Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2024

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

(Posted) UEFA Euro 2024 final
The article for the final may need some sourcing work. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose until there is a prose recap of the match. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support in principle. Congratulations to Spain for the fully deserved victory.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're well aware that "support in principle" is meaningless for an ITN/R article. Either say that you think it's ready or say why you don't think it's ready. Kicking222 (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Per answer above; in principle. 2604:3D08:9476:BE00:4DE:B079:824F:421A (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is also a big win for a major world country in one of the major international tournaments that conclude today. 2604:3D08:9476:BE00:4DE:B079:824F:421A (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Jeez in the 21st century any team that wins the Euros is a big/important country... yes, I'm even talking about Portugal and Greece. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose the final as the primary article as it seems quite perfunctory, doesn't provide any narrative for the game and needs work for issues like tense. The UEFA Euro 2024 article would be better as the primary article as it covers the entire event but that needs work too. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Those oppose votes that the article on the final lacks a prose recap of the match only 20 minutes after its end are very unproductive and may delay posting this because the majority of admins here blindly count votes. We all know that this won’t be posted in the next two hours, at least.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: The prose summary has been started and is well-referenced. No preference for primary-linked article or wording in the blurb. — MarkH21talk 21:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT! Apparently, it’s agreeable that the summary is well authentically referenced with good citations. 207.194.85.134 (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well this is clearly an AI chatbot re-writing of the !vote directly above... Kingsif (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good to go. Aydoh8 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Prose summary is brief but adequate, and the rest looks ready. The   Kip  (contribs) 03:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As it stands, the prose summary is far too short for a major match.  Sounder Bruce  03:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment defeats* Jiaminglimjm (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope WP:ENGVAR- defeat is correct in British English. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment If both this blurb and the next Copa América one are posted, they could be merged into one blurb to avoid repetition (e.g: In association football, Spain defeat England to win UEFA Euro 2024, and Argentina defeat Colombia to win the 2024 Copa América.) Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 09:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's wise to merge them as it may delude people that it's a single event or two closely related events, especially when we have a combined blurb on the Wimbledon Championships already on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, they are completely separate events. Every year we get a glut of sporting ITN/Rs around this time, it's just one of those things. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But it would avoid the tiff of which one gets posted on top and in turn lasts longer. I get they are different events, but still "continent level championship for national teams in the same sport at the same time" is close enough that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. But no strong opinion either way, just seems like it would avoid some drama.  nableezy  - 17:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

*Oppose on quality (and unmarked as Ready). Four sentences of prose on the entire final match is not sufficient. Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's good. Marked Ready again. Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support  there really is nothing more you can write about the match, the quality is good enough Reme77 (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support I've made the summary four paragraphs now, two for each half. Kingsif (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * anyone available to post this? Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted the ALT blurb.  Schwede 66  01:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I updated the blurb due to the usual ENGVAR issues (especially as the one used was the NA "wins"). Black Kite (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Evan Wright
Author of Generation Kill. Article could use some reorganizing (I'm new to this so lmk if I'm doing this wrong). CrazyMagicPickle (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait good is in a good shape, only thing holding it back is that the Published works section needs sourcing.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak support Overall good shape. Two cn tags shouldn't keep it from posting IMO. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Several {cn} remaining, including one for his DoB. --PFHLai (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , CN tags have been fixed by ; I also archived a dead link, and a spot-check seems to check out the rest. @Admins willing to post ITN, does this seem sufficient now? Curbon7 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing this. Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Wimbledon 2024
I think the article is in a good enough shape to be posted.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 16:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support We should get this done quickly because there will be the UEFA result to post soon. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support unlike most tennis articles nominated here, this one actually has some decent tournament summaries and so meets WP:ITNQUALITY. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems to be in a good enough state. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well sourced and has a good amount of prose about the matches. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note I'm going to post this when the image is protected. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

(Reviewers' attention needed) RD: Jacoby Jones
American football wide receiver. Article needs a decent bit of work. The  Kip  (contribs) 16:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Noting that I did a significant amount of work on the article to clean it up, including adding about 20 references. I've added myself as an updater, hope that's ok Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a further detail, the only tag on the article now is to expand the Houston Texans section. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Can that section realistically be expanded much, though? It seems he didn't do a whole lot during his time in Houston. The   Kip  (contribs) 17:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Stephen, as the guy who often handles posting - do you think this is good to go? The   Kip  (contribs) 18:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait Houston Texans orange tag needs to be resolved otherwise good to go.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Jacoby Jones carries an orange {expand} tag and two {cn} tags. --PFHLai (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That section has now been rewritten. Orange {expand} tag and {cn} tags now gone. Time for a re-review, please? --PFHLai (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shannen Doherty

 * Oppose There are CN tags. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is in good shape, no remaining tags. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Scheridon (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – Article is in good shape indeed. No such thing as an image RD of course, but I'm glad you included the image here as it drew my attention. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too many Cn tags.—Bagumba (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Tagging several non-exceptional claims (some covered in the obituaries), without further contribution, and then opposing an RD based on your own tags? The article had 80 citations too. I don't really have the words, but I'm disappointed. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Bearas (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support Two cn tags shouldn't keep this from posting...I think. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 09:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Suspension of Alice Guo
Really big incident in the Philippines, a lot of news sources talking about it, I might as well try to put it on the main page. 11:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Subnational incident that doesn't rise to the level of impact required for a main page posting.
 * Noah, BSBATalk 11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose This seems to be stale; Guo was suspended from office on 3 June, and the NBI investigation confirmed her identity on 27 June . An arrest warrant was issued on 13 July, but this seems to have been for the Philippine equivalent of Contempt of Congress rather than any other malfeasance, and besides that arrests themselves are very rarely posted here. Curbon7 (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The suspension itself is stale, and the story is a subnational incident. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above. The wording of the proposed blurb is weird as well, and this definitely doesn't rise even to a national level of significance. (If Andy Burnham lost his job, would we post it here? When Nicola Sturgeon or Ron De Santis were in trouble, did we post it?) But also, this was rightly closed as a no-hoper, and it's been reopened by an IP user. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose and re-close, not going to get posted as per the above, so this should be re-closed (and IP editor re-opened it previously). Joseph2302 (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Ron E Sparks
Australian radio presenter. 240F:7A:6253:1:A573:E493:327E:FFAE (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Quite a few citation needed tags.  Schwede 66  01:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Several {cn} remaining, including one for his DoB. --PFHLai (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ruth Hesse
German mezzo-soprano who made an international career starting at the Vienna State Opera in big roles in 1965. The article was basically there, translated from de. I had to find references for recordings, and some that disappeared over the five years since it was DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Naomi Pomeroy
American chef. 240F:7A:6253:1:5:1EE6:C9D5:AA47 (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support meets the Bare minimum requirement.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I've updated and fixed the banner. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: P. Buckley Moss
American artist and philanthropist. 240F:7A:6253:1:5:1EE6:C9D5:AA47 (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait article needs a bit work.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Last section is unsourced and lead could be expanded to reflect her notability. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: James B. Sikking
American actor. 240F:7A:6253:1:B0BC:D35C:F470:BF2D (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose uncited filmography/discography. But aside from that, there's a massive uncited list of movies in paragraph form that needs to be fixed.  Bremps  ...  22:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose same as what Bremps said.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not much improvement since the two reviews above. Time is running out soon. --PFHLai (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally
Probably the most serious security incident involving Donald Trump. Trump survived the assassination attempt. 2 people were injured, and the perpetrator and an audience was killed. Currently reported live by major news sites worldwide. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until it is confirmed it was an assassination attempt. If it is then I will change my vote to support. Jbvann05  23:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait Information is scarce right now. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 23:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait - People are rushing to get this story to the front page before we even know what the story is. Calm down, everyone. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - And why do we have a stock photo of him? We know what Trump looks like, and the picture has nothing more specific to do with the story than that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's only a temporary image as there's no free / non-copyrighted image of the shooting at the moment. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 23:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait We have very few details as of now, so we need to wait. Gödel2200 (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait Wait inception. This happened 30 minutes ago. Await more details.  q w 3 r t y  23:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Confirmed assassination attempt that injured a former US president and current presidential candidate. No matter what details come out, this is a 100% newsworthy event.  P o x y 4  (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait Wikipedia isn't for breaking news. There is very little useful information that could be added to the article that could be properly sourced.142.163.137.123 (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, now a shooting has been confirmed. Trump is injured. The perpetrator and an audience member died. This country is going to suffer extreme political violence in the coming weeks, so it was nice knowing you. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources for any of that? None of it is on the BBC live feed. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is one: 1 Gödel2200 (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That message was labelled '4 min ago' as I saw it. Could we perhaps all slow down a little and not try to push this story onto the home page while it's still developing? GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The original source appears to be local DA speaking to various media. Different media have different threshold for single/double/triple confirmation before reporting something big. Which is why there's some reporting of dead shooter in some media but not others. Wait until it's reported across major media before referencing such if it's considered to be included with a blurb. -- KTC (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Injured? Trump's people are saying he's fine. Nfitz (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not unreasonable to say injured when there's literally video of him with blood coming out of his ear, whether through being shot, hit his head on something during the whole incident or a USSS agent accidentally whacking him in the head as they cover him with their bodies. -- KTC (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They’re saying he’s alive. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Skyshifter   talk  23:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait Maybe some news sources are just catching up, but the latest updates I see are "suspected shooting" and "audience member reportedly shot". Kingsif (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until more information comes out, then Support. Absolutely a notable and newsworthy event, but the article should be given the time it needs to develop. ArkHyena (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Confirmed shooting with multiple casualties. It looks like Trump was grazed by a bullet. This is massive news and the article is of adequate quality for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hit with glass shrapnel from the teleprompter, apparently. So there was a shooting at a Trump rally, but it didn't involve Trump. Kingsif (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for this? ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Axios via Guardian, hasn't been removed or corrected as of now. Kingsif (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems unlikely given the teleprompter would have had to be behind him. Jevansen (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Insanely bad take. I can't fathom the levels of bias necessary to suggest "there was a shooting ... but it didn't involve Trump." The Guardian citation doesn't support your interpretation. Dr Fell (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's best not to worry about what's going on in other editors' brains, and to instead focus your attention to the editorial decisions they make and influence. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 00:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You both need to remember WP:NPA, remember this is not Twitter, and remember that there were many developments in reporting in the half hour between my and your comments. Kingsif (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Kingsif respectfully, I have not even grazed a personal attack. I told Dr Fell not to worry about any editor’s apparent bias, in favor of concerning themselves with the editorial decisions we have to make about this ITN item. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 01:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In light of this, retracted. Kingsif (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait for more details to filter in and populate the article (besides rection kudzu). Its clearly an event to be posted but we aren't here to do breaking news, and instead should wait until we have a reasonable quality article. There is zero reason to rush to post. --M asem (t) 23:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support but wait for more details like how was the weapon smuggled into the rally? Also an audience member died, why isn’t that casualty in the alt blurb?
 * Wafflefrites (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not re: your vote Wafflefrites, but just so you know: it seems that the shooter was on a rooftop outside the rally. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Casualties are already reported and this is major news, while the article is in good shape.  Ppt91    talk   23:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I think we’ve gotten enough information to put this on the front page now. Estreyeria (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Holy shit.  Bremps  ...  00:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - this is a significant and recent news story Enoryt nwased lamaj (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Note He was injured as a result of the shooting, there is (I haven't seen) as yet no confirmation that he was shot, so neither of the proposed blurb is okay as it stand. -- KTC (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support posting but Strong Oppose current blurb and alternative. Former President of the United States Donald Trump injured in assassination attempt at campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Dr Fell (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Not sure how else you can interpret this as anything other than an assassination attempt. Scu ba (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not up to Wikipedia editors to "interpret" an event. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and luckily we are not saddled with the task of interpreting events—only repeating the reports of reliable secondary sources. It'll become clear in the next few hours how sources are treating this (and I'll be surprised if it's not as an assassination attempt, considering the report I read about the local police investigating it as an attempt on DJT's life). ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb3 This was an assassination attempt. "was injured" is ambiguous. — hako9 (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Assassination attempt or not, there's no question that one person was shot dead at an event involving a former U.S. president. As I write this the story at NY Times' website says "Trump ‘Safe’ After Shooting at Rally; Suspect Is Killed". This is a no brainer for main page. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support There’s no ambiguity around this shooting happening and being notable. CNN has already reported this is being investigated as an assassination attempt. Delay this further is absurd. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - No need to wait as article is cited and will grow as we speak. Morogris ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 00:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Further international coverage, from the ABC, who had a reporter on site, and who describes one of the dead as "the person who fired shots in the former president's direction".  Elsewhere, the same page says "Associated Press is reporting that the shooting is being investigated as an assassination attempt", "Washington Post reporter Meryl Kornfield says authorities told her Mr Trump was grazed by gunfire", and our ambassador and former PM Kevin Rudd has released a statement regarding "the attack on former President Trump".  Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Incident itself has been confirmed. --DannyC55 (Talk) 00:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * . El_C 00:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait. Per @Masem. Also consider using File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This image cannot be used, as it is likely a copyrighted image, and not fair use. Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait for reasons stated above. We certainly cannot mention numbers at the moment, as they will quickly get outdated. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We routinely post major events involving casualties, and then update the blurb as the facts warrant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Blurb should be re-written to stick to the known facts. No investigative body has concluded that it's an assassination attempt, but they are investigating it as such. So the confirmed information: 2 dead, there was a shooting, Trump was injured, they're inestigating it as an assassination attempt. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think outright labelling it as an assassination attempt is projection on Wikipedia's part. I don't think any reliable sources have labelled it as such. Even the article itself just says it is being "investigated as an assassination attempt" but doesn't outright label it an assassination attempt. At the very least the blurb should reflect what is written in the article it is relating to. RahelTensions (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Change blurb to ALT2 per @Harizotoh9. Even though it is fairly obvious that it was an assassination attempt this has not been confirmed and RS have only said it's being investigated as an assassination attempt, not that it was. ALT2 reflects the current facts of the situation. Jbvann05  01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh and there were two confirmed deaths so the Alt2 blurb is out of date already. One rally attendee and the shooter. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've softened to possible assassination attempt, for now. El_C 01:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * FBI confirms assassination attempt. Was gonna omit possible, but it looks like  beat me to it. El_C 05:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb2  As per Jbvann then swap back to altblurb3 when confirmed. Sharrdx (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Change blurb to Alt2 Mentioning that someone was killed makes it the best description of what happened. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Change blurb to Alt3 Associated Press says shooting being investigated as assassination attempt. CoatCheck (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Change to Altblurb2 "investigated as an assassination attempt" =/= "confirmed assassination attempt." Goal and motive still not know, so we should avoid assuming on what it is. Unless we get a RS stating that it's not just being "investigated as an assassination attempt" but outright declared as one, the ITN should not claim it as such. Nottheking (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The FBI specifically called it an assassination attempt. RahelTensions (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose The incident is obviously interesting and in the news but it doesn't seem sufficiently certain, settled and stable to be suitable for presentation as an encyclopedia article. Issues include:
 * Biden and Trump are both continually in the news as the presidential campaign progresses. For example, Biden's gaffes and the pressure on him to retire have been all over the news lately.  It seems difficult to cherry-pick particular incidents in a balanced way and so the whole thing better belongs in Ongoing.
 * The article about the incident is still a work-in-progress. For example, it currently uses a powerful image as fair use but the validity of this copyright issue is contested and unresolved.
 * The incident is a crime but investigations are not yet complete. For example, the BBC reports that the shooter was spotted crawling into position minutes ahead of the shooting but nothing was done.  The article does not yet explain this.
 * There's already a big cloud of social media speculation, disinformation and misinformation out there which muddies the waters.
 * We really don't need Donald Trump's smiling picture on the main page once again.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 06:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If 'In the news' covered everyday campaign news, concern about cherry-picking events in a balanced way would be justified. Certain events within the presidential campaign are independently newsworthy. An assassination attempt on a former president and current presidential candidate is a significant (and likely historical) event.
 * Featuring relevant and timely news often means linking to articles that are neither settled nor stable. The article is unambiguously flagged as a current event.
 * You've repeated your concern about developing stories featuring in 'In the news.' The utility of 'In the news' is reduced for users if articles are only featured once they have matured.
 * On the contrary, featuring this story helps combat social media speculation, disinformation, and misinformation by offering readers a fact-based resource.
 * Your last point significantly weakens the preceding four.
 * Dr Fell (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ITN has moved on and so these points are mostly moot now. But the red link for Dr Fell is a nice puzzle and I fancy I have a solution.  Now that's encyclopædic – well done! Andrew🐉(talk) 20:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support We recently posted Robert Fico’s assassination attempt, so it’s sensible to post a similar event involving a former US president and a clear front-runner in this year’s election. Yes, it seems like we post a lot of news about him, but we’re closely approaching the election and the next news to post should be his victory.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Slightly jumping ahead of the electoral process there, aren't you? GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The user did jump the gun a bit, but I have a gut feeling that Trump's face is going to get on ITN at least six more times before he dies (win or lose this election) then again after he does.  Bremps  ...  12:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I now support the posting (although I don't think we need the picture - it's still not related to the story). It was the 'should be his victory' part that seems wildly premature! GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) KP Sharma Oli becomes PM of Nepal
-. Rushtheedtior (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but oppose inasmuch as it doesn't have any mention of the change in the article This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Currently, the article for the new PM doesn't actually mention him becoming the PM (for the current term), so this needs to be updated. Gödel2200 (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as the above concerns have been addressed ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article is well-sourced and of sufficient quality for ITN --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Many very reliable authentic citations and sources in an article of sufficient quality, like above. 64.251.82.42 (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Notable enough Scu ba (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Notable and of passable quality. Deprecated controversy section, but oh well, nothing's perfect.  Bremps  ...  04:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that this is ready for posting.  Bremps  ...  12:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment The target article still does not have any prose about him becoming prime minister. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Has anyone actually looked at the bolded article before requesting this is posted. Not a mention of 2024 activities leading to his 4th term. Stephen 12:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose article needs more info on 2024 as per Stephen. Also violates WP:Controversy section. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support An article about a notable event, with well-sourced citations, and which is a good quality article. 2604:3D08:9476:BE00:4DE:B079:824F:421A (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article updated with information leading to current premiership. Nepalaya001 (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Since Stephen's assessment some 1.5 days ago, the article has been updated. As oppose votes focussed on a lack of updates, there's thus consensus for this to go to the main page.  Schwede 66  10:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Richard Simmons
Mooonswimmer 20:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - American notable celebrity. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't a requirement for RD, only death blurbs (though I won't touch that third rail any further...) Only article quality matters for RD.  Bremps  ...  04:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * RIP Richard Simmons. As for the RD nomination, the article needs a few more citations before it's ready to be on the main page. Kurtis (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are over a hundred citations now. How many is enough? Kire1975 (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality alone. It needs a great deal of work. Simmons is certainly notable enough. Challenger l (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * RD doesn't discriminate by notability, much like the Grim Reaper himself. Unless, of course, the subject is so non-notable that they shouldn't have a page, but that's neither here nor there.  Bremps  ...  04:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. Richard Simmons: "Please don’t rain on my parade." 🤣🤣🤣Count Iblis (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support when ready Randy Kryn (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose RIP to such an amazing person. But, the article still has various cn and other tags.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No tags now. Kire1975 (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I count five citation needed tags.  Schwede 66  01:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How about now? Kire1975 (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Major American pop culture icon in the 1980s and 1990s who popularized home workout videos, and enjoyed household name status within North America until the end of his life. ChristofferItzakah (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Quite a few unsourced bullet-points under Richard Simmons. There are also several {cn} tags in the prose. Please add more REFs and/or remove claims with no sources. --PFHLai (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Tonke Dragt
Dutch children's author and illustrator. 240F:7A:6253:1:8C6E:5302:D3E9:4A7A (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Only a few uncited statements holding this back.  Bremps  ...  06:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support no more uncited statements, this can be promoted now. Jaguarnik (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose three cn tags still remain and bibliography is also unsourced.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 16:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Viola
American contemporary video artist. 240F:7A:6253:1:8C6E:5302:D3E9:4A7A (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Several uncited statements.  Bremps  ...  06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support have referenced the uncited statements. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 16:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ruth Westheimer
Support, but some issues remain, but close She's pretty close, but likely there's missing sources or some other issues. However, she should be ready soon. TheCorriynial (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Picture/blurb I'm in the UK and just heard a BBC news bulletin announce her death. I was already familiar with her large reputation and feel that she's a good example of the celebrity for which an RD picture is appropriate.  A blurb would be good too, to explain to unfamiliar readers how and why she was so influential.   Note also that the article is substantial, has a high quality rating, 175 inline citations and a huge bibliography.
 * Also, we should run this as Dr. Ruth per WP:COMMONNAME.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 19:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong support Death was very newsworthy in numerous international sources. With respect to the listing name, I agree commonname applies, but would propose Dr. Ruth Westheimer which would provide more adequate detail and clarification. I'll also propose the following as a blurb to further that discussion, however I am not sure if a blurb is necessarily called for here:
 * "Radio and television celebrity sex therapist, Dr. Ruth Westheimer, dies at age 96 in Manhattan."

With or without blurb, definitely a strong candidate for inclusion.Bgv. (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - No blurb - "American celebrity dies" should go to RD. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support for RD - article looks thoroughly sourced. Challenger l (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Photo RD More known by name than face, but the photo seems to be the whole point of an otherwise superfluous blurb for some (and the currently posted smiley makes little sense in its context). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It'd seem these flaws don't affect "article quality" here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Billy Ibadulla
Death announced on 12 July. Article will need further updates to make it ready.  Schwede 66  23:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Sourcing looks good, but the article seems short to me. Challenger l (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are currently 600+ words of prose in this wikibio. More than long enough to not be considered a stub. --PFHLai (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Uncited statements.  Bremps  ...  22:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas Hoepker
Influential photojournalist who explored - over 60 years - the human condition in East Germany and the United States and worldwide, taking iconic shots of Mohammad Ali and the World Trade Towers. Article was basically there but most of the references were missing. One good obit appeared today. Someone with time may find references for films and exhibitions, and use that obit for more detail - I go to a concert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose A section needs sourcing. Support --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The section is now referenced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now, everything appears to be sourced. -- Vacant 0 (talk &bull; contribs) 11:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I added two more obits. I wasn't aware that one of his works has an article, View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11. I wonder if it could appear in his article. There would still be exhibitions to be added but I'm out for the rest of the day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted DanCherek (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Monte Kiffin
NFL coach. Needs some work. Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not Ready. Several citations are still required. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 03:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's some WP:PEACOCK which has been disputed on the talk page without resolution for fifteen years. And the article is just rated Start class.  A reasonable picture though. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aparna (television presenter)
Indian anchor and actress. <span style="color:#f80;font-family:'Cascadia Code',monospace">mwwv  converse ∫ edits  18:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not ready; many citations are missing.  Schwede 66  21:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Filmography section needs sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I've added missing references, should be good now. -- Vacant 0 (talk &bull; contribs) 11:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  21:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shelley Duvall

 * Support, notable actor with major role in The Shining, no issues with article. 5.57.241.186 (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are a lot of unsourced lines. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support once typical missing refs are fixed. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Notable enough, good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , please note that notability is NOT one of the criteria for a recent death posting. All that matters is article quality.  Schwede 66  21:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Conditional support -- still a few uncited film credits / one "unreliable source" tag to fix; support once those are good. ~Malvoliox  (talk &#124; contribs) 21:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support now -- no more citation needed tags. There is that one "unreliable source?" tag but it seems reasonably good.  ~Malvoliox  (talk &#124; contribs) 16:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support once fixed. Spotted a few more paragraphs that need citations. Apart from that, no issues found. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 03:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Picture Just the name didn't do it for me as initially I was confusing it with other Shelleys like Winters and Long. We have a PD picture which is quite recognisable and so we should use it. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't do picture RDs, but go ahead and propose it if you want. Natg 19 (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We've posted a picture RD more than once. For example, see Kirk Douglas.  And it's good to do this because otherwise we keep running the same picture day after day.  For example, we're 12 days into the month but we've only posted 4 different pictures.  Changing the picture every day like the other main page sections ought to be our goal and using RD pics is an easy way of achieving this. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This was four years ago, and I don't think we need to open another front of endless debate. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is already a discussion about this on the talk page, and unless there is a consensus to do picture RDs, there is no point asking for this. Natg 19 (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The general consensus of the talk page discussion seems to be that picture RDs are a good idea and should be posted when appropriate. So let's get on with it – nothing ventured, nothing gained. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Article appears to be in a good shape now. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, the article has several unsourced paragraphs. Nowhere close to being ready. M asem (t) 23:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - She was big in the 70's and 80's, and starred in several very well known films. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Photo RD (in due time) As Andrew notes, there are other famous acting Shelleys, but none with that face; could also possibly appease those who don't think Pezeshkian earned his spot freely and/or fairly. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What happened to the time-tested "Old Man/Woman Died" argument? Seems not to apply to pictures, I guess... Khuft (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that there are no normal blurbs in the queue that are likely to be posted and/or lack a photo themselves, this seems like a reasonable case to include a photo for the RD. However, I stress the article is nowhere close to being ready for posting due to lack of sourcing on several paragraphs. --M asem (t) 23:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD only Not sure why she is more deserving of a picture than others currently on the RD docket. Her fame rests basically on one movie, and the cult following it has attracted. Article looks fine for me. Khuft (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support picture rd Since we don't seem to have a picture for the French Election, this should be fine until the euros final tomorrow (because we will certainly have a picture for that). Sharrdx (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Citations have now been added, so the article is ready to go. Gödel2200 (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Oppose Quite a few sentences in the 1980s section are unsourced, so it is still not ready. Gödel2200 (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Upon making my own assessment, I respectfully disagree with Gödel2200. Where sentences are not footnoted, it is because there is a footnote at the end of the paragraph which is the base citation for all of the sentences in that paragraph. This article is ready and should be posted to RD - she is a well known actress and public figure; it would be a shame if not. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 01:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: David Liederman
Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 06:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - lots of cn tags and redlinks. Also the RD occurred on July 4, and per WP:ITN, we generally go by the date of the event.  ~Malvoliox  (talk &#124; contribs) 21:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment – it seems his death has only been announced within the last 24 hours. The nominator should comment on that when that happens, though.  Schwede 66  21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it -- still oppose for missing citations, but take this as a support once those have been fixed.  ~Malvoliox  (talk &#124; contribs) 21:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the confusion @Malvoliox @Schwede66, I normally nominate on the death date but this time the source gave a vague "on Thursday"; since the NYT article was last updated on Thursday, July 11, I assumed it was July 11th and nominated it there. Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Three {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nana Nuriana
Former governor in Indonesia. Juxlos (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, with AGF for the offline Indonesian source backing up what it claims to back up.  Schwede 66  21:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Thomas Hoepker
Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose The usual problem.  Bremps  ...  08:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: Needs references.  Spencer T• C 08:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

[Reviewers needed] RD: Peter Steedman
Student activist from the 1960s and ratbag Australian politician from the 1980s, known for wearing jeans and a leather jacket into Parliament. HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is there anything else that can be said about his political career in the House of Representatives other than his attire and a sentence about accusing other politicians of being neo-Nazis?  Spencer T• C 08:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Dave Loggins
American singer-songwriter. 240F:7A:6253:1:D121:B15C:C03A:6F95 (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Good to go. Let's roll.  Bremps  ...  04:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The career section needs more sources for all the namedropping. The third table in the Discography section is also completely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Engle
NASA astronaut. 240F:7A:6253:1:D121:B15C:C03A:6F95 (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, for RD, of course. Engle was the last of the 12 X-15 pilots (a big deal) and the astronaut who was scheduled to walk on the Moon on Apollo 17 but was replaced by a geologist (after Apollo 18 was canceled). Among the two Space Shuttle missions he commanded was the project's second flight. Engle is one of spaceflight's pioneers. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It might be a big deal, but what does " last of the 12 X-15 pilots" mean? HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It indicates that Joe Engle was one of the earliest pioneers of spaceflight, and was the last surviving member of the first group in this list of all astronauts/cosmonauts. (to be honest, that article tells the entire answer/story well enough on its own; the rest of my reply is just more historical context)
 * Worth noting that the X-15 pilots were selected before those of either Mercury or Vostok, thus making the X-15 program the earliest astronaut program to put anyone in space. (even if said spaceflights did not occur until a year or so after the other two programs) On top of that, the X-15 was the world's first hypersonic fixed-wing aircraft.
 * This placed Engle in a very exclusive club; while the FAI does not recognize him as having flown in space in the X-15, both NASA & the US Air Force do recognize him as having flown due to having passed an altitude of 50 miles (80,467.2 meters or 264,000 feet) on three occasions. (also worth noting that the Air Force selection for X-15 pilots would include a far more well-known member in Neil Armstrong, first person to set foot on the Moon)
 * With Engle's passing, there are no longer any surviving members of the first group of pilots seriously selected to go to space. This leaves Boris Volynov as the earliest-surviving astronaut/cosmonaut, as the sole surviving member of the USSR's first cosmonaut selection. Nottheking (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but can you translate "12 X-15" to English please? HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The X-15 was a specific type of aircraft. It was only ever flown by 12 pilots.  Engle was the last living of those twelve. —Cryptic 23:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support for RD. Article is generally in good shape. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RD. well written and cited. Good citation on death  ~Malvoliox  (talk &#124; contribs) 19:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is in great shape; easily meriting its B-class rating. (and probably not far off from GA) Kind of a shocker this hasn't been posted yet. It's pretty clearly ready for it, and it's nice to have more decent-quality articles in RD. Nottheking (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support There was an effort (WikiProject Spaceflight/Adopt an astronaut) a few years back to get the astronaut articles up to GA or better, but we only got as far as the 1963 class. We got groups 1 thru 7 to B class though. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as per Nottheking, how has this not been posted yet? Sharrdx (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Benji Gregory
American actor. He was found dead on June 13, but his death was announced on this day. 240F:7A:6253:1:A864:DA97:9C83:9E71 (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not ready with regards to referencing.  Schwede 66  06:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Played the boy in ALF. I know some people know and others would find out. But some don't or won't. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - orange-tagged with the usual problem. Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maxine Singer
Article updated and well sourced. Death announced on this day. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Don't see any issues, solid B-class (or maybe even GA) article in my opinion.  Bremps  ...  23:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Other than an unreferenced date of birth, that looks solid.  Schwede 66  06:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Now fixed; support since article looks good. Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 06:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good! Estreyeria (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  23:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Dan Collins (journalist)
Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not Ready. The article is a stub and needs a lot of expansion. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 03:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Can't see any issues.  Bremps  ...  08:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Currently 1498 B (264 words) of readable prose.—Bagumba (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Diana Hill
New Zealand academic, and a full professor at the University of Otago. Article looks ok.  Schwede 66  04:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article is sufficiently well-sourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I was trying to polish up the page for main-page posting, but couldn't find any images of her, let alone free-use ones. Anyone more skilled want to try and take a whack at it?  Bremps  ...  23:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I came to the same conclusion; must have been a very camera-shy person.  Schwede 66  03:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Check the article. I fashion myself an OSINT expert now.  Bremps  ...  22:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good one, Bremps!  Schwede 66  00:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Ariane 6
The launch was initially planned for 2020, but was postponed until today. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Note that the flight was only mostly successful, with the upper-stage re-entry burn not taking place as scheduled. --Carnildo (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article doesn't include any details on the launch except to say that it occurred. In more than one instance the tense hasn't even been updated to show that the launch is now in the past. If we're going to blurb this we need to include at least some prose on the details of the maiden launch, what succeeded, what failed, etc. Otherwise I believe the maiden launch of a space vehicle (especially a major one from a government agency like ESA) is ITNR so support once the article is fixed. 142.163.137.123 (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Maiden launches of rockets are not ITN/R, only the first launch by a country is. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 02:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, upper stage appears to have failed a relight per ESA livestream. Worth mentioning in blurb? &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 02:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Lean oppose on notability I can't recall any precedent on "new type of rocket is launched", and could see this right on the borderline of trivia. I could well be wrong though. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It was ITNR until last year. -- KTC (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That it was removed suggests consensus against posting such things going forward This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a consensus that we'll judge each posting on its notability merit rather than assume merit and post every time (so long as quality of article). Removal from ITNR is not a "we'll never post it again". Your initial comment appears to suggest that you think new rocket type launch isn't something we post at all and that it's "borderline of trivia". The support for removal from ITNR are based on the increasing number of new rockets types launches with the advent of commercial space exploration/launches. Ariane isn't one of those commercial development/launch. It's a replacement of the workhorse launch system for the 22-member intergovernmental European Space Agency. -- KTC (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, the flight itself (Ariane flight VA262) doesn't have its own article yet, which is a bit suboptimal. It did successfully send its payload to orbit, so it should be notable enough as a maiden flight (better than the perennial Starship test flights). Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 02:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, having an article about the flight would be nice. I don't want us to end up with the same result as the German Wikipedia, who currently have the same blurb in their version of "in the news", with a link to the article about de:Ariane 6 that barely mentions the maiden launch with a single sentence. I don't want to mock the German Wikipedia, but this rocket was largely developed in Germany, and if not even de:Liste der Ariane-6-Raketenstarts has anything to say about how the flight went, I find that quite sad. Renerpho (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as nominated, since the launch wasn't really a "success", but would support with modifications. It did send its payload to orbit, it just failed to then de-orbit the second stage, which really is the main new innovation of the Da Vinci upper stage compared to what Ariane 5 did. I have no concerns about notability, just about how to put it into a neutral blurb. Renerpho (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ESA put a lot of weight on their "zero debris" policy, and on how Vinci was a big step in that direction. Even if the problem with this launch doesn't affect plans for the future (which remains to be seen), putting 600 kg of debris into an orbit that will need decades to decay doesn't look like a success to me. With how the news cycle is working, I'd wait until it is day again in Europe and in the US, to see if the news actually lean towards success, or failure. Renerpho (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My local paper's article (mostly a reprint of one in the Orlando Sentinel) managed to avoid calling it either a "success" or a "failure". --Carnildo (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Cowards. Renerpho (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - this would be more supportable if the article linked on the target page for the "maiden flight" existed - Ariane flight VA262. Nfitz (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced by the current state of the article that this merits posting, as it does not look ready. Almost more text is devoted to this launchdate being delayed, than to a description of the flight itself. Said description is completely limited to a table entry. Needs work. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support in principle - I would fully support this if the article was up to par, but the launch itself doesn't have it's own article, and the main A6 article only has a small exerpt in launch history regarding it. This is exciting though; Arianespace is a major player in launch vehicles.  q w 3 r t y  14:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose nothing notable or significant about this launch. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Joe Bonsall
Tenor of the Oak Ridge Boys. rawmustard (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is nowhere near ready.  Schwede 66  05:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Some improvements but still tagged for uncited statements.  Bremps  ...  23:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comments: Description of his career as a musician seems thin for someone in the Country Music Hall of Fame. --PFHLai (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Jim Inhofe
Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, given Inhofe was notable for both representing Oklahoma for decades and climate change denial. I would wait until the article has been finished being edited, given Inhofe recently died, but Inhofe merits inclusion in RD. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Curbon7 (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Heaps of orange maintenance tags.  Schwede 66  05:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not ready: Page has a lot of orange maintenance tags. Once does are gone I'll support it. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk &#124; contrib.) 19:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - At least a half dozen orange tags need to be dealt with. Jusdafax (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Andrejs Plakans
Latvian American historian. Thriley (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Career section is mostly a list of positions, but does not have much detail about the subject's research career.  Spencer T• C 02:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marina Kondratyeva
Russian ballerina. Thriley (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Leading ballerina of the Bolshoi Ballet, famous as the "airy" Giselle, who received gala events from the company on her birthdays. I'll give her more refs but not right now, also asked a speaker of Russian for help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: 1 sentence that needs a ref but otherwise appropriate depth, essentially ready.  Spencer T• C 21:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * With 500+ words of prose, this wikibio is more than long enough to qualify. Footnotes can be found at expected spots (except one spot about her 2013 appointment to the artistic council of the Bolshoi Ballet troupe). Formatting looks fine. Earwig has no complaints. This wikibio looks READY FOR RD (once the lone {cn} tag is addressed). --PFHLai (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. It looks good to me. I suggest that if a citation cannot be found quickly for "In 2013, Kondratyeva was appointed a member of the artistic council of the Bolshoi Ballet troupe" - that the sentence be removed to the article's talk page until a citation can be found. I do not recommend deletion (temporary or otherwise) because it may then be forgotten, even though it is still there in the history. This is an attractive article for a link on the main page. Storye book (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I followed your advice, moving to the talk page. I believe that he post was more or less honorary anyway, and doesn't change her biography much. On my search to find a reference I found two others for other facts that I added. I see that it would need someone knowing Russian to find a ref for the fact in question because English sources seem not to mention it, nor translations of the Russian sources we already have. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Women's high-jump WR
One of the longest-standing records in athletics, from 1987. Women's high jump world record progression 81.196.30.56 (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose provincial sports trivia This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand what "world" means. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * A world record is the exact opposite of a provincial story. Stephen 02:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support This is a notable world record which has been unbroken for 37 years. I've added an altblurb to reduce ambiguity. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb1 article is in good condition, and it's notable because of how long the record stood; the altblurb reduces ambiguity, so that's why I prefer it over the original blurb. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb article is in a good shape and breaking decades old record is blurbworthy.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 06:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support in principle. Article is also in good shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Issues There are several issues with this:
 * The target article doesn't have much of an update and has lots of uncited facts.
 * Another athletics world record was broken at the same event – see Guardian
 * This was a warm-up for the Olympics which we're about to run. I suppose more world records will be broken at that.
 * The record has not been ratified and there can be technical objections.
 * There are so many sports with so many stats that records are broken all the time. For example, Lewis Hamilton won the British Grand Prix on Sunday which extended his record of wins and was the first time a driver had won a race for the ninth time.  At Wimbledon, there's an new amazing record.  There was a recent record at the Tour de France which we didn't run.  And so on...
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 07:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * From above "This is a notable world record which has been unbroken for 37 years." HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Jumping as high as possible is probably a much more mainstream world record than having the most victories in which the winning tennis player came back from two sets to zero. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 08:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The cycling record had lasted for 55 years but we still didn't post it. These numbers seem fairly arbitrary and there will tend to be a natural plateau as sports are established and become mature. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If more people here understood Le Tour, we would have posted that cycling record, but comments made it obvious too many didn't and weren't interested in learning. HiLo48 (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is clearly less notable than Cavendish's record, as high jump has less news coverage than Le Tour. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment The article needs a couple of references, especially in the awards sections (the awards articles are cited so this is easy to fix), and some sentences in the prose also need sources. Other than that, all fine. If I remember correctly, we post breaking of long-standing records in athletics, as well as breaking of 100m and marathon whenever they happen (been a while since Usain Bolt but marathon got broken a couple of times in the past decade). --Tone 08:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to support featuring this if the update was more extensive. I'd expect more details than "she broke the world record (2.10 metres) in high jump at the Wanda Diamond League in Paris." I imagine she didn't use a particularly different technique or anything, but surely we can write something about the five-second moment in which she made history? Perhaps even just an interview quote about how she felt about it? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I used to write extensive updates on world records in athletics but got fully disparaged after an unfortunate discussion last year, so I decided to give up on it indefinitely because there's simply no point to produce content that some people don't value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That discussion last year was a very similar case – two world records being broken at the Meeting de Paris. We have a full article for this event – 2024 Meeting de Paris – which is more substantial and would make a better target than just one of the athletes. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am very sad to hear this. This was exactly what I was worried about. I have been active on this front-page feature because I hoped it would inspire people to write more detailed articles, but instead it only demotivates people who put the work in... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose both on WP:ITNSIGNIF and WP:ITNQUALITY. Many world records get broken frequently and don't very often meet the significance to get posted- this has way less media coverage than Mark Cavendish breaking the Tour de France record last week, which didn't get consensus to post. And Mahuchikh's article and 2024 Meeting de Paris each have 2 sentences about it, which is not enough to meet the quality threshold. Picking this world record over any others (including the other one broken at the same event) would be arbitrary as it hasn't demonstrated enough coverage. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Many world records get broken frequently", but this one hasn't been. That sort of comment suggests you haven't read the previous discussion. It's quite unhelpful, AND irrelevant! 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)
 * Over its complete history of 102 years, the average time between changes to this particular record seems to be about two years. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But this time it was 37 years!!!!!!!!!!!! You have, in fact, just highlighted why this record SHOULD be posted HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unsigned user comment- you have clearly ignored the fact that I pointed out this has not gained significant news coverage as needed for WP:ITNSIGNIF. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose I don't really have much of a stance on the notability of this event, though only two sentences of an update seems too little to get a blurb. Gödel2200 (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment In 2014 we posted breaking of 20-years old record in men's pole vault. Now the record was unbeaten for almost twice as long. --Jona☎ 13:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew and Joseph; this doesn't have nearly enough coverage or significance to warrant posting on ITN. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose how many sports disciplines are there? a few hundreds at least, right? And each presumably keeps track of more than 1 record. so what makes this any special? "one of the longest standing in athletics" doesnt cut it for me, esp given that it was achieved not that logn ago. I'd presume most records would have stopped around late 80-s if it wasnt for doping Kasperquickly (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as not sufficiently significant. JoseJan89 (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb For those saying the target articles need more updating, one is just an index of the previous records, and the other about the actual athlete contains several mentions of this new achievement. Not sure where else we'd need to add more in order to post. Schwinnspeed (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, a major legacy track and field record, no woman has ever jumped this high in open competition. Notable per time between record holders. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm generally biased against sports-related blurbs but I don't think this is important enough. The coverage seems pretty routine. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support if the blurb targets Women's high jump world record progression, which is what the story is about. Banedon (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no prose there at all, just data. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support in principle - I think comparisons with the Tour de France stages record are unfair. In the high jump, you jump high. That's the objective. If you jump higher than anyone else in the competition, you win, and if you jump higher than anyone before, that's unambiguously the record. In the Tour de France, you're aiming for the lowest cumulative time, not the number of individual stages won. That's not to say the stages record isn't interesting (it is) or a great achievement (it is), but it's not raising the worldwide standard for the thing the contest actually measures, and this high jump record is. We also don't often post high jump and other athletics, relative to other sports, so it's a welcome bit of focus. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet another support vote that completely ignores WP:ITNQUALITY- there is no article with a good enough update on this, because this WR only warrants 2 sentences in articles. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I have updated my !vote to be clearer. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment all these support votes are missing WP:ITNQUALITY: Yaroslava Mahuchikh has orange tagged sections, Women's high jump world record progression is just tables and uses one source (I have orange tagged it for that), 2024 Meeting de Paris has half a sentence on this world record. Regardless of the questionable WP:ITNSIGNIF, nobody has suggested a valid target article that meets ITNQUALITY by having a large update on this event and the article being good enough. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment This is only an improvement on the previous record by 1 cm (2.10 vs 2.09 m). Yes, its technically a new world's record, but it seems such a trivial gain in the larger picture. I also tend to agree that with as many track and field events and their individual records, its probably better to focus on the event and records broken rather than a singular one, unless that clearly smashed the previous record. --M asem (t) 12:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I would support this if we weren't about to have the Olympics. I'm basically neutral, though, because there is a decent chance this will have rolled off in two weeks when we do post that. Kingsif (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Admin comment As long as the article has an orange maintenance tag, it's not going to hit the main page. Beyond that, I don't see consensus to post at this point anyway.  Schwede 66  05:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Question: As an Admin ddo you judge quality of comments? Some of the opposing arguments here are simply appalling and illogical HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely I do, .  Schwede 66  04:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Schwede, nor am I an administrator, but I believe administrators are bound to honoring community consensus regardless of their personal opinion on the merits of the prevailing argument. For instance, administrator XYZ could find it ridiculous that people are arguing against the notability of a new record in the high jump (as you evidently do, and I personally agree that it is a notable record and worthy of a blurb), but if the overall consensus ultimately disagrees with XYZ's perspective, then XYZ has to accept and respect that. To do otherwise is to supervote, which goes against the decision-making process of the Wikipedia community and can be grounds for censure or even sanction. Having said that, there are exceptions to this rule&mdash;for instance, when the consensus among participants in a discussion goes against widely-accepted Wikipedia policy. Say, for instance, a musician has an article listing each of their unreleased songs. The article is nominated for deletion for being "cruft" and people cite things like "WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE" as a rationale for deletion. The consensus among participants is to delete, but the problem is that their rationales do not align with Wikipedia's inclusion policy; besides, the list itself is both well-written and adequately sourced, and was actually designated as a featured article at the time of the nomination. On that basis, the closing administrator determined that there was no consensus to delete the article despite the preponderance of votes against its inclusion, and his decision was upheld at WP:DRV. This is not a hypothetical situation, by the way&mdash;this was exactly what happened at Articles for deletion/List of unreleased Britney Spears songs. Yes, that discussion happened nearly 12 full years ago, but the principles adhered to at the time of its closure remain applicable today. Kurtis (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Bur what we have here is a record that hadn't been broken for 37 years with somebody arguing against it because on average such records are broken every two years. That simply not logical, and must be ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC) HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * At this time of year, the breaking of sporting records seems to be a daily occurrence. I gave a few examples above and, in my own casual viewing since then, I've noticed youngest-ever goalscorer in men’s major tournament history and Wimbledon's longest women's semifinal.  And public interest in those records seems significantly greater than the high jump one. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that this one hadn't been broken for 37 years, surely you can see how irrelevant that comment is. HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The previous youngest goal scorer was Pelé in 1958, so that's 66 years ago. Is the number of years significant?  What's the magic number? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to disagree on the notion expressed above that admins should "judge the quality of comments" when assessing ITN consensus. Unlike other areas such as AFD and RM, where there are clearly-defined policies and guidelines at play, and closing admins use those as a lens through which to view the discussion, ITN has basically no rules. Other than quality requirements and those labelled as WP:ITN/R, and I suppose a basic requirement that a topic must be "in the news" there are no guidelines as to what is and isn't posted, and each story is judged by participants on its own merits. Ultimately, if editors aren't supporting this by giving it a clear majority of support votes then it won't be posted, regardless of how important you personally think it is. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do disregard votes likes "provincial sports trivia"; stuff that is without any basis of fact. Why would I give any weight to that?  Schwede 66  10:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that explains a lot. Kurtis (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on notability. A particularly long-standing world record in women's track and field, in one of the original Olympic disciplines. Nsk92 (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Bengt I. Samuelsson
Swedish biochemist and Nobel laureate. 240F:7A:6253:1:95E7:6EC1:9755:1E3E (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is orange-tagged. The   Kip  (contribs) 17:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose two orange tags.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 06:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Most of the wikibio is unsourced. After the intro, all remaining footnotes can be found at the end of the sentence on his death. Please add REFs to the rest of the wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jane McAlevey
Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unreferenced date and place of birth.  Schwede 66  10:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support That has been rectified.  Bremps  ...  13:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 French legislative election
Unexpected result, as the National Rally and their allies were originally predicted to get the most seats, but only came in third place after the NPF and Ensemble. Chaotic Enby  (talk · contribs) 20:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait. We still need a clearer idea of what the results were; this is a much murkier situation than last week's UK vote. (where Labour clearly won a decisive majority that lined up with expectations; contrast here where we have a surprise result) Also, given that even the article linked for "relative majority" itself is called Plurality, I would recommend the blurb actually use that to avoid confusion. Nottheking (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait the results sections is missing information once filled support Shadow4dark (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a result yet? I was literally just looking at a couple of news sites, that says the far-right and fascists weren't doing as well as expected, but I didn't see any breakdowns. But hang on - I'm no expert on France politics - but the New Popular Front is alliance of over 50 political parties - including the Pirate Party and the Guadeloupe Communist Party? I'm not sure I get this one, compared to most countries where there's only up to a half-dozen viable parties. Nfitz (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are indeed many parties under the NPF, although only four of them (La France Insoumise, the Socialist Party, The Greens and the French Communist Party) have a substantial presence in the National Assembly. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 21:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm the primary contributor to this article. There isn't an officially aggregated national result yet, but it will be published by the Ministry of the Interior later here and added once that happens. The NFP is a broad electoral alliance of the main parties of the left as well as numerous smaller formations which had their candidates nominated in a small number of districts, as depicted here. It's an unusual situation, but with such a short timeline this was agreed upon quickly to allow the parties of the left to have the best chance of getting candidates elected rather than splitting the vote in the two-round electoral system. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How long does it take for the vote to be finalized by the government? Here it can take weeks, even if the incumbent conceded within an hour of the polls closing. Surely in the interim, putting in preliminary results from a reliable source suffices in many other places. Should be the same, unless the Pirates steal some poll boxes. Nfitz (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I missed this reply, but results are mostly set here (calculated for the alliances as noted in footnotes B and C, using the Ministry of Interior reference). 73.169.176.209 (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added alt1, which to me is just the best non-confusing way to explain this result. I do wish to wait for results to be updates to a certain degree we shouldn't post a blurb saying "x coalition won" or similar when most results are not confirmed to prove this yet on our end. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait According to the table in the National results section, 501 seats in the national assembly have yet to be announced, so it is too early to post. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The table should be updated, all but three seats have been called right now (according to Le Monde). Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 23:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They're not aggregated by the Ministry of the Interior just yet (various news outlets create their own classifications of candidates, so the counts of votes and seats won tend to differ between them); we've always used the Ministry of the Interior ones because they're official classifications and the others are unofficial classifications. Also added alt3 but not official until tomorrow 73.169.176.209 (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support once final results are put forward This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Provisional results have been posted and only slight shifts should be expected at this point. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt II pending the appointment of the new prime minister. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I struck alt3 (after proposing it) because it might not happen anytime soon. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Propose ALTV unless a government is somehow formed. The   Kip  (contribs) 02:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd go with this if it becomes clear in the next few days that they are not going to be able to form a new government. For now I'd stick to Alt II until the dust settles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support any of the proposed blurbs, with alt2 or 5 as my preference. Would support blurbing again if/when a new PM is chosen, since even though Attal resigned (and is continuing as caretaker) it doesn't seem like this will be resolved anytime soon. Davey2116 (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 or alt4 once it’s ready Those seem like the best blurbs. However, the “Potential outcomes and pre-election comments” subsection in the “Aftermath” section seems like it’s awkward now that the election has happened. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at addressing those issues here, feel free to trim or reorganise further. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Deadlock is the word preferred by headlines such as "French Election Yields Deadlock..." and "France Faces Deadlock...". What's going to happen now seems quite unclear.  Will France have to resort to a civil servant as PM like the Netherlands or what?  One detail of language which is interesting is the word insoumise which appears in the name of one of the many parties.  This seems to mean "unruly" and "insubordinate" and the result seems to confirm France's reputation for being ungovernable.  We should avoid a blurb which gives the impression that someone has won and perhaps wait until the outcome is clearer. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Insoumise means "unbowed", not "unruly" or "insubordinate". 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:C4C2:46FA:6F20:8082 (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It literally means not soumise or not submissive. The exact meaning depends on the context but it indicates that they won't be compliant or obedient, i.e. ungovernable. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not my understanding of this at all, and appears to be a fringe interpretation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My understanding comes from the Collins-Robert French Dictionary which is not fringe. It gives the meanings as refractory, rebellious, insubordinate, undefeated, unsubdued. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think the name of one of the parties should be taken as evidence that France has become ungovernable... Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 07:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The NYT report says "France looked near ungovernable ... The result was that ... no governing coalition appeared immediately conceivable..." while the FT headline is "France heads back to its postwar era of ungovernability". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted - I've gone with a bit of a hybrid of some of the alts above. It's been discussed before that we don't use the term plurality at ITN, as it's not widely understood globally, and I thought worth noting that the NPR also didn't achieve a majority in addition to saying they won the most seats. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good solution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good hybrid, thanks! Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 07:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 2024 French legislative election currently has Lua-related template errors (likely due to having too many templates), which prevents most references from displaying correctly. Felt like this was important to note here given that the article is currently linked from the Main Page. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 11:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: André Drege
Norwegian cyclist. --Engineerchange (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a stub with a list of races and most of the prose is about his death. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Joe Egan (musician)
Scottish musician and co-founder of Stealers Wheel. 240F:7A:6253:1:38AB:9905:A2DA:8D62 (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose not ready, article needs expansion.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 06:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree with previous comment. Little more than a stub in substance. Ref (chew) (do) 06:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support article is now fully sourced. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 20:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Khyree Jackson
NFL cornerback recent death. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support RIP, a tragic death. Article is in a good enough shape.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 14:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support nothing holding back this article about an NFL player.  Bremps  ...  21:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support and André Drege too. Both sportsmen of the same age who had their lives tragically cut short on the same day. Both articles seem good, though Jackson's is more detailed. 1779Days (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We can nominate that one independently.  Bremps  ...  01:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Date and place of birth are both unreferenced.  Schwede 66  10:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Typically on NFL player articles that information is pulled from the ESPN or NFL biography and not appropriately cited. --Engineerchange (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Mirta Díaz-Balart
First wife of Fidel Castro. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose given the lack of detail in her article, which is rated Start class. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait there are some more references needed otherwise article is okay.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait More citations needed.  Bremps  ...  22:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Masoud Pezeshkian elected President of Iran
He is elected president of Iran. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * comment blurb should mention that this "election" was held by a totalitarian government headed by the dictatorial ayatollahs. Else we risk presenting it as a genuine expression of the will of the people and not a fake election no different from those under the regimes of dprk, china or soviet union which wikipedia AFAIK previously did NOT post  Kasperquickly (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * All Iranian presidential elections since 2009 have been posted to ITN. Aydoh8 (talk &#124; contribs) 07:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as you know wikipedia didn't post any Soviet elections to ITN? That's a bold claim. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:F211:A254:7DA9:FB24 (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Issue is not very notable, anyone can read the whole article if they want to know election legitimacy AlexBobCharles (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * soviet union which wikipedia AFAIK previously did NOT post
 * ...you are aware Wikipedia was founded some years after the USSR ceased to exist, right?
 * Your personalized commentary is becoming indicative of an attitude unfit for ITN/C, this isn't the first time it's happened. The   Kip  (contribs) 15:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * nods* Concur with The Kip... This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We did post Xi Jinping's securing of a third term.  Bremps  ...  21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It seems that there was a significant choice between Pezeshkian and his main hardline opponent. The article is short but seems adequate in providing basic info for our readers. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality article has three orange tags. Will change to support once quality issues are fixed. Aydoh8 (talk &#124; contribs) 07:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose bold article has three orange tags and Masoud Pezeshkian's article have some paragraphs without footnotes.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I want to note that Pezeshkian is the first reformist candidate for quite some time (I've seen The Atlantic Arash Azizi place that date at 2005, which was the end of Khatami's term), and noting the state that the reformist parties have been as of the 2020s. Might be a potentially good idea to note that he is the reformist candidate in the blurb. Ornithoptera (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Should note that Pezeshkian is a reformist .I will note that some of the bold articles sources dont seem to very reliable and are close to the Iran government. AlexBobCharles (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to three orange tags on the article. Also, there is no need to mention that Pezeshkian is a reformist in the blurb. All we should say is the result of the election. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait because Pezeshkian's article is incomplete and needs further detail. 2601:280:5C01:B7E0:E19C:E87A:9597:AE72 (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as target article is orange-tagged. The   Kip  (contribs) 16:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support; proposed altblurb to use the "declared winner" language we tend to use for dubious elections This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support; on notability --GodNey (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support with current wording; elections in Iran aren't free, but they are fair. No need to use "declared" or similar phrases. AryKun (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's serious doubts about the fairness of elections as well, they possibly manipulated numbers in the first round, there is valid sources supporting this idea. 3000MAX (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Jeeputer <sup style="font-weight:bold; color:#006B3C">Talk  03:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support for its notability. Although the article is currently orange-tagged, this is related to the lack of attention from enough fluent Persian speakers (or people able to use auto-translators sufficiently well). The benefit of the extra attention of ITN may help improve the quality of the article sufficiently to justify the removing the tags, so an exception to the general rule may be acceptable in this case. Boud (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality this election is WP:ITNR, so only consideration is article quality (thus all the "support on notability" votes are irrelevant). And there are 3 valid orange tags that need fixing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - by which criterion is this WP:ITN/R? The government bit says "Changes in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government", but our article President of Iran notes that "Unlike the executive in other countries, the president of Iran does not have full control over the government, which is ultimately under the direct control of the Supreme Leader". Thus this role is somewhat more of a figurehead and should be judged on its own merits rather than being given an automatic pass. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would imagine it was marked as ITNR because it was thought to be a general election. Looking at the three different elections that took place in Iran this year, it is not at all clear to me which one was the general election, so this might not be ITNR. Gödel2200 (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The president of Iran does not hold the highest political authority, but does have many of the powers of an executive president, and is not just a figurehead. Among the Reformist presidents, Khatami was generally seen as having a big influence; Rouhani's reformist actions were generally seen as less successful; Ahmedinejad's role as a hardliner president was generally seen as him being mostly in control of executive power. Relations between the West and Iran have changed significantly between Reformist and hardliner Iranian presidents. This does satisfy ITN/R in any reasonable interpretation of real political power and both national and international effects. Boud (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any question of whether this election should be posted. But ITNR specifically says changes in the people who administer the executive of their country qualify, and according to the List of current heads of state and government article, that position is the supreme leader, not the president, so the election would technically not qualify for ITNR under that clause. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In Iran, the president is the head of government. See President of Iran. He chooses all ministers and cabinet members. The supreme leader is the head of state, but not the head of government. 175.159.120.175 (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue with ITN/R is that it assumes that only one position (in this case, the supreme leader) wields all of the executive power; it neglects to consider the fact that there can be other positions with some form of executive power (in this case, the president) that the main position itself lacks. The ITN/R status of "2023 Singaporean presidential election", which had a similar context, was debated under the same rationale (and later removed), though it was still ultimately posted. &#61;JaventheAldericky&#61; (Would you like to talk to me?) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb 2 as the orange tags have been addressed. &#61;JaventheAldericky&#61; (Would you like to talk to me?) 14:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 2 Article looks good now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 2 per supports on notability and INT/R both. Tags are now gone; it’s ready to post. Jusdafax (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 2 per above.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 02:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Liana Isakadze
Prominent Georgian violinist, child prodigy, all over Europe early, then also conductor and artistic director of the Chamber Orchestra of Georgia, festival creator internationally. The article was practically a mirror of her website, which is no longer live but there in an archived copy in German. Much better since we got a Strad obit today. The long lists of conductors and colleagues are not referenced other than her site, but are credible I think. Help by someone knowing Georgian wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Slight oppose The stuff about Facebook is uncited. Listing a paragraph of names isn't the best way to present info to a reader. Otherwise, the article is alright.  Bremps  ...  12:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The facebook thing can only be cited to her website, which I try to avoid. We could do it, or drop it, or find another ref. - I hate these lists, I really do, but - as I said above - I have no time to look for more detailed records of her music making. Repeating: help wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I added the cite to her website. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ... and also another, and began recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We have now several recordings, with a few reviews, Bremps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Great work on that, I'll Support. The name-dropping paragraph is still not ideal but I don't think it's bad enough to prevent it from being posted.  Bremps  ...  23:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. Good depth of coverage, fully referenced.  Spencer T• C 02:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Stanley Moss
Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Question Are the books in his bibliography fine if they aren't cited (as they are effectively their own citation)? Anyway, the Amazon links certainly need to be removed so Oppose for now.  Bremps  ...  04:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They are their own citation, but they require ISBNs. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The even more fundamental problem is that the article is a stub, and we don't post those.  Schwede 66  05:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Vic Seixas
American tennis player. 240F:7A:6253:1:64C5:9819:81E5:D319 (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support article is in a good shape.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The stats tables after the prose could use some sources, please. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Jon Landau (film producer)
American film producer. 240F:7A:6253:1:64C5:9819:81E5:D319 (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Awards and Filmography section needs sourcing and Career section needs a lot of expansion.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) United Kingdom general election
Putting this out in front so we can get it ready as and when results come in overnight This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Clearly, we're going to need sources to use the second blurb re being a landslide, though I know the exit polls suggest it will be that way. --M asem (t) 22:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * BBC says "Labour landslide predicted", as do most other sources This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not just the BBC. Sky News, the Telegraph, the Guardian ... in fact most UK news sources ... are already using it on their front pages (although at the moment it of course says "predicted" or "expected"). But yes, stick with the original blurb, we can always change it later. Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Meh. I'm not going to get worked up over it, but FWIW I don't recall the word "landslide" ever being used in an election blurb before. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, we rarely use such terms on the Main Page in my experience. Granted, I have been away for a while. If anything, we may choose to use a less bombastic phrasing such as "significant gain in seats", or something more British. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb. It's factual and to the point. We can update tomorrow after Sir Kier becomes PM. The votes are still being counted but there is no doubt who won. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support either original Blurb or AltBlurb II. (later purely among the implication that's part of ITN/R: that this will mean Keir Starmer becomes PM) Obviously, we'll be waiting for the official results (rather than just the exit polls) and such to make it official. Article appears to be in great shape; hopefully this quality will be maintained through all the official results being added. I'm somewhat neutral (mildly opposed) on whether we should bother describing the margin of the election. However, if there's an applicable superlative, (e.g, it break's Labour's old record for most seats won) then that would have a much more convincing argument to be mentioned on the front page. Nottheking (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb as it is the most concise. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb but wait until the full results come out. I don't really see much of a need for the blurb to indicate that the result was a landslide; the reader will see that immediately after going to the page. The blurb only needs to state who won the election. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb and wait Good article, important event. Results are pretty clear but post after the votes are fully done being counted Hungry403 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think its fair to call it a landslide now Hungry403 (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Sunak just conceded, effectively. Toss-up between original blurb and alt-1. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb unless the ultimate seat count surpasses Labour's old record for most seats won, in which case support alt-1 or alt-2 and add the superlative, per Nottheking. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 04:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb as it's now official. Oppose alt blurbs until sources use the phrase "landslide" — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 04:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, with "landslide" wording; they're on course to 400, which is Blair numbers. Sceptre (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted As Labour has already got more than 50 per cent of the electorate seats (362 right now, with 326 needed for a majority), it's probably safe to post ALT0 at this point. I don't think it'll be long before "landslide" can be added to the blurb.  Schwede 66  04:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There have been other "landslide" elections. Have we ever used that term in an election blurb? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I don't think we've ever done such a thing, and the Conservatives arguably won a landslide last time. I'm a little baffled as to why Schwede66 has suggested this and strongly recommend that no admin should change this. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support ALT or ALT2 blurb as Labour has now won 400 seats, I think we're now ready to add "landslide" now. 92.27.253.187 (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support landslide. Davey2116 (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt-1 as it is more condense.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 06:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Majority would be a better word than "landslide". ITN should save the word "landslide" for the actual landslides that kill lots of people (they seem to have stopped counting in New Guinea).  For elections, we should stick to words that more accurately describe the result such as supermajority.  Simply winning a majority is a significant achievement when so many countries have systems that require complex coalitions such as we see in the current Netherlands blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't generally use the term supermajority for this, in the UK. Secretlondon (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter because Labour don't seem to have quite that many seats (433 is two thirds of 650). The point is to use appropriate technical terms rather than colourful journalistic metaphors.  In the Westminster system, the key thing is to get a "working majority". Andrew🐉(talk) 07:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose landslide or majority or anything else. Longstanding precedent is that we don't attempt to add "nuance" or editorialisation to election results, even those that are "disputed" or "near-unanimous" or whatever, and there's no reason to deviate from that here. The current simple blurb that they won is completely sufficient and should not be changed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The convention in Britain is that a 100-seat majority is a landslide; Labour have won a 170-seat majority. If anything qualifies, this does. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What convention? See Landslides in the United Kingdom. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit disingenuous, Andrew Davidson. See United Kingdom general election records. The current result is just barely below the all-time post-war record. (though I don't see a need to change the blurb). Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose landslide as an editorialising term. "Supermajority" isn't great either as the Parliament does not operate with a supermajority system as far as I know (no equivalent of, say, the 60-vote filibuster in the US Senate). Stating that Labour won a majority by themselves (and, when confirmed, that Starmer becomes PM) is the most objective thing to do. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In the Westminster system, a substantial majority is significant because it means that the PM can force through legislation without having to appease rebels and rivals in his own party. See the US House of Representatives for the difficulty of getting things done with a narrow majority. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - I find it funny this was nominated before any seat was even called. It might be good to mention just how historic this win is, the worst result for the Conservative Party I believe in its entire 200 year existence. This is a pretty crazy result as the dominant party in UK politics is going extinct. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The popular vote for the Conservatives was still quite substantial while the vote for Labour was little changed. The result in seats was a typical quirk of the first-past-the-post system.  The main novelty is the advent of Reform UK which got the next largest popular vote and so split the centre-right vote.
 * What helped Labour is that their leader looks and sounds like a conservative -- a safe pair of hands, rather than a radical like Corbyn, a wild child like Boris or a city slicker like Rishi.  It's interesting that our blurb calls him "Sir Keir Starmer", like a "knight of the shires". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that the title has been removed now as admins tussle over the blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pull. While obviously this is notable, 2024_United_Kingdom_general_election is not updated. 12:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Jessintime (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Those look like numerical results once the full complete tally is known. The results that Labour won was based on factors like sufficient tallies from the various locals as well as candidates conceding that they lost, all reported in RSes.<span id="Masem:1720181965893:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 12:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's currently 2 seats to go (out of 650), until those are declared, these "results" figures don't exist. But that doesn't change the outcome that Labour have won, a fact that was confirmed in reliable sources before this was posted. And the article has been updated with this information and aftermath, and so WP:ITNQUALITY is met. We have posted other countries in a similar state i.e. where 95+% of results are known and the election result is assured. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Standard practice for ITN has been to post once the general outcome has been confirmed, since it's rare to instantly get total figures for every single constituent election from any country. There will always be stragglers, so yes, there will be some small gaps in the data as everyone in the world waits for those stragglers. However, it remains that all the RSes have reported that Labour has won a majority of seats, and that won't change. And Keir Starmer has already been appointed Prime Minister. Nottheking (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll just reply here since this is pretty much moot. My concern is that we posted an article on an election with an entire results table left blank. Did we really need to wait until all 650 seats were called before updating it? I've seen other stories held up for far less. Jessintime (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Jack Rowell

 * Oppose There are CN tags. User: M AL M ALDIVE    (talk)   11:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose multiple cn tags.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose issue persists.  Bremps  ...  22:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Mark Cavendish
Paul W (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cool sports trivia, but not what is typically posted at ITN. Natg 19 (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The result of the Tour de France is ITN/R, but individual achievements are way under the bar for notability. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 20:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Aficionados regard the result of the Tour de France as much more then the first person to crosss the finish line, but the non-cycling world is generally ignorant of such detail. So sadly, I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Neutral Probably under the bar as a stand-alone entry. However, given it’s broken a 49 year old record would suggest it’s mentioned at race summary e.g. “In the 2024 Tour de France, Joe Bloggs wins the General Classification, while Mark Cavendish breaks the record for stage wins” 92.17.186.116 (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree The tour isn't over and he could win a 36th or 37th, and at the conclusion of the race that number can be announced as part of the blurb. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also agree, solid suggestion. Kingsif (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It's a monumental achievement that has taken 50 years to break. It's not trivia. There's often major records on ITN, sports or otherwise (longest person in space etc) Torqueing (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Trivia, Better suited to DYK. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It can't go on DYK, the article is already a GA and is too long to be expanded fivefold. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 23:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose While an impressive achievement, the fact there are only a few sentences of an update on each of the linked articles means that this is not suitable for ITN. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. While its impressive that he broke a near 50 year old record, these kinds of personal achievements aren't notable enough for the ITN. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 02:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a huge 49 years old record, and yes it's newsworthy. Eddy Merckx should be mention in the blurb too. Mark Cavendish breaks Eddy Merckx’s 49-years-old record for most career Tour de France stage wins with 35th victory. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose, while impressive, this still counts as sports trivia in view of ITN. For TDF, we post the winner. --Tone 07:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support a record that has stood for a long time being broken, and a target article Mark Cavendish that's a GA. This is more in the news than the eventual TdF winners usually are (because it's a record that has stood for nearly 50 years that was thought unbreakable for most of that time), and that article is nowhere near the quality of Cavendish's article either. Monumental achievement with worldwide coverage, which is higher enough to meet the threshold of WP:ITNSIGNIF. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Winning a stage in a multiple-day cycling race has absolutely no meaning. One may not win a single stage but eventually win the race. I don't see a reason to post a meaningless record. If it were a record set at one-day classics, it'd be a much stronger argument for posting, but it's clearly not. Note also that he's not finished half of the Tour de France editions he entered and was ranked well below 100th place in all editions he finished, so it's completely worthless to talk about any notable record here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * He's a sprinter, and they often don't complete all three weeks, different physiology. Where he finishes in the general classification is a complete irrelevance. Ericoides (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why one-day classics exist – to make sprinters more competitive. A sprinter breaking a record in a race that he can barely finish is completely irrelevant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To claim "Winning a stage in a multiple-day cycling race has absolutely no meaning" suggests you have absolutely no understanding of cycling. See today's L'Equipe, which only devotes seven pages to the Cavendish record. Ericoides (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm not personally supporting this item as of sufficient encyclopaedic interest for ITN, but the achievement itself certainly isn't insignificant. Stage wins on the Tour de France are a big deal and treated as such in reliable sources. Wikipedians' opinions on their relevance is what's "meaningless" here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ve been avidly following cycling about 18 years now, and that’s why I know that this record isn’t significant at all. In multiple-day cycling races, time is what counts, not the number of stage wins. You may say whatever you want about my understanding of cycling and cite zillion sources stating that this is a big achievement, but that won’t change the established fact that these stage victories won’t help Cavendish ever win Tour de France. This record is trivial as Ronnie O’Sullivan’s 1,000 century breaks achieved in 2019 or LeBron James breaking Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s long-standing record for most points in the NBA.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * He's not trying to win the Tour; it's an event within an event. As David Millar said in his ITV commentary this afternoon, "the Tour de France is the world championships for sprinters." Ericoides (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is trivia. Winning a record number of tours would be worth mentioning in the tour result post (which is, as noted, ITNR), but this is a mere footnote. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per all above. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor sports trivia. An impressive personal achievement but we can't post every similar record in every sport. When the race concludes, the winner can be posted per WP:ITNR. I recommend you work on improving the 2024 Tour de France article so that will be ready to go e.g. by adding prose summaries of each stage. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support An amazing achievement, transcending the sport. Ericoides (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Dismissing this as trivia is absolute rubbish. The most notable cycling sporting event in the world has had a longstanding record broken that will go unchallenged for a very long time. The closest competitor to challenge his record is Tadej Pogačar who only has 12 stage wins at the moment. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Final note, after searching the archives I found numerous examples of prior posting of notable sports records being broken, so I don't see how there isn't precedence for posting this in some form or another. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Records based on competing and winning (or whatever the aspect) a number of times, which the chances of improving simply increase with the person participating in more events, are records that are ripe to be broken and not really fair. More approach records that would make sense are breaking race times or other measurable factors in a competitive sport, or achieving a certain type of scoring record within a single game and/or season. But as others have said, when the race is done and we post the result (per ITNR), it makes sense to possibly include this record too.<span id="Masem:1720110706037:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem  (t) 16:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose I guess you had to be there. Call back when someone actually wins the race. CoatCheck (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) 2024 Ukrainian coup attempt allegations
I noticed that nobody was talking about a foiled coup yesterday in Ukraine that major news outlets are talking about so I decided to make a page for it, I feel that this is just as notable as any other coup and should be included in the news. Scu ba (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh. A quite worrying development of the ongoing war, but the (alleged) coup wasn't actually attempted, so oppose on notability. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 00:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sadly oppose per above. poor zelenskyy Ion.want.uu (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose There have been a few assassination plots targeting the president as well over the past 2 years. And I believe there was a coup plot foiled shortly before the war. So unless something is at least attempted, like in Bolivia, I don't think it's worth posting. Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose respectfully. It seems like this was simply the arrest of four alleged Russophilic activists who were discussing a coup plot via instant messages. An actual attempted coup that could pose a real threat to Zelenskyy would definitely be notable, but an alleged coup plot that had already failed before anything could have even been attempted is not big enough to warrant a separate blurb for an event already covered in Ongoing. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 12:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose This would only not be covered by ongoing if the coup had actually happened. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Vanilla Wizard. I'm not convinced this is notable enough for a stand-alone article, let alone ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rick Cluff
Canadian Radio host and journalist. Ktin (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article quality seems alright.  Bremps  ...  20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Jean Daubigny
French civil servant and criminal convicted of tax evasion. Jmanlucas (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support meets bare minimum requirement.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It has a deprecated controversy section. Probably not postable as is.  Bremps  ...  20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Aydos Sadykov
Kazakh opposition figure who died after an assassination attempt in Kyiv. Article will need some sourcing work. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose One of the sections does not cite any sources. Needs ref improve. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I've fixed the last of the CN tags and it appears the page is very well sourced now. I'll ping @MAL MALDIVE to see if they would like to change their opinion. Jmanlucas (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, after the fix, i would support. Looks like the article is in a good standard. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose biography section have some unsourced statements.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) BB(5) discovery
I guess the article needs work to be understandable to non-experts and should highlight more about the new discovery, but I think this is a big deal for computer science and mathematics. It's been 41 years since progress was made on this problem, it closely relates to the limits of mathematical knowledge and mathematical proof, it was a big online volunteer collaboration over several years, and it's one of the first new mathematical results to be formalized in a proof assistant contemporaneously with its announcement (which helped other mathematicians be more confident more quickly that the result was correct). It's also very likely the largest Busy Beaver number that humanity will ever be able to discover. So this is potentially the only progress on this problem that Wikipedia will ever be able to announce! Schoen (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support just beat me too it! Big thing in computer science tho Ion.want.uu (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Wow! Didn't follow it too closely, I'm surprised it was actually discovered. Science at ITN is always great, and, as Schoen says, this is likely the largest Busy Beaver number we'll be able to discover (for two-state Turing machines at least). Not only does the state space grow very fast, but these numbers are inherently uncomputable, meaning you can't just throw more computing power to find them, you need to go through mathematical proofs for each Turing machine. By the way, for anyone curious, the number is 47 176 870. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 23:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A lower bound on the sixth Busy Beaver number is 10⇈15, or 1010 ...15 times... 10 . Needless to say, we don't have enough space in this universe to even write it down.  Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 23:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose primary because the target article is terribly undersourced and is the symptom of being far too technical for an encyclopedia. Besides that, I'd like to see at least either a peer-review article or a more mainstream news source covering this, because as the Quantum article points out, this is more a curiosity than a breakthrough in mathematics. --M asem (t) 02:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose This does not seem to be in the news. For comparison, I can easily show you more mainstream coverage of real beavers in my area of London (a project that I helped with myself). Andrew🐉(talk) 07:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Target article is extremely poorly sourced (indeed, the main paragraph explaining it has precisely zero sources) and is not written in anything like an accessible manner; we do not expect technical articles to be dumbed down but even the introduction to this article makes assumptions that the reader knows what a halting Turing machine, its "states", or transition tables are. It is unfortunate that a lot of computer science articles are like this. Black Kite (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but unfortunately the article is nearly fully unsourced, and is nowhere near being ready for the main page. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I'm open to posting mathematical advances, there are multiple problems with this: a) The topic is extremely esoteric and doesn't seem to have any application - the 'applications' section of the article speculates about uses in principle but indicates they are all impossible in practice. b) The fifth BB number has been known since 1990, but was only conjectured not proven . While proving it now is useful, it's hardly a surprise. c) There is no formal publication of this result. The team's own website announcement states "we are currently working on a human-readable paper" i.e. it hasn't been written up yet, let alone peer reviewed. A peer-reviewed publication is a requirement for posting scientific news. d) There's little to no coverage in mainstream media, I couldn't find anything beyond that Quanta article. e) The article is incomprehensible to most of our readers, who would not learn anything from clicking on that bold link. So while I commend the nomination, I don't think this is suitable for ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. There should be more news like this in encyclopedia on the front page. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Except that it's notability is questionable as the only independent source I've seen is the linked quantum magazine article. That fails the actual "ITN" part.<span id="Masem:1720046651217:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 22:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. Poorly-sourced article that doesn't explain why these numbers matter (certainly not to an extent remotely close to establishing main page notability), and if my bachelor's in mathematics is not nearly enough to comprehend the article, main page readers don't have a chance. -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not hard: I'm in the middle of an infinite coin row (all heads up). I read card 1 of 5. The heads up side says "1. leave tails up" "2. look to its immediate right" "3. do card 2 to it". Card 2-Heads is the same except 3. is "do card 3". Card 3-Heads is the same except 3. is "do card 4". Card 4-Heads says "1. leave tails up" "2. immediate left" "3. card 1". Card 5-Heads says tails/right/END. 1-Tails says tails/left/3 2-Tails says tails/right/2. 3-Tails is heads/left/5. 4-Tails is tails/left/4 5-Tails is heads/left/1. They just proved that you need ≥6 cards to end @ over 4,098 tails or after step 47,176,870 and these are the best possible cards. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's pretty easy to describe how to emulate the five-state Beaver. But in order for someone to care a lot about the behavior of these "cards", we might also want to connect this to "this is one of the purest ways to model and reason about what computers do, and what computers can potentially do". And indeed "the cards can do math, potentially as well as any other system can do math". Or maybe "computer programs' behavior is complex and hard to predict, in a very fundamental mathematical sense; people have now managed to fully analyze the behavior of some small computer programs, which was extremely difficult, and there's good reason to think humanity will never make it to the next step of fully analyzing the behavior of very slightly larger computer programs". Schoen (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I apologize if my reasons are short sighted, I know next to nothing about computer science. The article is very hard to understand for the average reader, and I fail to see how this discovery is used outside of the problem itself. Also missing citations Hungry403 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While the Busy Beaver problem is important in computability theory, and the discovery of a new member in a short and hard-to-determine sequence is very interesting, the combination of the two does not have any wider consequences. The discovery of BB(5) doesn't actually advance computability theory at all, and the number itself has no immediate wider applications. I also think the target article lacks a clear explanation for non-specialists, and is overall not ready for the home page. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Legendary sports competitor breaks a nearly 50 year longstanding record is largely opposed as trivia, but this isn't? Absurd. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not saying that this is the way things should be, but I don't think it should be a surprise that Wikipedia is more nerd than jock.  Bremps  ...  19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Dick Schoof (Netherlands PM)
One interesting thing about this succession is that Schoof is not part of the coalition party. Mark Rutte was PM for 13+ years, will serve as the next SG of NATO (1 October), which was just made official on 26 June. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 19:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support It's interesting that he's not just not a member of the coalition parties but that he's not an elected politician. Instead, he's a civil servant and previously in charge of the security service.  Deep state needs a section for the Netherlands... Andrew🐉(talk) 21:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support change of head of government is ITN/R This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support because he succeeded 13-year incumbent Mark Rutte, and this concludes government appointment from the November 2023 Dutch election. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * support blurb II article seems okay and new prime minister after 14 years.. Shadow4dark (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Link it to the election. Doesn't have to be bold, but it's obviously correlated. Not with rutte at nato too.49.205.145.3 (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support alt2 and the article seems to be of decent quality. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT2.  Schwede 66  00:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) 2024 Uttar Pradesh stampede
Article will need some work before it's ready. Estreyeria (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree once the article is expanded. Sheila1988 (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support but wait until the event is over and all information has been reported on. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support when ready death toll is quite high but article needs a lot of expansion before it is ready to be posted.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This could have some form of widespread significance, but we don't know that right now, so we can't support based on that. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 00:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article needs work to be as clear as the NYT report. That says that such events are "relatively common" and so WP:NEWSEVENT applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Large number of causalities, and injured. A significant event, not a common occurrencee. Now reached to 121 deaths. TheHindu report. Numancia (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Significant event, with very high number of casualties. Similar to Hajj incident recently. Samuelled (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Big news, article is decent quality  P o x y 4  (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Tragic accident with a high number of deaths. Article structure looks good enough. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 22:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have that it was accidental? RS are calling it a disaster and some have been arrested already. We've got to be careful with that word. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose While this event has a high number of casualties, the article gives no indication of lasting significance. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support how often do we update the death toll of disasters? The main page still says 110, while RS says it has risen to 121.  Bremps  ...  17:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ITN is still technically correct, as it says at least 110. Admins do update death tolls, but I do not expect them to keep track of daily changes. Natg 19 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) 2024 Seoul car crash
--117.53.77.84 (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Traffic accidents involving private vehicles are not the type of thing that should even be covered in WP per NEVENT, much less ITN. --M asem (t) 05:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not even sure if it is notable, let alone blurbworthy. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 05:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a case of sudden unintended acceleration. These are quite common and forensic investigation and statistics are required to establish the cause and any systematic problem.  A single incident is just a WP:NEWSEVENT. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: Robert Towne
Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: The more extensive the credits, the more pain in sourcing. Needs more citations all over. Just watched Chinatown too. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 02:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose various unsourced statements, cn tags and largely unsourced Filmography.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

RD: June Leaf
Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 13:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not ready entire work section have only two sources.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 16:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tone issues, including usage of "we".  Bremps  ...  20:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) José Raúl Mulino becomes President of Panama
--Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 21:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Updated image. --04:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  - This is just the swearing-in. The election was two months ago; we discussed it, but didn't manage to get it posted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @GenevieveDEon, thats why I nominated. 2024 Panamanian general election was not posted. Doesn't this meet the WP:ITN/R qualification of: Changes in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government... except when that change was already posted as part of a general election? Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're both right. This is just as recurrent as the election item and just as subject to not getting posted after a discussion. It all depends who discusses what and how from here out. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support given that we didn't post the election This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 Article is of decent quality, and we should post this as the election itself didn't get posted. I would suggest posting alt2, as the first two blurbs don't actually say how he became the president, only that he is now the president. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support on notability. BilboBeggins (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - The arguments above are reasonable, and it's good to have a relevant political story to post. Thanks, everyone. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

(Posted) Hurricane Beryl
Category 4 hurricane which is still active. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: it is now a category 5. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: I thought about nominating this article. One notable aspect about this hurricane is that it is the earliest Category 4 Category 5 on record in the Atlantic Ocean. If this gets posted, this information might be worth mentioning in the blurb. I have proposed an alt (which might need some tweaks). --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 21:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Updated alt. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 16:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait/Oppose. Full impacts aren't known yet, however the article body does not yet substantiate the "extensive damage" claim at the moment. The record, while interesting, is very much trivia, and a record for being category 4 is obscure. Cat 5 maybe we can talk, but not a category 4 record. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a category 5. It got up to 165 mph. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait for the hurricane's impact to see the full extent of the damage. The hurricane is ongoing. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 *  Wait  until we know more about the human impact of the storm. It's early in the season, and both this storm and other storms may yet cause more damage. As it stands, I'd oppose, but I don't want to pre-empt things as the situation develops. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait For the most part, breaking specific intensity records don't warrant inclusion here. It might merit inclusion depending on impacts/ TornadoLGS (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 *  Wait: Per others. At time of writing this, further land impacts are likely to occur in the coming week per the NHC forecast and model guidance. The full extent of this storm's impact has yet to be seen. Comment: Additionally, Beryl has recently attained category 5 intensity, breaking Hurricane Emily's record for earliest cat 5 storm in basin, though it is not expected to impact any land as a cat 5 storm. Changing to Support per others; this storm's impact is clearly notable, especially for the time of year and locations impacted. ArkHyena (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: a high end category 3 would still cause severe impacts on Jamaica; to which it is headed towards them in the next day or so. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait for impacts to be known, and for potential subsequent landfalls. While it is true that this storm is remarkable from a meteorological perspective, ITN posts based on the real world effects a storm has on populated areas. It is still very possible it could warrant posting in the future, but not right now. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 12:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Blurb probably needs updating as its now Cat5 (and the earliest one at that) --M asem (t) 12:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Masem @DarkSide830. I have updated the alt. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 16:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait/Oppose A large hurricane in the middle of the ocean that isn't forecasted to make another landfall until it weakens substantially due to a significant amount of sheer in its path isn't quite notable enough for blurbing. Let's see what develops over the next few days. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree on waiting, but just want to clarify that this isn't accurate according to current forecasts. It's expected to slam into Jamaica at major hurricane intensity tomorrow. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 14:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support/wait I think once Beryl passes Jamaica, I’ll be inclined to support inclusion in the “In the News” section. But let’s wait until then. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to strong support given verified impacts in Jamaica as well as the Windward Islands. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support – I think the Windward Islands impacts and record status are already enough before it hits Jamaica; no need to wait in my mind. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  08:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt version: (There has never been an earlier Cat 4 either; perhaps the blurb should say "Category 4 or Category 5" rather than just "Category 5".) It has broken multiple records, has killed at least 16 people so far, and is bearing down on Jamaica. After that it will move on toward Mexico. We should highlight it before it's all in the past tense. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that we summarize news, even current news. We aren't hear to be a weather warning system, and may be more appropriate to figure extent of damage after more time has passed.<span id="Masem:1720034065348:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 19:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait/Support. Although the hurricane is still active and the damage it will cause later on are still unknown, the damage it caused so far might be reasonable enough for the ITN. Also, I would like to propose a new blub: "Hurricane Beryl leaves at least 16 people dead across the Windward Islands and Venezuela." 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 22:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support "Armageddon."  Bremps  ...  03:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Complete devastation and destruction of agriculture. Complete and total destruction of the natural environment. There is literally no vegetation left anywhere on the island of Carriacou," says Grenada Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 03:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - I have just proposed Alt2, combining Alt1 with Midori no Sora's suggestion. This is now front-page news on the BBC, with extensive destruction reported, and still going. We should also keep the blurb updated as the situation progresses. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support An unprecedented hurricane that also caused 20 deaths. 100.33.244.26 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think there is consensus enough to post, given that most of the the Wait votes come from before the hurricane had made landfall and caused extensive damage.  Bremps  ...  17:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Posted ALT3, which I've developed from ALT2, as Jamaica (where there are two fatalities) isn't part of the Windward Islands.  Schwede 66  23:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - Just came here to say I find the current blurb very confusing. What is meant by "earliest-recorded"? e.b. (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Earliest in the Gregorian calendar (Jan 1 earliest, Dec 31 latest). It became category 5 half month before any other cat 5 in history. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And in this scenario, "recorded" is to acknowledge that this is the earliest verified category 5 storm, acknowledging that the vast portion of hurricanes in history, obviously, were not documented. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - Given the deaths and damage in the U.S., the blurb needs an update. Jusdafax (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

[Attention needed: Blurb ready?] / (Posted as RD) RD/Blurb: Ismail Kadare
Internationally renowned Albanian novelist. gobonobo + c 09:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb A true literary giant with famous and influential works translated into many languages.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb truly a transformative figure and one of the greatest writer of our time and thank god, it has an legacy section that helps understand his impact.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Can’t say I’m familiar with him, but the legacy section defines his elevated significance quite well, and we did blurb Milan Kundera not that long ago. The   Kip  (contribs) 15:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb on notability Murnane, Munro, McCarthy, Byatt, Oe, Auster, Amis, Kundera, Barth ... Out of all the notable literary deaths of the past two years, Kadare was one of the greatest. There's a bibliography, so you know what that means. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So many passing recently, you’re right. I could argue (unsuccessfully of course) that all those you mentioned, except for A. S. Byatt and Martin Amis, should’ve gotten blurbs. Along with Louise Glück, who died last year and should‘ve gotten a blurb. Gerald Murnane (who you mentioned) is still alive I think, but I think he may deserve a blurb, too. I haven’t read anything by him yet. I think only Kundera got a blurb. And Paul Auster didn’t even get his RD posted, though it was ready to go on the last day of the deadline. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Murnane was a slip on my part. I think I meant Maryse Condé, another blurb-worthy figure IMO. There was a similar burst of deaths just under a decade ago, with Umberto Eco, Marquez, Le Guin, Toni Morrison, etc all within a few years. For my part, I'd support Amis as a prominent public intellectual if not for the fact that it would SNOW. There was a push for an Auster blurb, but it was shut down. Even I opposed that because in the US he's a fairly well-known and unique but, in Europe (especially France), he's just a particularly skilled author of Nouveau romans. His influence was low relative to his popularity.
 * Murnane is IMO the second most skilled living novelist, behind Krasznahorkai,so I'd highly recommend him. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the Maryse Condé mention. Never heard of her, but I need to check her out. I need to read Murnane, too. I’m not so sure about Paul Auster and his popularity vs. influence. When I lived in Germany, every train station had a couple paperback Auster titles available, but we’re talking 15 years ago. If you “google” Paul Auster Rockstar you’ll get a half-dozen hits from European sources (ie., https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/arts24/20240501-the-rock-star-status-of-us-writer-paul-auster-in-france).   But this doesn’t necessarily contradict what you said,  because admittedly this “rockstar” status is kind of a publicity stunt that applied to Auster’s status in the 80s and 90s. He’s not really read or known by Americans today. Everything I’ve read by him kind of blows me away, so I’m biased. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb after fixing quality issues this is exactly what we should expect for a blurb able RD, an extensive discussion in the article about how they are a great figure. And this is a person I have not heard of but the type of person we should be highlighting at RD. Obviously there's an orange tag and a few smaller quality problems to be fixed before posting. M asem (t) 17:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Major, transformative literary figure. Khuft (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I tried to address the outstanding CN tags in the article. Sourced or put an ISBN for the English translations, but I do not have the time to source the complete works in Albanian. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 20:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Old Man Dies One sentence update about a Tirana hospital, years of ill health and reaching 88. Mundane obituary stuff. Big deal in the literary life, sure, but his death doesn't affect that in any way worth adding to his Career section. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 'Old Man Dies' is an obnoxious response to proposed stories of this kind. You're saying more about yourself than about the news by your repeated use of it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Old Man Dies is simply shorthand for the repeatedly shot-down sorts of obituaries that keep popping up around here, as if they're legitimate media events. There's no state funeral, no plausible sidebar potential and generally no reason to stay posted for a week or more alongside earthquakes, sporting celebrations and scientific breakthroughs. Especially where dozens of other notable recent dead cycle along underneath in the meanwhile, for doing the exact same thing. If you want to try and psychoanalyze an author of my depths from a mere quip, "be my guest", but you're going to get a lot wrong. I suppose I should say I was wrong about an RD not affecting literary life, because several non-readers here seem to suddenly think Kadare's someone worth thinking about reading. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How do you know whether or not someone's a non-reader? Most don't have a glaring userbox saying This user does not read books. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean people who haven't read a book by Kadare. Several of us said here we hadn't even heard of him, implying what that does. I certainly didn't lump you into that crowd, given your vote. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My bad. I misinterpreted what you meant by non-reader. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries. When I read you write "Byatt", part of me thought you meant Bray Wyatt by it. That's much worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Influential in his field (kinda think Munro should’ve been blurbed too but oh well). Article could be updated a bit better to reflect his death / reactions. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Blurb - I'm not an expert, but the article seems to support well, with citations, the proposition that he was a genuinely outstanding figure in the literary world. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Don't know about this guy (maybe I should?) but apparently he was "one of the greatest writers and intellectuals of the 20th and 21st centuries." I guess that's pretty solid.  Bremps  ...  23:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Surprised to learn that he was the author of The Ghost Rider, which, of course was later made into a major motion picture starring Nicolas Cage. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I don’t believe that’s correct. The movie is based on the comic book by that name, which was inspired by the song “Riders In The Sky (song) that Johnny Cash (and many other singers, too) made famous. You know the one:  “yippee i-oh, yippee i-yay, ghost riders in the sky” — Trauma Novitiate (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – I agree that this article is very impressive. Very well-written, inclusive, and clearly establishing that Kadare is a great story-teller deserving of his acclaim and international readership. I had not even an inkling about any of this until just now, after I read the Wikipedia article which is close to being ready to be posted as an RD. A few minor issues such as the ISBN’s that Classicwiki mentioned already. - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb old man dies. Manner of death not notable. Not a serving political head. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. His article explains well why he is blurb-worthy, though I don't think the update is sufficient to post just yet. Jessintime (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. I find it dubious that a person whom not many know is blurbed just because his peers praised him, while many people whom everyone knows, like Donald Sutherland, Christopher Plummer, Kirk Douglas and Olivia de Havilland, Cormac Maccarthy, Vangelis, to a lesser extent William Hurt, Angela Lanesbury, Harry Bellafonte.
 * He hasn't even got a Nobel Prize, we didn't blurb a great many guys who had one.
 * I don't think he is that transformative, I don't know his books, they weren't adapted to the screen notably.
 * I also wouldn't say his influence in Europe is large. BilboBeggins (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your list is mostly celebrities. Secretlondon (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would regard Vangelis as top musician, Cormac Maccarthy as accomplished writer, Donald Sutherland and Christopher Plummer as character actors, William Hurt as powerful dramatic actor. Lanesbury was first nominated for Oscar 80 years ago. Bellafonte was devoted activist. And Havilland and Douglas were just legends. Still are. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How influential are those actors? I've never heard an actor say "I saw William Hurt in Lost in Space and it was revelatory—it completely changed the way I act." At most actors are inspired by each other; it's rare their styles shift much. On the other hand, it's common for popular authors to cause significant shifts in the literary style du jour or the themes most covered.
 * With Kadare, you can also make an argument for political influence as a dissenter and activist. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Lost in Space isn't even in top 20 Hurt's performances.
 * Let's see
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * I put dozens of Sutherland references last month. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Havilland literally changed studio system and the ways actors were treated . BilboBeggins (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * notability does not always go hand in hand with popularity. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether a death is still in the news by the time it's posted depends on popularity, though. That's the more important thing, blurbwise. Notability just determines whether the biography exists. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But enduring popularity across globe is notability.
 * I regard as the problem that in a competitive field top or upper tier representatives won't be considered, only top top top ones, while in a sport the best known player will be considered good enough for blurb.
 * 81 wiki page for Sutherland, 30 for Willie Mays, 30 for Shane Warne, around 40 for Jim Brown at the time of death.
 * This all hardly makes sense.
 * I would assume blurb deaths are for cases where a person is so well known that it is news that they died, and everyone should know about it, and Wikipedia spreads this information. As in cases of Pele, Queen Elizabeth II, Sidney Poitier, Pope Benedickt XVI. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If we're going to use "popularity across the globe" as the new criteria for death blurbs, why stop there? Let's apply popularity across the board at ITN! New PM in the Netherlands? Who cares! Taylor Swift's outfit malfunctioned during a concert in Ireland! Kim Kardashian just renovated her luxury villa! Let's please focus on the really popular news. Khuft (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP does not consider fame or popularity as part of notability, because that feeds into the systematic bias of English and Western topics. We are an encyclopedia, the main page meant to displace high quality encyclopedic articles, and in this case, a person that has a thoroughly established legacy and impact on literature, an ideal encyclopedic topic, even if one hasn't heard of them before. Absolutely meets what we want the main page to reflect. M asem (t) 22:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * More specifically, we're an English encyclopedia. Most English readers and writers exist in or know of this "Western world" of internettable common knowledge; these have always been the sort of people we work with and for. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I've reminded you of this recently and it had no effect, so I'll just suggest "globularity" for this newfangled metric (assuming Khuft isn't kidding about that topless news in Ireland). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The key of what I'm saying is that just because the majority of readers and editors of en.wiki likely have not heard of this author because of being outside the normal English/Western sphere of influence (and I'm in that boat of having no idea who he was), should absolutely not be a valid point of opposition becasue that runs against the fact we cover all topics globally. The same argument, in reverse, came up with the Willie Mays blurb, in that he was a figure likely known to most American readers and editors but not to other parts of the world - but still demonstrated why he was a great figure in the field of baseball. M asem (t) 04:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Now you're getting en.wiki (the thing that covers all topics globally) mixed up with "us" (WP:ITN, a tiny speck within the whole, where Western news comes first). This is hopeless. You win! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. Come on, really? Blurbs are not for this kind of person, no offence to him, he led a noteworthy and accomplished life. But RD exists for us to list deaths. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. His life was significant, which is why he has an article. But what's significant about his death? The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 00:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Orange tag is now gone. Should be ready to post. gobonobo  + c 00:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Blurb? Is he famous for dying? HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * He's much more famous than he was two days ago. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, blurbs should be reserved for cases where the sourcing could support a stand-alone article on their death and funeral. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD only This is what RD is for. While Kadare may have been somewhat transformative in a field, he wasn't transformative on a world stage like many state leaders or even top-tier sports stars. And even in literature, he doesn't reach the notability of, say, Stephen King. 1779Days (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support blurb not only a legendary writer, but also his death and funeral are notable, given that Albania and Kosovo declared national days of mourning. 2A02:908:676:E640:1529:50D8:AC9D:7F61 (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD Stephen 23:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your decision to post as RD only when there’s a strong consensus for a blurb is somewhat confusing. Furthermore, there’s an ongoing discussion on the talk page regarding the validity of the old-man-dies argument, which is prevalent among those opposing a blurb. Could you please elaborate your decision?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posting as RD doesn't preclude further discussion on a blurb. I wasn't making that call. Stephen 00:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hey now, is there any intention to post this as a blurb? From the get-go the consensus is to post as blurb. And it’s not a weak consensus. It’s pretty substantial. So why hasn’t it been posted as a blurb? Let’s face it: RD’s seldom attain the status of an ITN posting. Once again, RD’s need their own section separate from ITN. And that’s just the bottom line. That’s why I posted this on the Talk page a few weeks ago Wikipedia talk:In the news: also scroll down to Andrew’s comment on the talk page: “Here are the top 10 reasons why this is a good idea”: Superb! Trauma Novitiate (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) New Indian Criminal Code comes into effect

 * Oppose I wondered what "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita" meant as I don't speak Hindi. The nominated article doesn't tell me so I have to go to Google Translate to find that it means "Indian Judicial Code".  My impression is that this is much the same as before with the usual offences of theft, murder, etc.  It's just that everything has been rewritten in Hindi rather than English, right?  But this is the English language Wikipedia and so the topic is more suitable for हिन्दी विकिपीडिया. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am an Indian and I would say that this is not something worth mentioning in the ITN. Almost all the rules and laws are same expect for few notable exceptions. This is not something that is changing India drastically. Also, picture of the constitution has got nothing to do with it.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article does not make it seem like much has changed through the new code. It does have a criticism section, but the criticism about new changes the code has seems to be limited to ambiguous phrases it introduces. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. Totally irrelevant for ITN. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. The   Kip  (contribs) 15:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Sam Mostyn as new Governor-General of Australia
Businesswoman, climate change and gender equality activist and former AFL commissioner who has a medal named after her nominated to the highest office held by an Australian. Aydoh8 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Governor-Generals are just ceremonial roles.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-oppose but I will note that we didn't post previous changes of viceroy/reine in Commonwealth realms This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. Kind of a ceremonial stand in for the head of state. The prime minister holds the power and technically King Charles III is the head of state. So I'm not seeing any real significance here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The governor-general is mainly a ceremonial role, as mentioned by Ad Orientem --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in great shape. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the reasons above, mainly ceremonial and they have not been posted previously. Ornithoptera (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the governor-general is mostly a ceremonial role. As the lead of the article says: "In almost all instances the governor-general only exercises de jure power..." Gödel2200 (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) United States President granted criminal immunity

 * Oppose — This is a standard and expected ruling that has no personal significance to the country, unlike Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Totally irrelevant for ITN. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose not suitable for the ITN and the main page.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it's an ongoing event as part of a larger legal process (Trump indictments) and wasn't a conviction or acquittal like the New York trial. It's not suitable for ITN. JohnAdams1800 TALK 15:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support because of the immense significance of this decision. ITN has had an anti-US bias that prevents most posters on here from recognizing the obvious importance of extremely significant news stories for far too long, and the opposition expressed above to one of the most noteworthy Supreme Court decisions in the lifetime of anyone reading this is an exceptionally good illustration of that. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose both the topic and the blurb. The decision is more nuanced than described in the blurb. And ElijahPepe is correct that this is not a "major upset" (to use sports jargon).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose since this goes back to lower courts to rule what actions are or aren't immune now, which most pundits I've seen will still leave some of the table. If anything, the three decisions to nuke the administrative state (Jarsky, Loper Bright, and corner Post) are actually far more impactful but even then not ITN worthy material. M asem (t) 17:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)