Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/July 2021

~~Weak~~ support The last line of the Political career section is unsourced (although it could be deleted because it doesn't seem very noticeable to me). It would be great, also, if that section could be expanded, especially detailing a bit what he did as president. I don't know if he was important enough to have a blurb. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the unsourced line and it is now ready to be posted in RD. Not in blurb because of what the colleagues say below. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support as it is good enough for RD, but Oppose blurb, per this sentence in the lede: "Hussain maintained a low-key profile as President and his role was rarely seen in the nation's politics, although he was involved in a Polio eradication program."Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb for "the ceremonial head of state of Pakistan". In Pakistan, the Prime Minister has the authority. Lets not get fixated on the expression "head of state" and instead see if it actually means something. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb per LaserLegs; RD quality is just about there, with only one piece of trivia uncited at the end of the article. Per Alsoriano97, I'd wait a few hours to see if someone will fix that, otherwise I'd delete the sentence and post as RD. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as RD -- No blurb. --PFHLai (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Lightning strikes in India

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate Oppose because the storms don't have an article. Jim Michael (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Jim Michael. If it's important enough to be on ITN, then it would be important enough to have its own article, and for that article to have significantly more information than the three sentences listed on that section. Until an article demonstrating its importance is created and sufficiently good quality, we shouldn't be considering this. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 July 13 Template:Cob

July 13

(Posted): RD: Shirley Fry

This nom looks ready for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree (American tennis player). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, and have marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I no longer strongly agree, three headers violate MOS:NUMERAL (but whatever, go with it). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Margaret Richardson (lawyer)

Support - The article is fully sourced, and it's good enough for a RD.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 23:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Emma Bunton marries Jade Jones

Oppose and close please. This is beyond a joke. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not significant enough to justify the nomination of ITN. Wedding can be happen everyday. 36.77.92.164 (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Yashpal Sharma (cricketer)

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 July 12 Template:Cob

Comment There's a few unsourced statements in his bio (which I've tagged), and I'm not sure why the one-line on his death needs four sources. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Added references to the three CN tags that remained on the page. In addition, I also trimmed the sources on the death section as requested by Template:Ping above. Meets homepage hygiene. If additional edits are required, please feel free to let know. RIP. Ktin (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems a decent little article now with improvements made JW 1961^Talk 21:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

Collapse of Siji Kaiyuan Hotel

Comment: This article is stubby (not even 300 words of prose). Please expand this article. In particular, the background section is rather thin and unreferenced. --PFHLai (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality barely above a stub article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Paul Orndorff

Support May have fewer unreferenced sections than Paulose II, and is undoubtedly the bigger name. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: A stronger article than Paulose II's, but both need to improve sourcing. I've put in a few {cn} tags -- things like getting fired, failing a physical, getting to a Hall of Fame, etc. should be ref'd. A few older refs appear to be deadlinks and may need to be replaced/updated. --PFHLai (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Several cn tags and several statements without a single ref.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 08:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) New prime minister in Nepal

Support finally a real story This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:S

Support: Looks good to me now. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 18:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support article looks good, and head of state changes are ITNR. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posting, nice work. --Tone 21:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Paulose II (Indian Orthodox Church)

Template:S No Paul Orndorff, but the article's wonderful enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Paul Orndorff may have fewer unreferenced sections. --PFHLai (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Sorry, but are you checking the articles before voicing your opinion? SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 08:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am not a robot. When I'd looked, though, it looked better than when you did, and after. Still not terrible, in my opinion. Marked up, not ultratrustable, though not a hit piece. But yes, falling apart faster than it isn't, moves me to Weak Support. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The article needs a lot of work. Several cn tags, two orange tags, etc.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 08:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at least 6 places where sources are needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2021 South African protests

Strong Wait Article's currently not pretty, chronologically mixed up and in the middle of a heavy 87-byte edit war. But it has potential. Just like any mass protest story. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update there were two articles covering the events and now they have been merged Scaramouche33 (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added 1 citation needed tag. Also, some of the named references aren't defined anywhere, so this will need fixing (so they point to the references that verify the content). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix the citation problems, how does it look now? Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - major protests, rioting, looting etc. with a high death toll that are being tackled by the military as well as police. The article is being rapidly improved. Jim Michael (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support worldwide news coverage of this, clearly ITN worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I read about it today in local and national news, clearly something of importance. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – in principle – pending updating of article to include 72 deaths, 1,200 arrests. Favor Alt1. – Sca (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deaths and arrests have climbed extremely rapidly, therefore suggest original blurb to remove need for a ticker. Will likely end up as ongoing anyways. Albertaont (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle (with the reported deaths and arrests) but Oppose on present quality as the deaths/arrests are currently only delegated into the infobox and should be part of the prose of the article. Everything else about the article seems fine, but these need to be in the body before we can post. --Masem (t) 23:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, Template:U, I have added deaths and arrest numbers to the lead and body. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support considering that the main issues appear to have been fixed. Alaexis_¿question? 11:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Prominent second-day coverage. [20] [21] [22] Time to post. – Sca (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marked attn. – Sca (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Posted – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is looking much better than before. With the recent events including multiple lawsuits, criminal charges on politicians in the ANC and EFF and deployment of the army (SANDF), I think this article is almost ready.TapticInfo (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the nth time, it's already been posted: it's on the main page right now. Please now stop. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Edwin Edwards

Oppose A lot of paragraphs are unsourced. Not ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing: Western North America heat wave

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 July 11 Template:Cob

Support - was thinking about nominating this too, article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a separate heat wave from the one that affected the Pac NW in late June. Additionally, while this wave is breaking temperatures, these are nowhere close to the deltas that the Pac NW one broke or led to the deaths that we saw in that one. (Yes there are wildfires attributed to it, but those are also normal for this season/weather in California and other Western states). --Masem (t) 03:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's less sigmas (deltas unimportant, as the number of degrees per standard deviation correlate with continentality (climatology term)) but if verified will be the new highest reliable temperature on Earth which is something so notable it should be posted if someone writes an article. A weather station in Death Valley also stayed above 107.7°F from Saturday to Monday which is the new high midnight-to-midnight low for the world outside of Oman (108.68°F, caused by most Arabian seawater being body temperature — the hottest in the world). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We know global warming is happening, so there's no surprise to see record-breaking temperatures in places that are already generally known for the hottest temperatures on earth. The Pac NW was extremely unusual and led to numerous deaths because of its intensity and unusualness --Masem (t) 13:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The real world record has only been broken a few times, I think it should be posted at least the first few times. And major landmarks like last Friday's first 130.0 in the world. And each multiple of 5 Celsius and Fahrenheit and the fake 134° if that ever happens. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can pretty much expect that the highest recorded temperature is going to be broken every year for the next several years given global warming. This isn't anything surprising. What would be newsworthy would be akin to another UN assessment of how the current Paris Agreement work is affecting if we will keep the global average under 2degC by 2030/35 or a similar international scientific study. --Masem (t) 19:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In the northern hemisphere it’s summer and there are heat waves in many places. Neither this one is more relevant (for now) than others nor a heat wave is exceptional wherever it is. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the real world temperature record of 129.9°F is important and no heat wave being exceptional whatever it is is laughable when there was a 2003 European heat wave which killed 70,000 people. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not all heat waves cause deaths. If this one does, I will undoubtedly support this nomination. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a separate heat wave event (different air masses participating even as the mechanism remains the same) and as such, must be treated separately. If, as some suggest, the heat wave in the SW US merits its own article and all-time records will be/were beaten, I'm fine to have that in the news. But we must have a separate article for that purpose. The one I've substantially expanded related to the heat wave that started around 25 June and finished by July 7 in Labrador. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article doesn't indicate it's an ongoing heat wave any more as much of its content documents extreme temperatures and fatalities at the end of June with no daily updates recently. To put it simply, the timing for the nomination is bad.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same heat wave, there is no article on this one which started in a different part of the West about the time the supposedly ongoing one left the continent's easternmost province in a significantly weakened condition. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – It's still doing what it's been doing, with the Beckworth complex of fires east of Chico spewing smoke far & wide, but essentially there's nothing new in that. Cough, cough. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A calendar day averaged 118.2°F in Stovepipe Wells, California which is a record (untied) for an Earth weather station. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft, my stovepipe beats that every winter. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Canadian version of place names like Furnace Creek, California in Death Valley? Like Snowshoes Thud, Yukon, Foggy Bottom, BC or Polar Bear Froze, Nunavut? There's an Alaskan town called Deadhorse near the north end of the border and people would joke it's not just a name, it's a guarantee! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dry Alberta has Vulcan, Redwater and Smoky Lake. Soggy Ontario has Thunder Bay, Ball's Falls and Wawa. Further east, things get a bit Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!, what with the Dildo, Peggy's Cove, Witless Bay and all. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, Dildo. I wonder if the average Dildo man that comes from a long line of male Dildoers needs a phrase with a dildo in it to have an unusually high funniness level before they'll find it funny. Compared to similar men in the non-Dildo population (or non-Dildo region/-Newfoundland/-Eastern Canada) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you said "region", good question! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support still in the news, likely to be for a while longer. Banedon (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, basically per User:Alsoriano97, given that it is now being reported across multiple venues that deaths in the hundreds are occurring due to the heat wave (see Forbes, The Guardian, The New York Times, KGW8 News, ABC News). I tend to agree that any event in which hundreds of people die, and further deaths appear likely, is ongoing news. BD2412 T 01:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are all "post-disaster" aftermaths, as there is no heat wave in the PacNW anymore, and we usually don't do followon to disasters like that. The heat wave in the Western states is a distinct weather system that would need a separate article to demonstrate ITN-ness. --Masem (t) 02:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, then, what is needed is a single article (and item) on 2021 North American heat waves, since they are not unconnected events, and each one is setting records and causing deaths in its respective occurrance. BD2412 T 04:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - This latest one hasn't caused anywhere close to the number of heat-related deaths as the one in the PacNW. It would be SYNTH to link the events in the same article. --Masem (t) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - What about something like a "List of 2021 North American heat waves"? I'm sure there are sources indicating that these are related, such as this article referencing both heat waves as part of an "overall global blocking pattern". BD2412 T 04:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too complicated. – Sca (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – As of Wednesday, more than 60 wildfires burning across U.S. West. Thousands of evacuations. – Sca (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind that wildfires during this time of year in these areas are common. --Masem (t) 12:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But not this intense. – Sca (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

(Posted) Bulgarian parliamentary election

Wait Second parliamentary election in three months and it's still unclear who will form the new government. I'd rather wait until the new government is formed instead of posting the 'meaningless' outcome from the election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, but general election results are ITNR. Government formations are not. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that Greece held two elections back in 2015 and we posted the results from both. Despite this, I still don't think that the ITN/R status should apply to repetitive elections after a failed one and this could be e good case for invoking WP:IAR.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's completely irrelevant whether these elections lead to the formation of a government or not. The results, as AllegedlyHuman says, are ITNR by itselves. And if they are repeated, let them be re-nominated. I've added a better picture of Trifonov. The article is not bad: Results by constituency needs content and Aftermath section is still marked in orange. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I believe I have addressed these concerns. The article is in better shape now, and I believe meets quality for posting. Requesting more attention to this nomination. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support after work by Template:U. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Now ITN is indeed on ITN! --PFHLai (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image used for Trifonov is a potential copyright violation, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trifonov.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeeno (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2021 July 18 (UTC)
- Thanks, Template:U. The pic is now removed from this wikipage. --PFHLai (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Moldovan parliamentary election

Support article looks fine and well sourced, event is ITNR. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I've added "Results by administrative-territorial units", but the general results section need some prose. Otherwise, the article is very good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just fixed the only CN tag and added sourced prose in the results section. Marking it's ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted--PFHLai (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U thanks for posting this, I wonder if we could also add the abbreviation of the party, PAS, in parentheses? Not that it is too important but I believe many people into Moldovan politics will identify the parties faster with their abbreviations. Super Ψ Dro 21:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thank you for your work on the article. That's more important work. I should ask this: is PAS like NASA or UNESCO? If so, perhaps instead of parentheses, the acronym should replace the fullname? --PFHLai (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be excessive. The acronym is not that well-known as to be able to replace the party's full name and is also an acronym for other things (see PAS), and the Moldovan party is probably not the most primary topic out of those that use that acronym. Super Ψ Dro 07:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Charlie Gallagher (footballer, born 1940)

Support Short article but the referencing has much improved since yesterday JW 1961^Talk 08:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2021 Cuban protests

Oppose NYT reporting only "hundreds" of protesters (in journo-speak, <1000). Scale does not seem evident here, unlike with the 2021 Colombian protests, the 2020–2021 Belarusian protests, or the George Floyd protests, for example. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the BBC article which reports "thousands of people" in the lead. I agree that it may be hard to report the scale this early on, but the NYT article said that these are the biggest in decades (presumably since the Maleconazo) Pacific26 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable, I think it's hard to see where it will go from here, but it seems like a significant amount of protestors have been involved and there are notable international protests abroad, such as in Miami and in Chile. Flalf^Talk 03:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Saturday protests are prone to fizzling out. If a rebellion starts or something this can be revisited. Abductive (reasoning) 06:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support France24 has reported thousands of protesters (as well as the BBC and other outlets) and there have been reports of protests in up to 15 cities. The demonstrations have been described has "rare" and as the largest in Cuba in 27 years, since the Maleconazo in 1994. Additionally, there have been substantial improvements and expansion in the article, and the quality is alright. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Protests in Cuba are rare, especially large scale ones. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per comment by 331dot. Elserbio00 (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per 331dot. Couple of things need sourcing or removing from the infobox, but a couple of cn tags shouldn't preclude this going on front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tentatively~~ Support. As per Joseph2302, there are unsourced entries in the infobox that may violate the NPOV policy. I would more strongly support this proposal if verifiable sources can be found and/or if unsourced content is removed.--Grnrchst (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone already removed unsourced information from the infobox. Elserbio00 (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great. I think the article might need temporary semi-protection due to vandalism by IP and new users, but that's an issue for a different page.--Grnrchst (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Protests are rare and it meets notability from numerous international sources.--Simón, el Silbón (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – To see what results there may be. – Sca (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per comments above --Vacant0 (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the main goal of the protests? I can't support this nomination before the article clearly articulates what the protesters want to achieve.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The event is noteworthy, and the article does not seem to have any major flaws, except for those that come from being about an ongoing topic that started a day ago. Cambalachero (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Notable event. Super Ψ Dro 14:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. To quote the opening sentence from the story in the Guardian:[23] "The biggest mass demonstrations for three decades have rippled through Cuba, as thousands took to the streets in cities throughout the island, demonstrating against food shortages, high prices and communist rule." That summarizes quite clearly why the story is ITN worthy. Nsk92 (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support if something actually happens w/r/t the government. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know a large percentage of people on this ostensibly neutral encyclopedia are die-hard commie supporters who'd already whitewashed the article about the Castros, but I think the largest protests in the country in over 60 years (since the beginning of the communist regime) ought to be blurb-able, don't you think? 212.74.201.233 (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um no, there's no developed country where a large percent of the people are commie supporters, communism has been irrelevant for at least 29 years. Wikipedia has left-wing bias but pro-communism isn't it. Note: Left-wing bias isn't always bad, often the right-wing is delusional. Hey you get some things right though, sometimes I look at Democrats and wonder "how the fuck is the Frazzledrip Space Laser party infinitely more sane than you on 5% of the issues?" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Capitalist dog propaganda, and too soon to know the results (if any). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be the running dogs of capitalism, by chance? – Sca (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're out of line again, comrade, do it again and I'll see you can't even run for dogcatcher in this state! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Notable event, rare in Cuba. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I'm surprised by how little we know about the situation so far. How many people are attending these protests? Have there been any injuries? Have there been any arrests? If so, how many? It's difficult to judge the notability of the event when we don't have much to work with. I'm sure this will change with time, though. Vanilla Wizard 💙 00:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems relevant. Elishop (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable, historic and with international coverage. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A lot of people have gone to jail, it seems. [24] [25] [26] – Sca (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was considering posting, but the first paragraph at 2021 Cuban protests#Background is unsourced and has a citation needed tag.—Bagumba (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Paragraph sourced now. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Incredibly rare for protests to occur in Cuba, this is a historic event even if nothing comes of it. The article is flawless, so I don't see any reason to delay posting. Mlb96 (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I dropped "large", as it's relative, and the post anyways implies it's large enough.—Bagumba (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A substantial historic event. BD2412 T 03:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 Euros final

Better blurb... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed "defeats to defeat" as per WP:ENGVAR (European English). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support but wait until the article is updated to include some prose about the match itself. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hat

Comment can we not give the IP a nomination credit? We shouldn't be encouraging nomination before things actually finish, this seems to be an attempt to game the system to get the blurb credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since none of the blurbs as they stand are from the IP, I don't think that would pose problem. Template:Ping I've gone ahead and struck their sig out per this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted. Don't be silly. It's not like this makes a major difference, and the IP was the one who proposed it so they get the credit on their talk page. Let's focus on things that matter here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs)
They nominated a blurb before the match finished. This isn't the first time recently that sports results have been nominated before matches have finished. We shouldn't be encouraging this crystal ball behaviour, as it seems an obvious attempt to game the system. And allowing editors to gain credits by proposing nonsense hooks hedging bets on the winner is just going to encourage it to continue. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, Template:U provided the first workable, actually correct and usuable blurb, so we should consider them the nominator. Rather than someone who suggested one of two teams won. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are all joking right? The credits are just a bit of internal Wikipedia appreciation. More than one user can be given them, and having credits means... not much, unless you're an updater. It's not a competition. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really that big of a deal? Just give the credit.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOOL this is the perfect example how wikipedia is broken. everybody is running for shit recognition while completely ignoring the original spirit of wikipedia. spend 500 characters on dismissing some random IP, while also protecting the said page. keep talking procedural crap while preventing actual updates and politicizing anything with shit terms like "systemic bias". yes, there is a systemic bias in preventing ips from doing any editing while people who register with usernames focus their energy on shutting everyone else down. good job Template:Ping and Template:Ping. don't even bother signing your edits but do put energy on dismissing people who don't even care fro recognition. 2601:602:9200:1310:8C95:3A7A:3E5E:5660 (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hab

Oppose as there's no prose on the match itself, just the pre-game stuff. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: at least two red cards missing in that match Supporto procedurale debole: Major sporting event. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Needs a prose write up. Hopefully we'll get one Soon! This article is going to be an FA in the future, but it's not good enough for the main page right now. — Amakuru (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs a prose write up.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The blurb, after the article is ready. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wrong team won. Article needs work, I'll be doing it soon, but not now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What if you had a break for rest after extra time, then played a second extra time with the same rules except the goals get wider at whatever millimeters per second would cause the average score to be about 10 goals per team by the 150th minute, but if a team ever trails by 2 while the goal is growing they lose immediately. Would that help the right team win more often than penalty kicks? It would also incredibly boost TV ratings in the c. 2/3rds (more?) of U.S. sports fans who wish soccer was more exciting, but only for the duration of the growing goal periods. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC) p.s. but yes, penalty shoot-outs are so bad because they allow the game to be decided on failures, a miss or a save, rather than on a positive goal.[reply]
Oppose as the article is not ready and per systemic bias would be posting Italy's victory and not Argentina'x yesterday. CoryGlee (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For someone who opposing the blurb because of systemic bias, two football competition are held differently. Copa America final and Euro 2020 final helds in different countries (England and Brazil) and different dates (10 July for Copa America and 11 July for Euro 2020). Regardless whether someone opposing the blurb because of bias against Argentina, the argument is bit unrelated and would be necessary to posted two Football competition finals as blurb respectively, except if someone in the Americas think that posting the Copa America blurb is more necessary than Euro 2020 final. 36.77.92.225 (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the Copa is less necessary, if a combined blurb would not be too long there is nothing wrong with combining the 2 if there's not enough desire for having 2 soccer blurbs 1 day apart. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Confused by the blurb. Was there any score? CoatCheck (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sports scores don't often make the blurbs here. It's penalties, so you know it was tied. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support based on changed blurb Blurb is terrible, maybe mention scores and in penalties? Event itself is definitely notable and belongs in ITN, but the blurb needs work. Flalf^Talk 03:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ITN blurbs doesn't include scores for a long time now. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the amount of characters written to shut down this nomination, while putting absolutely 0 characters towards fixing the concern, while also continuing to semi-protect the article against allowing IPs from vandalizing the unupdated article with any sort of match updates. 2601:602:9200:1310:8C95:3A7A:3E5E:5660 (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think "allowing IPs to vandalize the article with match updates" is necessarily a good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support sufficiently updated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support updated with well sourced match report now. Blurb should maybe start "In association football", as not everyone will know that UEFA means football (and we tend to do it for most sports hooks). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 12:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2021 Wimbledon Championships

Comment needs some actual text about the tournament in this article, rather than just linking to the articles on men's singles, women's singles etc. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- For comparison, see the last time this tournament was posted on ITN: 2015 Wimbledon Championships. Joofjoof (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready. None of the articles have adequate prose descriptions of the finals, or the tournament as a whole. There needs to be real encyclopaedic content, not just a load of data tables. Modest Genius ^talk 18:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't look like anyone is working on adding prose to the article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivetop Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) Unity 22 spaceflight

Comment did he fly on his own? No other passengers? PS: the article linked has an image caption at the top which says: "The first space tourist, Dennis Tito...." The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I don't know why I thought it was just the pilots and him. Note to self: read own sources! El_C 19:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support w/ altblurb - Richard Branson is not the first space tourist, and also not the only occupant of the flight. Ionmars10 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb (the verb, not supporting the redacted "Blurb" OR Alt1, use SOME words) Now that's what I call entertainment news, celebrities leaving us through flying, not dying! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality the article is a stub. Needs expanding. Notable enough once expanding. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support once quality of article is improved. The significance is that it's the first journey with space tourists, and alt1 doesn't convey how it's different from any other spaceflight. Would support a variant of the original blurb. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the flight which had "The first space tourist, Dennis Tito...." right? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the space tourists club, Tito, allows for old ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your attempt at humour: we've had space tourists. It's not news. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a group, though, or a duo. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your point here. Are you suggesting that Branson was more of a tourist than Dennis Tito? Or are you just deliberately wasting time again? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying the "six occupants" part is new, but calling them space tourists, dead fucking serious. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the blurb which talks about the "first space tourist" still solicits your support despite it being utterly inaccurate? Perhaps you can start considering this project with an iota of gravitas rather than an alternative for Reddit or something. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, in this Virgin flight, how many "tourists" were there? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4 I think. + 2 pilots (unsure if those pilots were astronauts themselves, possibly not). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so four (perhaps) tourists (only one of whom was declared as a tourist) is newsworthy because....? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...it is, in the new normal's word of the year, unprecedented. Even before 2020, that factored into journalistic newsworthiness hard. First time, ever, in history! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is? What you've voted to support on the main page doesn't reflect your bizarre attempts at humour here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A group of humans, in space, touring together. Seriously. You see humour here, not me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some employees of Virgin going in sub-orbital space. Amazing. Come back with a real encyclopedic article to bother us instead of the relentless failing attempts at humour. Seriously, some of us are trying to make this an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want a blurb, that's fine. But don't tell people who do that they're failing at humour when they're not trying, and telling you repeatedly how they mean it. It's unsettling. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you need to make your opinion clearer then. Your background is purely in attempted humour. Your starting point was "It's the space tourists club, Tito, allows for old ones." which makes little sense to me or perhaps was an attempt at humour or an in-joke. Maybe be clearer. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Homers Club. Thought you might recognize it, and appreciate it as a simple way to grasp the true unfunny premise. I overestimated your and Wikipedia's cartoon cultural awareness, but hadn't considered that by alluding to a famous old saying, I'd be mistaken for funny myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, fail. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think having a group of space tourists is significant. Here are a few sources discussing the effect of the trip on space tourism[27][28] and BBC says Template:Tq [29] I think that makes this distinct from the usual 'guy pays Space Adventures for a trip'. Celebrity news would be the 'space rivalry' between Branson and Bezos, and likely we're not going to have two blurbs so only featuring one might suck us into the drama, but I think this is 'in the news' (that is, the news of two spaceflights in a short period of time with space tourists). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posting this would certainly be good advertising for Virgin. So that's a thing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is not the first manned flight of this craft, not the first space tourist, and mostly just celebrity news. --Masem (t) 17:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rich man takes a high flight. Next. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No small feat even for the billionaire, apparently.[30][31] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? We've had space tourists. What is this? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the precedent is first civilian spaceflight, no? El_C 17:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I missed that distinction in the blurb, sorry.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose purely on article quality. Virgin Galactic Unity 22 just says "some people flew". I'm not sure why it's a separate article from VSS Unity, and if people don't improve it, it won't be separate for long. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose also based on importance; the people claiming this is important are struggling to find any "first" other than "first time Richard Branson has engaged in this marketing technique". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Might one to include in blurb that Sir Richard is the first billionaire in space (I know...). CoatCheck (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, and the first "English billionaire"? Or you could say "the first English airline-owning billionaire"? Or even "the first man with a beard"? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Surely, that was Moses?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Charles Simonyi is the first billionaire in space. See Template:Slink. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beat out by Paul Scully-Power on the beard, too. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The first space tourist is Dennis Tito, who flew to the ISS in 2001 aboard a Soyuz spacecraft. Tito was also the first orbital space tourist; Branson and others who flew with him are suborbital space tourists (where "space" is defined as either 50 miles or 62 miles above the surface of Earth). So, what do we put in the blurb? Virgin Galactic becomes the first company to offer suborbital space tours (defined as tours to an altitude of 50 miles)? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - even if it had went beyond the Kármán line I may have opposed. A flight that only went into space according to US' and no one else's definition, err no thanks. -- KTC (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to the day that human spaceflight is so common as to no longer be itself blurb-worthy in ITNR, but this didn't reach the Karman line in any event so I must oppose even though it's lighting up space Twitter. Besides, the first space tourist was way back in 2001. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose This did not go into space, it did not reach the Kármán line, the standard definition of space. Only in the US would this be considered a spaceflight. Fortunately for the americans, it looks like the blurb will actually go to the other billionaire in a weeks time. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle but the reason it is notable is that it is the first commercial enterprise to do private commercial suborbital flights. Technically the equivalent of SpaceX doing this is its Inspiration4 since the other crewed flights were contracted by a governmental agency (NASA), while the Russians launched space tourists as a governmental agency themselves. This is strictly about privatizing space, since all previous space tourism involves big government money, not individual pocket money. And first successful launches of a new rocket are ITNR, this is just the first paying successful flight of such a rocket. 97.126.66.142 (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cmnt: just noticed the complete lack of quality updates to the article. Considering how secretive this flight was, it would be difficult to get a meaningful update to the article now besides its relevancy and rivalry to the Bezos competition. 97.126.66.142 (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Spaceflight is still rare and dangerous, and civilian passengers were on this flight, a private flight. (Tito bought a seat on a Russian government flight). 331dot (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, but not opposed in principle to it being posted. - Indefensible (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Peter's Moon Cannon

Weak support. Virgin's In Space, yay!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Too much personal hype for the likes of Wiki. And I don't see much genuine significance in this $tunt. – Sca (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Note that Little Peter's Journey to the Moon took place in 1919. – Sca (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC) →[reply]

Manned shells to Luna are cool but the acceleration would be like the worst instant of a giant that kind of one-punch kills you but for 10 nonstop seconds. Also it'd probably have to be a helium barrel or something even more exotic as no non-nuclear explosion can expand in air at over ~80% the minimum moonshot speed and it must be about 30 miles long in addition to being a very hard to design "constant acceleration cannon" with many explosions per shot to kill you this gently. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smalldiv

@Sca, I've found a source that says 16 times Earth gravity for 1 minute would kill us, so a 180 mile long moon cannon would still be fatal. The average person would pass out on a moonshot of about 6 or maybe 5 g's, I'd try to keep the cannon at least 700 miles long so it's more like a strong roller coaster valley for 4 minutes. One day someone may make a 700 mile long Moonstik® from future substances that'll not collapse from their own length, but electromagnetic, and within a century of that someone will become the first man to listen to a dubstep buildup while attached to a 600 to 700 mile long lineac Capsool®, and when the electromagnetic linear accelerator railgun inductors or whatever "go to warp" the illest 4-minute bass drop ever composed will start. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:-

Oppose For the many varied reasons outlined above by Masem, The Rambling Man, power~enwiki, KTC, 104.243.98.96, Sca. It is not Wikipedia's job to be the hype-machine for a billionaire and/or the stock of a publicly traded company. Chrisclear (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, weak publicity stunt with no lasting impact. Abductive (reasoning) 06:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The billionaire space race has been covered internationally and seeing the world's richest battle over who'll be the first to space is a rare event.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if we consider the "billionaire space race" to be an actual thing, since the aircraft didn't reach the Karman line, it's not really a major milestone Scaramouche33 (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb. This signifies the beginning of commercial sub-orbital flight operations, there is clear lasting significance and widespread global news coverage. Polyamorph (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivebottom

2021 Ethiopian general election

Oppose with regret, still no improvement really 12 hours later. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SPOQ important development but threadbare article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reynold Ruffins

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 July 10 Template:Cob

July 10

(Closed) Removal of Robert E. Lee Monument

Oppose An unimportant aftermath. Removing the statue won't cause any effect to the current issue. It's just a statue among many others and although removing it would definitely resolve the protest, it doesn't have any long-term effects. --125.166.22.203 (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This is news that I doubt is ITNR even in the United States. A statue is removed, as so many have been removed in that country these past few months and in Europe. Unless the Statue of Liberty (which is known globally) is removed, I doubt that removing a Confederate monument (or of any other significance) would have any future as a candidate to the main page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose so many statues have been removed in US and UK, that we don't need to post about one of the many occurrences. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Esther Béjarano

Support - Start-class fully sourced article. I think it's good enough for a RD.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 08:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Short article, but sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Carmel Budiardjo

Support I fixed up the article. Pretty well cited and should meet standards for RD. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re Why so fast? There's a lot of unposted ready RDs below and it would be better if you check those first instead of this one. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:U, no noms will be posted if no one expresses their support here on WP:ITN/C. This nom has the support votes from two Wikipedians. --PFHLai (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's also no RD noms below this one that I see with supports/consensus to post. They all have comments or opposes based on work that needs doing, and doesn't yet look to have been done. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2021 Copa América

Comment I haven't checked article quality, but I think we may need a combined blurb with this and Euro 2020 (with the final in less than 24 hours). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, when there are two events in ITNR that happen in a 24 hour period they should both get blurbs if the articles are ready. Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, these are 2 completely separate events. When we had 2 aircraft disasters, we didn't merge them into one blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not ready. Keep blurbs separate. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. While the article is currently a stub prose-wise, it would make zero sense to combine two unrelated events that just happen to be in the same field into one blurb. If there are two plane crashes on the same day, do they get a combined blurb? Of course not. Kingsif (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, it would make sense to combine into a single blurb. The 2 organizers, CONMEBOL and UEFA, are sibling organizations within FIFA, so it does not seem accurate to say that they are totally unrelated. - Indefensible (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I remember a few months back,there were two US shootings combined into a single blurb Scaramouche33 (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they were linked shootings, then they shouldn't have been. Wimbledon just finished, so why not add that in there, so we have only 1 sports blurb? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is still not ready. Given that the Euro final will be done in around six hours, and will probably updated quickly, keep the blurbs separate. Also, I rewrote the blurb for ENGVAR.Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no matter what, do NOT conflate this "tournament" with Euro 2020. Good grief. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why mock the CONMEBOL championship? It's less important than the UEFA but 4 different countries won the last 5 and 5 won last 8, the same country doesn't always win like CONCACAF or OFC. It's almost a de facto Western Hemisphere championship, as the following teams have played to increase the field to 12 and let weaker confederations play South America: Costa Rica (1997, 2001, 2004, 2011, 2016), Honduras (2001), Japan (1999, 2019), Jamaica (2015, 2016), Mexico (1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2011, 2015, 2016), Haiti (2016), Panama (2016), USA (1993, 1995, 2007, 2016), Qatar (2019). USA even hosted 2016. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ article is too short. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dreadful article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dreadful is correct regarding the bold article. No prose about the game or outcome, and the entirety of the background section is about Bangladesh, which (checks notes) is halfway around the world in Asia. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too short. In order not to be biased against the victory of Argentina I may oppose to any outcome of England v. Italy too. CoryGlee (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Both are ITNR, so only consideration is whether articles are good enough quality. We are not being biased here for opposing this one (which needs more info) whilst accepting the European competition (which is of sufficient quality). The way to "fix" this bias would be to improve this article, not to oppose another article. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cmnt only requirement of ITNR items before posting is to have sufficient updates, which surprisingly this does not even have a "Road to final" section that these kind of articles have. 97.126.66.142 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added a prose summary and will be working on a pre-match section soon. Can't have a major tournament left uncovered, especially one that had such a global impact (see: riots in Bangladesh). Sounder Bruce 06:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as updated. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support following the update, the article is now ready for the front page. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Template:Ping Considering the recent progress in the nominated article, would you change your 'Oppose' vote? --PFHLai (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support now there's enough text about the match and post-match. Seems good enough for the front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support now it fits. CoryGlee (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It currently meets the requirements to be posted. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Taliban offensive

Wait, Leaning Oppose, Ongoing Is Fine Not in article (and should be "recapture"). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in the July segment,but yeah,it's only a single paragraph, I'll try to expand it a bit Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see them entering, but I don't see capturing. Pretty big difference (ask withdrawing Americans). Still needs much expansion. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(For those wondering, the original proposal boldlinked "capture", not "enter".) InedibleHulk (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose Doesn't seem like it's gaining a lot of attention. Now one WP:ITN purpose is showcasing quality content, but the page is subpar WP:PROSELINE.—Bagumba (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – It was inevitable anyway. (Good morning, Afnamistan!) – Sca (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question wouldn't it be better to nominate 2021 Taliban offensive for ongoing? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be the best solution, Taliban has made major gains within the last few weeks and more regions will fall under their rule. So the article will be continuously updated. I worry that Kabul may suffer the same fate by the end of the year Scaramouche33 (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the Taliban rule paragraph of Kandahar to the 21st century section, a return to relative normality and occasional (or less apparent and deadly) crime seems nice to me. I'm not a woman or girl, though. Could be sadder for them. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if we ignore the massacres, the ethnic cleansing, the forced deportations, the gender apartheid, the refusal to accept food aid for their starving civilians, human trafficking and mass rape, the destruction of cultural heritage and the ban on modern entertainment, living in the Islamic Emirate doesn't seem that bad Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where'd you see that part? All I see in the article is a hijacking and some censorship. I don't condone post-9/11 ISIS-type shit, certainly. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The atrocities carried out by the Islamic Emirate are described in the Taliban's article fairly well (but not in the Emirate's article for some reason,which we can improve later). Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mainly talking about how things were in Kandahar under the Taliban, not all of Afghanistan, and definitely not during the insurgency. War brings out the worst in people. If it was bad in the old capital, we can at least hope it'll be relatively better the second time around! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gee whiz, it's really hard for me to not fall back into reductio ad Hitlerum here. WaltCip-(talk) 16:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the women and the Tajiks at least,I doubt it. Anyway, should we nominate this for ongoing? Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support it, but not because I want Tajiks and women to be cruelly discriminated against, rounded up or eradicated, Walt, just because this war goes on (and government policy can reform for the good of humanity after a great war, it's happened before). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I changed it to an ongoing nomination after receiving some feedback Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the Taliban are offensive – it's their nature. – Sca (talk)

Oppose ongoing, please propose a blurb. In most cases ITN stories should start with a blurb, and they then roll on to ongoing if there's consensus that the issue is still generating fresh news on a regular basis. This seems like a new issue, so please propose a blurb for it so that we can vote on that and assess its significance. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Putting military conflicts directly into ongoing without a blurb first is highly unusual. ~~Is there at least a potential blurb we could post?~~ Mlb96 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it seems that the proposed blurb was originally "Taliban forces enter Kandahar, the second largest city in Afghanistan." I would support posting this first as opposed to posting directly to ongoing (not saying that I actually do support the blurb, I'm still neutral). Mlb96 (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changing it back to a blurb nomination as suggested by Amakuru and Mlb96 Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article seems to meet requirements but added altblurb. - Indefensible (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is basically still the final chapter or epilogue of the 2001 Afghan War, parts of which we've blurbed already (probably several times), so Ongoing is still fine to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm supportive in principle, but curious what is meant by they "entered Kandahar". Have they seized the city, or parts of it? That would certainly be a major development if so, but it's a little unclear from the blurb or the article exactly what's happened here. — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of it, according to TOLOnews, clashes are underway in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 13th, 15th districts Scaramouche33 (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Paul Mariner

Comment will try to assist improving referencing later today, Support in principle, RIP Paul JW 1961^Talk 12:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I and some others referenced a good few sentences yesterday but I'm afraid the 1980's section will need to be re-written by someone with more expertise in this area in order to cut it down to what is verifiable JW 1961^Talk 10:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The section on 1980s remains largely unref'd. The orange {refimprove} banner atop the wikibio must be addressed before this nom can proceed. (Time seems to be running out too quickly here.) --PFHLai (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Galileo

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 July 9 Template:Cob

Oppose for now The race record and progeny sections are unreferenced. Also an image of him would be nice Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For some reason, I thought that Galileo Galilei had died today and I was confused. Thanks, Kaiser. KingOfAllThings ^{(thou shalt chatter!)} 01:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But could he do the fandango? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 9

RD: Jehan Sadat

Please add more refs to this wikibio. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of the article is unreferenced. Gotitbro (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some reference tags remain. Joofjoof (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The article also uses this source [32], which looks like a copy of the article itself. Joofjoof (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Frank Lui

READY for RD – No obvious concerns. --PFHLai (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources did not pass verification. Also, is there more detail about what he did as a Cabinet minister and as Premier? Joofjoof (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ping Template:U, the nominator. --PFHLai (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Geoff Makhubo

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 July 8 Template:Cob

Comment can the controversy section be moved into one of the existing sections? Wikipedia:Controversy sections says that "Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged." Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The article is fully sourced. The controversy section is neutral and sourced, I don't see a problem with it.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 08:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 23:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

(Posted) RD: Bryan Watson (ice hockey)

Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Neptune made an appearance on the East Sussex coast

Seriously? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I mean, I’m into what you’re putting down, and if it turns out to actually be the Roman sea deity, that would warrant a blurb. However, it seems to just be a cool picture, so not blurb-worthy. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose whilst East Sussex is fantastic and needs better representation on ITN (I'm biased and joking), this is not mentioned at target, and not true. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as long as it's not Jupiter and catches the first lady he see.... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Abul Kalam Qasmi

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

Posted Step hen 00:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Hurricane Elsa

Wait until a fuller picture of the impact can be determined. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wait~~ there looks to be a tropical storm warning for parts of the US. Dependent on what emerges in the next day or so (in US and anywhere else it hits), it may or may not be ITN-worthy. Although why did they name it after the queen of Arendelle? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping While it is possible that the name was nominated as a decent replacment for the name Erica in 2016 because of Frozen, NHC did not name this system Elsa because of Frozen.Jason Rees (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was being facetious, I guess that didn't come across well ;) Joseph2302 (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The impacts are not overly significant at this time.Jason Rees (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Run of the mill storm. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait If this is the extent of damage, it is a run-of-the-mill storm and not significant for posting. --Masem (t) 17:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless that one person killed was a major figure in his or her field. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This was a pretty typical hurricane. Nothing extraordinary. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Template:Endash Per 331dot. There are likely more impacts in Haiti, Cuba, Jamaica, etc. Also, the storm is likely to impact some areas of the northeastern US. Not ITN-worthy now, but if the damage is greater than it currently seems, I'd post it. Also, there's a cleanup tag for preps in the Greater Antilles. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 19:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Thus far nothing extraordinary about this this one. – Sca (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jason Rees. Destroyer (Alternate account) 23:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even WPTC would agree that this is on the low end of cyclonic impacts.--WaltCip-(talk) 01:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- its strongest impacts were not even in the United States. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 03:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Lotsa rain. [33] [34] – Sca (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose top wind speeds of 50mph in New York. That's not groundbreaking enough for ITN. I think for this nomination, we need to Let It Go. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

(Posted) RD: Virbhadra Singh

Comment He was 87, so not to be confused with Rachhpal Singh, the Indian politician who was 78 when he died the same day. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few {CN} tags, including points about political activities of various living family members. Please fix up these missing refs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Went in here hoping to fill in some of the {cn} tags, but, some editors have already done that. Seems well referenced. Ktin (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Stanley Cup Finals

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 July 7 Template:Cob

Boo, my team lost... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So did mine. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My team won 51 points this year, whooo. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis désolé. Wait pending write-up of Game 5. Also, ITN/R notes that Stanley Cup blurb usually also includes the winner of the Conn Smythe Trophy. I've added an altblurb accordingly. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping Vasilevskiy. Who else. [35]... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's over now, one of the largest sports leagues in the world. No brainer. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending the game 5 writeup. This is how we should write sports ITN/R articles. Lots of prose, and supporting tables. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added second alt blurb, which I think is more in line with how we usually phrase it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is a repeat championship. I'm not sure if we usually make a note of consecutive titles or not (probably not). --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is NHL.com considered WP:PRIMARY and if so does this article meet WP:RS? - Indefensible (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it's the kind of primary source we'd want to avoid (if it is one), and it very certainly is an RS for a competition which it runs... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding the wording in the blurb: it should be written that the Lightning won the Stanley Cup, or some variation of that; they didn't win the "Finals". So something like alt-2 would be appropriate. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, they won "it all". The final game, the final series, the cup, a bunch of rings and historic immortality. But the Finals article is the timeliest article we have, see? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the first two blurbs are worded incorrectly, and should not be used. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, and all I'm saying is they're worded fine and one should be used. I don't want to take this outside, buddy. But nobody wins the cup around here without taking four games of the Finals first! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt2 – article looks good, and game 5 write-up has been added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt2 As Kaiser matias notes, we don't really say "winning the Finals" in Canadian/American English for the Stanley Cup. The wording in Alt2 feels much better to me. Canuck^{89 (Speak with me)} 06:15, July 8, 2021 (UTC)
Support First Alt Nice and concise, totally accurate and the prize is explictly implied by the title of the current event target. Could go with "over" over "against". But no dealbreaker! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And if anyone's thinking of telling me we "need to" specify which sport, let me be the first to smash a rhetorical bottle against the proverbial bar and raise a toast to the effect of "Open your eyes and look at the damn MVP, whaddya think he's playing with that helmet, rowboat?!?". Peacefully, though. Nobody wants any trouble, nobody gets some, just a traditionally friendly game of cups. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have a standard way of doing sports blurbs, and that includes the sport name. No need to run this one differently. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to break a pool cue and point out that Alt2 still sucks regardless, because the Stanley Cup is a timeless object, but now see it's an astonishing Easter egg pipelink to the right article all along. Less opposed now. Less strongly, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT2 as ALT2 is our standard way of doing sports blurb for finals (the format "In {sport name}, {winner} win the {competition} against {loser}"). It may seem obvious that it's ice hockey from the image, but we shouldn't presume that readers would know that. And for every other sports nom, we add the sport name. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt2 The article itself looks good, I'd prefer alt blurb2. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Game summaries are present and the article seems fine. I've added an alt3 blurb with two minor tweaks to avoid the WP:EGG links and the undefined acronym. Modest Genius ^talk 12:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone would definitely have asked what an MVP was.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted altblurb2. Jehochman ^Talk 13:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

(Posted) RD: Priscilla Johnson McMillan

Support Passed. Grimes2 (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is in excellent shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - GA article.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 08:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 11:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Michael Horovitz

Support Satisfactory. Grimes2 (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The prose looks good. The publication list could use more sourcing. --PFHLai (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was away all weekend, and nothing happened, sad. I'm just as qualified to look for sourcing for a topic I don't know as everybody else. I added some, and if nobody beats me to it, will supply the others. Please beat me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Done references and missing isbn added. Grimes2 (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good enough to me. Additional sources, for all his publications, should be easy to find. Haha, yes. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Keshav Dutt

Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Michael Soles

Support: This nom looks ready to go for a touchdown in ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted—Bagumba (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Robert Downey Sr.

Support ~~once the very few remaining cn tags are addressed~~. (Nice to see a nearly fully-ref'd filmography.) Davey2116 (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re all cn tags addressed now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, nice work. Davey2116 (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – well-referenced; meets minimum ITN requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Carlos Reutemann

Support - satifies the criteria. Talk page lists him as high importance for both Formula One and Argentina, so highly notable.
SSSB (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have just added a "Death" section. Cambalachero (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - several paragraphs and even whole sections unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add more references to this wikibio. There are more than 10 {cn} tags. --PFHLai (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Jovenel Moïse assassination

Oppose until such time as the article is in a fit state to appear. Certainly blurbworthy once it is fit. Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality it has two orange tags, both of which would need to be fixed. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The PDF linked for the electoral history section 404s. This section is also oddly formatted/ --LukeSurl^t c 10:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed these issues. --LukeSurl^t c 10:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ per quality, but it's undoubtedly blubworthy. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting support. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per quality, but definitely blurbworthy.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't at issue here, given the result of this tragedy. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the history of the nation,this might not end well for the country. Should we include the 2018-2021 Haitian protests in the blurb? Scaramouche33 (talk) 10:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem speculative at this stage to associate this act with anything else in particular. A short, straightforward blurb serves us best here. --LukeSurl^t c 10:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose only on quality Assassination of a sitting head of state is certainly blurbworthy. Once the issues with the articles are fixed, I would support.Canuck^{89 (What's up?)} 10:58, July 7, 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Assassination of Jovenel Moïse now exists. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have redirected that for now. There was nothing in the 3 sentences long assassination article that wasn't in the article of the individual. -- KTC (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The quality has been improved, but I'd like to see deeper coverage of his presidency, especially during the last protests. It almost only focuses on election results. I also propose that the blurb picture be changed to the one in the infobox of his article. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it in the nomination. -- KTC (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Blurb worthy and citations have been fixed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 12:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – What sort of nomination is this? – Sca (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not technically ITNR since we don't know the successor(the PM has claimed to be in charge, but I don't know if that is legal). But this will clearly be posted even if we don't know the successor. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re I second this. I think it is possible for us to do a double blurb (his assasination and his replacement). --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - assassination of current head of state/gov of any country is easily important enough. Jim Michael (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The First Lady is reported to have died of her wounds [36]. The article Martine Moïse was created today about her. --LukeSurl^t c 13:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both articles look fine to me, but the target should be the Moise himself IMO, provides a better background. Also, quite a rare happening in recent times, the last one being in 2009 per this list (discounting the Pres of Chad who was killed in a mil engagement). Gotitbro (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, is that (Chad) even an assassination, should probably be removed from the list. Gotitbro (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks like the earlier commenters’ concerns had been fixed. Event obviously blurb worthy. Juxlos (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, weak oppose on quality. Clearly blurb-worthy news. However the assassination article has literally three sentences on the event, the rest of it is all background. It's almost the same three sentences as are already in the biography article, so I'm not sure why there even needs to be a separate article. Expand one or both with a decent paragraph on the assassination then it can go up. Modest Genius ^talk 13:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. I redirected it to the person but another editor reverted it. It's not worth the fight. -- KTC (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – There is enough to post. It has the basics. A five-sentence paragraph on the event itself is enough to get us started. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Three sentences on the event is not enough. While we're still not aware of the exact motives, there's clearly enough in the news reporting on this event to list possible reasons (which the background of our article isn't covering). We need more about this specific event since it is "new" before we can post. --Masem (t) 14:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. All the top RS shops gotta be working on it. NYT (paywalled) sidebar headlined "Public Anger Was Rising Over Moïse’s Attempt to Cling to Power." – Sca (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think we should wait till news regarding the First Lady is confirmed

Sobhan mohapatra (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted The current consensus is that the article is in reasonably good shape and of proper length. (Early opposes were based on a shorter version of the article, an issue that has been resolved already.) As motives and analysis come out in reliable sources, they will be added to the article. The blurb is stable. The plain fact is that the man was assassinated in his home. We don't need to put any reasons in the blurb, though it could be updated later if need be. Jehochman ^Talk 16:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Article has been expanded substantially from when I checked this morning. ITN/R would seem to indicate that we should include the successor in the blurb, but I'm fine with waiting for the situation to develop. Davey2116 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The post is currently vacant. Feel free to nominate when a successor is appointed / elected. Modest Genius ^talk 12:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updated I have updated to the altblurb to reflect what reliable sources are saying about the successor. Feel free to discuss and revise as the situation develops. Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – U.S. 'rebuffs' Haitian call for U.S. troops. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted as blurb) RD/Blurb: Dilip Kumar

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 July 6 Template:Cob

Oppose - article currently needs some ref improvement before posting. - Indefensible (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that we have posted blurbs for Rajesh Khanna (see [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2012#Template:Bracket Rajesh Khanna|nomination]]) and Shammi Kapoor (see [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2011#Template:Bracket Shammi Kapoor dies|nomination]]). Joofjoof (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U Note that both of those examples were from before the creation of RD in 2016. Since then, the standards for a blurb about a death are higher. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Possibly the first ever big actor in Bollywood. Certainly deserves to be added. Sobhan mohapatra (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the photos have fishy copyright tags including one b/W one that says 'own work' Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arguably the greatest Bollywood actor ever (tied for most best actor awards), certainly the greatest of his generation, death is getting international attention, so a blurb discussion is warranted here. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since a blurb is being discussed, I've taken the step of adding a blurb to the nomination. Would oppose posting right now until the filmography section gets some kind of summary, and the "Legacy" section could use some copyediting. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. I know little of Bollywood actors, but just based on the widespread coverage, he would seem to merit a blurb as tops in his field. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb His career has been described as legendary by international medias and as I recall Christopher Lee, Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds also had blurbs. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Definitely meets the standard for transformative actors, like Sean Connery and those mentioned by TDKR Chicago 101. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - Definitely merits it as even the Pakistani PM has issued a condolence message. Depressed Desi (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only Referencing seems ok, the proposed blurb doesn't really add anything to what a RD listing would.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD for now per Pawkingthree as the current blurb doesn't add much - would support an appropriate blurb in principle JW 1961^Talk 19:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many paragraphs that end without a reference. Step hen 00:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb. Template:Ping fixed all paragraphs that were pending a reference. Article looks fully sourced now. Good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still no filmography write-up. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entire middle section of the article seems to be filmography. Am I missing something? Ktin (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a section labeled "Filmography" which is blank save a link to Dilip Kumar filmography. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems alright to me. Replicating a subset will be duplicating the above sections. Unless you want to move the link above, which is unecessary imo. However, I have fixed it. Good to go to homepage / RD / Blurb Ktin (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as blurb Step hen 01:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If there is an opportunity to rotate the pics on the homepage, might be a good idea to consider. Ktin (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment Do not read this as a pull or any other change here, but I am concerned that the separate filmography article (which was already separate before death) is completely unsourced. While we do not require those linked articles to be at quality like the featured ones, here is a clear case that I would expect that readers would likely link to the filmography page to see his works and find it completely unsourced. Its too late to do anything about this now, but given that we are very critical when in-bio filmograph and similar sections are left unsourced, that separate filmography pages should be at least reviewed when we're posting RD blurbs from a quality standpoint. (I wouldn't expect that for a standard non-blurb RD entry). Eg: what we don't want editors doing is to say "Oh, I can't source all these films, let me dump them to a standalong filmography page and solve that problem!". We need a bit of parity for this across the board. --Masem (t) 18:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with the larger point you are making here, Masem. However, in this case, I see two things -- a) the filmography was not spawned off into a separate article while the article was being evaluated. Please correct me if I am wrong. So, this is not one of those 'gaming the system' situations. b) The entire career section is filled with filmography elements and each one of them is sourced adequately. Combination of these two things makes me feel good about this article being referenced from homepage. Happy to defer to other folks as well. Ktin (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These two comments should be referenced in all future filmography discussions. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is not a case of forking content merely to fast track a posting—that's a disservice to the reader. It's not to say filmographies can't be spawned into separate pages during a nomination as long as key performances are covered in the bio in prose. As long as readers aren't shortchanged merely to get some shiny stuff on a user page. Be wary of those editorial decisions being biased when an ITNC is involved.—Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware that the filmography page was already separate before his death (and well before that point, when I looked through history to see, it wasn't made a few days ahead in anticipation). That said: there's almost no reason for as short as this bio is for a separate filmography page (and given how well sourced the prose section is, completing the sourcing in the filmography table probably would have been trivial.) Without seeing the history, it absolutely does look like we swept a sourcing issue under the rug to get it posted. This might be getting beyond just bios, but when there are tightly connected pages related to the one featured page - eg an actor's filmography for an actor we're featuring in an RD blurb, or to use a previous example, the subpages of events for the Hong Kong protests when they were ongoing - we should consider the quality of those, but I don't know how we can articulate or require that at this point. I just dont think that when we are doing blurbs (not RDs) that we make a facade page that looks great, but all the problems with sourcing are buried elsewhere. --Masem (t) 06:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't think all sub-articles need to be referenced in general, I think your point here is a valid one. Filmography tables are something found in all actor articles, and there's no particular reason for this one to have its filmography in an unreferenced sub-page, even if the original split wasn't done as part of the ITN candidacy. Also, the empty filmography issue was raised by Template:U above and the section was then removed, rather than expanding it. I don't believe that was done in bad faith, and it was not a WP:GAMING attempt, but we should make clear going forward that issues such as this one need addressing before posting. — Amakuru (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We want a decent description of their career, which includes films for an actor, which was already in the bio. It just so happens a filmography was on another page. If it wasn't there, I would not require it to be added as a prerequisite for posting; therefore, I wouldn't require a merge either. GAMING is a separate issue. While I can understand the urge to have consistent quality standards, a prose overview of their career with select works mentioned in the bio is sufficient. However, it is disingenuous to remove or fork existing filmographies that already exist in a bio. Merging already separate pages can be a plus, but should be outside the scope of ITN.—Bagumba (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly sourced now, FWIW. I am more concerned about the sources in the article that we did blurb. Trying to export sources, I found that too many extraordinary claims are sourced to BoxOffice India and other iffy sources. For example, Template:Tq [37]. Assuming it is reliable, all it says is, Year 1947, Film Jugnu, Box Office 5,000,000, Verdict "Hit". Nothing about "few more unsuccessful films, nothing about Dilip Kumar, nothing about Noor Jehan, nothing about it being the first "major hit" for Kumar. This is, btw, the state of affairs with almost all other sources as well. The source will say something like "Dilip Kumar was in ...", and it will be cited for something like "Dilip Kumar's first major film, and the first successful film in three years, in which he appeared with ..., ... won him his first Filmfare Award for Best Actor, which he went on to win a record nine times." Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The hope is that the information is verifiable, even if it's not cited. The onus is on the supporters to vet it out, or an opposer to sniff it out.—Bagumba (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PP comment – Actor dies at 98. Dubious significance, IMO. – Sca (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good to post as blurb because people in some parts of the world may not be aware of this important actor. It's a good chance for us to provide education and variety. Jehochman ^Talk 19:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He was clearly a very significant actor, but my view is that actors basically never warrant a blurb. We have recent deaths for recent notable deaths; that's what we should use. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

(Posted) RD: Suzzanne Douglas

Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nicely sourced, suitable for RD JW 1961^Talk 08:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support although there's still a cn tag. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re cn tag now addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: William H. Pauley III

Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support long enough and fully cited. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jivan Gasparyan

Comment In principle, no reason why not. But currently none of his recordings are sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC) p.s. we seem to call him Djivan Gasparyan[reply]
- The biography section of Djivan Gasparyan is also rather under-ref'd. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping -- this article will go stale in a few hours. Please see if you would want to work on this article. Ktin (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Air Flight 251 (2021)

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 July 5 Template:Cob

Support, standard significance. I've made some expansion. Brandmeister^talk 15:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality current, there are 4 sentences of text about the incident itself. I expect more information will come out soon, but right now the article is barely above a stub (1784 characters). Significant enough once article is improved. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality Not quite long enough yet, but it is significant enough for ITN.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How rare is it that a single flight number has two accidents? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- American Airlines Flight 1 has three: 1936, 1941, 1962; Aeroflot Flight 3739, Aeroflot Flight 5003, TWA Flight 841, Japan Airlines Flight 472, Air France Flight 212, United Arab Airlines Flight 869, Northwest Airlines Flight 5, Linea Aeropostal Venezolana Flight 253, and American Airlines Flight 383 each have two; Aeroflot Flight 315 (1959) and (1960); Aeroflot Flight 36 (1960) and (1976); TWA Flight 800 (1964) and (1996); ČSA Flight 511 (March 1961) and (July 1961); American Airlines Flight 63 (disambiguation) features two fatal accidents and a failed terrorist attack Ionmars10 (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- United Airlines Flight 826 and the 1960 New York mid-air collision one, and also the TWA Flight 800, 1964 and 1996.Yyang Sr. GakupoKaito (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Oppose – At barely 300 words this seems too thin for the main page. Lacks detail. – Sca (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The crash happened in Russia. We're not going to get the wall-to-wall coverage that we'd have got if this had been in California. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or in Kent. That doesn't necessarily mean it's ITN material. Wiki isn't spot news. – Sca (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support once expanded too short for main as it stands, but a good story This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smalldiv

Support as is. This may be all the info that can be obtained for now. We should post this article because we do not want to be biased against remote locations that have thin news coverage. See streetlight effect. Jehochman ^Talk 21:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see it as necessary it is necessary to post every plane crash that results in loss of life, as such incidents are not rare (5 fatal crashes in 2020), particularly when another plane crash story is currently on the main page. 204.154.192.252 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Agree. Petropavlosk is one of the remotest cities in Russia, so it is indeed unlikely that much detail will be forthcoming. For now, let it be. – Sca (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Palana, near where the crash happened, has a population of 3,155 at the 2010 census. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ec

Support. I think it's OK. It's not a stub, and the article reports what's known about the crash and response without going off topic. And we certainly don't restrict what we post because "another plane crash story is currently in the main page". I think this is basically ready. — Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a grand total of 291 words, including headings. Below 'front page' weight. – Sca (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still in the CNN front page ticker. Certainly "front page weight". The bottomline is that it's not a stub and reports everything that is currently known. Brandmeister^talk 22:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stub size is generally taken to be 1500 bytes of readable prose, with occasional allowances lower than that if the circumstances are right. This article has 1973 bytes, so it's well over the threshold. — Amakuru (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did bytes supersede words as a measure of article length? People read words, not bytes. People aren't computers. And individual words can contain a wide range of bytes.
At Wiki, anything below 300 words has long been considered stub territory. – Sca (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's over 320 not counting infobox, refs and Cats. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems we also have a useable image of the crash site, which is unusual. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the crash site image is useable at MP size. Stick with a picture of the actual aircraft, either the one proposed here, which is protected at commons, of the one used in the article, which will need protecting at Commons before use. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. There's not much to see anyway. But it does show the terrain clearly. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – 5-4 doesn't equal consensus to post. 'Ready' designation therefore removed. – Sca (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- More details have been added now to reflect newer information that became known since the early quality-wise opposes. Ready. Brandmeister^talk 14:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a bit more could be gleaned from this [38] fairly extensive ref. – Sca (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ready - Some of the opposes reference an earlier, shorter version of the article. These opposes are outdated because they said the article was too short, but it has since been expanded significantly. Based on current state of opinion, it looks like this is ready to be posted. Jehochman ^Talk 15:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which was my thinking when I marked it ready early this morning. Article is over 10k long now, so shoud easily be long enough to post. Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ten thousand WHAT?
In human-being-friendly terms, the article totals 389 words, of which only 218 describe the actual crash. The other 170 words are boilerplate. – Sca (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you're getting 389 words from. An intitle search produces "10 KB (760 words) - 17:36, 7 July 2021". Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From MS Word (if you've heard of that). – Sca (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Support Significant crash, article long enough.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support and mark as good to go, there are some truly bizarre thoughts above, I hope a decent admin passes by to assess the clear consensus. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where can anybody find a decent admin these days? WaltCip-(talk) 11:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted without the picture. --PFHLai (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

RD: Masood Ashar

There is next to nothing included about his 70-year career. Step hen 00:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Template:User link for reviewing that. Could you check it now. I've improved and added the section of his Career. Thanks- Hasan (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gillian Sheen

Posted Step hen 00:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Aggrey Awori

Support article in good shape and well sourced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few {cn} tags. Please add footnotes as needed. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Still missing refs for him running for seat in the National Assembly and lost, becoming ambassador and then reassigned, ... etc. --PFHLai (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Didi Contractor

Support: satisfactory. Grimes2 (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - adequate to post. --LukeSurl^t c 09:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment marked as ready, as looks fine for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Fay Allen

~~Oppose~~ Barely beyond a stub. Surely there's more information out there. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a bit more, but seem now to have exhausted online coverage of her (including on Newspapers.com). Which is a shame, but the obituaries gave almost no extra information about her, sadly. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support If there's no more that'll have to do. I checked Newspapers.com too and couldn't find more info either. Uses x (leave me a message) 18:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - adequate quality to post. --LukeSurl^t c 09:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Big Jake

Comment Template:Tq No it isn't, it's 750 characters, which is definitely still a stub. Needs expanding. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just call it a pony? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I've expanded a bit, now 1572 bytes / 272 words of "readable prose size". Don't think there's much more room to expand without dragging in unnecessary trivia at this point. --LukeSurl^t c 08:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smalldiv

There's been a fair bit of editing on this today and there's a little over double the prose now that there was at the time of nomination. --LukeSurl^t c 20:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per WP:STUBDEF, there's no set size for a stub, and I don't think there is much more that can be expanded, so this is acceptable.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose barely cold and a fair use image already? I don't think so. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TRM. No excuse for having a copyrighted image in this article, and it certainly can't appear on the main page in that state. — Amakuru (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're not proposing a blurb and a picture of Jake on the main page, are we? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate issues, we shouldn't have a "fair use" image which clearly isn't fair use yet in any article, and we shouldn't link from the main page to an article which is misusing fair use. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Articles nominated for ITN and RD are assessed for compliance with quality requirements and also copyright policy, and this article does not pass on the latter due to a potentially replaceable non-free image. Doesn't matter if the image is to be used in the blurb or not, it still has to be compliant. — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen has removed the image. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Step hen 00:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Richard Donner

Oppose - article currently needs ref improvement per nomination. - Indefensible (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Though the article could use additional citations (there are only 15), I believe the article covers the subject of the article well and is an individual whose contributions warrants inclusion. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no question that if the article quality was there, we would post this. But there's at least 2 unsourced paragraphs, and the filmograph and other similar sections are completely unsourced. That's a non-starter. --Masem (t) 05:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs more citations.—Bagumba (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Yasunori Oshima

Support Seems to meet all the requirements. Mlb96 (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support sufficient for RD JW 1961^Talk 14:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted: a little short, but okay. --PFHLai (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Raffaella Carrà

Comment - nowhere near the quality required at the moment unfortunately. Most of the Career section is unreferenced. Also probably not transformative for a blurb, although I'll admit I haven't heard of her, so perhaps I don't know her true significance... — Amakuru (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, oppose RD - article currently does not meet quality standard for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Barely passes RD. Entire career and filmography sections are unsourced. Gotitbro (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks fine now. Gotitbro (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the proposed image, a suspected copyvio tagged for speedy deletion at WCommons. --PFHLai (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD as the article is woefully undersourced. Oppose blurb because they don't meet the very high standard we have for people's deaths to be added to RD- she seems to be comparable, maybe less well known, than Vera Lynn was in the UK, and she didn't get published on ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nom. comment I am updating her article, but in a separate document. I say this mostly because there's few activity in the "history", but I'm working on it. I guess I'll have it finished tomorrow or Thursday at the latest. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nom. comment Template:U, Template:U, Template:U, Template:U Cited new information added and now appears to meet the minimums. Please check it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography & television appearances still look unsourced. Hopefully there's a source that has most of that info, as it's the only unsourced content. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A technicality but filmography still needs sourcing, the article has really been improved though since the nom. Gotitbro (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Replyto Template:Replyto Fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nom. comment Marking it's ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Matīss Kivlenieks

Please add more references. There are multiple sections with no footnotes at all. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:U, I have added references to all unreferenced paragraphs. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the references in the prose. Please also add references to the tables at the end (just above the refs). Him being named an all-star, best whatever in WJC-D1, etc. should be mentioned in the prose, too. --PFHLai (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~, the article is basically fine, the cause of death could need some more details and I have no idea what GAA is. Yakikaki (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Goals against average. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you! Changed to support. Yakikaki (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Everything is now referenced, and I used those references plus some others to expand the non-death sections of the prose. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb With multiple-day original reporting in many prominent outlets, this is a no-brainer under our "death as the main story" criteria. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Stan Swamy

Support Article is in great shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well referenced - Sherenk1 (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Vladimir Menshov

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 July 4 Template:Cob

Comment in answer to the IP nominator's question: yes, everything needs to be supported by a reliable source. Lots more sources needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does *everything* need to though? Do you need sources for stuff that happened in the movies? What about his roles, do there have to be sources for what role in what movie had he played in? 212.74.201.233 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If, say, I edit the article and wrote that the actor has played in the movie 300 as a child peeing on the street, how do you refute my claim and remove the statement? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - article currently needs ref improvement per discussion above. - Indefensible (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Referencing has improved over the past few days, but there are still quite a few paragraphs of footnote-free text. Please add more references to this wikibio. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - References were added and article improved. I think that the article is ready to be posted. Filmmaker is a transformative figure and was in several international productions. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted: Thanks for all the new refs, Kirill C1! I can only AGF them, though. I don't know Russian. --PFHLai (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

RD: Richard Lewontin

Oppose - article currently needs ref improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Terry Donahue

Support – well-referenced; meets minimum ITN requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Adang Sudrajat

Question - all of the refs seem to be in Indonesian, can anyone confirm that they are WP:RS? If so, the article probably meets requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kompas and Tempo are the better private news sources. Antara is the government owned news agency. The other sources are good enough usually for RS. Juxlos (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This wikibio is a little thin, but it looks okay for RD purposes. I have to AGF all non-English refs, though. No glaring concerns. --PFHLai (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need to have a (Attention needed, please) on this. Non-English RD noms often get tossed away and that's it. 12 minutes before the time changes and there's nothing we can do.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Harmoko

Support He was a important member of a government, seems notable enough.Pyramids09 (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lazy referencing, dumping multiple references at the end of the two major paragraphs, makes it difficult to ensure that every fact is cited. Step hen 02:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assigned the references to sentences - better now? Juxlos (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying Template:U. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support In the process of rearranging the citations I checked them and basically everything in the article is backed up by those sources. Just about long enough. 40-60 year old Indonesians will be having a slight nostalgic trip from the news. Juxlos (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is well-sourced for the mainpage. --ϗ (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This nom looks ready to me, too. Template:Ping is the referencing good enough for you now? --PFHLai (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 01:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2021 Philippine Air Force C-130 crash

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 July 3 Template:Cob

Comment. I haven't reviewed this event yet, but typically we treat military aircraft incidents a little stricter than civilian ones, as military service is inherently a risky business, that those who do it are aware of. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Template:Ec – Agreed. It has received a fair amount of coverage, though, and 17 soldiers were reported missing. – Sca (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Headlining on BBC radio news this morning and on BBC home front page: [39]. Notability may be that so many survived. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with 29 dead and 13 missing, there is enough weight added to pass the bar for posting. Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though a military incident, the deaths are significant. Article is short but looks fine to me. Gotitbro (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have suggested altblurb2: with "aircraft" instead of "plane" and actual location, in Sulu, Philippines, linked. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting comment I do note that the crash did killed at least 3 civilians on the ground (per BBC) so this is quite unusual in terms of a military aircrash and posting seems appropriate. --Masem (t) 14:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PP Commment – Current blurb doesn't make clear whose military the plane belonged to. Suggest: "A Philippine military plane crashes in Sulu, Philippines, killing at least 45 people." – Sca (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updated per Sca's suggestion. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

(Attention needed, please) RD: John Siffy Mirin

Template:Re Could you take a look at this? Tks. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This wikibio is a little thin, but it looks okay for RD purposes. AGF'ing all non-English refs. No apparent problems. --PFHLai (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: James Kallstrom

Posted Step hen 00:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rachmawati Sukarnoputri

Support - sourced and complete. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Haunani-Kay Trask

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 July 2 Template:Cob

Support Good to go.– Ammarpad (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Selected works section could use some footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for adding the refs so quickly! --PFHLai (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

(Posted) RD: Bill Ramsey (singer)

Support Article well referenced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 02:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ramlan Hutahaean

Support A small but well-sourced article, seems OK for the mainpage. --ϗ (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sufficient for RD JW 1961^Talk 07:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support just about long enough for RD, though I'm sure there must be more that could be said about him, as the leader of an established church. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 10:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Thomas G. Plaskett

Support - article seems to meet requirements; would be good to find the missing links for a bunch of the refs though. - Indefensible (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - decent article, AGF on non-linked refs JW 1961^Talk 19:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Transair Flight 810

Oppose I believe there was a recent near-disaster in passenger air traffic recently that we did not post on the basis that non-crashes are interesting, and "thank goodness"-type news, but not ITN appropriate . --Masem (t) 23:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Add further this was a cargo flight, with only two persons aboard (the pilots). Even if it did crash into the ocean, it would not be of major significance to post. --Masem (t) 23:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: No deaths reported. 180.243.211.196 (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~per WP:MINIMUMDEATHS~~ but in all seriousness, everyone was thankfully unhurt and the economic impact was miniscule, so nothing to see here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is very rare for both engines to fail on an aircraft (I'm not saying that I support this, however). 45.251.33.202 (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems notable enough. Also, if this is not notable enough, why did we add a blurb about a South African president going to prison? Pyramids09 (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A miraculous plane landing with no deaths could be notable if there were a large number of passengers (see the Miracle on the Hudson, one of the most notable plane crashes in recent history despite having 0 deaths). Here there were only two people on the plane, so the notability is largely reduced. I wouldn't be surprised if this article ends up at AfD. Mlb96 (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's a bit sad that if the plane had crashed and everyone had died, it'd probably be posted. Banedon (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted above, it was only a cargo plane with two pilots aboard. That may not have made it to ITN. --Masem (t) 05:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the story here is a twin engine failure which is basically unheard of and is the foundation for ETOPS. This was a very old variant, but depending on the engine configuration this could be infinitely more consequential to aviation than some backwater pilot misunderstanding the flight director of their 737-Max and driving it into the ocean. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the successful water landing. Still, these were really old JT8Ds so probably we can pass on this, but seriously, the obsession around here with body count it patently absurd and is a lazy shortcut around actually understanding what you're talking about before commenting. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Lacks general significance. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 400 m hurdles world record

Oppose on quality: several unreferenced sections and results. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Career section now fully referenced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not particularly significant This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3 or 4 older in field. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Athletic records (including longstanding ones) get broken all the time. I fail to see a reason why this is essential news we need to push out to 60 million readers. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Off-topic, but where did you get 60 million from Template:Re? - Indefensible (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Template:Re Oops, I misremembered; the main page gets 6M views per day, not 60M. So it'd have to last for 10 days, which is probably on the high end. 20M might be a better estimate. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We did have that shot-putter on the main page the other day for breaking a long-standing world record. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by that one, how did it get posted? Abductive (reasoning) 17:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for a record this old, sure. Kingsif (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if it weren't Olympics season, I'd consider this. We can expect multiple more headlines similar to this in the next month that we won't post, I don't think we should post this one either. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the standards for world track and field records should be loosened a little, if so many events get in automatically every year (like the 1 or 2 a year for the our national motorsport (NASCAR) which is big here (especially in the South) but no one else cares) then why not world records in the most universal Olympic sport? The only Olympic sports which have given a gold to every continent are probably still athletics, swimming and boxing and everyone runs, jumps and throws stuff while not everyone swims/Western boxes (like Greenlanders/Chinese). Can world records set at Olympics be posted if a ticker's added till the closing ceremony blurb leaves? Too abbreviated?: World records: 400m H•shot p•pole v•stpl•10K•trpl j jav•800m•100m•long j•dec•mara heck, t tm trial•50m arch•st 500m. Female records can be pink text. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A bit funny how this nomination is being opposed, but this didn't. Banedon (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brawn vs. speed bias.—Bagumba (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I also remember that a 16-year-old WR break was posted a couple of years ago (consecutive to another, non-WR, athletics post). This record will probably not be posted, but through trial and error we may be able to determine which athletics events are notable for ITN purposes. So far, marathon and shot put are notable, and 400 m hurdles is not notable. 3 down, only 40 or so left to go. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sdkb. — Amakuru (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Running is more widespread than most, and a very long-standing record Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle as this was the world's longest standing track record, as per [40]. But article needs some more info, and would need to actually state the fact I mentioned (as would the blurb), to show why it's notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article is just a collection of stats and gives no indication of the importance or otherwise of this record. I don't think we should routinely be posting the breaking of athletics world records at ITN. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. Breaking one of the longest-standing world records merits inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I disagree with the more kurt oppose !votes above. Sports are not a priori unencyclopedic. But the article is poor, has apparent referencing issues and is composed in an odd way. I thought of adding an altblurb with 400 meter hurdles but that article is orange tagged twice.130.233.213.61 (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting in the mainpage, article condition needs fixing As mentioned above, breaking a longstanding running record is worth a mainpage sentence. However, several parts of the Career statistics is still undersourced. --ϗ (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Comparatively minor sports-record items get stale quickly. – Sca (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 July 1 Template:Cob

July 1

(Closed) OECD tax rate

This should be noted as a followup to this previous nomination when the finance ministers of the G7 agreed to establish this rate. Yes, this would still need to be ratified through all member countries, but this is by far the largest point of agreement this will see based on that previous nom. --Masem (t) 20:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question: are there any major economies where the rate is currently less than the 15% threshold? Corporate tax#International corporate tax rates lists only Ireland and Hungary - neither of which are signatories - below 15%. Every other country is listed as already taxing at the minimum level or above. If they're promising to do something that already happens, this agreement is moot. If it gets rid of tax havens then it's another story. It's not clear to me whether this agreement will do that. Modest Genius ^talk 12:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding is that this also gets rid of tax havens and other breaks for corporations to where they can "hide" profit. "The minimum corporate tax does not require countries to set their rates at the agreed floor but gives other countries the right to apply a top-up levy to the minimum on companies' income coming from a country that has a lower rate." per [41]. (and common tax havens like Bermuda and Caymans are in the 130 countries). --Masem (t) 12:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, that sounds promising, but isn't mentioned at all in the article. That NASDAQ source also lists a bunch of (contradictory?) limitations and requirements, so it's not going to apply to all companies. I think there article needs to have a thorough explanation of what the practical effects will be, not just the current WP:PROSELINE about the negotiations. Perhaps then we could make a more informed assessment of its significance. Modest Genius ^talk 13:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with Modest Genius. If it is this significant, that needs to be added to the article to explain it. Right now, I'm confused at how important this is, and so cannot see why it's ITN-worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Definitely agree that the article needs the details of what is in this agreement that the 130 countries have agreed to. And as yet another possible "wait" aspect, they will be coming back in October with the actual formal rules of this, but I don't think any country can back off then without a formal withdraw process (ala like the US backing out of the Paris agreements). --Masem (t) 13:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I have heard of the OECD. I suppose it functions the same way as INTERPOL, in that it functions as an international coordinator but yet lacks the power to enforce its decisions? I'm not quite sure how much newsworthiness we tack onto these organizations, or any decisions made therein.--WaltCip-(talk) 23:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Josh Culbreath

Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support long enough and everything checks out. Uses x (leave me a message) 23:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 01:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Louis Andriessen

Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Everything is cited. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've added two citation needed tags for some obscure bits. Completely fine otherwise. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fixed Grimes2 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Hiroaki Nakanishi

Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Assuming good faith on the info cited by the FT, everything checks out. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some of the older refs suffer from linkrot. can they be updated/refreshed, please? thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those just state information repeated in the later sources. I'll go ahead and just remove them. Uses x (leave me a message) 21:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing things up so quickly, Uses x. --PFHLai (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: The Patriot

Comment Heavily undersourced currently. Mlb96 (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The first two sections in the Professional wrestling career has no sources. --ϗ (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Update Blurb: 2021 Western North America heat wave

To give focus to Lytton without knowing the specific death toll there is questionable. We've noted wildfires started, and those are known to destroy homes and towns and the like. That this one was so fast and potentially killed several is of concern but we need some type of toll here. Assuming, say, 2000 ppl living in the town including the reserve, and only 5 died in the evac, thats not a significant number to compare to the larger current death toll. But if half the town was caught and died, that would be a different story. Keep in mind the event is something that is affecting a few million people so to focus on one specific incident of only a couple thousand would be a bit of a bias. --Masem (t) 19:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps the destruction of Lytton by wildfire can be a separate nom for a separate blurb? --PFHLai (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The desctruction is a one-time event, as the settlement is not that large, and besides, it would consume too much ITN space, and we should give way to other news coverage, too. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The road between the 3 million in Vancouver/the car ferry to that big island and the rest of Canada also passes through Lytton. Surely the rapid growth was caused by the very strong drought in the western continent (drought levels change slowly) and absurd temps @ 10% humidity (above the all-time highs of some major cities in Arabia) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we add "which previously set the highest temperature recorded in Canada", I'm fine. If not, I think we should wait until more details emerge (particularly on the First Nations reserve, which apparently they had communication issues with). I will be working on that and I will let you know. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've updated the info, and here what I can say about the fire:

1. The rescue operation in Lytton, BC is ongoing and the destruction is indeed widespread, with railway, road and telecomms infrastructure damage. I have found no info that said that the rail connection was suspended. We can imagine that the reserves were also affected, though the info about it is scarce - we only know that the people there were ordered to get away ASAP.

2. The fire is indeed in the news internationally, in Poland, Ukraine, Czechia France, Switzerland etc.

3. We should comment the evacuation just yet, because apparently they had too short a notice for the wildfire, and anyway that should not serve as a reason to include the information.

Based on that and my recent updates to the article, I'd support the update, even not necessarily mentioning the previous heat record (though I'd personally do that, if there's enough space). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The death count seems to exceed 400 now (321 in BC, 79 in Oregon, 38 in Washington)

Toll likely to rise as more isolated victims are found. – Sca (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but this AP report actually gives nothing that we don't already know. That the count is likely to rise is in the article, so that so far, we have 438+ victims. That's the newest data that could be found so far. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point was, they're still finding more. (Donno where that 400 number above came from, tho.) – Sca (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simple summation: it's now ca. 480 in BC + 95 in Ore. + 38 in Washington. WP:CALC par excellence. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Update the number, then roll it into ongoing. Not enough known about Lytton to include in the box. Kingsif (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Hard numbers still lacking. This report says heat "may" have caused 500 deaths in Canada, but quotes officials saying "it will probably take months to determine the exact cause of death for hundreds." – Sca (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think blurbs like this would be more accurate without a precise count. The cause of nearly all of these deaths are speculative. Except for those who died of heatstroke or exposure, it's people dying from mundane causes, potentially exacerbated by heat. The article doesn't even make a causal connection for the biggest set of deaths: Template:Green.130.233.213.61 (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional pre-emptive oppose for Ongoing. We're talking about slightly unusual weather confined to geographically tiny part of Earth with a relatively low population density. The article is written in a breathless, scattershot manner.130.233.213.61 (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much just lying here, nearly breaking the world record for "margin of recordbreaking at a weather station that has been recording long" and getting the heat wave equivalent of a c. 2,000-year-flood throughout a half percent of the world's land is the opposite of slightly unusual, the most affected parts of the heat wave have about 17 million people and parts are dense enough to have 3 cities with skyscrapers and intracity trains (in fact Vancouverism and urban canyon are the only "see also"s at Manhattanization). And I think we've all learned by now that excess deaths are the most accurate estimate of excess deaths, at these non-excess deaths per day levels it just doesn't vary that much without a big reason, there's no potentially that at least most of the excess deaths were elderly exacerbated by heat and perhaps the only thing you said that makes sense is that the number should be replaced with "at least hundreds". 500 and 700 are probably close enough to 600 that they might be the real number. And also the no ongoing part but not because your minimization attempts are persuasive but rather because ongoing simply to update a death toll of about a thousand has failed a not vote before (the port explosion a few years ago). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lytton fire now being considered human caused, not caused by the heat wave (though the dryness may have accelerated the speed it spread). [42] --Masem (t) 20:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn as it turns out only two people died, and as the heat wave blurb's death toll was updated, I'll go ahead and withdraw this. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: Surfside condominium building collapse

Oppose. We only post stories like this once, even if they remain in the news for a few days and then roll off ITN. Ongoing is intended for things like the Hong Kong protests, where a fresh major newsworthy event happens every week over a prolonged period. More tragic news may follow in Miami as the rescue effort continues, but the overall story is still the one we originally posted. — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Similar to the Grenfell fire which was added to Ongoing for 6 days the rescue and recovery efforts in surfside are still ongoing. Since this was a total collapse, it may take longer to recover all the victims. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LaserLegs There was no consensus for that (a sysop acting alone), and it was removed with consensus the same day. Uses x (leave me a message) 15:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Amakuru. Not important enough for ongoing; we can maybe post another blurb when everything's wrapped up, but the main story has already happened. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per LaserLegs. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whilst any individual currently listed as missing could be found elsewhere, the scale of casualties will not change. It seems unlikely that any new information about this event will meet the ITN threshold. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They've had a week to find those missing people and none has turned up elsewhere alive. We should park it in Ongoing for at least six days for the causality count to rise. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point: it is understood those indicated as missing are actually dead. Confirmation is not news at all. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Moving the Grenfell fire to ongoing was the lone action of a single (former) sysop, with no census whatsoever, so that's not precedent. It was removed the very same day. Past that, it's not important enough and the story has already happened. At least the Grenfell fire had lasting political repercussions for the Conservative Party, but that's not happening here. Uses x (leave me a message) 15:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was, my bad. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uses x, consensus to move a rolled off blurb to ongoing was not required until December 2019, so that admin did nothing wrong. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose endlessly pulling out remains is not newsworthy. Sorry. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The collapse as such is over. The expected developments (bodies recovered, memorials held, lawsuits filed, etc.) are not front page material. Sandstein 16:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose awful that they're still finding bodies, but unfortunately not unexpected. And not ITN worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - already blurbed and despite the tragedy does not merit an ongoing entry; can probably be WP:SNOW closed soon. - Indefensible (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This was a spot news story a week ago that has faded into pretty much of a non-story newswise. Not much going on. – Sca (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Canadian Indian residential school system

Borderline ongoing. Is there a reason these are happening so close together? GreatCaesarsGhost 02:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following the discovery of the bodies at the Kamloops Indian Residential School last month, every single former residential school site in Canada is being checked for bodies. There were over 100 of them, so we can expect more stories like this. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose These latest unmarked graves were found in a graveyard next to a school. They were unmarked because they were originally marked with wooden markers, according to indigenous tradition, which subsequently degrade. They were discovered a year ago but are only being announced now. There is no evidence yet that these are children from the school. Step hen 02:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just some random people buried next to the school... Lotta janitors. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 12:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you understand that there was also a hospital next to the graveyard as well? Step hen 22:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Template:U, I recommend you to report the previous blurb to WP:ERRORS because there is a place where you can requested to update a blurb. KRI Nanggala also getting some blurb update in WP:ERRORS mechanism due to same reason. 180.242.14.83 (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing Should just be added to ongoing considering the number of such discoveries. Gotitbro (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section:"The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news.". There presently is no such article. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes there is, and I've prepped it for the purpose of being an ongoing item. 2021 Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 12:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- While there is new news that there is now going to be systematic search of schools to see if more such gravesites exist, we should not add to ongoing simply on the presumption that more gravesites will be found - that's being too WP:CRYSTAL. If the search does identify at least one new gravesite early on (and clearly of the type of concern here, not just a cemetery that lost markers) then that would probably be a rational point to consider an ongoing (with 3 such cases, 1 that came after the start of a systematic search that is still going) However, with only 2 right now and the search yet exposing others, ongoing would be presumptive. --Masem (t) 13:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Stephen. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ongoing yes the investigation does appear to be ongoing, but no evidence that there will be significant updates every few days. Yes there have been 2 major updates in the past week, but before that there were weeks without any updates. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ongoing. This is not a typical ongoing saga, these are separate finds and should be treated individually. If we think the new one is significant (although Stephen says above that he thinks it is not) then it should simply be posted as a new item, and we can fold the two together if the original one is still present on the template. This is emphatically not a matter for ERRORS, since it requires consensus building. — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This latest discovery is not a small matter, but there is the editorial problem of such reports becoming repetitious. Does anyone know of a better solution than Ongoing? I don't. – Sca (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Report to WP:ERRORS, which is the place someone can report errors/typos or updating the previous blurb. 180.242.14.83 (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an error or typo, it's a content change in the blurb. — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about a new blurb for the 182 graves at Kootenay? --PFHLai (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last blurb was pretty bad because we didn't make clear these were previously marked. Is this known in BC? A blurb for a rediscovered section of a lost cemetery seems rather silly. If there is a story here, it's the rash of arson attacks against random Catholic churches that's taken place since the first round of media hysteria. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So craft a better blurb for the more recent (re)discovery. And the new ITN nom can be assessed on its own merit. --PFHLai (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any new blurbs. This is frankly ridiculous. Would support ongoing, though. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 05:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination is to update the existing blurb that is currently in the box, not create a new blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Statues of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II torn down in Canada. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about this statue? – Sca (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost impossible to topple over or tear down, I would imagine. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose too long. The suggested blurb should be summarised or put in ongoing (which is the best thing to do for the future, anyway). Uses x (leave me a message) 20:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the sentence is too long; suggest nominating a separate event. Otherwise all article is in OK condition. --ϗ (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]