Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
In the news toolbox |
---|
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
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
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.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat 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. Please do...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
July 11
July 11, 2024
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: David Liederman
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Staraction (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Speakfor23 (talk · give credit)
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.
Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Nana Nuriana
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
- Nominated by Juxlos (talk · give credit)
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.
Former governor in Indonesia. Juxlos (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
July 10
July 10, 2024
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
RD: Benji Gregory
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): People, Deadline
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:A864:DA97:9C83:9E71 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Johndavies837 (talk · give credit)
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.
American actor. He was found dead on June 13, but his death was announced on this day. 240F:7A:6253:1:A864:DA97:9C83:9E71 (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not ready with regards to referencing. Schwede66 06:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Maxine Singer
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Kseses14 (talk · give credit)
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 and well sourced. Death announced on this day. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Don't see any issues, solid B-class (or maybe even GA) article in my opinion. Bremps... 23:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Other than an unreferenced date of birth, that looks solid. Schwede66 06:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Now fixed; support since article looks good. Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
July 9
July 9, 2024
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Diana Hill
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Diana Hill obituary
Credits:
- Nominated by Schwede66 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Paora (talk · give credit) and DrThneed (talk · give credit)
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.
New Zealand academic, and a full professor at the University of Otago. Article looks ok. Schwede66 04:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Article is sufficiently well-sourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I was trying to polish up the page for main-page posting, but couldn't find any images of her, let alone free-use ones. Anyone more skilled want to try and take a whack at it? Bremps... 23:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I came to the same conclusion; must have been a very camera-shy person. Schwede66 03:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Ariane 6
Blurb: Ariane 6 makes a successful maiden flight. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Gödel2200 (talk · give credit)
The launch was initially planned for 2020, but was postponed until today. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Note that the flight was only mostly successful, with the upper-stage re-entry burn not taking place as scheduled. --Carnildo (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. The article doesn't include any details on the launch except to say that it occurred. In more than one instance the tense hasn't even been updated to show that the launch is now in the past. If we're going to blurb this we need to include at least some prose on the details of the maiden launch, what succeeded, what failed, etc. Otherwise I believe the maiden launch of a space vehicle (especially a major one from a government agency like ESA) is ITNR so support once the article is fixed. 142.163.137.123 (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maiden launches of rockets are not ITN/R, only the first launch by a country is. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, upper stage appears to have failed a relight per ESA livestream. Worth mentioning in blurb? [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 02:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Lean oppose on notability I can't recall any precedent on "new type of rocket is launched", and could see this right on the borderline of trivia. I could well be wrong though. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was ITNR until last year. -- KTC (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- That it was removed suggests consensus against posting such things going forward This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was ITNR until last year. -- KTC (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose for now, the flight itself (Ariane flight VA262) doesn't have its own article yet, which is a bit suboptimal. It did successfully send its payload to orbit, so it should be notable enough as a maiden flight (better than the perennial Starship test flights). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, having an article about the flight would be nice. I don't want us to end up with the same result as the German Wikipedia, who currently have the same blurb in their version of "in the news", with a link to the article about de:Ariane 6 that barely mentions the maiden launch with a single sentence. I don't want to mock the German Wikipedia, but this rocket was largely developed in Germany, and if not even de:Liste der Ariane-6-Raketenstarts has anything to say about how the flight went, I find that quite sad. Renerpho (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as nominated, since the launch wasn't really a "success", but would support with modifications. It did send its payload to orbit, it just failed to then de-orbit the second stage, which really is the main new innovation of the Da Vinci upper stage compared to what Ariane 5 did. I have no concerns about notability, just about how to put it into a neutral blurb. Renerpho (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- ESA put a lot of weight on their "zero debris" policy, and on how Vinci was a big step in that direction. Even if the problem with this launch doesn't affect plans for the future (which remains to be seen), putting 600 kg of debris into an orbit that will need decades to decay doesn't look like a success to me. With how the news cycle is working, I'd wait until it is day again in Europe and in the US, to see if the news actually lean towards success, or failure. Renerpho (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- My local paper's article (mostly a reprint of one in the Orlando Sentinel) managed to avoid calling it either a "success" or a "failure". --Carnildo (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Cowards. Renerpho (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- My local paper's article (mostly a reprint of one in the Orlando Sentinel) managed to avoid calling it either a "success" or a "failure". --Carnildo (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- ESA put a lot of weight on their "zero debris" policy, and on how Vinci was a big step in that direction. Even if the problem with this launch doesn't affect plans for the future (which remains to be seen), putting 600 kg of debris into an orbit that will need decades to decay doesn't look like a success to me. With how the news cycle is working, I'd wait until it is day again in Europe and in the US, to see if the news actually lean towards success, or failure. Renerpho (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - this would be more supportable if the article linked on the target page for the "maiden flight" existed - Ariane flight VA262. Nfitz (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am not convinced by the current state of the article that this merits posting, as it does not look ready. Almost more text is devoted to this launchdate being delayed, than to a description of the flight itself. Said description is completely limited to a table entry. Needs work. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support in principle - I would fully support this if the article was up to par, but the launch itself doesn't have it's own article, and the main A6 article only has a small exerpt in launch history regarding it. This is exciting though; Arianespace is a major player in launch vehicles. qw3rty 14:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Joe Bonsall
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Billboard
Credits:
- Nominated by Rawmustard (talk · give credit)
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.
Tenor of the Oak Ridge Boys. rawmustard (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Article is nowhere near ready. Schwede66 05:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Some improvements but still tagged for uncited statements. Bremps... 23:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Jim Inhofe
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Staraction (talk · give credit)
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.
Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, given Inhofe was notable for both representing Oklahoma for decades and climate change denial. I would wait until the article has been finished being edited, given Inhofe recently died, but Inhofe merits inclusion in RD. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
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.
Curbon7 (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Heaps of orange maintenance tags. Schwede66 05:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not ready: Page has a lot of orange maintenance tags. Once does are gone I'll support it. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 19:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - At least a half dozen orange tags need to be dealt with. Jusdafax (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
July 8
July 8, 2024
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
Women's high-jump WR
Blurb: In athletics, Yaroslava Mahuchikh breaks the 37-year-old women's high-jump world record (Post)
Alternative blurb: Yaroslava Mahuchikh breaks the women's high-jump world record with 2.10 m, which had not been broken for 37 years.
News source(s): AP
One of the longest-standing records in athletics, from 1987. Women's high jump world record progression 81.196.30.56 (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose provincial sports trivia This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand what "world" means. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- A world record is the exact opposite of a provincial story. Stephen 02:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support This is a notable world record which has been unbroken for 37 years. I've added an altblurb to reduce ambiguity. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support altblurb1 article is in good condition, and it's notable because of how long the record stood; the altblurb reduces ambiguity, so that's why I prefer it over the original blurb. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Altblurb article is in a good shape and breaking decades old record is blurbworthy. PrinceofPunjabTALK 06:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support in principle. Article is also in good shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Issues There are several issues with this:
- The target article doesn't have much of an update and has lots of uncited facts.
- Another athletics world record was broken at the same event – see Guardian
- This was a warm-up for the Olympics which we're about to run. I suppose more world records will be broken at that.
- The record has not been ratified and there can be technical objections.
- There are so many sports with so many stats that records are broken all the time. For example, Lewis Hamilton won the British Grand Prix on Sunday which extended his record of wins and was the first time a driver had won a race for the ninth time. At Wimbledon, there's an new amazing record. There was a recent record at the Tour de France which we didn't run. And so on...
- Andrew🐉(talk) 07:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- From above "This is a notable world record which has been unbroken for 37 years." HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Jumping as high as possible is probably a much more mainstream world record than having the most
victories in which the winning tennis player came back from two sets to zero
. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)- The cycling record had lasted for 55 years but we still didn't post it. These numbers seem fairly arbitrary and there will tend to be a natural plateau as sports are established and become mature. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict)
- If more people here understood Le Tour, we would have posted that cycling record, but comments made it obvious too many didn't and weren't interested in learning. HiLo48 (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is clearly less notable than Cavendish's record, as high jump has less news coverage than Le Tour. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- If more people here understood Le Tour, we would have posted that cycling record, but comments made it obvious too many didn't and weren't interested in learning. HiLo48 (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- The cycling record had lasted for 55 years but we still didn't post it. These numbers seem fairly arbitrary and there will tend to be a natural plateau as sports are established and become mature. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict)
- Comment The article needs a couple of references, especially in the awards sections (the awards articles are cited so this is easy to fix), and some sentences in the prose also need sources. Other than that, all fine. If I remember correctly, we post breaking of long-standing records in athletics, as well as breaking of 100m and marathon whenever they happen (been a while since Usain Bolt but marathon got broken a couple of times in the past decade). --Tone 08:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would be happy to support featuring this if the update was more extensive. I'd expect more details than
"she broke the world record (2.10 metres) in high jump at the Wanda Diamond League in Paris."
I imagine she didn't use a particularly different technique or anything, but surely we can write something about the five-second moment in which she made history? Perhaps even just an interview quote about how she felt about it? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)- I used to write extensive updates on world records in athletics but got fully disparaged after an unfortunate discussion last year, so I decided to give up on it indefinitely because there's simply no point to produce content that some people don't value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- That discussion last year was a very similar case – two world records being broken at the Meeting de Paris. We have a full article for this event – 2024 Meeting de Paris – which is more substantial and would make a better target than just one of the athletes. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am very sad to hear this. This was exactly what I was worried about. I have been active on this front-page feature because I hoped it would inspire people to write more detailed articles, but instead it only demotivates people who put the work in... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I used to write extensive updates on world records in athletics but got fully disparaged after an unfortunate discussion last year, so I decided to give up on it indefinitely because there's simply no point to produce content that some people don't value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose both on WP:ITNSIGNIF and WP:ITNQUALITY. Many world records get broken frequently and don't very often meet the significance to get posted- this has way less media coverage than Mark Cavendish breaking the Tour de France record last week, which didn't get consensus to post. And Mahuchikh's article and 2024 Meeting de Paris each have 2 sentences about it, which is not enough to meet the quality threshold. Picking this world record over any others (including the other one broken at the same event) would be arbitrary as it hasn't demonstrated enough coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, "Many world records get broken frequently", but this one hasn't been. That sort of comment suggests you haven't read the previous discussion. It's quite unhelpful, AND irrelevant! 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)
- Over its complete history of 102 years, the average time between changes to this particular record seems to be about two years. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- But this time it was 37 years!!!!!!!!!!!! You have, in fact, just highlighted why this record SHOULD be posted HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Unsigned user comment- you have clearly ignored the fact that I pointed out this has not gained significant news coverage as needed for WP:ITNSIGNIF. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Over its complete history of 102 years, the average time between changes to this particular record seems to be about two years. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, "Many world records get broken frequently", but this one hasn't been. That sort of comment suggests you haven't read the previous discussion. It's quite unhelpful, AND irrelevant! 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)
- Weak oppose I don't really have much of a stance on the notability of this event, though only two sentences of an update seems too little to get a blurb. Gödel2200 (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment In 2014 we posted breaking of 20-years old record in men's pole vault. Now the record was unbeaten for almost twice as long. --Jona☎ 13:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Andrew and Joseph; this doesn't have nearly enough coverage or significance to warrant posting on ITN. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose how many sports disciplines are there? a few hundreds at least, right? And each presumably keeps track of more than 1 record. so what makes this any special? "one of the longest standing in athletics" doesnt cut it for me, esp given that it was achieved not that logn ago. I'd presume most records would have stopped around late 80-s if it wasnt for doping Kasperquickly (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as not sufficiently significant. JoseJan89 (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Altblurb For those saying the target articles need more updating, one is just an index of the previous records, and the other about the actual athlete contains several mentions of this new achievement. Not sure where else we'd need to add more in order to post. Schwinnspeed (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, a major legacy track and field record, no woman has ever jumped this high in open competition. Notable per time between record holders. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm generally biased against sports-related blurbs but I don't think this is important enough. The coverage seems pretty routine. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support if the blurb targets Women's high jump world record progression, which is what the story is about. Banedon (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's no prose there at all, just data. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support in principle - I think comparisons with the Tour de France stages record are unfair. In the high jump, you jump high. That's the objective. If you jump higher than anyone else in the competition, you win, and if you jump higher than anyone before, that's unambiguously the record. In the Tour de France, you're aiming for the lowest cumulative time, not the number of individual stages won. That's not to say the stages record isn't interesting (it is) or a great achievement (it is), but it's not raising the worldwide standard for the thing the contest actually measures, and this high jump record is. We also don't often post high jump and other athletics, relative to other sports, so it's a welcome bit of focus. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yet another support vote that completely ignores WP:ITNQUALITY- there is no article with a good enough update on this, because this WR only warrants 2 sentences in articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies. I have updated my !vote to be clearer. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment all these support votes are missing WP:ITNQUALITY: Yaroslava Mahuchikh has orange tagged sections, Women's high jump world record progression is just tables and uses one source (I have orange tagged it for that), 2024 Meeting de Paris has half a sentence on this world record. Regardless of the questionable WP:ITNSIGNIF, nobody has suggested a valid target article that meets ITNQUALITY by having a large update on this event and the article being good enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment This is only an improvement on the previous record by 1 cm (2.10 vs 2.09 m). Yes, its technically a new world's record, but it seems such a trivial gain in the larger picture. I also tend to agree that with as many track and field events and their individual records, its probably better to focus on the event and records broken rather than a singular one, unless that clearly smashed the previous record. --Masem (t) 12:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I would support this if we weren't about to have the Olympics. I'm basically neutral, though, because there is a decent chance this will have rolled off in two weeks when we do post that. Kingsif (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Admin comment As long as the article has an orange maintenance tag, it's not going to hit the main page. Beyond that, I don't see consensus to post at this point anyway. Schwede66 05:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
July 7
July 7, 2024
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Health and environment
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
RD: Bengt I. Samuelsson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SVT
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:95E7:6EC1:9755:1E3E (talk · give credit)
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.
Swedish biochemist and Nobel laureate. 240F:7A:6253:1:95E7:6EC1:9755:1E3E (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose article is orange-tagged. The Kip (contribs) 17:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose two orange tags. PrinceofPunjabTALK 06:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Jane McAlevey
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Staraction (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Infopetal (talk · give credit)
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.
Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Unreferenced date and place of birth. Schwede66 10:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support That has been rectified. Bremps... 13:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 01:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
(Posted) 2024 French legislative election
Blurb: The New Popular Front obtains a relative majority in the National Assembly following the 2024 French legislative election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The New Popular Front wins the most seats in the National Assembly following the 2024 French legislative election.
Alternative blurb II: The New Popular Front obtains a plurality in the National Assembly following the 2024 French legislative election.
Alternative blurb III:
Alternative blurb IV: In the French legislative election the New Popular Front becomes the largest bloc in the National Assembly, but fails to win an overall majority
Alternative blurb V: In France, the legislative election results in a hung parliament, with the New Popular Front obtaining a plurality.
News source(s): Le Monde
Credits:
- Nominated by Chaotic Enby (talk · give credit)
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)
- 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)
Wait the results sections is missing information once filled support Shadow4dark (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- There are indeed many parties under the NPF, although only four of them (La France Insoumise, the Socialist Party, The Greens and the French Communist Party) have a substantial presence in the National Assembly. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Wait According to the table in the National results section, 501 seats in the national assembly have yet to be announced, so it is too early to post. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- The table should be updated, all but three seats have been called right now (according to Le Monde). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- The table should be updated, all but three seats have been called right now (according to Le Monde). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support once final results are put forward This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Provisional results have been posted and only slight shifts should be expected at this point. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Alt II pending the appointment of the new prime minister. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I struck alt3 (after proposing it) because it might not happen anytime soon. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Propose ALTV unless a government is somehow formed. The Kip (contribs) 02:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd go with this if it becomes clear in the next few days that they are not going to be able to form a new government. For now I'd stick to Alt II until the dust settles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support any of the proposed blurbs, with alt2 or 5 as my preference. Would support blurbing again if/when a new PM is chosen, since even though Attal resigned (and is continuing as caretaker) it doesn't seem like this will be resolved anytime soon. Davey2116 (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support alt2 or alt4 once it’s ready Those seem like the best blurbs. However, the “Potential outcomes and pre-election comments” subsection in the “Aftermath” section seems like it’s awkward now that the election has happened. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I took a stab at addressing those issues here, feel free to trim or reorganise further. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Deadlock is the word preferred by headlines such as "French Election Yields Deadlock..." and "France Faces Deadlock...". What's going to happen now seems quite unclear. Will France have to resort to a civil servant as PM like the Netherlands or what? One detail of language which is interesting is the word insoumise which appears in the name of one of the many parties. This seems to mean "unruly" and "insubordinate" and the result seems to confirm France's reputation for being ungovernable. We should avoid a blurb which gives the impression that someone has won and perhaps wait until the outcome is clearer. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Insoumise means "unbowed", not "unruly" or "insubordinate". 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:C4C2:46FA:6F20:8082 (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- It literally means not soumise or not submissive. The exact meaning depends on the context but it indicates that they won't be compliant or obedient, i.e. ungovernable. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Insoumise means "unbowed", not "unruly" or "insubordinate". 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:C4C2:46FA:6F20:8082 (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's not my understanding of this at all, and appears to be a fringe interpretation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding comes from the Collins-Robert French Dictionary which is not fringe. It gives the meanings as refractory, rebellious, insubordinate, undefeated, unsubdued. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's not my understanding of this at all, and appears to be a fringe interpretation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the name of one of the parties should be taken as evidence that France has become ungovernable... Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- The NYT report says "France looked near ungovernable ... The result was that ... no governing coalition appeared immediately conceivable..." while the FT headline is "France heads back to its postwar era of ungovernability". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the name of one of the parties should be taken as evidence that France has become ungovernable... Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Posted - I've gone with a bit of a hybrid of some of the alts above. It's been discussed before that we don't use the term plurality at ITN, as it's not widely understood globally, and I thought worth noting that the NPR also didn't achieve a majority in addition to saying they won the most seats. — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's a good solution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good hybrid, thanks! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- 2024 French legislative election currently has Lua-related template errors (likely due to having too many templates), which prevents most references from displaying correctly. Felt like this was important to note here given that the article is currently linked from the Main Page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
July 6
July 6, 2024
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: André Drege
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ORF.at
Credits:
- Nominated by Engineerchange (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Stowgull (talk · give credit)
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.
Norwegian cyclist. --Engineerchange (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a stub with a list of races and most of the prose is about his death. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Joe Egan (musician)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NME
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:38AB:9905:A2DA:8D62 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Refsworldlee (talk · give credit)
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.
Scottish musician and co-founder of Stealers Wheel. 240F:7A:6253:1:38AB:9905:A2DA:8D62 (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose not ready, article needs expansion. PrinceofPunjabTALK 06:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with previous comment. Little more than a stub in substance. Ref (chew)(do) 06:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Khyree Jackson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:
- Nominated by Engineerchange (talk · give credit)
- Updated by PeeJay (talk · give credit)
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.
NFL cornerback recent death. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support RIP, a tragic death. Article is in a good enough shape. PrinceofPunjabTALK 14:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support nothing holding back this article about an NFL player. Bremps... 21:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- We can nominate that one independently. Bremps... 01:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Date and place of birth are both unreferenced. Schwede66 10:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: Fixed. Typically on NFL player articles that information is pulled from the ESPN or NFL biography and not appropriately cited. --Engineerchange (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 03:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Mirta Díaz-Balart
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CiberCuba
Credits:
- Nominated by Gödel2200 (talk · give credit)
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.
First wife of Fidel Castro. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose given the lack of detail in her article, which is rated Start class. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait there are some more references needed otherwise article is okay. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait More citations needed. Bremps... 22:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
(Posted) Masoud Pezeshkian elected President of Iran
Blurb: Masoud Pezeshkian (pictured) is elected President of Iran. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian (pictured) is elected president in the second round of the 2024 presidential election.
Alternative blurb II: In Iran, the reformist candidate Masoud Pezeshkian (pictured) is elected president in the second round of the 2024 presidential election.
Alternative blurb III: In Iran, the reformist candidate Masoud Pezeshkian (pictured) is declared the winner of the second round of presidential elections.
News source(s): New York Times BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by MAL MALDIVE (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Borgenland (talk · give credit), Boud (talk · give credit) and TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
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.
He is elected president of Iran. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- All Iranian presidential elections since 2009 have been posted to ITN. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 07:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- As far as you know wikipedia didn't post any Soviet elections to ITN? That's a bold claim. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:F211:A254:7DA9:FB24 (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Issue is not very notable , anyone can read the whole article if they want to know election legitimacy AlexBobCharles (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
soviet union which wikipedia AFAIK previously did NOT post
- ...you are aware Wikipedia was founded some years after the USSR ceased to exist, right?
- Your personalized commentary is becoming indicative of an attitude unfit for ITN/C, this isn't the first time it's happened. The Kip (contribs) 15:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- nods* Concur with The Kip... This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- We did post Xi Jinping's securing of a third term. Bremps... 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose on quality article has three orange tags. Will change to support once quality issues are fixed. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 07:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose bold article has three orange tags and Masoud Pezeshkian's article have some paragraphs without footnotes. PrinceofPunjabTALK 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Wait because Pezeshkian's article is incomplete and needs further detail. 2601:280:5C01:B7E0:E19C:E87A:9597:AE72 (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality as target article is orange-tagged. The Kip (contribs) 16:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support; proposed altblurb to use the "declared winner" language we tend to use for dubious elections This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support; on notability --GodNey (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose on quality this election is WP:ITNR, so only consideration is article quality (thus all the "support on notability" votes are irrelevant). And there are 3 valid orange tags that need fixing. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - by which criterion is this WP:ITN/R? The government bit says "Changes in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government", but our article President of Iran notes that "Unlike the executive in other countries, the president of Iran does not have full control over the government, which is ultimately under the direct control of the Supreme Leader". Thus this role is somewhat more of a figurehead and should be judged on its own merits rather than being given an automatic pass. — Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would imagine it was marked as ITNR because it was thought to be a general election. Looking at the three different elections that took place in Iran this year, it is not at all clear to me which one was the general election, so this might not be ITNR. Gödel2200 (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- The president of Iran does not hold the highest political authority, but does have many of the powers of an executive president, and is not just a figurehead. Among the Reformist presidents, Khatami was generally seen as having a big influence; Rouhani's reformist actions were generally seen as less successful; Ahmedinejad's role as a hardliner president was generally seen as him being mostly in control of executive power. Relations between the West and Iran have changed significantly between Reformist and hardliner Iranian presidents. This does satisfy ITN/R in any reasonable interpretation of real political power and both national and international effects. Boud (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any question of whether this election should be posted. But ITNR specifically says changes in the people who administer the executive of their country qualify, and according to the List of current heads of state and government article, that position is the supreme leader, not the president, so the election would technically not qualify for ITNR under that clause. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- In Iran, the president is the head of government. See President of Iran. He chooses all ministers and cabinet members. The supreme leader is the head of state, but not the head of government. 175.159.120.175 (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- The issue with ITN/R is that it assumes that only one position (in this case, the supreme leader) wields all of the executive power; it neglects to consider the fact that there can be other positions with some form of executive power (in this case, the president) that the main position itself lacks. The ITN/R status of "2023 Singaporean presidential election", which had a similar context, was debated under the same rationale (and later removed), though it was still ultimately posted. =JaventheAldericky= (Would you like to talk to me?) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any question of whether this election should be posted. But ITNR specifically says changes in the people who administer the executive of their country qualify, and according to the List of current heads of state and government article, that position is the supreme leader, not the president, so the election would technically not qualify for ITNR under that clause. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- The president of Iran does not hold the highest political authority, but does have many of the powers of an executive president, and is not just a figurehead. Among the Reformist presidents, Khatami was generally seen as having a big influence; Rouhani's reformist actions were generally seen as less successful; Ahmedinejad's role as a hardliner president was generally seen as him being mostly in control of executive power. Relations between the West and Iran have changed significantly between Reformist and hardliner Iranian presidents. This does satisfy ITN/R in any reasonable interpretation of real political power and both national and international effects. Boud (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would imagine it was marked as ITNR because it was thought to be a general election. Looking at the three different elections that took place in Iran this year, it is not at all clear to me which one was the general election, so this might not be ITNR. Gödel2200 (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support altblurb 2 as the orange tags have been addressed. =JaventheAldericky= (Would you like to talk to me?) 14:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support altblurb 2 Article looks good now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support altblurb 2 per supports on notability and INT/R both. Tags are now gone; it’s ready to post. Jusdafax (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support altblurb 2 per above.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Posted. SpencerT•C 02:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
July 5
July 5, 2024
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Liana Isakadze
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Strad
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
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.
Prominent Georgian violinist, child prodigy, all over Europe early, then also conductor and artistic director of the Chamber Orchestra of Georgia, festival creator internationally. The article was practically a mirror of her website, which is no longer live but there in an archived copy in German. Much better since we got a Strad obit today. The long lists of conductors and colleagues are not referenced other than her site, but are credible I think. Help by someone knowing Georgian wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Slight oppose The stuff about Facebook is uncited. Listing a paragraph of names isn't the best way to present info to a reader. Otherwise, the article is alright. Bremps... 12:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- The facebook thing can only be cited to her website, which I try to avoid. We could do it, or drop it, or find another ref. - I hate these lists, I really do, but - as I said above - I have no time to look for more detailed records of her music making. Repeating: help wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I added the cite to her website. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- ... and also another, and began recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- We have now several recordings, with a few reviews, Bremps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Great work on that, I'll Support. The name-dropping paragraph is still not ideal but I don't think it's bad enough to prevent it from being posted. Bremps... 23:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. Good depth of coverage, fully referenced. SpencerT•C 02:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Stanley Moss
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Staraction (talk · give credit)
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.
Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Question Are the books in his bibliography fine if they aren't cited (as they are effectively their own citation)? Anyway, the Amazon links certainly need to be removed so Oppose for now. Bremps... 04:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- They are their own citation, but they require ISBNs. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The even more fundamental problem is that the article is a stub, and we don't post those. Schwede66 05:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Vic Seixas
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:64C5:9819:81E5:D319 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Renewal6 (talk · give credit)
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.
American tennis player. 240F:7A:6253:1:64C5:9819:81E5:D319 (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support article is in a good shape. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- The stats tables after the prose could use some sources, please. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
RD: Jon Landau (film producer)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:64C5:9819:81E5:D319 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Kire1975 (talk · give credit)
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.
American film producer. 240F:7A:6253:1:64C5:9819:81E5:D319 (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Awards and Filmography section needs sourcing and Career section needs a lot of expansion. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
July 4
July 4, 2024
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) United Kingdom general election
Blurb: In the United Kingdom, the Labour Party (leader Keir Starmer pictured) wins the general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Labour Party (leader Keir Starmer pictured) wins a landslide victory in the United Kingdom general election
Alternative blurb II: Keir Starmer becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom after his Labour Party wins a landslide victory in the general election (after he becomes PM, probably tomorrow morning)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn09xn9je7lt
Credits:
- Nominated by orbitalbuzzsaw (talk · give credit)
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.
Putting this out in front so we can get it ready as and when results come in overnight This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- BBC says "Labour landslide predicted", as do most other sources This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- BBC says "Labour landslide predicted", as do most other sources This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support original blurb as it is the most concise. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I think its fair to call it a landslide now Hungry403 (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Sunak just conceded, effectively. Toss-up between original blurb and alt-1. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support original blurb unless the ultimate seat count surpasses Labour's old record for most seats won, in which case support alt-1 or alt-2 and add the superlative, per Nottheking. FlipandFlopped ツ 04:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support original blurb as it's now official. Oppose alt blurbs until sources use the phrase "landslide" — Czello (music) 04:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, with "landslide" wording; they're on course to 400, which is Blair numbers. Sceptre (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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. Schwede66 04:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- There have been other "landslide" elections. Have we ever used that term in an election blurb? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- There have been other "landslide" elections. Have we ever used that term in an election blurb? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support ALT or ALT2 blurb as Labour has now won 400 seats, I think we're now ready to add "landslide" now. 92.27.253.187 (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support landslide. Davey2116 (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support alt-1 as it is more condense. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- We don't generally use the term supermajority for this, in the UK. Secretlondon (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- We don't generally use the term supermajority for this, in the UK. Secretlondon (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- The convention in Britain is that a 100-seat majority is a landslide; Labour have won a 170-seat majority. If anything qualifies, this does. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- What convention? See Landslides in the United Kingdom. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- That seems a bit disingenuous, Andrew Davidson. See United Kingdom general election records#Most seats won by party (1945–present). The current result is just barely below the all-time post-war record. (though I don't see a need to change the blurb). Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- What convention? See Landslides in the United Kingdom. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- The convention in Britain is that a 100-seat majority is a landslide; Labour have won a 170-seat majority. If anything qualifies, this does. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I see that the title has been removed now as admins tussle over the blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pull. While obviously this is notable, 2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#Results is not updated. 12:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC) ~~ Jessintime (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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: