Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/November 2023

Ongoing This has been classified as a major war in the List of ongoing armed conflicts for years. The fatalities so far this year are shown there as about 12,000 – comparable with the Gaza and Sudan conflicts. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Hamas-Israel War has only been going on for less than a month not counting the initiating genocide of Israelis -- hardly comparable to casualties spread over more than ten months in Myanmar, even if those numbers are right. And Sudan is not even in the ongoing section. JM (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Sudan war has been in Ongoing and is nominated again due to events like the Ardamata massacre. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know it was there a month or more ago, and I know it's nominated again, but the point is that it's not there right now, it hasn't reached consensus and been closed yet, so I don't think it's logical to cite it as a reason to put something else in ongoing. JM (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the point was that these conflicts all have a similar scale and, as major wars with much mayhem, should be expected to appear in Ongoing. And so the Sudan conflict is now back there too. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "the point" I am referring to my point, which, again, was that using the Sudan war as justification for putting Myanmar's war in ongoing is illogial because Sudan isn't in ongoing (and there's nowhere in your original !vote telling me that you saying Template:Tq indicates you wanted Sudan to be there too, but anyway...). It doesn't matter now, Sudan is up there again as I expected so it's a moot point. (and also, as I pointed out, wars are not of similar scale if they have similar amounts of casualties despite lasting vastly different periods.) JM (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, as an ITNC vet Andrew is not worth engaging with. The Kip 20:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing Something should be in the box, it's just not a blurb because as mentioned it's stale. Banedon (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing – I am pleased with the ongoing expansions on Myanmar civil war (2021–present) in the past month, and I would've loved to blurb Operation 1027, but alas... I'm not sure which one is the better Ongoing target, though the latter is seeing more intensive updates. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely more scope to add for the war overall than just 1027-relted events. However, I personally feel the civil war article is a bit long and hard to follow as it is right now (and partly due to lack of overall war analysis RS that we can structure based on). EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 12:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Long running conflict, yes, but we do blurb events that are out of the norm for a particular conflict (e.g. Israel/Palestine incidents). This appears to be a major flare up with large cities such as Sagaing going outside of the military government's control. Gotitbro (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a pretty big deal, and might actually result in a new government. Lukt64 (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb, oppose ongoing - Ongoing is for items that are consistently making blurb-worthy news. This is the first time an event in the Myanmar War has been nominated. We shouldn't immediately put blurbs in ongoing, wait for it to roll off and if it still has significant coverage, then put it up. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This conflict has not just been nominated before; it has been posted. See this, for example, "...an armed conflict that began in 1948 is a very big deal..." Andrew🐉(talk) 20:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing is for items that are seeing a significant amount of editing over a long period of time. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, more specifically, that the topic is in the news on a near-daily basis. There may be daily edits but those could be equal to small updates from local news outlets. In contrast, despite it not being the center of worldwide attention, there is near daily news coverage of the Ukraine-Russia war, which is why that's still in ongoing, as well as the current mess in Gaza.

This specific news event feels ripe for a blurb, but not ongoing because the civil war rarely gets significant news coverage on a daily basis. Masem (t) 00:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb, tentatively support ongoing—If this offensive becomes a protracted military engagement, or something that drags on for an extended period of time, then I would support an ongoing. If the offensive fails, however, then a single blurb will be sufficient. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The offensive may have started two weeks ago, but it shows no signs of slowing or abating and has in fact increased in intensity over time. The effective and successful collaboration of multiple rebel groups and the capture of critical border crossings on the border with China elevates this to blurb level notability. CrazyMagicPickle (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What date should we hang this on when placing it in the list on the main page? Just putting it at the top is unlikely to be appropriate, as it is not chronologically the most recent. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's where it gets a bit vague: the operation is still ongoing and notable events still occuring even though it stated a while ago. I'm personally fine with either ongoing or a blurb, because you can make the case for both. CrazyMagicPickle (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Support as this seems like a major escalation in the war and merits coverage. Also, wonder if an Ongoing nom would be appropriate when it rolls off This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb and assess ongoing later. Myanmar has been in a 75-year state of near-constant civil war, so I'm a bit skeptical on immediately jumping to ongoing, but this is certainly a significant development in the conflict against the junta. Curbon7 (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, Oppose ongoing. If there was an ongoing addition, it would be better to have Myanmar civil war (2021–present) or something similar as it discusses the long-term civil war instead of one operation. Suonii180 (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this assessment. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 02:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For those asking for a blurb, what exactly is the in the news blurb, for something that started 2 weeks ago? Step hen 03:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed an altblurb that attempts to deal with that. The Kip 23:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ongoing Although I'm not sure about posting about an event that started 2 weeks ago, this is certainly Ongoing-worthy due to the notability. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ongoing, Week Support Blurb ~~~𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 19:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing, also support blurb, even if the item itself is a little old, the developments are definitely news-worthy. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 21:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Proposed altblurb that somewhat deals with the issue of the offensive beginning a few weeks ago. The Kip 23:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 16:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb This offensive has resulted in developments that are blurb-worthy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 21:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Australian Optus outage

Oppose A brief outage of telecommunications is neither not the type of news for ITN, nor what WP should be covering in a separate article. --Masem (t) 04:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is over 9 hours really that brief? It affected many major services throughout Australia. This is not the first article of its kind, either, another similar event in an article is 2022 Rogers Communications outage. Fishonlegs (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If half of American's went offline we would be posting about it; we should do the same for other nations. BilledMammal (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, we really shouldn't, unless it was associated with a more nefarious act. This is the type of "first world problem" that we should not give any signal boosting towards without clearer signs it was a significant issue. And in ten years, is anyone going to remember this? Contrast this to something like the Northeast blackout of 2003 which has gained a reputation of a problem with the US's own power system. Masem (t) 05:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something like the 1977 New York Blackout I think would've been posted though PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Manhattan blackout of July 2019 wasnt, though it was DYK'd. nableezy - 16:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITNCDONT #2. The Kip 06:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. If it was a few days perhaps, but it was less than half of one. The Kip 06:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this shouldn't even be an article. Secretlondon (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm neutral to posting but to say there shouldn't even be an article is shortsighted. There were widespread implications across a G20 country - no corner of the country wasn't impact. Major hospitals lost departments, public transport systems were impacted, tens of thousands businesses across the country lost a day's worth of business due to EFTPOS machines being down, critical public safety hotlines were down and sizeable populations lost access to emergency phone services. Australia will be counting the cost of this for days and weeks to come. 124.150.88.221 (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per User:BilledMammal's reasons. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't rise to ITN notability in my opinion. 2001:2020:319:7C8A:65E3:D5B5:1DD0:63C2 (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support this affected 10 million people for a significant period of time. If that's not enough, we might need a WP:MINIMUMAFFECTED that's > 10 million, and exclude stuff like the Lucy space probe, since the number of astronomers worldwide is much less than 10 million. Banedon (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – The existence of this article touches on WP:Notability (events), where it's unclear whether this incident will be remembered one or more years from now. In that sense it straddles the line of encyclopedic value. It is clearly showing a weakness in Australia's telecommunications systems so I am sure an in-depth investigation will follow. I don't like crystalballing on the long-term significance of this incident, but I do see a solid little article that is a nice feature. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Big story, but affected a relatively small number of people for a relatively short time. Mind you, far more notable that posting the conviction of someone who practically no-one had heard of before his crypto scam ran out of luck. There's Wikipedia demographics in action, though. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah that only got posted because of the editorship demographics, not even the readers. was an odd thing to post among 5 stories supposedly "in the news". nableezy - 16:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not exactly a slow news cycle to be running this. Gotitbro (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not notable enough for an article, let alone ITN. Elisecars727 (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - even if it were a few days, outside of an act by a government (either foreign or domestic) doing this a la Egypt during the 2011 revolt I wouldnt consider a service disruption significant enough to post here. If this were a cyberattack maybe, but this? Nah. nableezy - 16:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 November 7 Template:Cob

November 7

(Posted) RD: Igor Judge, Baron Judge

Support It's barely sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 18:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Portuguese Prime Minister

Support, pending expansion of his second term subsection. I haven't looked over the references in either of the linked pages, and thus far I've only skimmed through his biographical article, but the resignation of a country's head of government is virtually always ITN-worthy, especially if it's due to alleged corruption. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if we posted Johnson's and Truss' resignations, we should post Costa's. But his article needs a lot of work (see Second term section), although the article on the corruption investigation looks very good. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the new prime minister is known and post it then. Johnson’s and Truss’ resignations were mistakes.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until at least tomorrow, as then we'll know what Parliment plans to do and thus how fast we expect a new leader. --Masem (t) 01:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support when new PM is chosen as change of Head of Gov't is ITNR This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the new prime minister is offiically announced and post it then. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait per above, then post as combined blurb. The Kip 06:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifications A) As Portugal doesn't have a Westminster system (as some of the comments imply), what's happening next is that the President of Portugal is doing consultations today and tomorrow, and will decide tomorrow what will happen next. He can either appoint a new PM, or (more likely) dissolve parliament and call for new elections. In the latter case, it could be that Costa stays on as caretaker PM for some time. B) For me, the circumstances of this resignation make it ITN-worthy: the PM didn't resign because of a political coup within his party, but because close associates and members of his gov are the target of a corruption investigation, and he himself may be questioned. Happy to also consider making the corruption investigation article itself the main one for this nomination, if that makes more sense. Khuft (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The resignation is historic and noteworthy. It has been presented already, so there's nothing to wait about it. When a head of state changes, it gets posted, but this is not a change in the head of state and considering it as such is thus undue. What this is and what this nomination is about is the resignation of a Prime-Minister due to a corruption scandal. That resignation, not the appointment of a new head of state, is what's to be debated here. 85.240.222.144 (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget The corruption investigation should be the primary topic as it appears that the PM is not the main target of this. As he has not been found guilty or convicted of anything specific, we should avoid giving the impression that he has. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Should not have posted the resignations of the UK PMs and the US house speaker, should not post this now. ITNR exists and we should make use of it i.e. wait for a new head. About the corruption, I would be very vary of BLP issues in highlighting mere investigations on the front page. Gotitbro (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The House Speaker didn't resign, he was kicked out of his position, and that was the first time in 236 years (since the the US Constitution went into force in 1787) that it had happened --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And a prime minister is thirty thousand times more powerful than the HoR Speaker. For the record. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've already had this discussion once, but I guess we'll have it again. That's simply not true in the Presidential System that the US uses. The Speaker of the House is the head of the legislative branch, it is the closest position to a Prime Minister that exists in the US. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is true (and note that I didn't mind the publication of McCarthy's ousting). The various parliamentary systems we have in Europe don't work like you seem to imagine they work, and they're different amongst themselves as well. Portugal doesn't have a Westminster-style system like the UK, and France (for instance) has a semi-presidential system that's different again. In this particular case, the US equivalent to the Portuguese Prime Minister is the US president. Both are the heads of the Executive. The head of the Legislative in Portugal is the President of the Assembly of the Republic (currently Augusto Santos Silva, in case you're interested) - he sets the agenda for parliament and decides what gets put forward to vote - ie. similar to what the Speaker of the House does in the US. Typically he'll be of the same party (or coalition) as the Prime Minister because the basic tenet of parliamentary systems is that the head of the executive enjoys the confidence of the legislative branch. There are more intricacies to the whole Portuguese set-up (e.g. the role of the mostly ceremonial President of the Republic, who has some reserve powers such as dissolving parliament; the interaction between executive and legislative branches; etc.) but I'm sure you can learn about those here on Wikipedia, should you be interested. Long story short: saying that the US Speaker of the House is equivalent to a Prime Minister in a European parliamentary set-up is simply not correct. Khuft (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

just because it is "close" does not mean "it is". _-_Alsor (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The closest position to a Prime Minister in the US is the President, who combines powers usually shared by both the President and the Prime Minister in countries having both. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 21:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm repeating what others have said, but a prime minister in a parliamentary system is head of government, like in Portugal, so is equivalent to a president in a presidential system where a president is head of government, like in the United States. There is no equivalent of the presidential Speaker of the House in parliamentary systems because the presidential Speaker's power is a product of the separation of powers, which does not exist in a parliamentary system. The presidential system's Speaker operates at a power level between a parliamentary Speaker and a Prime Minister -- he is merely the leader of a legislative assembly which can be overruled by both the Senate and the President. JM (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update Checking back on this, the FT reports that there will be a "snap election" in March of next year and, in the meantime, "Rebelo de Sousa said he would delay the dissolution of parliament and Costa’s formal conversion into a caretaker leader to allow the passage of a budget package on November 29." So, the can is being kicked down the road some way per "mañana". Like the speaker situation, this is going to be ongoing for months. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you wanted to add some ironic twist with your slightly condescending "mañana" remark, in particular given it's in Spanish instead of Portuguese, but the President's decision is not wholly unexpected. Getting a budget approved in time has become a talismanic event in the annual Portuguese political calendar, since the Financial Crisis. Also, the Socialist Party will need to elect a new leader after Costa's resignation, which take a few months in accordance with party statutes, and had asked for a later rather than earlier election date. Khuft (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Costa remains in power until this budget is done and that's weeks away. And he will continue to be PM until next March. As "a week is a long time in politics" we should not announce Costa's resignation until it seems more certain. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. We should post it like we posted US speaker McCarthy and UK prime ministers resignations. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, to top it off, it turns out that the prosecution got confused when transcribing the wiretaps and blamed PM António Costa when they shouldn't have. Judge Costa, chasing a António Costa, blaming an innocent António Costa...the beauty of surnames. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. Anyway, this ITN candidate is going to be obliterated and copied into the archives in a about 2 hours so there's no chance of this getting posted in any case. No point in even bothering to close it. JM (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The new guy's article is even worse. But I've added an altblurb and that Euronews source, just to make it clear upfront that at least one of them is probably innocent. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2023 Melbourne Cup

Oppose - there needs to be some detail of the race beyond just the bare result. Bcp67 (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Target article is mostly just a big table. Winning horse's article is also a tiny stub, which is not a terrible issue as it isn't the target, but this could be improved upon as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is effectively a stub. The Kip 18:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The page is basically a stub at the moment. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose stub JM (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as we don't post stubs. Schwede 66 23:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 November 6 Template:Cob

November 6

(Posted) RD: Mike Shuster

Posted Step hen 21:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Antoni Martí

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 November 5 Template:Cob

~~I'm working on his article. I will try to expand the content and add the missing sources. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Support work done. Article seems ready to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - thanks for the edits, Alsor ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 17:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 22:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 5

(Posted) RD: Harald Heckmann

Support Well sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ryland Davies

Support Well-referenced and good enough for an RD posting, although there should be a source for his date of birth. 2001:2020:319:7C8A:65E3:D5B5:1DD0:63C2 (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 01:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen, thank you for fast posting. I wanted to add recordings before nominating. I added Martin and myself to updaters, and Smerus deserves credit as creator because he was first to write a bio that was not copyright violation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2023 NASCAR Cup Series

Support, notable as the WRC championship posted below. Article just needs the final round summary. Tableguy28 (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)s[reply]

Support as perennial, but remove the "US" designation as unneeded. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead needs updating to mention Blaney's win, and the final summary is missing and tagged as such. Step hen 01:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work Too much PR proseline of the form "On <date>, <someone> announced <something>". And lot of predictive commentary about things that "will" happen. Did they? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the table for the drivers’ championship results is WAY too wide. Is this the norm? Couldn’t it be split or smart-arranged into rows? Aaron Liu (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Relatively niche domestic competition. Article seems to contain a lot of PR/Branding but that may just be the nature of theese things. –DMartin 17:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITNR. Your first comment is not relevant as the event has been deemed sufficiently worthwhile to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say not very niche, as more coverage than, say, the WRC championship posted not long ago, or the Indy 500, and on the same level as the F1 championship. INTR. Tableguy28 (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
F1 is about 20x bigger than NASCAR because it's a global sport. See How America’s Favorite Motorsport is Losing its Grip. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going into the extremely contentious topic of F1 vs. NASCAR because it's really off-topic. Point is, INTR. 2021 iteration was posted, so this should be. Tableguy28 (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The event was not posted last year. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now Andrew is right. This needs work. Beyond proseline, I also see MOS:PSEUDOHEAD violations in #Season summary, plus there's no prose for Round 36. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and shouldnt be ITNR. nableezy - 18:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to the talk page then. BangJan1999 18:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Please give us your reasons. Tableguy28 (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITNCDONT. The Kip 19:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it isnt even the biggest Nascar story of the year. nableezy - 04:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NASCAR Cup Series asserts that it is, in its very first sentence. Or do you mean the Daytona 500? I could see an argument for that, but we've already skipped posting it this year; if we were going to switch to that, it'd make more sense to post this, quality permitting, then switch for next year. —Cryptic 04:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not nearly as consistent in following NASCAR as before, but what is said story? DarkSide830 (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Daytona. Yes, it’s not the overall championship, but it is far and away the biggest single nascar story each year. nableezy - 16:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I dunno about that one, even though I'd argue NASCAR is less watched for the championship itself then the actual run-up thereto. And I'd argue the biggest single-game story this year surrounded the Grant Park 220 and the oddness of it's conception and winner, though wasn't blurbable either. But that's just me, and again may be skewed by fandom of the Cup Series. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm pretty sure we shouldn't have Main Page articles that are mostly written in bulletpoints. This should be prose. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many sporting events on the ITN lately. It's Wikipedia, not the sports newscast. Trepang2 (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITN/R, if you have issue with this, please take it elsewhere. "Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance." glman (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THANKYOU! sports, sports, sports, something that happened a month ago, sports... 142.165.199.65 (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought sport news wasn't news, but a deliberate and cynical distraction from the news, but this event in particular seems a peculiar one to draw the line at. (Aren't we at the six football finals in a row time of year at ITNR?) —Cryptic 03:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it’s as if whenever a blurb is from the US someone tries to find a reason to oppose it. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have addressed WP:PROSELINE concerns by splitting a vast majority of the material written in bullets. I strongly disagree with the assertion that the article is mostly written that way; only the sections concerning Team, driver, and rule changes. Concerns about notability/"it's sports" can be raised at appropriate venues. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And every cup series article is written this way. Hardly a problem, IMO, because that section probably reads poorly in paragraph format. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about raising a point like this, but figured It'd be easier to just split (something which I've advocated for in the past for that section in past years' articles) than come up with the right words to express it. Thank you. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having read over PROSELINE again, I'm not sure that it even applies to this article, given the examples used in that essay, and that this is not something easily converted into WP:WEIGHTed paragraphs without removing information vital for WP:V. Regardless, my personal longstanding opinion still favours splitting this section. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:ITN/R. Article is significant enough to post, and has been improved to address issues. glman (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comment about the PSEUDOHEADs is unaddressed. And Round 36 is an empty setion with no prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just converted that section into a definition list. Had to write a Kotlin script for it. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[34] Template:U has posted the Round 36 summary. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to clarify some comments from above. The bullet points are somewhat abnormal, but this is normal practice with Cup Series articles. 2021's nom was posted with little issue with the same format. The article does need some other changes, but this should not be an issue. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article seems to have been sufficiently cleaned up. The Kip 18:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see any references from 'Results and standings' down? Step hen 01:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this didn't stop you from posting the similarly-referenced 2021 article 2 years ago (funny, I also see a !vote which acknowledges that avoiding proseline in these articles is hard to do in there), but I've gone ahead and done my best to satisfy this, too. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article looks good to go now. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 22:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2023 Japan Series

Image licensing I tagged it, asking the uploader to submit permission, as it lacks metadata, is low res, and the PNG extension draws suspicion of a possible screen shot.—Bagumba (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only other option for the MVP

Whomp whomp. This --> appears to be the only other option we have for the MVP. There's also a not very good crop of it. Many other players from the teams have great photos. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don’t see any issues with the article. Considering the issues, we can post without a photo for now and leave the Bankman-Freid pic up. The Kip 18:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hot topic on the Japanese news at the moment. Article is in good shape and I see no problems. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 23:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is notable and the article is in a good state. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanshin Tigers fans have waited quite awhile to see this. Article seems fine. TheCorriynial (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 02:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good job everyone on getting this article updated, and also for finding the rare sporting event photo that doesn't have sponsorship rubbish splattered all over it. Looks like we went with the manager rather than the MVP which, while unexpected, isn't a horrible choice. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using an image of the manager is a perfectly cromulent decision. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Gaza School Airstrike

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 November 4 Template:Cob

Oppose—Obviously a horrific tragedy, but it's still one among numerous that have been going on over the past month. It's also not the first time Israel bombed that particular refugee camp. The Gaza War has its own ongoing, and unless there's something exceptional about a particular incident, the ongoing will suffice. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article is very thin and in poor shape, we have the article 2023 Israel–Hamas war in on going, this seems to be enough for me. Govvy (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Israel–Hamas war is already listed in Ongoing. This is just one incident among many. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Covered by ongoing, and really should not be a separate article from other attacks, even though in this case this sounds like the numbers of dead/injured are verified by being a UN school. --Masem (t) 14:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abottom

November 4

RD: Bill Milbank

2023 Copa Libertadores final

Oppose on quality Effectively just a few tables. Needs a full prose update. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Barely any text after the lead. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still only 170 words of prose? Way too stubby for ITN purposes. Please expand this wikiarticle. --PFHLai (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No prose beyond the lede. The Kip 18:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, oppose on quality While I think that sporting events like the Copa Libertadores deserve a spot on ITN, the article needs to be fixed up before I can support this. Kanyewestlover999 (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed at WP:ITNSPORTS, so the only issue is meeting quality. —Bagumba (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose stub JM (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Salman Habaka

Only 149 words of prose? That's too stubby. Need more about his career. Please expand this wikibio. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t feature stubs on the main page. Schwede 66 13:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose page is simply too short. Will reconsider if there is significant expansion. Bremps... 22:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Article isn't THAT bad, I think it could go up PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ITNQUALITY: Template:Tq I also oppose. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Oussama Falouh

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 November 3 Template:Cob

Only 224 words of prose? That's too stubby. Need more about his career. Please expand this wikibio. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but the article is way too short for ITN posting at the moment. Needs expansion and the orphan tag needs to be sorted out. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 23:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's not a WP:SNOWball's chance of it being successful if I did nominate it for deletion due to the emotion involved, but I struggle to see the notability of this player and there's very little information pre-dating his death. There are transfer reports yes, but I had to use a primary source for his second loan to Avranches and a passing mention for his transfer to Wydad just this year. Was anybody writing about how and when he was playing? The player made 22 appearances in the Championnat National (third division, amateur) which was his highest achievement in France, and unless the data is just lacking on every database, he didn't even play a game in Morocco's league. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

RD: Patrick Brownsey

RD: Bubba Copeland

Support For a relatively new article, it is well-sourced. Their death has also received widespread coverage. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I question the title of this article under BLP1E. A mayor of a town in the US is not automatically notable and only has become a name in the news over the issues of his death. That said, renaming to "Death of Bubba Copeland" would be more appropriate since his death has been widely covered, and that would still allow an RD here. --Masem (t) 01:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITNRD requires a Template:Tq, but it would no longer be one if it was instead a "Death of" article. That said, there has been no consensus yet to rename.—Bagumba (talk) 10:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2023 Nepal earthquake

Oppose on quality Article feels a bit short. The Kip 03:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about now? JM (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article has been expanded sufficiently Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
seems like there's no opposition with regards to the recent expansion and development. Tagging this as ready. Can an administrator post this already? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sufficient expansion, significant death toll. Brandmeister^talk 08:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article due to the high death toll, despite everything else being quite unclear yet Quake1234 (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article with enough expansion. —Stewpot ^(talk) 18:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 02:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation of undocumented Afghans from Pakistan

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 November 2 Template:Cob

Wait As I understand it, these Afghans were already subject to arrest and deportation from Pakistan and so this issue is not new. The intention and plan here is to make it happen in a bigger way. But lots of countries have problems with migrants and refugees and then announce get-tough policies to address them. But the trouble seems to be that it's not so easy to actually implement such policies and so the problems drag on or become a revolving door. As this is a contentious topic, I reckon we need something more than a policy announcement. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. That is a LOT of people being FORCED to leave, pretty rare. This could have pretty big consequences for both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Lukt64 (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait leaning oppose - without getting into it too deep, the article states Template:Tqq which to me makes it sound like this is more the deportation of undocumented immigrants instead of the expulsion of an ethnic/national group ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was going to support but now leaning oppose per Mike's justification. But this might be one we want to simmer a bit more, so I'll go wait as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~leaning oppose~~ per Mike JM (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt1 because this is a significant amount of illegal immigrants being deported so it's still news; I would only support Alt1 though, as this is not specific to Afghans per Mike JM (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support My understanding is that this isn't just a policy announcement - its the actual expulsion being carried out. Reuters states this is approximately 4M Afghans and its being referenced in multiple places as an expulsion of one specific group. Barely see mention of any other groups of immigrants. Schwinnspeed (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per VOA, Pakistan's caretaker Foreign Minister Jalil Abbas Jilani said the expulsion targets all "who are illegally residing in Pakistan", not just Afghans so I added altblurb. Brandmeister^talk 18:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The altblurb still says "begins" but it's easy to find coverage from years ago which clearly states that Pakistan was deporting Afghans then. What's happening now is a tightening of the screw rather than a beginning. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The nominator's comment is factually incorrect. Deportation of illegal aliens to home country can't be categorized as 'forced displacement'. It's a deportation drive just like the one conducted in 2016. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Appears similar to the Rwanda asylum plan and the Windrush scandals which I don't think we posted. Maybe that should change but it would appear that this is a frequent issue in disparate countries, so maybe not. Also not really comparable to forced expulsions. Gotitbro (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, definitely a massively important story. We can't just ignore ethnic cleansing. We're talking about several millions of people, that's not a "frequent issue". ChaotıċEnby(talk) 19:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: AP calls it an "anti-migrant crackdown". The event has caused hundreds of thousands of people to relocate. This is a major movement of people and a major international event, and a humanitarian event of no small significance. These things make it a good ITN candidate. —Alalch E. 23:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- However, there's an WP:ITNQUALITY problem with respect to the lead section at this time.—Alalch E. 01:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the lead. Schwede 66 14:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support This has massive humanitarian and security implications. The quality of the article is adequate for ITN as it is well-sourced. The minor quibbles regarding exact terminology doesn't impact the overwhelming scale of what's happening and as of now the article has is adequately neutral and factual. --Jiaminglimjm (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT2 per above. The Kip 18:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not notable enough for an article. Leave the ITN alone. Fahads1982 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems like spreading propaganda. The article title is misleading. The current drive is not only for Afghans. It's for all but the page targets only afghans.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

RD: Fung Ying Ki

Comment: Article needs restructuring with information in the intro moved to a section in the article body. Spencer^T•C 23:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Henri Lopes

Almost support. Refs are there, but they're not great (eg, one used four times that's flagged as permanently dead). A bit more work? Moscow Mule (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, but ultimately oppose on quality. Article has sections where it seemingly deviates from wikivoice (eg "Perhaps his most acclaimed work is..."), does not even include changes as prime minister, political views, or legacy. The whole thing pans out more as an Insta bio than an actual in-depth article. Needs more work. Will not talk about refs as Moscow Mule has already discussed them. For five more minutes...^{it's just a single vice} 03:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ken Mattingly

Support from my glance at the article, it looks ready to post. There might be a couple statements that might need to be individually sourced, but I really only glanced at the article, and I did not do an in-depth investigation of its sourcing. ❤History Theorist❤ 19:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and marking as ready. Additional citations have been added, article looks good. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is clearly ready. Suggest posting without delay. Jusdafax (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 03:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Sam Bankman-Fried conviction

Support-Was just about to nominate this, it is significant since it involves a billionaire. Interstellarity (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I think we'd wait for sentencing, that's not until March, so this would appear to be the right time. No comment yet towards quality or appropriateness otherwise. Masem (t) 00:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Alternative blurb II. I think this blurb is the most clear --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT2 Case received a ton of media attention due to its relation to the crypto boom and bust, and article seems up to par quality-wise. The Kip 01:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt2 per above. --Pithon314 (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT2 - high profile case. starship .paint (RUN) 02:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt1 or alt2 per above. Enormous media and public attention (public interest), lots of rich and famous people involved. JM (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — Not a globally recognized figure. The collapse of FTX was a more contained event than the Madoff scandal. Trial article does not have encyclopedic prose. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt2 There is a relation between him and his role at busting late 2010s and early 2020s cryptocurrency hype which spread across the world, leading to 2023 economic downturn. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dog bites man. Fraud and corruption are pretty much run of the mill in crypto land. I can't remember the last time I got through a week without reading about some new crypto scam in the press. The only thing that makes this even remotely noteworthy are the number of zeros before the decimal point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you say, it's noteworthy because of the amount of money involved. It's also generated a lot of public interest i.e., widely reported. JM (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an important escalation of regulatory oversight of crypto. I can only think of two other ongoing cases that are as important to the crypto landscape: US v. Binance and Custodia Bank v. Federal Reserve. As you'll see from this proposed amicus brief in Binance, "regulation-by-enforcement" really is the front line for crypto right now. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I personally prefer the original blurb, but if nobody else wants it, I'll settle for alt2. A high-profile billionaire being convicted of major white collar crimes seems like a pretty major news story to me. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article's quality is not that bad with this conviction making major headlines as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Davey & Kurtis. All three blurbs look good 3df (talk) 06:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - maybe we should put up the courtroom sketch PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not that notable. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Covered in largest news agencies AFP, plus Reuters, and AP, covered in the Middle East, covered in South America, covered in Australia ... starship .paint (RUN) 14:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Joe Biden's fall on his bike was also covered by "largest news agencies" and not for that reason it was something notorious. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps the bike fall will get its own article like George H. W. Bush broccoli comments. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Did we post FTX's bankruptcy? If that was deemed not notable for ITN, posting what is essentially the aftermath of it does not seem apt either. And while a factor in the crypto bust, it was neither a catalyst nor the end of it and if anything was to be posted as for this it should have been the NFT bust back then. Gotitbro (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't, though that was largely was because it was a particularly active week on ITN and it got got closed for being older than the current item on ITN. — Knightoftheswords 14:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's in the news and has several significant aspects. The article is extensive but had a couple of Template:Tl so I have resolved them. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ad Orientem. And the date of his sentencing is in 2024. Pavlor (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A really important story, and one which we are uniquely placed to explain to a lay audience. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This rivals Bernie Madoff. Even surpasses in some ways. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AO. AryKun (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Alt 2 Consensus supports posting. News is significant, articles are in good shape, and opposition of "not that notable" or "I see lots of crypto scam news" is not compelling. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed, pulled) Now and Then (Beatles song)

Support: Only two unsourced parts (from a quick skim). I don’t think including “ English rock band” is necessary at all, because I mean, they’re the Beatles, and I’m not sure if the citation in the personnel section is the best way to do it. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Altblurb with less spoonfeeding suggested, then. Also sidesteps contentious MOS:THEBAND. Moscow Mule (talk)

Support Significant and notable. --Bedivere (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the fact the "last song" is being quoted here means this may not actually be their last song, if similar recordings for other songs exist. --Masem (t) 22:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, they never claimed it was their last song before for similar recordings. Besides, you can always suggest an alt blurb. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The official annoucement calls it the last song, w/o quote marks. And anyway, two lots thereof make the blurb look tacky: remove the second set, per alt2? Moscow Mule (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see more a focus on how this song came together than claiming a "last song", as that's why this is more interesting (given two of the band members are dead).

--Masem (t) 00:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something like ... the AI-assisted "Now and Then" might have been the hook we were looking for. But that wouldn't have protected it against the accusations of advertising. Because, of course, the World Series, the Rugby World Cup and motorsports are philanthropic, non-profit concerns. Moscow Mule (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very notable, especially coming from an inspiration musical group, article appears to be in good shape as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support pretty big deal because this is a massive music group Lukt64 (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting story that is getting a lot of coverage. Quality issues appear to be resolved. This is the "last song" because only three songs were worked on by the surviving members of the group in the mid 90s reunion, and this is the last of the three. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support On the basis that is one of the most influential music groups in history Centuries123 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After reading the other comments. I now agree that the Beetles shouldn't be given a special status Centuries123 (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's in the news and interesting. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems to meet all 4 parts of WP:ITNPURPOSE. — Knightoftheswords 23:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A historic moment for the band. Rager7 (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Interesting story with global RS coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 01:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Would be trivial for nearly anyone else, but with the sheer fame/influence of the Beatles and the fact it’s their first release in nearly 30 years, I’d say it’s notable enough. The Kip 01:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit advertisey to post this imo. nableezy - 01:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose I understand that it's the beatles, but "old band releases last song" 53 years after the band stopped existing is not significant enough JM (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As of this comment it is 10 supports and 9 or 10 opposes counting post-posting !votes. No consensus to post JM (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose — Per JM. ITN is not an advertisement. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull. Doesn't sound significant enough. I also don't buy those "last song" claims because they can simply be good PR advertising campaign. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull not significant enough. Fails the "worldwide front page news" test and it's too much like an advertisement. Meghan Trainor, Taylor Swift, now the Beatles on Wikipedia's front page? Come on, let's be less of an advertisement for white Western mainstream commercial interests. Levivich (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt anyone voted for this because of the whiteness of the Beatles, consciously or subconsciously. JM (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can listen to this single for free on YouTube. We just ran a picture for several days which was mostly an advert for Red Bull and that's something you have to pay for. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They get paid for YouTube views, you know. And yes, we advertise too much for Red Bull, and lots of other mainstream commercial interests. It's funny because we get all bent out of shape about UPE and COI but then we freely shill products on our main page, and we volunteer for it, lol. Levivich (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has heard more than enough complaints about that picture by now JM (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not a complaint as the suggested alternative also has sponsors on the cars, it’s just to say that the “advert” line of reasoning probably shouldn’t be considered. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Pull~~ Post-posting oppose per Levivich and OhanaUnited. This is practically an advertisement. Anyone, not just Beatles, can make their "last" songs and in few years, or even decades, they could make another song again. While Beatles is very prominent back in the 1960s, they do not have much worldwide spread as in for example Taylor Swift or Britney Spears, as they emerged at a time when it is very hard to spread music across the world because not everyone had radios/TVs. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it is hardly gonna be reposted, but saying that the Beatles do not have worldwide spread and are less known than Britney is just laughable. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PP Oppose per most of the above. Insufficiently significant for ITN and frankly this has more than a whiff of fan promotion to it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull for blatant advertising and a lack of sufficient noteworthiness. Sounder Bruce 04:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull per above, probably better suited for DYK. Agree with elijahpepe on this one. Ornithoptera (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can't go to DYK unless made a GA, - not a new or sufficiently expanded article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that this has been a substantial article since it was started in 2007. What's new here is that AI was able to complete the production and this chimes with other current news about AI. As a historic breakthrough in music technology, it might be a good topic for TFA. And note that there are two other singles lined up to be featured on the main page this month: "Smoking on My Ex Pack" and "To Be Loved". If TFA can run so many singles and computer games, then why can't ITN run one too? Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This might actually be an extremely rare situation where DYK was a reasonable suggestion! It's not quite a x5 expansion from before release (more like x3) but it's almost imaginable to make that happen. Still a terrible, irrelevant argument for this forum tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is 100% a situation where the item is DYK. It is TRIVIA. Like good for people who like the Beatles, but what is the IMPACT here? DarkSide830 (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see impact being anywhere in ITN criteria. Does people winning sport competitions have any impact? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu: Template:Tq You're right that it's not there. In fact, in the ITN criteria for significance, all that is required is a consensus of the people presently !voting. The system leaves it up to everyone else to form their own definition of what significance entails, and from there it pushes people to find a common ground of agreement or disagreement for each item. The sporadicity of the process is what leads to our little quirks and funnies like "we posted this last year, why aren't we posting this now?", or "we made a mistake by posting this type of item before, don't post this again", or "this item is not of international encyclopedic lasting non-trivial significance".

Apologies if that sounded preachy. All of this is to say that I do understand what you're getting from. However, when it comes to assessing notability of events, ITN/C simply doesn't function like anywhere else on Wikipedia. It's certainly what gives the biggest headache for new participants, particularly those who expect it to function more like a ministerial process, similar to DYK's procedures. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled Step hen 04:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine an ITN admin as someone standing next to a sign board with a ladder. Ten people come up with a sign and say, "Post this." The admin says, "Any objections?", and hearing none, climbs up the ladder and posts it. Upon getting down from the ladder, the admin finds ten other people who say, "Take that down." The admin sighs, climbs back up the ladder, and takes it down. Thank you, ITN admins, for putting up with us. Levivich (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was just a rather unusual incidental event due to chance, its just that that the people who would oppose happened to arrive after the people who would support. JM (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It happened while the rest of the world was asleep. This is where having a "minimum discussion time" proposal comes from. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldnt matter where in the world it's nighttime, that shouldn't significantly change the number of people who vote support versus oppose. I still think it's just incidental, I don't see why for example Australia's votes would so signifcantly differ to America's or Britain's for general nominations like this. ITN would be far less dynamic with a minimal discussion time. JM (talk) 05:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vigor and swiftness ITN would do best without. There is WP:NORUSH. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it was posted way too quickly as well, only 3 hours after it was nominated, little time for a valuable consensus to develop. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-pulling oppose Because of course, a baseball team winning the annual American baseball tournament is more important than the Beatles.Trepang2 (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
/CriesInBlueJaysTears Howard the Duck (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I know it's unlikely to be reposted, but it's a bit of a stretch to think referring to this at ITN is an advertisement. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Come on, it's the Beatles. Bedivere (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is in the news and the reason it's in the news is not for promotional purposes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I want to like this as a blurb but a couple of things. 1. The four of them didn't actually put the song together as "The Beatles" 2. Two there appears to be a fifth Beatle (AI). Unfinished Tolkien anyone? CoatCheck (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No artificial intelligence was used in the actual song, other than to extract Lennon's voice from the muddy old cassette from the 1970s. The four of them do appear in the record and the four of them did participate on it, at different stages: Lennon back in the 1970s, Harrison in the 1990s, and both McCartney and Starr in the 1990s and 2020s. Bedivere (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
McCartney and Starr also worked on it in the 1990s, in studio, with Harrison, and as The Beatles. The work was put aside because of the technical roadblock of not being able to at the time extract Lennon's vocals from the background noise and piano. How is this any different than The Rolling Stones recording and releasing material, never together, in mid-2020. No one claims it wasn't put together as the Rolling Stones because Brian Jones is dead! The use of the term AI seems over-used as well. This line of reason looks very persnickety to me. Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ Support – Lovely culmination of a long history of detailed encyclopedic writing on the Beatles, both in the expansive bibliography and on Wikipedia. The "last Beatles song" (properly in quotes imo, because the Beatles are no longer a thing) is an endstone to the field, something that has been a subject of interest for a very long time. I am supportive of posting cultural/artistic releases. It's a sad thing to me that any such feature would risk coming across as arbitrary advertisement (whenever it comes to a new release). I would like to post our editors' extensive writing on a subject like this on ITN, and this feels like one of the most appropriate subjects for it. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The more I ruminate on this one, especially looking at Moscow Mule's and Andrew's comments on us constantly advertising sporting events and the sponsors thereof, I have to say I am becoming increasingly more in favour of posting a freely-available art product fifty years in the making... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot help if a major sports championship has been forced to be named by its sponsor; stating that name is not COI-type non-neutral naming, and we can't avoid that. Nor when we post things like the Grammies or Oscars that naming the winning films/songs/shows are considered ads for those. On the other hand, this single is a simply a commercial item and so far beyond being tied to The Beatles, has no known impact on the world, so this is far more like an ad for that song than anything else we post. Masem (t) 14:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support posting. It's Beatles, hey hey. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because I don't think "last song" is a verifiable claim and I really don't think "support because it's the Beatles" is a valid argument for noteworthiness ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For me it's the most valid argument. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Seriously. This is a classic case of trivia. Can anyone actually explain why this is is so significant beyond "it's the Beatles", which is not good ITN justification. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What other proofs of significance besides being a much-hyped and technically innovative product of the most successful pop artists of all time do you need? Trepang2 (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh c'mon. Yeah, the Beatles were quite popular. Emphasis on "where". We've rejected other noms for other artists almost out of hand before. Personally, news about Taylor Swift, The Weeknd, Drake, etc means more to the average person. That they sold a lot of record several decades ago is pretty much also trivia to most people. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If "where" is a question on location, Beatlemania lists 1964 – 1965 as "international success" and they've had a world tour. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, meant "were". DarkSide830 (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes much more sense. Still, I don't think the fact that they were very popular is trivia, but I've never asked anyone else, though they all know the Beatles. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and keep pulled for the same reason we don't post sports retirements -- how can you prove that it'll be the last song? We would never give any other band this type of treatment. I don't normally favor pulling items, but the consensus has swung so far in the other direction that it has to be noted. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And let's try to be aware of how thoroughly we plunge our ankles into the ballpit that is systemic bias when we come up with rationales such as "it's the Beatles, that's why" to justify our support !votes. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is statistics that can't be argued with: the Beatles are the most successful act in pop history, which makes them notable, and the song is both technically innovative (which can be mentioned in the blurb) and critically acclaimed. I see no reason to bring in biases here. Trepang2 (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to resort to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but I assume that when Eminem and Rihanna put out new singles that you would also then support those, since they have more certified units sold than the Beatles (I know about the claimed sales but one statistic is just as valid as the other) and they are still relatively active and recognizable as 21st century artists. But again, Masem's argument above (which aligns with my own) about this being an item of limited interest and even then only from a commercial standpoint shuns the relevance of statistics. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 01:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not every new single of Eminem and Rihanna were recorded decades prior, use innovative technology, or is said to be their last. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as @Aaron Liu says, it's the combination of the factors that makes this particular case noteworthy. That being said, I wouldn't mind Eminem or Rihanna being featured on ITN. Trepang2 (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of another song item which was posted, see "Like a Rolling Stone". Andrew🐉(talk) 18:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was posted because of the value of the auction item, not because of the song itself. Very different situation. Masem (t) 18:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also if I'm reading right, that was posted on a 4-2 vote from 10 years ago. That really isn't indicative of anything. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this counters my argument, not to mention the fact that the dynamics of consensus-building at ITN, and indeed the makeup of its users, was far different 10 years ago. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, we can't be sure it is actually their "last song." But, OTOH, the Beatles are an incredibly successful musical act who have not released music in a significant period of time. This story is receiving major attention, and ITN generally has a dearth of pop culture stuff. There is value to posting it. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The song has been receiving huge press coverage, the article is in fine shape, and... look, even if isn't their "last song" (which it should be, as the surviving members are in their 80s and have not even hinted at work on any other songs), it's the first new song in decades from the most famous and most influential band in the history of music. Sounds pretty notable to me. -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 17 supporting, 13 opposing to this point. I'd say this one deserves another go. Bedivere (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that's only 56.67% support by your own count; and since your comment there has been one !vote change from support to oppose, reducing it to 53.33% support. and this is not a vote anyway, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY JM (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is more likely to end up as no consensus given mixed reactions. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a retirement, a last song, all sorts of things can be undone. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be better to say that it's their first single since 1996, rather than their last songTemplate:Sndwhich sounds sort of CRYSTAL-ish? 3df (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on significance, the article is NOT written like an advertisement. Polyamorph (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CRYSTALBALL unless it breaks worldwide music billboard records. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abottom

RD: Junior Balaiah

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 November 1 Template:Cob

Weak oppose: Unsourced filmography, which is apparently awful Aaron Liu (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This wikibio is stubby, with only 251 words of prose. And the filmography is still unsourced. --PFHLai (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

(Posted) RD: Brian Brain

Support Article looks sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 12:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2023 World Series

Support Any remaining article issues will almost certainly be quickly cleaned up. Congrats, Rangers! The Kip 03:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent work on keeping this updated in an orderly manner. Someday the Mariners will feature. Sounder Bruce 03:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Didn’t even know it already happened, but the article looks good. Kanyewestlover999 (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An unreferenced paragraph in Game 1. Step hen 10:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, it's all covered by the Guardian live blogged source that was on the following paragraph. It got expanded and split into two. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The article is thorough and mostly good, but has a few unreferenced sections. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posted - thanks for the ref updates. Looks good now. And hopefully this now ends the debate over the pic of Kalle Rovanperä as well 😊 — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The picture this time is not much better as it's another interview mugshot which is functionally the same as the previous one as the guy's not even in uniform and so there's no sign of the sport. The article has some much better action pics such as George Bush throwing out the first pitch or shots of other pitchers. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You see how terribly that image shows up in a thumbnail size, though, right? And Dubya is tangential to the 2023 WS while Seager was MVP. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The picture shows a crowded stadium and gives a better feel for the event as the throwing of the first pitch is a long-standing tradition. As it's a high-res pic, it can be cropped as shown. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no obligation to show an action pic. The main issue some users had with the previous picture was image quality, which is not a concern here. We typically show the series MVP, so I don't know why you are arguing for (to me) what seems to be a meaningless photo of the G1 first pitch. Natg 19 (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s Andrew, he’s arguing because of his inherent calling to be disruptive to ITN/C.

The photo is fine, it shouldn’t be changed. The Kip 17:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The picture we're currently using isn't at all accurate or relevant as it was taken in 2016 when he was a rookie playing for the Dodgers. That's 7 years ago and so is quite misleading in showing him as he is now. And it doesn't show him playing so all I get out of it is that he then wore a similar check shirt to myself. The first pitch photo was actually taken at the event that we're reporting and was a significant part of the show. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Template:Ec[reply]

It’s good! Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ady Barkan

Support. Was just going to nominate this myself. Looks good to go. Rest in peace. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Added New York Times web link. Page includes the significant extent of his activity and connections to influential public figures. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article well sourced. Gone too soon. RIP. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 23:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bob Knight

Oppose. Many sections within the article is unsourced. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 23:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support p b p 00:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For RDs please focus on the quality of the article. It is in terrible shape right now. Masem (t) 00:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 100% clear textbook example of a WP:ITNCDONT rule 1 violation. Hopefully the !vote is ignored. JM2023 (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the !vote isn't terribly helpful, but neither is jumping on them and drawing attention to it. ITNCDONT isn't "rules" and they can't be 'violated". Take it easy and try to assume good faith. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose, has decent refs and could be RD worthy with a bit of cleanup; but defo not ready yet. For five more minutes...^{it's just a single vice} 23:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've significantly improved the article by adding numerous references and some copy-edits. Article looks to be in good shape now. RIP Bob Knight, really influential in men's basketball here in Bloomington. Tails Wx 16:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sufficiently sourced now. Marking "Ready".—Bagumba (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Remnants of Theia found near Earth’s core

Oppose on quality article has 3 citation tags, and it has only one line referrring to this discovery in the lead, which is not even covered in the body of the article. Also the blurb is gramatically incorrect JM2023 (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per JM2023. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality per JM2023, minimal updates to prose. Lean oppose on notability. The Kip 23:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and move for SNOW per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Minimal updates in the article, not clear which recent discovery is referred to. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 04:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and speedy close per JM2023. Kanyewestlover999 (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2023 AI Safety Summit

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 17:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Hosting a summit in and of itself doesn't seem like a big deal. I'd be curious to see if they announce recommendations or a plan or something like that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
28 countries have already issued the 'Bletchley Declaration', agreeing to collaborate on AI Safety and outlining several recommendations. And for the first ever summit on this matter that is attracting such a lot of high-profile individuals, and is very much In The News, I think it warrants a blurb. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Summits aren't important. If some law or declaration comes out of it, sure. ~~~

A declaration has come out of it PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Summits and declarations are hardly uncommon in today's day in age. What exactly makes this one so important? DarkSide830 (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Summits are not outcomes or results. Anyway, the AI genie is way past out of the bottle and into the wild. CoatCheck (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait It's definitely in the news but the article is rather thin at the moment. Better to wait on the conclusion(s). Andrew🐉(talk) 18:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, lots of summits happen with important people but we don't post them all. Doubtful international significance QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above JM2023 (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 152830 Dinkinesh

Weak oppose Even though I'm a huge space nerd, I'm going to have to oppose this due to notability. Neither article has been updated as well. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A blurb is ITNR once the article's been updated, for a spacecraft reaching its destination. Ongoing isn't merited for an event of "a few days". If it's posted and still getting new images when it rolls off of T:ITN, we can maybe put it in ongoing then, but it'd be unusual. —Cryptic 16:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What exactly is so "unique" about this particular fly-by? DarkSide830 (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I retract my "unique" statement. Not sure why I said that, but I believe this flyby is noteworthy enough for people to be aware of, as exploration of Solar System bodies (especially those that haven't been imaged before) doesn't happen often. Nrco0e (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  No problem. People love their hyperbolics here and it just gets on my nerves. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It might be best to wait until we have the closest-approach image though I gather that the image is not likely to be high-resolution. That's when it's likely to be most "in the news" and we'll have some analysis of the shape and structure of Dinkinesh. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have a good image, it's quite interesting and getting mainstream coverage such as the NYT. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we plan to blurb the rest of the 7 fly-bys as well. If so better get this to ITNR as well otherwise I don't see what makes this unique from the others that will take place. Gotitbro (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's already WP:ITN/R: "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations". The subsequent targets in this tour are spread out over 10 years and the next one is in 2025. And it's not as if ITN is overloaded as we haven't posted a new blurb for four days now. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support on its own merit. I'm not entirely impressed by the updates to these two articles and would like to see more details on Lucy's first flyby, but I'm impressed by the two articles as they are and believe this an appropriate feature. The news of it being a binary (another target was selected for potentially being a binary) is very exciting :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would like to see more expansion on the topic, but I think the current prose is adequate and notability is present per WP:ITN/R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azpineapple (talk • contribs) 14:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 21:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2034 FIFA World Cup

Oppose As this is over ten years in the future and the world is quite turbulent, this seems too contrary to WP:CRYSTAL. Many such events were cancelled or disrupted by the pandemic, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose factually incorrect. They were the only bid submitted, they have not been actually chosen yet. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clearly the fix is in, as Saudi Arabia announced its bid five minutes after the opening of bids(which had been moved up three years). But anything can happen between now and the formal selection. Am I missing where the FIFA World Cup host selection is ITNR? Olympics hosts are, but I don't see this listed(I may be missing it). 331dot (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FIFA is one step away from selecting North Korea to host the World Cup in 2038. In any case, the selection is not notorious. Let's wait until 11 years from now, when they will be held. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed ITN/R from the nomination as this isn't ITN/R. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 12:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - FIFA's flagrant corruption deserves to be the subject of news attention, but this pantomime is not for ITN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Agha Hasan Askari