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.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
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
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our
minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{
ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be
reliable,
support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in
simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{
ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
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.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check
WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because
consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
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.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them.
Be bold and
fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful.
A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as
ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle
conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
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.
Mostly Support I'd like to see a source realer than
RLS Media citing anonymous "law enforcement sources" if I was found suddenly dead at home after not really being that much of a public figure in the first place, but others'
WP:BDP mileage may vary. Saw a few relatively minor issues and fixed them. Short, but covers what you'd expect.
InedibleHulk (
talk) 03:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Chinese Lingnan School painter.
gobonobo+c 11:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait This biography should have an actual lead and sections first, not just an intro and a break redundantly named "Biography".
InedibleHulk (
talk) 03:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Wasn't posted when originally nominated upon deal's announcement; however, he's now formally resigned, and the TPC has taken power. As a result, it's technically an ITNR item, as it's a change in who administers the government.
TheKip 22:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Both articles seem to be well-sourced with no glaring omissions.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 22:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support ITNR as a change of head of state, and articles look fine.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 07:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support - We held off on this earlier, but this is the time.
GenevieveDEon (
talk) 07:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
The 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.
Wait until the Retrial is over
Ion.want.uu (
talk) 14:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hasn't the conviction been overturned though? Usually media outlets have to post false information that was publically announced for libel reasons.
CheetasOnMission (
talk) 14:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support As we posted the original conviction, it's only fair to post its overturning. However, we should keep in mind that he is currently still serving a concurrent 16-year sentence in Los Angeles
since 2023, which has not been overturned.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 15:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Conditional Support per Chaotic Entity. While I recall posting the original case in California, I am not sure we posted the New York case. But if we did, then we need to post this. -
Ad Orientem (
talk) 15:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The link above is to the 2020 NY case that was posted.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 16:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose unlike Cosby, weinstein still has other convictions that weren't part of that that will keep him in jail.
Masem (
t) 15:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
To add, a new trial has been ordered, so this is only vacating the ruling dye to a mistrial, so he may still be guilty of this conviction. —
Masem (
t) 16:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose mainly because he is still in prison. ~~
Jessintime (
talk) 15:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Masem and Ion.want.uu.
Classicwiki (
talk) If you reply here, please
ping me. 16:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose as above - he's not even getting out. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose this was overturned as a result of an error in due process rather than a basis of fact
Abcmaxx (
talk) 18:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - this would matter if it meant he's getting out, but he's not. He's still a convicted felon. --
RockstoneSend me a message! 22:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - This isn't an acquittal, and as noted he's still imprisoned for other convictions.
GenevieveDEon (
talk) 07:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above 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.
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: Azerbaijani chemist and civil servant. Article seems to be of decent quality. (Very first nomination of mine on ITN/C, so apologies for any mistakes.)
Bucket of sulfuric acid (
talk |
contribs) 12:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment firstly welcome and congrats on 1st nomination, hope it's one of many to come! On the article: That failed verification tag in the lead needs to be fixed. Also career as an ombudsman needs to be integrated into the biography somehow (as a subsection maybe?) otherwise this just looks weird.
Abcmaxx (
talk) 19:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The union representing air traffic controllers in
France cancels a planned 24-hour strike on Thursday, although a majority of flights have already been cancelled.
(Euronews)
Spanish Prime MinisterPedro Sánchez says that he is considering resigning from office after the launch of a judicial investigation into
his wife after accusations by a right-wing legal platform.
(AP)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Article updated 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.
Legendary Canadian hockey commentator. Article is almost ready but needs a small amount of fixes.
NorthernFalcon (
talk) 20:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose there are several lines, paragraphs and sections that do not have a single source.
PrinceofPunjabTALK 09:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Philippine politician. Article appears to be in good shape from a cursory read-through.
Curbon7 (
talk) 03:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
His religious faith appears to be unsourced.
Traumnovelle (
talk) 03:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Not ready yet. Being worked on. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 16:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Support Good quality and well-updated.
TheKip 18:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There's usually a section after "Results" that deals with aftermath or reactions; that's as yet missing. Otherwise, this is looking good. Schwede66 21:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait, there is not confirmation of who will be the Prime Minister yet.
Yoblyblob (
Talk) :) 01:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support altblurb as it doesn't state who will be the PM before it is confirmed. We do not need to wait for a PM announcement to post the results of the general election as it's not uncommon in parliamentary systems for government formations to take an unpredictable amount of time (days, weeks, even months), especially when no one party achieves a simple majority. As for quality, the article is looking good. Content is sourced and it has a very decent amount of prose. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support article is fine. We don't need to wait for a PM announcement, the blurb can be edited if that is announced whilst this is still on the front page.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 07:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support altburb. That's an impressively detailed article and everything looks in order.
Modest Geniustalk 15:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Posted altblurb. Looks good to me.
– robertsky (
talk) 15:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose as part of ongoing, hasn't changed any aspect of what's been happening there to a great degree. --
Masem (
t) 12:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above, as tragic as it is, we can't post every human rights violation happening there or ITN would be full of them. Also, what is "Gaedgza"? Is it a variant spelling of Gaza, a spelling error, or a more specific place?
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 12:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Striking my vote, the scale of the human rights violation makes it pretty unprecedented, and exceptions to Ongoing can and should be made.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 14:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose it is a part of the Israel/Hamas war
LuxembourgBoy42 (
talk) 12:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support - This human rights violation barely got any coverage by the war article, compared by how notable this is Abo Yemen✉ 14:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose To little information at this time - we don’t know when these people were killed or the circumstances of their death. It’s possible that these were buried before Israel raided the compounds. In addition, covered by ongoing.
BilledMammal (
talk) 14:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose/Wait more or less per BilledMammal. I'm not totally convinced this would be covered in Ongoing, but the article is missing a lot of context, particularly the "who" and the "why", which is really important when we're talking about what could be a war crime. I went "oppose/wait" because this is an item worth revisiting, but any investigation will probably take some time to complete.
DarkSide830 (
talk) 15:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait per DarkSide - I'm on the fence whether this supersedes the ongoing item or not, but the fog of war is still in effect around it and the article feels woefully underdeveloped.
TheKip 18:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait - I would like to see more clarity about what happened before posting.
Blythwood (
talk) 19:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait. Two graves are yet to be exhumed, and details surrounding the burials are still being reported on.
Jebiguess (
talk) 20:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support on notability, wait for the article to be developed as more reports come out. The scale of the human rights violations is horrific. I think we should have blurbed the
Flour massacre, though I don't recall that one ever being nominated. The
Nasser Hospital mass graves discovered a few days ago represent a much larger tragedy with at least 310+ bodies found. The Al-Shifa Hospital mass graves reported on today contained at least 381+ bodies. Either of those mass graves individually are worth a blurb, but both of them together are most certainly blurbworthy. Two other mass graves with at least another 30 and 50 bodies were also reported on today. We rightly blurbed the
Bucha massacre which had varying estimates of roughly 200-500 bodies found in mass graves (UN estimate 73–178, Ukrainian estimate 457). But just what's been reported on today is at least 771+. That's just horrid, and more than enough to supersede ongoing. I have no doubt that more information will become available in the coming hours to days to bring the article up to shape. Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait seems premature, mass graves are only a war crime if the deceased were executed
Traumnovelle (
talk) 23:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Indian Islamic scholar.
Khaatir (
talk) 07:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
•Support Fairly good article
The AP (
talk) 09:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support - it's a good article and a notable person
LuxembourgBoy42 (
talk) 12:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support there are no apparent issues with the article.
PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Support article seems good enough to be posted.
PrinceofPunjabTALK 09:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Conditional support (after sourcing issues are fixed); looks comprehensive!
Staraction (
talk |
contribs) 13:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, it is comprehensive. But, unfortunately, at least five paragraphs currently have no citations.
Martinevans123 (
talk) 14:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Armenia and Azerbaijan are working together for a peace agreement, apparently!
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 09:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak support – Great news and a good-looking article. I think the update to the article may be a bit minimal for a blurb. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat) 10:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Added a bit more about the details of the deal, including protests in Armenia in response to territories being handed over. Sadly, it is not yet clear where the first boundary markers were placed.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 11:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose an important start, but this doesn't read as any formalized treaty or equivalent, only they're starting to survey what the boundary likely should be which they will then be the basis of the peace agreement. --
Masem (
t) 12:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I do think this could be ITN worthy, but what would go a long way to facilitating such a nom is a page on the demarcation itself, which should be feasible given the scope of this event. Not voting either way at this current moment though.
DarkSide830 (
talk) 15:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait(?) per Darkside. ITN-worthy topic IMO, given the prior intensity and long-lasting nature of the conflict, but needs a better target article.
TheKip 18:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - On the basis that this is only one small step in a long staircase and there would be a valid claim to post numerous steps of that staircase. It's better to just wait until the border has been settled.
Support on notability, oppose on quality This is an important development, but the quality of each of the proposed target articles isn’t good enough.
Blaylockjam10 (
talk) 21:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Oppose Bibliography section needs more sources.
PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No it doesn't. A bibliography is a list of sources and, if that's a list of books, as in this case, it's trivially easy to verify by using the bibliographic information provided. You can also use the {{
authority control}} which is there to provide similar information from the indexes of great libraries.
Andrew🐉(
talk) 21:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support There was one {{
citation needed}} so I took care of it. The subject is quite respectable and the article seems fine.
Andrew🐉(
talk) 21:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There is an orange {shortlead} tag. Please expand the intro. --
PFHLai (
talk) 09:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC) And the Bibliography section has not yet been fully sourced. Please add more REFs. --
PFHLai (
talk) 09:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Oppose there is a major orange tag, Selected projects section needs to be rewritten with sources and Awards section needs sourcing.
PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The
United Kingdom announces its largest ever military support package for the
Ukrainian military, pledging 400 vehicles, including 162
MXT-MVs, 60 boats, 1,600 air defence missiles, 4 million rounds of
firearm ammunition, and an additional £500 million in funding.
(The Guardian)
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.
NY Times obit published 22 April.
Thriley (
talk) 14:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support the article is sufficiently sourced.
PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Article:Voyager 1 (
talk·history·tag) Blurb:
NASA announces receiving decipherable data from Voyager 1 for the first time in five months. (
Post) Alternative blurb: Over five months,
NASA resolves a failure in Voyager 1's flight data system and resumes receiving decipherable data from the probe. Alternative blurb II: After five months of attempts,
NASA resolves a failure in Voyager 1's flight data system, and receives decipherable data from the space probe again. News source(s):NASA JPLCNN Credits:
After rearranging code from a defective Voyager 1 chip,
NASA is finally getting back data from the furthest probe in the Solar System! Honestly, it's a little miracle that they managed to save the half-century old probe.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 08:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Significant, and a nice departure from our normal doom and gloom and elections.
BilledMammal (
talk) 08:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Just heard about this on radio news in Australia. An impressive feat.
HiLo48 (
talk) 08:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Notable, and the article is of sufficiently good quality for ITN. --
MtPenguinMonster (
talk) 08:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Per above, and of particular interest due to the ingenuity of humankind.
Kcmastrpc (
talk) 11:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support though I don't think the blurb is really sufficient. First off we don't need to say "NASA announces..." but thats minor, there's something to be said that they had been troubleshooting V1 for the last five months (over that great distance and with age of the computer) to resolve that. --
Masem (
t) 12:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support - Always nice to see more science news pop up in ITN, especially in regards to one of the most ambitious space exploration programs in history.
ArkHyena (
talk) 17:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support ALT1 per above. Science!
TheKip 18:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Post-posting support I thought we were witnessing the end of one of the greatest spacecrafts to ever leave this planet. Very good that it's gonna last a little longer atleast. TwistedAxe[contact] 22:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, I don't get why this is so important, but I see I am in the minority. But the image... is it possible to have one showing it against the black background of space? White is jarring. Abductive (
reasoning) 23:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not white. It's a transparent background
Aydoh8 (
talk |
contribs) 02:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Post-posting oppose. This and the recent Ichthyotitan description just don't seem important enough to slap on the front page. I get that covering deaths and genocides and election cycles is exhausting, but we shouldn't be straining to find 'positive' stuff to cover.
wound theology◈ 04:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Cringe. This is far more encyclopedic than those death and protest news. This is what ITN should be about.
113.160.44.130 (
talk) 13:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Deaths and disasters and election cycles have direct consequences for people. That is why they are immediately newsworthy. Voyager 1 regaining contact and the description of a new species are very minor in comparison. I think that Wikipedia editors are biased here: our interests will lead us to give undue weight to events in the sciences.
wound theology◈ 23:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The new ancient species thing does seem somewhat arbitrary and inconsequential. Now, if that lifeform were intelligent, different circumstances. However, Voyager 1 resuming communications means we get a couple more years worth of data about the universe we are temporarily a part of that we simply have no other way of obtaining, that does seem consequential.
Kcmastrpc (
talk) 23:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Each time the US Supreme Court went from a 5-4 to a 4-4 to a 4-5 to a 3-6 left-right split had somewhat big consequences especially collectively some of which we've seen already and few non-Americans on ITN gave a shit.
Sagittarian Milky Way (
talk) 06:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This is
WP:WHATABOUTISM, I personally think that most of Wikipedia exhibits a strong American bias, including coverage of Voyager 1 -- let's not forget the political and cultural context of the
Space Race. American vanity projects, big woop. That's not really relevant here though; the nominator here explicitly mentioned wanting a counterpoint to the negativity in the news. Unfortunately,
life sucks and then you die. It's a lot easier to do evil than to do good...at least, it's a lot easier to do evil things that are notable.
wound theology◈ 06:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC) I misread the tone of your argument here.
wound theology◈ 06:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The Voyager 1 spacecraft wasn't really the Space Race. While it's true it was 1964 when science realized the planets briefly spiral
once per 175 yrs allowing a sane rocket to kick a small probe to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and the stars* with enormous travel time savings but this wasn't really on White House radar till 1970. And was cancelled '71 ("resurrected" '72) and V1 would've seen Uranus+Neptune if the other V broke so the late 1970s was the only time it could gravitationally slingshot out the spiral.
*that'd take tens of millennia - it's only 4x farther than Pluto so far which is barely enough to discover some of the stuff beyond the solar-stellar wind fighting area before it dies (like interstellar sound).
Sagittarian Milky Way (
talk) 09:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Man, these photos are really fucking up this thread.
wound theology◈ 10:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
They largest is a third a full nomination width on my oldest phone (very low resolution) with default WP image settings (220px). Are they bigger for you?
Sagittarian Milky Way (
talk) 16:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
[T]he nominator here explicitly mentioned wanting a counterpoint to the negativity in the news. No, I did not, and that was not the reason for this nomination. I was just pleasantly surprised that Voyager 1 was unexpectedly saved, and figured out it deserved attention. I only mentioned offsetting the negativity on the Ichthyotitan nomination, but that was as a possible consequence of the nomination rather than as a reason for it.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 06:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here -- admittedly I was too lazy to track down the Icthyotitan nom. Regardless, I struck my comment anyway.
wound theology◈ 07:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I too was surprised it had so much support. It's the furthest human object (besides turning on outdoor lights and things like that) from 1998 to forever unless something faster is launched in the future (which has never been a serious proposal) and its power source is estimated to deplete to the point of communication and data gathering ability loss around 2025. Is that enough? I dunno, I'm not you or consensus.
Sagittarian Milky Way (
talk) 18:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Post-posting support A lot of folk may expect ITN to be basically a ticker purely for big geopolitical news, but they'd miss the point that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, isn't focused on just that, but on things of encyclopedic importance. This means covering a lot of science news, which is something that universally most mainstream news sources relegate to be buried far below the front-page headlines. And this is definitely one of those stories that, while it gets relegated on geopolitical outlets like NYT or BBC, is certainly a major news story. This reflects how Wikipedia has a different focus than sites like those.
Nottheking (
talk) 04:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia, despite being an encyclopedia, is not on a mission to prove that science news is more important or even as important as geopolitical happenings. Straining to find things that are positive to offset the dirge of negative stories is giving undue weight to relatively minor things -- geopolitics concern real human lives, which is why they are given so much attention in mainstream sources (and Wikipedia is biased towards mainstream sources.) Encyclopedias cover the entire realm of human knowledge -- not just geopolitics, but also not just geopolitics and science news. Wikipedia editors are more similar than we are different -- let's be honest here, we're all a bunch of nerds and of course new species descriptions and astronomical events are going to stand out to us.
wound theology◈ 06:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The US election ongoing got a pile of opposes with little to no sympathy.
Sagittarian Milky Way (
talk) 06:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The US is not the only country in the world, and the actual election is in half a year. I don't see how these are really comparable at all.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 06:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not the only country in the world, but it is one of the most populous, and one of the most influential geopolitically.
wound theology◈ 06:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We're an encyclopedia, so we should be trying to weigh all fields of knowledge equally - space probe news is equally as important as anthropology which is equally as important as US politics which is equally as important as what's happening in Gaza - because these are all areas of knowledge that get significant coverage that we can document as a reference work. We're not a newspaper which would weight politics and wars higher than space news or discovery of ancient bones. We also work to fight the systematic bias that occurs from 24/7 media channels.
Masem (
t) 16:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Pull how is does this possibly rise to blurb-level significance? 'Spacecraft continues operating' is not of ITN importance. If NASA had declared Voyager 1 lost, that would be worth posting as the end of its mission. Merely recovering from a glitch is not enough for me. Such temporary setbacks are common (TESS and Hubble have both had recent ones) and this one only took so long to resolve because of the great distance (hence slow communications) with Voyager. None of the !votes above convince me that this is anything more than an ephemeral hiccup in the mission. I'm generally in favour of posting scientific news but this is minor stuff.
Modest Geniustalk 10:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Pull While I don't feel particularly strongly about it, I have to agree with
Modest Genius. Voyager was never declared lost and the spacecraft continues to operate after an interruption. Also, the transparent image on the front page doesn't look very appealing.
Johndavies837 (
talk) 10:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Pull - I don't really enjoy pulling blurbs. But the current one is misleading and implies that the spacecraft had become lost or defunct, and this is not the case. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(
talk) 13:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I had suggested the alt blurb, that is what makes the story (and doesn't make it seem like V1 was lost) - NASA engineers fixed Voyager 1's systems which is a massive engineering achievement given the age and limited capability of the equipment, distance it is away and thus the time for communications.
Masem (
t) 16:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
this RFC and
further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD.
Article updated 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 pastor and civil rights activist.
Funcrunch (
talk) 02:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Support. Williams' death has received very little coverage outside San Francisco; nevertheless he was a pretty relevant figure in the civil rights movement and I could see a case being made for this RD.Support I have just been informed that the above information is irrelevant to this discussion. Thank you. In that case, everything else looks good to me.
Poxy4 (
talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Poxy4Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets
WP:ITNRD. The only thing to discuss is if the article meets
WP:ITNQUALITY.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 14:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Twenty-two people are killed, including 18 children, in overnight
Israeli strikes in
Rafah in the
Gaza Strip, according to local health officials.
(AP)
A car veers off the track during the international Fox Hill Supercross
motor race in
Diyatalawa,
Sri Lanka, and crashes into a group of spectators, killing seven people and injuring 21 others.
(BBC News)
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.
This poet, anthologist, translator and interpreter has been a fundamental American literary voice for 60+ years. His book Technicians of the Sacred is a classic. But this article’s RD status is not ready, and has been tagged since 2012. Apparently the SOP is to list this under date of death, even if it takes a few days for a credible source to verify death.Note: this is listed under April 23 b/c that’s the earliest, credibly sourced date available in English confirming Rothenberg’s death (tho a source in Spanish was dated April 22, and social media reported it hours after his passing on April 21).Trauma Novitiate (
talk) 04:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It has been the news headline due to the significance of the return of the said motorsport event in Sri Lanka after five years.
Abishe (
talk) 10:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - article is fresh, and still needs work in terms of wikilinking, polishing etc. -
Bucket of sulfuric acid (
talk |
contribs) 10:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose - this is worthy, however, the page still has a long way to go for polishing and wiki linking before it should be added
LuxembourgBoy42 (
talk) 21:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support - well cited and seems notable Abo Yemen✉ 14:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose – I've posted my concerns about
WP:NPOV on the article's talk page. Schwede66 21:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Fairly short
Mach61 02:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak support looks just about long enough to post, and everything looks sourced. Note that having an infobox is not an article or ITN requirement, as per
MOS:INFOBOXUSE.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 15:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support - article is short but seems just long enough to post ✈
mike_gigstalkcontribs 17:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The article is short on biographical detail. The WRTI source has a lot of content that could make this a much better bio. Schwede66 21:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Oppose due to a large amount of unsourced text in the
hostage in Lebanon section. And just a reminder that notability does not matter for RD's.
Gödel2200 (
talk) 14:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
As
WP:ITNQUALITY notes, Articles should be well referenced; one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, but any contentious statements must have a source, and having entire sections without any sources is unacceptable. Overall the article is well referenced. And I added several references to address one of them.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk) 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support - I removed the cn-tagged paragraph after questioning its relevance to Anderson himself, so should be good to go now ✈
mike_gigstalkcontribs 17:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There are a few {cn} tags in the Post-captivity life section. Please add more REFs. --
PFHLai (
talk) 23:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Its only notable because it is a continuation of the rain and flooding that hit the Middle East, hence while that one system should be a single article and covered that way. Regular seasonal flooding of that area that comes from normal storm patterns may be appropriate for ongoing once that season starts, but we shouldn't be posting regular annual weather aspects otherwise.
Masem (
t) 19:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose there's an ongoing merge discussion. If merged, then blurb should be updated, and if not merged, then this event on its own isn't ITN worthy (and the article is questionably notable on its own anyway).
Joseph2302 (
talk) 10:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Famous conductor
Andrew🐉(
talk) 12:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Andrew, thank you for nominating. Next time, please under the day of death, and yes for updated only when done (not yet).There's a lot about contracts, and little music, and refs missing for the recordings, also there must be more, no? He held chief positions in three continents! --
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 14:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Now everything mentioned also has a source. I can't fix the note on the article talk to here, sorry. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Article looks good. One cn tag, but that shouldn't keep this from getting posted. --
TDKR Chicago 101 (
talk) 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Oppose Needs some more citation, filmography is unsourced, there's a lot of unsourced statement in the career section. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 07:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Needs a lot of work.
Natg 19 (
talk) 01:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You know, I was just thinking about doing that. I probably should be able to do it soon.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 02:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, I've turned out to be busier than expected and I haven't had a chance to work on this. I don't think I'll be able to with the
NFL Draft going on today and tomorrow. Sorry.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 19:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Needs some work.
Natg 19 (
talk) 01:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose the article needs so much expansion. There are just 3 lines covering his premiership.
PrinceofPunjabTALK 06:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Needs some work.
Natg 19 (
talk) 01:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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: