Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions
→October 16: +RD: Sukh Dev |
→RD: Sukh Dev: Adding updaters. |
||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
| updated = |
| updated = |
||
| nominator = Ktin <!-- Do NOT change this --> |
| nominator = Ktin <!-- Do NOT change this --> |
||
| updaters = |
| updaters = Tachs, Aumnamahashiva, Pravega |
||
}} Indian scientist. Article seems to be alright. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 01:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
}} Indian scientist. Article seems to be alright. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 01:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 01:16, 18 October 2024
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
Archives of posted stories: Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/Archives
October 18
October 18, 2024
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
October 17
October 17, 2024
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Philip Zimbardo
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Legacy
Credits:
- Nominated by TheCorriynial (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.
Philip Zimbardo died on 14th, but announced today. Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist conducted the now mostly discredited Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 which at the time was studying the effect on situational variables on participants' reactions and behaviors. The experiment is now an example of what not to do in psychological studies. He's also been involved in several other studies in more recent years and is also a writer. TheCorriynial (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
RD: Mitzi Gaynor
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
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.
American actress, singer, and dancer. Article likely needs more citation work. Staraction (talk | contribs) 21:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose article is barely cited, some of the CN tags are dated to 2012... that's bad. Scuba 21:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
RD: Toshiyuki Nishida
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Japan Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (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.
Japanese Actor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Soft oppose Filmography missing sources, career is lacking prose. Scuba 21:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
October 16
October 16, 2024
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
|
RD: Sukh Dev
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [https://english.gujaratsamachar.com/news/gujarat/pioneering-chemist-sukh-dev-passes-away-at-101 Gujarat Samachar (India)
Credits:
- Nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Tachs (talk · give credit), Aumnamahashiva (talk · give credit) and Pravega (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.
Indian scientist. Article seems to be alright. Ktin (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
(Blurb posted): Yahya Sinwar
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Hamas de facto leader Yahya Sinwar reportedly killed in an Israeli operation. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Yahya Sinwar, the acting leader of Hamas, is killed in an Israeli operation.
Alternative blurb II: Yahya Sinwar, the acting leader of Hamas, is killed in a firefight with Israeli forces in Gaza.
News source(s): Bloomberg
Credits:
- Nominated by mike_gigs (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Bitspectator (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.
Confirmed killed by IDF via Bloomberg ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- If confirmed by RS, I would support this.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support covered by all major sources by now Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I think all Wikipedias will add it on the main page. A.WagnerC(alt) (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb. Quality seems okay and RSs have confirmed the death with photos in addition to the Israeli claims. The internal leader of Hamas for nearly a decade, and more recently the overall leader. Killing of major leaders in wars merit posting even though the war might be in ongoing (e.g. Nasrallah's death despite the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict being stickied). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support if confirmed by Hamas and RS + a better blurb is used (came here to nominate it, found it already nominated) Abo Yemen✉ 17:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note His article is in decent shape, but as of this comment it has not been updated to state definitively that he is dead. Support Blurb on updating and confirmation from sources other than Israel. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support RD, but strongly oppose blurb. This is covered by ongoing Israel-Hamas war. We have consistently not blurbed the large scale killing of civilians in Gaza, and we should remain consistent and not suddenly decide to blurb this.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb per VR. Combatant dies in combat in a conflict that we have listed under Ongoing already - despite Sinwar being a notable figure, this isn’t a unique/unusual situation in the way the assassinations of Haniyeh/Nasrallah were (and iirc, Nasrallah was posted before the Israel-Hezbollah conflict was in Ongoing). The Kip (contribs) 18:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support RD, though - article seems sufficiently cited/updated. The Kip (contribs) 18:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Pending further confirmation, Support Blurb as article in decent shape (bit too much proseline but not a blocker) and clearly a major event in the Gaza situation. Side unrelated comment as i see no reason for the separate death article to load up on repeated BG and excessive reactions, but that's beyond the remit of ITN outside of avoiding a blurb that links to it. Masem (t) 18:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I will make this more explicit since alt blurbs use it, I Oppose including the killing article as the featured one. It's typical of the slicing and dicing of news stories to far too much detail for and encyclopedia, with excessive BG and reaction sections, when the actual events are all of four paragraphs. Some of that reaction is likely better in the context of the larger conflict, but making the event standalone, particularly when it was less of an organized plan and more a chance happenstance, it's not a good summary of the news as we should be writing. — Masem (t) 18:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb Confirmed now by Israel, headline news now and significant enough in its own right, rising above routine updates in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war. Brandmeistertalk 18:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've added an altblurb with a link to the article on his death. As nominator, I am pretty indifferent to blurbing since I agree it is covered by ongoing, but he is also a very high ranking individual. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Added an altblurb. Current wording implies the operation was to find and kill him, but it seems the encounter was happenstance. I'm indifferent about blurbing as well. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb Pachu Kannan (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Blurb vs RD - Yes, it's part of a conflict/war that's listed in Ongoing, but when the leader of one of the side in the conflict/war is killed, it's very much significant on its own and on top of the Ongoing. And yes, we very much posted the killing of Hassan Nasrallah. If Russia managed to take out Zelenskyy or Ukraine managed to take out Putin, are people seriously suggesting we wouldn't blurb that? -- KTC (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb per Patar Knight FlipandFlopped ツ 18:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support with blurb maybe we should make a page about his killing and make that the target article. Scuba 19:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb, but wait pending further conformation. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb—De facto leader of Hamas and the Gaza Strip since 2017, thereby making him a very significant political figure whose death is highly consequential. Kurtis (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Kurtis He's only been the head of Hamas for a few months, since Haniyeh's assassination. The Kip (contribs) 20:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support RD and neutral on blurb since he was a serving head of government making him one of the few that should qualify in theory for RDB IMO This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hamas in no way is a government body. Masem (t) 20:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hamas was, at least, the de facto authority in the Gaza Strip prior to the beginning of the war. We would certainly post if the Prime Minister of Kosovo was assassinated. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hamas in no way is a government body. Masem (t) 20:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb. Sure, the conflict is in ongoing, but Sinwar was one of the principal leaders—arguably, the foremost leader—of one of the conflict's main belligerents. This is a notable enough update in the conflict to merit a blurb. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support altblurb II. Primary leader of one of the war’s two main belligerents dying is pretty significant. Altblurb II makes it clear he wasn’t assassinated, while other blurbs could lead readers to believe he was like Haniyeh or Nasrallah. Jone425 (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb as confirmed by WP:RS. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Posted altblurb II. I've made some changes to the links, expanding the boldlink to cover "killed in a firefight" and linking "Israeli forces in Gaza" to Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. ITN admins, feel free to copyedit for consistency. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
RD: Matia Chowdhury
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New AgeDhaka Tribune
Credits:
- Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · give credit)
- Updated by GreenRedFlag (talk · give credit), CosmLearner (talk · give credit) and Kelisi (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.
Bangladesh Politician.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
(Ready) RD: Tina Kaidanow
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Koha
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jkaharper (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. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support, everything looks sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Article is a bit short but there is a sufficient amount of good references. Vida0007 (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Adequately sourced, ready for RD. FlipandFlopped ツ 18:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
(RD posted) RD/Blurb: Liam Payne
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: English singer Liam Payne (pictured) dies at the age of 31 (Post)
Alternative blurb: English singer Liam Payne (pictured), previously of One Direction, dies at the age of 31 after falling from a hotel balcony in Buenos Aires.
Alternative blurb II: English singer Liam Payne (pictured) dies at the age of 31 after falling from a hotel balcony in Buenos Aires.
News source(s): CNN, ABC News, CTV News
Credits:
- Nominated by RachelTensions (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (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.
Former One Direction member, dead after a fall from a balcony in Argentina RachelTensions (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support blurb Alrighty, here we got a relatively young sudden death from an unusual circumstance (fall of the balcony due to possible intoxication see enwiki article). 1D was definitely an influential band during the 2010s and being a member of said and the circumstances of his death does merit a blurb.
In terms of article, there's 2-3 cn tags and the filmography/awards section needs some ref work first.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC) - Support blurb Definitely notable, on pretty much every big news site in the world already. Article needs some work with refs but other than that looks fine. harrz talk 22:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Are you supporting RD or a blurb? If you are supporting RD, note that anyone with an article is considered notable, and the focus is on article quality.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post
. Natg 19 (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)- I'm supporting a blurb - sorry, I misunderstood the nomination. harrz talk 22:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Are you supporting RD or a blurb? If you are supporting RD, note that anyone with an article is considered notable, and the focus is on article quality.
- Support blurb If it was a typical death of natural causes which was not unexpected, probably not notable enough within his field to get a blurb. However, in this case the highly unusual nature of death + the "shock" of death at a young age, generate excess levels of news coverage and push it across. FlipandFlopped ツ 22:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose until sourcing issues are fixed. I've added refs for the two cn tags but the filmography and Awards and nominations sections still need more refs.Suonii180 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)- Forgot to specify that I would support both RD and blurb once sources have been added. Suonii180 (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Suonii180:
Fixed filmography section. There's three left for awards section that I'm working on.Everything's sourced now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Suonii180:
- Support now that sourcing is fixed. Suonii180 (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Forgot to specify that I would support both RD and blurb once sources have been added. Suonii180 (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Not notable enough to get a blurb. --CommanderShepardX (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @CommanderShepardX: The argument for a blurb in this case isn't if Payne was 'notable enough' it's more about the uncommon circumstances surrounding his death and the fact he was relatively young. See argument below. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Blurb Per Flipandflopped. OctaviusSlockpit (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb - Going to go against the grain here. Once the article issues are addressed the article should definitely go on RD, but as big as One Direction was, I'm skeptical that a blurb is warranted. Usually we'd reserve it for the biggest of the big, and while One Direction was big in their day I'm not sure if he'd count in this case. I don't want to go OSE here and all but many other arguably more deserving people only got an RD mention and not a blurb, so him getting a blurb would seem unfair, even arguably Anglocentric. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: To be fair, the argument for a blurb in this case is mainly directed towards the manner of his death which is unusual especially for someone at the age of 31 not about how influential he was or for being a 1D member. When someone old dies and gets nominated for a blurb, there's the 'old person dies, what's new' argument. Now that we have a younger, relatively popular singer who dies at the age of 31 after falling from a hotel balcony...I think that's the blurb of the story. Also: "If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." Also the article's in good shape now in terms of quality. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb — Not a significant figure. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
As we all know, no one but Trump is significant to you...LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)- I'm not sure what this insinuation is supposed to mean. I have opposed virtually every ITN nomination about Trump since he was indicted in New York. If Trump were to die, I would support a blurb, as I would for any current or former head of state. That is the standard. Payne, who I had not heard of until I received news of his death, was not transformative to the field of music. If ITN wants to reflect a global audience, it needs to be selective about who appears. His death is undoubtably tragic, but it would take a truly notable person for me to seek a blurb. In addition, I do not voice my support for a blurb unless I believe that the discussion is leaning against one, which has not happened in quite some time. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- @LilianaUwU Knock it off. See my note on your talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- See my argument above. The discussions for a blurb in this case isn't about how 'significant' he was it's more about the manner of death. "If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody is saying he is a significant figure. It is the circumstances of death that are newsworthy. With respect, it is not really helpful to just say "oppose because I don't think Liam Payne is an impactful artist". Whether he is an impactful figure or not is a bit of a red herring, because his nomination is about the death. FlipandFlopped ツ 02:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb - "If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." I would say is applicable here. Thechased (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb per Flipandflopped. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support altblurb The manner of unusual death is notable enough to be blurbworthy. I added an altblurb specifying his former band and his manner of death, as that is bringing this major attention. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Blurbable Often enough, in music history, death makes legends. Not just out of the personally tragic main character, either. The background, the aftermath and everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Blurb and Alt Blurb This is both supported and notable, shockingly and sad news as a fan of one direction. Royiswariii | D-GENERATION X | u can talk me :) 00:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb No indication of how they were a great/major figure (fame from being in 1D doesn't count), and while the death was unusual, initial reports do not show signs of this being an attack, only perhaps an incident while being intoxicated. --Masem (t) 00:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Intoxication plays a huge part in most of the most VH1ed rock or rock-adjacent tales of woe. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Which would make this not an "unusual" death, in that regard. To contrast, while Prince died from drug overdose (also common in musician deaths), we posted him more on the basis of him being a great figure, not the death itself. --Masem (t) 00:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I never considered Prince great. Michael Hutchence, neither. Nor Robert Johnson. The devil's in the details. In Prince's case, the devil was fentanyl, bloody fentanyl (a pandemic many considered "hot" at the time, like oxy in the oxy days, crack in the crack days or hooch in the hooch days). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Which would make this not an "unusual" death, in that regard. To contrast, while Prince died from drug overdose (also common in musician deaths), we posted him more on the basis of him being a great figure, not the death itself. --Masem (t) 00:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Dying by falling off a hotel balcony at a young age is uncommon especially when it happens to someone of his background. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Dying unintentionally from various reasons while intoxicated is very common among young adults. --Masem (t) 00:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, but how many wasted young adults were global megastars first? Quite a few. Still not a routine occurrence. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Payne was not a common young adult to be fair. Per InedibleHulk. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Well, per you, the balcony aspect even sets him apart from the usual hotel figures. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- "not routine" is not the same as "uncommon". Many people in the entertainment industry that have achieved success at a young age make poor choices, such as DUI, becoming addicted, etc., and in a few of those cases, has resulted in their deaths. It's tragic that we lose that talent, but it happens with enough regularity that's its not uncommon, just not "routine" in that we can expect one every X days (as we've called mass shootings in the US) "Unusual" in the past typically refers to things like assassinations and murder, and even then we typically expect the victim to have been a rather significant figure. Masem (t) 01:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Way more rather significant figures are murdered than fall off balconies. I had no idea who Sophie was either, but yeah, good cautionary tale about trying to photograph the moon while sober. Not exactly famous, though, especially in VH1 circles. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Payne was not a common young adult to be fair. Per InedibleHulk. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, but how many wasted young adults were global megastars first? Quite a few. Still not a routine occurrence. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Dying unintentionally from various reasons while intoxicated is very common among young adults. --Masem (t) 00:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Intoxication plays a huge part in most of the most VH1ed rock or rock-adjacent tales of woe. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Blurb Per the other supports. Centuries123 (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb: Sophie died in a very similar circumstance and not a single person suggested blurbing her death. It's clear that people are only blurbing because he was a member of One Direction (and no offense but he was one of the less popular members with a not-so-prolific career post-breakup). And being a member of One Direction is not an indication for being blurbed in my opinion. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 01:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think there might be a slight difference between someone who never even had a #1 versus a member of one of the worlds biggest boybands. 2A01:4B00:AD37:D300:ED97:E32E:2A7B:1E12 (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb, support RD. Payne is a celebrity, but not notable enough to merit a blurb in ITN. He was a single member of a band, not a stand-alone. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Blub Not a notable figure. Not a notable death. Cause of death certainly not enough to override the first two. Suggestion of a blurb is a newsworthiness-blind act of vandalism against the intent and value of ITN. The Daily Mail exists for this; not ITN. Dr Fell (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- "It is an act of vandalism against the intent and value of ITN to post something that is in the news, because I personally this death is perfectly ordinary despite every major news organization in the world reporting it"... uh huh, ok. Please refrain from ridiculous or farfetched accusations of vandalism and stick to WP:AFG. FlipandFlopped ツ 02:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- The figure in question is not noteworthy enough for an ITN blurb. Death by misadventure does not change that. Presumed public "shock" does not change that. Coverage by celebrity gossip sites does not change that. ITN is not TMZ. Dr Fell (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- "It is an act of vandalism against the intent and value of ITN to post something that is in the news, because I personally this death is perfectly ordinary despite every major news organization in the world reporting it"... uh huh, ok. Please refrain from ridiculous or farfetched accusations of vandalism and stick to WP:AFG. FlipandFlopped ツ 02:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support RD, neutral on blurb. Definitely going to support RD – he is a well-known figure after all, and his article looks ready to be posted. As for the blurb though, I am still conflicted: I agree with the talking point that was raised by Thechased, but I also agree that outside One Direction, his solo career is not notable enough to be posted. Vida0007 (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb Per Bait30, they put it quite well. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose blurb, support RD. In no way notable or important to the extent needed for blurbing. Nixinova T C 02:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- We're blurbing the death (uncommon manner of death/young age) rather than the "importance" of Payne. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- We didn't blurb George Baldock though. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- We're blurbing the death (uncommon manner of death/young age) rather than the "importance" of Payne. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb He was an extremely popular singer and he died in a very unusual way which I think deserves to be post on the main page. LiamKorda 03:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose blurb not a serving head of state or government This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Being a head of state or government has no bearing on whether an RD qualifies for a blurb. RachelTensions (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is one of the very few cases in which the death as an event has a notable enough impact to potentially qualify for a blurb. Were it up to me it would be the only one. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- This kind of reasoning is why many people are getting angry at ITN and our process. AusLondonder (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is one of the very few cases in which the death as an event has a notable enough impact to potentially qualify for a blurb. Were it up to me it would be the only one. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Being a head of state or government has no bearing on whether an RD qualifies for a blurb. RachelTensions (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb. With all due respect to Payne, I think Harry Styles is the only member of One Direction that would even come close to meeting the requirements we generally have for blurbing. One Direction, while a big thing for a time, was really fairly fleeting in popularity in all reality, and Payne didn't really have the sort of solo career that would make him alone noteworthy enough for a blurb, tragic death or not. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb. Bedivere (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support very famous and influential person. 27.96.223.193 (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Blurb Very well known singer dying young and unexpectedly. –DMartin 04:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support RD, wait on blurb. Wait until we find out the specific nature of the death. All we know right now is that he fell, which isn’t particularly unusual. If it wasn’t either suicide or accident, then a blurb would be warranted. Jone425 (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb WP:ITNRDBLURB: "For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of a prominent figure by homicide, suicide, or accident) or where the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation (such as ongoing investigations, major stories about memorial services or international reactions, etc.) a blurb may be merited to explain the death's relevance." He was a member of what was one of the best-selling bands of all time, the fact that he died so early and unexpectedly is shocking, and per The Independent, his death is currently being investigated. Rest in peace Jaguarnik (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb he was well known but wasn't at all the most notable of his band (Styles has a much more successful solo career. We didn't post the murder of XXXTentacion, a 20 year old who topped Billboard albums three months earlier - an event covered in books and documentaries for six years since. How is an accident/suicide more unusual than that? Unknown Temptation (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- The two are not comparable, XXXTentacion was an artist that was barely notable at the time of his death; Payne was a member of the biggest boyband since The Beatles. RachelTensions (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also not to compare, but I think musical artists being victims of a homicide is a bit more frequent than them falling off balconies of hotels while *possibly* being intoxicated. As I mentioned w/ James Earl Jones's discussion, I'm not a fan of "I oppose John Doe's blurb because Jane Doe didn't get one" as I find it a bit unproductive IMO and without merit. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Biggest boyband since the Beatles? That is a wild statement: New Kids on the Block, Take That, Backstreet Boys, NSYNC, Boyzone, Five, A1, O-Zone, Westlife, BTS? Abcmaxx (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's also how XXXTentacion was a Florida man murdered in Florida (Broward County all the way) and Payne was an Englishman felled(?) abroad. Bit of that "international intrigue". Who's investigating the investigators and so forth. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'd like to see the working-out for the assertion that homicide kills musicians more frequently than [possible] intoxication. How many of the fabled 27 club were murdered? How many of 60s/70s classic rock? Even among US rappers, we have Mac Miller, Lil Peep and Juice Wrld dying of drugs in recent memory. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- It seems the
falling off balconies of hotels
part wasn't asserted enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- It seems the
- I'd like to see the working-out for the assertion that homicide kills musicians more frequently than [possible] intoxication. How many of the fabled 27 club were murdered? How many of 60s/70s classic rock? Even among US rappers, we have Mac Miller, Lil Peep and Juice Wrld dying of drugs in recent memory. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- The two are not comparable, XXXTentacion was an artist that was barely notable at the time of his death; Payne was a member of the biggest boyband since The Beatles. RachelTensions (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose blurb A creation of TV's and Cowell's ruthless industry, may have been popular among the boyband's teenage fanbase but was not relevant for years nor was One Direction in any way transformative, if anything it was just another artificially created copy-paste boyband. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support RD and leaning support on blurb. Article is well written and sourced. As per ITNRDBLURB, I think the manner of death fits the criteria we have given he was a part of a fairly well known and influential band (I understand, never listened to any of their music but there seems to be a big worldwide fanbase) so I think this one just creeps over the line for blurbing. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb The readership spike is big – bigger than Maggie Smith and over 10 times Alex Salmond. So, this is quite outstanding as these things go and the article seems adequate. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think this more of a sad indictment of modern interests. If a popular contestant on Love Island were to sadly befall the same fate would we blurb that? We didn't blurb George Baldock, a former Premier League footballer, that had a huge spike in readership after his tragic death. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- George Baldock's spike was about half a million which is not in the same league. This guy was about five times larger at about two and a half million. My rule of thumb is that getting over a million is the blurb level of fame and impact. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think this more of a sad indictment of modern interests. If a popular contestant on Love Island were to sadly befall the same fate would we blurb that? We didn't blurb George Baldock, a former Premier League footballer, that had a huge spike in readership after his tragic death. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Blurb widely known. probably many more people have heard about his death than the number of people who've ever heard about a random tiny pacific micronation let alone its elections that regularly get posted here Kasperquickly (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's actually filmed in Majorca. But tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- How small does a nation have to be to be insignificant in your opinion? Elections are ITN/R for a good reason. If it suffers a natural disaster is that less significant than a mediocre musician tragically dying? Abcmaxx (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am not talking natural disasters. And the reasoning for elections are sloppy. Elections in the USA are important. Elections in Japan are important. Elections in Nigeria are possibly important. Elections in the central african republic are NOT Kasperquickly (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why would elections in Nigeria be more important than in the Central African Republic? Where are you drawing this arbitrary line? What about all the countries in between the two? Also going back to topic, if only fame and what people recognise was an indication of what to post then we might as well only post celebrity gossip and top-level footballers, such the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial, Kardashians latest product launches and forget about space exploration or gang wars in Haiti, which by your logic is too small and far away a country by your standards. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- it's not about being far away, it's the geopolitical improtance, you're either feigning ignorance or your actual ignorant if you think elections in CAR or Micronesia are just as important like those in Germany or Indonesia.
- /thread. Kasperquickly (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- We consider general elections in all sovereign states to be notable see WP:ITNR (along with other general topics). Personal opinions of editors on the level of importance assigned to any of these is not relvant and a change if felt should be sought at ITNR (though consensus is unlikely to change). About the usage of phrases like "/thread", please realize that Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM (edit: I realize you have been warned against making forum comment several times already, a block has also followed for personal attacks (including usages of kek, r-word); a continuation of this is not going to bode well for you). Also familiarize yourself with the relevant ITN and ITNR policies, we do not post based on "geopolitcal" considerations, never have. Though this is now going off-topic from a RD-blurb about a musician. Gotitbro (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- yep, kek is a known nazi word only nazis use (wikipedia says so, must be true), and retarded is a word only sexists and racists use (wikipedia says so, must be true).
- seriously man, touch grass. Kasperquickly (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why would elections in Nigeria be more important than in the Central African Republic? Where are you drawing this arbitrary line? What about all the countries in between the two? Also going back to topic, if only fame and what people recognise was an indication of what to post then we might as well only post celebrity gossip and top-level footballers, such the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial, Kardashians latest product launches and forget about space exploration or gang wars in Haiti, which by your logic is too small and far away a country by your standards. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am not talking natural disasters. And the reasoning for elections are sloppy. Elections in the USA are important. Elections in Japan are important. Elections in Nigeria are possibly important. Elections in the central african republic are NOT Kasperquickly (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Blurb, this is how I find out that he died. His solo career was still quite big when not compared to Harry Styles for example Strip That Down reached number 3 in the UK and number 10 in the US and so arguably had a more successful music career than Louis Tomlinson. Sahaib (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb He was a member of a popular band, not a musician with a successful solo career. And One Direction most definitely do not have the massive impact of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd so that we consider a blurb for the death of an individual band member.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose blurb The circumstances of the death are dramatic and tragic, but purely in terms of his importance, he was one of six members of a famous, but not music history-changing band, as Kiril above me points out. A lot of fans, but probably even more people who roughly remember One Direction and that some guys sang together. With Harry Styles my answer would be yes, but this way I tend to be against it. --Clibenfoart (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Correction there was five members (four when Zayn left). Sahaib (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- As stated above, the main argument about this blurb is more revolving around the circumstances of his death (fall from balcony, young age, possible circumstances surrounding the fall, etc.) Had he died in a more common way like a car accident or as Rambling Man mentioned, something relating to drugs or even homicide, then yes this would be a clear case for RD with a strong opposition against blurbing. However, falling off a hotel balcony while being *possibly* intoxicated at the young age of 31, well, that's not that common hence the blurb nom. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- So why didn't we blurb Jackmaster, Sophie, George Baldock, or XXXTentacion by that reasoning? Abcmaxx (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb He was a member of popular band no doubt, but that's all. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb the unusual circumstances make this blurbable. 2A02:8071:6362:54A0:14D1:B266:31D4:FD5D (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb : no sense giving the impression that en.wp rewards rich white people with blurbs because they fell off wagons and balconies while trashing other people's property. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 09:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Is that a serious comment? Maybe ITN is broken... AusLondonder (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- In the interests of civility, I would advise you strike this comment. While the voting criteria at ITN isn't strictly policy based, this isn't a gossip forum either. Gotitbro (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Was that Wild West wagons or water wagons?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Posting RD, the article is fine. It does not seem a consensus for a blurb will develop here. --Tone 09:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb - not a Michael Jackson or Prince level artist. Sheila1988 (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb It's in the news on a global basis, we do a disservice to our readers to pretend otherwise simply because he was a pop culture figure. Per WP:ITNRDBLURB: "For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of a prominent figure by homicide, suicide, or accident)...a blurb may be merited." I think it's merited, his death was cleary unexpected and unusual. AusLondonder (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure he'll make it into List of unusual deaths. So unconvinced over blurb. I guess Kurt would have got one. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb Been a while since I have been at this forum, but voting seeing the split vote. Initially I too was opposed to a blurb posting, but considering the unusual death this should make it a good candidate for a death blurb (unlike the usual ones we post of notable figures in old age of natural causes). The band's popularity is well known and Payne is inextricably linked to it (I do not this is a case of imputation). Gotitbro (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb As much as those who are in support of the blurb claim that they think this person should blurbed because of the manner of his death, it's not really believable that this is the full story. The full story is that he is a somewhat well-known and rich white person from an English-speaking country. To the best of my knowledge blurbs were not even discussed for Sophie, Jackmaster, George Baldock or XXXTentacion. This is exactly the type of death that Recent Deaths was created for. Chrisclear (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't claim to read other editor's minds and then ascribe false narratives to them. That's clearly uncivil. AusLondonder (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- These examples are indeed unusual deaths but from what I can tell the notability is limited individually or through any musical group. Payne is a prominent member of globally one of the best known bands in recent times, which Britannica surmises as such: "One Direction, British-Irish male vocal group whose stylish good looks and bright pop-rock sound captivated young fans around the world in the early 2010s."
- While the band has not been recently active, the question arises would we not blurb a tragic death (god forbid) of a prominent member of a band such as the BTS? Gotitbro (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- All deaths can be argued as tragic, even those from natural causes. The mertic we consider is whether the death is unusual, and while there aren't that many deaths from falling off balconies, deaths resulting from misfortune while intoxicated (as implied by reports) are not. Masem (t) 13:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, what I meant was unusual. Foul play or major accidents should not be the only criteria therein. I think suicide is suspected as well here, does that make more notable as a death or is a mysterious falling off more in line with the RD interpretation. Gotitbro (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- XXXTentaction was way more influencial in terms of his music style, which cannot be said for Liam Payne who despite his huge albeit brief popularity, his influence on any genre of music was neglible. XXXTentaction also has a whole article about the manner of his death, so I cannot see how this tragic accident is more notable than that at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, what I meant was unusual. Foul play or major accidents should not be the only criteria therein. I think suicide is suspected as well here, does that make more notable as a death or is a mysterious falling off more in line with the RD interpretation. Gotitbro (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- All deaths can be argued as tragic, even those from natural causes. The mertic we consider is whether the death is unusual, and while there aren't that many deaths from falling off balconies, deaths resulting from misfortune while intoxicated (as implied by reports) are not. Masem (t) 13:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support RD, Oppose Blurb His popularity, and the popularity of the boyband he was in, dropped heavily after the 2010's. It was a flash in the pan of popularity whose only staying power was nostalgia. Scuba 13:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb per Kiril Simeonovski, SashiRolls and Chrisclear. Also support LilianaUwU. Assessment of AusLondonder remains unchanged. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 13:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: Huh? AusLondonder (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support me? Why? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 18:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb per most above. Far from transformative in their field, nor are they particularly distinguished within even their group. I'd argue popularity of the deceased doesn't necessarily necessitate a blurb unless under suspicious circumstances, and to me it's clear what happens is no deeper than a few sentences long. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also, a quick question, what does it exactly mean for a death itself to be notable? Any respected figure dying of any means could have an argument of "tragic and unexpected death", such as a heart attack, cancer, stroke, or heart disease, when those are some of the most common forms of death. This clause should really only be used if there's reason to suspect their death was actually unusual and would be notable on its own, for instance Alexei Navalny's death in a Russian prison as an opposition leader, as opposed to a simple case of someone dying the way most people die. From what I gather, the means of death here wasn't plausibly caused by a third party and beyond the perceived tragedy there wasn't much to Payne's death than that. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb The comet blurb is very stale already, so might aswell blurb this one. 51.154.145.205 (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Supporting blurb The comet passage we currently have in ITN is very stale, apparently dating back to September. This is a major news topic and unusual death. Freshen up the feed. RachelTensions (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb While 1D were big, they weren't earth-shatteringly so, and he was not the most famous/notable member of it regardless. The Kip (contribs) 19:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb—One Direction were huge in the 2010s, and Liam Payne's death was extremely sudden and tragic. It's easy for those who didn't grow up in the 2010s (i.e. people like me) to say that 1D isn't iconic like Queen or Nirvana, but the fact is that they were iconic to many legions of fans during their existence, and the band leaves behind a major legacy of its own. Kurtis (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb, very notable individual and huge news story. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
(Closed) 2024 SCO summit (heads of government)
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.
Blurb: The two-day summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Council of Heads concluded in Islamabad, Pakistan. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, VOA, Al Jazeera, DW, AP
Credits:
- Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
- Oppose Seems like some run-of-the-mill summit to me. Nothing really noteworthy coming out of it nor that much mainstream coverage. Plus of course, the citations are missing publishers and accessdates. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support it is far from a "run-of-the-mill" summit. That's just living in denial of a static geopolitical world order, particularly with 2024. Of course, that depends on the quality of the ARTICLE/UPDATE. Plenty has gone up without the referencing excuse.Sportsnut24 (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support on notability, oppose on quality for now The summit has received sufficient mainstream coverage for ITN. However, the article currently does not have much detail about the summit. Notably, a list of the summit's results is missing. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Routine summit that hasn't made any major announcement and there's no indication of long-term impact. We wouldn't post summits of equivalent regional bodies (African Union, ASEAN etc.). Besides, the article is terrible, just two sentences of prose and some uninformative bullet points. It would be embarrassing to post that in ITN. Modest Genius talk
- Oppose We generally do not post these types of summits (even stuff like the G7 or G20), unless significant reform measures are signed for individual country ratification. --Masem (t) 11:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose As not seeing evidence of any noteworthy developments at the summit. If someone can demonstrate that is not correct I'd happily reconsider. I'd personally support posting more regional summits as long as something of relevance takes place. The article is obviously not fit for ITN, either. Also we shouldn't post a redirect, the article is at Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per above arguments. Scuba 12:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Google searching "2024 SCO Summit" and then NYT, BBC, CBC, Le Monde, Moscow Times, yields no articles. On the other hand, I found a single WAPO article, and it is being more closely followed by Asian media outlets such as the Times of India or the Chinese government-owned newspaper Global Times. Even those articles, though, only really detail that the event happened and make vague, generally non-notable reports ("commitment to cooperation", "new efforts to combat climate change", trade partnerships, etc). On the whole, this is simply not global front page news at the level required by ITN. FlipandFlopped ツ 18:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Business as usual, just with more dictators (proportionally) and less information. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per all above. The Kip (contribs) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
October 15
October 15, 2024
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
|
(Posted) RD: Mike Jackson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (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 is a FA. Updated and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Featured article, influential person. -insert valid name here- (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Well written article and well cited. He deserves credit and recognition for backing Captain James Blunt refusing to follow the American order at Pristina airport, which averted the Third World War. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
RD: Atul Parchure
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times Now Times of India Hindustan Times
Credits:
- Nominated by TNM101 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Filmyworldwiki (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.
Well known Marathi and Hindi film and television actor, death has been acknowledged throughout the industry. Has a verifiability tag but should be resolved soon. TNM101 (chat) 13:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- We don’t post stubs. Schwede66 12:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Stub. Scuba 12:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
(Ready) RD: George Negus
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1], [2]
Credits:
- Nominated by Happily888 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk · give credit) and Flipandflopped (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.
Happily888 (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment, not yet, sourcing could be improved.ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)- Support, good collective effort to improve it. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support, nationally iconic but also internationally relevant. Article is in good enough shape in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Soft support only seeing 3 CN tags, which I feel is near the acceptable limit, but still below it. Scuba 12:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I have updated the article to address the remaining CN tags. Should be ready now IMHO! FlipandFlopped ツ 02:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
October 14
October 14, 2024
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
(Ready) RD: Janet Nelson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Royal Historical Society
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Martinevans123 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Serial Number 54129 (talk · give credit) and Flipandflopped (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.
British medieval historian. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support She was 82 and born March 28 (that's a palindrome). It's now '24 and that was '42 (that's another palindrome). Article looks well-cited (that's what's significant). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Question, Though In British historiography, is it proper for an infobox to say a woman dissolved her spouse in 2010 or divorced him? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please see Talk:Janet Nelson#Marital status, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Also (quite insignificantly), I didn't mean to imply Wilson was her dad's surname earlier. There's a tradition in this ex-dominion wherein we introduce couples as "Blank and Blankette Exampleson" (skipping the redundancy) and I thought we got it from "you guys", but I guess not, whatever and fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sure we both have all sorts of traditions about names. And then there's... WP:MOS... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Also (quite insignificantly), I didn't mean to imply Wilson was her dad's surname earlier. There's a tradition in this ex-dominion wherein we introduce couples as "Blank and Blankette Exampleson" (skipping the redundancy) and I thought we got it from "you guys", but I guess not, whatever and fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please see Talk:Janet Nelson#Marital status, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- support three of the books in the works section were not cited, so I updated the article to include that. Should be good to go. FlipandFlopped ツ 03:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Soft support some of the books are missing ISBN codes, but the article looks fine. Scuba 21:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
RD: Nadeem al-Wajidi
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Millat Times Baseerat Online Amar Ujala The Inquilab
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Khaatir (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.
Indian Islamic scholar. Khaatir (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support however I believe the list of the books should be trimmed but that's more of a cleanup thing. Regards, Aafi (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Aafi Following this, 12 books have been retained out of the original 20, and these 12 are also selected from a list of approximately 50 books. Regards, Khaatir (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Everything looks good besides the lack of ISBN for his books. Scuba 12:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
(Posted) Europa Clipper launches
Blurb: The Europa Clipper probe is launched (pictured) by NASA on a 6-year journey to the Jovian moon Europa. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Europa Clipper spacecraft is launched (pictured) to investigate Europa, an icy moon of Jupiter
News source(s): CNN, Sky, Space.com
Credits:
- Nominated by Jone425 (talk · give credit)
Major interplanetary probe launch, and significant coverage from non-science focused sources. Seems to be getting a similar level of attention to Polaris Dawn, if not more. First orbital probe dedicated to exploring a single non-Earth moon. Jone425 (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment This also should probably mention JUICE too. That said this was also an unremarkable launch (existing rocket, no hitches) and the probes won't get TO Jupiter until 2030, so maybe this isn't this time to post? Not sure. Masem (t) 22:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- JUICE launched last year, so I'm not entirely sure why it'd be mentioned here. As for waiting, that could be a good idea but this seems to be a fairly significant launch and lines up with previous ITN launch posts (JUICE being one of them). Jone425 (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I misread that these were launched at the same time, they're sorta joint missions to explore Jupiter and its all moons.
And while we do normally wait for arrive at destination for ITNR, that's 6 years down the road so it could also be reasonable as a non-ITNR to post the launch as to highlight the mission, as we did for JUICE Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2023. — Masem (t) 01:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)- Worth noting that the "normal" is just "ITN/R criteria." The number of blue boxes I see indicates we do post plenty of ITN that isn't ITN/R. That said, I've continuously felt that the criteria list needs to stop shrinking (at this rate its arrival at Jupiter may no longer be ITN/R come 2030!) and could stand to add a few more, particularly "the successful departure of any spacecraft to a destination beyond the Earth-Moon system." Over the past 5 years there have been just 9 such launches; 5 to asteroids, (3 NEO, 2 main belt/beyond) 3 to Mars, and 2 to Jupiter; given the limited launch windows, those Mars launches were close enough to each other we could usually roll them into one FP item, too. Nottheking (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I misread that these were launched at the same time, they're sorta joint missions to explore Jupiter and its all moons.
- JUICE launched last year, so I'm not entirely sure why it'd be mentioned here. As for waiting, that could be a good idea but this seems to be a fairly significant launch and lines up with previous ITN launch posts (JUICE being one of them). Jone425 (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support, in your face Arthur C. Clarke. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Support Very important mission, and largest interplanetary mission built by NASA. Elios Peredhel (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Article in good shape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Obviously a very notable event, why isn't this ITNR? - azpineapple | T/C 01:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's ITNR at arrival, just not automatically posted at launch. —Cryptic 05:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Europa is going to get some well-deserved scrutiny, it appears. Jusdafax (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support major probe. Scuba 04:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Article looks good, very notable and prevalent in the news Hungry403 (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support - but there's problems with the blurb. The blurb currently says "on a 6-year mission to the Jovian moon". The flight to Europa is 5.5 years, but I believe the mission at Europa is at least 4 years. Perhaps the blurb should say "on a 6-year flight ..." Nfitz (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Swapped 'mission' out in favour of 'journey', but I can change it to 'flight' if that's more appropriate. Jone425 (talk) 07:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The launch seems unremarkable compared to the Starship catch and ITN is only running three blurbs currently. The real challenge for this mission is the intense radiation at the destination -- see Vulnerable transistors... We'll just have to wait and see how that goes. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's no mention of the launcher in the blurb, and only a fleeting reference in the target article. It's the spacecraft that's notable here. Nfitz (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's no mention of the launcher in my comment either. The event here is the "launch" and both blurbs use the verb to indicate this. The relevant section of the article has zero prose about the event and, instead has a lot of stuff about might-have-beens and also uses the future tense repeatedly. This is an inadequate update for what we'd be reporting here.
- Editors seem to be supporting this because they think it's a potentially important mission, not because we have a good report on something that has happened. Whether the mission turns out to be significant will not be known for years and it might never happen. That's why ITN/R recommends posting on arrival rather than departure. See WP:CRYSTAL.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 20:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's no mention of the launcher in the blurb, and only a fleeting reference in the target article. It's the spacecraft that's notable here. Nfitz (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Hungry403. Double sharp (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support. Major mission and the article is in decent shape. However there isn't much in the way of updates, just a statement that it launched. Yesterday I removed two entire sections that were many years out of date, and refrained from nominating because of the limited update. Several parts of the text are still in past tense or refer to potential future launch dates, not the actual one. This certainly should be posted, but I would prefer it if the other outdated statements were fixed. Altblurb added. Modest Genius talk 11:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose we've already established via many people's opinions of the Starship launch and catch that most users here think even revolutionary rocket catches out of mid-air are not significant. This is significantly less significant and in the news than a single run of the mill rocket launch such as the one that launched Europa Clipper. Ergzay (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- The importance here is the spacecraft and where it is going, not the launcher. Modest Genius talk 13:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- When the spacecraft reaches it's destination and missions is accomplished then we can blurb about it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should do both. Two blurbs six years apart isn't too much to ask. Modest Genius talk 12:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- The spacecraft hasn't achieved anything though. No discoveries made. That comes in 2030 when it arrives. Ergzay (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- When the spacecraft reaches it's destination and missions is accomplished then we can blurb about it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- The importance here is the spacecraft and where it is going, not the launcher. Modest Genius talk 13:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. It is a major interplanetary mission and it is being covered by WP:RS as a major interplanetary mission. The altblurb is fine. Nsk92 (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Point of order: say eg "Jupiter's moon" not "Jovian" in a blurb, the avg person-on-street doesn't know what that means (no they don't ask them if you don't believe me you are the outlier not them) --Slowking Man (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. The largest, heaviest, and most expensive interplanetary craft ever built. It is going to a place of extremely high astrobiological interest and has a fair chance of detecting life. If this doesn't deserve a blurb, then nothing relating to uncrewed spaceflight ever will. Agile Jello (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Per above. Both the Starship flight and this are extremely notable events in spaceflight and should be blurbed. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support, per all above. Altblurb is better IMO. Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Altblurb While not ITN/R, the successful departure of a mission to an interplanetary voyage is an incredibly rare and notable thing, with just 9 across the past 5 years... And the Outer solar system is rarer still, with just 11 missions launched across the past 51 years. (all missions that have gone past Jupiter have flown by Jupiter as well)
- It's ITN/R when it arrives (assuming editors don't strip all spaceflight criteria from ITN/R by then...) but that won't be until 2030. Obviously this departure will have long-since fallen off of the front page by then!
- That said, maybe the AltBlurb could do without the first comma in it. Nottheking (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed the comma. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: at this moment, it is just another rocket launch. It's significance will be once it carries out its intended mission. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 22:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support due to the immense scientific interest in Europa as or right now. The outcomes of this mission - sea or not - will almost certainly be very impactful. I'd like a blurb that better explains this, if possible. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Added image for the launch from the page itself. Elios Peredhel (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support: It was launched on a Falcon Heavy after all. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Altblurb per Notttheking and Slowkingman. Avoiding the term "Jovian" makes the lede more practical & understandable to the average main page reader. FlipandFlopped ツ 18:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support altblurb per above. The Kip (contribs) 18:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support altblurb. Very notable mission with a high-quality article. -insert valid name here- (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support altblurb Per above. Rynoip (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wait for arrival or data return. Launch itself is relatively routine. –DMartin 04:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: there are approximately five times as many support !votes as oppose/wait !votes, and the article has been updated. That seems sufficient to post. Marking as ready and pinging @Admins willing to post ITN: . Modest Genius talk 17:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Posted – Schwede66 23:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Thomas J. Donohue
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Axios
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (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.
Article updated and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nomcom. Nothing of note is wrong with the article. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 21:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
(Posted) Nobel Prize in Economics
Blurb: The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson for their studies "of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity". (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson for their studies of global inequality.
Alternative blurb II: The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson for their studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity.
News source(s): The New York Times Noble Prize press release
Credits:
- Nominated by PrinceofPunjab (talk · give credit)
Article updated
One or both nominated events are 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.
Both Johnson's, and Robinson's article are not ready and need some work. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 13:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I think the articles are good enough. If one needs work it's the Acemoglu's. It's a big article thank god and but theres some low quality stuff there like turkish users that keep adding his high school to his "school of thought" category in the infobox 🤦♂️ P.S. added another alt blurb without the quotes since it's a verbatim citation that doesnt need quotes IMO Kasperquickly (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Almost there but not yet there Johnson article is missing references and Robinson article still has a banner above it.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, not a true Nobel. 2804:388:4101:7F22:1:0:2B66:205B (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is an ITNR item, so the importance is not in doubt. We're only assessing the updates and article quality. Modest Genius talk 18:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Acemoglu's article is in very good shape. Johnson's article is bit light but does meet our minimum requirements. Robinson's is somewhere in between but also good enough to post - the tag is yellow level, which does not disqualify from ITN (only orange and red tags do). I do question what sort of 'institutions' are being referred to in the blurb - could that be clarified? Modest Genius talk 18:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Blurb2 seems to be the way to go.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Modest Genius: You're raising a great question on what sort of 'institutions' are being referred to. After taking a quick look at some of the articles, it seems like 'Institutions' is the right target article as it contains a few sentences in which the work of the three authors is explained in the context of how institutions contribute to economic growth (see
... Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson agree with the analysis presented by North. They write that institutions play a crucial role in the trajectory of economic growth because economic institutions shape the opportunities and constraints of investment.[15] Economic incentives also shape political behavior, as certain groups receive more advantages from economic outcomes than others, which allow them to gain political control. A separate paper by Acemoglu, Robinson, and Francisco A. Gallego details the relationships between institutions, human capital, and economic development. They argue that there institutions set an equal playing field for competition, making institutional strength a key factor in economic growth...
). Linking to institutional economics would be inappropriate as the field is much broader, and the article does not even mention any of the authors (in fact, their work falls within development economics instead).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Articles look good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- All three biographies have unreferenced paragraphs. Stephen 22:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- oppose articles are NOT updated. Just the one line in the lead.
- update Acemoglu's article is updated a bit more, although could further update.Sportsnut24 (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Posting. All articles are in a good shape. For awards, there is only as much as can be said without going into excessive details, so it is fine. --Tone 09:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Tone: I don't think the choice of the blurb was right. We usually use the wording in the statement of the Nobel Committee, which is 'for studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity'. There's no notion of 'research on global inequality', and this is largely original research by The New York Times.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
October 13
(Needs review) RD: Donald J. Hall
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): KSHB
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Engineerchange (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Chvy350sb (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.
Well-known Hallmark executive. --Engineerchange (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose article's existence he doesn't have three reliable, major and noteworthy sources cited and fails WP:BIO criteria. We have 4 primary sources, a Forbes profile which could've been simply bought, and three local news sources. Scuba 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- You can nominate this article for WP:AFD if you disagree with its existence. Natg 19 (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Even with a two minute WP:BEFORE search, there are clearly more sources that could be used. Most are local to Kansas but they are recognized newspapers so that is sufficient. An AFD would be pointless here. Masem (t) 17:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- You can nominate this article for WP:AFD if you disagree with its existence. Natg 19 (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support The article meets our minimum editorial standards... all of its claims are cited by reputable sources, even if "just local ones and Forbes". Whether he is majorly noteworthy beyond the local level is not relevant for discussion here, because this is not the place to take up a WP:GNG fight. Barring the article being nominated at AFD (which I think would resolve in a snow close anyways per Masem), this should be posted. FlipandFlopped ツ 03:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Brush up on WP:BIO, local sources don't count as major reputable sources. They need something with a circulation beyond one metro area. General rule of thumb is they need to be on the perennial reliable sources list. Scuba 21:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
(Posted) New marathon world record for women
Blurb: In women's marathon, Ruth Chepng'etich (pictured) sets a new world record with a time of 2:09:56 to become the first woman to break the 2:10 barriers. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Kenyan Ruth Chepng'etich breaks the women's marathon world record at the Chicago Marathon.
News source(s): BBC, CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by UCinternational (talk · give credit)
UCinternational (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose And dont even get me started how everyone knows that these no skill pure performance sports have been dominated by doping since the early 1960s Kasperquickly (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment/Support When I heard the record was broken, it's not as though I expected it to be by 50%... Bitspectator ⛩️ 13:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Incorrect information, almost 2 (two) minutes faster, not 34 seconds! Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- And even if it was 34 seconds, so what? It's still the fastest a woman has run a marathon in history. nableezy - 15:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, I've accidentally looked at the men's section of the world records article as opposed to the women's (Kenyan names are hard for me like that)
- Still I dont think this deserves posting. Going by that same article ,the previous record in the same category has been set up just half a year ago. The one before that was achieved half a year before that. And the one before that 4 years before. And this is just for the records in that one particular (maraphon) type of race just for people identifying as women. Why stop there? Let's start posting 100 meter and 200 meter races. For men. And women. And also all the other records in all the other sports. And this page would be nothing but a continuous tally of world records in frisbie throwing and horse football and base jumping. In addition to the all important parliamentary elections in sealand and micronesia. Kasperquickly (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Im pretty sure a new world record in the 100m race would get posted pretty quickly. Maybe even in record time. nableezy - 18:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- And even if it was 34 seconds, so what? It's still the fastest a woman has run a marathon in history. nableezy - 15:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support - but add at the Chicago Marathon to the blurb. nableezy - 12:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support, almost two minutes off the previous record is a huge increase, almost two minutes faster than all of the other women who ever ran the distance. Add Chicago Marathon and nationality to the blurb. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Since she broke the previous world record by nearly two minutes rather than 34 seconds as mentioned above. Both the record article and the bolded article are in good shape. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 13:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support broke it by a considerable margin. Scuba 15:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support add the Chicago Marathon and Kenyan nationality in the blurb. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Theoretically support the alt blurb since this is an important record, but oppose on quality for now since Chepng'etich's article needs more references. The alt blurb is based on the blurb that was used when Tigist Assefa previously set the world record. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support This is a huge milestone in women's sports. Rager7 (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per above. Rynoip (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The ALT blurb is similar to the format used for the last 2013 posting.—Bagumba (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support altblurb. Breaking a major world record, and the linked article is of good quality. -insert valid name here- (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support, major record. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support altblurb Dosen't happen every day, and happened at a pretty big event. Normalman101 (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Posted – Schwede66 01:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
RD: Donal Murray
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Irish Examiner
Credits:
- Nominated by 139.164.154.34 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ButcherStreet (talk · give credit), Jkaharper (talk · give credit) and Tristan 24 février 2011 (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.
Irish Roman Catholic prelate. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Almost ready article is fine except for the DOB is no entirely sourced as the source given for it only mentions the year and not the date or a month. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 13:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose no content from 2009 to his death, article's revision history supports my theory that this was made in 2009 and barely touched. Scuba 21:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Starship Flight 5
Blurb: SpaceX successfully catches the Super Heavy booster on the launchpad during Starship flight 5. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by PrecariousWorlds (talk · give credit)
One of the most tremendous engineering feats in all of history, and one of the most amazing and incredible spaceflights ever. It's hard to understate just how significant this is for the future of space exploration. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support for inherent significance. This will be in engineering textbooks for decades to come. WhatisMars (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support as an incredible engineering feat that is pivotal for human colonization of space. Quite literally no one has returned a booster stage to earth in one piece before today. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- You might mean two stages :D WhatisMars (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Let’s go! Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- You might mean two stages :D WhatisMars (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Starship has successfully landed off the coast of Australia. This is the first fully successful test flight of Starship PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I believe this is the second fully successful flight - IFT-4 also completed all objectives. Miralitt (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Many firsts were achieved with this specific launch and landing/booster catch. Kind of an understatement but this mission was truly historic, and is important to note as groundbreaking while it’s still newsworthy. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Not thrilled with the huge table to outline the detail of the flight. There are a few key events, but we don't need it to that level. --Masem (t) 13:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, I wonder if there is a way to collapse groups of table rows into significant milestone fold outs. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is more a case to just cut it down to a few key points into prose, like the time it launched, the time it was caught, etc, those noted by independent sources. — Masem (t) 16:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, I wonder if there is a way to collapse groups of table rows into significant milestone fold outs. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The enthusiasm of the nominator got me curious, but as someone who hasn't been following SpaceX, this article is difficult to understand. It doesn't clearly explain what the "catch" actually was and how it worked. The Orbital Launch Mount Tower A seems important, but that link in the lead takes me to an article about the whole starbase, which doesn't help much. Zagalejo (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah I think the article needs a section on the actual objectives of catching the booster and its significance for the future PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, most readers won't have a clue what this is about Kowal2701 (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not disputing the article prob needs work: link to Auntie Beeb is to the point. First rocket stage makes roundtrip back where it came from, tower thingy plays game of catch with it Slowking Man (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Caught the booster at the pad. Scuba 14:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - Another spaceflight, another ITN nomination. Clearly a great engineering feat but personally I don't see these unmanned space flight achievements as being up to the required level for ITN. Nigej (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- There should be a separation between Elon Musk's statement and SpaceX's actions. In this case, this is objectively a new milestone in spaceflight because this demostrated that both of the rocket's stages can be reused, making the entirety of the rocket reusable, and is a prime goal of the Starship development program. WhatisMars (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- A new milestone would be sending someone to Mars. I'd support ITN for that. Nigej (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- That goes without saying, but we have three Nobel prize winners in ITN, an event that happens without fail every single year and isn't especially newsworthy. It's also something that basically no news media agencies cover. It's clear that the bar for getting into ITN is exceedingly low. Ergzay (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- In what nation, User:Ergzay, do the media not cover the Nobels? The news has been full of it lately around here watching local and international channels - the local papers too. Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- America for one. Google searching for just "nobel prize" I find some minor articles buried. Whereas this spaceX landing is listed as a top news item on both CNN, and Fox News on their front pages, neither of which mentions any nobel prizes. Also I'd note that each nobel prize award got its own separate entry rather than simply combining them. Most of the ITN section is now about nobel prizes. Ergzay (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Which part of Americas? I see articles from Canada, the USA, and Brazil. one, two, three. Lots of other examples in each nomination as well. Nfitz (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Articles exist, my point was they are not prominent. But anyway, Nobel Prizes have a special exception to the normal rules for ITN content. So even if they wouldn't normally be posted they're posted anyway. Ergzay (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Which part of Americas? I see articles from Canada, the USA, and Brazil. one, two, three. Lots of other examples in each nomination as well. Nfitz (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- America for one. Google searching for just "nobel prize" I find some minor articles buried. Whereas this spaceX landing is listed as a top news item on both CNN, and Fox News on their front pages, neither of which mentions any nobel prizes. Also I'd note that each nobel prize award got its own separate entry rather than simply combining them. Most of the ITN section is now about nobel prizes. Ergzay (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- In what nation, User:Ergzay, do the media not cover the Nobels? The news has been full of it lately around here watching local and international channels - the local papers too. Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- That goes without saying, but we have three Nobel prize winners in ITN, an event that happens without fail every single year and isn't especially newsworthy. It's also something that basically no news media agencies cover. It's clear that the bar for getting into ITN is exceedingly low. Ergzay (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- A new milestone would be sending someone to Mars. I'd support ITN for that. Nigej (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- There should be a separation between Elon Musk's statement and SpaceX's actions. In this case, this is objectively a new milestone in spaceflight because this demostrated that both of the rocket's stages can be reused, making the entirety of the rocket reusable, and is a prime goal of the Starship development program. WhatisMars (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose It's proof of concept for a more efficient space program. So what? It's no more ITN worthy than every last incremental press-release-worthy improvement out there, whether in controlled fusion, desert reclamation, particle colliders, quantum computing, skyscraper building, telescope power, dark matter detection, and so on and so on. The same level of technological breakthrough would have justified at least two dozen James Webb Space Telescope ITN postings and at least one or two a year ongoing improvements to the various gravitational wave telescopes out there. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- You describe small incremental changes yet dismiss this as only a small incremental improvement when it's unprecedented in the history of spaceflight. Minor discoveries by JWST which are a dime a dozen is not this. Ergzay (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I was not talking about minor discoveries by JWST (which, by the way, has a good number of major discoveries to boot). I am talking about the astonishing engineering breakthroughs needed to get the JWST to work. The cryocooler, the gold-coated beryllium mirrors, the five layer sunshield, all were completely unprecedented. And LIGO's custom giant mirrors, quantum squeezing, ultra precise lasers, and so much more, have all have been major triumphs of cutting edge physics and engineering. But as they can't be boiled down to a geewhiz video, they are easy to disparage by someone who thinks I was just talking about "minor discoveries". I wasn't. Every one of those developments, and dozens more, in those two projects alone (and across numerous technologies that I gave a very very short list) has been unprecedented and utterly astonishing. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There will never be a time in history, other than today, where the first stage of a rocket booster is caught for the initial first time. Also, JWST was blurbed when it launched, and when it delivered its first imagery. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- What was astonishing about JWST was not its engineering breakthroughs but how much it cost. Cryocoolers are standard things that exist in industry, gold plating of metals is also nothing special, the sunshield was made of mylar a common material. So no, nothing there is unprecedented. Ergzay (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think the point they were getting at was more: right, now how many of those have been stuffed in a rocket, sent up to L2, then unfolded by computer control, and the instruments incl. mirror cooled and kept at 40 K? Then started snapping pics? In fact one instrument has to be kept at 7 K. Note beryllium is quite brittle, and the mirror itself had to be unfolded! Also the shield has to help keep the stuff that way not only from the Sun but the Earth and Moon which are still much hotter and radiate lots of photons that heat the scope. (Crash thermo 101 review heat goes hotter -> colder also energy = conserved, always has to go somewhere) Note also vacuum is a perfect insulator (think Thermos) so the cryo has to work by boiling off coolant into space, to exhaust the heat somewhere, no air to convect heat away. (All space tin cans w/ onboard bipedal monkeys have to too, ISS uses ammonia)
- For a little perspective: Total lifetime JWST cost projection: $9.7 bil in 2021$, adj to 2023$: $10.8 billion. Using {{inflation}}, nothin up my sleeve here. A smidge >1% of yearly US military spending in 2023 (and/or Medicare, which is slightly higher). (Take note of how often in discourse "cost" is invoked for things like science, vs how often for The Troops™ or for cops) ~3% 2023 US spending on "non-alcoholic drinks" ($328 bil, source internets). Not tap water, this is all drinks sold @ retail excl. booze. (Imagine putting a 1% soda tax on sugared drinks only—things that are not only completely unnecessary but actively terrible for public health—for health & science research! Let's not even get started on booze) .04% 2022 US GDP. Slowking Man (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- There is a reason JWST cost such an incredible amount (and was delayed for such a long long time). Multiple engineering breakthroughs that had to be discovered, tested, developed, invented, and then tested again. (And again and again because it was space.) The MIRI cryocooler had to get down to single digit kelvins. It uses an incredible thermoacoustic system custom invented for JWST, not some off-the-shelf industry standard. The mirrors were made out of beryllium (not standard) and then gold plated (yes, atomic vapor plating is standard) to an incredible precision (not stanard), and then aligned and adjusted after deployment (extremely not standard). The sunshield was a tennis court sized five layer shield, specially coated, specially spaced, so that excess heat would be steered out the gaps, and then it had to be folded up before launch and unfolded just so after launch. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- We've had cryocoolers that do way below single digit kelvins for many decades. (There's black and white videos of liquified helium from way back.) Casting/machining things out of beryllium has been done before. Precision of machining is based on your tools so that is also standard. You're arguing that the spacing of a piece of metalized plastic is an engineering breakthrough? It didn't even have to be precise (that's why the spaces were visibly large to make up for the creases/crinkles in the material). Ergzay (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- (This is going off into sidetrack but space is a much more hostile environment from a nice comfortable lab, everything has to withstand launch stresses, the "cold soak" and often constant warming-cooling cycles, radiation (how many labs are located entirely at the business end of a running particle accelerator), as-hard-as-it-gets vacuum. Also you would like to be able to point the scope at diff things, also also want to minimize vibrations (will mess up observations). On JWST they used a gyro w/out moving parts b/c Hubble's kept wearing out and failing. Also all needs to be light as possible, launching mass costs $$$ but still mounted on a single structure that can bear all load stresses --Slowking Man (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC))
- Gyros without moving parts have been standard parts on aircraft and personal electronics for many decades before JWST chose to adopt them. Ergzay (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- And to boot, the MIRI cryocooler is intended to last at least five years, and preferably twenty or so, without human or even robot intervention. All in all, User:Ergzay, your comments are simply nuisance and noise, focusing on things well-known and dead-easy that had to be re-imagined and redeveloped in order to be used on the JWST, and then pointing out the completely obvious well-known dead-easy parts and pretending there was no need for actual breakthroughs to go beyond what was already known. One as might as well say this launch was no big deal because heck, I once caught a toy rocket using a butterfly net as a kid. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- (This is going off into sidetrack but space is a much more hostile environment from a nice comfortable lab, everything has to withstand launch stresses, the "cold soak" and often constant warming-cooling cycles, radiation (how many labs are located entirely at the business end of a running particle accelerator), as-hard-as-it-gets vacuum. Also you would like to be able to point the scope at diff things, also also want to minimize vibrations (will mess up observations). On JWST they used a gyro w/out moving parts b/c Hubble's kept wearing out and failing. Also all needs to be light as possible, launching mass costs $$$ but still mounted on a single structure that can bear all load stresses --Slowking Man (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC))
- We've had cryocoolers that do way below single digit kelvins for many decades. (There's black and white videos of liquified helium from way back.) Casting/machining things out of beryllium has been done before. Precision of machining is based on your tools so that is also standard. You're arguing that the spacing of a piece of metalized plastic is an engineering breakthrough? It didn't even have to be precise (that's why the spaces were visibly large to make up for the creases/crinkles in the material). Ergzay (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- There is a reason JWST cost such an incredible amount (and was delayed for such a long long time). Multiple engineering breakthroughs that had to be discovered, tested, developed, invented, and then tested again. (And again and again because it was space.) The MIRI cryocooler had to get down to single digit kelvins. It uses an incredible thermoacoustic system custom invented for JWST, not some off-the-shelf industry standard. The mirrors were made out of beryllium (not standard) and then gold plated (yes, atomic vapor plating is standard) to an incredible precision (not stanard), and then aligned and adjusted after deployment (extremely not standard). The sunshield was a tennis court sized five layer shield, specially coated, specially spaced, so that excess heat would be steered out the gaps, and then it had to be folded up before launch and unfolded just so after launch. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think the point they were getting at was more: right, now how many of those have been stuffed in a rocket, sent up to L2, then unfolded by computer control, and the instruments incl. mirror cooled and kept at 40 K? Then started snapping pics? In fact one instrument has to be kept at 7 K. Note beryllium is quite brittle, and the mirror itself had to be unfolded! Also the shield has to help keep the stuff that way not only from the Sun but the Earth and Moon which are still much hotter and radiate lots of photons that heat the scope. (Crash thermo 101 review heat goes hotter -> colder also energy = conserved, always has to go somewhere) Note also vacuum is a perfect insulator (think Thermos) so the cryo has to work by boiling off coolant into space, to exhaust the heat somewhere, no air to convect heat away. (All space tin cans w/ onboard bipedal monkeys have to too, ISS uses ammonia)
- I was not talking about minor discoveries by JWST (which, by the way, has a good number of major discoveries to boot). I am talking about the astonishing engineering breakthroughs needed to get the JWST to work. The cryocooler, the gold-coated beryllium mirrors, the five layer sunshield, all were completely unprecedented. And LIGO's custom giant mirrors, quantum squeezing, ultra precise lasers, and so much more, have all have been major triumphs of cutting edge physics and engineering. But as they can't be boiled down to a geewhiz video, they are easy to disparage by someone who thinks I was just talking about "minor discoveries". I wasn't. Every one of those developments, and dozens more, in those two projects alone (and across numerous technologies that I gave a very very short list) has been unprecedented and utterly astonishing. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- You describe small incremental changes yet dismiss this as only a small incremental improvement when it's unprecedented in the history of spaceflight. Minor discoveries by JWST which are a dime a dozen is not this. Ergzay (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Major breakthrough with the booster catch (a first). Huge step forwards towards fully reusable rockets. 174.112.0.237 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Needs work As an engineering milestone, it's more impressive than Boeing's Starliner snafu. But the article's lead devotes most of its space to a spat with the FAA and seems to need re-balancing now. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: not sure why every single advancement in spaceflight needs to be blurbed. 128.91.40.237 said it best. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 18:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is not just a "advancement". It's a landmark event in the history of spaceflight. Ergzay (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Semantics. And WP:PUFFERY. And WP:BLUDGEON. The most generous description by the New York Times is "a feat of technical wizardry". CNN's highest praise was "its most ambitious Starship test flight yet". Associated Press called it an "engineering feat" and "boldest test flight yet". Reuters called it "another novel engineering feat". These are descriptions worthy of DYK, not ITN. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 00:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's a cringe statement. 130.245.192.6 (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I'm not following. Are you arguing that because the media is hyping it too much that that somehow makes ineligible for inclusion in the ITN section? If so I really don't understand the purpose of the ITN section. Is it not supposed to cover things that are notable and "in the news"? I cannot find your criteria anywhere in the ITN rules. Ergzay (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am saying that it is one remarkable step among many on a long path, but it gets ridiculously disproportionate hype, between "space" and "Musk". The press release hype does not belong in this discussion, but it's what we get right from the beginning: "One of the most tremendous engineering feats in all of history" from the nominator. Rank balderdash. "This will be in engineering textbooks for decades to come" from the first comment. Silly piffle. But this wildly exaggerated hype is supposed to be a reason to support. Remove it, and you're left with mildly interesting development, whose value will be determined way down the line from now when actually interesting spaceflights occur. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fully and rapidly reusable rockets would be one of the biggest advances in human history (by making large-scale space access affordable) and the first-ever booster catch is a major step towards that. I'm sure it will be in engineering textbooks decades from now. 174.112.0.237 (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- The significance of this event has absolutely nothing to do with "Musk". I dislike the man plenty myself (even if I used to like him). This is not "press release hype". It's the widely believed opinion of basically everyone in the industry. And yes it is absolutely one of the most tremendous engineering feats in all of history and hes it absolutely will be in engineering textbooks for years to come. Why would you remove it other than "I don't like it"? Ergzay (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that not even these reliable sources are calling this some sort of landmark achievement in science and engineering. I'm saying the media isn't hyping it enough. Most of their descriptions are essentially "whoa this is neat". Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 20:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think your own source stating "a feat of technical wizardy" is a bit beyond "whoa this is neat". And necessarily a journalist is not an engineer. Ergzay (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is a bit beyond. But only a bit. It is far far short of the ludicrous, ridiculous, exaggerated hype we are getting here for Support. As in, no it is not "one of the most tremendous engineering feats in all of history". I'll concede maybe in all of 2024. And it will not be in "engineering textbooks" whatsoever, except maybe a photo or something, whatever strikes the textbook publisher's hype department's fancy. For the most obvious of reasons: the textbook is about the basics of the subject. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think your own source stating "a feat of technical wizardy" is a bit beyond "whoa this is neat". And necessarily a journalist is not an engineer. Ergzay (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am saying that it is one remarkable step among many on a long path, but it gets ridiculously disproportionate hype, between "space" and "Musk". The press release hype does not belong in this discussion, but it's what we get right from the beginning: "One of the most tremendous engineering feats in all of history" from the nominator. Rank balderdash. "This will be in engineering textbooks for decades to come" from the first comment. Silly piffle. But this wildly exaggerated hype is supposed to be a reason to support. Remove it, and you're left with mildly interesting development, whose value will be determined way down the line from now when actually interesting spaceflights occur. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Semantics. And WP:PUFFERY. And WP:BLUDGEON. The most generous description by the New York Times is "a feat of technical wizardry". CNN's highest praise was "its most ambitious Starship test flight yet". Associated Press called it an "engineering feat" and "boldest test flight yet". Reuters called it "another novel engineering feat". These are descriptions worthy of DYK, not ITN. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 00:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is not just a "advancement". It's a landmark event in the history of spaceflight. Ergzay (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per above Ion.want.uu (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment One thing to remember, is that this test program is iterative. On each flight they plan to do a bit more. This is the 5th test flight. We did blurb Starship flight test 1, where both the stage 1 booster and stage 2 Starship spacecraft blew up after launch. The next 3 flights were also nominated. I would have thought that both Starship flight test 3 and Starship flight test 4 would have been possibly significant enough to blurb. In test flight 3, the booster exploded prematurely, but not before releasing the Starship spacecraft which did finally make it to space before exploding on re-entry. In test flight 4 both the booster and spacecraft successfully soft-landed in the ocean. For today's flight, the advances were that the booster sucessfully landed for the first time (with the capture by the launch tower) and the spacecraft soft-landing was more accurate, with less heat damage to the spacecraft. It seems to me that after the flight 1, the first sucessful launch (flight 3) was the most significant, followed by the first successful soft-landings (flight 4). So if those weren't blurbed, this shouldn't be either.
- But at the same time, what is the line? The first successful landing on land (or ship) of the Starship spacecraft? The first orbital flight (those so far have been sub-orbital)? The first crewed flight (maybe Polaris-3?)? The first test landing attempt of Starship HLS on the Moon? The first test landing attempt on Mars? The first successful flight to lunar NHRO? The first Artemis 3 propellant flight? The launch of the Artemis 3 Starship HLS? There's many, many steps to this - and that doesn't include the obvious ITN items relating to the crewed portion of Artemis 3 moonshot. Perhaps we should lay out what these steps are in ITN/R so we don't have these last-minute discussions, where many don't appear to be fully aware of what is actually being done, or what the significance of an individual flight is. Nfitz (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'll also note that many people who oppose these posts don't seem to even understand what is significant int spaceflight and what is insignificant. Like in the previous nomination several people mentioned making it to orbit as being significant and landing Starship being less significant versus that. That showed a clear lack of understanding of the subject matter on what is and what is not significant. Ergzay (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's all just so otherworldly. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Speak for yourself. (As in, your comments, while meant to clarify, are borderline personal attacks.) I oppose (strongly). And I also agree this was a spectacular, significant development for spaceflight. But I am not one of those people who think a play-by-play on the ongoing greatest moments in the development of spaceflight is all that ITN-worthy. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- No one is arguing for a play-by-play. But if an event happens that has never happened before in history, do you not consider that sufficiently "in the news"? Ergzay (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- The argument for test flight 2 being blurbed is that because less engines failed, it once again was the most powerful launch. In a program like this, isn't every flight something that has never happened before in history? Tomorrow SpaceX launches the largest interplantery probe ever built; do we blurb that? 2 hours after that SpaceX will land Crew-8 after it's record-breaking 7-month spacelight to the ISS - never before has a 4-person flight (or an American flight) lasted this long. Nfitz (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- That argument for test flight 2 is a pretty poor one. It's still the same rocket. It gaining some thrust to make it again the most powerful is not notable. The rocket will be making further upgrades in the future to increase thrust further, also not notable. I'm not sufficiently knowledgable to know if you're making a correct statement that Europa Clipper is the largest interplanetary probe ever built. Even if that was the case however, I would not blurb about the launch. I would blurb about its arrival to Jupiter however. As the blurb would focus on the science it will do. It's launch isn't notable until it's actually capable of doing the mission. If a disaster occurred however I would blurb about it. Crew-8 as the number implies is just another crew rotation, nothing notable there. Ergzay (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- The argument for test flight 2 being blurbed is that because less engines failed, it once again was the most powerful launch. In a program like this, isn't every flight something that has never happened before in history? Tomorrow SpaceX launches the largest interplantery probe ever built; do we blurb that? 2 hours after that SpaceX will land Crew-8 after it's record-breaking 7-month spacelight to the ISS - never before has a 4-person flight (or an American flight) lasted this long. Nfitz (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- No one is arguing for a play-by-play. But if an event happens that has never happened before in history, do you not consider that sufficiently "in the news"? Ergzay (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Will landing Starship be significant User:Ergzay? It certainly won't be the first spacecraft to land - they've been doing that since the 1960s. It won't be the first reusable spacecraft to land. And it won't be the first to land on legs. I'd argue that making it to orbit, and the booster landing in this novel way would be more significant. Nfitz (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Landing the Starship upper stage would be significant yes, but we're over a year a way from that at least. To make a comparison, it would be at least equivalent to the first landing of the Space Shuttle, though likely even more important than that. There's only one orbital rocket in history that's landed vertically before, Falcon 9, and we definitely put that in the news section (assuming we had that section back then).
- Making it to orbit is not at all significant, almost to the point of irrelevance. The vehicle already has the performance to do so. They've simply been refraining from doing so. I would oppose any attempt to put an in the news segment for a Starship reaching orbit, similarly for it releasing its first payload into orbit. The notable events coming up that I see deserving of being in this section is, this grab with the chopsticks, a future grab with the chopsticks of the Starship upper stage, the first landing on the moon of Starship, and the first landing on the moon with humans. Ergzay (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- IMO the first ship landing will be notable, first manned flight will be notable, first HLS lunar landing will be notable, of course the Artemis missions will be, and if the unmanned Mars missions go ahead in 2 years I could see that meeting the threshold PrecariousWorlds (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'll also note that many people who oppose these posts don't seem to even understand what is significant int spaceflight and what is insignificant. Like in the previous nomination several people mentioned making it to orbit as being significant and landing Starship being less significant versus that. That showed a clear lack of understanding of the subject matter on what is and what is not significant. Ergzay (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support but the article needs a bit more work still to reflect current events. It's still too focused on the FAA fiasco before the launch. Maybe wait a couple days before adding this as an in the news event. Ergzay (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per above. Rynoip (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom and above supporters. Jusdafax (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per
Nfitz,Bait30, and Nigej, another SpaceX test flight. Most if not all of these test flights are testing new capabilities, as SpaceX works on a software-style iterative process, so they may be "firsts", but don't feel they are especially significant. When Starship gets to the moon, that is newsworthy as a new moon landing. For now, this is just a cool feat. Natg 19 (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've not opposed this, User:Natg 19. I've been discussing it and asking questions. I've come to the conclusion that this is ITN, and not just another SpaceX test flight. And not just another rocket to land after launch - and this one is absolutely massive, the biggest in history - far more powerful than a Saturn V. And the capture technique is completely novel. Nfitz (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for my mischaracterization, struck that. Natg 19 (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - We don't need a steady drip feed of updates about this project. The amount of puffery surrounding it is quite unreasonable. The technical achievements are impressive, but attempts to spin each individual test as a revolutionary advance in space flight run rapidly into the field of excessively specific superlatives. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but you really do not understand the significance here. This landing was absolutely a revolutionary advancement in spaceflight. There is no "spin" here. It's really evident that there's an overall lack of education on spaceflight matters on the general side of Wikipedia. Nothing like this has ever been achieved in the history of humanity. This is not "puffery". This article is a reasonable post describing the significance. Ergzay (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose like all the other partial test flights. As I've commented on the previous nominations, if/when Starship successfully puts a genuine payload into orbit we should post. Not each incremental improvement in the test flights. SpaceX is getting there, which is good for them, but it's not an operating launch vehicle yet. Modest Genius talk 12:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- But putting a payload in orbit is NOT significant... This flight was not "incremental". It was revolutionary. I would be against putting the flight where they achieve orbit in ITN because that is not notable. Ergzay (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- What a bizarre view of significance. You don't think it's important for a orbital launch vehicle to actually launch something useful to orbit? A photogenic booster landing is all very well, but Starship hasn't achieved its purpose yet. It's still a work in progress, and ITN shouldn't post each step of that progress, only when the goal is actually achieved. Modest Genius talk 15:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Boeing's Starliner mission ultimately failed, yet we still blurbed the launch. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Starliner successfully transported two astronauts to the ISS, at which point it was posted in ITN. That they didn't use the same spacecraft to come down again is irrelevant, especially as that was months later than the nomination. Starship hasn't successfully launched anything yet. Modest Genius talk 15:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- The significance is that this is a landmark event in the history of spaceflight. A single in-development rocket reaching orbit is a development milestone but not a significant event for history. This catch of a rocket out of midair is something most people thought impossible but was achieved. It's also the largest rocket in history, twice the thrust of the Saturn V rocket that took humans to the moon, yet it's first stage was caught out of mid air. The thing is 9 meters wide and 70 meters long. It's the size of a ~20 story building.
- The rocket is already capable of orbit (it had significant visible fuel reserves left, but shut down early to avoid going into orbit). So reaching orbit is just about reaching a confidence point that they're sure they can get it back out of orbit and not leave the largest ever piece of space debris in orbit and also a regulatory point to be allowed to do so.Ergzay (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Boeing's Starliner mission ultimately failed, yet we still blurbed the launch. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- What a bizarre view of significance. You don't think it's important for a orbital launch vehicle to actually launch something useful to orbit? A photogenic booster landing is all very well, but Starship hasn't achieved its purpose yet. It's still a work in progress, and ITN shouldn't post each step of that progress, only when the goal is actually achieved. Modest Genius talk 15:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- But putting a payload in orbit is NOT significant... This flight was not "incremental". It was revolutionary. I would be against putting the flight where they achieve orbit in ITN because that is not notable. Ergzay (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per support comments above. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per all the opposing opinions expressed above. This is just an another nomination of SpaceX flight be touted as the "first time in the history to do (...)". We have already have posted many stories about this company's flights and I don't think we should it anymore unless something really Big happens in the future. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 13:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- The booster catch is one such "something really big" event and should be posted. 174.112.0.237 (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- This achievement actually is a really big deal. It's easy to become disillusioned with all the partisan politics surrounding Musk, but the fact is we've witnessed history being made. Reusable large first-stage boosters are the predecessor to putting payloads into space being economical (at scale). We aren't getting off this planet without reusable launch systems. I'd encourage folks to put Musk's politics aside and perhaps read this article. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- No one is "getting off this planet" ever except maybe to do some dangerous work like research and mining, prob a lot of it on one-way trips. You can already get a good simulation of a place like the Moon or Mars: it's called Antarctica or the ocean floor. For better realism, you must also carry your closed atmosphere around, have a running particle accelerator pointed at you at all times, and rely on only infrequent resupply stuff & no such thing as "emergency evac". Get some nasty trauma, DVT cardiac arrhythmia cancer autoimmune thing mental/psych w/ev yall are handling it w/what you got, no one is coming to rescue you. What's your training look like for "one of your crew develops bipolar type I, tries to take over as dictator and tries to kill anyone who resists"?
- And this is still "easy mode" haven't even turned down the grav yet, how do osteoporosis & muscle wasting sound? Go ahead and book a trip to those places no one is stopping you Slowking Man (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly how was "history made?" This wasn't the first time a vehicle was propulsively recovered in a vertical landing; after all, SpaceX has done that over 300 times already. (and even that wasn't the first time it was done) It wasn't the first propulsive recovery of a vehicle in the Starship program either; they've accomplished that with the upper stage already. The only way it's a "first" is to heavily qualify it, as the first ever vertical recovery via a method they invented just for this program. This is equivalent to saying "This is the first time anyone has changed the channel on television using my new invention, the 'Fing-longer'."
- The claims to Starship being a "big deal" hinge upon its long, long-term claims that it will "Colonize Mars." While that objective would most certainly be newsworthy, this particular accomplishment hardly finishes proving it'll be a success & they have all the difficult steps out of the way... And the overall results of the mission have cast further doubt on that ever happening... So to act like this is "making history" based upon it fulfilling that far-off dream would be premature, and as would posting it to ITN. Nottheking (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Starship is a "big deal" because of its extremely low cost of payload to orbit, not that it will eventually assist in colonizing Mars. That cost is estimated in various sources as dropping the cost of payload to orbit by one or two orders of magnitude enabling all manner of things like holidaying in low earth orbit for the price of an expensive cruise and entirely revolutionizing the space economy. Starlink now having 6000+ satellites in orbit is the tip of the iceberg here. And yes if you can get things to orbit cheaply you can go out and explore the moon, Mars and other celestial objects as well for dirt cheap compared to current prices, and maybe eventually colonize Mars. One of the _key_ questions about the entire vehicle though was whether it could be recovered via this completely outlandish recovery system. So yes it's making history. Ergzay (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- No one is "getting off this planet" ever except maybe to do some dangerous work like research and mining, prob a lot of it on one-way trips. You can already get a good simulation of a place like the Moon or Mars: it's called Antarctica or the ocean floor. For better realism, you must also carry your closed atmosphere around, have a running particle accelerator pointed at you at all times, and rely on only infrequent resupply stuff & no such thing as "emergency evac". Get some nasty trauma, DVT cardiac arrhythmia cancer autoimmune thing mental/psych w/ev yall are handling it w/what you got, no one is coming to rescue you. What's your training look like for "one of your crew develops bipolar type I, tries to take over as dictator and tries to kill anyone who resists"?
- I'd argue that this is, as you said, a really big story. Scuba 15:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support After discussing this I've come to the conclusion that this is ITN, and not just another SpaceX test flight. This rocket is monstrously huge - the biggest ever, far bigger than Saturn V. Making this rocket reusable changes spaceflight forever. And then there's the completely new and incredible way of it landing - being caught in mid-air by something akin to chopsticks, rather than ever touching the ground. There's significant international coverage - it's even on the top of the fold this morning in the biggest national paper here. Nfitz (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Theoretically support since this seems like an important accomplishment, but oppose for now since the article's body needs more prose about the flight & the catch. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree on the article needing more improvement I already rewrote the header. The article already existed before the launch so it was mostly dedicated to chronicling events leading up to the launch. Editors welcome. Ergzay (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Catching the booster is a very important accomplishment, but the article needs more prose about the actual flight (2 sentences and a table isn't enough). Otherwise, might be a good candidate for ITN
- IMO, notable Starship flights for ITN are: first ship catch, first ship to ship prop transfer, HLS demo, Crew Starship. Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 02:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - Successful test flights really aren't especially ITN-noteworthy. Apollo 9 was an extremely important test flight in the lunar program, but it was not the Moon landing -- in fact, it didn't even leave Earth orbit, let alone go to the Moon. Similarly, we should have care to address an iterative program such as Starship based on the actual landmark achievements and not the technical ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaltCip (talk • contribs) 14:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. People opposing this are failing to understand the significance of this flight. This is the largest and most ambitious rocket ever flown, and if it works as intended it will completely revolutionize spaceflight and even humanity as a whole. This flight basically validated the design of the rocket and provided us with one of the most impressive feats of engineering ever seen. Agile Jello (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- You said it yourself: if it works as intended. Whether it ever will is something there's been legitimate doubt about, (Elon Musk has already confessed that the payload claims are out of reach, and it appears on top of carrying less than Falcon Heavy, it's slower & more expensive too) so celebrating it as the success now would be premature. If it actually makes a successful orbital mission & turnaround that proves those lofty claims as anything more than hypberbole? Then yes, that'd actually merit being newsworthy. Nottheking (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Elon Musk did not confess that the payload claims were out of reach. And no reputable source has ever claimed it will carry less than Falcon Heavy. The "if" in the previous poster's claim was talking in the past tense before this flight happened as this flight validated the design of the first stage enabling at least partial reuse.
- And as I've already explained elsewhere, the vehicle is already capable of making a successful orbital mission, they've just elected to not enter orbit (a couple of meters per second shy of it) for safety reasons as the design is fleshed out. Making orbit would not be more notable/in the news versus this mid-air rocket catch feat.Ergzay (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- You said it yourself: if it works as intended. Whether it ever will is something there's been legitimate doubt about, (Elon Musk has already confessed that the payload claims are out of reach, and it appears on top of carrying less than Falcon Heavy, it's slower & more expensive too) so celebrating it as the success now would be premature. If it actually makes a successful orbital mission & turnaround that proves those lofty claims as anything more than hypberbole? Then yes, that'd actually merit being newsworthy. Nottheking (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Another few months, yet another incremental Starship test flight that goes a bit further than the one before. It became the general consensus that posting IFT-1 had been a mistaken, and IFT-2, IFT-3, and IFT-4 weren't posted.
- SpaceX is taking a highly iterative development strategy here, which means that every few months we have another flight, that often (but not always) manages to bag a "first," and the company's marketing arm milks it. While impressive, catching a booster (while the upper stage still experienced the burn-through that marred IFT-4 while being too heavy to carry an actual payload) was visually impressive, it was pretty small in the big picture of things. Most push to highlight efforts here aren't based upon actual achievements, but by highlighting the lofty promises of what it might do in the future. This wasn't landing a person on Mars; this was like step 5 in a 10,000-step road to that.
- That's the big takeaway here: the overall calculus/state of Starship isn't changed by the result of this uncrewed test. To put this in ITN would be basically to make ITN a "ticker" for Starship. Nottheking (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nonsense. This mid-air catch absolutely changed the overall calculus/sate of Starship. Yes SpaceX is taking an iterative development strategy, but that doesn't mean you can simply ignore every single thing that happens along the way until you reach a random mundane "Starship delivered a payload to orbit". You choose to ignore all the major news items and instead focus on the mundane in the hopes maybe that that too will be avoided from being put into ITN.
- And yes landing a person on Mars would be certainly ITN, but there's many other events in spaceflight history that also are relevant to being ITN. Up thread they're even celebrating the launch of a spacecraft, something relatively mundane and everyday. Ergzay (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- What changed? For the past few years, their plan has been to do exactly this as one single element in their overall system. They succeeded in completing one single step in something that will require a lot of other steps that "have never been done before" in order to actually accomplish its objectives. For instance, no one has ever transferred cryogenic propellants in deep space, or even used a cryogenic propulsion system more than about a week post-launch. (e.g, all long-duration rocket stages have been either solid or hypergolic propellant)
- Most "support" !votes have boiled down to claiming this has "changed the game," in spite the fact that for SpaceX, this is just a natural continuation of the game plan they've been following for at least the better part of a decade. So your claim that the "overall calculus/state" was "absolutely changed." The most that could be really said there is that... It didn't fall further behind schedule?
- Also trying to compare this to the launch of an outer-planet probe (something that has only happened 11 times in history, and about twice a decade) is uninformed at best, (and one others have used disingenuously) because it just plain doesn't match up. That's akin to calling the completion of a new "world's tallest building" (something that happens every few years or so) just "you completed a structure; that happens every day."
- So again, what changed? I don't see any real arguments beyond superlatives over how this is a "first," and nothing on the ramifications. Nottheking (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- The what changed is they achieved something most people thought was impossible or a wild-eyed rant by Elon Musk when he first proposed it. I myself thought that this was a fanciful idea and debated exactly this on places like Reddit. I thought they would fall back on some kind of normal landing system just as they fell back on many other design concepts. I was sure there was going to be an impressive explosion with significant pad damage. Instead they literally caught a rocket falling through the sky out of midair with massive articulating arms, all broadcasted live, and they made it look easy. The only people who really seemed to believe it was possible were the hardcore Elon Musk zealots who believe anything the man says. (I can bring up sources of well known respected industry experts doubting it if you'd like.) Propellant transfer is an impressively difficult problem but it's not the level of magic and observableness that this mid-air catch of a rocket was. As to your 11 times in history, there's only been 5 starship launches in history and less successes, and if you arbitrarily limit the criteria sufficiently everything becomes a unique event. Outer solar system vs inner solar system probes only really differ in the time they take to get there via successive gravitational slingshots.Ergzay (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support; I usually scoff at these Starship noms, but this IS a fairly massive step towards making reusable rockets a reality. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. It's better to look at the aerospace organizations' statement about the flight: AIAA Statement on Fifth SpaceX Starship Test Flight (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) and NSS Praises Fifth Test Flight of SpaceX Starship (National Space Society). Based on these statements, it is clear that IFT-5 is a transformative event in spaceflight. Most of the opposes here are made from uninformed editors that are blinded by the hate towards SpaceX and using their power and votes to keep this discussion round and round and round until it's too late to put it on in the news. 130.245.192.6 (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is a strategy that I've paid attention too during other test flights of Starship. I noticed that when talking about Starship, other editors use lingos such as "scoff", "yet another", and "aren't especially ITN-noteworthy", whereas for other non-SpaceX launches, the words are much more meadow and polite. It might be editors are blocking Starship news towards in the news section is a way for them to vent the hate towards SpaceX, towards Elon, and somehow this will make them feel better as a result. But it is important to separate SpaceX and Elon, and Starship and Elon.
- This test flight is important because it will signal that new rockets that is designed full reusability in mind is practical and competitive on the market. Starship to spaceflight is like the HMS Dreadnought to the navy in the 20th century. Pre-dreadnought and Dreadnought, Expendable and Reusable launch vehicle. 130.245.192.6 (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging all opposed editors: @Nigej, @Bait30, @Natg 19, @GenevieveDEon, @Modest Genius, @PrinceofPunjab, @WaltCip, @Nottheking. I don't like doing this, but I felt that statements from established aerospace organizations might make you reconsider your position that this is a "trivial" test flight. 130.245.192.6 (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not in the slightest. Of course organisations dedicated to rocketry and spaceflight paid attention to this launch. I would be astounded if they didn't. That doesn't make it any more or less suitable for ITN. I also strongly dislike the accusation of bad faith above - we're all expressing our sincere opinions. See WP:AGF and don't hound users who disagree with you. For what it's worth, I think the support !votes have been sensationalist and buying into hype. Modest Genius talk 18:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot assume good faith when people say things like:
- The same level of technological breakthrough would have justified at least two dozen James Webb Space Telescope ITN postings and at least one or two a year ongoing improvements to the various gravitational wave telescopes out there.
- Semantics. And WP:PUFFERY. And WP:BLUDGEON.
- To put this in ITN would be basically to make ITN a "ticker" for Starship.
- Most if not all of these test flights are testing new capabilities, as SpaceX works on a software-style iterative process, so they may be "firsts", but don't feel they are especially significant. When Starship gets to the moon, that is newsworthy as a new moon landing. For now, this is just a cool feat.
- when the Europa Clipper launch is not subjected towards that level of scrunity. Bad faith is obvious and can be seen. You will not say these things if you are talking to people in real life. 130.245.192.6 (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot assume good faith when people say things like:
- Also Not in the slightest. This is a test flight with some success. As noted below, the article itself is also not up to standard. Wasn't there some damage? Let's have a nomination when something really significant happens, not just a gee-wizz we've caught something in mid air. Nigej (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also not in the slightest. "Established Aerospace organizations" have not been super-sensationalist... And while they were involved, this is a given as it was a spaceflight; those are always a big deal, (even if not ITN) and still don't happen every day.
- The hype has mostly been channeled by the mainstream media, (which is a bit infamous for not understanding a lot of what they talk about, as is quickly evidenced in nearly every press briefing NASA holds...) which has mostly given in to how much SpaceX leans into the PR side of things: SpaceX makes a big deal about it, with a lot of noise, and pressures news organizations to give them a lot of free press over it. It's how the company (like all other "tech-startup" types) have always worked.
- Also worth noting that most of the "support" !votes have been... Largely just conveying the same hype, without any objective analysis of the facts. For instance, no one's mentioned the serious anomaly suffered by the upper stage, which had a mission to test fixes to the TPS burnthrough that resulted in the partial failure of IFT-4. (as a refresher, the heat shield proved insufficient to keep an upper flap from partly melting, resulting in IFT-4's touchdown being several kilometers off-target; however while IFT-5's upper stage managed to touch down )It's been telling that a lot of the messaging from SpaceX is to retroactively imply that there was zero importance to the outcome of the upper stage, which is a tactic they've done after... Well, almost every single partial/full failure. (e.g, the complete failure of IFT-1 due to an improper launch facility was handwaved as a "we meant that" even though it rendered a test that cost them several hundred million dollars pointless)
- And it's not going to be alone. Ostensibly IFT-6 will come along, (probably sometime early 2025) and it will very likely do something that is also in the "never actually been done before" category. And SpaceX & the mainstream media will hype it up as a huge "game changer," even though again, it will... Just affirm the same game plan SpaceX has been following (if behind-schedule) for around 7 years now. And a lot of people buying into that hype will argue that it's unfair to not consider it "major history being made" when it gets nominated for ITN as well. Because this is how it played out four prior times already.
- So from an objective standpoint, it's a single, iterative step forward; it's one step down, 10,000 or so to go. Was it cool to look at and makes for a jaw-dropping 10-second clip? Sure, but that's not "ITN," that's "trends on social media." Considering that ITN would be on the same level of covering social media fallout from a scandal like the Mr. McMahon documentary or the Pokémon leak. Or even (to go with an analogy used a few times around here) like asserting that each new Beta test for a wildly new version of Windows launches, and not just the final product releasing.
- It's also worth noting that I'm writing this because... Someone opted to ping everyone they disagreed with to imply an accusation of bad faith. Not the most resounding position to ground an attempted educational, scholarly debate over; again, that's more social media/reality TY-esque sensationalism, and in that form almost a form of ad hominem. Nottheking (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- They didn't just imply bad faith, they straight up accused it lol.
I cannot assume good faith
andBad faith is obvious and can be seen
. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 01:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- They didn't just imply bad faith, they straight up accused it lol.
- Not in the slightest, sorry. My opposition rationale is unchanged. In fact, I think my Apollo 9 comparison might have been overly generous. This is closer to the unmanned Apollo tests like AS-201. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Incidentally, pinging me to get me to change my !vote and thereafter accusing me of bad faith is not necessarily against Wikipedia policy - however, it's a shockingly poor persuasion tactic. Imagine walking into Starbucks demanding a free coffee and then calling the barista a loser and an idiot before they've even said yes or no. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not in the slightest. Of course organisations dedicated to rocketry and spaceflight paid attention to this launch. I would be astounded if they didn't. That doesn't make it any more or less suitable for ITN. I also strongly dislike the accusation of bad faith above - we're all expressing our sincere opinions. See WP:AGF and don't hound users who disagree with you. For what it's worth, I think the support !votes have been sensationalist and buying into hype. Modest Genius talk 18:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging all opposed editors: @Nigej, @Bait30, @Natg 19, @GenevieveDEon, @Modest Genius, @PrinceofPunjab, @WaltCip, @Nottheking. I don't like doing this, but I felt that statements from established aerospace organizations might make you reconsider your position that this is a "trivial" test flight. 130.245.192.6 (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- (Admin comment) I'm surprised to find that the pertinent prose in the target article is unreferenced. Schwede66 19:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose per Blaylockjam10. I waited for a bit before voting because I was hoping the article would be a bit more developed by now, still seems relatively the same. I will support it if the article improves. Very impressive catch nonetheless. Hungry403 (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support the first catch of the booster for a fully reusable rocket system and the first on target deorbit of it's upper stage are incredibly consequential events in human history, let alone qualifying as news. The idea that a marathon being record broken is more significant news than this is absurd. TaqPCR (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per nottheking and Modest Genius. Every successful SpaceX test launch is of course impressive and will inevitably be commended with praise, but we are not a personal SpaceX updates ticker operating on behalf of Elon Musk. We can post when all of these test launches add up to a more finalized product... a more major landmark event. I also note that I am disappointed in the wonton nature in which some are accusing other editors of bad faith simply for expressing skepticism about posting individual test flights in principle. Please, please stick to WP:AGF. FlipandFlopped ツ 03:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- This flight was not "every successful SpaceX test launch". I did not participate in previous Starship ITN discussions (other than flight 4 discussion which was the first successful landing, but did push my opinion very hard). If there was actual risk of us becoming a SpaceX updates ticker then sure I would agree with you, but only the very first flight, a year and a half ago which was a pretty large "failure", actually got an entry. So we're already going against NPOV by only including launch failures.
We can post when all of these test launches add up to a more finalized product... a more major landmark event.
- Several people have said something similar to this, but when is that exactly? First orbit is nowhere near as impressive as this landing. As time goes on launches will be come more ho-hum resulting in even more people pushing against their inclusion (just as you just did with the argument that the ITN section shouldn't become a SpaceX updates ticker). First lunar landing? That's several years away.
I also note that I am disappointed in the wonton nature in which some are accusing other editors of bad faith simply for expressing skepticism about posting individual test flights in principle. Please, please stick to WP:AGF.
- Then don't make arguments that imply that proponents are "operating on behalf of Elon Musk". Ergzay (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ergzay, Nowhere in my above comment did I say that any Wikipedia editors are "operating on behalf of Elon Musk". You conveniently cut out the prior part of the sentence where I stated my position in principle that posting individual test launches would render ITN a SpaceX updates ticker, which is something Elon/SpaceX should be operating and not Wikipedia.
- Engaging in belligerent, harassing responses to every single oppose voter and continuing to make sweeping accusations of bad faith over an ITN nom is inappropriate. You have made dozens of comments, almost all of which were berating editors with the opposing view. I strongly advise you cease this behaviour and that you do not continue to reply to me, nor to anyone else in this manner, or else this matter will inevitably be escalated to ANI. FlipandFlopped ツ 22:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- The implication was fully there that by proposing SpaceX launches be in ITN that editors were operating on behalf of Elon Musk. I'll at least admit that you apparently did not think you were implying that. Secondly, responding to oppose posters and trying to educate them is not disallowed here. I am not harassing anyone (though lots of editors are accusing people of harassing them by responding). Nor am I alleging bad faith. I fully believe that they actually believe what they are writing. I'm alleging ignorance on the part of many editors to this dramatic moment of spaceflight history and trying to educate them. If I'm doing that in a way that doesn't perform that very well, well I only have myself to blame. On ANI notices, I've been brought there before and have yet to ever had ANI rule against me. I'm quite good at following just within the rules. Ergzay (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- No one is saying that responding to comments is "against the rules" or worthy of a block, but it does seem to qualify as WP:BLUDGEONing, which is highly discouraged. Natg 19 (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- The implication was fully there that by proposing SpaceX launches be in ITN that editors were operating on behalf of Elon Musk. I'll at least admit that you apparently did not think you were implying that. Secondly, responding to oppose posters and trying to educate them is not disallowed here. I am not harassing anyone (though lots of editors are accusing people of harassing them by responding). Nor am I alleging bad faith. I fully believe that they actually believe what they are writing. I'm alleging ignorance on the part of many editors to this dramatic moment of spaceflight history and trying to educate them. If I'm doing that in a way that doesn't perform that very well, well I only have myself to blame. On ANI notices, I've been brought there before and have yet to ever had ANI rule against me. I'm quite good at following just within the rules. Ergzay (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per the dissenting opinions. I don't think every single SpaceX launch needs to be posted on the main page. LiamKorda 04:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's only been a single Starship launch on the main page and there hasn't been a Falcon launch on the main page in years. Ergzay (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. This discussion is absurd: every major news outlet in the world is running headline stories about this (I'll add The Economist to the long list already shared), yet this prevailing argument seems to be that this is "just another launch" so they shouldn't be doing that? ITN is judged on significance, and catching a 275 ton rocket the size of the Statue of Liberty plummeting to Earth at 4000 km/h with a pair of chopsticks is doubly significant: it's a magnificent feat of engineering in itself, and (as the Economist above states) it clears the final obstacle to access to space that's orders of magnitude cheaper that anything we have today. Subsequent test flights will not be nearly as momentous, in fact the next big event will be when the test flights end and commercial service starts. Jpatokal (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Kcmastrpc (talk · contribs) put it well: "There will never be a time in history, other than today, where the first stage of a rocket booster is caught for the initial first time." Ylee (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
(Closed) Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season
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.
Blurb: Conspiracy theories spread in the aftermath of Hurricanes Helene and Milton. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Hurricane Milton makes landfall in the U.S. state of Florida, followed by conspiracy theories and misinformation.
Alternative blurb II: Violence against recovery workers spreads after Hurricane Milton makes landfall in the U.S. state of Florida.
News source(s): Washington Post, New York Times, Associated Press
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Dan Leonard (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Belbury (talk · give credit), Cowlan (talk · give credit) and BootsED (talk · give credit)
- Oppose local american news Kasperquickly (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. People make statements news at 11. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. WP:SNOW Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't invoke WP:SNOW after only 3 votes and 19 minutes since nomination. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Tsk tsk... trying to influence the weather by organizing a conspiratorial flashmob snowdance... :) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 07:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose local news and we don't post conspiracy theories. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 06:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Suport altblurb2 The article is very comprehensive and well cited, and this is a major news story around the globe. Many nominations are rejected because they do not have an aftermath section or the impact after the event is disputed; here we a clear case of side effects of the hurricane which has spawned into a story of its own. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose US local news and there is already a Milton story on the main page now. I have not seen this making headlines around the world which an another user is claiming. LiamKorda 07:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose and snow close this is going nowhere. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think we need to amplify the blathering of idiots. Black Kite (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
October 12
October 12, 2024
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
|
RD: Lillian Schwartz
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ARTnews
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:FD73:1B35:1B3F:3F59 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit), Strattonsmith (talk · give credit), TellusFan (talk · give credit) and Asparagusstar (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.
Noted American visual artist. 240F:7A:6253:1:FD73:1B35:1B3F:3F59 (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support besides a lack of ISBN codes for her publications the article looks good and is properly cited. Scuba 21:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
(Needs review) RD: Ka (rapper)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Pitchfork, The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by ModernDayTrilobite (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.
Rapper and firefighter. Died on the 12th, death was announced today. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- The discography section is unreferenced. Schwede66 18:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose needs citations in discography. Scuba 21:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
RD: Tylee Craft
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS Sports
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:AD2F:6B55:B4EB:821E (talk · give credit)
- Created by Jumplike23 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jumplike23 (talk · give credit) and Jkaharper (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.
Football player for the University of North Carolina. 240F:7A:6253:1:AD2F:6B55:B4EB:821E (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose There is no prose about his life prior to the year 2020. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 13:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Soft support As mentioned there is no mention of his pre-collegiate career, but what is in the article is properly cited. I've seen far worse athlete articles. Scuba 21:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Lilly Ledbetter
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS News
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:AD2F:6B55:B4EB:821E (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Sunshineisles2 (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 activist who sued Goodyear for gender discrimination. 240F:7A:6253:1:AD2F:6B55:B4EB:821E (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support article is in great shape. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 14:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per above. Rynoip (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Three cn tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Appear resolved. —Bagumba (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
RD: Tito Mboweni
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SABC News
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:550C:B8BE:A7FB:50AC (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Gevaarlik (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 financial minister of South Africa. 240F:7A:6253:1:550C:B8BE:A7FB:50AC (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose multiple paragraphs without any source. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 06:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose chunks of article aren't sourced. Scuba 14:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
RD: Jackmaster
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Abcmaxx (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.
Nominator's comments: Real name Jack Revill, Scottish DJ who tragically passed away after complications following a head injury. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wait unsourced DOB, otherwise looks fine. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 06:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's a source for it here although the NYPost is marked yellow on WP:RSP. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Each instance of citing the NYP has to be reviewed to make sure they aren't just making something up. In this case the article in question looks fine so it should probably be cited. Scuba 15:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- As Scuba mentioned above, NYPost can be cited with some precaution and DOB is a non controversial statement about the subject. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 14:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Black Kite, PrinceofPunjab, and Scu ba: I've added it to the article, is it now good enough to have your support votes? Abcmaxx (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping Support article looks good now. Scuba 21:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Black Kite, PrinceofPunjab, and Scu ba: I've added it to the article, is it now good enough to have your support votes? Abcmaxx (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's a source for it here although the NYPost is marked yellow on WP:RSP. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
RD: Baba Siddique
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Economic Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (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.
Indian politician.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Positions held and Personal life sections are completely unsourced, Political career section needs more inline citation. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 07:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Soft oppose bad prose, personal life is only a sentence and is uncited. Article needs a touchup before posting. Scuba 21:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: G. N. Saibaba
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Indian Express
Credits:
- Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Batthini Vinay Kumar Goud (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.
Professor and human rights activist.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support article appears alright to me. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 07:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support article seems quite good. Rynoip (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
(RD posted) RD/Blurb: Alex Salmond
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former first minister of Scotland Alex Salmond (pictured), a prominent figure in the Scottish independence movement, dies at age 69. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Former first minister of Scotland Alex Salmond (pictured) dies at the age of 69.
News source(s): The Times, Sky News
Credits:
- Nominated by Vacant0 (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.
- Support Woah, this is how I find out? At first glance article seems good to go, I might even suggest to consider a blurb here given his importance in the Scottish independence referendum/movement. The Kip (contribs) 16:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Now that it's being discussed, support blurb - the Scottish independence referendum was one of Europe's most notable political events in recent memory, and the impact of the movement Salmond sat at the top of was significant across the continent. Easily a transformative figure in British and European politics. The Kip (contribs) 21:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support, needs blurb - Notable politician and minister of Scotland. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 16:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support either blurb or RD. The article is in good shape so this can go up quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support, easily. I'd suggest a blurb too, as he was incredibly important in the Scottish and British political landscape. CoconutOctopus talk 16:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb per above. Transformative figure in the history of Scotland. Davey2116 (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support a blurb - responsible for a political realignment in not just Scotland, but the rest of the UK too. Definitely one of the most important characters in 21st-century British history. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality there's many unsourced paras and lines. Oppose blurb on notability he was a subnational politician. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not Ready for RD for the usual reason. Oppose blurb We almost never blurb subnational politicians and Scotland rejected his calls for secession. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Scotland is not subnational. RachelTensions (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- What criteria of statehood does it meet? Is it legislatively independent? Does it control territory? Is it a member of international organisations like the European Union or the United Nations? Yes, Scotland is a country. But it is a subnational country. AusLondonder (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- "subnational country" is quite the oxymoron RachelTensions (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- What criteria of statehood does it meet? Is it legislatively independent? Does it control territory? Is it a member of international organisations like the European Union or the United Nations? Yes, Scotland is a country. But it is a subnational country. AusLondonder (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose RD until the article is referenced sufficiently and oppose blurb, he wasn't known internationally well enough to warrant it. Suonii180 (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'll just note that, of course, Salmond did sit in the Scottish Parliament, but he was also the leader of the SNP twice, the leader of the Alba Party and an MP for two constituencies: all political positions in the wider UK. He was not "just" a subnational politician: he was a large figure in British politics before and after his stint in the devolved assembly. See: the Conservative 2015 general election billboards where Salmond was used to sway voters away from Labour in case of a Lab-SNP coalition. That election saw the SNP win all but 3 House of Commons seats in Scotland, by the way. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support RD once all referencing issues are addressed. Oppose blurb. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support RD, Oppose blurb Well referenced however, not transformative in his field since he lost the referendum and aside of that,t a regional politician in comparison as Scotland is a small part of the UK. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- @The C of E: he was clearly transformative for both the Scottish National Party and Scotland. In 1992, the SNP only had 3 seats but under his leadership they became the largest party in Scotland in 2007. It does not matter that the 2014 independence election failed (with 44% voting yes) as since then Scottish politics has been dominated by calls for a second Scottish independence referendum. Sahaib (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Sahaib: A second referendum that has no endorsement beyond a shrinking independence movement, especially when the 2014 referendum was "once in a lifetime". He lost the big vote, therefore not transformative in his field. He is simply just a regional politician who had a little success nationally but did not cause any lasting significant change within the UK. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- @The C of E: whilst support for the SNP may be in decline (they still got 30% of the vote in the 2024 United Kingdom general election in Scotland compared to Labour's 35%), support for independence has remained quite stagnant since 2014 per opinion polling on Scottish independence. The lasting impact as mentioned is transforming the SNP from a fringe party to a major party and putting Scottish independence on the political agenda where it remains to this day. Sahaib (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's not on the agenda given the previous crawl-backs from Sturgeon and Salmond's Alba party aren't making that much in terms of waves. No denying, he is a notable regional politician and justifiably should get an RD on the quality of the article but he did not have any lasting national impact (ie. lost the referendum and not had much further national impact since) so therefore a blurb would not be suitable in my opinion. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- @The C of E: whilst support for the SNP may be in decline (they still got 30% of the vote in the 2024 United Kingdom general election in Scotland compared to Labour's 35%), support for independence has remained quite stagnant since 2014 per opinion polling on Scottish independence. The lasting impact as mentioned is transforming the SNP from a fringe party to a major party and putting Scottish independence on the political agenda where it remains to this day. Sahaib (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Sahaib: A second referendum that has no endorsement beyond a shrinking independence movement, especially when the 2014 referendum was "once in a lifetime". He lost the big vote, therefore not transformative in his field. He is simply just a regional politician who had a little success nationally but did not cause any lasting significant change within the UK. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- @The C of E: he was clearly transformative for both the Scottish National Party and Scotland. In 1992, the SNP only had 3 seats but under his leadership they became the largest party in Scotland in 2007. It does not matter that the 2014 independence election failed (with 44% voting yes) as since then Scottish politics has been dominated by calls for a second Scottish independence referendum. Sahaib (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb, changed both Scottish and British politics significantly. Sahaib (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb dare I say he was the most important person in Scottish politics for a while. Scuba 21:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb subnational leaders are almost never blurbed. Not serving at time of death. Good argument for OLDMANDIES This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- I like how I had an edit conflict with you and it turns out I basically said the exact opposite of what you said haha. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 23:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- He was not a subnational leader; Scotland is widely accepted to be a country & nation within a wider multinational state. RachelTensions (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's subnational in that is is not a sovereign state. It is like Greenland within the Kingdom of Denmark. AusLondonder (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb: Despite his highest office being that of subnational leader, he was clearly an important figure in UK and even European politics. And he was still active in Scotland politics up to his death so this isn't just a case of "old man dies". Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 23:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I hope I do not come across as boorish in this comment. If this nomination was from anywhere other than the Anglosphere, the nomination would have been met with a barrage of "not transformative", "have hardly heard his name", "no major world impact" comments. And, then after languishing for some time it would be tagged with Admin attention / evaluation required and that would be that. I sincerely wish these discussions would be different. See our discussion on M. S. Swaminathan if you'd so wish to. Do not reply to this comment showing me an existent but not followed segment of WP:ITNRDBLURB, I am just showing a mirror to this group. I truly believe we will be better off posting more often to the homepage. Sincere condolences to the departed. Ktin (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, if the New Caledonian independence movement has a figure of equal stature I’d consider blurbing them as well. The Kip (contribs) 23:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- For me the criteria for RDB is only if the death per se is notable (i.e. death of a serving head of government causing a political change, or an assassination, etc). Though personally I'd be okay with doing away with RDB entirely except for serving heads of state/government. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- How do you measure "stature" of pro-independence leaders? Isn't it simply that you know more about Salmond because you're English-speaking and don't know New Caledonian leaders because you're not French-speaking? AusLondonder (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- For me the criteria for RDB is only if the death per se is notable (i.e. death of a serving head of government causing a political change, or an assassination, etc). Though personally I'd be okay with doing away with RDB entirely except for serving heads of state/government. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sitaram Yechury seems a better Indian equivalent as a major national politician. It's easy to compare the standing of such figures with our readership -- just look at the all time views for their articles. They have each had about two million readers over the last 10 years. Salmond's spike is the largest. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- By that logic, we should be blurbing Ratan Tata views here (while I understand the politician vs business leader distinction). Will remind this group that we did not. Ktin (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, if the New Caledonian independence movement has a figure of equal stature I’d consider blurbing them as well. The Kip (contribs) 23:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb, unknown outside of the UK. Abductive (reasoning) 05:05, 13 Octo[[Death of Benito Mussoliniber 2024 (UTC)
- Hardly, given the impact of the Scottish independance movement on other similar movements across Europe. He literally died after giving a speech in North Macedonia, and had a show on Russia Today; neither of which are the UK. CoconutOctopus talk 06:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hardly known. Blurbs should be reserved for people whose death alone could support a Wikipedia article, such as Killing of Osama bin Laden, Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, Death of Benito Mussolini, you know, deaths that might be interesting to readers. Abductive (reasoning) 09:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Whilst I'm not claiming that Salmond should have a blurb, I'm pretty sure the story is "interesting" for those in Scotland (and Scots elsewhere). Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hardly known. Blurbs should be reserved for people whose death alone could support a Wikipedia article, such as Killing of Osama bin Laden, Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, Death of Benito Mussolini, you know, deaths that might be interesting to readers. Abductive (reasoning) 09:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hardly, given the impact of the Scottish independance movement on other similar movements across Europe. He literally died after giving a speech in North Macedonia, and had a show on Russia Today; neither of which are the UK. CoconutOctopus talk 06:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Recent deaths is sufficient as a former leader of a non-sovereign state. While undoubtedly significant in Scotland and the UK, he had very little international significance. I'm not seeing widespread, substantial coverage outside of the UK. AusLondonder (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support on notability He is clearly a highly influential person due to this close association with the Scottish independence movement. "Unknown outside UK" arguments should be disregarded because an item cannot be opposed just because the event is only relating to a single country. But, article have many cn tags that needs to be resolved before it is ready to be posted. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 07:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Picture We don't really need a prose blurb as the details of the death aren't remarkable and the subject's name is distinctive. But we have a good picture of his fairly famous face and so should use it. The current picture of Han Kang has been up for 24 hours and so it's time for a change and the viewing figures indicate that the stories are of similar significance to our readership. And we should get on with it rather than dithering because the "comet of the century" is coming. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Halley's is still "the comet of the century" to me, but yeah, Picture When Ready. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment For those that claim he was important, there is no standalone section in the article that gives any impression of what his legacy or impact was on Scotland, so trying to wade through the text there to make that determination is impossible. You cannot just hand-wave the claim of importance and not have it clear as day on the article that that is justified. There are a few statements in the death section that lean in the right direction, but that alone doesn't give enough of a summary with actual impact to justify a blurb. --Masem (t) 12:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also as a comment, there are far too many non-support !votes talking about lack of knowing who he was or that Scotland's too small to consider for a blurb. That is absolutely not how we judge the posting of any blurb (RD or not) on ITN. --Masem (t) 12:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I was shocked by the news and thought this should be a blurb, because he was a highly visible sub-national leader due to the referendum - just like Carles Puigdemont is not just any other Catalan leader and Nigel Farage is not just any other Eurosceptic. But I can't see another situation where an independence leader who lost a referendum would be posted. Was there any suggestion that Jacques Parizeau, whose referendum would have changed the face of North America, should have been posted in 2015? Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- In fact Puigdemont went further and declared independence which came to nothing but sent Catalonia into the abyss. And, even so, I think he would hardly be a successful candidate for his death to be psoted as blurb. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb I think a lot of people here are severely under-estimating he importance of the First Minister. It's of more power and prestige than American governors and doesn't really have much of an equivalence except that they wield influence similar to that of sovereign countries of similar size to Scotland, even if Scotland is not independent in itself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- We do not post RD blurbs just because of the government position a person did, but what accomplishes they did while in that position. Not saying this doesn't exist for Salmond, but it needs to be far better explained in the article with sourcing. Masem (t) 15:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- California economy: larger than the entire UK's. California state budget (don't bother with link one of those essentially untouched in decade+ articles) fiscal yr 2023 (rounded): solely state general fund: $235 billion; total all funds & incl. transfers from Uncle Sam: $468 billion. (£1 (2023) (US$1.24)) Full total getting to around third of total UK budget it looks like. Surely influential CA govs should get blurbed then. (CA independence mvmt leaders? Let's wait and see... Note those transfers incl plenty of fed tax $ paid by people & entities in CA) Slowking Man (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose RD on quality The article has a few CN tags that should be fixed first. No opinion on blurb. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 17:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)- Support RD now Looks good enough for RD now. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 20:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support blurb,
oppose on qualityArticle currently has six cn tags.Would support blurb due to his importance in the Scottish independence movement. Article does establish his importance in such a movement / impact in Scottish/UK politics. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC) - Comment @MonarchOfTerror: @TDKR Chicago 101: I don't believe that the article has any cn tags now. Sahaib (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb - I'm not inherently opposed to sub-national figures getting blurbs, but Donald Dewar was the truly epoch-making figure in Scottish politics. Salmond was a contentious figure, and his more recent forays with Alba show that he couldn't carry the movement with him. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- RD posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
October 11
October 11, 2024
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
|
(Needs review) RD: Mike Bullard (comedian)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Toronto Star
Credits:
- Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Wellington Bay (talk · give credit) and Abebenjoe (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.
Canadian stand-up comic and broadcaster. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support He was 67 and not exactly funny in the traditional sense, but generally a fine complement to his guests. One uncited claim about a non-notable radio show that misses the pun, which can easily be deleted (if not verifiable). Aside from that, sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've since easily deleted it. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- The radio show was notable - particularly given that the article later says he was fired from it due to his criminal charges. I've readded it with a source. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I meant "non-notable" in the doesn't-have-an-article way, but good work in the now-has-a-source sense! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Well cited article, no problems from a glance. Rynoip (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
(Needs review) RD: Ward Christensen
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ycombinator News, Mastodon
Credits:
- Nominated by Kcmastrpc (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.
The co-founder of the world's first BBS and creator XMODEM was found dead on October 11th. Likely needs additional verification before posting. +++ATH0 Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Article looks okay now to me I think? /me holds up off-hook phone handset in memory \n<CR> --- NO CARRIER
- (yes I know that's more IRC) Slowking Man (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Article looks like a work in progress; not ready for the main page. Somebody might want to give this some structure. Schwede66 18:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for reviewing @Schwede66, I've reorganized the article a bit and added structure. LMK if there's additional work I should do. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Article is a stub currently. Rynoip (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Kiril Marichkov
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bulgarian News Agency: Bulgarian Rock Legend Kiril Marichkov Dies at 79
Credits:
- Updated by Jaguarnik (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.
Bulgarian rock musician. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I don't see any problems. Scuba 01:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support article looks fine to me. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 07:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- The second box in the Discography section is unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- A paragraph in the "life and career" section covers that information, and I feel it's unnecessary to repeat references for something that has already been covered in the article. Jaguarnik (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Posted. I've added new footnotes to the box to avoid the appearance of unsourced materials. --PFHLai (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
(Posted) 2024 Nobel Peace Prize
Blurb: The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to the Japanese atomic bomb survivors group, Nihon Hidankyo. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to Nihon Hidankyo "for its efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and for demonstrating, through witness testimony, that nuclear weapons must never be used again".
Alternative blurb II: The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to the Japanese atomic bomb survivors group Nihon Hidankyo "for its efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons".
News source(s): The Washington Post, The Guardian, Noble Peace Prize press release
Credits:
- Nominated by PrinceofPunjab (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ReyHahn (talk · give credit) and VersedVoyager67 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
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.
The winner's article needs expansion as it is currently barely more than a stub. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 09:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- It went from a stub to be full of sources in Japanese which makes it hard to assert their validity.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not ready. The article currently has only one paragraph of prose content, with the rest being bullet points and the lead. It needs some substantial expansion. Hopefully the Nobel win has generated some English-language sources, which can be used to do so. Modest Genius talk 11:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Still not ready. Three days later, there are now a whole two paragraphs of prose and some more bullet points. That's not sufficient expansion. Modest Genius talk 12:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Make that five days and no further progress. Modest Genius talk 10:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Still not ready. Three days later, there are now a whole two paragraphs of prose and some more bullet points. That's not sufficient expansion. Modest Genius talk 12:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've added altblurb2, as the amount of the Nobel committee quote in the altblurb was far too long, and this new one cuts to the chase while also briefly summarizing the group. --Masem (t) 12:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting, why does literature not have the reason?Sportsnut24 (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. We are nearing a week, at this point, even if the article is a blurb saying "Donuts good, nuclear bad", the fact we have announced all other Nobels, including the fake economics one, but not this is simply ridiculous. complainer 08:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Question 3 out of the 4 current "In The News" blurbs are Nobel Prizes right now... can/should they be condensed into one, or should we delay adding more until we have a better variety of "news"? Right now the "In The News" box just looks like a Nobel Prize news feed RachelTensions (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
|
Mildsupport in the light that the current problems with the references are minor and not subjected to WP:BLP.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)- Support the article looks good. Scuba 02:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not ready yet. History section only covered activities up to 1965, then barely anything since then. Looking at the ja.wp article, there are more contents that should be covered before it's ready for main page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that any history about the organization is only found in Japanese sources, including what is already in the article.--ReyHahn (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Can't we just cannibalize the Japanese wiki's article? Scuba 15:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- For users like me that have no idea on how to read Japanese or what Japanese sources are reliable, it is very difficult to asssess the notability of the content.WP:NOENG says that we should ask for translations when there is some apprehension about its content, which is very cumbersome when there are so many non-English sources. To be clear: it is an issue but the current article is (at least to me) fine enough for a blurb.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOENG just says that English language sources are preferred. In most cases a machine translation is fine unless it's a contentious subject, BLP, or whatever claim you're citing seems too left-field to be accurate. RachelTensions (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Is this reply directed to me or another user? I support the blurb as I said this is not subjected to WP:BLP.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just clarifying your statement that
"WP:NOENG says that we should ask for translations which is very cumbersome when there are so many non-English sources"
because it seemed like you interpreted WP:NOENG to mean that we need to ask for a human translation of any source we wish to cite in an article. RachelTensions (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)- Thanks, fixed wording.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can read Chinese, which gives me an advantage in assessing and comparing our en.wp content with ja.wp page because I can read kanji. In ja.wp, there's a history section with bullet points highlighting their activities from 1967 to 1996 which is absent in en.wp. There were also blurbs about membership numbers in this organization in circa 2000. This is why I stated the en.wp isn't ready for main page yet. Side note, has our volunteer base dwindled to the point that we don't have a Japanese-English editor who is willing to check the Japanese sources for us? OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I asked for help in Wikiproject Japan and got not response. If that history is not covered elsewhere in Enlgish it is not notable enough. Anyway missing history is not a reason to decline an ITN. I--ReyHahn (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Missing 3 decades of this organization's work does fall under WP:ITNQUALITY's
not omitting any major items
. This isn't a decline (and that's a strawman argument by the way), but rather it's not ready yet. Modest Genius also reiterated above that it's still not ready. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)- Notability is key here. Missing 3 decades is not a sufficient argument to not merit an ITN. This problem happens frequently with Nobel laureates, some laureates do something of extreme importance at the beginning of their career and nothing of notability later. If anything in those 3 decades is notable, it would have been mentioned by the Nobel prize or in English articles already.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Missing 3 decades of this organization's work does fall under WP:ITNQUALITY's
- I asked for help in Wikiproject Japan and got not response. If that history is not covered elsewhere in Enlgish it is not notable enough. Anyway missing history is not a reason to decline an ITN. I--ReyHahn (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can read Chinese, which gives me an advantage in assessing and comparing our en.wp content with ja.wp page because I can read kanji. In ja.wp, there's a history section with bullet points highlighting their activities from 1967 to 1996 which is absent in en.wp. There were also blurbs about membership numbers in this organization in circa 2000. This is why I stated the en.wp isn't ready for main page yet. Side note, has our volunteer base dwindled to the point that we don't have a Japanese-English editor who is willing to check the Japanese sources for us? OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, fixed wording.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just clarifying your statement that
- Is this reply directed to me or another user? I support the blurb as I said this is not subjected to WP:BLP.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOENG just says that English language sources are preferred. In most cases a machine translation is fine unless it's a contentious subject, BLP, or whatever claim you're citing seems too left-field to be accurate. RachelTensions (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- For users like me that have no idea on how to read Japanese or what Japanese sources are reliable, it is very difficult to asssess the notability of the content.WP:NOENG says that we should ask for translations when there is some apprehension about its content, which is very cumbersome when there are so many non-English sources. To be clear: it is an issue but the current article is (at least to me) fine enough for a blurb.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Can't we just cannibalize the Japanese wiki's article? Scuba 15:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that any history about the organization is only found in Japanese sources, including what is already in the article.--ReyHahn (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support article may be short, but it conveys sufficient information to the reader about what the group does, it appears to be cited, and it has been updated to reflect the Nobel Peace Prize. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per all above. Article is not that bad. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support a bit brief for my liking but this is already sufficient enough to be blurbed/posted. Vida0007 (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 22:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
RD: Nobuyo Ōyama
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Japan Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Tofusaurus (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.
Japanese voice actress known for being the voice of Doraemon and Monokuma. Death occurred on 29 September but news was only released today. Tofusaurus (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Article looks fine to me for RD. For the unaware Doraemon is a natl institution in Japan, which is why *glances* she has obit on en-lang CNN. Haven't looked but I would not be surprised if ja:Main Page has an "ITN blurb" equivalent for her, unless they have a project rule against stuff like that. Equivalent for native en speakers would be something like Mel Blanc if he had died in the Internet era. (If the name doesn't stick out for you I would bet my life you know (at least some of) his voice(s). BTW look at his grave if you haven't: oh yeah he had the sense of humor you likely expected.) --Slowking Man (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wait There is no prose about her life before 2015 and her career. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 07:07, 13 October 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: