Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates - Wikipedia
Article Images
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
- The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is awarded jointly to Demis Hassabis (pictured) and John M. Jumper for their work on protein structure prediction and David Baker for his work on computational protein design.
- Hurricane Milton makes landfall in the U.S. state of Florida.
- John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton receive the Nobel Prize in Physics for their research in machine learning with artificial neural networks.
- Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun receive the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discovery of microRNA.
- Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
- Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
- A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
- Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
- The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
- 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.
Purge this page to update the cache
- 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).
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).
- Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
- Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.
There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
- Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
- Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
The biggest businessman of India Mr.Ratan Tata passed away — Preceding unsigned comment added by R KAPOORBHARAT (talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archives of posted stories: Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/Archives
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
Internet Archive Breach
Very prominent archive known for its archive of webpages and various different digital-based data is attacked and suffers a security breach. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prominent newspaper editor of current Tamil Nadu state party-led government Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. Abishe (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft Support article is teetering on a stub, but it is properly cited. Scuba 15:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Ready) RD: Ethel Kennedy
Wife of Robert F. Kennedy and mother of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dies at age 96. Davey2116 (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article looks fine Scuba 15:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Well sourced, no tags. Jusdafax (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Article looks good. Would support photo RD down the road too. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It was only yesterday that I was reading her article and was surprised at the line
"She is the oldest living member of the Kennedy family"
. Alas, that is not true anymore. Her article is ready to be posted and I also support a photo of her being posted. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 16:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] - Support Photo RD immediately "down the road". InedibleHulk (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on procedural grounds but strongly oppose a “photo RD” which is not a thing, and she certainly does not qualify for a blurb This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobel Prize in Literature
The winner's article needs some work before it is ready to be posted. Also, I am not sure whether to include her distinction as first Asian female Nobel laureate in Literature in the blurb or not. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 13:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The pulled quote from the Nobel committee for the reason in the current blurb looks odd. I know we need this but the way the statement reads in full by the committee is a bit too long for us to use, so may need some more creative selection of parts. Masem (t) 13:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the nature of her work it might be ok, as it is hard to describe.I am more worried about lack of references or citations to blogs.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Here is how some major news organizations are reporting her win:
- ...for her ‘intense poetic prose’ exposing fragility of life (The Indian Expresss),
- ... for her intense poetic prose (Wall Street Journal),
- ...was honored for her “intense” prose and historical focus (The Washington Post),
- ...for ‘poetic prose on historical trauma’ (Financial Express)
- Which one do you think would be most appropriate for the blurb? ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 14:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Nobel Prize in Literature is awarded to Korean author Han Kang for her prose about the fragility of life. I think that's fine... VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the actual words are "for her intense poetic prose that confronts historical traumas and exposes the fragility of human life", either repeat that (even in part) or don't "quote" anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Needs some work, mainly references. Also, I suggest for literature Nobels we go with simple "X is awarded Nobel Prize in literature" because the descriptions are typically something very poetic and not as obvious as in the scientific awards. We can say whether the person is a writer or poet or both, though. --Tone 17:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A poet is a writer (who writes poetically). I think you mean "novelist", and yeah, I'll add it. I don't think it's worth arguing about whether Nobel Prize citations are ever "very" poetic, because that's subjective. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on quality - multiple CN tags. The Kip (contribs) 18:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
Sports
|
No sourcing issues, long enough. Mooonswimmer 01:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Very notable, and the article looks pretty good. High Admiral JMT (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good. I also cropped the subject's image. Cheers. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 06:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article is in a great shape. It appears ready to be posted. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 08:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article looks good Scuba 15:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Football player. Could use some more work on sources. mwwv converse∫edits 20:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there's much much more about his time at MK Dons than his seven years at Sheffield United, even though half of that SUFC times was his only time in the Premier League. This usually happens when an editor is writing about a player for their favourite club, but then leaves Wikipedia/doesn't care when the player moves club. Probably not a big enough issue to nix posting the page, but it certainly stands out. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the reason may be that he meant a lot to the Dons fans, given he was a local player who came through the academy and was one of the best players. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Currently two cn tags. However neither are what I would call particularly controversial claims of fact. I think it's good enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Fixed the cn tags. Article overall looks in good shape sourcing wise. Fats40boy11 (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article is good enough to be posted. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 08:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article looks fine. Scuba 15:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan–ATLAS)
The second brightest comet visible from the Earth the last 50 years. It already graced the southern skies the previous weeks, now it makes it closest approach to Earth on 12 October, before emerging in the western sky. --C messier (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait until October 12. I personally think it can be post-worthy, but we can't make news out of what hasn't occurred yet. — Knightoftheswords 19:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be really be visible October 12. Wait a few days? Nfitz (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait until October 12, hopefully this doesn't end up like the 2nd moon where the consensus was to post when it actually entered orbit and then everyone just forgot to nominate it again Scuba 22:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just about to nominate 2024 PT5 and forgot lol High Admiral JMT (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the status of 2024 PT5 on that date but there was still no good picture at that time and nothing much more to say. A renomination therefore did not seem sensible. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait as others said, we won't know if the comet would be visible until on that day (October 12th). Rager7 (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comets are unpredictable, but not that unpredictable. It won't vanish in two days and up to now it has been quite predictable. On 12 October it will be quite low in the sky, near Venus, and set early, while the tail curves back to the Sun. After the 14th will be an easy to see object (although the moonlight will interfer). C messier (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Bright comets are ITN/R, the article seems ok and there's a wide choice of pictures. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Already is gaining much attention. Can be posted. High Admiral JMT (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait but Support. Another interesting astronomy news. The 2nd moon was totally forgotten about, but let's see if this will make its close approach on that day. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 06:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article meets the standard and I think this can be posted now. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 08:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indian industrialist, philanthropist and former chairman of Tata Group. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose RD currently on quality. The Philanthropy section is under sourced and written in a way that edges on POV. In terms of a blurb, there feels like there needs to be more about the legacy or impact he's had (not just having buildings named after him) , while the awards and honors implies that direction, the article needs to be more explicit, otherwise this seems like any typical business leader anywhere in the world. (To contrast, I would think we are comparing to someone like Bill Gates as a major figure in the business and philanthropy fields, and this article doesn't currently give that impression.) Masem (t) 18:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not ready The Philanthropy section still reads as POV/promotional writing, and relies a bit too much on primary sourcing for these types of claims. --Masem (t) 12:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support RD Article need quality improvement for posting. Pachu Kannan (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Blurb OLDMANDIES. Not a serving head of state or government This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm, okay? I don't see anyone saying that this was a nomination for a blurb. Tube·of·Light 05:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It was when it was posted This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm, okay? I don't see anyone saying that this was a nomination for a blurb. Tube·of·Light 05:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support RD Article looks good enough now. Rynoip (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The article just needs slightly more grammatical revisions before posting. Rager7 (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Article looks to meet basic expectations for homepage / RD. Anything else with NPOV or tone should be taken up by orange tags on the article page to get editors attention. For now this is ready. Ktin (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't there be a blurb here? 2409:40C0:101E:59D2:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not Ready. Several sections still needs to be sourced. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 06:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article seems fine now. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 08:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It is a major event, and the article seems fine. User:VSankeerthSai1609
- Oppose blurb as he wasn't a world transforming figure.
- Oppose alternative blurb and blurb. He wasn't awarded the highest civilian honor and the phrase in brackets can be removed.User:VSankeerthSai1609
2401:BA80:A30F:5D1C:DCB7:5373:D5BE:66F7 (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose blurb but Support RD for the article is clean enough now to post in RD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose blurb, support RD per above. The Kip (contribs) 18:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Closed) Iwao Hakamada
Note: we also posted the news about him in March 2014. --UCinternational (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Cool trivia but I don't see how this would fit into the narrative of ITN. Perhaps more suitable for DYK? TwistedAxe [contact] 14:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose dyk not itn Scuba 14:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ineligible for DYK. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose minor status quo update to what we already posted on the acquittal. Similar to why we don't post inauguration of elected leaders when we already posted the results. Masem (t) 15:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose since he already got his day on the front page per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - more finalization of a procedure than anything else. I would like to note however a decade later, that in ITN's current environment, his acquittal would likely not even be posted, nor nominated. — Knightoftheswords 19:38, 9 October 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.
(Posted) Nobel Prize in Chemistry
All three winners' articles look good enough even though Jumper's article is bit short and they need to be updated. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 10:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Except for a few statements in Baker's personal life, all articles are good to go for quality purposes. --Masem (t) 12:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For Hassabis, date and place of birth are unreferenced. Schwede66 18:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed. Masem (t) 18:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The statement in Jumper's aritcle that AlphaFold is the first machine learning algorithm to be able to accurately predict the 3D structure of proteins is unreferenced. --C messier (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been fixed. Ktin (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The three articles pass basic hygiene checks for homepage. Good to go. Can someone create a composite image on a photo editing software? Ktin (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need a picture of all three winners or would a picture of both Hassabis and Baker be enough? ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 08:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Article about a notable prize is now ready. 64.114 etc 04:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ktin and 64. 2605:8D80:401:9506:71A2:F7E:99F4:3379 (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]Support I agree with K. This is a good article. 2604:3D08:9476:BE00:28B8:4402:8321:8CA1 (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Posting. --Tone 12:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Daughter of Lee Kuan Yew, sister of Lee Hsien Loong (both Prime Ministers of Singapore). There are portions that may still require citations. – robertsky (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but not ready: Some sections have missing citations and the article in general needs to be expanded or reworked. Will support RD in principle. Tofusaurus (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as of now article looks in decent enough shape. Scuba 14:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article is good enough now. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 08:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
RD: Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
Dissident Catholic bishop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost Support would like to see ISBNs for bibliography which I can do myself, but article is in decent shape sourcing wise. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 04:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems alright to me. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 08:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no problems with the article. Scuba 18:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, needs a lot of work. Hopefully can be improved by the end of the week, to get listed at RD. Natg 19 (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose yeah, article needs work Scuba 14:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose much of the early years and career sections are unreferenced. C messier (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose quite a bit of unsourced information. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 08:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted) RD: Arie L. Kopelman
Thriley (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Article seems good enough Rynoip (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no problems I can see at a glance. Scuba 14:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taye Atske Selassie elected President of Ethiopia
There probably should be an article for the 2024 Ethiopian presidential election. Varavour (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft support with new blurb there was no election, Selassie was appointed to the office. But still, this is a new head of state and ITN/R Scuba 14:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ethiopia is a parliamentary republic and the role of the President is largely ceremonial. Does that still qualify it for ITN/R? Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- no, not automatically. It can be discussed under the criteria of newsworthiness and relevance. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Change of head of state, ITN/R applies. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. New head of state, and a recurring item. 64.114 etc 19:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support change of head of state is ITN/R regardless of system of govt This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. 2605:8D80:400:BBDB:BC17:A461:397B:9102 (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Oppose on quality - Selassie's article isn't much longer than a stub. The Kip (contribs) 22:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Has nobody noticed that the article is a stub? Schwede66 22:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Recurring item, new head of state. 2604:3D08:9476:BE00:E4DE:FA24:70FD:A760 (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Oppose on quality. Article really needs some expansion; at the moment it contains very barebones information on his life and career. ArkHyena (it/its) 23:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose the Prime Minister of Ethiopia is the holder of power, the president is just ceremonial and appointed. Secretlondon (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though it is ceremonial it is still a change of head of state Rynoip (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on quality as per above. The article is currently barebones. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Change of head of state regardless if he is ceremonial or if he is appointed Rynoip (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on both the quality and importance. He is purely ceremonial head of state without almost no power. LiamKorda 10:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We've posted Death of Queen Elizabeth II and Coronation of Charles III though, and those are much more ceremonial than in the Ethiopian system (a system which is not that rare either). Abcmaxx (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But those were rare historical events (Death and coronation of a British monarch). Those events are the first ones in seven decades. Also, Death of the Queen Elizabeth is not a fair comparison since we are not talking about the death of a head of the state. Plus, the president of the Ethiopia is appointed to this position rather than indirectly elected through electoral college like some other countries that also have ceremonial head of state like Pakistan, Germany and India. LiamKorda 13:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Elizabeth II was the head of
over aabout three dozen states and Charles III now "rules"them all except Barbadosover a dozen. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- That fact makes her death and his coronation even more important since it concerns more than a dozen countries and therefore is not at all comparable to this nomination. LiamKorda 14:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything is comparable, but yeah, they're certainly different. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That fact makes her death and his coronation even more important since it concerns more than a dozen countries and therefore is not at all comparable to this nomination. LiamKorda 14:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Elizabeth II was the head of
- But those were rare historical events (Death and coronation of a British monarch). Those events are the first ones in seven decades. Also, Death of the Queen Elizabeth is not a fair comparison since we are not talking about the death of a head of the state. Plus, the president of the Ethiopia is appointed to this position rather than indirectly elected through electoral college like some other countries that also have ceremonial head of state like Pakistan, Germany and India. LiamKorda 13:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We've posted about the President of Singapore, who is similarly ceremonial. So It looks like there is precedent regardless. –DMartin 21:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said above, the president of Ethiopia is appointed to his position. Singapore’s president despite being ceremonial in nature is elected through a direct election. This nomination is just like a job posting. LiamKorda 05:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We've posted Death of Queen Elizabeth II and Coronation of Charles III though, and those are much more ceremonial than in the Ethiopian system (a system which is not that rare either). Abcmaxx (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support notability The position is not entirely ceremoniał but in part, the president has executive powers vested in the Council of Ministers chaired by the prime minister. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on notability but neutral on quality Head of state of a regional power. Article doesn't have any glaring problems, but is quite short. –DMartin 21:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support New head of state, a type of recurring item. Ready to post! 72.143.234.123 (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]Support per many others. 74.49.190.204 (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Admin comment It doesn’t matter how many editors vote in support. Without someone putting in the effort and expanding the bio beyond stub status, it is not going to be posted. Schwede66 06:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Selassie's article is a stub. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 08:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted) Nobel Prize in Physics
Hopfield's article needs some work, but Hinton's article is in good shape. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 10:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (for Hopfield) I just removed all nonsense from Hopfield article and cited what can be cited.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We even have images now if you want to make it an image blurb.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support For once, quality of both awardees are good and updated, no need for major hair pulling rush to get ready for posting. --Masem (t) 11:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Could somebody with photo editing software please produce a combined mugshot for those Nobel recipients? Schwede66 19:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Schwede66: added image of both laureates using images from their respective infoboxes. Licensing info might need tweaking but I tried my best. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, not sure what the correct way is when we've got a mix of two different licenses. But the individual images have suitable licenses and that's what's important. Thanks for your help! Schwede66 21:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Schwede66: added image of both laureates using images from their respective infoboxes. Licensing info might need tweaking but I tried my best. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on quality. 64.114 etc 21:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on quality per 64 etc. 2605:8D80:400:BBDB:BC17:A461:397B:9102 (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Posted – Schwede66 22:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support articles look good. Scuba 03:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
A new space probe launched. Rather famous for being the first mission to rendezvous with a binary asteroid. High Admiral JMT (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on quality More references are needed. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel we should wait under Dec 2026 when this reaches its destination and meets ITNR. The launch itself seemed fairly routine/trivial Masem (t) 21:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have gone through the article and added missing citations. Looks in decent shape now. Schwede66 21:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost Ready. The first paragraph in the career section needs to be sourced. After that, the article looks good to go. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 06:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article is now good to go. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 08:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Austrian-American novelist, teacher and short story writer. 240F:7A:6253:1:4C5F:E789:5E5F:4B18 (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article seems alright to me. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 09:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted) Hurricane Milton
This Hurricane has had incredible effects on the southern United States already, it's already a category 5 hurricane and has caused mass evacuations so far. It is as strong as Hurricane Dean, and is currently the dominating the reporting in the US. It is an important historical event that is occurring. Des Vallee (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait as per usual we wait to see what the impact is, not before it makes landfall. It has a good chance to be posted after that. Masem (t) 23:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To add, the reason we wait for landfall is that the coverage of damage itself needs to be established as to make sure the quality of the article is going in the right direction. If for some reason Milton just vanished overnight and did no landfall, the article still would need improvements to describe that. It's clear this won't happen, Milton will cause a lot of flooding if not more, but we show know how extensive that is without our article to make sure the quality is established. — Masem (t) 16:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait Unlike Helene, we have a conceivable chance of seeing an objective record being broken, with Milton already having the fastest intensification from TD to Category 5. Otherwise, wait until landfall and actual impacts. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the impacts are known, although I would support blurbing this if more intensity records are broken by this storm. (I mean, it's already the 5th most intense Atlantic hurricane as of this writing, I would not be surprised if it would try to break Wilma's record low pressure.) Vida0007 (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing this to Post-posting support. Well-sourced, and this is definitely the biggest news right now. This hurricane's impacts are now being felt in Florida too, even spawning several tornadoes. Vida0007 (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it is now the most intense in the Gulf of Mexico, and the strongest since Wilma overall. I don't think it's going to reach Wilma's intensity though. It's probably going to be blurbed at landfall anyway. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SMH. Can we PLEASE wait for impacts in the future? Not gonna request a closure like last time because Milton is already impacting portions of the Gulf Coast and probably will be worthy of posting within 48 hours, but really, we should wait in the future. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that Milton in particular is different than Helene and the other one I can't remember immediately: Milton is setting records well over 24 hours out from landfall, and I think that warrants having an ITN discussion open. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ITN is not great for posting of records that routinely get broken (like strongest storms). Its the impact of the storm that matters, because not only that is what gets larger attention, but also a better judge for quality of the article to make sure it covers the bulk of such impacts. — Masem (t) 00:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconding what Masem said. And I'm gonna say the forbidden words again: as things stand currently, Milton is a much better DYK candidate than a ITN candidate. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's quite unsuitable for DYK because it's breaking news and so the article will be getting lots of development. The DYK process might take weeks as it has a long pipeline which is overloaded and so is not appropriate for such a topical topic. ITN is obviously the best place to handle this as it routinely covers weather stories and is currently blurbing two others. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-Posting Support. I'm pleased with this timing. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that Milton in particular is different than Helene and the other one I can't remember immediately: Milton is setting records well over 24 hours out from landfall, and I think that warrants having an ITN discussion open. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait Can't we just wait for the tropical cyclone's impacts instead of nominating it as soon as it reaches a certain intensity? Patience is a virtue. --ZZZ'S 00:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It already seems clear that this is a big one and the preparations are in the news. The article seems reasonably substantial with 65 citations and counting. It's silly to hold back on this so we can continue to blurb a stale sports story from over a week ago. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unconvinced that there's a reason to bash a sports nomination, especially given that 1 week isn't particularly long ago. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That blurb has been run for 8 straight days now, which is much more than the typical featured article gets, never mind DYK. But you know the saying "there's nothing as stale as yesterday's news"? Just think how much more that applies when it's last week's news or last month's news, as it is in that case. And then there's diminishing returns too. After our readers have seen the item a few times, then they will starting tuning it out. And so the consequence is that just about no-one is reading that article now. It's done.
- The fix for this is easy; just run new items that are actually in the news. Like this hurricane that is so terrifying that it moved a veteran meteorologist to tears.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 14:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unconvinced that there's a reason to bash a sports nomination, especially given that 1 week isn't particularly long ago. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I agree with Andrew Davidson, The article is in a good shape, is making headlines and I think it is good enough time now to post this. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 09:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until we can give Milton a blurb that puts it above all the other category 5 hurricanes that didn't make ITN. So far, all we have is preparations (WP:CRYSTALBALL), the intensity (strongest since 2005), and the speed of intensification (fastest on record from tropical depression to category 5). If we can't, then let's have the patience to wait until landfall. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Support Altblurb 2 proposed, which I think gives it the correct importance. Yes, it's before landfall we're supporting it, but this is a record-setter after all (strongest since 2005, least time between TD and cat 5 hurricane). GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per GeorgeMemulous. Based on the intensification, this particular one is an exception to the rule that we wait for a direct landfall on the mainland U.S. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait It hasn't hit land yet, its a good idea to wait for its effects and any casualty tolls before it is published on ITN. It is also a good idea include Helene alongside it when it makes landfall, as two powerful and devastating hurricanes in a very close period of time is notable. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Helene's devastation was primarily in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia (U.S. state), whereas Milton's is almost certainly going to be concentrated in Florida. While it is true both will have had significant impacts around Tampa, I think their geographic separation, the fact Helene is gone and stale, and the fact that Milton is so extraordinary means the blurb should only be on Milton. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As others (and I) have pointed out numerous times in prior TC ITN proposals, we should Wait for impacts or future developments. Category 5 hurricanes are not particularly rare for the North Atlantic basin, and though its RI episode was impressive, I'm not sure if that is truly ITN-worthy. As far as I can recall, the only meteorological record Milton has solidly broken is its extremely unusual motion vector as a C5 hurricane, which is trivial information at best. Milton has not broken any notable meteorological records that may make it ITN-worthy regardless of impacts (e.g. most intense Atlantic hurricane, still comfortably held by Wilma). In regards to abundant news coverage of Milton, this is primarily due to its expected, potentially devastating impacts to the Tampa Bay Area and much of west Florida. Though significant impacts are almost certainly—and unfortunately—going to happen, WP:CRYSTAL applies here until they do happen.
- ArkHyena (it/its) 14:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait for landfall, as per usual. Scuba 14:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per GeorgeMemulous. Huge news already due to millions of people ordered to evacuate and the existing documented extreme intensification and strength. There’s no need to wait, per WaltClip, and the article is in good shape per PrinceofPunjab. I strongly disagree with the reasoning expressed by !votes to wait. This is a blurb-worthy ITN story now. Jusdafax (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Already has made a bit of mess in the Yucatan peninsula where it brought rain and winds. (Reminder cyclones don't have to make landfall to do things) Mandatory evacuation orders issued, mass evacuations, some major airports already closed. Seems pretty impactful to me already. Tampa Bay mayor: "you're going to die" The purpose of ITN, and Wikipedia, is to serve the readers, not play Nomic and make up a bunch of arbitrary rules and robotically apply them no matter what. The "real world" is frequently messy and comes in many shades of gray, not stark blank-and-white. (idly wonders whether if an asteroid were predicted on a near certain collision course with a major city, people at ITN would strenuously argue "we have to wait and see what the impacts (heh heh) are first before we post it, can't foretell the future don't know what'll happen for certain") --Slowking Man (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides the implied false equivalency between tropical cyclones, where dozens make land impacts every year, and an asteroid strike on a major city, which would be entirely unprecedented in human history, there is the fact that weather forecasts can and do bust. Milton's impacts on Florida are far from "near certain", even if I would state that significant to catastrophic impacts are very likely myself. Weather is messy and it would be bad practice to push a weather event to ITN on the presumption that it will inflict significant impacts before those impacts actually happen. A prime example would be Typhoon Bebinca (2024), which for several days appeared likely (and was explicitly forecast by the JTWC) to make an unprecedented and potentially devastating landfall near Shanghai before dry air halted its intensification. ArkHyena (it/its) 23:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of a really bad hit true, though a "graze" or two have happened. Fun fact the Tunguska impactor, if merely displaced in time by 6-ish hrs (so the Earth would have rotated to a different spot) would have obliterated St Petersburg (then capital of the Russian Empire) and devastated the Baltic region (by causing a tsunami). (Per article estimated power in megatons which is "big-ass H-bomb" levels to use the scientific term) A premise more alt history stories need to take and run with.
- The Qingyang event also is interesting, unfortunately we don't have much info and could have been other things like storms. Speaking of, a big impact over the 70% of our planet covered by water would cause a tsunami which is decidedly not unprecedented. Look at the Eltanin impact, just don't read that before bedtime
- My broad point was Milton has already caused significant impacts regardless of the future. Mass evacs, disaster declarations etc are impacts. I see now they're closing Wally World, apparently giant megacorps are taking actions with "impacts" (big employer, for one). Just say that in ITN: "disaster declarations evac orders etc are issued for Milton", no predicting the future needed. Slowking Man (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides the implied false equivalency between tropical cyclones, where dozens make land impacts every year, and an asteroid strike on a major city, which would be entirely unprecedented in human history, there is the fact that weather forecasts can and do bust. Milton's impacts on Florida are far from "near certain", even if I would state that significant to catastrophic impacts are very likely myself. Weather is messy and it would be bad practice to push a weather event to ITN on the presumption that it will inflict significant impacts before those impacts actually happen. A prime example would be Typhoon Bebinca (2024), which for several days appeared likely (and was explicitly forecast by the JTWC) to make an unprecedented and potentially devastating landfall near Shanghai before dry air halted its intensification. ArkHyena (it/its) 23:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait to see impact. - RockinJack18 16:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait/Oppose Alt Blurb I per above. Sure it's one of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes on record, but people will remember Milton for its destruction more. Oppose Alt Blurb I because there has been plenty of Category 5 hurricanes that didn't make ITN, like Hurricane Lee (2023) and Hurricane Lorenzo (2019). For other Category 5 hurricanes that made it it ITN, it was for its destruction, not its strength. For Alb Blurb II, it can be added to future destruction info. INeedSupport :3 18:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait but noting now my support once it makes landfall. As I am just south of Tampa on Florida's west coast, I probably am going to be offline when it comes in and possibly for some days following. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Best of luck, Ad Orientem. Look after yourself. Schwede66 21:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully you'll be fine. Good luck! INeedSupport :3 02:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck! Hope the best for you. Rynoip (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Best of luck, Ad Orientem. Look after yourself. Schwede66 21:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Andrew Davidson. This is already in the news now, and the scale of evacuation is unprecedented. We can update it if or when things worsen, but there is no hard rule which says we need to delay. Also, on a communal responsibility level, I think we should be blurbing this for our readers now with altblurb2 making clear the severity... believe it or not, there are many who do not check the news and we can do our part in communicating how serious this is is. FlipandFlopped ツ 21:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I object to the point that blurbing this before it makes landfall is a good idea ignoring notability to inform those in the storm's path. By now I find it hard to believe that anyone in the track of Milton doesn't know what's going on, and those that do probably aren't checking Wikipedia's In The News, and even then, I don't know what's left to do after all the panic buying and evacuations being stalled on the highways. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and I'd bet less than half a percent of Wikipedia's reader base is even in the path. If they weren't swayed by world news headlines, I doubt they'd be swayed by an ITN entry. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It's in the news, and the impacts are already being felt as hundreds of thousands of people are evacuating. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The evacuations arent going to be of much importance compared to the impact.
- Noah, BSBATalk 21:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support once it makes landfall I'm very biased on this one as I'm in its path and it would be a miracle if I still had the ability to log in to cast a !vote after landfall actually happens and the impacts start to become known, but if the storm's impact on Tampa, Clearwater, Sarasota, etc is anywhere near what is forecast, it is all but certain that this will warrant posting. Wishing Ad Orientem and anyone else in Milton's path all the best. Stay safe, and get somewhere safer if you still can. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also support altblurbs 2/3 if posted before landfall as the extraordinary strength of this storm is very much in the news. Vanilla Wizard 💙 15:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Category 5 hurricane. TyphoonAmpil [citation needed] 02:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support when it makes landfall but needs better blurb.
- Altblurb 3 proposed. This is the last one that will be made before landfall. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Article quality is very good, front page headlines all over the world for the last few days; we have to remember the basic principle that this is called "In the news" for a reason. Clearly having substantial impact, and if anything changes we can amend blurbs as necessary. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now - as with Helene, the storm is having an extremely prominent and newsworthy effect already in terms of evacuation and other preparations, and we can update the blurb to reflect the physical impact once that occurs. I do think we've had a problem recently with premature nominations for tropical storms, but this is now very ripe. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the most support I've seen for a hurricane before it actually makes landfall... except for Hurricane Dorian which somehow made it into Ongoing. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per policy-based arguments and Lieutenant Dan, a bloke with one leg, who has parked his boat in the middle of Tampa Harbour, is going nowhere and says that God has got his back. He has no life jacket and can only swim in a circle. SerialNumber54129 13:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- His name is Dan? Don't you mean "Bob"? (Or more like, "Sink"? Florida Man Dan eh? Boy, oh, Buoy…) --Slowking Man (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, until landfall. If a blurb must be chosen now, it should be blurb III as the other three relating to intensity aren't of worldwide interest. ✶Quxyz✶ 15:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Normally I push waiting until there's indication of damage, but there's massive media coverage of this already, and it's a once-in-a-century storm that will hit this very urban area. The leading edge of the rain (perhaps the most intense portion) is already hitting the cost. Nfitz (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – as the impacts in Florida are already occurring as of this writing; and it’ll only get worse. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I support blurb #3. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – as the impacts in Florida are already occurring as of this writing; and it’ll only get worse. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick vote tally:
- 15 saying wait until landfall (6 in the past 24 hours).
- 14 saying support posting now (7 in the past 24 hours).
- 0 saying oppose outright from my knowledge.
- I might be a bit off in my counting, but it seems to be about even. If we post before landfall, it should be posted sooner rather than later so that it isn't immediately outdated. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @GeorgeMemulous, correct me if I’m wrong, but this is a consensus, not a vote. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a democracy but the vote tally is still a useful tool for determining consensus. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @GeorgeMemulous, correct me if I’m wrong, but this is a consensus, not a vote. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion Nasa has images of Milton from the ISS that show the scale of the storm, which might be more interesting than the norm image used for hurricanes/typhoons. [9] Masem (t) 16:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Masem: The ISS video doesn't show Milton at its peak nor it shows it nearing landfall. I don't think it's more interesting than the usual image used for hurricanes. INeedSupport :3 21:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support posting immediately Category 5 hurricanes are relatively rare, impact will obviously be severe, and preparations themselves are so serious that they're already noteworthy.–DMartin 22:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well as of ~10 mins ago the eyewall is starting to move onshore, might as well post prior to midnight UTC, unless a consensus is found to ensure sufficient time to rule out the possibility of last-second divine intervention before posting something on ITN. --Slowking Man (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted I've posted with the wording that "Milton ... approaches Florida". We can update that in due course. Schwede66 23:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Landfall is now confirmed by the National Hurricane Center. I suggest an altblurb similar to "Hurricane Milton, the most intense Atlantic hurricane since 2005, makes landfall in Florida." or something of the like. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mother of Whitney Houston, singer with The Sweet Inspirations which preformed with many acts such as Elvis, and also brief solo career. Issues exist with the article. TheCorriynial (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Article needs ref improvement. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose orange tagged and quite a bit unsourced information. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 09:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose article needs work. Scuba 14:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Close aide of Aung San Suu Kyi Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article is a little short but it's properly cited. Scuba 15:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost there: one CN tag needs a look, and it's generally pretty sparse (his appointment as Chief Minister is mentioned in the lead, but not in the body). UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support one cn tag but nothing else major preventing it. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 09:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Unreferenced DoB. Schwede66 08:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted) Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
Standard fare for ITN. Putting it up here to discuss whether article quality is adequate. Sandstein 11:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC) / Consolidated with an edit-conflicted nomination by Oceanh (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now; the awards sections in both articles are almost entirely uncited.Support Looks good now! Estreyeria (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Oppose articles look fine, but neither have a section on winning the nobel prize, I'd be willing to change my vote when those sections are made. Scuba 15:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose until more valid references are added and non-documented personal information is removed. We have to be careful per WP:BLP.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait because we should post all of the winners at once. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We never done such a thing.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't invent new rules. In the past some winners were not even posted, shame on us Varoon2542 (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose both of the bolded articles needs more sources. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 09:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport I've added sources for the Awards sections and some other general info in both articles, but there are a few sentences on their research that aren't explicitly sourced, which will likely require citations to their research papers. We should get someone more qualified from WP:BIOL to look at those. I've managed to source the technical parts too. The two articles are now fully cited, so I'm formally supporting. Liu1126 (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Support If the Nobel Prize for Medicine is not published before it gets stale, then shame on us — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varoon2542 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support nice work! Seems good enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Article looks good. 64.114 etc 00:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks, Liu. Ready to post! 2604:3D08:9476:BE00:F4F3:BC7A:91D8:83C6 (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]Support per the last four consecutive users. 2605:8D80:401:9506:71A2:F7E:99F4:3379 (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]Support notable event, you’re good to go. 72.143.234.123 (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]Support as with others. 74.49.190.204 (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Marking ready. Nice work by the updaters. Good to go to the mainpage. Well done. Ktin (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Admins willing to post ITN: We need to post this ASAP to avoid Tuesday's news being the oldest news item and leaving this one stale. This week is frenetic with the Nobel and other news. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I like Ktin's idea Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Box_for_Nobel_Prizes. Does anyone want to do this? Natg 19 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've explained there a box doesn't work because we often have failed to get articles to quality before they are stale. However, we can put List of Nobel laureates into Ongoing for next week or so once these start dropping off the list. Masem (t) 17:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I like Ktin's idea Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Box_for_Nobel_Prizes. Does anyone want to do this? Natg 19 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted Masem (t) 17:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Died on Sunday but looks to have been confirmed today. Article is good length but needs more citations, especially in certain sections. Also needs a "death" section. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose yeah, it needs citations, "Dadin's scheme" section is almost devoid of them. Scuba 15:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not ready article needs some work in sourcing. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 09:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2024 Kazakh nuclear power referendum
ShadZ01 (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Not notable enough (according to me). High Admiral JMT (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on notability. There's no way to know if the plant will actually be finished, so ideally it should be nominated then. Also, Kazakhstan isn't under the same international nuclear scrutiny as somewhere like Iran, and this isn't exactly a fusion reactor - nuclear power has been around for many decades, and Kazakhstan is a leading exporter of uranium, so it's not a surprise one gets built. Plus, I doubt it's notable in of itself, beyond being the country's only one, assuming no disaster or international crisis happens, which from a glance at the article seems unlikely with 6 decades of nuclear safety backing it up. As for the steps towards global carbon neutrality, the Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station closure from 30 September is sitting in ITN limbo - receiving little attention, with unclear consensus.
- Also, Nuclear power in Kazakhstan states in its first paragraph Kazakhstan already had a nuclear reactor online in the Soviet era, so this isn't really their first. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose we don't usually include referendums unless they're notable enough geopolitically. Scuba 14:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support i think it's important and faily unusual too, a big step from the usual anti nucelar sentiment of the western populace. Kasperquickly (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose We do not post referendums except in some extremely rare cases, this is not one of those cases. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 09:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes this gets a little tiring to hear at ITN, but I do think this is an instance of "more suited for WP:DYK". A 5-sec Web glance tells me there are several new reactors globally that had construction begin this year, and more with construction planned to commence in the near-term future. For me, this would lean more towards "ITN stuff" if there had been some long-term global reactor moratorium, and this had been a marked shift, or if KZ was a country known for a past stance of disapproval toward new reactor construction. But to my knowledge KZ just hasn't planned any new construction previously b/c of a mix of economic and political factors and lack of perceived need; please correct if wrong. --Slowking Man (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And under what criterion would this article qualify for DYK, Slowking Man? Schwede66 22:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Idk I don't pay much attention to whatever Byzantine rules they have over there. Life's too short if you ask me. Guessing you need to file your nomination forms in triplicate and ensure you provide at least six notarized copies of the article or else *bzzt* so sorry, no dice? If there's a bunch of arbitrary hoops to jump through or else people making good & useful contributions get denied recognition for their freely given volunteer labor, that's obviously dumb and ought to be tossed. If I were King Of Wikipedia For A Day I'd probably just make DYK something like, nominate whatever, any nom that gets say, 4 or so votes in favor gets run unless some kind of Big No-no were identified (copyright, false info etc). The reading public does not care whether some DYK item happens not to comply with rule 4 clause 14 subsection 3(b)(2) Slowking Man (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that it's a little tiring to hear from editors who have no idea how DYK works that an article should be nominated there, Slowking Man. Schwede66 04:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, good point, importantly, don't want to give nominators wrong impressions. Guess in the future I should put it something like "some Platonic ideal process for recognition and highlighting Interesting Stuff that isn't quite Really Big News (since ITN is pretty space-constrained)" Slowking Man (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that it's a little tiring to hear from editors who have no idea how DYK works that an article should be nominated there, Slowking Man. Schwede66 04:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Idk I don't pay much attention to whatever Byzantine rules they have over there. Life's too short if you ask me. Guessing you need to file your nomination forms in triplicate and ensure you provide at least six notarized copies of the article or else *bzzt* so sorry, no dice? If there's a bunch of arbitrary hoops to jump through or else people making good & useful contributions get denied recognition for their freely given volunteer labor, that's obviously dumb and ought to be tossed. If I were King Of Wikipedia For A Day I'd probably just make DYK something like, nominate whatever, any nom that gets say, 4 or so votes in favor gets run unless some kind of Big No-no were identified (copyright, false info etc). The reading public does not care whether some DYK item happens not to comply with rule 4 clause 14 subsection 3(b)(2) Slowking Man (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And under what criterion would this article qualify for DYK, Slowking Man? Schwede66 22:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Important, fairly unusual, per Kasperquickly. 2605:8D80:401:9506:71A2:F7E:99F4:3379 (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Support, also per Kasper. 64.114 etc 01:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, important event. Looks good enough. 74.49.190.204 (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]Support That’s… unusual. Good to go. 2604:3D08:9476:BE00:4C8B:D7C5:6DAF:1827 (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Armed conflicts and attacks
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
(Needs Attention) 2024 Tunisian presidential election
Nominator's comments: A national election per ITN/R, waited a bit before bringing it here since the article wasn't updated Scuba 16:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support blurb II The election being boycotted should be included but also why. Rynoip (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sincerely asking since I'm uncertain, is it considered a sham election generally by "independent neutral observers"? If so do we blurb those? (In any case that fact should be mentioned in any blurb, I would think) --Slowking Man (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support altblurb II I agree with Rynoip. 64.114 etc 02:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative blurb 2. Good to post. 2605:8D80:401:9506:71A2:F7E:99F4:3379 (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]Support as this is a general election that deserves to be posted. 74.49.190.204 (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]Support per 74. 2604:3D08:9476:BE00:4C8B:D7C5:6DAF:1827 (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support altblurb II. ITN/R or not, it does seem the oresident of Tunisia wields enough power to post this election. And I usually don't like to include reactions in such blurbs, seeing as most elections of have some sort, but boycotting by candidates is a big deal in my opinion. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Well referenced although a little short Abcmaxx (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose article is currently a stub. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 09:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work but long time Congressman.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose does indeed need work. Scuba 15:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose orange tagged article with only three sources. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 09:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted) RD: Johan Neeskens
Noted Dutch football manager and player. 240F:7A:6253:1:31B8:ECBC:1D01:F0D8 (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Article is in good shape Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose most of the article is uncited. Scuba 15:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support there is one cn tag but that shouldn't hold it back from getting posted. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 09:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Unreferenced DoB. Schwede66 17:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the Dutch football magazine Voetbal International unsurprisingly had a comprehensive obituary, fully available for free. [10] It helped me fill in the gaps and then some. Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted – Schwede66 08:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sinking of HMNZS Manawanui
Fairly unusual for commissioned navy vessels to sink, particularly Western vessels. This is the first RNZN vessel to sink since WWII. Article could use some updating. Will see what I can add - Dumelow (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded it to a reasonably complete update - Dumelow (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We generally do not post military vessel accidents, since such are considered part of the duty. --Masem (t) 19:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Interested in seeing some discussion on this; I think such sinkings are rare enough (particularly in Western navies). We posted the accidental sinking of the Iranian navy's Kharg in 2021 - Dumelow (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Meaning no disrespect toward Her Majesty and no respect toward the Ayatollah, but IRIS Kharg had been around for longer, seeing more people and doing more things. Her loss was more "significant" for having spent those further 42 years afloat. Sometimes localized rarities just aren't rare enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Interested in seeing some discussion on this; I think such sinkings are rare enough (particularly in Western navies). We posted the accidental sinking of the Iranian navy's Kharg in 2021 - Dumelow (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose For the Royal New Zealand Navy, sure, not the most pleasant experience. But in terms of recent boat sinkings, count your blessings. Article isn't bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There were more deaths, sure, but are you seriously comparing the sinking of a "locally made wooden boat", as described in your source, to a modern naval vessel? —Cryptic 22:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in construction, maintenance and several other ways we can (and should) view an object. But as an event, yeah. Both seriously sunk in two newsworthy ways (and one we generally don't post). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There were more deaths, sure, but are you seriously comparing the sinking of a "locally made wooden boat", as described in your source, to a modern naval vessel? —Cryptic 22:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose No deaths, small ship, unimportant country (I didn't even know they had a military or a navy) Kasperquickly (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That last part is an absurdly ignorant and snide comment, but from your past history, unfortunately not out of your typical behavior.
- Quit it if you want to continue participating in ITNR, because I can assure you people don’t like it. The Kip (contribs) 23:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it got a hearty belly laugh out of me! Schwede66 03:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kasperquickly Knock it off. If you are unable to contribute to a discussion w/o being rude and obnoxious, then kindly don't. You've been here long enough to know better. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kasperquickly your on how many warnings again and you continue to do these acts?? learn a lesson please and stop with the offensive rhetoric and personal attacks on others Ion.want.uu (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah mate, real helpful. ITN isn’t for you to show off your ignorance it’s for discussion. I personally disagree with posting this but there are other ways to do it then saying oppose because “the country is unimportant (no such thing)” 27.96.223.193 (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- “the country is unimportant (no such thing)”
- there is such thing though, this palce has been filled with news about elections in pacific micronations with populations of 10,000 people for no other reason than the local editors wanting to virtue signal others how liberal they are Kasperquickly (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think 27 is referring to your (at least prior) idea that there's "no such thing" as a New Zealand Defence Force. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I get the outrage, especially from the new zealander editors, but I actually honestly had thought New ZEaland was on this list: List of sovereign states without armed forces Kasperquickly (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The important things are you learned something about the planet, New Zealanders have a fairly hardy sense of humour and Australia doesn't exist. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I’m not even Kiwi? It’s just unproductive and annoying to see snarky comments on discussion pages. 27.96.223.193 (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I get the outrage, especially from the new zealander editors, but I actually honestly had thought New ZEaland was on this list: List of sovereign states without armed forces Kasperquickly (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A country is significant becuase it’s a country, and that’s a fact you cannot deny. We post elections because they are elections, we don’t get to pick and choose becuase they are objectively “unimportant” 27.96.223.193 (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think 27 is referring to your (at least prior) idea that there's "no such thing" as a New Zealand Defence Force. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on notability - this wasn't exactly the Sinking of the Moskva. 0 deaths and the destruction of an otherwise hardly notable ship with no indication this'll have any affect on the worldwide stage or as precedent for any future event. Before 48 hours ago, the article only had 2 paragraphs of prose, with none indicating particular significance beyond replacing the HMNZS Manawanui (A09) which itself is hardly notable. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: New Zealand is a popular country, and sinking of navy ships of powerful Western countries are indeed rare. High Admiral JMT (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on notability - a curious incident, but not an important or apparently significant one. LocoTacoFever (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Article is in good shape. Not unusual for an article to be greatly expanded (or even created) after an event. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support No casualties, but the unintentional/accidental sinking of a sizable warship is above average notability-wise. The Kip (contribs) 04:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Insignificant event, non-notable subject.STSC (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Weak Oppose. Unfortunate event, but there were no casualties and the crew evacuated the ship safety. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 06:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Given her role (removing WW2 ordinance from shallow waters) it's unsurprising this grounding happened. Additionally, no fatalities mean relatively little impact -- other than embarrassment. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on importance. Ships regularly sink, buses crash, floods flood... Not a major story in international media. Sandstein 14:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: ships (fairly) often sink, but warships don't often -- particularly in the RNZN, which only has a handful of them. I believe this is the first time a Commonwealth naval ship has had to be abandoned since the Falklands, and the first in a long time outside war. Article looks good. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't a warship, it was a support vessel that was tasked with removing unexploded WW2 ordnance. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Unusual "accident" that happened under mysterious circumstances; becoming notable because of the likelihood of oil spill and the potential environmental disaster affecting the locals.[11] — STSC (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Maritime incident (sinking in this case) involving a state vessel. Don't dismiss it because it's an auxiliary (as opposed to a combatant). CoatCheck (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Failing to see any real impacts here besides being an expensive incident to clean up for the NZ navy. This actually IS a good item that DYK can cover if there's a bit more expansion of the article in the next few days. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- this doesn't seem to be a blurbworthy event. No one died, and it seems not to be being picked up in international news. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose not a major event and has (fortunately) no deaths. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 09:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose No deaths, minimal injuries. More a “Did you know that the HMNZS Manawanui is the first ship from New Zealand to sink in peacetime?” 27.96.223.193 (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not correct, HMNZS Manuka sank in 1952 at its moorings. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. NZ is one of the world’s major nations, the article is in good shape, and warships don’t sink fairly often. 64.114 etc 03:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as with my main man. 2605:8D80:401:9506:71A2:F7E:99F4:3379 (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]Support This accident is unusual, and does "[involve] a [national] state vessel". Green light. 2604:3D08:9476:BE00:1407:8831:3685:866E (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Sports
|
RD: Helmut Bauer (bishop)
Auxiliary bishop in Würzburg, Bavaria, influential in church music and ecumenism for Germany. New article, based on the German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are several uncited sentences, including one award. Will support once this gets fixed. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RD: Ifigenia Martínez y Hernández
Abcmaxx (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose article is teetering on a stub, and almost all the sources are primary sources. Scuba 20:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose An unsourced early life/education, a load of primary sources for each legislature she was elected to, and then her death. The infobox runs further down the page than any of its text. WP:ITNQUALITY says "Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items". We have absolutely nothing sourced from a third-party source for any event outside the last of her 5,148 weeks on Earth. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Expanded the article quite a bit. Hopefully it's up to a minimum standard. EchoLuminary (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Bibliography uncited. Scuba 04:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Scu ba Are you able to point me to the policy or guideline that says we need citations for a bibliography? Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CS Scuba 05:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Scu ba Can you point to the specific text you are referring to? I had a conversation about this here a few months ago and I don't think there is any consensus on it. This seems to be a fairly robust bibliography although there could be ISBN and publisher information - but this would be a higher standard than the Ernest Hemmingway FA. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't a bibliography its own citation, in that it makes reference to the respective primary sources, which can be verified in any online library catalog? Sandstein 13:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- then cite the online library catalog. Scuba 16:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't do that for any other kind of bibliography? I really don't understand this strange quirk of RD that is so divorced from the practice in the article space, requiring something that we do not even expect of FAs. See: William Gibson, James Joyce, Mary Shelley Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of how often concerns about uncited -ographies come up as a sticking point in ITN, I once added citations to the filmography of a living actor, thinking this was just the right thing to do, only to be flat-out reverted by an editor who claimed that citations are not necessary if the actor is credited onscreen or on the poster. Now that feels like it was on a rather extreme end of reactions, but I agree that there really does not seem to be any generally accepted best practice here. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This exact thing happened to me at Toumani Diabaté and is what highlighted to me this wider issue. Search -ography at any time on this page and you will get someone opposing based on it being uncited - yet the wider community does not agree on whether inline citations are needed. I am considering drafting something to go in MOS:LISTSOFWORKS to address this. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of how often concerns about uncited -ographies come up as a sticking point in ITN, I once added citations to the filmography of a living actor, thinking this was just the right thing to do, only to be flat-out reverted by an editor who claimed that citations are not necessary if the actor is credited onscreen or on the poster. Now that feels like it was on a rather extreme end of reactions, but I agree that there really does not seem to be any generally accepted best practice here. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't do that for any other kind of bibliography? I really don't understand this strange quirk of RD that is so divorced from the practice in the article space, requiring something that we do not even expect of FAs. See: William Gibson, James Joyce, Mary Shelley Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- then cite the online library catalog. Scuba 16:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't a bibliography its own citation, in that it makes reference to the respective primary sources, which can be verified in any online library catalog? Sandstein 13:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Scu ba Can you point to the specific text you are referring to? I had a conversation about this here a few months ago and I don't think there is any consensus on it. This seems to be a fairly robust bibliography although there could be ISBN and publisher information - but this would be a higher standard than the Ernest Hemmingway FA. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CS Scuba 05:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Scu ba Are you able to point me to the policy or guideline that says we need citations for a bibliography? Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Christopher Ciccone
American artist, interior decorator and designer. 240F:7A:6253:1:EDA2:6B32:7BE5:1E7C (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article looks good, albeit heavily supported by a single source. Scuba 03:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Article is good enough, though more work can be done on it. High Admiral JMT (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Sourced, and the article is in a decent shape. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 06:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted. Sandstein 14:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable French actor. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose uncited filmography Scuba 03:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose unsourced filmography and on stage works. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 09:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Remove whatever is unsourced if necessary but give him an RD, he's a household name in France and won a male acting award at CannesVaroon2542 (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we don't merely remove verifiable content just to fasttrack a posting. That's gaming the system. —Bagumba (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Detroit Lions quarterback and Chicago Bears assistant coach. 240F:7A:6253:1:9C21:B9C3:98B5:A380 (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose article is orange tagged. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 14:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Article is not in good shape. Orange tagged. High Admiral JMT (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose article is in bad need of citations. Scuba 21:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hall of Fame Buffalo Bills guard. 240F:7A:6253:1:2D9A:96F4:D7E9:E994 (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait college section needs some work as it mainly consists of quotes, there is one cn tag and there is basically no indormation about his life between 1969 till 1999 and then from 1999 till his death. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 14:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article looks good from a glance, no orange tags, no CNs that I could see. Scuba 16:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Multiple citation tags outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing Removal: Sudanese civil war (2023–present)
Nominator's comments: Even if it's still ongoing, it dosen't receive as much coverage that it use to have. That article is also less updated then what it was. --Roncanada (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose still a major conflict and receiving news updates This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Every time we do this it reescalates within like 2 months. It's an on and off war, and its brutally horrific. It should be ongoing. Just because the West wont cover it doesn't mean that we shouldnt. Lukt64 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To play Devil's Advocate, notability in ITN is judged by amount of English-language reliable sources covering an event. If it's not being covered then that lessens notability, irrespective of how significant the story actually is. Though I do think we should keep this item up. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose there was just a major offensive in Khartoum like a few weeks ago. Scuba 00:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as one of the main editors of the page. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is also getting less coverage than it used to. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose per previous arguments Abo Yemen✉ 12:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Still being updated frequently by western sources. River10000 (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The list of ongoing armed conflicts lists six major wars, 15 wars and many lesser conflicts. By listing just a few of these in ITN's Ongoing, we give the impression that that's all there is. That's misleading and so it would be better to link to the list. That would provide a continuous gateway to all the numerous conflicts such as the Gang war in Haiti which is discussed below. Cherry-picking particular wars and incidents is not adequate as it thereby ignores all the others. And we don't have space to list everything. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You opposed the nomination related to the Haitian gang war though? We have plenty of space, the main obstacle is regular updates and article quality. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Just 3 days ago there was an article in The Guardian about the El Fasher offensive, 2 weeks ago CNN article about the capital city battles, and Al Jazeera article about the resulting refugee crisis. Quite clearly ongoing and widely reported on, even given the difficulties reporting on this part of the world. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The ongoing line is meant for stories that are making headlines on a near daily basis, not simply because the event is ongoing. The Ukraine and the Israeli fronts clearly get those. While there are occasional stories from the Sudan civil war, its just too small scale in terms of coverage to be appropriate to maintain in the ongoing line. Masem (t) 12:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support only 50 edits since August, and nothing substantive. Stephen 13:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Due to various reasons, this particular conflict is not making that much news. It has only limited number of edits in the last two months when ongoing articles are expected to be updated nearly every day. I don't think timeline article is good enough to be posted on the main page as it seems to have turned into a news ticker. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 14:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I see well over 30 articles on the subject of the war in the last 24-48 hours (Searching for Sudan and Soudan...) Yesterday, AfricaNews wrote: "Fighting is expected to intensify as the rainy season draws to a close." (source) For some reason, neither the 29 Sept 2024 NYT article (§) on the UAE's "borrowing" of the Red Crescent symbol, nor the 2 October BBC article mentioning that NYT article have made it to the entry yet... -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 14:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if there are dozens of news stories of late about it, the lack of significant updates on a near-daily basis to our article itself means it's failing the quality aspect that would be expected for ongoing, and should be removed. But even with the bulk of those stories, the ones I see all fall into more routine coverage that doesn't describe any significant events that are part of it. Masem (t) 15:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now. Yes, the pace of editing has slowed a bit. But the article is still getting meaningful updates and sadly the war is continuing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- support per stephen. it is for events with regular updates, clearly it is lacking.Sportsnut24 (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: I disagree that an ongoing item needs to require regular updates, but then, as others have noted above, there certainly are things going on in this conflict, particularly if we look more widely than the front pages of western media. The war is important and the war is ongoing: therefore, it is a good candidate for an ongoing item. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. The Kip (contribs) 04:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The way I see it, the Timeline article is not written well enough to be at ITN as things currently stand. Too many single sentence updates that are simply "side a did x" or "side b claims y". Timeline or not, the article is still subject to the test of "substantial updates", which I think are lacking here. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The timeline and the main article are two different entries. The main entry has had significant updates since this was opened. Articles from La Presse, Africa News, RFI, etc. have appeared in the last 24 hours (each of those 3 on different subjects related to the war). They could be added if those who work on the page deem them useful to enrich the reader's understanding... nb: the page is already >300K (no sense bloating for the sake of bloating it) and has had over 178K views in the last 30 days.-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 21:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not really convinced to be honest. There has been a substantial update every few days, but a lot of the info being added seems to be background information. Besides one blip about the offensive, I don't really think there have been ANY substantial updates really that are directly related to the conflict itself. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The timeline and the main article are two different entries. The main entry has had significant updates since this was opened. Articles from La Presse, Africa News, RFI, etc. have appeared in the last 24 hours (each of those 3 on different subjects related to the war). They could be added if those who work on the page deem them useful to enrich the reader's understanding... nb: the page is already >300K (no sense bloating for the sake of bloating it) and has had over 178K views in the last 30 days.-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 21:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted) Bosnia and Herzegovina floods
Article sources count 14 dead in Jablanica and 1 in Fojnica. At least one place was apparently completely buried by debris (Donja Jablanica), so likely many more. The main road between Sarajevo and the Adriatic Sea is closed. Elections are also due this weekend. Daß Wölf 14:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, oppose on quality as the article isn't there yet.15 confirmed less than 24 hours after the event happened is awfully high, and a village with its own article buried is what I'd considered newsworthy. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Any suggestions on what to improve? There's more info in the sources I used in the article, but I tried to stick with what's almost surely not going to be refuted. The catastrophe entered the news cycle only several hours earlier today. The people who found the dead in Jablanica are with the mountain rescue service, which probably started at sunrise.
- There should be more info by tomorrow, but I don't believe any of this is going to be struck out. Jablanica might or might not turn out to be the centre of the catastrophe. I'll add the government info from the N1 article; I only relied on BiH and Croatian sources up till now. Daß Wölf 14:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Some suggestions I have for improving the article's quality are to split it into sections and add an infobox. I suggest the article have at least sections for the lede, background, the flooding itself, the aftermath, reactions, and a see also section to similar disasters. As for the infobox, I suggest Template:Infobox flood. If you find any images, either free-to-use or fair use (mutually exclusive), use that as the image parameter. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @GeorgeMemulous: Thanks, I've added an infobox. I'll organise it into sections if I find more time later today (but naturally, anybody is welcome). No objections beside the layout? Daß Wölf 15:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Beyond that, I'd say the article length is the other main concern, but I assume once it's split into the aforementioned sections that won't be much of a concern. Everything appears to be sourced. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @GeorgeMemulous: Thanks, I've added an infobox. I'll organise it into sections if I find more time later today (but naturally, anybody is welcome). No objections beside the layout? Daß Wölf 15:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Some suggestions I have for improving the article's quality are to split it into sections and add an infobox. I suggest the article have at least sections for the lede, background, the flooding itself, the aftermath, reactions, and a see also section to similar disasters. As for the infobox, I suggest Template:Infobox flood. If you find any images, either free-to-use or fair use (mutually exclusive), use that as the image parameter. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait/Weak Oppose For now, still unclear on total casualties or economic impact. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose article needs some work. Scuba 17:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The page has been updated and given a typical section layout. Daß Wölf 13:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Quality seems fine, everything's cited, high national impact event. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Article is of good enough quality and I don't think floods of this level are common in this country. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 14:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kcmastrpc: Economic impact will be pretty high. Due to the enormous damage of the railway, the Federal Railways will suffer a daily loss of circa KM 280,000 (~€143,000) for at least a few months according to this source. The fact that part of the main road, M-17, between the capital Sarajevo and Mostar has suffered major damage as well (the two cities garnering a major amount of economic cash flow), will most definitely add to the financial loss. These are the most damaging floods since the ones in 2014 and this is an enormous deal as it was completely unexpected. Bakir123 (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted – Schwede66 19:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
|
French comic author known per Valérian. Article not ready yet. Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not Ready. Article is too short and needs citations. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 06:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait three cn tags needs to be resolved. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 09:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not post stubs. Schwede66 17:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Current size is 1345 B (214 words).—Bagumba (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted) 2024 Pont-Sondé attack
Nominator's comments: Breaking news around the world now, death and injury toll still only estimated at the moment. Only just started the article so help with expanding most welcome: need background, attack, response and aftermath sections ideally. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality Article is a stub and needs major expansion. Would support on significance due to the high number of deaths and injuries.Weak support Article's not as long as I'd like it to be for something of this magnitude, but it's good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]Oppose currently Article is one paragraph, needs major expansion and if that happens I’ll change my vote to support. 27.96.223.193 (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Support I’d like to change my vote to support thanks. 27.96.223.193 (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Seems to be a routine incident for Haiti and so WP:NEWSEVENT applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is a stub. Scuba 14:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Issues with the article have been fixed, no longer a stub and well cited. Quick glance at media coverage and the event looks significant enough. Also it's been a while since ITN updated the situation in Haiti. Scuba 00:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Oppose. Stub, and this does “[seem] to be a routine incident”. 64.114 etc 15:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Andrew, Scuba and 64. 2604:3D08:9476:BE00:181F:B893:ADD2:6921 (talk)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]Also oppose per 2604. 2605:8D80:401:9041:BC0A:88E5:52B2:275 (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]Oppose article is a stub and is only around 150 words long, far too short for a blurb.ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 17:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Support per the discussion. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 09:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Update No longer a stub, thank you to those who expanded the article. As to those who say this is "routine" (if a town-wide gang attack can ever be that); the gang warfare centers around Port-au-Prince and Cap Haitien not remote smaller towns, this is definitely outside the norm. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sardonic comment: sorry, come back if a white person dies, otherwise not hittin' WP:MINIMUMDEATHS here. (Advice for those outside the Global North "wanting" to "make it onto" ITN: [13]) Hmm, Helene got deaths-blurbed when its tally hit the century mark—though to be fair it already was blurbed as a Major Storm. I wonder where the line is for that, maybe Category 3, the NHC's for "major hurricane" vs just "hurricane"? "Fun" thought exercise how many people would a Cat 2 storm have to kill in Haiti, to get on ITN, if it didn't affect anywhere else? (Stick a pin in this comment, for next weekish when then-likely-Trop Storm Kirk warp-5s over to W Europe, and how ITN reacts towards that, to contrast.) --Slowking Man (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait/Lean Support Article still need a bit more work, but given the causalities and based on the international reaction I'm leaning towards support. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on quality per above - while not a stub, article is still far too short. Support on notability - even with the ongoing crisis, a gang shooting that kills upwards of 70 people is anything but "routine." The Kip (contribs) 19:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Event in the news, endorse (conditional on quality as usual). Bitter regretful observation: people might want to keep eye on (T·E·H·L·R) Haitian Civil War for if/when it gets turned to an article. --Slowking Man (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on notability, I would have to agree with Slowking Man's and note the blasé attitudes towards this event by some individuals reflecting trends that have been documented among media portrayals of certain communities. Clearly a significant event. Ornithoptera (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Highlighting this particular incident still wouldn't give the big picture. The list of ongoing armed conflicts indicates that this is just a drop in the ocean. The gang wars in Mexico generate more deaths than the gangs in Haiti and then there are other major wars too. If you want to right great wrongs, then you have your work cut out for you. Our job as an encyclopedia is to summarise all this, not to dwell on the detail. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The larger issue is that WP is not a newspaper, and not every single event needs an article or a separate article. This specific event looks like part of the ongoing violence in Haiti and while it was noted in the day-to-day media, likely will not have any substantive difference from all the other violence in Haiti that necessitates a separate article, much less being ITN. Masem (t) 13:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think here is a larger point some of us are kind of working towards: Okay, now, take a view like those expressed in the replies preceding mine, and apply to other subjects and kinds of events. Do we really need to mention every cyclone that kills a bunch of people and give it its own article? What about floods in Europe or China or India or insert place here? Heat waves? Storms happen, people die, big deal, people die all the time. Put it in some kinda "storms in $YEAR" article. ("Don't let $PERSON's death get you down. People die all the time. Why, you could wake up dead tomorrow. ...Well. goodnight!") Philosophical/rhetorical query: What is it that makes "big storms and their effects" more intrinsically ITN-worthy vs "humans directly killing other humans in $PLACE"?
- Fun exercise: reflect on this given that us cranking up our planet's temperature is inevitably going to lead to much more of this stuff. What's gonna be the response when three/four-digit death tolls from cyclones become a routine annual event? (Excerpts from Future Wikipedia: "The 2039 tropical storm death season begins in the Northern Hemisphere. Wikipedia reminds those located below 40 degrees north to review their disaster and evacuation planning, stay informed, and promptly follow instructions from relevant authorities.") Not to mention all the inevitable mass migration/conflict/wars likely to result. (More excerpts: "Ongoing events: Current sub-temperate territorial conflicts") Ooh, nice informative & relevant map: pop. density/latitude. --Slowking Man (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC) (Phrase of the day: "shifting baselines" --Slowking Man (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Replying to own comment to note that "floods in part of Europe" has been apparently just posted to ITN. (Bonus points: from a non-English-as-first-lang part!) Compare-and-contrast current death toll. More data points for calibration of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS? ("Storms and floods happen, people die...") --Slowking Man (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The flood stub and this stub are about the same size (by any name). I didn't think the flood one would make it. Now that it has and with this event rarer and deadlier, holding it down would definitely appear to suggest what it looks like about our standards and practices. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- InedibleHulk, you would know (or at least should know) that we do not post stubs. The 2024 Bosnia and Herzegovina floods article wasn't a stub (any longer) when I posted it. Neither is this article a stub any longer. Whilst those assessments are not an exact science, I note that they no longer have stub tags, and on the talk pages, they are both rated start class; I agree with those ratings. Hence, the basic premise from which you start your argument (if we post the other stub, we might as well post this stub, too) is wrong.
- Blurbs get posted when there is at least rough consensus to do so. To my mind, this article is good enough now. It cannot get posted, though, because that's not what the consensus says. There are many comments above that the topic is notable but the article (at the time of voting) was a stub. That's now changed, but editors need to say so. Schwede66 03:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought adding "(by any name)" would be enough (sorry). Whatever we call this short article or that brief overview, you posted the latter after two supports. Given the expansion and de facto "Wait !votes", I now count more than two supportive of publicizing this attack (including your own) and know some admins who'd rightly discount a few of those opposes as poor arguments; if any of them are watching, I suggest posting sooner than later. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Needs attention If those who opposed on quality can please have a look again if the current quality is enough now to change your votes given the article has been majorly expanded. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Abcmaxx: Am I to understand your prior Update and Needs attention emboldenings as support in itself? If so, I think you'll need to embolden the word "Support" for it to technically count toward "consensus". At least that's what I've gathered from
editors need to say so
. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- I'm the nominator though. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, my bad; @PrinceofPunjab: You're not, are you? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Scu ba: I missed your name in the SEAOFNUMBERS; would you care to start again? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @InedibleHulk: Thanks! Changed my vote. Scuba 00:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TDKR Chicago 101: I have no idea how I missed you starting first, but that's no excuse; have things changed? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the nominator though. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Abcmaxx: Am I to understand your prior Update and Needs attention emboldenings as support in itself? If so, I think you'll need to embolden the word "Support" for it to technically count toward "consensus". At least that's what I've gathered from
- Weak support. Still quite short, but this attack seems pretty noteworthy, even in the context of the larger gang war (which I still believe has been underrepresented here at ITN), so I think the article state is good enough. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Schwede66: is consensus strong enough now for posting? Abcmaxx (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Article is no longer a stub at 2264 characters. It appears well-cited. Ready to post. Thriley (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted – Schwede66 19:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Closed) Typhoon Krathon
The storm death toll has risen to 18, and the articles are in good shape. HurricaneEdgar 19:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looking at the scope of deaths, inuries and damages, this doesn't seem like as significant storm compared to other major typhoons. -Masem (t) 19:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article is in good shape, and the Typhoon has made landfall and caused significant casualties which checks both boxes for ITN inclusion in my book Scuba 20:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: article looks good, and the event is notable. I don't see that NEWSEVENT is an issue here: major storms which cause significant loss of life generally meet GNG, and that guideline has Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources: that seems to be met here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Very notable disaster. Though death toll not significant, the destruction is. High Admiral JMT (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, not significant, low casualties, low damage, spent most of it's time over the sea. Stephen 04:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Stephen. The Kip (contribs) 19:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose has Low damages and casualties. TyphoonAmpil [citation needed] 04:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: This typhoon has broken the observation record in Taiwan according to the local news.[14][15][16]--Sinsyuan✍️🌏🚀 06:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This has a death toll that’s similar the death toll of the floods in Bosnia, so it seems notable enough for a blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:22, 7 October 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.
(Ready?) British Indian Ocean Territory / Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute
CMD (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait for Significance and Oppose on Quality "The deal is still subject to finalisation of a treaty but both sides have vowed to complete this as quickly as possible." Now, I know times move faster than they did when some natives treated and vowed with the Crown. But still, even if it doesn't take centuries this time, it could be months or years before anything comes of this. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree the transfer itself would be newsworthy, but I nominated feeling the reaching of an agreement was significant in its own right. It follows about a decade of concerted diplomatic efforts by Mauritius. The ceding of territory is a rare enough event. The last was probably the 2016 agreement for Egypt to transfer two islands to Saudi Arabia? CMD (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I hear you. As you say, though, this next step follows about a decade. The ceding itself will happen if it happens, and that's final (to me). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree the transfer itself would be newsworthy, but I nominated feeling the reaching of an agreement was significant in its own right. It follows about a decade of concerted diplomatic efforts by Mauritius. The ceding of territory is a rare enough event. The last was probably the 2016 agreement for Egypt to transfer two islands to Saudi Arabia? CMD (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Major power is ceding a large part of its territory to another country, very big news. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: This is quite a surprising move from Britain after blocking the transfer of sovereignty for so long, however there are some details that need clarification such as when will the transfer come into effect. Tofusaurus (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait or at least alter "agrees" to "offers". This will only happen if Mauritius agrees to a treaty that allows the status quo indefinitely, more or less, on Diego Garcia. That may be objectionable to Mauritius, and they may refuse to sign off.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth this was reportedly a joint statement also issued by the Mauritian PM, they're presumably as on-board as the UK. CMD (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (Based on the report) this wasn't a unilateral offer by the UK. It's the high level agreement after negotiation with the agreement of all parties (UK, Mauritius & USA). The 99 years lease would had been agreed to as a term by Mauritius. -- KTC (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait and Support: Definitely major. However, plans have not yet been finalized. High Admiral JMT (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The updates to the article were reverted; the only remaining relevant change is the removal of a statement that negotiations were halted in December 2023. We can't possibly post this until that's resolved. —Cryptic 13:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a piece in the lead now (as of 13:45); not sure if that counts. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support This is a textbook example of a notable story of high encyclopaedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on significance This is a major change to the map. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a major international news and is blurbworthy and should be posted when articles are updated. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 14:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support once fully cited: not sure we need to wait for it to actually happen; the decision is noteworthy enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now due to quality issues with the article and lack of significant updates to it, but I do Support on significance once those are resolved ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support once citation issues are cleared up Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support resolution of a long-standing diplomatic issue, proposing ALT blurb to link to the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute. Ornithoptera (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I’d rather wait until the treaty is finalized. Since there seems to be a lot of support for posting this, I’d prefer the alt blurb if this is posted. I’d say that highlighting the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute would be the most important aspect of a blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Pretty historic momement for the people of those islands and it's also a notable international news story in general. GWA88 (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I would say "to return sovereignty ..." STSC (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mauritius was never sovereign when they administered Chagos Scuba 19:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Would "transfer sovereignty" be a more neutral wording? Ornithoptera (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with "ceding sovereignty" because that's what most publications are saying. Scuba 19:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Would "transfer sovereignty" be a more neutral wording? Ornithoptera (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mauritius was never sovereign when they administered Chagos Scuba 19:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support goodbye British Indian Ocean Territory, one of the few remaining English colonies. Scuba 19:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no English colonies remaining, England as an independent polity was dissolved in 1707. The Indian Ocean Territory is also classified as a territory rather than a colony (the legal status of 'colony' was dissolved in 1982). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Awesome, saying it "totally isn't a colony" doesn't magically make it stop being a colony. Also the Scottish Welsh and Irish weren't the ones making the colonies, the English where. Scuba 19:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Y Wladfa and Darien scheme might make for interesting reading; and plenty of Scots (especially) were involved in British colonial projects after the union. None of which is to deny the poor treatment of the Scots, Irish, and Welsh by the English within the Union - but do get your facts right. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup you're so right, the sole Scottish colony (that failed), and an group of welsh immigrants are totally the same as to what the English did around the world. Scuba 16:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- See John A. Macdonald#Colonial leader, 1858–1864 for a more "succesful" campaign. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup you're so right, the sole Scottish colony (that failed), and an group of welsh immigrants are totally the same as to what the English did around the world. Scuba 16:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't an accurate assessment of British colonial history. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Y Wladfa and Darien scheme might make for interesting reading; and plenty of Scots (especially) were involved in British colonial projects after the union. None of which is to deny the poor treatment of the Scots, Irish, and Welsh by the English within the Union - but do get your facts right. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Awesome, saying it "totally isn't a colony" doesn't magically make it stop being a colony. Also the Scottish Welsh and Irish weren't the ones making the colonies, the English where. Scuba 19:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no English colonies remaining, England as an independent polity was dissolved in 1707. The Indian Ocean Territory is also classified as a territory rather than a colony (the legal status of 'colony' was dissolved in 1982). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on significance but wait until the orange tag on the target article is fixed. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 20:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very significant news, but best to wait until all plans are finalised per above. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support noting the ceding of a remnant of the Old Empire. SerialNumber54129 23:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative support but Wait until it is fully agreed upon and completed. --Masem (t) 00:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose this is pure fluff, nothing changes. Formal sovereignty replaced with a 99-year-long lease. Does anyone really expect we'd still have nation states with borders like the uk, the mauritus or indeed the US (that is the actual primary user of that military base which is at the source of whole dispute) come 2123? lol. Kasperquickly (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The 99-year lease applies to the base on Diego Garcia; the transfer of sovereignty applies to the entire territory, and Mauritius has indicated that they'd support resettling Chagossians on the other islands of the archipelago. And the rest of your comment convinces me that you are not bringing a serious understanding of international relations to bear here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on significance as this is a pretty big moment in decolonisation of the UK's remaining territories. Article still needs work though. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait and support once the treaty is fully finalized. Major significance, new change in the map. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on significance but wait both for better article quality, or potentially even an article on the transfer itself. –DMartin 15:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- support it already mauritius sovereignty now. obviously administrative change will not happen so quick, but legally done.Sportsnut24 (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ALT2 is incorrect, and implies that the UK retains control of the entirety of the Archipelago rather than the lease on Diego Garcia. Ornithoptera (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Significant moment geopolitically. Lean waiting until the treaty is formalized, however. The Kip (contribs) 20:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding quality issues raised above, the History section has been changed significantly, and I believe the yellow tag is no longer applicable. CMD (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't agree to the wording "to cede sovereignty" in the blurbs. It implies that the UK was the rightful owner and they were forced to do so. Many sources including BBC use the words "hand over". STSC (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- These seem functionally synonymous. "cede" means to give up, it doesn't imply legitimacy either way. At any rate, the UK was effectively forced to turn over the territory, so that implication if read is accurate. CMD (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has its own neutrality standard; IMO, "hand over" does sound more neutral than "cede". STSC (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how any neutrality standard is affected by this. CMD (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has its own neutrality standard; IMO, "hand over" does sound more neutral than "cede". STSC (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, you don't have to be forced to cede something. Scuba 16:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe unwillingly. STSC (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- These seem functionally synonymous. "cede" means to give up, it doesn't imply legitimacy either way. At any rate, the UK was effectively forced to turn over the territory, so that implication if read is accurate. CMD (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait as per WP:TOOSOON. The treaty hasn't been signed or ratified yet. The UK could still pull out and retain the BIOT. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A major country giving part of its territory to another country is highly significant and notable. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 06:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait/Oppose. Noteworthy enough, but I agree with the contingent here in belief that the best course of action would be to wait for official ratification of the agreement, or, even better, the actual date of the hand-over to post. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on significance Would support posting twice, once now and once when the handover is official. Territorial cessions like this are quite rare are the exact kind of news that we ought to feature at ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Major development in decolonization and an end to a decades-long territorial dispute. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that both target articles are orange-tagged. The British Indian Ocean Territory seems like the easier one to untag. Would somebody like to have a go? Schwede66 08:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Mauritian here. Why not use the terminology used by the courts and the foreign offices of both countries and by insisting on why it is considered a watershed moment in international rule of law?. "In conformity with international law, the United Kingdom completes the decolonisation of Mauritius through a bilateral treaty between both nations"Varoon2542 (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Varoon2542, we should not worry about the hook wording in the first instance. This item is about to drop off this page without getting posted because both target articles are orange-tagged. If you'd like to see this posted, I suggest you put some immediate effort into the issues that caused those tags. When done, say so here and then we can finesse the hook wording. Schwede66 08:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The orange tag issues for the BIOT article were fixed days ago. CMD (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Varoon2542, we should not worry about the hook wording in the first instance. This item is about to drop off this page without getting posted because both target articles are orange-tagged. If you'd like to see this posted, I suggest you put some immediate effort into the issues that caused those tags. When done, say so here and then we can finesse the hook wording. Schwede66 08:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very significant geopolitical moment; land cessations of this kind are increasingly uncommon in the 21st century. This is notable now, and it may not be in the news anymore when the symbolic 'finalization' occurs later on. FlipandFlopped ツ 21:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Big news. Anyone know what will happen to the .io domain? Will it disappear? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclear The source says
The deal – reached after years of negotiations - will see the UK hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius in a historic move.
But the blurb sayscede sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory
, which seems like more than Chagos. I'm not knowledgable in this area, but seems stronger sourcing is needed to distinguish what is agreed to be handed over, if it is indeed the BIOT.—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- The British Indian Ocean Territory and the Chagos Archipelago are the same place, like say Hawaii and the Hawaiian islands, only with a much more different name. British Indian Ocean Territory is the formal name for the polity that was created when the Chagos archipelago was split from the colony of Mauritius (along with some other island groups, but these are no longer part of the BIOT). See later in the source: "the UK has faced rising diplomatic isolation over its claim to what it refers to as the British Indian Ocean Territory". CMD (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Update size For the alt blurbs, Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute is bolded, but it only has a one-sentence update. WP:ITNUPDATE reads:
The update at British Indian Ocean Territory meets this.—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable.
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: