This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of
Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded
Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our
standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our
minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be
reliable,
support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in
simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see
WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check
WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because
consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them.
Be bold and
fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful.
A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as
ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle
conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Las Vegas,
Nevada, United States, reaches 120 °F (49 °C), the city's highest temperature of all time, and surpassing the previous record of 117 °F (47 °C) set in July 2021.
(KTNV-TV)(Las Vegas Review-Journal)
ECOWAS states that it risks disintegrating from military and economic insecurity if
Niger,
Mali, and
Burkina Faso continue their exit to form their own
confederation, following sanctions and severed diplomatic ties after each state's military
coup.
(Reuters)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Unexpected result, as the National Rally and their allies were originally predicted to get the most seats, but only came in third place after the NPF and Ensemble.
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs)
20:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait. We still need a clearer idea of what the results were; this is a much murkier situation than last week's UK vote. (where Labour clearly won a decisive majority that lined up with expectations; contrast here where we have a surprise result) Also, given that even the article linked for "relative majority" itself is called
Plurality, I would recommend the blurb actually use that to avoid confusion.
Nottheking (
talk)
21:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Is there a result yet? I was literally just looking at a couple of news sites, that says the far-right and fascists weren't doing as well as expected, but I didn't see any breakdowns. But hang on - I'm no expert on France politics - but the
New Popular Front is alliance of over 50 political parties - including the
Pirate Party and the
Guadeloupe Communist Party? I'm not sure I get this one, compared to most countries where there's only up to a half-dozen viable parties.
Nfitz (
talk)
21:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi, I'm the primary contributor to this article. There isn't an officially aggregated national result yet, but it will be published by the Ministry of the Interior later
here and added once that happens. The NFP is a broad electoral alliance of the main parties of the left as well as numerous smaller formations which had their candidates nominated in a small number of districts, as depicted
here. It's an unusual situation, but with such a short timeline this was agreed upon quickly to allow the parties of the left to have the best chance of getting candidates elected rather than splitting the vote in the two-round electoral system.
73.169.176.209 (
talk)
22:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
How long does it take for the vote to be finalized by the government? Here it can take weeks, even if the incumbent conceded within an hour of the polls closing. Surely in the interim, putting in preliminary results from a reliable source suffices in many other places. Should be the same, unless the Pirates steal some poll boxes.
Nfitz (
talk)
00:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I missed this reply, but results are mostly set here (calculated for the alliances as noted in footnotes B and C, using the Ministry of Interior reference).
73.169.176.209 (
talk)
01:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've added alt1, which to me is just the best non-confusing way to explain this result. I do wish to wait for results to be updates to a certain degree we shouldn't post a blurb saying "x coalition won" or similar when most results are not confirmed to prove this yet on our end.
DarkSide830 (
talk)
22:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
They're not aggregated by the Ministry of the Interior just yet (various news outlets create their own classifications of candidates, so the counts of votes and seats won tend to differ between them); we've always used the Ministry of the Interior ones because they're official classifications and the others are unofficial classifications. Also added alt3 but not official until tomorrow
73.169.176.209 (
talk)
23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Support and
André Drege too. Both sportsmen of the same age who had their lives tragically cut short on the same day. Both articles seem good, though Jackson's is more detailed.
1779Days (
talk)
23:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
comment blurb should mention that this "election" was held by a totalitarian government headed by the dictatorial ayatollahs. Else we risk presenting it as a genuine expression of the will of the people and not a fake election no different from those under the regimes of dprk, china or soviet union which wikipedia AFAIK previously did NOT post
Kasperquickly (
talk)
06:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support It seems that there was a significant choice between Pezeshkian and his main hardline opponent. The article is short but seems adequate in providing basic info for our readers.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
06:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support I want to note that Pezeshkian is the first reformist candidate for quite some time (I've seen The Atlantic's Arash Azizi place that date at 2005, which was the end of Khatami's term), and noting the state that the reformist parties have been as of the 2020s. Might be a potentially good idea to note that he is the reformist candidate in the blurb.
Ornithoptera (
talk)
08:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Should note that Pezeshkian is a reformist .I will note that some of the bold articles sources dont seem to very reliable and are close to the Iran government.
AlexBobCharles (
talk)
13:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose due to three orange tags on the article. Also, there is no need to mention that Pezeshkian is a reformist in the blurb. All we should say is the result of the election.
Gödel2200 (
talk)
13:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support with current wording; elections in Iran aren't free, but they are fair. No need to use "declared" or similar phrases.
AryKun (
talk)
19:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's serious doubts about the fairness of elections as well, they possibly manipulated numbers in the first round, there is valid sources supporting this idea.
3000MAX (
talk)
21:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support for its notability. Although the article is currently orange-tagged, this is related to the lack of attention from enough fluent Persian speakers (or people able to use auto-translators sufficiently well). The benefit of the extra attention of ITN may help improve the quality of the article sufficiently to justify the removing the tags, so an
exception to the general rule may be acceptable in this case.
Boud (
talk)
20:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Medical journalThe Lancet publishes a review study estimating the total death toll of Palestinians in Gaza to be at least 186,000 compared to the currently reported number of 38,000, due to the lack of reporting for indirect deaths, as well as the lack of operating hospitals and officials to report those deaths.
(The Lancet)(NPR)
M23 rebels and the
FARDC agree to a two-week humanitarian truce proposed by the
United States. The positions of the two groups are separated by about 1 kilometre in
Matembe. Access to many areas remains difficult for humanitarians.
(Radio Okapi)
Greece passes a law to allow a six-day work week for industries that operate on a 24-hour basis. Workers have the option of working an additional eight hours for 40% additional pay.
(CBS News)(NPR)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Hezbollah launches at least 200 rockets and a swarm of
drones at Israeli territory and threatens to expand its targeting range, in retaliation for the killing of Mohammed Nasser, a top Hezbollah commander.
(Reuters)
Hurricane Beryl causes a six- to nine-feet high
storm surge and fierce winds along
Jamaica's southern coast, killing at least one person before tracking towards the
Cayman Islands.
(CNN)
The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Clearly, we're going to need sources to use the second blurb re being a landslide, though I know the exit polls suggest it will be that way. --
Masem (
t)
22:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not just the BBC. Sky News, the Telegraph, the Guardian ... in fact most UK news sources ... are already using it on their front pages (although at the moment it of course says "predicted" or "expected"). But yes, stick with the original blurb, we can always change it later.
Black Kite (talk)22:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Meh. I'm not going to get worked up over it, but FWIW I don't recall the word "landslide" ever being used in an election blurb before. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No, we rarely use such terms on the Main Page in my experience. Granted, I have been away for a while. If anything, we may choose to use a less bombastic phrasing such as "significant gain in seats", or something more British. ---
C&
C (Coffeeandcrumbs)
00:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support original blurb. It's factual and to the point. We can update tomorrow after Sir Kier becomes PM. The votes are still being counted but there is no doubt who won. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
22:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support either original Blurb or AltBlurb II. (later purely among the implication that's part of ITN/R: that this will mean Keir Starmer becomes PM) Obviously, we'll be waiting for the official results (rather than just the exit polls) and such to make it official. Article appears to be in great shape; hopefully this quality will be maintained through all the official results being added. I'm somewhat neutral (mildly opposed) on whether we should bother describing the margin of the election. However, if there's an applicable superlative, (e.g, it break's
Labour's old record for most seats won) then that would have a much more convincing argument to be mentioned on the front page.
Nottheking (
talk)
01:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support original blurb but wait until the full results come out. I don't really see much of a need for the blurb to indicate that the result was a landslide; the reader will see that immediately after going to the page. The blurb only needs to state who won the election.
Gödel2200 (
talk)
02:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support original blurb and wait Good article, important event. Results are pretty clear but post after the votes are fully done being counted
Hungry403 (
talk)
03:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Posted As Labour has already got more than 50 per cent of the electorate seats (362 right now, with 326 needed for a majority), it's probably safe to post ALT0 at this point. I don't think it'll be long before "landslide" can be added to the blurb. Schwede6604:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not at all. I don't think we've ever done such a thing, and the Conservatives arguably won a landslide last time. I'm a little baffled as to why Schwede66 has suggested this and strongly recommend that no admin should change this. —
Amakuru (
talk)
07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Majority would be a better word than "landslide". ITN should save the word "landslide" for the actual landslides that kill lots of people (they seem to have stopped counting in
New Guinea). For elections, we should stick to words that more accurately describe the result such as
supermajority. Simply winning a
majority is a significant achievement when so many countries have systems that require complex coalitions such as we see in the current Netherlands blurb.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
06:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That doesn't matter because Labour don't seem to have quite that many seats (433 is two thirds of 650). The point is to use appropriate technical terms rather than colourful journalistic metaphors. In the Westminster system, the key thing is to get a "working majority".
Andrew🐉(
talk)
07:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose landslide or majority or anything else. Longstanding precedent is that we don't attempt to add "nuance" or editorialisation to election results, even those that are "disputed" or "near-unanimous" or whatever, and there's no reason to deviate from that here. The current simple blurb that they won is completely sufficient and should not be changed. —
Amakuru (
talk)
07:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose landslide as an editorialising term. "Supermajority" isn't great either as the Parliament does not operate with a supermajority system as far as I know (no equivalent of, say, the 60-vote filibuster in the US Senate). Stating that Labour won a majority by themselves (and, when confirmed, that Starmer becomes PM) is the most objective thing to do.
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs)
07:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In the Westminster system, a substantial majority is significant because it means that the PM can force through legislation without having to appease rebels and rivals in his own party. See the US House of Representatives for the difficulty of getting things done with a narrow majority.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
07:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support - I find it funny this was nominated before any seat was even called. It might be good to mention just how historic this win is, the worst result for the Conservative Party I believe in its entire 200 year existence. This is a pretty crazy result as the dominant party in UK politics is going extinct.
PrecariousWorlds (
talk)
08:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The popular vote for the Conservatives was still quite substantial while the vote for Labour was little changed. The result in seats was a typical quirk of the first-past-the-post system. The main novelty is the advent of
Reform UK which got the next largest popular vote and so split the centre-right vote.
What helped Labour is that their leader looks and sounds like a conservative -- a safe pair of hands, rather than a radical like Corbyn, a wild child like Boris or a city slicker like Rishi. It's interesting that our blurb calls him "Sir Keir Starmer", like a "
knight of the shires".
Andrew🐉(
talk)
08:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Those look like numerical results once the full complete tally is known. The results that Labour won was based on factors like sufficient tallies from the various locals as well as candidates conceding that they lost, all reported in RSes. —
Masem (
t)
12:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Jessintime There's currently 2 seats to go (out of 650), until those are declared, these "results" figures don't exist. But that doesn't change the outcome that Labour have won, a fact that was confirmed in reliable sources before this was posted. And the article has been updated with this information and aftermath, and so
WP:ITNQUALITY is met. We have posted other countries in a similar state i.e. where 95+% of results are known and the election result is assured.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
12:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Standard practice for ITN has been to post once the general outcome has been confirmed, since it's rare to instantly get total figures for every single constituent election from any country. There will always be stragglers, so yes, there will be some small gaps in the data as everyone in the world waits for those stragglers. However, it remains that all the RSes have reported that Labour has won a majority of seats, and that won't change. And Keir Starmer has already been appointed Prime Minister.
Nottheking (
talk)
20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll just reply here since this is pretty much moot. My concern is that we posted an article on an election with an entire results table left blank. Did we really need to wait until all 650 seats were called before updating it? I've seen other stories held up for far less. ~~
Jessintime (
talk)
21:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
An
Israeli strike kills Mohammed Nasser, a top commander in
Hezbollah, in
Tyre,
Lebanon. Nasser is one of the highest-ranking Hezbollah members to die in the conflict.
(Al Arabiya)
Hezbollah launches a barrage of at least 100
Katyusha rockets, towards
northern Israel, targeting Israeli military positions, in retaliation for the killing of Nasser.
(Al Jazeera)
Sierra Leone outlaws
child marriage, setting the
legal age of marriage to 18 years. Offenders could face up to 15 years in prison and/or a fine of around US$4,000, with witnesses to child marriages also facing possible jail or fines.
(CBS News)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
There is little support for posting this now, but some editors suggest that this record might be included in the blurb when the tour finishes. Schwede6600:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Aficionados regard the result of the Tour de France as much more then the first person to crosss the finish line, but the non-cycling world is generally ignorant of such detail. So sadly, I agree.
HiLo48 (
talk)
07:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Neutral Probably under the bar as a stand-alone entry. However, given it’s broken a 49 year old record would suggest it’s mentioned at race summary e.g. “In the 2024 Tour de France, Joe Bloggs wins the General Classification, while Mark Cavendish breaks the record for stage wins”
92.17.186.116 (
talk)
22:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree The tour isn't over and he could win a 36th or 37th, and at the conclusion of the race that number can be announced as part of the blurb.
Kcmastrpc (
talk)
22:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support It's a monumental achievement that has taken 50 years to break. It's not trivia. There's often major records on ITN, sports or otherwise (longest person in space etc)
Torqueing (
talk)
23:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose While an impressive achievement, the fact there are only a few sentences of an update on each of the linked articles means that this is not suitable for ITN.
Gödel2200 (
talk)
00:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per above. While its impressive that he broke a near 50 year old record, these kinds of personal achievements aren't notable enough for the ITN. 🛧
Midori No Sora♪🛪 (
☁=☁=✈)
02:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. This is a huge 49 years old record, and yes it's newsworthy.
Eddy Merckx should be mention in the blurb too. Mark Cavendish breaks Eddy Merckx’s 49-years-old record for most career Tour de France stage wins with 35th victory. -
Eugen Simion 14 (
talk)
06:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose, while impressive, this still counts as sports trivia in view of ITN. For TDF, we post the winner. --Tone07:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support a record that has stood for a long time being broken, and a target article
Mark Cavendish that's a GA. This is more in the news than the eventual TdF winners usually are (because it's a record that has stood for nearly 50 years that was thought unbreakable for most of that time), and that article is nowhere near the quality of Cavendish's article either. Monumental achievement with worldwide coverage, which is higher enough to meet the threshold of
WP:ITNSIGNIF.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
08:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose Winning a stage in a multiple-day cycling race has absolutely no meaning. One may not win a single stage but eventually win the race. I don't see a reason to post a meaningless record. If it were a record set at one-day classics, it'd be a much stronger argument for posting, but it's clearly not. Note also that he's not finished half of the Tour de France editions he entered and was ranked well below 100th place in all editions he finished, so it's completely worthless to talk about any notable record here.--
Kiril Simeonovski (
talk)
08:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
He's a sprinter, and they often don't complete all three weeks, different physiology. Where he finishes in the general classification is a complete irrelevance.
Ericoides (
talk)
12:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That's why one-day classics exist – to make sprinters more competitive. A sprinter breaking a record in a race that he can barely finish is completely irrelevant.--
Kiril Simeonovski (
talk)
12:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
To claim "Winning a stage in a multiple-day cycling race has absolutely no meaning" suggests you have absolutely no understanding of cycling. See today's L'Equipe, which only devotes seven pages to the Cavendish record.
Ericoides (
talk)
13:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Indeed. I'm not personally supporting this item as of sufficient encyclopaedic interest for ITN, but the achievement itself certainly isn't insignificant. Stage wins on the Tour de France are a big deal and treated as such in reliable sources. Wikipedians' opinions on their relevance is what's "meaningless" here. —
Amakuru (
talk)
16:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Ericoides: I’ve been avidly following cycling about 18 years now, and that’s why I know that this record isn’t significant at all. In multiple-day cycling races, time is what counts, not the number of stage wins. You may say whatever you want about my understanding of cycling and cite zillion sources stating that this is a big achievement, but that won’t change the established fact that these stage victories won’t help Cavendish ever win Tour de France. This record is trivial as Ronnie O’Sullivan’s 1,000 century breaks achieved in 2019 or LeBron James breaking Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s long-standing record for most points in the NBA.--
Kiril Simeonovski (
talk)
16:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
He's not trying to win the Tour; it's an event within an event. As
David Millar said in his ITV commentary this afternoon, "the Tour de France is the world championships for sprinters."
Ericoides (
talk)
19:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - This is trivia. Winning a record number of tours would be worth mentioning in the tour result post (which is, as noted, ITNR), but this is a mere footnote.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
09:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose minor sports trivia. An impressive personal achievement but we can't post every similar record in every sport. When the race concludes, the winner can be posted per
WP:ITNR. I recommend you work on improving the
2024 Tour de France article so that will be ready to go e.g. by adding prose summaries of each stage.
Modest Geniustalk11:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Dismissing this as trivia is absolute rubbish. The most notable cycling sporting event in the world has had a longstanding record broken that will go unchallenged for a very long time. The closest competitor to challenge his record is Tadej Pogačar who only has 12 stage wins at the moment.
Kcmastrpc (
talk)
13:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Final note, after searching the archives I found numerous examples of prior posting of notable sports records being broken, so I don't see how there isn't precedence for posting this in some form or another.
Kcmastrpc (
talk)
13:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Records based on competing and winning (or whatever the aspect) a number of times, which the chances of improving simply increase with the person participating in more events, are records that are ripe to be broken and not really fair. More approach records that would make sense are breaking race times or other measurable factors in a competitive sport, or achieving a certain type of scoring record within a single game and/or season. But as others have said, when the race is done and we post the result (per ITNR), it makes sense to possibly include this record too. —
Masem (
t)
16:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I noticed that nobody was talking about a foiled coup yesterday in Ukraine that major news outlets are talking about so I decided to make a page for it, I feel that this is just as notable as any other coup and should be included in the news.Scu ba (
talk)
00:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose There have been a few assassination plots targeting the president as well over the past 2 years. And I believe there was a coup plot foiled shortly before the war. So unless something is at least attempted, like in Bolivia, I don't think it's worth posting.
Scaramouche33 (
talk)
05:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose respectfully. It seems like this was simply the arrest of four alleged Russophilic activists who were discussing a coup plot via instant messages. An actual attempted coup that could pose a real threat to Zelenskyy would definitely be notable, but an alleged coup plot that had already failed before anything could have even been attempted is not big enough to warrant a separate blurb for an event already covered in Ongoing. Vanilla Wizard 💙12:01, 3 July 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.
Seventy-six more deaths and at least 500 hospitalizations in
Japan are linked to use of
red yeast rice supplements distributed by Kobayashi Pharmaceutical, causing
kidney disease and other severe conditions.
(Asahi TV)
Australia issues statements to several
social media and
search engine websites ordering the websites to draft and enforce guidelines to prevent minors from seeing inappropriate material before October 3 or face national restrictions.
(Reuters)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Support I've fixed the last of the CN tags and it appears the page is very well sourced now. I'll ping @
MAL MALDIVE to see if they would like to change their opinion.
Jmanlucas (
talk)
01:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I guess the article needs work to be understandable to non-experts and should highlight more about the new discovery, but I think this is a big deal for computer science and mathematics. It's been 41 years since progress was made on this problem, it closely relates to the limits of mathematical knowledge and mathematical proof, it was a big online volunteer collaboration over several years, and it's one of the first new mathematical results to be formalized in a proof assistant contemporaneously with its announcement (which helped other mathematicians be more confident more quickly that the result was correct). It's also very likely the largest Busy Beaver number that humanity will ever be able to discover. So this is potentially the only progress on this problem that Wikipedia will ever be able to announce!
Schoen (
talk)
23:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Wow! Didn't follow it too closely, I'm surprised it was actually discovered. Science at ITN is always great, and, as Schoen says, this is likely the largest Busy Beaver number we'll be able to discover (for two-state Turing machines at least). Not only does the state space grow very fast, but these numbers are inherently uncomputable, meaning you can't just throw more computing power to find them, you need to go through mathematical proofs for each Turing machine. By the way, for anyone curious, the number is 47 176 870.
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs)
23:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A lower bound on the sixth Busy Beaver number is 10⇈15, or 1010...15 times...10. Needless to say, we don't have enough space in this universe to even write it down.
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs)
23:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose primary because the target article is terribly undersourced and is the symptom of being far too technical for an encyclopedia. Besides that, I'd like to see at least either a peer-review article or a more mainstream news source covering this, because as the Quantum article points out, this is more a curiosity than a breakthrough in mathematics. --
Masem (
t)
02:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Target article is extremely poorly sourced (indeed, the main paragraph explaining it has precisely zero sources) and is not written in anything like an accessible manner; we do not expect technical articles to be dumbed down but even the introduction to this article makes assumptions that the reader knows what a halting Turing machine, its "states", or transition tables are. It is unfortunate that a lot of computer science articles are like this.
Black Kite (talk)09:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support in principle, but unfortunately the article is nearly fully unsourced, and is nowhere near being ready for the main page.
Gödel2200 (
talk)
12:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. While I'm open to posting mathematical advances, there are multiple problems with this: a) The topic is extremely esoteric and doesn't seem to have any application - the 'applications' section of the article speculates about uses in principle but indicates they are all impossible in practice. b) The fifth BB number has been known since 1990, but was only
conjectured not proven
[2]. While proving it now is useful, it's hardly a surprise. c) There is no formal publication of this result. The team's own website announcement
[3] states "we are currently working on a human-readable paper" i.e. it hasn't been written up yet, let alone peer reviewed. A peer-reviewed publication is a requirement for posting scientific news. d) There's little to no coverage in mainstream media, I couldn't find anything beyond that Quanta article. e) The article is incomprehensible to most of our readers, who would not learn anything from clicking on that bold link. So while I commend the nomination, I don't think this is suitable for ITN.
Modest Geniustalk19:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Except that it's notability is questionable as the only independent source I've seen is the linked quantum magazine article. That fails the actual "ITN" part. —
Masem (
t)
22:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per all above. Poorly-sourced article that doesn't explain why these numbers matter (certainly not to an extent remotely close to establishing main page notability), and if my bachelor's in mathematics is not nearly enough to comprehend the article, main page readers don't have a chance. --
Kicking222 (
talk)
21:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not hard: I'm in the middle of an infinite coin row (all heads up). I read card 1 of 5. The heads up side says "1. leave tails up" "2. look to its immediate right" "3. do card 2 to it". Card 2-Heads is the same except 3. is "do card 3". Card 3-Heads is the same except 3. is "do card 4". Card 4-Heads says "1. leave tails up" "2. immediate left" "3. card 1". Card 5-Heads says tails/right/END. 1-Tails says tails/left/3 2-Tails says tails/right/2. 3-Tails is heads/left/5. 4-Tails is tails/left/4 5-Tails is heads/left/1. They just proved that you need ≥6 cards to end @ over 4,098 tails or after step 47,176,870 and these are the best possible cards.
Sagittarian Milky Way (
talk)
05:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that it's pretty easy to describe how to emulate the five-state Beaver. But in order for someone to care a lot about the behavior of these "cards", we might also want to connect this to "this is one of the purest ways to model and reason about what computers do, and what computers can potentially do". And indeed "
the cards can do math, potentially as well as any other system can do math". Or maybe "computer programs' behavior is complex and hard to predict, in a very fundamental mathematical sense; people have now managed to fully analyze the behavior of some small computer programs, which was extremely difficult, and there's good reason to think humanity will never make it to the next step of fully analyzing the behavior of very slightly larger computer programs".
Schoen (
talk)
06:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose I apologize if my reasons are short sighted, I know next to nothing about computer science. The article is very hard to understand for the average reader, and I fail to see how this discovery is used outside of the problem itself. Also missing citations
Hungry403 (
talk)
03:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - While the Busy Beaver problem is important in computability theory, and the discovery of a new member in a short and hard-to-determine sequence is very interesting, the combination of the two does not have any wider consequences. The discovery of BB(5) doesn't actually advance computability theory at all, and the number itself has no immediate wider applications. I also think the target article lacks a clear explanation for non-specialists, and is overall not ready for the home page.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
09:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Legendary sports competitor breaks a nearly 50 year longstanding record is largely opposed as trivia, but this isn't? Absurd.
Kcmastrpc (
talk)
12:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not saying that this is the way things should be, but I don't think it should be a surprise that Wikipedia is more nerd than jock.
Bremps...19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
One interesting thing about this succession is that Schoof is not part of the coalition party. Mark Rutte was PM for 13+ years, will serve as the next SG of NATO (1 October), which was just made official on 26 June. --
Classicwiki (
talk) If you reply to me here, please
ping me.19:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support It's interesting that he's not just not a member of the coalition parties but that he's not an elected politician. Instead, he's a civil servant and previously in charge of the security service.
Deep state needs a section for the Netherlands...
Andrew🐉(
talk)
21:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support because he succeeded 13-year incumbent Mark Rutte, and this concludes government appointment from the November 2023 Dutch election.
JohnAdams1800 (
talk)
23:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What evidence do you have that it was accidental? RS are calling it a disaster and some have been arrested already. We've got to be careful with that word.
Dreameditsbrooklyn (
talk)
20:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
ITN is still technically correct, as it says at least 110. Admins do update death tolls, but I do not expect them to keep track of daily changes.
Natg 19 (
talk)
17:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A car driving the wrong way in central
Seoul,
South Korea, strikes pedestrians waiting at a traffic light, killing nine people and injuring four others.
(AP)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Traffic accidents involving private vehicles are not the type of thing that should even be covered in WP per NEVENT, much less ITN. --
Masem (
t)
05:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Comment: The more extensive the credits, the more pain in sourcing. Needs more citations all over. Just watched Chinatown too. --
Classicwiki (
talk) If you reply to me here, please
ping me.02:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
You're both right. This is just as recurrent as the election item and just as subject to not getting posted after a discussion. It all depends who discusses what and how from here out.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Alt2 Article is of decent quality, and we should post this as the election itself didn't get posted. I would suggest posting alt2, as the first two blurbs don't actually say how he became the president, only that he is now the president.
Gödel2200 (
talk)
13:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Post-posting support - The arguments above are reasonable, and it's good to have a relevant political story to post. Thanks, everyone.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
09:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I thought about nominating this article. One notable aspect about this hurricane is that it is the earliest Category 4 Category 5 on record in the Atlantic Ocean. If this gets posted, this information might be worth mentioning in the blurb. I have proposed an alt (which might need some tweaks). --
Classicwiki (
talk) If you reply to me here, please
ping me. 21:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Updated alt. --
Classicwiki (
talk) If you reply to me here, please
ping me.16:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait/Oppose. Full impacts aren't known yet, however the article body does not yet substantiate the "extensive damage" claim at the moment. The record, while interesting, is very much trivia, and a record for being category 4 is obscure. Cat 5 maybe we can talk, but not a category 4 record.
DarkSide830 (
talk)
21:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait until we know more about the human impact of the storm. It's early in the season, and both this storm and other storms may yet cause more damage. As it stands, I'd oppose, but I don't want to pre-empt things as the situation develops.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
21:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait For the most part, breaking specific intensity records don't warrant inclusion here. It might merit inclusion depending on impacts/
TornadoLGS (
talk)
02:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait: Per others. At time of writing this, further land impacts are likely to occur in the coming week per the NHC forecast and model guidance. The full extent of this storm's impact has yet to be seen.Comment: Additionally, Beryl has recently attained category 5 intensity, breaking
Hurricane Emily's record for earliest cat 5 storm in basin, though it is not expected to impact any land as a cat 5 storm. Changing to Support per others; this storm's impact is clearly notable, especially for the time of year and locations impacted.
ArkHyena (
talk)
07:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait for impacts to be known, and for potential subsequent landfalls. While it is true that this storm is remarkable from a meteorological perspective, ITN posts based on the real world effects a storm has on populated areas. It is still very possible it could warrant posting in the future, but not right now. Vanilla Wizard 💙12:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait/Oppose A large hurricane in the middle of the ocean that isn't forecasted to make another landfall until it weakens substantially due to a significant amount of sheer in its path isn't quite notable enough for blurbing. Let's see what develops over the next few days.
Kcmastrpc (
talk)
14:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree on waiting, but just want to clarify that this isn't accurate according to current forecasts. It's expected to slam into Jamaica at major hurricane intensity tomorrow. Vanilla Wizard 💙14:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support alt version: (There has never been an earlier Cat 4 either; perhaps the blurb should say "Category 4 or Category 5" rather than just "Category 5".) It has broken multiple records, has killed at least 16 people so far, and is bearing down on Jamaica. After that it will move on toward Mexico. We should highlight it before it's all in the past tense. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
18:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep in mind that we summarize news, even current news. We aren't hear to be a weather warning system, and may be more appropriate to figure extent of damage after more time has passed. —
Masem (
t)
19:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait/Support. Although the hurricane is still active and the damage it will cause later on are still unknown, the damage it caused so far might be reasonable enough for the ITN. Also, I would like to propose a new blub: "
Hurricane Beryl leaves at least 16 people dead across the
Windward Islands and
Venezuela." 🛧
Midori No Sora♪🛪 (
☁=☁=✈)
22:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Complete devastation and destruction of agriculture. Complete and total destruction of the natural environment. There is literally no vegetation left anywhere on the island of Carriacou," says Grenada Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell.
Classicwiki (
talk) If you reply to me here, please
ping me.03:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support - I have just proposed Alt2, combining Alt1 with Midori no Sora's suggestion. This is now front-page news on the BBC, with extensive destruction reported, and still going. We should also keep the blurb updated as the situation progresses.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
09:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - Just came here to say I find the current blurb very confusing. What is meant by "earliest-recorded"?
e.b. (
talk)
01:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And in this scenario, "recorded" is to acknowledge that this is the earliest verified category 5 storm, acknowledging that the vast portion of hurricanes in history, obviously, were not documented.
DarkSide830 (
talk)
05:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Support Blurb truly a transformative figure and one of the greatest writer of our time and thank god, it has an legacy section that helps understand his impact.
PrinceofPunjabTALK13:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support blurb Can’t say I’m familiar with him, but the legacy section defines his elevated significance quite well, and we did blurb Milan Kundera not that long ago.
TheKip(
contribs)15:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Blurb on notability Murnane, Munro, McCarthy, Byatt, Oe, Auster, Amis, Kundera, Barth ... Out of all the notable literary deaths of the past two years, Kadare was one of the greatest. There's a bibliography, so you know what that means.
Sincerely, Dilettante16:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
So many passing recently, you’re right. I could argue (unsuccessfully of course) that all those you mentioned, except for
A. S. Byatt and
Martin Amis, should’ve gotten blurbs. Along with
Louise Glück, who died last year and should‘ve gotten a blurb.
Gerald Murnane (who you mentioned) is still alive I think, but I think he may deserve a blurb, too. I haven’t read anything by him yet. I think only Kundera got a blurb. And
Paul Auster didn’t even get his RD posted, though it was ready to go on the last day of the deadline.
Trauma Novitiate (
talk)
04:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Murnane was a slip on my part. I think I meant
Maryse Condé, another blurb-worthy figure IMO. There was a similar burst of deaths just under a decade ago, with Umberto Eco, Marquez, Le Guin, Toni Morrison, etc all within a few years. For my part, I'd support Amis as a prominent public intellectual if not for the fact that it would SNOW. There was a push for an Auster blurb, but it was shut down. Even I opposed that because in the US he's a fairly well-known and unique but, in Europe (especially France), he's just a particularly skilled author of
Nouveau romans. His influence was low relative to his popularity.
Thank you for the Maryse Condé mention. Never heard of her, but I need to check her out. I need to read Murnane, too. I’m not so sure about Paul Auster and his popularity vs. influence. When I lived in Germany, every train station had a couple paperback Auster titles available, but we’re talking 15 years ago. If you “google” Paul Auster Rockstar you’ll get a half-dozen hits from European sources (ie.,
https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/arts24/20240501-the-rock-star-status-of-us-writer-paul-auster-in-france). But this doesn’t necessarily contradict what you said, because admittedly this “rockstar” status is kind of a publicity stunt that applied to Auster’s status in the 80s and 90s. He’s not really read or known by Americans today. Everything I’ve read by him kind of blows me away, so I’m biased.
Trauma Novitiate (
talk)
11:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support blurb after fixing quality issues this is exactly what we should expect for a blurb able RD, an extensive discussion in the article about how they are a great figure. And this is a person I have not heard of but the type of person we should be highlighting at RD. Obviously there's an orange tag and a few smaller quality problems to be fixed before posting.
Masem (
t)
17:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I tried to address the outstanding CN tags in the article. Sourced or put an ISBN for the English translations, but I do not have the time to source the complete works in Albanian. --
Classicwiki (
talk) If you reply to me here, please
ping me.20:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Old Man Dies One sentence update about a Tirana hospital, years of ill health and reaching 88. Mundane obituary stuff. Big deal in the literary life, sure, but his death doesn't affect that in any way whatsoever worth adding to his Career section.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
20:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
'Old Man Dies' is an obnoxious response to proposed stories of this kind. You're saying more about yourself than about the news by your repeated use of it.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Old Man Dies is simply shorthand for the repeatedly shot-down sorts of obituaries that keep popping up around here, as if they're legitimate media events. There's no state funeral, no plausible sidebar potential and generally no reason to stay posted for a week or more alongside earthquakes, sporting celebrations and scientific breakthroughs. Especially where dozens of other notable recent dead cycle along underneath in the meanwhile, for doing the exact same thing. If you want to try and psychoanalyze an author of my depths from a mere quip, "be my guest", but you're going to get a lot wrong. I suppose I should say I was wrong about an RD not affecting literary life, because several non-readers here seem to suddenly think Kadare's someone worth thinking about reading.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
01:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean people who haven't read a book by Kadare. Several of us said here we hadn't even heard of him, implying what that does. I certainly didn't lump you into that crowd, given your vote.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
19:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support blurb Influential in his field (kinda think Munro should’ve been blurbed too but oh well). Article could be updated a bit better to reflect his death / reactions.
TDKR Chicago 101 (
talk)
21:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Support Blurb - I'm not an expert, but the article seems to support well, with citations, the proposition that he was a genuinely outstanding figure in the literary world.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support blurb Don't know about this guy (maybe I should?) but apparently he was "one of the greatest writers and intellectuals of the 20th and 21st centuries." I guess that's pretty solid.
Bremps...23:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support blurb. Surprised to learn that he was the author of The Ghost Rider, which, of course was later made into a major motion picture starring Nicolas Cage.
Hyperbolick (
talk)
01:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support blurb – I agree that this article is very impressive. Very well-written, inclusive, and clearly establishing that Kadare is a great story-teller deserving of his acclaim and international readership. I had not even an inkling about any of this until just now, after I read the Wikipedia article which is close to being ready to be posted as an RD. A few minor issues such as the ISBN’s that Classicwiki mentioned already. -
Trauma Novitiate (
talk)
03:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support blurb. His article explains well why he is blurb-worthy, though I don't think the update is sufficient to post just yet. ~~
Jessintime (
talk)
15:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose blurb. I find it dubious that a person whom not many know is blurbed just because his peers praised him, while many people whom everyone knows, like Donald Sutherland, Christopher Plummer, Kirk Douglas and Olivia de Havilland, Cormac Maccarthy, Vangelis, to a lesser extent William Hurt, Angela Lanesbury, Harry Bellafonte.
He hasn't even got a Nobel Prize, we didn't blurb a great many guys who had one.
I don't think he is that transformative, I don't know his books, they weren't adapted to the screen notably.
I would regard Vangelis as top musician, Cormac Maccarthy as accomplished writer, Donald Sutherland and Christopher Plummer as character actors, William Hurt as powerful dramatic actor. Lanesbury was first nominated for Oscar 80 years ago. Bellafonte was devoted activist. And Havilland and Douglas were just legends. Still are.
BilboBeggins (
talk)
20:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
How influential are those actors? I've never heard an actor say "I saw William Hurt in Lost in Space and it was revelatory—it completely changed the way I act." At most actors are inspired by each other; it's rare their styles shift much. On the other hand, it's common for popular authors to cause significant shifts in the literary style du jour or the themes most covered.
Whether a death is still in the news by the time it's posted depends on popularity, though. That's the more important thing, blurbwise. Notability just determines whether the biography exists.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
19:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
But enduring popularity across globe is notability.
I regard as the problem that in a competitive field top or upper tier representatives won't be considered, only top top top ones, while in a sport the best known player will be considered good enough for blurb.
81 wiki page for Sutherland, 30 for Willie Mays, 30 for Shane Warne, around 40 for Jim Brown at the time of death.
This all hardly makes sense.
I would assume blurb deaths are for cases where a person is so well known that it is news that they died, and everyone should know about it, and Wikipedia spreads this information. As in cases of Pele, Queen Elizabeth II, Sidney Poitier, Pope Benedickt XVI.
BilboBeggins (
talk)
20:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If we're going to use "popularity across the globe" as the new criteria for death blurbs, why stop there? Let's apply popularity across the board at ITN! New PM in the Netherlands? Who cares! Taylor Swift's outfit malfunctioned during a concert in Ireland! Kim Kardashian just renovated her luxury villa! Let's please focus on the really popular news.
Khuft (
talk)
21:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
WP does not consider fame or popularity as part of notability, because that feeds into the systematic bias of English and Western topics. We are an encyclopedia, the main page meant to displace high quality encyclopedic articles, and in this case, a person that has a thoroughly established legacy and impact on literature, an ideal encyclopedic topic, even if one hasn't heard of them before. Absolutely meets what we want the main page to reflect.
Masem (
t)
22:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
More specifically, we're an English encyclopedia. Most English readers and writers exist in or know of this "Western world" of internettable common knowledge; these have always been the sort of people we work with and for. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I've reminded you of this recently and it had no effect, so I'll just suggest "
globularity" for this newfangled metric (assuming Khuft isn't kidding about that topless news in Ireland).
InedibleHulk (
talk)
04:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The key of what I'm saying is that just because the majority of readers and editors of en.wiki likely have not heard of this author because of being outside the normal English/Western sphere of influence (and I'm in that boat of having no idea who he was), should absolutely not be a valid point of opposition becasue that runs against the fact we cover all topics globally. The same argument, in reverse, came up with the Willie Mays blurb, in that he was a figure likely known to most American readers and editors but not to other parts of the world - but still demonstrated why he was a great figure in the field of baseball.
Masem (
t)
04:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Now you're getting en.wiki (the thing that covers all topics globally) mixed up with "us" (
WP:ITN, a tiny speck within the whole, where Western news comes first). This is hopeless. You win!
InedibleHulk (
talk)
05:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose blurb. Come on, really? Blurbs are not for this kind of person, no offence to him, he led a noteworthy and accomplished life. But RD exists for us to list deaths. —
Amakuru (
talk)
22:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose blurb, support RD only This is what RD is for. While Kadare may have been somewhat transformative in a field, he wasn't transformative on a world stage like many state leaders or even top-tier sports stars. And even in literature, he doesn't reach the notability of, say, Stephen King.
1779Days (
talk)
07:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Stephen: Your decision to post as RD only when there’s a strong consensus for a blurb is somewhat confusing. Furthermore, there’s an
ongoing discussion on the talk page regarding the validity of the old-man-dies argument, which is prevalent among those opposing a blurb. Could you please elaborate your decision?--
Kiril Simeonovski (
talk)
17:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - Hey now, is there any intention to post this as a blurb? From the get-go the consensus is to post as blurb. And it’s not a weak consensus. It’s pretty substantial. So why hasn’t it been posted as a blurb? Let’s face it: RD’s seldom attain the status of an ITN posting. Once again, RD’s need their own section separate from ITN. And that’s just the bottom line. That’s why I posted this on the Talk page a few weeks ago
Wikipedia talk:In the news#Should RD’s have their own section separate from the In the News section?: also scroll down to Andrew’s comment on the talk page: “Here are the top 10 reasons why this is a good idea”: Superb!
Trauma Novitiate (
talk)
16:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(Closed) New Indian Criminal Code comes into effect
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose I wondered what "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita" meant as I don't speak
Hindi. The nominated article doesn't tell me so I have to go to Google Translate to find that it means "Indian Judicial Code". My impression is that this is much the same as before with the usual offences of theft, murder, etc. It's just that everything has been rewritten in Hindi rather than English, right? But this is the English language Wikipedia and so the topic is more suitable for
हिन्दी विकिपीडिया.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
13:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose I am an Indian and I would say that this is not something worth mentioning in the ITN. Almost all the rules and laws are same expect for few
notable exceptions. This is not something that is changing India drastically. Also, picture of the constitution has got nothing to do with it.
PrinceofPunjabTALK13:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose The article does not make it seem like much has changed through the new code. It does have a criticism section, but the criticism about new changes the code has seems to be limited to ambiguous phrases it introduces.
Gödel2200 (
talk)
14:23, 1 July 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.
(Closed) Sam Mostyn as new Governor-General of Australia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose good faith nom. Kind of a ceremonial stand in for the head of state. The prime minister holds the power and technically King
Charles III is the head of state. So I'm not seeing any real significance here. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
04:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose as the governor-general is mostly a ceremonial role. As the lead of
the article says: "In almost all instances the governor-general only exercises de jure power..."
Gödel2200 (
talk)
14:52, 1 July 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.
(Closed) United States President granted criminal immunity
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose — This is a standard and expected ruling that has no personal significance to the country, unlike Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)14:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose because it's an ongoing event as part of a larger legal process (Trump indictments) and wasn't a conviction or acquittal like the New York trial. It's not suitable for ITN.
JohnAdams1800TALK15:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support because of the immense significance of this decision. ITN has had an anti-US bias that prevents most posters on here from recognizing the obvious importance of extremely significant news stories for far too long, and the opposition expressed above to one of the most noteworthy Supreme Court decisions in the lifetime of anyone reading this is an exceptionally good illustration of that.
IntoThinAir (
talk)
16:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose both the topic and the blurb. The decision is more nuanced than described in the blurb. And ElijahPepe is correct that this is not a "major upset" (to use sports jargon).
EvergreenFir(talk)16:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose since this goes back to lower courts to rule what actions are or aren't immune now, which most pundits I've seen will still leave some of the table. If anything, the three decisions to nuke the administrative state (Jarsky, Loper Bright, and corner Post) are actually far more impactful but even then not ITN worthy material.
Masem (
t)
17:30, 1 July 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.
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the
inline URL syntax[http://example.com] rather than using
<ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of
Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded
Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our
standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our
minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be
reliable,
support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in
simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see
WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check
WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because
consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them.
Be bold and
fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful.
A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as
ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle
conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Las Vegas,
Nevada, United States, reaches 120 °F (49 °C), the city's highest temperature of all time, and surpassing the previous record of 117 °F (47 °C) set in July 2021.
(KTNV-TV)(Las Vegas Review-Journal)
ECOWAS states that it risks disintegrating from military and economic insecurity if
Niger,
Mali, and
Burkina Faso continue their exit to form their own
confederation, following sanctions and severed diplomatic ties after each state's military
coup.
(Reuters)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Unexpected result, as the National Rally and their allies were originally predicted to get the most seats, but only came in third place after the NPF and Ensemble.
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs)
20:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait. We still need a clearer idea of what the results were; this is a much murkier situation than last week's UK vote. (where Labour clearly won a decisive majority that lined up with expectations; contrast here where we have a surprise result) Also, given that even the article linked for "relative majority" itself is called
Plurality, I would recommend the blurb actually use that to avoid confusion.
Nottheking (
talk)
21:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Is there a result yet? I was literally just looking at a couple of news sites, that says the far-right and fascists weren't doing as well as expected, but I didn't see any breakdowns. But hang on - I'm no expert on France politics - but the
New Popular Front is alliance of over 50 political parties - including the
Pirate Party and the
Guadeloupe Communist Party? I'm not sure I get this one, compared to most countries where there's only up to a half-dozen viable parties.
Nfitz (
talk)
21:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi, I'm the primary contributor to this article. There isn't an officially aggregated national result yet, but it will be published by the Ministry of the Interior later
here and added once that happens. The NFP is a broad electoral alliance of the main parties of the left as well as numerous smaller formations which had their candidates nominated in a small number of districts, as depicted
here. It's an unusual situation, but with such a short timeline this was agreed upon quickly to allow the parties of the left to have the best chance of getting candidates elected rather than splitting the vote in the two-round electoral system.
73.169.176.209 (
talk)
22:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
How long does it take for the vote to be finalized by the government? Here it can take weeks, even if the incumbent conceded within an hour of the polls closing. Surely in the interim, putting in preliminary results from a reliable source suffices in many other places. Should be the same, unless the Pirates steal some poll boxes.
Nfitz (
talk)
00:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I missed this reply, but results are mostly set here (calculated for the alliances as noted in footnotes B and C, using the Ministry of Interior reference).
73.169.176.209 (
talk)
01:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've added alt1, which to me is just the best non-confusing way to explain this result. I do wish to wait for results to be updates to a certain degree we shouldn't post a blurb saying "x coalition won" or similar when most results are not confirmed to prove this yet on our end.
DarkSide830 (
talk)
22:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
They're not aggregated by the Ministry of the Interior just yet (various news outlets create their own classifications of candidates, so the counts of votes and seats won tend to differ between them); we've always used the Ministry of the Interior ones because they're official classifications and the others are unofficial classifications. Also added alt3 but not official until tomorrow
73.169.176.209 (
talk)
23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Support and
André Drege too. Both sportsmen of the same age who had their lives tragically cut short on the same day. Both articles seem good, though Jackson's is more detailed.
1779Days (
talk)
23:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
comment blurb should mention that this "election" was held by a totalitarian government headed by the dictatorial ayatollahs. Else we risk presenting it as a genuine expression of the will of the people and not a fake election no different from those under the regimes of dprk, china or soviet union which wikipedia AFAIK previously did NOT post
Kasperquickly (
talk)
06:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support It seems that there was a significant choice between Pezeshkian and his main hardline opponent. The article is short but seems adequate in providing basic info for our readers.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
06:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support I want to note that Pezeshkian is the first reformist candidate for quite some time (I've seen The Atlantic's Arash Azizi place that date at 2005, which was the end of Khatami's term), and noting the state that the reformist parties have been as of the 2020s. Might be a potentially good idea to note that he is the reformist candidate in the blurb.
Ornithoptera (
talk)
08:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Should note that Pezeshkian is a reformist .I will note that some of the bold articles sources dont seem to very reliable and are close to the Iran government.
AlexBobCharles (
talk)
13:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose due to three orange tags on the article. Also, there is no need to mention that Pezeshkian is a reformist in the blurb. All we should say is the result of the election.
Gödel2200 (
talk)
13:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support with current wording; elections in Iran aren't free, but they are fair. No need to use "declared" or similar phrases.
AryKun (
talk)
19:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's serious doubts about the fairness of elections as well, they possibly manipulated numbers in the first round, there is valid sources supporting this idea.
3000MAX (
talk)
21:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support for its notability. Although the article is currently orange-tagged, this is related to the lack of attention from enough fluent Persian speakers (or people able to use auto-translators sufficiently well). The benefit of the extra attention of ITN may help improve the quality of the article sufficiently to justify the removing the tags, so an
exception to the general rule may be acceptable in this case.
Boud (
talk)
20:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Medical journalThe Lancet publishes a review study estimating the total death toll of Palestinians in Gaza to be at least 186,000 compared to the currently reported number of 38,000, due to the lack of reporting for indirect deaths, as well as the lack of operating hospitals and officials to report those deaths.
(The Lancet)(NPR)
M23 rebels and the
FARDC agree to a two-week humanitarian truce proposed by the
United States. The positions of the two groups are separated by about 1 kilometre in
Matembe. Access to many areas remains difficult for humanitarians.
(Radio Okapi)
Greece passes a law to allow a six-day work week for industries that operate on a 24-hour basis. Workers have the option of working an additional eight hours for 40% additional pay.
(CBS News)(NPR)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Hezbollah launches at least 200 rockets and a swarm of
drones at Israeli territory and threatens to expand its targeting range, in retaliation for the killing of Mohammed Nasser, a top Hezbollah commander.
(Reuters)
Hurricane Beryl causes a six- to nine-feet high
storm surge and fierce winds along
Jamaica's southern coast, killing at least one person before tracking towards the
Cayman Islands.
(CNN)
The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Clearly, we're going to need sources to use the second blurb re being a landslide, though I know the exit polls suggest it will be that way. --
Masem (
t)
22:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not just the BBC. Sky News, the Telegraph, the Guardian ... in fact most UK news sources ... are already using it on their front pages (although at the moment it of course says "predicted" or "expected"). But yes, stick with the original blurb, we can always change it later.
Black Kite (talk)22:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Meh. I'm not going to get worked up over it, but FWIW I don't recall the word "landslide" ever being used in an election blurb before. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No, we rarely use such terms on the Main Page in my experience. Granted, I have been away for a while. If anything, we may choose to use a less bombastic phrasing such as "significant gain in seats", or something more British. ---
C&
C (Coffeeandcrumbs)
00:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support original blurb. It's factual and to the point. We can update tomorrow after Sir Kier becomes PM. The votes are still being counted but there is no doubt who won. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
22:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support either original Blurb or AltBlurb II. (later purely among the implication that's part of ITN/R: that this will mean Keir Starmer becomes PM) Obviously, we'll be waiting for the official results (rather than just the exit polls) and such to make it official. Article appears to be in great shape; hopefully this quality will be maintained through all the official results being added. I'm somewhat neutral (mildly opposed) on whether we should bother describing the margin of the election. However, if there's an applicable superlative, (e.g, it break's
Labour's old record for most seats won) then that would have a much more convincing argument to be mentioned on the front page.
Nottheking (
talk)
01:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support original blurb but wait until the full results come out. I don't really see much of a need for the blurb to indicate that the result was a landslide; the reader will see that immediately after going to the page. The blurb only needs to state who won the election.
Gödel2200 (
talk)
02:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support original blurb and wait Good article, important event. Results are pretty clear but post after the votes are fully done being counted
Hungry403 (
talk)
03:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Posted As Labour has already got more than 50 per cent of the electorate seats (362 right now, with 326 needed for a majority), it's probably safe to post ALT0 at this point. I don't think it'll be long before "landslide" can be added to the blurb. Schwede6604:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not at all. I don't think we've ever done such a thing, and the Conservatives arguably won a landslide last time. I'm a little baffled as to why Schwede66 has suggested this and strongly recommend that no admin should change this. —
Amakuru (
talk)
07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Majority would be a better word than "landslide". ITN should save the word "landslide" for the actual landslides that kill lots of people (they seem to have stopped counting in
New Guinea). For elections, we should stick to words that more accurately describe the result such as
supermajority. Simply winning a
majority is a significant achievement when so many countries have systems that require complex coalitions such as we see in the current Netherlands blurb.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
06:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That doesn't matter because Labour don't seem to have quite that many seats (433 is two thirds of 650). The point is to use appropriate technical terms rather than colourful journalistic metaphors. In the Westminster system, the key thing is to get a "working majority".
Andrew🐉(
talk)
07:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose landslide or majority or anything else. Longstanding precedent is that we don't attempt to add "nuance" or editorialisation to election results, even those that are "disputed" or "near-unanimous" or whatever, and there's no reason to deviate from that here. The current simple blurb that they won is completely sufficient and should not be changed. —
Amakuru (
talk)
07:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose landslide as an editorialising term. "Supermajority" isn't great either as the Parliament does not operate with a supermajority system as far as I know (no equivalent of, say, the 60-vote filibuster in the US Senate). Stating that Labour won a majority by themselves (and, when confirmed, that Starmer becomes PM) is the most objective thing to do.
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs)
07:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In the Westminster system, a substantial majority is significant because it means that the PM can force through legislation without having to appease rebels and rivals in his own party. See the US House of Representatives for the difficulty of getting things done with a narrow majority.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
07:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support - I find it funny this was nominated before any seat was even called. It might be good to mention just how historic this win is, the worst result for the Conservative Party I believe in its entire 200 year existence. This is a pretty crazy result as the dominant party in UK politics is going extinct.
PrecariousWorlds (
talk)
08:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The popular vote for the Conservatives was still quite substantial while the vote for Labour was little changed. The result in seats was a typical quirk of the first-past-the-post system. The main novelty is the advent of
Reform UK which got the next largest popular vote and so split the centre-right vote.
What helped Labour is that their leader looks and sounds like a conservative -- a safe pair of hands, rather than a radical like Corbyn, a wild child like Boris or a city slicker like Rishi. It's interesting that our blurb calls him "Sir Keir Starmer", like a "
knight of the shires".
Andrew🐉(
talk)
08:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Those look like numerical results once the full complete tally is known. The results that Labour won was based on factors like sufficient tallies from the various locals as well as candidates conceding that they lost, all reported in RSes. —
Masem (
t)
12:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Jessintime There's currently 2 seats to go (out of 650), until those are declared, these "results" figures don't exist. But that doesn't change the outcome that Labour have won, a fact that was confirmed in reliable sources before this was posted. And the article has been updated with this information and aftermath, and so
WP:ITNQUALITY is met. We have posted other countries in a similar state i.e. where 95+% of results are known and the election result is assured.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
12:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Standard practice for ITN has been to post once the general outcome has been confirmed, since it's rare to instantly get total figures for every single constituent election from any country. There will always be stragglers, so yes, there will be some small gaps in the data as everyone in the world waits for those stragglers. However, it remains that all the RSes have reported that Labour has won a majority of seats, and that won't change. And Keir Starmer has already been appointed Prime Minister.
Nottheking (
talk)
20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll just reply here since this is pretty much moot. My concern is that we posted an article on an election with an entire results table left blank. Did we really need to wait until all 650 seats were called before updating it? I've seen other stories held up for far less. ~~
Jessintime (
talk)
21:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
An
Israeli strike kills Mohammed Nasser, a top commander in
Hezbollah, in
Tyre,
Lebanon. Nasser is one of the highest-ranking Hezbollah members to die in the conflict.
(Al Arabiya)
Hezbollah launches a barrage of at least 100
Katyusha rockets, towards
northern Israel, targeting Israeli military positions, in retaliation for the killing of Nasser.
(Al Jazeera)
Sierra Leone outlaws
child marriage, setting the
legal age of marriage to 18 years. Offenders could face up to 15 years in prison and/or a fine of around US$4,000, with witnesses to child marriages also facing possible jail or fines.
(CBS News)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
There is little support for posting this now, but some editors suggest that this record might be included in the blurb when the tour finishes. Schwede6600:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Aficionados regard the result of the Tour de France as much more then the first person to crosss the finish line, but the non-cycling world is generally ignorant of such detail. So sadly, I agree.
HiLo48 (
talk)
07:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Neutral Probably under the bar as a stand-alone entry. However, given it’s broken a 49 year old record would suggest it’s mentioned at race summary e.g. “In the 2024 Tour de France, Joe Bloggs wins the General Classification, while Mark Cavendish breaks the record for stage wins”
92.17.186.116 (
talk)
22:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree The tour isn't over and he could win a 36th or 37th, and at the conclusion of the race that number can be announced as part of the blurb.
Kcmastrpc (
talk)
22:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support It's a monumental achievement that has taken 50 years to break. It's not trivia. There's often major records on ITN, sports or otherwise (longest person in space etc)
Torqueing (
talk)
23:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose While an impressive achievement, the fact there are only a few sentences of an update on each of the linked articles means that this is not suitable for ITN.
Gödel2200 (
talk)
00:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per above. While its impressive that he broke a near 50 year old record, these kinds of personal achievements aren't notable enough for the ITN. 🛧
Midori No Sora♪🛪 (
☁=☁=✈)
02:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. This is a huge 49 years old record, and yes it's newsworthy.
Eddy Merckx should be mention in the blurb too. Mark Cavendish breaks Eddy Merckx’s 49-years-old record for most career Tour de France stage wins with 35th victory. -
Eugen Simion 14 (
talk)
06:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose, while impressive, this still counts as sports trivia in view of ITN. For TDF, we post the winner. --Tone07:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support a record that has stood for a long time being broken, and a target article
Mark Cavendish that's a GA. This is more in the news than the eventual TdF winners usually are (because it's a record that has stood for nearly 50 years that was thought unbreakable for most of that time), and that article is nowhere near the quality of Cavendish's article either. Monumental achievement with worldwide coverage, which is higher enough to meet the threshold of
WP:ITNSIGNIF.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
08:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose Winning a stage in a multiple-day cycling race has absolutely no meaning. One may not win a single stage but eventually win the race. I don't see a reason to post a meaningless record. If it were a record set at one-day classics, it'd be a much stronger argument for posting, but it's clearly not. Note also that he's not finished half of the Tour de France editions he entered and was ranked well below 100th place in all editions he finished, so it's completely worthless to talk about any notable record here.--
Kiril Simeonovski (
talk)
08:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
He's a sprinter, and they often don't complete all three weeks, different physiology. Where he finishes in the general classification is a complete irrelevance.
Ericoides (
talk)
12:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That's why one-day classics exist – to make sprinters more competitive. A sprinter breaking a record in a race that he can barely finish is completely irrelevant.--
Kiril Simeonovski (
talk)
12:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
To claim "Winning a stage in a multiple-day cycling race has absolutely no meaning" suggests you have absolutely no understanding of cycling. See today's L'Equipe, which only devotes seven pages to the Cavendish record.
Ericoides (
talk)
13:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Indeed. I'm not personally supporting this item as of sufficient encyclopaedic interest for ITN, but the achievement itself certainly isn't insignificant. Stage wins on the Tour de France are a big deal and treated as such in reliable sources. Wikipedians' opinions on their relevance is what's "meaningless" here. —
Amakuru (
talk)
16:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Ericoides: I’ve been avidly following cycling about 18 years now, and that’s why I know that this record isn’t significant at all. In multiple-day cycling races, time is what counts, not the number of stage wins. You may say whatever you want about my understanding of cycling and cite zillion sources stating that this is a big achievement, but that won’t change the established fact that these stage victories won’t help Cavendish ever win Tour de France. This record is trivial as Ronnie O’Sullivan’s 1,000 century breaks achieved in 2019 or LeBron James breaking Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s long-standing record for most points in the NBA.--
Kiril Simeonovski (
talk)
16:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
He's not trying to win the Tour; it's an event within an event. As
David Millar said in his ITV commentary this afternoon, "the Tour de France is the world championships for sprinters."
Ericoides (
talk)
19:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - This is trivia. Winning a record number of tours would be worth mentioning in the tour result post (which is, as noted, ITNR), but this is a mere footnote.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
09:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose minor sports trivia. An impressive personal achievement but we can't post every similar record in every sport. When the race concludes, the winner can be posted per
WP:ITNR. I recommend you work on improving the
2024 Tour de France article so that will be ready to go e.g. by adding prose summaries of each stage.
Modest Geniustalk11:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Dismissing this as trivia is absolute rubbish. The most notable cycling sporting event in the world has had a longstanding record broken that will go unchallenged for a very long time. The closest competitor to challenge his record is Tadej Pogačar who only has 12 stage wins at the moment.
Kcmastrpc (
talk)
13:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Final note, after searching the archives I found numerous examples of prior posting of notable sports records being broken, so I don't see how there isn't precedence for posting this in some form or another.
Kcmastrpc (
talk)
13:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Records based on competing and winning (or whatever the aspect) a number of times, which the chances of improving simply increase with the person participating in more events, are records that are ripe to be broken and not really fair. More approach records that would make sense are breaking race times or other measurable factors in a competitive sport, or achieving a certain type of scoring record within a single game and/or season. But as others have said, when the race is done and we post the result (per ITNR), it makes sense to possibly include this record too. —
Masem (
t)
16:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I noticed that nobody was talking about a foiled coup yesterday in Ukraine that major news outlets are talking about so I decided to make a page for it, I feel that this is just as notable as any other coup and should be included in the news.Scu ba (
talk)
00:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose There have been a few assassination plots targeting the president as well over the past 2 years. And I believe there was a coup plot foiled shortly before the war. So unless something is at least attempted, like in Bolivia, I don't think it's worth posting.
Scaramouche33 (
talk)
05:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose respectfully. It seems like this was simply the arrest of four alleged Russophilic activists who were discussing a coup plot via instant messages. An actual attempted coup that could pose a real threat to Zelenskyy would definitely be notable, but an alleged coup plot that had already failed before anything could have even been attempted is not big enough to warrant a separate blurb for an event already covered in Ongoing. Vanilla Wizard 💙12:01, 3 July 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.
Seventy-six more deaths and at least 500 hospitalizations in
Japan are linked to use of
red yeast rice supplements distributed by Kobayashi Pharmaceutical, causing
kidney disease and other severe conditions.
(Asahi TV)
Australia issues statements to several
social media and
search engine websites ordering the websites to draft and enforce guidelines to prevent minors from seeing inappropriate material before October 3 or face national restrictions.
(Reuters)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Support I've fixed the last of the CN tags and it appears the page is very well sourced now. I'll ping @
MAL MALDIVE to see if they would like to change their opinion.
Jmanlucas (
talk)
01:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I guess the article needs work to be understandable to non-experts and should highlight more about the new discovery, but I think this is a big deal for computer science and mathematics. It's been 41 years since progress was made on this problem, it closely relates to the limits of mathematical knowledge and mathematical proof, it was a big online volunteer collaboration over several years, and it's one of the first new mathematical results to be formalized in a proof assistant contemporaneously with its announcement (which helped other mathematicians be more confident more quickly that the result was correct). It's also very likely the largest Busy Beaver number that humanity will ever be able to discover. So this is potentially the only progress on this problem that Wikipedia will ever be able to announce!
Schoen (
talk)
23:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Wow! Didn't follow it too closely, I'm surprised it was actually discovered. Science at ITN is always great, and, as Schoen says, this is likely the largest Busy Beaver number we'll be able to discover (for two-state Turing machines at least). Not only does the state space grow very fast, but these numbers are inherently uncomputable, meaning you can't just throw more computing power to find them, you need to go through mathematical proofs for each Turing machine. By the way, for anyone curious, the number is 47 176 870.
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs)
23:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A lower bound on the sixth Busy Beaver number is 10⇈15, or 1010...15 times...10. Needless to say, we don't have enough space in this universe to even write it down.
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs)
23:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose primary because the target article is terribly undersourced and is the symptom of being far too technical for an encyclopedia. Besides that, I'd like to see at least either a peer-review article or a more mainstream news source covering this, because as the Quantum article points out, this is more a curiosity than a breakthrough in mathematics. --
Masem (
t)
02:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Target article is extremely poorly sourced (indeed, the main paragraph explaining it has precisely zero sources) and is not written in anything like an accessible manner; we do not expect technical articles to be dumbed down but even the introduction to this article makes assumptions that the reader knows what a halting Turing machine, its "states", or transition tables are. It is unfortunate that a lot of computer science articles are like this.
Black Kite (talk)09:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support in principle, but unfortunately the article is nearly fully unsourced, and is nowhere near being ready for the main page.
Gödel2200 (
talk)
12:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. While I'm open to posting mathematical advances, there are multiple problems with this: a) The topic is extremely esoteric and doesn't seem to have any application - the 'applications' section of the article speculates about uses in principle but indicates they are all impossible in practice. b) The fifth BB number has been known since 1990, but was only
conjectured not proven
[2]. While proving it now is useful, it's hardly a surprise. c) There is no formal publication of this result. The team's own website announcement
[3] states "we are currently working on a human-readable paper" i.e. it hasn't been written up yet, let alone peer reviewed. A peer-reviewed publication is a requirement for posting scientific news. d) There's little to no coverage in mainstream media, I couldn't find anything beyond that Quanta article. e) The article is incomprehensible to most of our readers, who would not learn anything from clicking on that bold link. So while I commend the nomination, I don't think this is suitable for ITN.
Modest Geniustalk19:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Except that it's notability is questionable as the only independent source I've seen is the linked quantum magazine article. That fails the actual "ITN" part. —
Masem (
t)
22:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per all above. Poorly-sourced article that doesn't explain why these numbers matter (certainly not to an extent remotely close to establishing main page notability), and if my bachelor's in mathematics is not nearly enough to comprehend the article, main page readers don't have a chance. --
Kicking222 (
talk)
21:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not hard: I'm in the middle of an infinite coin row (all heads up). I read card 1 of 5. The heads up side says "1. leave tails up" "2. look to its immediate right" "3. do card 2 to it". Card 2-Heads is the same except 3. is "do card 3". Card 3-Heads is the same except 3. is "do card 4". Card 4-Heads says "1. leave tails up" "2. immediate left" "3. card 1". Card 5-Heads says tails/right/END. 1-Tails says tails/left/3 2-Tails says tails/right/2. 3-Tails is heads/left/5. 4-Tails is tails/left/4 5-Tails is heads/left/1. They just proved that you need ≥6 cards to end @ over 4,098 tails or after step 47,176,870 and these are the best possible cards.
Sagittarian Milky Way (
talk)
05:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that it's pretty easy to describe how to emulate the five-state Beaver. But in order for someone to care a lot about the behavior of these "cards", we might also want to connect this to "this is one of the purest ways to model and reason about what computers do, and what computers can potentially do". And indeed "
the cards can do math, potentially as well as any other system can do math". Or maybe "computer programs' behavior is complex and hard to predict, in a very fundamental mathematical sense; people have now managed to fully analyze the behavior of some small computer programs, which was extremely difficult, and there's good reason to think humanity will never make it to the next step of fully analyzing the behavior of very slightly larger computer programs".
Schoen (
talk)
06:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose I apologize if my reasons are short sighted, I know next to nothing about computer science. The article is very hard to understand for the average reader, and I fail to see how this discovery is used outside of the problem itself. Also missing citations
Hungry403 (
talk)
03:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - While the Busy Beaver problem is important in computability theory, and the discovery of a new member in a short and hard-to-determine sequence is very interesting, the combination of the two does not have any wider consequences. The discovery of BB(5) doesn't actually advance computability theory at all, and the number itself has no immediate wider applications. I also think the target article lacks a clear explanation for non-specialists, and is overall not ready for the home page.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
09:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Legendary sports competitor breaks a nearly 50 year longstanding record is largely opposed as trivia, but this isn't? Absurd.
Kcmastrpc (
talk)
12:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not saying that this is the way things should be, but I don't think it should be a surprise that Wikipedia is more nerd than jock.
Bremps...19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
One interesting thing about this succession is that Schoof is not part of the coalition party. Mark Rutte was PM for 13+ years, will serve as the next SG of NATO (1 October), which was just made official on 26 June. --
Classicwiki (
talk) If you reply to me here, please
ping me.19:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support It's interesting that he's not just not a member of the coalition parties but that he's not an elected politician. Instead, he's a civil servant and previously in charge of the security service.
Deep state needs a section for the Netherlands...
Andrew🐉(
talk)
21:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support because he succeeded 13-year incumbent Mark Rutte, and this concludes government appointment from the November 2023 Dutch election.
JohnAdams1800 (
talk)
23:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What evidence do you have that it was accidental? RS are calling it a disaster and some have been arrested already. We've got to be careful with that word.
Dreameditsbrooklyn (
talk)
20:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
ITN is still technically correct, as it says at least 110. Admins do update death tolls, but I do not expect them to keep track of daily changes.
Natg 19 (
talk)
17:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A car driving the wrong way in central
Seoul,
South Korea, strikes pedestrians waiting at a traffic light, killing nine people and injuring four others.
(AP)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Traffic accidents involving private vehicles are not the type of thing that should even be covered in WP per NEVENT, much less ITN. --
Masem (
t)
05:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Comment: The more extensive the credits, the more pain in sourcing. Needs more citations all over. Just watched Chinatown too. --
Classicwiki (
talk) If you reply to me here, please
ping me.02:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
You're both right. This is just as recurrent as the election item and just as subject to not getting posted after a discussion. It all depends who discusses what and how from here out.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Alt2 Article is of decent quality, and we should post this as the election itself didn't get posted. I would suggest posting alt2, as the first two blurbs don't actually say how he became the president, only that he is now the president.
Gödel2200 (
talk)
13:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Post-posting support - The arguments above are reasonable, and it's good to have a relevant political story to post. Thanks, everyone.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
09:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I thought about nominating this article. One notable aspect about this hurricane is that it is the earliest Category 4 Category 5 on record in the Atlantic Ocean. If this gets posted, this information might be worth mentioning in the blurb. I have proposed an alt (which might need some tweaks). --
Classicwiki (
talk) If you reply to me here, please
ping me. 21:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Updated alt. --
Classicwiki (
talk) If you reply to me here, please
ping me.16:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait/Oppose. Full impacts aren't known yet, however the article body does not yet substantiate the "extensive damage" claim at the moment. The record, while interesting, is very much trivia, and a record for being category 4 is obscure. Cat 5 maybe we can talk, but not a category 4 record.
DarkSide830 (
talk)
21:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait until we know more about the human impact of the storm. It's early in the season, and both this storm and other storms may yet cause more damage. As it stands, I'd oppose, but I don't want to pre-empt things as the situation develops.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
21:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait For the most part, breaking specific intensity records don't warrant inclusion here. It might merit inclusion depending on impacts/
TornadoLGS (
talk)
02:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait: Per others. At time of writing this, further land impacts are likely to occur in the coming week per the NHC forecast and model guidance. The full extent of this storm's impact has yet to be seen.Comment: Additionally, Beryl has recently attained category 5 intensity, breaking
Hurricane Emily's record for earliest cat 5 storm in basin, though it is not expected to impact any land as a cat 5 storm. Changing to Support per others; this storm's impact is clearly notable, especially for the time of year and locations impacted.
ArkHyena (
talk)
07:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait for impacts to be known, and for potential subsequent landfalls. While it is true that this storm is remarkable from a meteorological perspective, ITN posts based on the real world effects a storm has on populated areas. It is still very possible it could warrant posting in the future, but not right now. Vanilla Wizard 💙12:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait/Oppose A large hurricane in the middle of the ocean that isn't forecasted to make another landfall until it weakens substantially due to a significant amount of sheer in its path isn't quite notable enough for blurbing. Let's see what develops over the next few days.
Kcmastrpc (
talk)
14:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree on waiting, but just want to clarify that this isn't accurate according to current forecasts. It's expected to slam into Jamaica at major hurricane intensity tomorrow. Vanilla Wizard 💙14:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support alt version: (There has never been an earlier Cat 4 either; perhaps the blurb should say "Category 4 or Category 5" rather than just "Category 5".) It has broken multiple records, has killed at least 16 people so far, and is bearing down on Jamaica. After that it will move on toward Mexico. We should highlight it before it's all in the past tense. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
18:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep in mind that we summarize news, even current news. We aren't hear to be a weather warning system, and may be more appropriate to figure extent of damage after more time has passed. —
Masem (
t)
19:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait/Support. Although the hurricane is still active and the damage it will cause later on are still unknown, the damage it caused so far might be reasonable enough for the ITN. Also, I would like to propose a new blub: "
Hurricane Beryl leaves at least 16 people dead across the
Windward Islands and
Venezuela." 🛧
Midori No Sora♪🛪 (
☁=☁=✈)
22:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Complete devastation and destruction of agriculture. Complete and total destruction of the natural environment. There is literally no vegetation left anywhere on the island of Carriacou," says Grenada Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell.
Classicwiki (
talk) If you reply to me here, please
ping me.03:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support - I have just proposed Alt2, combining Alt1 with Midori no Sora's suggestion. This is now front-page news on the BBC, with extensive destruction reported, and still going. We should also keep the blurb updated as the situation progresses.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
09:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - Just came here to say I find the current blurb very confusing. What is meant by "earliest-recorded"?
e.b. (
talk)
01:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And in this scenario, "recorded" is to acknowledge that this is the earliest verified category 5 storm, acknowledging that the vast portion of hurricanes in history, obviously, were not documented.
DarkSide830 (
talk)
05:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Support Blurb truly a transformative figure and one of the greatest writer of our time and thank god, it has an legacy section that helps understand his impact.
PrinceofPunjabTALK13:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support blurb Can’t say I’m familiar with him, but the legacy section defines his elevated significance quite well, and we did blurb Milan Kundera not that long ago.
TheKip(
contribs)15:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Blurb on notability Murnane, Munro, McCarthy, Byatt, Oe, Auster, Amis, Kundera, Barth ... Out of all the notable literary deaths of the past two years, Kadare was one of the greatest. There's a bibliography, so you know what that means.
Sincerely, Dilettante16:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
So many passing recently, you’re right. I could argue (unsuccessfully of course) that all those you mentioned, except for
A. S. Byatt and
Martin Amis, should’ve gotten blurbs. Along with
Louise Glück, who died last year and should‘ve gotten a blurb.
Gerald Murnane (who you mentioned) is still alive I think, but I think he may deserve a blurb, too. I haven’t read anything by him yet. I think only Kundera got a blurb. And
Paul Auster didn’t even get his RD posted, though it was ready to go on the last day of the deadline.
Trauma Novitiate (
talk)
04:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Murnane was a slip on my part. I think I meant
Maryse Condé, another blurb-worthy figure IMO. There was a similar burst of deaths just under a decade ago, with Umberto Eco, Marquez, Le Guin, Toni Morrison, etc all within a few years. For my part, I'd support Amis as a prominent public intellectual if not for the fact that it would SNOW. There was a push for an Auster blurb, but it was shut down. Even I opposed that because in the US he's a fairly well-known and unique but, in Europe (especially France), he's just a particularly skilled author of
Nouveau romans. His influence was low relative to his popularity.
Thank you for the Maryse Condé mention. Never heard of her, but I need to check her out. I need to read Murnane, too. I’m not so sure about Paul Auster and his popularity vs. influence. When I lived in Germany, every train station had a couple paperback Auster titles available, but we’re talking 15 years ago. If you “google” Paul Auster Rockstar you’ll get a half-dozen hits from European sources (ie.,
https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/arts24/20240501-the-rock-star-status-of-us-writer-paul-auster-in-france). But this doesn’t necessarily contradict what you said, because admittedly this “rockstar” status is kind of a publicity stunt that applied to Auster’s status in the 80s and 90s. He’s not really read or known by Americans today. Everything I’ve read by him kind of blows me away, so I’m biased.
Trauma Novitiate (
talk)
11:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support blurb after fixing quality issues this is exactly what we should expect for a blurb able RD, an extensive discussion in the article about how they are a great figure. And this is a person I have not heard of but the type of person we should be highlighting at RD. Obviously there's an orange tag and a few smaller quality problems to be fixed before posting.
Masem (
t)
17:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I tried to address the outstanding CN tags in the article. Sourced or put an ISBN for the English translations, but I do not have the time to source the complete works in Albanian. --
Classicwiki (
talk) If you reply to me here, please
ping me.20:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Old Man Dies One sentence update about a Tirana hospital, years of ill health and reaching 88. Mundane obituary stuff. Big deal in the literary life, sure, but his death doesn't affect that in any way whatsoever worth adding to his Career section.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
20:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
'Old Man Dies' is an obnoxious response to proposed stories of this kind. You're saying more about yourself than about the news by your repeated use of it.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Old Man Dies is simply shorthand for the repeatedly shot-down sorts of obituaries that keep popping up around here, as if they're legitimate media events. There's no state funeral, no plausible sidebar potential and generally no reason to stay posted for a week or more alongside earthquakes, sporting celebrations and scientific breakthroughs. Especially where dozens of other notable recent dead cycle along underneath in the meanwhile, for doing the exact same thing. If you want to try and psychoanalyze an author of my depths from a mere quip, "be my guest", but you're going to get a lot wrong. I suppose I should say I was wrong about an RD not affecting literary life, because several non-readers here seem to suddenly think Kadare's someone worth thinking about reading.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
01:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean people who haven't read a book by Kadare. Several of us said here we hadn't even heard of him, implying what that does. I certainly didn't lump you into that crowd, given your vote.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
19:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support blurb Influential in his field (kinda think Munro should’ve been blurbed too but oh well). Article could be updated a bit better to reflect his death / reactions.
TDKR Chicago 101 (
talk)
21:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Support Blurb - I'm not an expert, but the article seems to support well, with citations, the proposition that he was a genuinely outstanding figure in the literary world.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support blurb Don't know about this guy (maybe I should?) but apparently he was "one of the greatest writers and intellectuals of the 20th and 21st centuries." I guess that's pretty solid.
Bremps...23:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support blurb. Surprised to learn that he was the author of The Ghost Rider, which, of course was later made into a major motion picture starring Nicolas Cage.
Hyperbolick (
talk)
01:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support blurb – I agree that this article is very impressive. Very well-written, inclusive, and clearly establishing that Kadare is a great story-teller deserving of his acclaim and international readership. I had not even an inkling about any of this until just now, after I read the Wikipedia article which is close to being ready to be posted as an RD. A few minor issues such as the ISBN’s that Classicwiki mentioned already. -
Trauma Novitiate (
talk)
03:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support blurb. His article explains well why he is blurb-worthy, though I don't think the update is sufficient to post just yet. ~~
Jessintime (
talk)
15:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose blurb. I find it dubious that a person whom not many know is blurbed just because his peers praised him, while many people whom everyone knows, like Donald Sutherland, Christopher Plummer, Kirk Douglas and Olivia de Havilland, Cormac Maccarthy, Vangelis, to a lesser extent William Hurt, Angela Lanesbury, Harry Bellafonte.
He hasn't even got a Nobel Prize, we didn't blurb a great many guys who had one.
I don't think he is that transformative, I don't know his books, they weren't adapted to the screen notably.
I would regard Vangelis as top musician, Cormac Maccarthy as accomplished writer, Donald Sutherland and Christopher Plummer as character actors, William Hurt as powerful dramatic actor. Lanesbury was first nominated for Oscar 80 years ago. Bellafonte was devoted activist. And Havilland and Douglas were just legends. Still are.
BilboBeggins (
talk)
20:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
How influential are those actors? I've never heard an actor say "I saw William Hurt in Lost in Space and it was revelatory—it completely changed the way I act." At most actors are inspired by each other; it's rare their styles shift much. On the other hand, it's common for popular authors to cause significant shifts in the literary style du jour or the themes most covered.
Whether a death is still in the news by the time it's posted depends on popularity, though. That's the more important thing, blurbwise. Notability just determines whether the biography exists.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
19:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
But enduring popularity across globe is notability.
I regard as the problem that in a competitive field top or upper tier representatives won't be considered, only top top top ones, while in a sport the best known player will be considered good enough for blurb.
81 wiki page for Sutherland, 30 for Willie Mays, 30 for Shane Warne, around 40 for Jim Brown at the time of death.
This all hardly makes sense.
I would assume blurb deaths are for cases where a person is so well known that it is news that they died, and everyone should know about it, and Wikipedia spreads this information. As in cases of Pele, Queen Elizabeth II, Sidney Poitier, Pope Benedickt XVI.
BilboBeggins (
talk)
20:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If we're going to use "popularity across the globe" as the new criteria for death blurbs, why stop there? Let's apply popularity across the board at ITN! New PM in the Netherlands? Who cares! Taylor Swift's outfit malfunctioned during a concert in Ireland! Kim Kardashian just renovated her luxury villa! Let's please focus on the really popular news.
Khuft (
talk)
21:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
WP does not consider fame or popularity as part of notability, because that feeds into the systematic bias of English and Western topics. We are an encyclopedia, the main page meant to displace high quality encyclopedic articles, and in this case, a person that has a thoroughly established legacy and impact on literature, an ideal encyclopedic topic, even if one hasn't heard of them before. Absolutely meets what we want the main page to reflect.
Masem (
t)
22:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
More specifically, we're an English encyclopedia. Most English readers and writers exist in or know of this "Western world" of internettable common knowledge; these have always been the sort of people we work with and for. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I've reminded you of this recently and it had no effect, so I'll just suggest "
globularity" for this newfangled metric (assuming Khuft isn't kidding about that topless news in Ireland).
InedibleHulk (
talk)
04:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The key of what I'm saying is that just because the majority of readers and editors of en.wiki likely have not heard of this author because of being outside the normal English/Western sphere of influence (and I'm in that boat of having no idea who he was), should absolutely not be a valid point of opposition becasue that runs against the fact we cover all topics globally. The same argument, in reverse, came up with the Willie Mays blurb, in that he was a figure likely known to most American readers and editors but not to other parts of the world - but still demonstrated why he was a great figure in the field of baseball.
Masem (
t)
04:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Now you're getting en.wiki (the thing that covers all topics globally) mixed up with "us" (
WP:ITN, a tiny speck within the whole, where Western news comes first). This is hopeless. You win!
InedibleHulk (
talk)
05:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose blurb. Come on, really? Blurbs are not for this kind of person, no offence to him, he led a noteworthy and accomplished life. But RD exists for us to list deaths. —
Amakuru (
talk)
22:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose blurb, support RD only This is what RD is for. While Kadare may have been somewhat transformative in a field, he wasn't transformative on a world stage like many state leaders or even top-tier sports stars. And even in literature, he doesn't reach the notability of, say, Stephen King.
1779Days (
talk)
07:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Stephen: Your decision to post as RD only when there’s a strong consensus for a blurb is somewhat confusing. Furthermore, there’s an
ongoing discussion on the talk page regarding the validity of the old-man-dies argument, which is prevalent among those opposing a blurb. Could you please elaborate your decision?--
Kiril Simeonovski (
talk)
17:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - Hey now, is there any intention to post this as a blurb? From the get-go the consensus is to post as blurb. And it’s not a weak consensus. It’s pretty substantial. So why hasn’t it been posted as a blurb? Let’s face it: RD’s seldom attain the status of an ITN posting. Once again, RD’s need their own section separate from ITN. And that’s just the bottom line. That’s why I posted this on the Talk page a few weeks ago
Wikipedia talk:In the news#Should RD’s have their own section separate from the In the News section?: also scroll down to Andrew’s comment on the talk page: “Here are the top 10 reasons why this is a good idea”: Superb!
Trauma Novitiate (
talk)
16:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(Closed) New Indian Criminal Code comes into effect
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose I wondered what "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita" meant as I don't speak
Hindi. The nominated article doesn't tell me so I have to go to Google Translate to find that it means "Indian Judicial Code". My impression is that this is much the same as before with the usual offences of theft, murder, etc. It's just that everything has been rewritten in Hindi rather than English, right? But this is the English language Wikipedia and so the topic is more suitable for
हिन्दी विकिपीडिया.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
13:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose I am an Indian and I would say that this is not something worth mentioning in the ITN. Almost all the rules and laws are same expect for few
notable exceptions. This is not something that is changing India drastically. Also, picture of the constitution has got nothing to do with it.
PrinceofPunjabTALK13:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose The article does not make it seem like much has changed through the new code. It does have a criticism section, but the criticism about new changes the code has seems to be limited to ambiguous phrases it introduces.
Gödel2200 (
talk)
14:23, 1 July 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.
(Closed) Sam Mostyn as new Governor-General of Australia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose good faith nom. Kind of a ceremonial stand in for the head of state. The prime minister holds the power and technically King
Charles III is the head of state. So I'm not seeing any real significance here. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
04:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose as the governor-general is mostly a ceremonial role. As the lead of
the article says: "In almost all instances the governor-general only exercises de jure power..."
Gödel2200 (
talk)
14:52, 1 July 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.
(Closed) United States President granted criminal immunity
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose — This is a standard and expected ruling that has no personal significance to the country, unlike Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)14:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose because it's an ongoing event as part of a larger legal process (Trump indictments) and wasn't a conviction or acquittal like the New York trial. It's not suitable for ITN.
JohnAdams1800TALK15:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support because of the immense significance of this decision. ITN has had an anti-US bias that prevents most posters on here from recognizing the obvious importance of extremely significant news stories for far too long, and the opposition expressed above to one of the most noteworthy Supreme Court decisions in the lifetime of anyone reading this is an exceptionally good illustration of that.
IntoThinAir (
talk)
16:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose both the topic and the blurb. The decision is more nuanced than described in the blurb. And ElijahPepe is correct that this is not a "major upset" (to use sports jargon).
EvergreenFir(talk)16:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose since this goes back to lower courts to rule what actions are or aren't immune now, which most pundits I've seen will still leave some of the table. If anything, the three decisions to nuke the administrative state (Jarsky, Loper Bright, and corner Post) are actually far more impactful but even then not ITN worthy material.
Masem (
t)
17:30, 1 July 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.
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the
inline URL syntax[http://example.com] rather than using
<ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: