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.
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).
Norway announces that it will give Ukraine 1.1 billion kroner (US$103 million) to help repair its energy infrastructure and secure the country's electricity supply before the winter. (Le Monde)
At least six people are killed in a landslide caused by heavy rainfall that struck a highway in Baños in central Ecuador, with 30 other people reported missing. (AP)
Seven people are injured and one other person is injured while running away in a shooting at a pop-up party in Methuen, Massachusetts, United States. (AP)
Article needs updating 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 article needs a load more prose rather than just tables. Like a long race summary, and also some qualifying summary too. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
China issues new regulations allowing its national coastguard to detain foreigners accused of illegally entering China's claimed territorial waters and adjacent waters. (Al Jazeera)
Thousands of women march in São Paulo, Brazil, in protest of a bill that would equate late abortions after 22 weeks to homicide with sentences of six to 20 years in prison. (Reuters)
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.
@Joseph2302:, It is not just the release of a report but the the first report published by the organisation which is significant as up to that point there were no previous in depth reports by an organisation that covered the topic in this report. ChefBear01 (talk) 18:06, 16 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.
I agree and entire understand what you mean. It's hard to say. But close to 90 people dead IMHO is notable even if it happens in a "third-world country". But I a also not 100% sure what the best approach here. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly even now the Bangui article is well below par for quality and length for posting. That was why it wasn't posted, so we shouldn't judge it that way. This article still needs more content before it meets the quality aspects we expect. — Masem (t) 15:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support the story for notability, but the article is too short and in need of cleanup to meet quality and updated content standards. To quote the updated content standards, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs~Malvoliox(talk | contribs)15:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clear consensus against posting as ongoing. The winner will be posted as a blurb if the article is in shape then. --Tone09:54, 16 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.
Comment I do not believe we have posted the Euros to Ongoing before (I checked 2016 and 2021 and they were both proposed but rejected). If I remember correctly the only sporting events that are posted to Ongoing are the Olympics and the (football) World Cup. Black Kite (talk)12:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here... Olympics and World Cup have wide international exposure as one of the reasons for these in ongoing. While this event is multinational, I don't think we should use ongoing for it. — Masem (t) 12:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No need for ongoing, we don't usually add that for sporting events and would be a slippery slope. We'll post the final result when it occurs and that's fine. — Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tend to agree with the argument that this is only a continental tournament, but arguing that there’s a precedent not to post this or that it’d create systemic bias doesn’t hold. All that was broken when we posted the 2014 Commonwealth Games to ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:41, 15 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.
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 United States military plans to temporarily dismantle the Gaza floating pier and move it to Israel following predictions of rough seas, suspending humanitarian aid shipments at the pier for the third time in the past month. (ABC News)
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 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.
One of the most historic days in South African history! For the first time since the end of apartheid, the ANC no longer controls the government, and has coalitioned with the DA opposition. This is pretty huge for the country, as this is almost the equivalent of Republicans and Democrats forming a coalition government. Lots of media coverage as well. Might be good to create a separate article on the new government that has formed. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Altblurb 1 suggested Rephrasing to replace the buzzword "government of national unity". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that was an exceptional case, as Sánchez managed to be re-elected prime minister after a controversial pact for a controversial amnesty law for those persecuted during the 2017 constitutional crisis, this being the main issue. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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 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)
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.
I went through and cited the SOM info as best as I could. It seems like a lot of it is derived from a speech, so I worry about credibility. Also from a cursory look, there is a ton of info out there that needs to be added to this bio/article. Does not even mention his work as Under Secretary of State for International Security Affairs in the body prose. Wish I had the time. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.23:16, 15 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.
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]
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.
Basketball Hall of Famer, dubbed "The Logo." Most notable for his time as a player and executive for the Los Angeles LakersKENGRIFFEY24FAN (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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]
Yes, some people are fond of repeating the same thing, based on some misguided belief that Margaret Thatcher, giggle, is in the same league as Nelson Mandela in basically any way, and then they try to impose that as the standard for any blurb of a death. If Nelson Mandela is the standard we should never blurb another person's death unless they die in unusually noteworthy circumstances. nableezy - 23:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nelson Mandela is no more the standard alone than both are combined. As you say, this is just something people say. In practice, the only deaths we should blurb are the deaths we do blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Idk why I’m engaging with this, but we blurb plenty of non heads of state, and I literally laugh out loud when people blurt out Thatcher here. But Shane Warne would be the closest example here, and guess what, blurbed. Please stop with the Thatcher Mandela nonsense, because a. The two of them aren’t in the same league anyway, and b. That has nothing to do with if a person should be or has been blurbed. nableezy - 02:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we use them as examples is that both had a significant impact on their country's politics clearly demonstrating how they were great figures and top of their field (it also helped both had significant state funerals that lasted multiple days). It's why we're looking we're looking for the same here, and this article lacks a significant demonstration of why he had a lasting impact or legacy (I'm ignoring the NBA logo issue here). He's got some but not anywhere close to what we'd see with other sport legends like Pele or Jim Brown Masem (t) 03:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between West and Wayne vs. Mandela and Thatcher is that most people in the world have some semblance of knowledge of who either Thatcher or Mandela were due to their international impact. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who knows either West or Warne unless they're already interested in that specific sport. 31.44.224.73 (talk) 13:11, 14 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 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 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)
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.
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]
Support with new altblurb the election is very clearly major enough to warrant an inclusion in the news, however, the blurb and altblurb provided aren't factually correct, von der Leyen can't be the main candidate, she didn't run. Scu ba (talk) 13:24, 16 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.
Eight {cn} tags remaining in the prose, with half of the string of bullet-points following the prose unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Reviewers needed) 2024 Bulgarian parliamentary election
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.
Almost ready It needs a longer lead (one that explains the outcome). We don't post the word "plurality" on the main page as it's too obscure. Lastly, it was GERB–SDS that won the plurality and an updated hook should show that. Schwede6603:02, 15 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.
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]
Ok, I've had a closer look. To understand what's going on, I had a look at the composition of the Vivaldi coalition. Adding up the seats of the seven parties that make up the coalition, I come to 76 seats, i.e. 2 more than the remaining parties. That isn't spelled out in the article or in any of the result tables; please tell me if I've missed that. Either way, if I've got that right, then both hooks above are factually wrong. What am I missing? Schwede6603:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, however multiple parties (Open VLD - which supplied the PM -, Groen, PS) in the Vivaldi coalition have announced they don't want to be part of the new government due to the bad results for their party. I'm not defending the blurbs as they're written right now, but it's a little bit more complicated than just adding seats. YD407OTZ (talk) 05:38, 15 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.
@PFHLai yes a bit. I do not understand the line "as the latter offered him the job of senior registrar." Would be nice to have birthdate and death information in prose. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.22:23, 15 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.
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.
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: