would be against posting, but this is the first fully successful flight, and previous tests were shut down due to not all objectives of the mission being met.
Oppose another week, another SpaceX launch. Starship is launching test flights so often now that it is hard to keep track (expected to have 4 more this year). So what that this one did not explode. When Starship has its first crewed launch, then we can post. Natg 19 (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely it's not necessary to have every space flight included here. Got to be something really out of the ordinary. Nigej (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just an ordinary space flight; it is the first fully successful flight test of the largest spacecraft currently operational. Surely the complete success of IFT-4 deserves a brief mention in current events, as opposed to the incremental successes of the last two Starship flights. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Modest Genius. I'll consider supporting if/when they do a crewed launch, but this is just another incremental test. TheKip(contribs)19:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While we'd posted IFT-1, it quickly came in retrospect to have been viewed as a mistake, and neither IFT-2 or IFT-3 were posted. This is merely an incremental test flight that doesn't mark any big turning point. The only difference being claimed is that the vehicles mostly remained intact/capable up to the point they were expected to blow up; it still had a number of "partial failures," so it doesn't even cross the bar as a 100% success, even before acknowledging that an internal test isn't exactly particularly newsworthy. ITN is not a ticker for SpaceX activities; it's a venue for news, not press releases. Nottheking (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, no they were not all accomplished. You can read the list we have on them here. Those yellow items indicate objects only partly completed. "All objectives completed" would mean that list would consist only of green items, with zero yellow, red, or grayed-out.
The actual qualified statement is that, for the first time, Starship wasn't precluded from even attempting its final objectives. It's notable that it still had engine failures, and most critically, while it was mostly in one-piece on reentry, it did still suffer a heat-shield breach, that resulted in one of its maneuvering flaps burning partly through. (a decent amount of material was observed to have broken free of S28 during reentry & descent) Given that the focal objective repeatedly talked about was to avoid any burning up during reentry, this constitutes only a partial success. Nottheking (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main test objectives of this flight were to simulate a booster landing in the Gulf of Mexico, and for the Starship to survive reentry and soft-land in the Indian Ocean. Both of which were accomplished.
Would also like to point out that those are huge first accomplishments in the history of spaceflight... those are monumental steps forward in the history of spaceflight. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk13:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe that this fully successful flight test of the largest spacecraft constructed deserves a brief mention. This story has been covered by multiple major American and international news networks and hailed as a completely successful test flight, including CNN, BBC, CBS, NSBC, etc.
Besides, the opposers seem to be riding on a shaky precedent set by the last three Starship launches that failed. This one is a complete success, very different from the previous IFT-2 and IFT-3. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I do agree that IFT-4 was amazing, the exact notability of the mission isn't really that much (especially compared to IFT-1). Frankly, I don't think we should be nominating Starship launches until a major milestone is achieved (such as first full reuse, first ship-to-ship prop transfer, or even first HLS demo mission). Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message!21:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, incremental improvement over the previous flight but it looks like NASA and the media consider this to be a Big F***ing Deal owing to the controlled landing of both vehicles, especially the controlled reentry and landing of the upper stage being the largest spacecraft ever re-entered (semi?)-successfully [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've not seen much from NASA. I've seen a lot of SpaceX asserting it's a "full success," even though it's still heavily qualified. Expect it to drop out of the news cycle once it's no longer the day of, just like with IFT-2 and IFT-3. Nottheking (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Expect it to drop out of the news cycle once it's no longer the day of, just like with IFT-2 and IFT-3" isn't this the same as 50% of the items we post? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support having the Boeing Starliner launch in the news section and not this launch which is the first successful complete launch of the most powerful (and advanced) rocket ever built is crazy. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk13:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the two is farcical. Starliner is a totally routine and ordinary mission. The only notable aspect of that mission is that the first launch was so delayed. Starship is the world's most powerful rocket. Nothing similar to Starship was ever attempted in the history of human spaceflight and this test resulted in many "firsts" and many records and a huge step forward in human spaceflight technology. In the words of NASA Administrator Bill Nelson: “Congratulations SpaceX on Starship’s successful test flight this morning! We are another step closer to returning humanity to the Moon through Artemis—then looking onward to Mars.”{{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk13:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing similar to Starship was ever attempted in the history of human spaceflight - this is not evident. You're bludgeoning this thread with peacock terms and SpaceX boosterism, accompanied by crystal-ball claims about the Moon and Mars - but the evidence just doesn't support it. It's a decent test, don't get me wrong - but it just doesn't deserve the exaggerated hype you're heaping on it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is not evident I understand that. Hence this absurd discussion exists. Unfortunately, to anyone with basic knowledge of spaceflight technology this is abundantly clear. See for example: SpaceX Starship launches on nail-biting 4th test flight of world's most powerful rockethttps://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-4-test-launch-success
What you call "boosterism" and "peacock terms" are actually reality. This is:
the biggest rocket ever launched
the most powerful rocket ever launched
the first successful re-entry of a booster of this class
the first successful vertical soft landing of a booster of this class
the first successful orbital re-entry of a space vehicle of this class
the first successful vertical soft landing of a booster of this class
I can't understand why in unbiased and good faith you are actively against posting this blurb about Starship. IFT-1 and IFT-4 are subjectively notable to the same degree. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Modest Genius. Not every single test needs to be posted. Seems like a recurring theme that "ooh-la-la! cool spaceship launched!" is taken into consideration here. Kline • talk • contribs17:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The 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.
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.
Actually just missed the lack of a source for her death date in the infobox. That's been rectified. It should probably be mentioned in the article proper as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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
