Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
In the news toolbox |
---|
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary[edit]
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. Nomination steps[edit]
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers[edit]
Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...[edit]
Please do not...[edit]
Suggesting updates[edit]There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
[edit]Archives of posted stories: Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/Archives
Sections
[edit]This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.
January 14
[edit]
January 14, 2025
(Tuesday)
|
January 13
[edit]
January 13, 2025
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
Lebanese prime minister
[edit]Blurb: Nawaf Salam is chosen to be the next prime minister of Lebanon (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by DecafPotato (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Lebanon's Prime Minister is the ITNR position for the country (administers the executive in the country), so discussions shouldn't focus on notability but only article quality. However, I think this should probably be merged with the current blurb about the new president, since those two events are very related, unless people have objections to that. DecafPotato (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support merge with president blurb into something like "Joseph Aoun is elected president of Lebanon, with Nawaf Salam being nominated as Prime Minister". Salam also has a pretty large article and it seems to be well cited. --SpectralIon (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Edit: There's actually a lot of CN tags at the bottom of the article, I would now say Wait on quality. SpectralIon (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wait, then Support per above Ion.want.uu (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support merge with president blurb into something like "Joseph Aoun (pictured) is elected president of Lebanon and names Nawaf Salam prime minister". This is important enough for ITN because it is a surprise reformist prime minister naming that angers Hezbollah (Reuters, Al Jazeera, France 24). Tradediatalk 21:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
RD: Oliviero Toscani
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by EvergreenFir (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Famous photographer EvergreenFir (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
2025 Prayag Kumbh Mela
[edit]Blurb: The Maha Kumbh Mela, a major Hindu festival, begins in Prayagraj, India (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by LukeSurl (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Beginning of a once-in-144 years festival (the Kumbh Mela occurs every 12 years, with a larger Maha iteration each 144 years). The Guardian expects more than 400 million people to attend this year’s festivities. C-class article exists but could be improved. LukeSurl t c 11:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- With Hinduism time cycles being infinitely fractal or almost is there a Super Maha Kumbh Mela every 12^3 yrs? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: The article has now been copyedited. ExclusiveEditor 🔔 Ping Me! 15:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I have added a tag to the article, since it contains words like "mystical" and "sophisticated" TNM101 (chat) 17:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support - but I have also raised a query on the talk page, about this '144 years' claim. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jupiter's orbit is more precisely 4,332.59d (assuming sidereal like their astrology not tropical) so seems like it should be 143 about 34.7% of the time else 142 but I don't know how it's scheduled i.e. is it always the same season? Sidereal yr or tropical? Is starting ~Full Moon ending ~last crescent or ~New Moon coincidence or lunar/lunisolar calendar? (12x4332.59 (~11.862yr) is ~146.715 pure (nonlunisolar) lunar yrs so that's not where 144 comes from) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you look at the talk page, you will see the specific queries I'm raising. Basically it amounts to (1) wasn't the 2013 Prayag Kumbh Mela described at the time as a Maha Kumbh Mela? (2) is there anything in sources about the 1882 (eg 143 years ago) Prayag Kumbh Mela to show that it was distinctive in the way that the current one is claimed to be? GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reading news reporting, it seems like the event’s size and significance arguably owes more to 21st century Indian sociopolitical trends rather than ancient calendar cycles. This can be discussed in the article - the blurb is deliberately simple. Regardless, this is a very large event that is in the news. LukeSurl t c 23:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you look at the talk page, you will see the specific queries I'm raising. Basically it amounts to (1) wasn't the 2013 Prayag Kumbh Mela described at the time as a Maha Kumbh Mela? (2) is there anything in sources about the 1882 (eg 143 years ago) Prayag Kumbh Mela to show that it was distinctive in the way that the current one is claimed to be? GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
RD: Leslie Charleson
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://people.com/leslie-charleson-dead-general-hospital-actress-8605210
Credits:
- Nominated by SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Regards, SSCG 0:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support This is a notable person who died yesterday. The article about her is reasonably well developed.--Eastview2018 (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Eastview2018 with all due respect, this comment reads as if it was written by AI - did you use that? The Kip (contribs) 16:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Orange tagged and lacking in citations, must be addressed before we can put this on the Main Page. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
January 12
[edit]
January 12, 2025
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
2024 Chadian parliamentary election results
[edit]Blurb: In Chad, the ruling Patriotic Salvation Movement provisionally receives a majority in the National Assembly. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The ruling Patriotic Salvation Movement in Chad receives a majority in the National Assembly.
Alternative blurb II: In Chad, the ruling Patriotic Salvation Movement retains a majority in the National Assembly amidst a boycott by opposition parties.
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Yo.dazo (talk · give credit)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Nom per ITN/R. I'm also thinking if the blurb should also mention that opposition parties boycotted the election. Yo.dazo (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment It would be bizarre to run this separately from the mysterious attack on the Presidential palace in the same country. People seem to think that the government's statements are not reliable so why would this be any different? My impression is that there's likely to be a connection but we don't have good, reliable sources for any of it. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can't engage in original research and our own conclusions even if they seem obvious. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Below, you say that
"Chad is not a democracy, and you can't trust anything their government says."
Andrew🐉(talk) 00:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Below, you say that
- We can't engage in original research and our own conclusions even if they seem obvious. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Am I allowed to oppose based on the absolutely atrocious sandwiching of the lead by the overly-wide electionbox? It's averaging three words per line on my screen. Also, I realize this is on ITN/R, but according to the article this election was boycotted by the opposition and the ruling party, unsurprisingly, won a large majority, so I'm really not sure this is interesting to readers. Toadspike [Talk] 07:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- ITN/R is just a guideline and so "exceptions may apply". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed; the general consensus of administrators is that the proper place to have a discussion about significance of ITN/R items is on WT:ITN, and discussions should only focus on WP:ITNCRIT. But we also know that there are instances in which the rules do not account for stories where the lede of the true story (the boycott of an election) has been buried. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- ITN/R is just a guideline and so "exceptions may apply". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - Blurb is misleading at best, per above. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - Might be a hot take but I don't think blatantly rigged and unfair elections in authoritarian countries should be considered ITN/R, unless the country itself has a massive impact and reach (ala Russian presidential elections). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose This is a likely sham election in a relatively minor country, so I don't think this is significant enough for ITN. That being said, article quality is fine. --SpectralIon (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- ALT3 added. I do not see how this is a different circumstance to other "sham elections" we've posted. Curbon7 (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
2024–25 Croatian presidential election
[edit]Blurb: Zoran Milanović (pictured) is re-elected president of Croatia. (Post)
News source(s): The Dubrovnik Times, Sarajevo Times, BBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by Moraljaya67 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Nom per ITN/R. Moraljaya67 (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The article looks quite presentable but most of the sources are in the Croatian language and so I've no idea how accurate or reliable they are. To check the blurb, I looked at the BBC report cited by the nomination (but not the article). This says that, "Presidents in Croatia fulfil a largely ceremonial role" and so it seems this is not ITN/R. I've therefore changed the nomination parameter to "no". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
RD: Hasjim Djalal
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://en.antaranews.com/news/341158/hasjim-djalal-an-architect-of-unclos-passes-away-at-90
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Jeromi Mikhael (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Indonesian diplomat. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Article is a stub Thewetroadinsummer (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Thewetroadinsummer: Not a stub anymore... Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
January 11
[edit]
January 11, 2025
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
Al-Bayda gas station explosion
[edit]Blurb: A gas station explosion in al-Bayda, Yemen results in 15 deaths and 67 injuries (Post)
News source(s): ABC news
Credits:
- Nominated by Abo Yemen (talk · give credit)
- Created by Noble Attempt (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Investigations are still ongoing and the article is being updated Abo Yemen✉ 16:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability Waiting for updated news. ArionStar (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for now International coverage has been brief so far on this. Will only support if there's confirmation (from a proper source) that this is one of the worst of such incidents in Yemen. Yo.dazo (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a war zone in various ways and there were hundreds of violent deaths last year. And the article and reports don't make it clear what sort of gas this was -- gasoline, propane, natural gas or what? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: As a compromise, how about adding the Yemeni civil war part of ongoing conflicts on the front page, thus removing the need to comment on every event? Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't part of the war tho, this is a gas station exploding Abo Yemen✉ 06:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neither the article nor the coverage gives any explanation of the cause. It seems quite possible that it was a bomb/missile associated with the civil war or conflict with Israel, West or the Saudis. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't part of the war tho, this is a gas station exploding Abo Yemen✉ 06:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
RD: Qiu Dahong
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Dalian Institute of Technology (in Mandarin Chinese)
Credits:
- Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Could do with an infobox but otherwise article looks well referenced and long enough, although expansion would be welcome. Cannot comment on the quality of the references though as they are all in Chinese. Abcmaxx (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Article is closer to the stubbier side of things, I'm afraid. Additional expansion would be helpful. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 12:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
RD: Fereydoon Shahbazyan
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): IFP News
Credits:
- Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article looks comprehensive however sources may need to be checked on quality, however most are in Persian. If that passes then article looks fine otherwise. Abcmaxx (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Compositions section needs sourcing, and there are a few dodgy sources nonetheless (such as amazon.com being one of them). Cleanup on that end would be really helpful. Ping once completed. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 12:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
January 10
[edit]
January 10, 2025
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Frank Cicutto
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Happily888 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Happily888 (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
RD: José Jiménez
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2]
Credits:
- Nominated by Happily888 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Erksahin (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Happily888 (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Article is orange tagged and is in dire need of citations. Please fix! Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
RD: Milan Feranec
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3]
Credits:
- Nominated by History6042 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by GiantSnowman (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Czech politician. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Article has 172 words, and is not nearly long enough for Main Page recognition. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is considered a good length? History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:ITNQUALITY:
Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items. Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page.
Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- Oh, thank you. I will withdraw this nomination then. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:ITNQUALITY:
- What is considered a good length? History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
RD: Sam Moore
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Billboard
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:B49A:4C1F:CA02:FF35 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Connormah (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American soul singer-songwriter and half of Sam & Dave. 240F:7A:6253:1:B49A:4C1F:CA02:FF35 (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Orange tagged for sourcing, and with good reason. The entire first few sections are completely uncited. Please fix! Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 12:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
RD: Shiu Ka-chun
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Standard
Credits:
- Nominated by TNM101 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Artur-Bukow (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Hong Kong activist and former legislator. One paragraph needs a citation, otherwise the article is fine TNM101 (chat) 07:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Some citations/length issues that are ultimately very minor. Shouldn't be too hard to fix. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Inauguration of Nicolas Maduro
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Nicolas Maduro (pictured) is inaugurated for a third term as President of Venezuela amidst a political crisis aggravated after the controversial results of the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election. (Post)
News source(s): (CNN)
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
- Oppose Again, the ITNR was the actual election, which was nominated but never got to the quality needed to post. Inaugerations are not a second chance for missing an ITNR election. --Masem (t) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- But the inauguration of Mikheil Kavelashvili was posted too… The circumstances of this Venezuelan event do not seem to differ greatly from those in Georgia. ArionStar (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The situation in Georgia was far different (coupled with protests), compared to where Maduro's been sitting for several terms and the issue remains how free the election results are. Here it would be like announcing Putin's next inauguration, while everyone questions the results of said "election", the inauguration is an inevitable result from that, and that election is still the ITNR. Masem (t) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is no a Russian political crisis, but yes a Georgian and Venezuelan ones. ArionStar (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The situation in Georgia was far different (coupled with protests), compared to where Maduro's been sitting for several terms and the issue remains how free the election results are. Here it would be like announcing Putin's next inauguration, while everyone questions the results of said "election", the inauguration is an inevitable result from that, and that election is still the ITNR. Masem (t) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- But the inauguration of Mikheil Kavelashvili was posted too… The circumstances of this Venezuelan event do not seem to differ greatly from those in Georgia. ArionStar (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose good faith nom. "Dictator is sworn in following stolen election. In other news, the sun is expected to rise in the east and set in the west this weekend." -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose We don't post inaugurations. Setarip (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- oppose Edmundo Gonzalez said he would enter Venezuela and sworn as well. That would have been newsworthy, a story with more than just "X is inaugurated". Alas, it did not happen, so it was just Maduro doing his thing. Cambalachero (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose We don’t post inaugurations that formalise election results.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Does that include Trump's inauguration? HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Of course. I’ll oppose that one as well if it gets nominated.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Does that include Trump's inauguration? HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Per nom. We don't post inaugurations of Claudia Sheinbaum, Joe Biden, etc. Moraljaya67 (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - he's already president. Nfitz (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
January 9
[edit]
January 9, 2025
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Otto Schenk
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ORF, NYT
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Grimes2 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Austrian actor, and traditional theatre and opera director Grimes2 (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is well-cited and long enough to be eligible for Main Page recognition. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: He was a legend, whose productions remain in the repertory for a long time, Wagner's Ring cycle at the Metropolitan Opera from 1986 to 2009, Puccini's La bohème from 1969 until now at the Bavarian State Opera, and Die Fledermaus by Johann Strauss from 1972 until no end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 03:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
RD: Anita Bryant
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Wizzito (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
wizzito | say hello! 02:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Support. No uncited sections. A few potential bits of cruft in the Legacy section, but a generally well-fleshed out article. -insert valid name here- (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Oppose for now, per FakeScientist. -insert valid name here- (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- Comment I have added some CN TAGS in some unsourced lines and paras that might be easy to fix. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Far too many CN tags to be considered good enough quality to be put on the Main Page. Must be addressed as soon as possible. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 13:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
RD: P. Jayachandran
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Indian Express
Credits:
- Nominated by Pachu Kannan (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Pachu Kannan (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Article need more sources. Pachu Kannan (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Discography and Career sections need more citations, and need to be fixed. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) 2022–2025 Lebanese presidential election
[edit]Blurb: Joseph Aoun (pictured) is elected president of Lebanon after a two-year vacancy (Post)
Alternative blurb II: Joseph Aoun (pictured) is elected president of Lebanon after a two-year presidential vacuum
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Prodrummer619 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Prodrummer619 (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability, notwithstanding whether this counts as WP:ITN/R or not. Oppose on quality, with election article in particular needing some tidying up. Yo.dazo (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Yo.dazo I think it's fine now. Can you point out anything for me? Prodrummer619 (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some paragraphs are still written like the election is still ongoing. Also every election session getting its own subsection is overkill—that could definitely be condensed into larger subsections and a single table for every round of voting. Yo.dazo (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Yo.dazo I think it's fine now. Can you point out anything for me? Prodrummer619 (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, this is highly remarkable and not just some run-of-the-mill election. Lebanon is notorious for its political deadlock, to which this is a surprising exception. Article also looks pretty clean. Skimming it, I saw no major issues and fairly good sourcing. The thirteen rounds of vote tables might be excessive, but are no reason to prevent this nomination from succeeding. Toadspike [Talk] 14:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Important election that can change the Middle East geopolitics. ArionStar (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Would like to see a bit of content on the aftermath of Aoun's election today, but the article's in a good enough state to post regardless. The Kip (contribs) 18:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support This is important for the destiny of Lebanon and also the Middle East in general (war with Israel, weapons of Hezbollah, Syria, Iran...) Also, the article quality looks good enough to me. Tradediatalk 18:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support finally, after 13 sessions, Lebanon has a president again, hopefully the political crisis there can start to be solved. Scuba 19:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - no ordinary Lebanon election. Important for both the Middle East and geopolitics at large. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 22:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Stephen: please add "[[]]" between President of Lebanon due to its importance. ArionStar (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You can go to WP:ERRORS for that. 65.93.223.182 (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Stephen: please add "[[]]" between President of Lebanon due to its importance. ArionStar (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- is there a reason why there have been three different pictures of him used on the front page over the last two days? — jonas (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Two pictures. What is the problem with that? Stephen 04:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
January 8
[edit]
January 8, 2025
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) Chad presidential palace attack
[edit]Blurb: The presidential palace in N'Djamena, Chad comes under attack resulting in 20 deaths. (Post)
News source(s): AP , France 24
Credits:
- Nominated by Sportsnut24 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Notable target and death toll is higher than CA fires. Sportsnut24 (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I see zero widespread impact. EF5 02:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What does a fire in CA have "widespread impact" about? Sportsnut24 (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support A deadly terrorist attack in a national capital? Really? ArionStar (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Sportsnut24: And why were the CA fires brought up? I myself strongly opposed the inclusion of those. EF5 13:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What does a fire in CA have "widespread impact" about? Sportsnut24 (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support There would be no question of posting this if it happened in Luxembourg or London. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support clearly notable enough, article in good shape Kowal2701 (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wait The article's quality is weak and the details still seem to be emerging. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Leaning oppose This line from the article "Koulamallah added that the attackers were local youth from N'Djamena and were disorganized and intoxicated by alcohol and drugs." implies this was nothing like a coup attempt or the like, just the result of a drunk group of young people, and the way Reuters and CNN/AP's writeup gives it, the leaders shrugged it off and thanked their security for quickly stopping them. The fact the bulk of the dead were the drunk group (only 1 soldier was killed). They have quickly ruled off terrorism and treat it like a domestic gang crime that was quickly quelled. --Masem (t) 13:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Chad is not a democracy, and you can't trust anything their government says. They have every reason to downplay this and taking their word at face value is extremely naive. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- If reliable sources are not questioning the response by the goverment (in contrast compared to claims of fair elections in places like Russia which is highly criticized by foreign sources), we should not be questioning that as well. Obviously, its fair to use attribution, but we shouldn't be casting doubt ourselves if no other sources do that. — Masem (t) 05:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, France 24 and others cite sources in the security services saying it was a Boko Haram attack. This is now reflected in the article, with the minister saying one thing, and other sources saying another. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- If reliable sources are not questioning the response by the goverment (in contrast compared to claims of fair elections in places like Russia which is highly criticized by foreign sources), we should not be questioning that as well. Obviously, its fair to use attribution, but we shouldn't be casting doubt ourselves if no other sources do that. — Masem (t) 05:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Chad is not a democracy, and you can't trust anything their government says. They have every reason to downplay this and taking their word at face value is extremely naive. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support A total of 20 people died in an attack targeting a presidential palace and threatening the life of country’s head of state at the time when he was inside. This is a textbook example of an attack that should be posted. I don’t buy the ‘domestic gang crime’ argument and the fact that the attackers were a group of intoxicated young people. There are zillion instances of civil disobedience that young people in drunk state do around the globe other than attacking a presidential palace, especially when linked to a terrorist organisation with a history of activities in the region. I’m not naive enough to believe that the attackers were innocent young people who found themselves in wrong place after having a few drinks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Twenty people killed in a attack on a nation's capital, against the Presidential Palace with the president himself inside no less! Regardless if the attack was the work of a terrorist group or just a bunch of drunk hooligans, this kind of thing doesn't happen often. If this occurred in a western nation it would get nominated and accepted in a heartbeat, frankly the pro-western bias here in ITN is mind boggling. Pladica (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Kiril and Harizotoh9. Article is ok in terms of references and length. Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- When I looked before, the prose seemed to need copy-editing and the latest version still has issues like "The sources say that the men were instead with firearms", "defense and armored personnel were deployed on the streets". The facts seem to be uncertain or disputed and so the article still doesn't seem good quality. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both examples fixed. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- When I looked before, the prose seemed to need copy-editing and the latest version still has issues like "The sources say that the men were instead with firearms", "defense and armored personnel were deployed on the streets". The facts seem to be uncertain or disputed and so the article still doesn't seem good quality. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support attacks on presidential residences aren't common even in the most unstable of countries, and the official line that a fairly large group of intoxicated youths were bored and decided to attack the most guarded building in the country is quite frankly a bit of a ridiculous assertion. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article is ready. ArionStar (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. – robertsky (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pull - Coverage is still very low, and as above I wouldn’t say the article is up to par with quality and breadth.
- EF5 15:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pull The claims above that the problems have been fixed and that the article is ready are incorrect. Part of the trouble is that the news coverage is thin as there haven't been been any follow-ups in media for days while some major outlets like the NYT have not touched it at all. The facts of the matter are still quite unclear, the attackers have not been identified and so we just are peddling vague rumours rather than quality analysis. Even the blurb is bad, saying "presidential palace in N'Djamena, Chad" without any link, as if readers are expected to be familiar with these places. But the good news is that there are hardly any readers – just 360 yesterday. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pull The actual coverage of this is quite low, and the article is still very thin. Add to that the fact that 18 of the 20 casualties were attackers, it is being claimed that they were not an organised terrorist group, and I don't believe that makes an ITN-worthy entry unless it can be expanded in a serious manner. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Post-posting support, the article is of good enough quality, although can be improved. Coverage is not thin, it's been reported by CNN, France24, AP, BBC etc. Don't see the relevance of what the government claims, they are not a reliable source. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Responding to the above: NYT is nice, but it's an American based newspaper with a lot of international coverage but it's not the be all and end all of international news. Reuters, BBC World Service, and AP have broader international reach and coverage and have covered this and additionally the French news services France 24 and AFP have covered it. There's additional coverage by The Guardian, Le Monde, showing coverage by French and International sources. For importance the coverage has reported it as an attempt to storm in a coordinated attack of the presidential compound with the President still inside. The Chadian Minister of Foreign Affairs has described it as an attempt to "destabilize" the country which has been thwarted. Lastly, there's no requirement that an incident has to be completely solved for it to be notable or important. Chad is not a full democracy which complicates matters, so the media has to rely upon anonymous sources embedded in security services, and the public statements of government officials. That is not the same as "vague rumors". Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- BBC Afrique article is more in-depth, and reports that the President says he was the direct target of the attack. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That report was written by a journalist in a different country about 4,000 km away. He got his details about the President by reading a post on Facebook. His other sources seem to be wire stories and a couple of phone calls. This is churnalism and most of the coverage is second-hand stuff like this. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
RD: Pritish Nandy
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Indian Express
Credits:
- Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: .Indian parliamentarian needs work.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article looks good to me TheHiddenCity (talk) 1:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Article has a bunch of uncited material (sections, sentences and is properly tagged with a refimprove tag).--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
January 7
[edit]
January 7, 2025
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: Brian Matusz
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4]
Credits:
- Nominated by DarkSide830 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
– Muboshgu (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Not much on his personal life. But I think the article meets our customary standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm looking for those details, but not finding anything atm. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Agreed that it meets our usual standards as-is. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure why my nom was the one deleted, but as per that one, support. Career is well-cited. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't understand why my nom was the one deleted since this one had a vote. We can split the difference. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because yours was the duplicate nom. Stephen 21:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, you're right. DarkSide put it at the bottom of the day, I didn't see it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because yours was the duplicate nom. Stephen 21:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't understand why my nom was the one deleted since this one had a vote. We can split the difference. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 23:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Ayla Erduran
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Strad
Credits:
- Nominated by History6042 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Albigator (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Adem (talk · give credit), ForsythiaJo (talk · give credit), Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit) and Grimes2 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Turkish violinist who died on January 7. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support 1880 characters (299 words) "readable prose size" Grimes2 (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support No CN notes nor anything that I found that was unreferenced, at least from reading through the article. 31.44.227.152 (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - good enough for posting ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Question, I am the nominator of the article, why has it not been posted even though everyone supports? Is there a certain necessary number or time it has been since nomination, or has nobody just gotten around to posting? Sorry, if this is a dumb question I'm fairly new to ITN. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've added a (Ready) tag to the header. From what I can tell, this speeds up the process of getting an entry posted, especially with full consensus to do so. Departure– (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've added a (Ready) tag to the header. From what I can tell, this speeds up the process of getting an entry posted, especially with full consensus to do so. Departure– (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Question, I am the nominator of the article, why has it not been posted even though everyone supports? Is there a certain necessary number or time it has been since nomination, or has nobody just gotten around to posting? Sorry, if this is a dumb question I'm fairly new to ITN. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I updated after the nomination, actually came to nominate now. May I still get credit, PFHLai? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose. You did some of the work to getting the wikibio ready for use on MainPage. Upon review, Grimes2, too. --PFHLai (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I updated after the nomination, actually came to nominate now. May I still get credit, PFHLai? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) January 2025 Southern California wildfires
[edit]Blurb: A series of wildfires in Southern California, United States, leaves 5 people dead and forces at least 80,000 people to evacuate. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Multiple intense wildfires in southern California collectively burn over 20,000 acres, killing five and forcing at least 80,000 to evacuate.
Alternative blurb II: A series of wildfires in Southern California, United States, leaves 5 people dead and forces more than 80,000 others to evacuate.
News source(s): https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/01/07/us/palisades-brush-fires-california
Credits:
- Nominated by Thewetroadinsummer (talk · give credit)
Thewetroadinsummer (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose I wouldn’t even say the article is ready for main space. We also almost never post about wildfires. EF5 00:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I still strongly oppose. Wildfires routinely go over 30,000 acres (heck, we didn't even post about the 300k+-acre Park Fire last year), yet we don't post about those. Media is doomcasting the entire fire, and is highly exaggerating its impactsEF5 18:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree, while not the biggest, these fires are burning within the borders of the 2nd largest city in the United States. That alone makes this significant. MaximumMangoCloset (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I still strongly oppose. Wildfires routinely go over 30,000 acres (heck, we didn't even post about the 300k+-acre Park Fire last year), yet we don't post about those. Media is doomcasting the entire fire, and is highly exaggerating its impactsEF5 18:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Article is in very rough shape. Estreyeria (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- Strong oppose - not significant enough in the world, and I'm saying that as someone from California. Bad article quality. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Changing to Wait. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment There is an article that is in better shape than the one being nominated. 2025 Palisades wildfire TheHuman630 (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support 5 deaths, significant news coverage and 1,100 structures destroyed. This is also threatening populated areas. TheHuman630 (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Even considering the second article, we'd not post a wildfire of this size unless it started significant destruction or lives lost. Its only getting attention because its close to LA. --Masem (t) 01:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am going to stress that without any current major threat to life, the only reason this getting the size of coverage is dye to being close to LA, if wildfires if this Suze broke out anywhere else that wasn't near a major city, it would be in footnotes. This is an example of media bias we should try to avoid giving weight to. There may be a true major disaster if the fires get out of hand but it should be obvious that right now this is overly amplified by the media. Masem (t) 14:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Obviously ITN operates a bit differently from the rest of Wikipedia, but I think it's best to just say that these sorts of things are significant if and only if reliable sources are calling them significant — regardless of any WP:MINIMUMDEATHS or location criteria. And, right now, I think reliable sources are saying that. DecafPotato (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am going to stress that without any current major threat to life, the only reason this getting the size of coverage is dye to being close to LA, if wildfires if this Suze broke out anywhere else that wasn't near a major city, it would be in footnotes. This is an example of media bias we should try to avoid giving weight to. There may be a true major disaster if the fires get out of hand but it should be obvious that right now this is overly amplified by the media. Masem (t) 14:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wait I'm re-opening this as it's the top story and live in both the BBC and NYT and there seems to be much more to come. It seems absurd to prevent discussion of such a hot topic. Note that there are multiple fires and so we should consider 2025 California wildfires to get the big picture. Coverage also keeps highlighting the Santa Ana winds as significant and so maybe that article should appear in the blurb as it's quite substantial and informative and so seems to have a good encyclopedic tone. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wait It's too early to tell, but I feel like this should only be posted if it comes out that the damage is unparalleled in LA history or if it hits something important like the Getty Villa. (I sincerely hope neither of those should happen.) Should also say that the blurbs definitely need fixing. Yo.dazo (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Wait I think it may be notable enough for a blurb, but it's too early to say for sure.Johndavies837 (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support Historic wildfire event (most destructive fire in Los Angeles history, potentially the costliest wildfire ever, 5 deaths confirmed so far, worldwide news coverage). --Johndavies837 (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unsure if this is a better article target instead January 2025 Southern California wildfires, which covers other fires in the Los Angeles area. Natg 19 (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Significant destruction of a large urban area. That there’s been no fatalities so far is extraordinary. yorkshiresky (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Support Altblurb3 as nominator, please let me know if you intend to or want me to modify it.Comment withdrawn as other blurbs have been removed. 31.44.227.152 (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @31.44.227.152: I don't think you can vote twice. EF5 13:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wait, did I? I don't recall voting on this prior and I don't see my name anywhere. Could you in that case merge this to my previous comment or link to the diff? 31.44.227.152 (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaken, nominators can't vote on their own ITNC (correct me if I'm wrong). EF5 14:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ooh, I see what you meant. I meant as nominator of altblurb3. Not as nominator of the article. 31.44.227.152 (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah. In that case, ignore my above comments. :) EF5 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ooh, I see what you meant. I meant as nominator of altblurb3. Not as nominator of the article. 31.44.227.152 (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- We use consensus, not voting. –DMartin 20:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad wording on my part. 31.44.227.152 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaken, nominators can't vote on their own ITNC (correct me if I'm wrong). EF5 14:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wait, did I? I don't recall voting on this prior and I don't see my name anywhere. Could you in that case merge this to my previous comment or link to the diff? 31.44.227.152 (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment @Stephen: Is there any particular reason why you're reverting to your revision of the blurb? I feel it comes across as needlessly dramatic to the more matter of fact wording. 31.44.227.152 (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @31.44.227.152: I don't think you can vote twice. EF5 13:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment Slight rewording and update of altblurb3 and including that two people died. 31.44.227.152 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wait, today is an extremely critical fire weather day for the area around this fire. This could be something worth posting if all the pieces fall into the right place, but we won't know until they do (or don't). 4 thousand acres burnt is routine, but what might not be is 4 thousand acres at 0% containment before a full extremely critical day (followed by another critical day). Departure– (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Strong oppose posting this right this second now. Up to 5000 acres (nearly 3000 for the Palisades fire) but nothing seems out of the ordinary. Just a few months ago we had the Mountain Fire (2024) at nearly 10,000 acres and that was seen as relatively uncommon, so 5000 acres across 2 seems routine at the moment. I also feel this is getting a lot of coverage for being near Los Angeles - again, I see that as routine and sensationalized in nature. Departure– (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- Not going to ask for a pull if this is posted. The Eaton Fire just exploded to >10,000 acres burnt, and directly downstream of it is metro Los Angeles. 0% containment, extremely critical fire conditions. Weak support. Departure– (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose not a significant destruction or lives lost. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Wait until more details emerge. I was about to oppose but it turns out that this is still a rapidly developing story – as of this writing, the fires are still ongoing and 0% contained – and while it does seem to be "routine" for now, this has the potential to become one of, if not the largest series of wildfires for this particular part of California. Vida0007 (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to support. This has definitely met the criteria for ITN, and has sadly become one of the most infamous wildfire events ever. Vida0007 (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support Wildfires in California are common, but given the close proximity this fire is to LA (the second largest city in the U.S.) and how it's making global headlines, I am leaning to support this blurb. Article is also in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Massive news coverage of devastating fires with over a thousand structures destroyed and huge evacuations. Two confirmed deaths so far. Waiting for more confirmed deaths or further damage seems wrong to me. Opposers unconvincing. Altblurb 3 looks best. Jusdafax (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support One of the most historical events in Californian wildlife history, destroyed thousands of properties. Should absolutely be posted. The most famous event in the news right now. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Main story on multiple news outlets, large wildfire even for California standards. Angusgtw (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose- we haven't posted similar fires in other countries, such as WP:In the news/Candidates/July 2024#(Closed) Jasper Fire. Also there's no indication about the death toll. Nfitz (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) - change to Support - situation clearly has worsened, and deaths will likely grow. Nfitz (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- As of right now, 2 deaths confirmed with several injuries. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Major news, major impacts, quality article to display. I'm unconvinced by OTHERSTUFF arguments about other fires or MINIMUMDEATH comments. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, Respectfully, if ITN regularly snow closes disasters with higher death tolls that involve non-white, non-American people in developing countries dying from floods or typhoons, but immediately "strong support" an average size wildfire which kills 1-2 Californian Americans, I do not see how we can "WP:POLICY" our way out of discussing this blatant double standard. Brushing it off as an "OTHERSTUFF" argument without addressing the substance of the systemic racism and bias accusations is a disservice to the encyclopedia and reduces public trust in the Wikipedia mainpage. I might even support this being on ITN in a microcosm, based on my own personal views that we should only really exclude things that are being reported in the media from ITN, in much more narrowed circumstances. However, the double standard is outrageous. FlipandFlopped ツ 20:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I evaluate each item individually. Opposing newsworthy items because they are about the developed world is not the way to fight systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, Respectfully, if ITN regularly snow closes disasters with higher death tolls that involve non-white, non-American people in developing countries dying from floods or typhoons, but immediately "strong support" an average size wildfire which kills 1-2 Californian Americans, I do not see how we can "WP:POLICY" our way out of discussing this blatant double standard. Brushing it off as an "OTHERSTUFF" argument without addressing the substance of the systemic racism and bias accusations is a disservice to the encyclopedia and reduces public trust in the Wikipedia mainpage. I might even support this being on ITN in a microcosm, based on my own personal views that we should only really exclude things that are being reported in the media from ITN, in much more narrowed circumstances. However, the double standard is outrageous. FlipandFlopped ツ 20:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Soft oppose the BBC and British media shouldn’t used to assess whether American news has achieved global notability, we should be looking at English language media in various countries
- Kowal2701 (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support article seems in decent shape - I've not been paying attention to the story so wanted to find out more and came to wikipedia - I believe the purpose of this page is to point at encyclopaedic articles that people will be looking for - this seems to fit the bill. EdwardLane (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. This is in the news and the article is in good shape. -- Tavix (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Strong oppose on principle. The death toll is 2 and the acreage is not anywhere close to record-breaking.As others have pointed out, there were significantly bigger American wildfires even in the past 12 months. We regularly reject storms and earthquakes that are similarly "usual", only damage a few thousand buildings, and kill 1-2 people. The only difference there is that these are from outside the USA. In fact, I have seen other noms where it is a typhoon or a flood in a developing country, but is SNOW closed - even despite the casualties or total damage costs from these disasters being over 10x higher than this fire. Given this, there is no plausible explanation for why this local wildfire affecting a single American city should now be posted. I am disappointed in the blatant U.S. centrism and bias which once again plagues ITN. FlipandFlopped ツ 20:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you want record breaking, it has been reported that it may be the costliest wildfire on record. -- Tavix (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The keyword is "may" and "plausible", not has. If it was the costliest, I'd support posting it, but right now nobody reports that it is in fact the costliest. EF5 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Either way, fair enough that the fire may or may not worsen to record-breaking levels. By nature the situation is rapidly evolving. I will strike my strong oppose and replace it with "Wait". My opposition is admittedly mostly a protest about a double standard given we regularly speedy close similarly deadly disasters, but I will not punish this article or those suffering from this fire especially if this continues to evolve and is clearly notable. FlipandFlopped ツ 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reuters and the AP find this damage estimate sufficiently credible to be notable, and not without reason, given that the outfit has been doing these estimates credibly for some time. Of course, any estimate of an event recent enough to be on ITN is going to say "may". Chris vLS (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The keyword is "may" and "plausible", not has. If it was the costliest, I'd support posting it, but right now nobody reports that it is in fact the costliest. EF5 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you want record breaking, it has been reported that it may be the costliest wildfire on record. -- Tavix (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Proposed an altblurb. Departure– (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I feel the wording makes it read a bit more like a news headline rather than a blurb. I also think including acres without unit conversions makes it a bit too US-centric given how English language Wikipedia is aimed at a global audience, but that's just my opinion. 31.44.227.152 (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. Wait for the story to develop; it's receiving a lot of coverage in the US but few outside the continent. Some sources point to possibly being record-breaking in damage but remains unconfirmed. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- International sources: BBC(front page), Le Monde, China Daily, The Straights Times(top story), Sydney Morning Herald(Top story), Der Spiegel. –DMartin 02:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - Death toll is now at five. Jusdafax (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I had closed this last night as premature. Unfortunately the situation has gotten extremely bad with at least 5 confirmed fatalities and an enormous amount of destruction. As of this post, the fires are still out of control and spreading. It is receiving significant coverage outside of the US. IMO this now meets our customary standards for a blurb at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strongly Support - 3 large, uncontained fires within the 2nd largest city in the United States. Widespread coverage among both domestic and international news agencies. - MaximumMangoCloset (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Four large fires now, as of a few minutes ago, with mandatory evacuation issued for the Hollywood Hills now. --haha169 (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support this appears to be pretty major news now, due to its scale and the size of the city it is affected. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Majority of the opposition posted before the situation was getting increasingly worse. pauliesnug (message / contribs) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per above. Large complex of fires that are notably urban-adjacent. In the context of impacts, perhaps they do not scale to where some of the fires we've posted in the past have, but with most of these fires completely uncontained, I don't think it's too CRYSTALly to say the impacts will reach that range eventually. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Significant coverage in the news - not just local american news sources either - for example, this is on the front page on Al Jazeera and Times of India. Schwinnspeed (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong Support, has had major impacts on one of the world's largest cities, and most culturally important cities in the anglosphere. While a death toll of five isn't particularly notable, there are over 100,000 displaced persons and "numerous injuries". –DMartin 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Major event in a major city. --FelineHerder (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support huge fire with lots of damage. Needs to be up there, especially now that it's spreading. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 02:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Fires in California are regular enough, but not ones that threaten LA. I think it would be better to replace "Southern California" with "Los Angles Metro Area" GGOTCC (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The pedantic reason is that some of the fires are outside LA County, and some of the bigger ones are outside LA City. The probably real reason though is to simply avoid that exact pedantic argument from breaking out, plus it is future-proof. Yo.dazo (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Thanks! GGOTCC (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The appropriate location article seems to be Greater Los Angeles. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The pedantic reason is that some of the fires are outside LA County, and some of the bigger ones are outside LA City. The probably real reason though is to simply avoid that exact pedantic argument from breaking out, plus it is future-proof. Yo.dazo (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- – Editors here may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news § Types of impacts in the wildfires blurb. Sdkb talk 23:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Bob Veale
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5]
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Omnis Scientia (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
– Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Referenced, good coverage of subject's career. SpencerT•C 03:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Peter Yarrow
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Mooonswimmer (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article is in pretty good shape, needs a handful of citations Mooonswimmer 17:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: only two sentences with {cn} tags remaining, one of which could easily be commented out or removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Seems well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article's issues have been addressed, and it is now of the standard to be put on the Main Page. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 13:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Posted to RD SpencerT•C 03:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Jean-Marie Le Pen
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BFM TV
Credits:
- Nominated by Chaotic Enby (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not yet ready , the article is quite confusing and contains uncredited statements. Newklear007 (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support: "Life and career" section needs to be shortened or split, otherwise support as he's a polarising figure that's defined French far-right politics. Tofusaurus (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Recent deaths are not posted per importance of the person, but for being of a sufficient quality to post. One could make the equally objective claim that he should not be posted as he was the biggest loser in the history of presidential run-offs, and French far-right politics could not be "defined" by him as his party grew after his daughter kicked him out. With due respect to the dearly departed, I don't think anyone ever suggested that Ripken (dog) transformed any aspect of life on planet Earth. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - a couple of the sections need more references, I've just tagged where. After that good to go, I'm not particularly bothered about the length of the "Life and Career" section, that's the meat of the article and as a whole it's hardly overlong. I would oppose a blurb, just in case anyone is thinking of proposing one! - he has been influential, but not on the level we'd usually blurb for. — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per above. Pre-emptively strongly oppose any suggestion of a blurb. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not Ready for the usual reason. If the article can be brought up to scratch, I would give a weak support for a blurb. His influence on far right politics extended well beyond France. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I see no problems with the article. Also I would support a blurb, I can't think of any one individual with more of an impact on French Politics in the modern day than him. Scuba 19:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Support, no outstanding issues with the article.31.44.227.152 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- There are still 9 citation needed tags and an unreferenced "Decorations" section. So no, there are still issues with the article. — Amakuru (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support – Founding figure of the modern French far-right that now has widespread influence in mainstream French politics. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support on significance, Neutral on quality. Three CNs. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Now down to two {{cn}} tags, which is not bad for a 5000-word article. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD. The article isn't perfect but it's good enough to post as an RD. There are over 100 references so we shouldn't hold it up over one or two {{cn}} tags. Strong oppose blurb - he was a politician who never entered government. Modest Genius talk 16:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support – Regardless of personal opinion about this politician, he was widely covered by international press and his death is notable. ZebulonMorn (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) John Mahama
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: John Mahama (pictured) is sworn in as Ghana's President while Jane Naana Opoku-Agyemang is sworn in as the first female Vice-president of Ghana. (Post)
News source(s): Ghana Broadcasting Corporation
Credits:
- Nominated by Heatrave (talk · give credit)
Former Ghanaian President John Mahama reelected as Ghana's President. This is historic because it is the first time ever that Ghana will have a female Vice-president. Historic on both fronts that a former president returns to government and also the first female to be sworn in as Ghana's Vice President.
- Support per nom. A significant event in Ghana. --IDB.S (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom Newklear007 (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I've bolded target article and clarified who is pictured. 31.44.227.152 (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The election is the ITNR and while it was nominated in December, it did not meet quality for posting. We don't post inaugurations as "makeup" for an ITNR being missed. --Masem (t) 12:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose If this was to have been posted, it should have been the election last month. ITN does not post inaugurations when there was a suitable target article, which is now stale. Black Kite (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose pretty much per Masem and Black Kite. The election was the right time to post this. Sorry, but we cannot compensate it not being posted with the inauguration.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support since we didn't post the election This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support significant, in the news and article is in good shape. 2A02:8071:78E3:DE40:C27B:CBB8:E11A:250E (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article quality looks satisfactory and this is a significant event. Ideally we post elections, but since we are now double posting prime ministerial successions in Western countries, I'm having a hard time buying the rational in the opposing comments above. Sometimes the double standards around here become a bit too glaring. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The difference with prime minister resignations followed by the announcement of their successor months later is because there is a whole election aspect there. We have no idea who will replace Trudeau, for example. Once that election is done and the winner confirmed, we will post that, though not the day that they officially take office. — Masem (t) 18:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have a specific example of an inauguration that we posted to justify the claim for double standards? I remember to have recently opposed a similar nomination on Von der Leyen Commission II where the rationale for posting was similar as here, that is, to post it because we hadn't posted the election result. Note that this was in the European Union, which is in the Western world, so it's not true that we have double standards for Western countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it was clear that the election of the Von der Leyen Commission in November was posted because it was the election by the European Parliament (as a parliament can elect a PM) and not a presidential inauguration: the differences between the two events are enormous. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It wasn’t posted, but you’re right. While it was also a formalisation of the results from a previous election, it included another vote by the European Parliament. This inauguration is a pure ceremonial event without any uncertainty. In two weeks, Trump will be inaugurated as president, and that also involves some uncertainty because there are procedural votes. Anyway, my point is that I cannot support such ceremonial event when I oppose any event following an election that formalises the result.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure we posted Barack Obama's inauguration as well as his election. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That was a mistake which we shouldn't repeat.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it was clear that the election of the Von der Leyen Commission in November was posted because it was the election by the European Parliament (as a parliament can elect a PM) and not a presidential inauguration: the differences between the two events are enormous. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose just because we didn't post the election doesn't mean we should break the norm and post the inauguration as a replacement. Scuba 19:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article looks good and highlights a major event for Ghana and the region. Maxxies (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support in principle. If we didn't post at the time of the election, and the reason is for article quality, I think it's reasonable to post when the actual change of power happens. The blurb is a bit awkward, though. Maybe chance "with" to "while"? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support In principal. I think it would be nice to start blurbing notable inaugurations. This one is especially notable as it also reflects the country having a first female president. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, we don't post inaugurations. Also she's its first female vice-president, not president. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Scuba. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) HMPV outbreak in Northeast Asia (2024–present)
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: HMPV outbreak in Northeast Asia and partly in South Asia (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian BBC Daily mail The New York Times TOI Gulf news
Credits:
- Nominated by Spworld2 (talk · give credit)
- Oppose This seems to be fairly routine. The WHO statement explains:
As expected for this time of year, the Northern Hemisphere winter, there is a month-over-month increase of acute respiratory infections, including seasonal influenza, R.S.V. and human metapneumovirus
. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This virus has existed since 2001 and had routine outbreaks in other parts of the world and per above. Rynoip (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It has not caused a large problem yet other than increasing worries that it may. Oppose. ExclusiveEditor 🔔 Ping Me! 14:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Every winter since COVID we see exaggerated stories about 'outbreaks' in China. There's no evidence that there's anything new or unusual. Johndavies837 (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) 2025 Xizang earthquake
[edit]Blurb: A Mw 7.1 earthquake hits Tingri County. located in the Tibet Autonomous Region leaving 9 dead. (Post)
News source(s): USGS BNO News Daily Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by TheAstorPastor (talk · give credit)
The AP (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Temporary oppose on article quality - quite a short article. I understand there are minimal sources on it(rural area + happened a few hours ago + Chinese censorship stuff) but still.
- Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Changing to Support; similar quality as Port Vila was when it was ITNed. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Two 7.1 earthquakes just happened - the one in Tibet appears to be an aftershock of another earthquake the same day in Nepal. 9 fatalities across just the Tibet one seems low for an earthquake to be posted, but further updates may increase that figure. Departure– (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- USGS only shows one 7.1. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was going off of the Daily Guardian article. I haven't checked its reliability for Wikipedia though, but it states there were two 7.1 magnitude earthquakes at 6:35 IST on 7 January, one at 28.86 N 87.51 E in Tibet, and another northeast of Lobuche. These might be the same but they're reported as two separate tremors. Departure– (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The death toll has also risen to 36. I don't know the time in China but by the time we get the article to ITN quality the true death toll will be more clear. Over 7000 rescue personnel tells me the final total might go into the low triple digits, but I'm not going to WP:CRYSTALBALL this one way or the other for now. Departure– (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was going off of the Daily Guardian article. I haven't checked its reliability for Wikipedia though, but it states there were two 7.1 magnitude earthquakes at 6:35 IST on 7 January, one at 28.86 N 87.51 E in Tibet, and another northeast of Lobuche. These might be the same but they're reported as two separate tremors. Departure– (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- USGS only shows one 7.1. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support — Significant casualties, article has been expanded enough and still developing Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support – Rest in peace to the people who died in the strong earthquake. Too many casualties. Bakhos Let's talk! 06:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - 53 dead now. Nfitz (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Significant due to deaths. Article looks good to post. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Posted – robertsky (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
References
[edit]Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com]
rather than using <ref></ref>
tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref>
tags are being used, here are their contents: