Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates - Wikipedia

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.

Archives of posted stories: Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/Archives

• Wait No game described and the rest is in a mix of past and future tense. Resolved at 11:42. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready Match summary, Radio broadcasters and some other sections are unsourced. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 11:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Severely lacking in citations, including the entire match summary. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• wait lots of orange tags, but the article should eventually be added when it's in better shape. Scuba 20:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready, CN tag still at top, the article needs more citations. 31.44.224.222 (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If confirmed, this will be a massive escalation regarding the situation in the Middle East. Ornithoptera (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This will take time to clarify what happened, so I would wait. Also, there is a disputed tag on the article. Tone 09:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait for confirmation by other sources other than IDF. Strong support, it's ready. TwistedAxe [contact] 09:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait. It's still unconfirmed whether he was assassinated or not. If other sources apart from Israel says that he was killed, then that is a support. Full Support and Keep . Very late to say it, but now his assassinated is indeed confirmed. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for a confirmation from an independent source other than Israel. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 10:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Since Hezbollah has confirmed Nasrallah’s death, I am changing my vote and this should be posted as soon as the bolded and Nasrallah’s articles are up-to-date. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 11:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait for confirmation. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 10:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - very notable that my father woke me up cus of it Abo Yemen✉ 12:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Wait until confirmed by local or other independent sources. Prodrummer619 (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Twistedaxe, Midori No Sora, PrinceofPunjab, TyphoonAmpil, and Prodrummer619: Hezbollah confirms his death, per the Times. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the reminder! Changing my stance now. TwistedAxe [contact] 11:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Seems like the vast majority of sources are describing him as killed. The annihilation of Hezbollah's command and control structure in the last few days should be blurbed in some form imo PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - We should blurb about the elimination of the command leadership as a whole instead of just this one terrorist. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current blurb would fall (besides just news) being under a death blurb where the manner of death was the newsworthy factor. It likely makes sense to focus on this specific death, as long as the article itself speaks to this being the culmination of several attacks. — Masem (t) 11:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    His death isn't unexpected. Israel has been fairly vocal and transparent about 86'ing Hezbollah leaders for the past few months. He is in no way significant enough of a figure to warrant a blurb, regardless. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is absolutely an "unexpected" death. "Expected" death is dying from old age or from a long-known medical condition. Anything else is "unexpected", even in a case like this where Israel was vowing to kill him. — Masem (t) 12:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Manner of deathwise, the words you probably want are "natural" and "unnatural". InedibleHulk (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    He was the head of one of the major political parties in Lebanon, along with heading its most powerful militia. In what world is his assassination not significant enough? nableezy - 14:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes to the original oppose, even bigger yikes for the rationale and subsequent comments. AusLondonder (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - We should specify in the blurb they were Israeli or IDF airstrikes, even when obvious.Kiwiz1338 (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: appears to be confirmed now (per BBC) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Alter the blurb to state that it was an IDF strike. Prodrummer619 (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Now confirmed by Hezbollah. [1] Personisinsterest (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Assassinated not killed, and by Israeli air strikes not following them, but other than that support. nableezy - 12:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose on quality though. nableezy - 14:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note bolded article has quality issues. Someone unilaterally moved the article while RM was in progress. The background section not only has NPOV violations, but also WP:V violations. I really hope those are resolved before we put this on the main page.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – suggest blurb something like "...killed in an Israeli airstrike in Beirut" ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 12:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality. The article is 50% background information which shouldn't be necessary with all the articles on the ongoing topic around. Also several sourcing and POV issues, as well as a possible name change. We have confirmation, but we need a quality article about this. --Masem (t) 12:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Change to Support: I think this has been addressed. Bitspectator ⛩️ 14:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bitspectator, @Masem the article September 2024 Lebanon strikes is looking in better shape. Can we use that as the bolded article instead? The assassination is so far considered a subtopic of it.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it makes sense to have the bolded text link to anything but the article on his assassination. Bitspectator ⛩️ 13:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with Bitspectator - the death of the Hezbollah leader is the lede here. Note that the quality issues are fixable, but it may take some time (like, one news cycle day) for all the better details to get into place. We are in no rush to post blurbs on even breaking news unless the quality is there. --Masem (t) 13:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Already getting confirmation from news statements and the events are as it is. --cyrfaw (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The Israel-Lebanon strikes are covered by Ongoing entries and there are numerous such casualties as the Israelis are specifically targeting the leadership of their foes. And the topics tend to be problematic as they are contentious and so commonly have orange tags for POV issues. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  numerous such casualties He was #1 in Hezbollah, no one else at his level. starship.paint (RUN) 15:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The #1 is the Supreme Leadership Authority and Israel seems to be working through the chain of command. Reuters now reports that he has been "taken to a secure location... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong support. Hezbollah and multiple news sources have now confirmed this. 64.114 etc 14:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Major political leader and head of a notable militia force. We don't get too many completed assassinations coming through, and this one is significant. (Strongly oppose Alt 2 - what is an "underage daughter" - that's nonsensical: underage for what - buying cigarettes?) - SchroCat (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Pachu Kannan (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Hezbollah has confirmed his death. He is the leader of a significant military group participating in an active and significant military conflict. starship.paint (RUN) 15:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article is, rightly, no longer titled "Assassination of..." The title and blurbs should reflect that accordingly. Zaathras (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted based on strong emerging consensus following confirmation. Sandstein 15:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull The article is now orange tagged for POV. That's a showstopper. Either the tag has to be removed PDQ or the article has to be pulled until whatever issues exist are resolved. We do not link orange tagged articles on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support pullComment This is an incredibly contentious subject matter that has seen multiple blurbs pulled in the past few weeks. It shouldn't have been posted in such haste given the turmoil in this topic area. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The tag has been removed already Abo Yemen✉ 16:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's still there as of this comment. Right on top of the background section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh didn't see it Abo Yemen✉ 16:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like the tag has been removed for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like it was drive-by removal; no significant changes were made in that section since it was introduced. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And now I've added a verifiability tag after repeated additions of unverifiable material. See Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike#WP:V and NPOV violation in the background again. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Change killed to assassinated. That’s what any number of sources are calling it, and that is usually what the targeted killing of a political or military opponent is called. nableezy - 17:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm seeing quoted analysts and political sources refer to it as an assassination, but RSes (mostly) appear to be holding off and using "killed" instead. See Al Jazeera, AP, ABC News, Time, DW, Reuters, and so on.

  The only ones I've found that clearly uses "assassination" in their own voice are the NYT and Euronews, while Axios has used both at times. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  At any rate, "assassinated by an airstrike" sounds weird. Like, a troupe of hitmen falling from the sky, knife between teeth? It's a bombing. Sandstein 18:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The proper wording is probably "assassinated following an airstrike." Ornithoptera (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would imply that he was first bombed and then killed some time later. Sandstein 19:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then say assassinated in an Israeli bombing. nableezy - 20:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support per same criteria as Haniyeh in August. Significantly notable moment in the conflict that overrides the ongoing item. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also oppose the use of "assassinated" for now - comparatively few RSes appear to be using that in their own voice, and unlike Haniyeh's assassination, Nasrallah was in an active combat zone of sorts. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: If a commander is actively participating in military operations or holds a leadership role within the armed forces, they are considered a legitimate military target. International humanitarian law (IHL), as codified in the Geneva Conventions, allows for attacks on military targets, including enemy commanders, during armed conflicts.While "assassination" is the unlawful killing of a person outside of the context of an active combat operation, often with political motives.Light show (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Legitimate target or not, I'm not sure how that justifies a full-scale oppose vote. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The blurb currently posted on main says "killed". "Assassination", being not a legal term but an informal one, is applied at times by people regarding various killings in the context of war and armed conflict: the killing of Isoroku Yamamoto, the IJN admiral who commanded the attack on Pearl Harbor, by the US military (during a formal state of war between the US and Japan) has been called an "assassination" by some (for instance see a cited source in our article, Zengel, Patricia: "Assassination and the Law of Armed Conflict," 1992, Mercer Law Review: Vol. 43 : No. 2 , Article 3, retrieved September 26, 2021). WP will follow whatever wording a preponderance of WP:RS say; this is not a moot court of international law and not the place for debating legal topics. --Slowking Man (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, the article's first sentence states " the secretary-general of Hezbollah, was assassinated . . ."Light show (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's the case. Whichever is not properly reflecting the RS ought to be edited to bring it into alignment. 'Fraid I can't help ya there, because it's one of those articles which is why eg it is under WP:GS. I don't go near 'em, since (even w/stuff like sanctions) they are toxic firepits of people there to engage in combat in their outside-WP disputes on WP (just, for the more careful, politely so they don't wind up at the business end of Arbcom enforcement actions) as another battleground, not to work on neutral encyclopedia articles. Not the sort of thing I like to engage myself in as an uncompensated volunteer hobby. (Understand that this being true for many people is the ultimate cause of "why there are these Issues™ with content in Contentious Topic Areas" in the first place.) Slowking Man (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, don't know how to request this in a formal way but if someone is able to give me ITN recognition for the nomination, that would be appreciated! Ornithoptera (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ornithoptera done! The Kip ^(contribs) 18:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you The Kip! Apologies, I know this definitely was not the right venue to ask but I wasn't sure where else to do so. If anyone does know what is the best way to do so, please let me know! Ornithoptera (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Please don't embolden the critics of ITN, this is very much "in the news" on a global basis, is clearly highly significant and we have a reasonable and improving article to link to. AusLondonder (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting stating what ought to be obvious: WP simply goes with what "the sources" are saying. "Killed/assassinated" is obviously the correct wording to use: whichever the preponderance of RS are using. (Frankly I would personally prefer a simple bright-line policy of always using "dies/is killed" for all deaths period no exceptions. "X died" is a simple objective neutral statement about facts of observable verifiable testable external physical reality: Is X dead, or not? Do they currently have ongoing cardiopulmonary function, Y/N? Everything else is already delving head-first into the realm of subjectivity and opinions, which are things intrinsically not falsifiable, not ever "true/false" or "correct/not correct". Hence these are things people can and do argue and disagree with others about, endlessly, a pastime they need to take to someplace other than WP appropriate to such matters. "Assassination", at least, has the generally-accepted meaning "an intentional killing done with political motives/intent".) --Slowking Man (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull Currently the page is NPOV and V orange tagged. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kcmastrpc: - you have voted three times in this discussion within 10 hours. At 11:45, 16:26 and 21:27 of 28 Sept. starship.paint (RUN) 23:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is suffering from tag whiplash, fwiw. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just checked and the problems were non-existent or already fixed in the section, and the lead one is not even clear what it is the problem here, redirecting to discussions at 2024 Lebanon pager explosions instead. Cambalachero (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cambalachero, there very much is a problem. Did you see: Talk:2024_Hezbollah_headquarters_strike#WP:V_and_NPOV_violation_in_the_background_again and Talk:2024_Hezbollah_headquarters_strike#What_happened_on_October_8?. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now This is easily notable enough for a blurb & there aren’t any orange tags at the moment. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine-Paraguayan professional footballer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready. Several sections are unsourced. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 11:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait there are some statements that lack citations, career stats section needs sourcing too. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 13:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian organic farmer. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment She was 109 and still fairly active. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support it is a short article, but I think it is good enough. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 06:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support seems to check out! Ornithoptera (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Famous actress. Household name and winner of the Triple Crown of Acting. Davey2116 (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs some work at the moment with citations, but RD only once it is up to standard. Not transformative, impactful or at the level for a blurb, and - despite all the support votes, being "famous" does not equate to a blurb, nor does appearing in popular films. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  this has become a joke of an item on the wiki homepage.

  a small group of commentators judging lives, whether they've lived a worthy life for the sacred RD section.

  judgmental jokes.

  obv she deserves to be there.

  you ppl should take a look at yourselves. Skootamassa (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh dear. Sorry you don't understand how this place works, or what the criteria are for inclusion in different bits of the ITN section. Maybe you could read up on that before commenting next time? And there are no jokes, judgemental or otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not about living a worthy life, it's about having enough reliable sources and media coverage. A blurb usually comes only when the death has a far-reaching impact beyond the event itself, such as Elizabeth II. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose On quality. Would Support a blurb if the article had some sort of legacy section that reflected her impact on the acting industry. One of the few actors to earn the Triple Crown of Acting and her death will undoubtedly be making global headlines, I think that's some reasons why I'd back a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  tbh I think it will come in time. This literally just broke the news not that long ago. Noah, BSBA^Talk 13:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately obits are always full of puffery, rather than balanced analysis, which is what skews many articles (and ITN voting). - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb - “Famous actress” is of course an understatement. Iconic is more like it. She won every relevant award possible, and is known worldwide for her work in the Harry Potter movies. Add in her acting in Downton Abbey and decades of top-notch acting in major movie roles, and you have an ITN blurb. RIP Maggie! Jusdafax (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. Obviously. She's famous for sure, but no more so than Kirk Douglas or Vera Lynn. Blurbs are, and have always been, for people of a Mandela or Thatcher stature, people where a "death and funeral of..." article would be strongly considered. Despite her many great achievements, Smith does not rise to this level. RIP anyway, I've really enjoyed her work over the years.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Iconic actress whose roles and achievements have made her known across the world. Noah, BSBA^Talk 13:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb, a few citation needed tags to be resolved. Actress with a lasting legacy and well-written article. Almost ready for the main page. Flibirigit (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Begin Photo RD It's time. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I support this. Ktin (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb As the nom mentioned she has won Oscar, Emmy and Tony awards. She has starred in some if the most famous pop culture works of recent time. Here even in rural Punjab, people recognize her. However, there are some minor issues that needs to be resolved first ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 14:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, to prove the point that she is very well know here in Punjab and India, the two of best selling Punjabi language newspapers, Daily Ajit and Jagbani, published the news about her death in their 28th September editions, here and here. I think the last any Hollywood celebrity's death to be reported on Punjabi newspapers was of Sean Connery, nearly four years ago. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 04:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb — Per Amakuru. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb subject to issues being fixed. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb While there is a section to discuss the numerous awards she has won, winning awards does not equate to someone that has had a lasting legacy or impact on their field. We're also going to see the same "popular/famous/iconic/household name" arguments that do not fly in demonstrating someone as a great or major figure in their field. (ETA) I would note that if this legacy section can be expanded to show how she influenced the field of acting (which might be possible), then I would be more ready to accept a blurb, but right now with just awards and fame, that's not sufficient, as far too many actors would qualify for a blurb on that facet alone. Oppose RD on current quality issues with several CNs all over the place.Masem (t) 14:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb She was an very famous actress and had some really famous iconic roles throughout her career and has won two Oscars. LiamKorda 14:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support Blurb Iconic, lauded, craft-defining actress. Revered by her profession; adored by the public. She is the kind of figure for whom a blurb is a no-brainer. Already the most-read story at the BBC, the Guardian, The NYT. Blurb now. Dr Fell (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurb Iconic actress, top of her field, world renowned, triple crown of acting winner. Blurb is a no-brainer RachelTensions (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now Supporting RD Article is much improved. Neutral on a blurb. She was certainly an important figure, but we have been routinely declining to blurb other giants in the field. "One can't go to pieces at the death of every foreigner. We'd all be in a constant state of collapse whenever we opened a newspaper." Lady Violet, Dowager Countess of Grantham -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Highly regarded at the top of her field, won numerous awards and recognised worldwide. I'd support the blurb and will look to help with the current tags. Though I would suggest the image we use should really be of her in her McGonnagal and after phase of life as that's how many recognise her. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurb I'm not sure how she could be considered as influential of an actor as the recently deceased James Earl Jones, who has an EGOT, where Maggie Smith does not. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wholeheartedly agree she should be an RD only (not transformative), but while not EGOT, she outdid JEJ in awards, given she had two Oscars, five BAFTAs, four Emmys, three Golden Globes and a Tony. She also had six Laurence Olivier Award nominations and had the Triple Crown of Acting. - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Clear example of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Not a valid rationale as I see it. 80.42.195.111 (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Quite the opposite; she doesn't have an EGOT. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't matter in the slightest per WP:OTHERSTUFF, your failure to understand that policy is frankly rather disappointing. 80.42.195.111 (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no requirement for actor to have EGOT to be blurbed, Grammy is after all a musical award.

  Besides, there were arguments against blurbing James Earl Jones on grounds of him being awarded an Honorary Oscar. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Support Blurb I believe this worldwide famous actor should be featured. She has been the star of many films including both Downton Abbeys and has captured the hearts of many, such a shame we have lost such an icon of the film industry.

The photo does need to be updated on the Wikipedia page, but I strongly support this blurb. 2H-Writer (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is from the period when she won her first Oscar. That's the period where she became most celebrated. We don't need to bow to populism - she was more than Harry Potter and Downton; her damehood, for example, preceded those roles. Humbledaisy (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Blurb The article is still being edited, and she doesn't have enough due weight to merit a blurb. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD: as others have said, I struggle to see a blurb argument given the standards we imposed for James Early Jones, but the article is good and the person clearly notable. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Iconic to say the least. Few actresses have managed to stay in high profile, diverse roles for as long as she did. Recognized world over. Cart (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb She dominated stage and screen for decades and will be remembered as a legend of an era.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• RD only, very notable actor but not the same importance/notability as a world leader. 31.44.224.222 (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb, she was very famous worldwide and her death is reported by major media around the world right away; Their Majesties the King and Queen, together with former and current Prime Ministers all paid tributes to her. The recognition and importance of this sad news are indeed sufficient. — Boreas. 17:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD, oppose blurb per conversations around James Earl Jones and other recent actors. Scuba 18:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that James Earl Jones could and should have been blurbed but wasn't won't have influence the decision to blurb another person. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer, but if the consensus is Jones didn't deserve a blurb, than Smith doesn't deserve one either. Scuba 19:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO as an actress and in achievements, Smith was several rungs above Jones. Cart (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To prove my point, Swedish radio is just doing a tribute program to Smith, Jones wasn't even mentioned on the news. Cart (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the consensus was that James Earl Jones didn't deserve one - the discussion timed out, but there was a majority in favour. The problem is that every time a non-political figure is nominated for a blurb, there's a hard core of RD regulars who have their own (not necessarily matching) criteria that they repeatedly assert are the death-blurb criteria, and they make every discussion of this kind into a battleground to try and win once and for all. I'm heartily sick of it. We have too few stories reaching ITN as it is, and this just makes these kinds of nominations a bitter business to have to deal with. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb. Won Academy Award two times, was in spotlight for around sixty years. A larger than life personality that was a household name and worldwide known, so the information about her death will be useful to many people. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• RD only - Many notable scientists are mentioned in RD only, so famous actors should fall in the same ballpark. -Abhishikt (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD. Definitely a legendary actor of long experience and achievements - Triple Crown actors are far from common. Article looks thoroughly sourced now. I am not certain if she does or does not merit a blurb, for my part. Challenger l (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb She is an actress at the top of her field, with a career spanning decades (including recent award-winning roles), who has a rare "triple crown" of victories. If she is not nominated, then we may as well just set the precedent that no blurbs for actors or actress who die of natural causes ought be posted because this is as notable as you can get. Flip^andFlopped ツ 19:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, absolutely and finally, we may as well just set the precedent. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it would be a bad thing if we decided that politicians' lives deserve special mention and leading cultural figures do not. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This goes for all purely tributary RDs, with lives general audiences remember but deaths featuring age. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly consistent and a view I can see myself being a little sympathetic to. All I want is some objective criteria/on, to avoid recurring angels, pin, etc debates revolving around subjective things like "major and influential". (I would in the event such a thing were adopted suggest making RD a bit more visible/"standing out". Might need to tweak the main page layout a little. Also a "temporarily 'pinning' high-traffic RDs so they don't get pushed off quickly" thing would be a good idea, to better serve readers.) Slowking Man (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That creates a bias towards popular topics, which we should absolutely not be doing, since that will weigh far more in favor of Western/English ones. Masem (t) 00:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The die in that regard was cast the moment the English Wikipedia decided to have an "In the news" section on the "front page" (so to speak), since that, naturally, is going to reflect most closely what is currently "in the English-language news". Unless the project and WMF bent over backwards to attract lots of polyglot en-speakers to enwp, and, if anything more importantly, to keep them engaged and willingly contributing to the project. Or, something like retaining a paid bureau of professional translators for WP to call upon to translate content into English. Kind of hard to write things reliably about things covered mostly by sources you can't understand. (For ex. serious historians (meaning people whose job titles are things like "Professor of X History", not people making "pop history" Content™) basically must learn at least some of the languages relevant to their chosen field(s) of study, eg historians of the ancient Mediterranean world will as a matter of course pick up at the least some ancient Latin and Greek.)

  The Old Grey Lady and the Beeb aren't going to focus some of their resources on greater coverage of not-majority English-as-first-lang parts of the world because some people at Wikipedia asked them to very politely, I'm afraid. The only other way, under WP's control, to cut through that Gordian knot (mixing some metaphors tonight) is to deep-six the ITN section altogether. Slowking Man (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While it is true the news (and topics at ITN) will weigh more heavily on Western media, we absolutely do not need to perpetuate that bias that by the suggestion that we keep a highly-viewed/popular article in the ITN box longer than other items (the "temporarily pinning" idea). That's a facet we absolutely can control to minimize our own biases. Masem (t) 02:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it what readers want, Y/N? Asking rhetorically as I certainly don't know myself. That's the thing that matters most. (I would be thrilled with a well-designed survey of a representative sample of main page visitors (logged-in or not) about things of this nature. Sounds like something the WMF could stand to devote some resources to! I believe there have in fact been at least a couple of such things in the past about certain topics?) Slowking Man (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If we go by what readers want, we'd basically be writing a popular culture TVTropes wiki, and that's how WP was when it was first created but has moved well beyond that. We know that some topics will draw more interest, but our goal being on the main page is to feature a wide range of topics including those people do not know anything about as well as the familiar. We should absolutely not give excessive weight to popular topics, which is why we routinely ignore those !votes that claim we should be driving ITN via pageviews. Masem (t) 03:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment and with regards to everyone complaining about the inconsistency if she is posted but not James Earl Jones... I completely agree. JEJ should have been posted, and that was a bad decision on the community's part. But two wrongs a right does not make. Flip^andFlopped ツ 19:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, neutral on blurb. Obviously a very important figure. -insert valid name here- (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - greatly awarded and prolific actor, with an exceptionally long career. I'm not sure saying she isn't a famous politician, or what-aboutims mean much. Nfitz (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready for RD, based on when I previously commented, the only sourcing issue I see is confirming a notable movie co-starring credit which is trivial to fix. All CNs have been addressed. --Masem (t) 20:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting as RD; blurb discussion ongoing (give me a few minutes to post it correctly; it's been a minute). Among the half dozen people who bothered to mention article quality (instead of the RD/blurb worthiness feud), there's a consensus the article is ready now. The article seems solid, and a lot of readers will be interested in seeing it now, rather than in 3 days when the RD/blurb issue is done. So I'm posting as an RD, and the discussion about a blurb can continue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong support blurb. She has been an iconic, top-notch actress (especially in movies) for decades who won dozens of awards (multiple times), and has worked for many famous pop culture works. Blurb now. 64.114 etc 21:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VS Support per 64.114 etc and others. 2605:8D80:325:5E2:C5D1:A387:2E8:5DFD (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also a very strong support. The reviews are reasonable. 2604:3D08:9476:BE00:6C6D:3321:DFBB:31D2 (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For those pushing for a blurb, you would strongly help your case by using the numerous obits that have come out to show how much of an impact or legacy she has in her field. There's a rather large number of these (compared even to JEJ) so there's fair game for a blurb, but let's please have stronger evidence based (via sources) that shows this is what reliable sources also state, rather than making original research claims here. --Masem (t) 23:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reasonable request. I'd much rather this was both the tone and the direction in these kinds of discussions. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb — due to the popularity of Harry Potter films. STSC (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC
• Support blurb Incredibly iconic actress known far and wide for her multitude of roles — not just for Harry Potter and Downtown Abbey. If Smith doesn't get in, then which actor/actress does? Do death blurbs become exclusive for former presidents? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Iconic. Everyone loves Harry Potter Kasperquickly (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm iconic and (like Star Wars, Downton Abbey and the National Theatre) I haven't even seen it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I most assuredly do not like Harry Potter. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurb - not transformative, not in the upper echelon of famous and important actors. Can easily tell the story of film/television without her. Not especially well-known. I don't think a minor role in one of the most successful franchises of all time should mean very much. 2601:5C2:0:A6F0:5D8A:2DAE:87E0:4CF7 (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized I wasn't logged in - replying for attribution purposes. LocoTacoFever (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Not especially well-known' - this claim, in particular, is in the teeth of the evidence. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb not a serving head of state or government. Manner of death not notable. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, 'either a serving head of state or government, or died in a notable manner' is not and never has been the unique criterion for these things, and your repeated thumping on it does not make it so. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And neither have popularity. 31.44.224.222 (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support blurb The consensus for a blurb is clear. Further dithering merely reduces the utility of ITN to users. Dr Fell (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Further dithering might help prevent another all-too-unfresh grinning Alberto Fujimori situation (inshallah); twelve days of mourning is simply 300% too much. Plus, you've already voted. That's coming on 100% too "strong". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If we turned over a few more of these stories, no-one's face would be hanging around for 12 days. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, yeah, but we won't. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Blurb Not infulential enough to have a blurb. High Admiral JMT (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Professor McGonagall is one of her most iconic roles that has influenced one generation, and just like Sean Connery, who was on ITN after his death for his legency on his portrayal of the roles like Bond, Smith should be the same. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If, as you claim, the role of a McGonagall as "influenced one generation", then you should be able to find citations for such a claim and add it to the article. - SchroCat (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well-known "Big-Time Actor etc", Triple Crown, on "all the news pages" at the moment. Good enough for me to thumbs-up a blurb (standard qualifier of article being of suitable quality, all that). Currently most-viewed article on enwp per Wikishark, with #2/3 being bios of people connected to her. Seems like plenty of readers are interested in WP's content relating to this topic currently "in the news", one might say! (I could say much more, but I think I'm saving it for the RfC re: ITN that appears to be a-brewin'.) --Slowking Man (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I may be wrong, but ITNs are not chosen based on pageviews - that particular criteria does not appear anywhere and has been rejected several times when raised (given there's already a link on the MP and given the high volume of traffic, it's an empty argument, as people are getting to the right page anyway). - SchroCat (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I honestly couldn't care less about the minutae of "the criteria". If X best serves the reader public (why we are all here to begin with), then good on it. If X does not, it is a Bad Thing™ and ought to be disregarded and done away with. Slowking Man (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikishark seems to undercount the number of views but she's top either way. FYI, here's the official pageviews tool which shows how she compares with other famous deaths this year. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page views show what has been read, the purpose of ITN is direct people to things we would like them to read. The causal connection runs the wrong way. Please for the love of all that's holy stop citing page views as evidence. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page views show the level of interest and coverage. But not everyone follows the news closely and so ITN helps those who may have missed the announcement. And another goal is to "to emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource". This is best done by posting blurbs frequently rather having a static, stale selection. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact her name is already on the front page, with a handy link, over 2 million people found there was to the article without the need for a blurb. I'm not sure people will have missed the news elsewhere and only be able to see it if it's blurbed here... - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not meaning this in any hostile kind of way, but I sincerely don't get where in WP:ITNPURPOSE the things we would like them to read stuff follows from. The closest-seeming part to me is point 3: To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. But that only talks about things we think they may take interest in, upon seeing them presented at ITN. (Which already is kind of a problematic matter of us trying to predict readers' desires and interests, since most aren't freely volunteering that information without even being asked.) Also I will note that bullet point #1 is about helping main page visitors get quickly to things "in the news" they might be searching for (I don't know whether this is intended to reflect any kind of "ranking").

A principle always important to note regarding statistics (such as page views) is they only tell you what they measure, not what they don't. It may be that page view figure represents just about everyone in the world who visits enwp semi-regularly and has interest in reading an article about X. It's also possible a bunch more people exist who would be interested if it were more prominently highlighted. You can't know either way based upon that stat. (Somewhat relatedly: "[A] dissatisfied customer does not complain: he just switches." Oliver Beckwith (1947), an adage often referenced by W. Edwards Deming.) Slowking Man (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb This is a good time to remind ourselves who we've blurbed so far this year: Franz Beckenbauer, Sebastián Piñera, Kelvin Kiptum, Brian Mulroney, Akira Toriyama, Peter Higgs, O. J. Simpson, Saulos Chilima, Willie Mays, Nguyễn Phú Trọng, Alberto Fujimori. Notice that they are all men; every single one of them. But the Thatcher-Mandela standard has 50-50 representation of the sexes and so we have some catching up to do. This candidate is clearly blurb-worthy as over two million readers rushed to read the article on the news of the death. That's more than most and more than James Earl Jones too. She therefore a prime candidate. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We didn't blurb O. J. Simpson certainly. Are you sure we blurbed all others, particularly Brian Mulroney? BilboBeggins (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We did blurb Simpson (see Wikipedia:In_the_news/Posted/April_2024#April_16) - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of them died in unnatural circumstances, some were acting head of states which automatically makes them blurbed if the quality is enough, some were former heads that puts them into consideration.

  I haven't found note on Saulos Chilima talk page that he was blurb, the article is saud to be start class. Was he really mentioned in blurb or it was just crash that was blurbed? By the way, there was Malawi's forner first lady there too. BilboBeggins (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See Chilima, Simpson, Mulroney. That's three strikes so you're out! Andrew🐉(talk) 13:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb - An actress with a career spanning stage and screen, and multiple generations of viewers, who was awarded at the highest levels multiple times. Her death immediately made the leading headline on the BBC News. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good source showing illustrious career: "Maggie herself was determined to remind her audience – and to reassure herself – that she had played opposite Olivier, played Hedda Gabler for Ingmar Bergman, made films with John Ford, George Cukor, Joe Mankiewicz"[2] BilboBeggins (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb - I saw a bit of discussion about James Earl Jones earlier in this nomination, asking why he wasn't blurbed but the consensus is leaning towards Maggie Smith getting one. I was one of those people who argued against James Earl Jones being blurbed and I stand by it; JEJ was a popular and highly-esteemed actor but I would argue Smith was a few rungs above him; like JEJ, she was widely known for roles in popular franchises but she was more closely associated with those roles than he was by virtue of them not being voice parts. I am not suggesting voice acting is less important than acting but, from a recognition angle, a lot of people around the world wouldn't recognise James Earl Jones as the actor who voiced Darth Vader and I would suggest many more would be able to identify Maggie Smith as McGonagall and Crawley. Being a recognisable face from something people can stream on Netflix only gets you so far, of course. What is more important is that Smith was one of the very most celebrated and decorated actors of her generation. You only need to look at her lede - two acting Oscars, five BAFTAs, four Emmys, three Golden Globes, a Tony, the BFI fellowship and the Bafta fellowship. She was awarded a CBE in 1970, a higher order than the OBE Judi Dench received that same year, and became a dame way back in 1990. She was consistently high-profile whether working in film, television or the theatre. She qualifies from all directions, in my opinion. When it comes to living actors born in the first half of the 1930s, there aren't many others who I think would qualify - maybe Clint Eastwood, Michael Caine, Judi Dench, Sophia Loren and that's yer lot. Humbledaisy (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good exposition, thanks. It’s been 24 hours, and in my view consensus is clearly in favor of a blurb. Let’s have an admin step up and do the right thing. Jusdafax (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb per all above. Nothing else to add. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurb. Outstanding actor, very long career, on stage, silver screen and television, more Triple Crown of Acting awards (Σ(Oscars, Emmies, Tonies)) than anyone else ... ---Sluzzelin talk 15:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote Tally By my count, the current tally is 28 votes in support to 16 opposed (just a few votes shy of a 2:1 ratio). I don't think this ratio is likely to significantly change, so a passing admin should probably assess and make a decision. Flip^andFlopped ツ 16:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Consensus is not vote count driven, it is strength of the arguments. Masem (t) 17:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The best argument for giving Smith a blurb, is to just read the article where all of her accomplishments during an unusually long career are heaped for all to see. We are into day two of this, and this is still front page stuff. [3] [4] [5]. I also agree with Andrew's comment that it's about high time we give another woman an RD blurb. The irony of writing this while reading the top banner on this page (Celebrate Women's Voices: Join the #SheSaid Campaign!) is not lost on me. Cart (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Accomplishments are nice, but that doesn't necessarily equate to being the type of major/great figure in their field; anyone with a long career in entertainment likely will have a similar list of awards. I've commented above that obits and other sources since her death have far more beyond simple accomplishments to flesh a much stronger legacy section to make the blurb case far more sensible since we are giving the reader context for why we are featuring her death. Masem (t) 00:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly my thoughts. I'm finding it really disappointing that there are several people in this discussion who are completely ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFF and opposing purely on the fact that someone else wasn't blurbed. This sort of argument should IMO be considered very weak. 80.42.195.111 (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's the stupidest thing ever, why even bother to vote if the votes don't count? Scuba 21:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one said "votes don't count", but consensus is not determined by vote count. This is one of Wikipedia's tenets, and is further clarified at WP:NHC Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments. Natg 19 (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb per above. Yes, I'm still salty JEJ wasn't posted, but let's not make that mistake again for someone who very clearly meets the bar. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There was no reason for a blurb on JEJ. Maggie Smith is significantly better known and more so around the world. Still, I'm neutral on a blurb, I wonder if we're going to blurb Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Merryl Streep, Dustin Hoffman, Clint Eastwood etc.

  I again remind everyone that Alain Delon didn't get an RD. This is clear Anglo Saxon imperialism Varoon2542 (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Smith has a triple handicap when it comes to ITN, wasn't from the US, she's a woman and she's not famous for any sports achievement. Cart (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  James Earl Jones was a male American actor who had a similar amount of notability as Smith & he wasn’t blurbed. Most people who’ve been blurbed in 2024 haven’t been Americans. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't forget, never held high natl. elective office/otherwise was a head of state (eg monarch). (As far as I know? Free fanfic idea for the taking there!) Slowking Man (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delon wasn’t blurbed due to article quality issues. I’d note that Jean-Luc Godard did get a death blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alain Delon didn't got RD because his article was a mess, filed with unsourced and unnecessary statements. That wasn't due to any "Anglo Saxon imperialism". ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 05:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb. A wonderful actress, but she didn't transform the profession. Jheald (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb A high profile actress. ArionStar (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb: I am not against non-politicians getting blurbed, but I just don't feel Maggie Smith has had the same impact in the world of acting/entertainment as other actors who have died recently.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Admins willing to post ITN: Could someone come to a decision whether to blurb or not? BangJan1999 04:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professional snooker and English billiards player.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. GA article. No problems found. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 10:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Article is currently GA without any CN's or valid orange tags at the moment. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 contribs 10:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems OK. A sad one for me. I must have used his work many hundreds of times to add info to Wikipedia. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GA article and it has been updated. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 12:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Article seems ready! High Admiral JMT (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Singer-Songwriter, known for singing the ED themes for several animes notably My Hero Academia and Lycoris Recoil. Death occured on September 20 but news was only released publicly today. Tofusaurus (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready. Shocking news but unfortunately, there are too many unsourced sections at the moment. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait and Support Wait until more things get sourced. Shocking news though. High Admiral JMT (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready various unsourced statements and might be need to be reedited into paragraphs as most of the article currently consists of one lines. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 12:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Almost ready. I've cleaned up the article with more sourcing and better statement organization per the above's input. Now all that's left is to expand the lede and possibly see if more can be translated from the jawiki article. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Now I've addressed both issues and the page should be ready. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question/Suggestion Is that hikigatari album a studio album? If so, maybe include it with them. This is not an impediment to posting. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've renamed the header to "remix album" since it consists of acoustic versions of previously released songs. Also added additional prose to clarify the matter. Harushiga (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarity is cool and additional prose can be; Support. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Article seems much better. High Admiral JMT (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You already !voted. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article has been significantly improved; I don't see any major issues that would prevent RD anymore. Link20XX (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American basketball player and coach. 240F:7A:6253:1:189A:8A9A:87CE:E53E (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose there is no information about this life prior to his professional career and that section is almost entirely unsourced. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 13:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian poet.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready. Due to the usual reason. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 10:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait needs some work, which is currently carried out. Will check out later to see if it is ready. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 12:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the hurricane has made landfall before midnight on the 26, it can be here. Three deaths have been confirmed, as well, but I can't find a good-quality source with all three in one, and the death toll will likely become apparent and easier to cite once this gets posted, which it most likely will be. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added an altblurb that more aligns with tropical cyclone related blurbs. I do believe "Southeastern United States" is worth having in the blurb because a good chunk of this region has felt the impacts of this system. Still would like to wait a tad for more precise impacts to come in, but I do imagine we'll run this eventually. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait and Support I should say wait until the death toll has been confirmed and the hurricane dissipated, but, support. High Admiral JMT (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment view closed Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Closed)_Tropical_Storm_Helene_(2024). same nom. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 04:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait, but likely support for altblurb. Very impactful storm that, unfortunately, is already becoming a deadly one. However, we should wait a bit further until impacts become more known, especially given the forecasted rainfall threat inland at time of writing. ArkHyena (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait but Support. Much better than the previous nomination (as it was too early). However, I'd wait until the full impact of the hurricane becomes clear. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the article is in a good shape and I think it can be posted now since it has made landfall. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 12:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Notable storm by sheer size alone. Impact is already apparent, and will only continue to progress over the next 12-24h. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Updates: Flash Flood emergency issued in Atlanta and insured damage range has now been set between 4 and 6 billion dollars (2024 USD). GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Growing death toll and damage assessments make a blurb advisable. Jusdafax (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and be ready to update: I think it's already notable enough and will only become more so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support article is in good shape and the hurricane is now relevant ITN due to making landfall. Scuba 17:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Updates: The Lake Lure reservoir in North Carolina is threatened with immediate failure, and per the aggregated total of fatalities on the Helene page, the death toll is now around 30 and likely to continue to rise. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Scu ba and Kcmastrpc. Flip^andFlopped ツ 19:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Schwede66 20:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait (as Nominator) I realize these three main articles, when taken together, "kinda suck" from a "quality" standpoint. But I recently saw a bunch of us who didn't know Sycho Sid from Sid Vicious one day whip up a plate of wholly presentable Sid Justice six days later, before it went stale. I also realise such a legendary feat may not reasonably come around twice in one lifetime, but still, wait. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What does this mean? If you are voting wait, you might as well withdraw the nomination. Natg 19 (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If I wanted to withdraw it, I just wouldn't have mentioned it. I'm advising not voting on quality grounds till the lot does or doesn't improve (otherwise it gets five opposes in two-thirds of a day and snowclosed, discouraging potential helpers). The story's nominated now because it happened on this date, not because any related article is ready yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Question Do you have to include Franklin's lost expedition, which has 24 {cn} tags? The James Fitzjames article has only two. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC) p.s. and why isn't Fitzjames' article the one to be bolded? Thanks.[reply]

  No need whatsoever and you're welcome, it was just there. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Now the bio's bold in an altblurb; remember to replace the updater and creator if taking this "easy" way forward. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "cool". We have to be careful to use HMS Erebus (1826). But the good news is, that article has no {cn} tags? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarified (and yeah, no tags now). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well that strategy failed to work. You have a ton of opposes right now. Natg 19 (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was a bit of advice, intended for consideration; that some leave it rather than take it is always expected (and fine). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The articles are not there quality wise. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality. The Franklin's lost expedition article by itself has 23 CN tags. The article has a lot of room for improvement, quality-wise. Support when quality issues are resolved. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 contribs 07:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The target article has had a {one source} tag for over 5 years (Battersby, 2010). Not sure if this affects eligibility for posting. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In addition to the quality issue, to me, this is where we probably should have blurbed when they found the Eberus in 2014, which I can't find any record of any nomination for that. The identification of remains from one of the captains seems very minor relative to that. --Masem (t) 11:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There was a blurb when the Terror was found in September 2016. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – If this serves as a good conclusion to the story of the Erebus excavation, then this is a pretty great target for a blurb. I really don't appreciate nominating with the knowledge that the article still needs a lot of work, though. This shouldn't be the place for that. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's already pretty normal here, I find, and why many stories are eventually marked "Ready" or "Needs Attention". Anyway, it led to an altblurb that solved most of that problem. And yes, it serves as a good conclusion to that ship's story, because he was her captain. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably not a conclusion, if some canny businessman decides to set up a commercial submersible tourist company. So let's not rush... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose 22 CN tags. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 12:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not for the target of the alt blurb (although no-one's added to the two existing ones yet). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's the main blurb now; too many people were getting confused. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's sensible. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC) p.s. just his jawbone, it seems, but with cut marks indicating that those who survived him had taken to cannibalism.[reply]

• Oppose on quality but support in principle This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose but man I wish this article was good enough. This is a major event and should be in ITN, but the article just isn't ready. Scuba 15:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality. A very fascinating discovery. Would love to see this on the ITN but unfortunately, the article has too many CN tags. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 22:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Neat factoid, but sounds like something that’d be a better fit for a “did you know?” blurb more so than an in the news highlight. RPH (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality - a unique and notable event as an end of sorts to the long saga of the Lost Expedition (I remember reading a book as a kid doubting that either ship would ever be found), but the target articles are in poor shape. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  HMS Erebus (1826) is in pretty good shape? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I live in little old New Zealand and if I may offer an observation, it is this: whatever gets posted at ITN makes our 6pm news. This one is the exception. I therefore wonder whether this is really in the news internationally, or whether it's popular here because it happened in North America. Maybe others from outside of North America would want to comment, too. Schwede66 22:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe the prolific Mr. Evans, without whom this'd be doomed already, is fairly Welsh (and the fascinated Midori No Sora plainly Japanese). I don't believe the Chess Olympiad made the New Zealand evening news. I'd like to believe the others are waiting. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are right about the Chess Olympiad. Schwede66 04:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  HMS Erebus was built in Pembroke Dock, I'll have you know, boyo. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then there's the not-at-all misleadingly named Jalapeño, who's taught me a valuable lesson about overlooking Croatians in the Netherlands. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And, for what it's worth, I'm a Canadian man but Commonwealth Wikipedian. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ITN items should not be exclusively those that get front page/major news program attentions, that creates a bias. We do give more weight to those with broader covers, but we do not penalize a story that has some but limited news coverage nor not making the front page news. This allows us to highlight stories along the lines of science, medicine, history (like this), and so forth, topics that rarely ever get leading headline coverage. Masem (t) 04:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Stephen:, I’ve BOLDly re-opened this nom - from my reading of it, the vast majority of oppose votes are on quality grounds rather than notability, and as such I don’t think it’s entirely fair to close quite yet, given those issues can (and hopefully will) be addressed. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, at least for now. I'm hardly wowed by the expansion of Fitzjames's article from how much we tend to want from an ITN perspective. It's neither long nor properly explains how substantial of a discovery his remains are. Improvement on these fronts MAY sway me. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: For me, this news does not seem very important, at least not for the ITN. High Admiral JMT (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Would have loved to see this one posted but sadly the quality of the article is not good enough due to lack of sources, but it is improving. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 12:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's certainly lacking sources. But I'm not sure that's the same thing. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a bit of work to get it into shape, but should be manageable. - SchroCat (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready. Mainly because of the orange tag. Changing to Support. Issue has been resolved. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No tags. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article looks good. Scuba 15:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks alright to me. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 17:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Expanded the lead a bit. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 23:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death announced 23 September. Thriley (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Meets the minimum requirements. If an infobox could be added to the article, that would be great. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 23:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Articles don't typically have an "Introduction". They have leads. (Kudos.) If those are combined and the "Personal life and death" section doesn't start with him already dead, then yeah, maybe all it needs is an infobox (and perhaps less promotional tone). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The final sentence seems particularly unbelievable, given how he didn't have a Wikipedia article till yesterday and it still doesn't contain any prehumous references. Those three obituaries could probably be covered by one. I'd keep two, if I were editing, since it'd otherwise be open to an orange tag about relying on a single source. While I'm nitpicking, I don't think Ungathering deserves credit as an updater. Fine fleshing out, no doubt, but Thriley broke the news here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German Catholic priest, theologian and member of the Jesuits. Grimes2 (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He taught exegesis of the Old Testament in Frankfurt and in Rome, and was influential internationally. That doesn't yet show enough for my taste, - I'll try to add a bit. There's much more in German in his case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article looks good. Scuba 14:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. No problems found. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 23:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good, let's post. Bremps... 03:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems good enough to me. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 12:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huge escalation of the conflict in the middle east, every single media outlet is talking about it. Scuba 19:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Agreed with other opposers. This is just another part of the ongoing conflict. More escalations will occur and it seems unnecessary to post every escalation as they happen. We should really only post grandiose escalations (large-scale death tolls [perhaps five-thousand people as the minimum threshold] or widespread destruction). In relative terms, this bit of news is not that huge when compared to the conflict as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridianwindow (talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Now, this is a major escalation in the conflict. A such large death toll and that too in Lebanon makes this attack blurbworthy. I think I am gonna change my vote on the ongoing entry as well now. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 19:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is significant, but this is still relatively commonplace. Also keep in mind that there will likely be further escalations. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support in the event of major escalation, more casualties and maybe I should change my vote on the upcoming and split of the conflicts. QalasQalas (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The pager attack was novel but Israeli airstrikes are commonplace, just like Hamas/Hezbollah/Houthi rocket attacks. As a daily occurrence, they are best covered by Ongoing. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Covered by ongoing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which ongoing? this is Israel hezbollah war, not hamas Afif Brika1 (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Significant, even within the broader Middle East crisis. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Andrew. While larger than usual, Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon aren't uncommon, and this is moreso part of the pager attacks' wave of escalation rather than being uniquely escalatory themselves. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as it'll likely be posted at this point, propose ALT2. Better wording IMO, and virtually all RSes mention that the strikes were at least intended to target Hezbollah, though they've unsurprisingly resulted in massive collateral damage/civilian casualties too. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support These are the deadliest attacks in Lebanon since the 06 war. It's a stretch to argue this is covered by ongoing. This should replace or be added to the blurb about the pager attacks.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - > 10 times the causalities of the pagers and radios. To those claiming covered by ongoing, I do not see Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) listed in ongoing. starship.paint (RUN) 00:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support not covered by ongoing, and with 500 people dying in a single day, it's pretty blurbworthy. Kline • talk • contribs 01:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a very major attack on a sovereign nation by an another sovereign nation. We posted the pager attack and the number of deaths is 10x than that attack. LiamKorda 03:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Very clearly NOT covered in ongoing and a fairly large escalation of conflict between Israel and Lebanon. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Significant number of casualties and not covered in ongoing. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Can't see why not at this point. Bremps... 05:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support big body death toll Ion.want.uu (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Doesn't matter if its covered by ongoing or not. With that many casualties, it's highly notable. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support With 500 deaths and 2 thousand injuries, this is most definitely NOT covered by ongoing. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 contribs 07:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. We now have 2 Lebanon blurbs live, but I suppose the pagers one will roll off soon. Perhaps an ongoing nomination should be considered. Sandstein 07:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is already covered by Ongoing. The strikes are just the latest cycle of tit-for-tat which started with Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on 7 Oct 2023. And we cover this with multiple entries in Ongoing. The timeline has multiple entries for Lebanon on Sep 23. And the lead of Israel–Hamas war says "There have also been an ongoing exchange of strikes between Lebanon's Hezbollah and Israel, risking the eruption of another full-scale war." And that article has a large section for the Israel–Lebanon border.

  So, what ITN has now is excessive duplication as this conflict has four separate entries: two blurbs and two ongoing links. Tsk.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 09:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Respectfully, I think there's a big difference between saying that X led to Y and saying that X and Y are the same thing. It's true that the beginning of the Gaza war nearly a year ago started a chain of dominoes that eventually brought us to the present day. But that does not mean that the airstrikes in Lebanon are not a meaningfully distinct subject from those in Gaza, or that these events were not significant enough to warrant their own article and their own ITN entry to assist readers in finding it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 10:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The main point is that the claims above that this is not covered by Ongoing are wrong -- there have been multiple updates about this incident in the articles linked by Ongoing. The only issue seems to be that the titles of the Ongoing links are not broad enough. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue is that this is an event with very high casualties, is a large escalation in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, and was around 10 times more deadly than the pager explosions, which were blurbed (you !voted to wait in that discussion). Such a major attack on Hezbollah is not something that would usually be covered by ongoing. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 contribs 15:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm confused @Andrew Davidson. What's the second ongoing link? Ukraine or Sudan? Though if Russia ever killed that many people in an attack on Kiev, I'd expect we'd end up blurbing that too. Nfitz (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link 1 = Israel–Hamas war
  • Link 2 = Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (13 July 2024 – present)

  Both of these report the facts of the blurb in question such as the number of casualties. And, altogether, the first page refers to Lebanon 68 times and Hezbollah 47 times. For the second page, the count is 102 and 114. The claim that this front is not covered by the Ongoing pages is misinformation. Clear?

  Note BTW that the timeline page seems to have been orange-tagged since August. Is no-one but me actually reading these things?

  Andrew🐉(talk) 18:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Day 2+ The strikes have continued for another day and show no sign of stopping. So, the scope and title of the article is now uncertain and under discussion. This further demonstrates the ongoing nature of the topic. The existing timeline copes with this without any hiccup as it has numerous detailed entries each day which cover the full range of the strikes and other incidents throughout the complete theatre. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting that the blurb has been pulled due to an ongoing NPOV dispute over the lead. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I see an NPOV in the background not the lede. Scuba 18:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's probably shifted since I posted this note. Point is there's still an orange tag. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Kip, @Scu ba, I have just removed the last POV tag, hoping the article remains stable and NPOV. At least on talk, there seem to be no unresolved NPOV issues. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vice regent probably better to ping @Firefangledfeathers, who I believe pulled it initially - I'm just the messenger here, lol. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not in a place to look into this. Maybe post at WP:ERRORS? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian artist and designer. Article has shaped into a decent C-class biography. Ktin (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks alright to me. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 10:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Midori No Sora. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 10:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support article looks fine. Scuba 14:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support article looks good enough to be posted. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 12:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Seems great enough for a post! High Admiral JMT (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australian bass guitarist and member of The Easybeasts. Death announced on 22 September. 240F:7A:6253:1:B4B6:28B7:28ED:B519 (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost Ready. The Discography section just needs to be sourced. After that, the article looks good to go. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 11:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost there as per above it needs just sourced discography. Ping me when that's done. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 17:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Added missing references. Looks good now. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Midori No Sora and PrinceofPunjabi: does this resolve your concerns? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, PrinceofPunjab. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I think article is ready to be posted now. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 14:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Changing to Support. Problem solved. Cheers. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 23:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Influential American literary critic, philosopher, and Marxist political theorist. Author of Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism and The Political Unconscious. Thriley (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD in principle. One section requires additional citations, otherwise once fixed the article is good to go. Withdrawn vote. Tofusaurus (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose multiple cn tags, one orange tagged section and almost entirely unsourced publications section. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 17:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oppose article needs work and citations. Scuba 14:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - significantly updated and {cn} tags taken care of. It looks pretty good and should be ready to go. I hope other editors can take a look and/or we can get it posted before it goes stale. - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost Ready. Just the "Analysis of postmodernism" section needs to be sourced. After that, its all good. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 23:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I fixed the “Analysis of postmodernism ” section, updating with citations and editing out material I could not find references to from reliable sources. I believe it’s Ready. Of course, if any other editors want to add their own assessments, please feel free to jump in here. Thank you. - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: A new head of state was elected, and this was the first time a second round of counting was needed in Sri Lankan history.

Updated the fields Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait aftermath section needs to be expanded and needs more sources. The winner's article needs to be updated with a section about his victory. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 17:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait it seems like per infobox, he is going to be sworn in as president of Sri Lanka on 24 September, can say there is only a single day till his inauguration which instead of election, we could post about he is sworn in as president into main page. Anyway the article needs more expansion and references. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per ITN/R Scuba 20:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support national election, change in control of the executive. Doubly ITN/R This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per ITN/R Tofusaurus (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. Change in control of executive, also victory of a third-party candidate. Not Wlwtn (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above IDB.S (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per ITN/R. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 03:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support National election. Very important. High Admiral JMT (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb 2, National election so automatic qualification per WP:ITNELECTIONS. I think alt blub 2 provides the best context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.44.224.222 (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all above, article is in alright shape. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted a modified version of Alt2. Schwede66 06:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Open event winners identified. Should know of the women's event gold medalists soon. Both results are now in. Very nice work by ITN regular Kiril Simeonovski on the articles. Ktin (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the blurb, but not sure if the photo merits inclusion, because there are multiple winners. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment India won the women's event also. --Lekhak93 (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready a large part of the prose in the main article is still in the future tense and needs to be updated. Both the events' articles are missing information regarding the 11th round, with open event 10th round summary being incomplete. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 17:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree re: the first statement, and if there are tense issues that need to be remedied, they can be remedied before the article goes to the mainpage. However, there is no gating expectation on the non-bold articles. Only the bolded one needs to be examined. Ktin (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I’ll update the articles in a few hours.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Edits seems to have been done and the bolded article is ready for mainpage imo. Nice work. Ktin (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A chess olympiad is important enough to be in the ITN. High Admiral JMT (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, good quality article. Congratulations to the editors ! Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've updated all articles by adding reports from the last round as well as summaries from both events. In addition, it makes more sense to use the wording of the blurb that we used in 2018 when China won the titles in both events (see the alternative blurb).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted with altblurb for ENGVAR purposes. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How come this was posted? This seems to be a youth event (Olympiad) and not the adult competition which (as far as I am aware) gets more publicity. Is this ITNR? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? This is not a youth event. This is the main biennial Chess Olympiad, with many top players including Magnus Carlson, Fabiano Carauna, etc participating. Also, the Chess Olympiad is ITNR. Natg 19 (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally unfamiliar with Chess competition. Is the Chess Olympiad different from the World Chess Championship? That one seems to have names I recognize. Confused why theres two different chess contests which are apparently of similar prestige / importance... QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World Chess Championship is an individual tournament; the Chess Olympiad is one between teams (representing countries). —Cryptic 17:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Chess Olympiad is an international "team" tournament, meant to be like the Olympics for chess, while the WCC is a separate tournament for individual players to determine the "best" player in chess (though now that is disputed as the world #1 is not participating). Natg 19 (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you all! QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

†TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 10:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unsourced filmography and other acting roles. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 17:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready. Sources are still required. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 11:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South African politician and formerly, the longest serving South African MP. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support meets the minimum requirement. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 07:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per nom †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 10:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]