Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom
Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

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.

Yoshinobu Yamamoto in 2024
Yoshinobu Yamamoto

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

[edit]
  • 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

[edit]
  • 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.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

[edit]
  • 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

[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]
Shortcut
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Please do not...

[edit]
Shortcut
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

[edit]

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.

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.

November 3

[edit]

RD: Diane Ladd

[edit]
Article: Diane Ladd (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC News
Credits:

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.

 wizzito | say hello! 21:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mladen Žižović

[edit]
Article: Mladen Žižović (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bosnia Today
Credits:

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: Tragic death during game. Needs club playing and managerial career added and expansion on the circumstances of the passing away. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan earthquake

[edit]
Article: 2025 Balkh earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A magnitude 6.3 earthquake strikes Afghanistan, killing at least 30 people and injuring hundreds. (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Strong earthquake in Afghanistan. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait to see the number of casualties. The numbers are climbing fast with hundreds to thousands of fatalities possible however. The disaster could be similar to the 2025 Kunar earthquake that killed thousands in Afghanistan earlier this year which was posted. Deadly earthquakes in Afghanistan seem to be a regular occurrence. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If list of earthquakes in Afghanistan is correct, this (deadly destructiveness) is a recent 21st-century phenomenon. Gotitbro (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a remarkably strong earthquake for Afghanistan. Just one of the commons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Afghanistan ApoieRacional (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Badghis and Badakhshan earthquakes right above and below Balkh on the table when sorted by deaths were both posted. When sorted by magnitude, Herat right underneath was posted too. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're trying to move away from posting common natural disasters if the damage is otherwise unremarkable for that type of event. Masem (t) 15:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

[edit]

2025 NASCAR Cup Series

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 NASCAR Cup Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In stock car racing, Kyle Larson (pictured) wins the NASCAR Cup Series. (Post)
News source(s): The Daytona Beach News-Journal
Credits:

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: The article is in very good shape. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 01:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The rule changes and race summaries are very detailed, though a couple of them are missing references (I've added cn tags). The lead seems to have mostly been written before the season begun - it's a long list of highly technical 'firsts', but doesn't mention the actual results and only states the winner in passing. It's not strictly required, but this article would be more accessible if there was an additional short overview/summary of the season in one or two paragraphs, so readers don't have to read all 36 race summaries to understand what happened. Some reaction to the outcome would be nice too. Modest Genius talk 17:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Setti Warren

[edit]
Article: Setti Warren (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

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) 00:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bob Trumpy

[edit]
Article: Bob Trumpy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NFL, USA Today
Credits:

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: NFL tight end and influencial broadcaster, death announced today. Article has one CN tag but is overall in good shape. --The Robot Parade 00:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support There seems to be some ambiguity as to the subject's birthplace, but other than that the article is okay. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bona Malwal

[edit]
Article: Bona Malwal (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.radiotamazuj.org/en/news/article/veteran-south-sudanese-politician-bona-malwal-dies-at-97
Credits:

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: South Sudanese politician. Article is a GA Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Women’s Cricket World Cup

[edit]
Article: 2025 Women's Cricket World Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cricket, India defeats South Africa in the final to win the Women’s Cricket World Cup (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the 2025 Women's Cricket World Cup final, India defeats South Africa to become champions.
Alternative blurb II: ​ India emerges victorious at the 2025 Women's Cricket World Cup, courtesy of a 52 run victory over South Africa in the final.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The Women's Cricket World Cup concludes with India defeating South Africa in the final.
News source(s): The Indian Express, Al Jazeera
Credits:

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: This is the marquee event in women’s cricket and considered as a global showpiece for women cricketers. Abishe (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That only applies to the altblurb. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ArionStar: The red link was a technical error. Fixed. Gotitbro (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ITNR. The hook should either be changed to the tournament as a whole, which is in good shape, or we can wait for finale article to be created.Gotitbro (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking my comment, the article had been created there was a technical error in the blurb which lead to a red link (fixed it). The hook (finale) looks fine to me, so support. Gotitbro (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, oppose on quality - The article is too heavily reliant on tables and has no prose about any of the matchplay. The lead also fails to mention the result. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on desktop, standard width, there is currently a massive gap between the "Qualification" heading and the rest, caused by the table not fitting next to the sidebar and the image of the qualified countries. 193.183.210.238 (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Needs some work (either the final article or the tournament article needs prose on the final). ENGVAR-compliant alt3 added. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready. The article is almost entirely tables and lists of scores, with no prose description of what happened at the tournament or in the final. There's very little prose on other aspects either, and the article is poorly organised e.g. none of the 'background' section is actual background. This needs substantial work before posting. If it does get that far, alt3 is our standard format. Modest Genius talk 14:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in principle, oppose on quality - in addition to what others wrote about quality, I do not see how improving this draft can meet the "significance" criterion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news#Significance ApoieRacional (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This event is apparently on ITNR based off of the nom, so its signifigance is already established. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 15:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2025 World Series

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 World Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In baseball, the Los Angeles Dodgers defeat the Toronto Blue Jays to win the World Series (MVP Yoshinobu Yamamoto pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Los Angeles Dodgers defeat the Toronto Blue Jays to win baseball's World Series.
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support once mvp is decided having an image of the MVP accompany the blurb makes sense. Once we have an alt blurb with that additional information it'll be good to go TheFellaVB (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The World Series ended with a mind-boggling, historic Game 7. In its 121-year history, only two other Game 7s have gone at least 11 innings. spintheer (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the link, but the lead is still as clear as mud to me as a layperson. Is all that stuff about LCS actually relevant to the overall significance of the match and tournament? If so, it needs to be better justified, and if not, it needs to be shifted down to the body text (and still explained better). GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Oppose merge INT/R and the article quality is more than sufficient, merging blurbs seems like a strange and silly idea hungry (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt ←Metallurgist (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's still two paragraphs with zero citations. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

[edit]

RD: Carlos Manzo

[edit]
Article: Carlos Manzo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, Guardian
Credits:

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: Mexican politician. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 23:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Also, If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb – just putting that out there. State government building trashed. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - This is a duplicate of an existing nomination for the correct date (Nov 1). GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Martha Layne Collins

[edit]
Article: Martha Layne Collins (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4]
Credits:

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: Former governor of Kentucky and only female to have served in the position. Article is FA. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 15:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


(Closed) 2025 Cambridgeshire train stabbing

[edit]
(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Posted by a blocked sock with no consensus to post. BangJan1999 20:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article: 2025 Cambridgeshire train stabbing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nine people are injured in a mass stabbing by two a lone attackers on a train in Cambridgeshire, England. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8r007d4kk2o
Credits:
Nominator's comments: England is a much less violent place than America, and guns are illegal, so to put this into context, this is as shocking as if two assailants shot and killed nine passengers on a rush hour Philadelphia to New York express train, in a seemingly random attack. With racial tensions seemingly at an all time high in England (see Operation Raise the Colours, Grooming gangs scandal etc), the UK media has been notably quick to confirm that "Police said the 32-year-old man is a black British national and the 35-year-old is a British national of Caribbean descent." but that also there is "currently "nothing to suggest" it was a terror incident." This is decidely not normal for the UK, especially if it was just a random orgy of violence with no racial or terror motive. Predator of the badlands (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nine injuries, seriously? Frankly, I find the comparison made somewhat offensive. Also, you put this in the Oct 26 section, when it should go in the Nov 1 section. 1brianm7 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved it. PhilKnight (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's offensive about it? The last time nine people were randomly shot in England is going to be several years ago, if not decades, and yet the same can hardly be said about the US, a much more violent and gun obsessed place. I guess I should have said nine people suffered life threatening injuries for proper context, but honestly didn't think people here would be capable of even saying something as crass as "nine injuries, seriously?", like it's nothing. Predator of the badlands (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 1brianm7 and Genevieve. English authorities have also ruled out that it was a terrorist incident. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't let whether something is described as 'terrorism' affect my !vote. The designation of an incident as terrorism is effectively a political judgment, not a factual one. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At no point should my comment on the terrorist nature of the stabbings be taken not as my own argument and, therefore, it should not be understood that it affects you. In any case, what matters is what the police authorities, who are the authorized and knowledgeable parties in the investigation, “officially” and “formally” indicate, and we must assume that this is true, regardless of whether or not we suspect political interference. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, given recent UK history it would have been far less shocking/susrprising if this had been a couple of Muslim asylum seekers running down the train yelling God is Great. Two black British lads just randomly knifing up a bunch of commuters for no apparent reason, is probably so unusual it might have never have even happened before. One, with mental illness as a factor, sure, but two? Predator of the badlands (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have overplayed your hand there. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2025 (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.

October 31

[edit]

RD: Pierre Dufault

[edit]
Article: Pierre Dufault (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5][6]
Credits:

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: Please allow me a couple days to expand the article before listing. Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Hans Jörg Stetter

[edit]
Article: Hans Jörg Stetter (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TU Wien
Credits:

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: Pioneering mathematician who established computer sciences and a computing centre at the TU in Vienna --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Tchéky Karyo

[edit]
Article: Tchéky Karyo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood
Credits:

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-born French actor. 240F:7A:6253:1:838:FE11:E355:A439 (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Tanzanian Election Protests & Tanzanian general election

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: 2025 Tanzanian election protests (talk · history · tag) and 2025 Tanzanian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 10 people are confimed killed in protests against the recent general election in Tanzania. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Around 700 people are reported killed in protests against the recent general election in Tanzania.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Incumbent President of Tanzania Samia Suluhu Hassan (pictured) is declared winner of the general election amid protests and violence.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Around 700 people are reported killed in election protests as the incumbent President of Tanzania Samia Suluhu Hassan (pictured) is declared winner of the general election.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ At least 10 people are confirmed killed in election protests as the incumbent President of Tanzania Samia Suluhu Hassan (pictured) is declared winner of the general election.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, France24, ABC News, CBS News
Credits:

One or both nominated events are 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: The main blurbs death toll is from UN reports, while the alts is from opposition sources within Tanzania. Currently information regarding the death toll is patchy due to communications controls imposed by the government. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added Alt4, just to mirror alt3 with UN reports of death toll V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 United States federal government shutdown

[edit]
Article: 2025 United States federal government shutdown (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I am not American and normally dislike excessive coverage of American topics, but an average person would think a prolonged American government shutdown would have significant impact on the global economy. From what I understand, this is getting close to the longest government shutdown in American history (other countries do not have government shutdowns), with no sign of a solution (the longest ended due to massive flight delays) and a few hundred thousand Americans unpaid. 121.6.18.85 (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose posting to ongoing(what would be the update? "they're still shut down"?), but support posting if and when it becomes the longest. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ongoing expects timely new updates to articles, infrequent additions on the same theme that it continues does not fulfill that. As for a blurb for the longest shutdown, that should be commented on if/when it happens and the merits presented for its significance then. Gotitbro (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, especially because (unlike all previous US government shutdowns) disbursement of SNAP funds to recipients will be delayed if not outright cancelled for November. --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 14:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the federal government were to entirely discontinue the SNAP program outside of this shutdown, would it be blurbworthy? Almost certainly not. Dr Fell (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I believe this is the longest government shutdown in US history with no brakes being applied. I feel it is notable enough to be put on the front page. Urbanracer34 (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think a discussion about a blurb next week would be appropriate (longest shutdown in the history of the largest economy in the world), but slapping it in ongoing without a blurb explaining why it's a big deal makes it look like a US-centric item. Perception matters. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think we're at the point where this isn't your run-of-the-mill government stoppage, and the effects to seem to be more widespread than usual. I think it's a clunky item to put in Ongoing, but we really can't do a blurb right now, and I'm oppositional to the notion that the stoppage reaching x length means anything. There's nothing particularly special that happens if it lasts a day longer than any other one has, nor does it just magically become forgettable if it gets resolved a day before. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Probably should've been a blurb when it happened, but now best suited as a blurb for if it either ends or becomes the longest. In the latter case, then it could roll off into ongoing. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb - I agree with others that it would be pretty weird for it to just be put on ongoing without being blurbed first so I'd prefer it to be blurbed once it becomes the longest. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem being that this isn't a blurb nom and the siginificance that supports for that hinge on is entirely WP:CRYSTAL as of now. Gotitbro (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm neutral on the actual proposal, but I want to observe that 'becoming the longest ever' is a fairly arbitrary milestone that has no bearing on the human impact of the shutdown. I would like to see arguments that focus on that impact, rather than on mere numerical accumulation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's costing the US economy an estimated $7 to $14 billion and slowing GDP growth according to the Congressional Budget Office, as reported by Fortune. FallingGravity 04:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Fatos Nano

[edit]
Article: Fatos Nano (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [9]
Credits:

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: Former Albanian Prime Minister. Matete Plays [talk] 15:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Gaza genocide from ongoing

[edit]
Article: Gaza genocide (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: Two reasons: first is that as has been mentioned in multiple discusses at WT:ITN, WP:ERRORS, and now WT:Main Page, highlighting the genocide in Gaza over the other two current conflicts (where there have definitely been claims of genocide) appears to make the ITN box biased and not NPOV. Second is more direct that while there is active editing on the page, there is not much in terms of new daily events related to that article that is not already covered by the main conflict or timeline article, and thus fails to meet the expectations for an ongoing entry. The genocide article is still available off the main conflict, but it doesn't need to be in Ongoing at this point. Masem (t) 13:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per @The C of E shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Israel heavily airstriked gaza something like 2 days ago killing more than 100 people, the genocide is definitely still ongoing — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 17:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the caveat that it could remain if the other two conflicts also have genocide page links in a similar fashion. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because I continue to insist that we are not authorized to declare the actions of the Israeli government as genocidal, as I said at the time. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Masem and The C of E. I propose using Gaza peace plan instead, as it is the ongoing development in the war. Rafi Chazon (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose because Israel keeps launching airstrikes against innocent Palestinians in Gaza, as well as violating the ceasefire agreement hundreds of times. Qhairun (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: A fragile ceasefire does not mean that the genocide has ended, as it is very clear that Israel is continuing its efforts against the people of Palestine. A basic look at any news platform covering the genocide would show that it is very much ongoing. — EarthDude (Talk) 20:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, considering the frequent breakdowns of ceasefires that have occured in the past for the Gaza war, we should wait more time until its clear that the current ceasefire is actually permanent before considering removing the Gaza genocide link from the section. CherrySoda 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Talk:Gaza genocide. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's still in the news every day that the IDF is killing Palestinians. I don't see any reason to remove this yet. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is now a fragile ceasefire, but people are still dying both directly and indirectly, starvation is ongoing, power and water are restricted, and aid shipments are limited. The article is receiving steady updates. If anyone thinks we should be featuring other genocides as well, those can be nominated and discussed; that is not an argument for removing the Gaza genocide, which remains ongoing. Modest Genius talk 16:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The military action is over, I think its time to take this off. Of course, if the ceasefire fails then we can revisit. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose very little has actually changed from the status quo. The IDF is still killing 100s of Palestinians every week. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Support There was never a case for posting it to begin with. Dr Fell (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as it comes across as selective propaganda point-scoring. As this is a contentious topic per WP:PIA, we should err on the side of caution. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- with Israel continuing to bomb Gaza, and over a hundred dead in the last few days, I'm not sure why the supports are conditional on the cease-fire holding! Nfitz (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose primarily for two reasons. Firstly, the English Wikipedia calls it genocide, so the main page doesn’t promote a POV. Secondly, it’s still ongoing as Israeli strikes on Gaza continue despite the ceasefire. The comparison to the claims of genocide in the other wars posted to ongoing is invalid as the English Wikipedia doesn’t call them genocides yet.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - there’s been numerous ceasefire violations, but on a broader scale the violence has mostly ended and the ceasefire is mostly holding. That said, wouldn’t oppose waiting another few days at least to not get ahead of ourselves. The Kip (contribs) 17:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Masem. Even after removal, there would still be two links to the Gaza War in Ongoing, so ceasefire violations will continue to be covered. But I agree with Masem that the Main Page feels oddly unbalanced/biased as the Sudanese massacres currently vastly surpass what's going on in Gaza at this moment (which, let me be clear, is also tragic). Khuft (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Modest Genius and The Cheesedealer. There is no support for the claim that the genocide ended with the "ceasefire". Regarding supposed NPOV issues, the Gaza genocide has widespread international recognition, which is reflected in both the article name and the use of Wikivoice to state genocide. That is not the case for Masalit massacres (2023–present) or Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -although it is on-going, it's subdued, and there are other places on Wikipedia, that still cover it, as many others pointed out here.ApoieRacional (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - just saw the discussion down at Talk:Main Page, seems like WP:NPOV violations in broad daylight. Ukraine and Sudan have genocides, and only showing the Gaza one seems like a pro-Palestinian viewpoint. While I do support Palestine, I believe that NPOV should be upheld as much as possible, so its either remove it or give equal status to the genocides in the Sudanese and Ukrainian conflicts. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 19:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per EvansHallBear, Israel bombed another 100 or so the other day so this is far from being over and the Gaza genocide is also more "unique" than the examples of Ukraine or Sudan as it's called a genocide in wikivoice and the title Laura240406 (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On-going bombing doesn't mean on-going genocide (Russia is bombing far more in Ukraine but we don't link to a genocide article there). What we'd need to say the genocide is on-going is not our original interpretation of on-going bombing but an overwhelming preponderance of reliable source reporting that there is an on-going genocide and I don't need that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose – Claiming there is a POV issue by listing the Gaza genocide and not the Darfur genocide or allegations of genocide in Ukraine would be like saying there's a POV issue listing only three wars and none of the other ongoing armed conflicts. And as discussed in depth before, it is not a POV issue to call it the "Gaza genocide" per the page move that found an academic consensus describing the event as such. The article is still updated, and a shaky ceasefire has not marked the end of killings; more time is needed to determine whether this should be remove from ongoing, if anything. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Gaza genocide is still ongoing, and the ceasefire has been very weak per reporting from the AP] about strikes that happened just this week. The military action has continued, albeit sporadically. In regards to other genocides, my issue is that the Ukrainian page is still titled as an "allegation", so it's not currently in Wiki-voice that it's a genocide. As such, it'd be inappropriate and WP:UNDUE to put it at the same level as the Gaza genocide. In regards to the Masalit massacres, I recognize that there's an ongoing discussion about whether to move the page to a title that includes the word "genocide", but until that happens, it again is not the exact same thing, though I would not opposed to listing it. AG202 (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per AG202, there hasn't been a significant change with regards to the situation that would understandably mean an end to the genocide at this point in time. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to multiple opposes: The problem with the genocide article is not how its titled or the like, but that it is less an event article and more about the status of what is happening in Gaza. It does document several events that led to why its being called a genocide, but after that point, and particularly reviewing the most recent edit summary, any aspect of the Gaza conflict that is about the genocide is not getting daily coverage in the news nor is the article reflecting daily updates containing those news items. Its still edited daily but its more to add sourced discussing why its called a genocide than chronologically putting the events in place. That's all being done on the Timeline article, including events that are still tied to killing Palesteins in Gaza, and nothing at the Genocide one. As such, the genocide article fails the requirements for Ongoing. That leads to why giving the Gaze conflict the space for the geneocide article and not for the other two conflicts is a non-neutral approach. We blurbed when the UN report named it a genocide (at the same time consensus agreed to move the article to the genocide page), but we have countless similar reports on the events in the other two conflicts that are not yet officially called such but detailed in much the same way, and that we don't include them is an implicit bias atop the fact that the genocide article fails to meet the ongoing criteria. To be clear this is not to deny that the genocide is still an ongoing world event, but it is not appropriate for us to have it in ongoing given our criteria and neutral standpoint. Masem (t) 20:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Genocides aren’t common events so ITN may not be ready with specific criteria to cover them. However, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t post them to ongoing and that we cannot invoke WP:IAR to do so. In fact, Gaza genocide comes as a result of the Gaza war, and many updates on Timeline of the Gaza war (3 October 2025 – present) are associated with the genocide, so it’s practically not true that there are no recent updates of the genocide.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any events related to the genocide are being properly updated on the timeline article. That it has been called a genocide is no longer going to change, and the genocide is a subevent of the main conflict (this is not like Israel striking other middle eastern states which are tangents). The genocide article itself is not being updated to meet the requirements of ongoing. Masem (t) 21:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the issue here is that the article in question is not currently being updated frequently, it usually is updated a lot almost every day, but it is currently subject to a prolonged edit-lock which makes that impossible for most editors. David A (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked through the updates, the bulk of them are edit warring which I discount, so the legitimate additions are not related to daily events occurring in Gaza, but just further discussions why what's happening in Gaza is a genocide. Particularly compared to the main Gaza timeline activity. Masem (t) 22:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with your claim that the majority of all the edits to the page in recent months have been edit-warring. David A (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking at the scale of the last few weeks, because for ongoing, the expectation is near daily updates to the article. And to be clear, "edit warring" is based on the pattern I've seeing where the same block of information is being added and later removed in very slow edit wars (nothing that would trigger admin action), and ignoring those, there is no net new additions to the article that represent daily events occurring related to the genocide or the conflict. The article is being edited daily, but the edits are not based on daily events. Masem (t) 12:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the genocide is a subevent of the main conflict – I disagree with this framing. The war in totality is a genocide. If anything, the war is a subcomponent of the genocide, which also includes the blockade and weaponization of aid. Finkelstein's analysis of the UN Commission report puts it much more eloquently than I can: The report thus eschewed the terminology of the laws of war. There was, for example, no mention of "disproportionate" attacks anywhere in it. A disproportionate attack presupposes that a legitimate military site was targeted but an excessive number of civilians were killed. The report found, however, that, overwhelmingly, it was Gaza’s civilian population and infrastructure that was targeted. ... It was palpably not Hamas but the entirety of Gaza’s population that was being targeted; indeed, the "war" aspect of the hostilities was, all told, a fiction. EvansHallBear (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: As others here have stated, the genocide is still very actively ongoing, but I think that the genocide in Sudan should be featured alongside it as well. David A (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Sudan genocide article is currently called Masalit massacres (2023–present). It should be on the ITN page but unfortunately the article includes almost no mention of anything that has happened in 2025. If a tiny fraction of the energy that we put into litigating the framing of our Gaza articles was put into updating our Sudan articles we'd easily have the decent coverage of Sudan we desperately lack now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Several important reports considering it as a genocide. ArionStar (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A support vote means it should be removed. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose ArionStar (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Article describes it as "ongoing".–DMartin 01:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That could just mean the article is out of date... That word was added some time ago and the article hasn't had content relating to new events added to it for some time. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Gaza genocide was listed on the basis that the balance of reliable sources had come to regard it as that, and as such it is (as stated in Wikivoice) a major ongoing world event. I've not seen evidence that reliable sources now regard it as over, notwithstanding the recent ceasefire. Like the war itself, this is not necessarily a topic that receives frequent updates, but that's the case for all long-standing events of this nature. Finally, I'm not convinced by the argument that it's non-neutral to highlight this when the Sudan and Ukraine cases aren't listed. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, those pages should be proposed with RS evidence, considered on their own merits, and a consensus (or lack thereof) formed. Those cases shouldn't derail this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is still an ongoing genocide in Gaza, targeting vulnerable women, children, and journalists. If the killing of 80,000 civilians does not qualify as genocide, then what number would? QalasQalas (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If it's not being updated, it should be removed on that basis and that basis only- not based on the idea that if we link one genocide we have to link to them all just because. AFAIK posting Ukraine and Sudan hasn't been nominated to consider its merits(i.e. if an academic consensus of genocide exists for those killings/wars). 331dot (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The posting of this to ongoing was after one of the most lengthiest ITN discussions. I would expect to see serious policy arguments for the removal. The argument that other atrocities haven't been posted or posting only this is POV/propaganda are unserious and not based on any policy. The policy argument that the article is not receiving daily updates is evidentialy not true, whether its for adding to the increasing majority scholarly consensus or updating other things, all of this is happening at the article. The only remaining policy argument is that it is over. According to? The genocide is inextricably linked to the "war", and one would need sources to say that the latter is over (in which case the whole thing can be removed) or that the genocide is. No RS states that. Gotitbro (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ongoing was added to ITN to deal with topics that would otherwise likely bring regular ITN blurbs due to events, of which no question the Gaza conflict is. The genocide aspects of the Gaza conflict is not bringing those; what news coverage I see of the genocide is not new information on the genocide but related to the conflict and that is it just more killings of Palestine people, and those events themselves are not being added to the genocide article itself. The additions around the debate of whether it is a genocide or not are not the expectations we are looking for when we are expecting near daily updates. Masem (t) 14:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The same arguments can be applied for the war article, as the major substance of those updates is carried by the timeline but so is for the genocide. And it can be veritably demonstrated that these are the same entwined event and not extricable entities. As such either the whole lot of it goes if it ends or editors show through RS that either one has ended. I see no case to be made for either of these. Gotitbro (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and no. I don’t see what other blurbs related to the FIFA World Cup would be posted other than its conclusion. There are certainly events that would result in posting multiple blurbs, so having them in the ongoing section would be beneficial to save room for blurbs documenting unrelated events, but there are other events that are posted simply because they are major current events. We introduced ongoing following the increasing need to post frequent blurbs on the Arab Spring protests back in 2011, but that’s not the first instance of posting to what is now known as ongoing as we had posted links to Olympic summaries even before it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There’s still violence and the ceasefire was violated. We should consider adding genocide in Sudan and Congo as opposed to taking this away. -TenorTwelve (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Well said. David A (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose still ongoing. (t · c) buidhe 04:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per the above, but I'm open to the idea of adding the other genocide articles as a compromise. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 06:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Despite the ceasefire, deaths are ongoing. Jusdafax (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It has gotten dramatically more news coverage than the other referenced genocides; and the coverage remains ongoing. See eg. [10]. The article also has been getting extremely rapid updates; that much is clear from its history. It's currently fully-protected, but prior to that, just going back a few days finds several significant additions. --Aquillion (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's an ongoing event with the humanitarian crisis still not being dealt with & people still being killed in Gaza every day. A ceasefire is not remotely the same as an end to a genocide - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Masem Earlier today, Jimmy Wales posted on the talk page for the Gaza "genocide" article. I will let you read his statement yourself, but his argument should be included in the discussion here as to if the homepage link should remain. Dr Fell (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem. Gotitbro (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Some of the statements in this discussion, such as that the IDF is killing Palestinians every day, are simply factual wrong and aren't backed up by any citations, let alone reliable sources. The ceasefire hasn't been absolute, but it is more often in place than not. The situation has fundamentally changed since this ITN entry was made, and we should recognize that. Coining (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Eleven members of a Palestinian family were killed by Israeli forces on Friday, described as the deadliest single violation of the fragile ceasefire since it took effect eight days ago". - The Guardian
    Israeli strikes kill more than 100 people in Gaza, including 46 children - The Washington Post
    "Israeli forces have killed another Palestinian in Gaza despite a United States-brokered ceasefire, bringing the toll since the truce to 236" - Al Jazeera Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Guardian article is based on the assertion of the Gaza Media Office, which is controlled by Hamas, and in any case the particular sentence quoted above is about one day, not "every day".
    - The Washington Post article, whose headline is also based on the assertion of the Gaza Media Office, is about a specific period when the ceasefire didn't hold. It's not even on its own terms intended to be indicative of the general ceasefire period.
    - Per WP:ALJAZEERA, Most editors seem to agree that Al Jazeera English and especially Al Jazeera Arabic are biased sources on the Arab–Israeli conflict. Coining (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all these claims are correct: the Gaza Media Office and Al-Jazeera have generally accurately reported casualty numbers. But for us to say the genocide is on-going requires more than identifying that some hundreds have been killed since the ceasefire; it requires us to be able to cite the overwhelming preponderance of RSs reporting that a genocide is on-going. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe bring sources that the genocide ended after it began — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 16:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From today's news. Navi Pillay on the genocide: "We are all witnesses to it. It’s happening in real time. We see it on our screens every day."
    Whereas, as Cheesedealer points out, no RS support has been provided for the claim that the genocide has ended. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full protection Because of the disputes and edit-warring, the article in question is now fully-protected. This makes it difficult to update the article and it hasn't been updated since 30 October which is four days ago. Per WP:ONGOING, "In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated..." So, such protection seems to be a show-stopping quality issue, like an orange tag. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the Russo–Ukrainian war article was temporarily fully-protected, I don't think we would rush to unlist it per this strict interpretation of WP:ONGOING. I'm sure we as editors can understand that because this protection is temporary, we shouldn't see it as "show-stopping". The protection on the Gaza article is set to be lifted tomorrow too. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support With various inaccuracies in the article, and a full-protection essentially guaranteeing that inaccuracies stay put unless noted and pointed out on the talk page, keeping this article on the main page unfortunately goes against the point of ITN and leads to a NOTNEWS and RGW situation. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 13:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The WP article on this is one of the most fought over and contested articles in this project so not the best article to link to, especially as it's additional to the link to the article on the war. Plus while there may be a slim consensus that the war has involved a genocide, fewer sources are saying it's on-going since the latest ceasefire so it's rather contentious to claim it's on-going. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be better if editor's who claim that the genocide is over bring sources here that explicitly say so. Synthesizing the fact from the barely threading ceasefire is not it. Because from what I can tell no RS state this. Gotitbro (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to reiterate the primary reason for starter this nomination is simply on the basis the article is not getting daily updates as expected for an ongoing item. There is no question the genocide is still ongoing but checking just now, there hasn't been any significant updates on daily events as related to the genocide. I know there is protection on the article but that still means updates can be made, but just aren't. Removing the item from my ongoing does not dispute the genocide is ongoing, just that it doesn't meet the quality and updates expected to be featured on main page. Masem (t) 18:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a strawman argument. How many sources stated that the Rwandan genocide was over when the killing stopped? Or the Bosnian genocide? Etc. "End of genocide" is not typically something newspapers call. Khuft (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "End of war" is tho, and the end of the Rwandan genocide coincided with the end of the Rwandan Civil War, and that is not the case for the Gaza war (do you think the Gaza war ended?), which is a subcomponent of the genocide as shown by EvansHallBear — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 19:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What happens when such genocidal "events"/"conflicts" (for the lack of better terms) end is that they are referred to as either having ended or mentioned in the past tense or given a time frame. None has happened here, on the contrary sources (academic and otherwise) continue to refer to the genocide as an ongoing one explicitly as shown by Evans above. The Gaza "war" goes on and so does the concomitant genocide.
    If you truly believe that this is incorrect and "strawman" and the genocide has actually ended, you should bring this to the article's talk page. Though it would be news to anyone who has been active at the article. Gotitbro (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, per your own link shared below, Jimbo himself seems to think the article is fraught with controversy. I don't think my involvement in that discussion would add any further value. In any case, the question at hand here is simply whether the link should be removed from Ongoing, and I've shared my opinion earlier in this discussion. Khuft (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's one of many child articles of the war and is also linked in the lead of the parent article. Similar to the other wars, we can reference timeline but there is no need to reference any other specifics in order to avoid favouring highlighting one conflict over another by providing more links. Also oppose Gaza peace plan that is as titled a plan and not a reality, based also on the current status of the "ceasefire" in effect. CNC (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I support much of what Masem is arguing here. And being conscious of WP:RGW, I still find it incredibly inaccurate to call the ongoing Israeli intervention in Gaza a "war." In reality, there was a terrorist attack over two years ago. In response there has been an ongoing unilateral attack against a civilian population, with only trivial militant response. The genocide link here helps balance out the extremely biased implication that a "war" is happening. I understand this is an IAR position. I wish we would have gone with something like "intervention" or "occupation" but that ship has sailed. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion and Jimbo's intervention is itself "in the news": Wikipedia's 'Gaza Genocide' article an example of how neutrality needs to be improved, founder says (Jerusalem Post, November 3, 2025). "On Monday, the “Gaza genocide” article was still on the Wikipedia homepage’s In the News section. Notably, a discussion began on Friday about removing the event from ongoing matters, given the October 10 ceasefire that has taken root." Gotitbro (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will point out that the Jerusalem Post is an Israeli newspaper often considered biased when reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of that, just listed this here to let editors know that this is getting massive outside attention (concerns of canvassing et. al. withstanding). And I believe that Jimmy should not have commented at the article, as while he made those remarks in a personal (regular editorial) capacity, the media picks it up as arguments from "The Boss". Gotitbro (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Founding of SAFCo

[edit]
(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
WP:SNOW closure. The Kip (contribs) 18:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article: Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ SAFCo, a company to help Singapore develop green fuel opportunities for flights, is formed by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. (Post)
News source(s): [11]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: New company formed to develop green fuel pathways for Singapore flights

1) Couldn't find "SAFCo" in the article on 2025-10-31-14-52-UTC+0. 2) its notability seems to derive from its as-yet unfulfilled potential, so posting this would run against the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL. 3) Quality is not good enough for a news of the day. ApoieRacional (talk)

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.

October 30

[edit]

RD: Maria Riva

[edit]
Article: Maria Riva (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): People
Credits:

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 actress and Marlene Dietrich's daughter. HOPPIO [talk] 23:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Andrew / Andrew Mountbatten Windsor

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Prince Andrew (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Prince Andrew (pictured) is stripped of all titles by King Charles III. He will henceforth be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Prince Andrew (pictured) is stripped of all titles by King Charles III, due to allegations of sexual abuse.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Prince Andrew (pictured) is stripped of all titles by King Charles III, due to allegations of sexual abuse and links to Jeffrey Epstein.
News source(s): BBC News Online
Credits:

Article updated

 Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support/altblurbs Added two similarly worded altblurbs that better describe the situation and notability of the story. Widely reported, linked to a wider highly notable story. Not just tabloid news as the original blurb and commenters may say. Basetornado (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - My instinct was not to weigh in because I didn't quite think it cut the mustard. But this is the culmination of many, many years of pressure on a story (Epstein) which continues to have substantial impact and attention across multiple continents, for instance his connections to individuals at the highest levels of politics, business and entertainment in multiple nations. In that context I think this just about makes the grade. And while without that context I wouldn't support, the action taken is extraordinary. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh - I would oppose the original blurb btw, and I think it's worth noting that the opposes prior to the inappropriate closure were based on the original blurb. If that's what was on the table I'd have been there with them, it's the connection of the two stories that gets this over the line for me. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - article is currently the subject of a move request which appears on the borderline of a snow closure. If we're considering this story for ITN again, it might be helpful for an uninvolved admin to weigh up whether we're in snow territory or not - and if not to state that we're not so that at least there is clarity on the article's status for the lifetime of its time on the main page. Putting it on the main page with an RM open would substantially increase new opinions, which would be productive if such opinions were considered to have any chance of influencing the outcome, and decidedly unhelpful if it were just a neverendum where the result is certain. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ITN isn't a royalty ticker, the significant titles or lack thereof of the British royal family are for those directly in the line of succession, not this. If he is convicted however that might be notable but it would be a different matter altogether. Gotitbro (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (though I did find the first close of this discussion premature). Basically per nableezy; maybe I wouldn't word it quite as harshly; this story is not devoid of any significance. I'd probably vote for including a court case decision here, but not for including a loss of royal title. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - While this is the biggest sanction the royal household can bring on its own initiative, short of actually making Mr Windsor homeless, it's small beer in comparison to actual criminal proceedings. On the basis that we prefer to post convictions rather than arrests or sentences except in the most exceptional circumstances, I don't think this clears the bar. However, I want to acknowledge that it's a good-faith proposal and I do see the merits. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Little practical significance, even in the UK. --SpectralIon 22:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I get that this is rare, but it’s a ceremonial stripping of a title from a person that’s 8th in line to the throne. Apples to oranges comparison, but would we be discussing a major scandal involving the U.S. Secretary of the Interior? I doubt it. And at least that position has an actual role in government. RPH (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we were trying to do the closest analogy possible, said secretary of the interior's highest previous rank would've been Speaker of the House. Even absent that point, to answer your direct question, if the Secretary of the Interior were to be fired for connections to Epstein, we would without doubt discuss it as an ITNC. I suspect it would on balance go the same way this appears to be going but it would be an equally legitimate discussion. And while the UK is a smaller country and people in the succession line have far less power (almost, but for the top few adults not precisely, none), he has been a notable individual from birth; most members of the US cabinet wouldn't have reached it until far into adulthood. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew is still in the line of succession even if not allowed to use a princely title, so the comparison would be if a secretary was impeached and not convicted. And as a case in point, I don’t believe said impeachment of the lower ranked Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas was posted on the front page last year. Andrew’s previous higher standing in the line of succession isn’t topical at this point any more so if a former speaker became a cabinet secretary. RPH (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the reason for the stripping of titles that makes this a story. Fully expect it to not be posted. But I feel the "He's just a minor royal who got his title stripped" is missing a lot of context. It'd be like saying "100 people died" without adding "in a building collapse." etc. Basetornado (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, you can even peacock notability by saying that he's the king's brother or that he's the son of queen elizabeth. That in no way changes the fundamentals of what has happened here, an already sidelined UK royalty squelched of something long overdue.
    The only notable factor as multiple editor's have noted here is the Epstein connection but beyond BLP issues (this is no conviction), the status of that scandal remains that all allegedly involved including Andrew have mostly avoided any substantial criminal action. And unless that happens, the Epstein scandal will be avoided by ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A conviction is unlikely to occur. But again spinning it as largely just a royal being stripped of titles is underselling things pretty heavily. Basetornado (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the stripping is the efective action (which hasn't even taken place yet [no official gazetted publication]), the links with Epstein absent legal action would be quite an affront to BLP if featured as such on the main page. And though as credible as they likely are, the fallout being limited to a stripping of titles and move to another lavish residence for the accused is uttimately a stunning nothingburger. Gotitbro (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It was unnecessary to reopen the discussion. This is not a tabloid. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb II This is not a tabloid story, but is a significant development in the Epstein scandal. Khuft (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment to be stripped off vice-admiral and possibly succession too (but not happened yet, afaict).Psephguru (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2025 Japan Series

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Japan Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In baseball, the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks defeat the Hanshin Tigers to win the Japan Series (Series MVP Hotaka Yamakawa pictured). (Post)
News source(s): Japan Times
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Trump-Xi meeting at APEC

[edit]
SNOW close. Only minor concrete agreements came from Trump-Xi meeting, and APEC summits are only posted on conclusion, per WP:ITN/R. (non-admin closure) V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed image
Articles: 2025 Trump-Xi Summit (talk · history · tag) and APEC South Korea 2025 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Busan, South Korea, on the sidelines of the 2025 APEC summit, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping met in-person for the first time in 6 years. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ South Korea hosts a meeting of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) attended by Donald Trump, Xi Jinping and the leaders of other member nations.
News source(s): Independent
Credits:
 Kknnkj (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2025
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.

October 29

[edit]

RD: Gladys Stone Wright

[edit]
Article: Gladys Stone Wright (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): purdue.edu
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 band leader. 13:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

RD: Lise Bacon

[edit]
Article: Lise Bacon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): le journal de montreal
Credits:

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: Canadian politician, Deputy Premier of Quebec from 1985 to 1994. 13:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

RD: Pierre Robert (radio personality)

[edit]
Article: Pierre Robert (radio personality) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC Philadelphia
Credits:

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: Radio DJ. Article seems in OK shape but probably needs work wizzito | say hello! 15:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality multiple orange tags.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 17:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work orange tagged and about half the article is unsourced. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Dutch general election

[edit]
Article: 2025 Dutch general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Netherlands, the PVV and D66 tie for the most seats in the general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ D66, led by Rob Jetten, and the PVV, tie for the most seats in the Dutch general election.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The PVV and D66 tie for most seats, at 26, in the Dutch general election.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The social-liberal Democrats 66 win a plurality of the vote in the Dutch general election, tying with the far-right Party for Freedom at 26 seats.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ D66 wins a plurality of the vote in the Dutch general election, tying with the PVV at 26 seats.
Alternative blurb V: ​ The political party D66 wins a plurality of the vote in the Dutch general election, tying with the PVV at 26 seats in the Dutch House of Representatives for first place.
Alternative blurb VI: ​ D66 and the PVV tie for the most seats in the Dutch general election.
News source(s): The Guardian, France24, EuroNews, CNN, NOS
Credits:

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: Result not fully in yet, but looks like D66 got most seats. Psephguru (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with altblurb? Dont mind if you replace mine with that.Psephguru (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need, just keep it there to avoid confusion :) Haers6120 (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support According to BBC, the information is correct. It came out less than an hour before the time of this nomination. However, I prefer altblurb5 due to its neutral and factual tone. (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PVV has just now overtaken D66 in votes - they're tied for the amount of seats.[1] All blurbs are currently incorrect. I would highly suggest waiting until the results are 100% in. However, it is likely that the votes that remain will be benefitting D66. D66 is back on top after winning Bonaire and Saba. Hilversum and Amsterdam have also come in fully, both of them giving D66 more votes.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 08:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated the first two blurbs to reflect them tying, however the current lead of the PVV is only a few thousand votes, and could go either way for the latter three blurbs. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even with D66 winning Bonaire (which currently isn't showing on the NOS website) margins are so thin vote counts really shouldn't be mentioned V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment We can always post govt formation later too and put the result now.
Further, now that my blurb is updated, support that again.Psephguru (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The results are NOT solid yet and the margin is still small enough for there to possibly be a flip. Wait until the results are official, or at the very least solid enough to call a winner.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 19:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that should not post the results yet. NB: There's a single municipality (Venray) that has not reported results. PVV is almost certain to win the most votes there, but the extremely narrow national margin won't flip when these results are counted nor will it shift a seat from D66 to PVV. The only question is if D66 will have won a plurality by 0.2% or 0.1% of the vote nationally. Immediate challenge: There are six blurbs at the moment, and most don't read well. Dr Fell (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point was coalition talks will take some time, the result should be known this week.Psephguru (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final comment Mail-in votes have been counted and D66 will most likely NOT be getting an extra seat. Added altblurb 6, btw.  Jalapeño   (u t g) 19:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is the same as the edited original (someone else edited nine).Psephguru (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

[edit]

RD: Bernard Grandmaître

[edit]
Article: Bernard Grandmaître (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ledroit.com
Credits:

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: Canadian politician. 13:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

(Posted) Operation Containment

[edit]
Article: Operation Containment (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ More than 100 people are killed in raids targeting criminal organization Comando Vermelho during the deadliest police operation in Rio de Janeiro history. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ More than 100 people are killed in a major police operation in Rio de Janeiro.
Alternative blurb II: ​ More than 100 people are killed in the deadliest police operation in Rio de Janeiro history.
News source(s): Reuters CNN The Guardian G1 UOL
Credits:

 ArionStar (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality for now. The blurb should mention the group being targeted, Comando Vermelho, and should have more than the three short paragraphs of prose it has on the operation itself (the rest is padded out with reactions). No comment on notability at this moment. Departure– (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure–:  Done. ArionStar (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability/oppose on quality/altblurb Support on notability, quality isn't there yet. Added altblurb, because "Commando Vermelho" is unlikely to be known outside Brazil. Basetornado (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • To get a reliable take on this, here's the latest report in the NYT:

    "Questions still lingered over how the vast operation had unfolded, whether innocent bystanders were caught in the bloody battle and who exactly was responsible for all of the killings."

    "Through the night, residents combed through nearby woods. By Wednesday, they had recovered some 70 corpses there. It was unclear what, if any, link the people had to the gang, and who was responsible for their deaths."

    "The extraordinarily bloody episode shocked Rio, a city that is no stranger to scenes of gangs battling the police and each other."

    So, maybe rival gangs got involved. Maybe there are vigilantes settling scores. As explosives were used maybe there was collateral damage. In my own experience of "combing the woods", you often find lots of nastiness – fly-tips, homeless camps, and the like. Perhaps these bodies are the accumulated result of routine low-level violence and drug deaths. As it's unclear then we shouldn't rush to judgement. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per above, clearly significant enough to be included, article does need a bit more work though, but I believe it's ready enough for posting TheFellaVB (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it is the most lethal police operation in the state's history. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle but that reaction section is very much bloated with just plain comments and not any actual actions. Masem (t) 21:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current blurb positions this event as trivia (deadliest police operation). The article itself doesn't establish why the operation is especially notable or significant beyond that, or its relevance to the broader context of drug trafficking in Brazil. It's unclear if there were a significant number of non-suspects among the casualties. What's more, the reactions hint this might be only locally significant. There has been no response from Lula. More information is needed to make a confident call on a blurb. Dr Fell (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling more than a hundred deaths trivia is offensive to put it lightly. Gotitbro (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt blurb. Obviously a huge event in Brazil and major news. The original blurb seems unnecessarily wordy. Relevant details are in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support over 100 people dying in a single event is already notable enough for ITN, and the article looks to be of decent enough quality V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I agree the event is important and needs to eventually be posted but we need some clarity. How on earth did this many die in a police op? When more big-picture articles come out we'll have the detail to post this. Bremps... 03:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shocking death toll. 172.97.220.91 (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The event is notable, and the article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Admins willing to post ITN: ArionStar (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting support For the shockingly high death toll, article quality is good enough Hungry403 (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted RD) RD: Prunella Scales

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Prunella Scales (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, CNN, Guardian, NYT, Sky News, The Times, Washington Post
Credits:

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: English actress best known for her role as Sybil Fawlty in the iconic sitcom Fawlty Towers. ItsShandog (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD/Oppose Blurb Article is in good enough shape for RD. Not notable enough for blurb though. TheFellaVB (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb – My personal unfamiliarity with this actress aside, the article makes no convincing case that Scales was transformative in her field; there is just a brief section about a handful of awards/nominations (something typical for most any high profile actor/actress). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nice4What: What? "Fawlty" is fictional character. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: Fixed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD referencing seems good to go. Oppose blurb as just having a few famous roles does not make one a major figure, and nothing in the article suggests other activities that would maje her a major figure. We're trying to avoid making the same mistake we did with White and others, and should not be focusing on fame or popularity since that biases Western topics. Masem (t) 16:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD/oppose blurb per Masem. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support RD: Quality and sourcing is good, but shouldn't an actress like Scales have a filmography section? I'm not sure if that technically would prohibit from RD but I think its a missing piece. ----The Robot Parade 19:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, I oppose blurb for notability reasons, Scales is not a major enough figure in her career or beyond to warrant one. A long career does not warrant a blurb. The original nominator made the right call not to ask for a blurb, I don't know why we've been converting RD noms to unnecessary blurb discussions. ----The Robot Parade 19:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Article quality seems to be okay. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr Fell: is this a support for a blurb, or for an RD? Natg 19 (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to RD for clarity. I don't think a drawn out discussion that ends with no blurb as we had with Diane Keaton is necessarily productive. Dr Fell (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD article in good condition Ultraodan (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Seriously? This is why we're workshopping an RfC to finally put an end to this nonsense This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: I was going to jokingly reply to The Kip that viewer statistics would be coming in no time. I didn't think you would actually do it!
Rather than annoy almost every other editor with the repeated use of these, why don't you save everyone the trouble and bookmark WP:TOP25 or better yet download Wikipedia Mobile which shows the top viewed articles of the day (on the front page no less). I will seek community discussion at ITN Talk if I see a pointy use of these stats again. Quite silly really (or beyond that now perhaps). Gotitbro (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew unhatted the viewer numbers above, but didn’t add anything to it, so I re-hatted it. I think you might want to fire up that ITN Talk discussion now. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 11:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Benz Hui

[edit]
Article: Benz Hui (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNA
Credits:

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 actor – robertsky (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Trump Asia trip

[edit]
SNOW close. Just a simple foreign trip is not postable. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed image
Article: List_of_international_presidential_trips_made_by_Donald_Trump#2025 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ US President Donald Trump visits Asia, attending the 47th ASEAN summit and meeting with several world leaders. (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: A series of state visits by Trump recently. He's signed a bunch of deals and talking with a lot of people. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not significant enough to put ITN, Presidents make foreign trips all the time. We didn't have a blurb for either of his recent middle east trips. TheFellaVB (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose NTRUMP Ion.want.uu (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreign trips of a head of state/government is habitual. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 04:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If anything major comes out of that, that would be the news to post, not simply that he's traveled there. Same logic we use for meetings like G7/G20, etc; its not the meeting itself, but if any major resolutions are agreed upon as a result. Masem (t) 04:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Masem. Unless the meeting results in an unusual or significant event, it is not suitable for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't post travel unless it's out of the norm, (North Korea etc) or the results of that travel cause a major change in world politics (a peace treaty etc). Travel itself is not notable. Basetornado (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2025 (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.

(Posted) Hurricane Melissa

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Hurricane Melissa (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Category 5 Hurricane Melissa approaches Jamaica. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Hurricane Melissa reaches Category 5 south of Jamaica.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Hurricane Melissa reaches Category 5 south of Jamaica after killing 7 elsewhere in the Caribbean.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Hurricane Melissa makes one of the most intense landfalls in the Atlantic basin near New Hope, Jamaica, at Category 5 intensity.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ Hurricane Melissa makes landfall in Jamaica as the third strongest Atlantic hurricane in recorded history
Alternative blurb V: ​ Hurricane Melissa reaches Jamaica as one of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes on record, making the most intense landfall in the basin's history
Alternative blurb VI: ​ Hurricane Melissa leaves more than 40 people dead across the Caribbean.
News source(s): AP, BBC National Hurricane Center 10 AM NHC update (intensity)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Described as the world's strongest storm in 2025, Hurricane Melissa is approaching Jamaica. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(and also it was also confirmed 2 nights ago that Hurricane Melissa became category 5 sooo maybe a stale blurb..?) 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:488E:FFE0:C24F:49C8 (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is worldwide news already, and it's worth noting Jamaica rarely has this much attention globally. There's a reason so much preparation is made in advance of an anticipated natural disaster; this probably means the death toll will be lower, but that is a good thing and it shouldn't lower the ITN threshold; we should be avoiding WP:MINIMUMDEATHS arguments anyway. There will be huge material losses regardless, and many countries take decades to revover from such disasters; if Jamaica avoids such an awful fate because they prepared accordingly all credit to their leaders and inhabitants. A category 5 storm is notable in itself regardless. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Impacts are a given at this point. Multiple were killed by this storm before it reached its peak intensity (for those who don't know, recent observation flights into it's eye uncovered pressure as low as 896 millibars, and Melissa now is at List of Atlantic hurricane records on both pressure and wind speeds, about as strong as Hurricane Milton last year; note again, it's reached this intensity right before landfall). Throwing MINIMUMDEATHS and TOOSOON out the window, this is comparable to Milton last year which was blurbed on expected impacts and the sheer intensity (both of which Melissa has). Departure– (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, make this a strong oppose on all current proposed blurbs (0-2). None accurately capture what makes this event noteworthy (landfall is imminent, and the extreme intensity found in this NHC guidance from 15 minutes ago). Departure– (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note Special:Diff/1251210949--Hurricane Milton was blurbed ahead of its landfall. Not like it matters. By the time this is administrated, Melissa will have made landfall. Departure– (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Make this a strong support alt3 (proposed by me). Newest NHC bulletin indicates 185 miles per hour, central pressure of 892 millibars. This is stronger than Hurricane Milton and actively making landfall. Whether or not Milton was blurbed for the speed of its intensification, the sheer intensity of this would make this notable (in my opinion), even beyond the fact Jamaica will be no doubt devastated by this storm. Departure– (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced image with newer true-color satellite--more zoomed in on the core of Melissa itself, and taken today 10 minutes after the bulletin of peak intensity. Departure– (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced image again with true-color satellite at landfall. Departure– (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alt 3 is incredibly detailed, blurbs should be concise. "Category 5 winds" is widely covered in the media and I'd believe most readers who have a passing familiarity of hurricanes would be familiar with this term, though "reconnaissance flight data indicating extreme central pressure of 892 millibars" feels very unnecessary and only of interest to meteorologists. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would a at an [extreme/record-breaking] intensity work instead? That'd depend on what sources can back it up. Departure– (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian calls it a "storm of the century" (The Guardian). Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested an alt4 since alt3 is pretty long and links to an orange-tagged page  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link isn't too important and could apply to either blurb (the page linked in ALT4 is just a more broad and thus less concise topic that encompasses the link in ALT3). To my knowledge, the quality of non-bolded articles in a blurb aren't assessed. Departure– (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. It seems like Melissa is considered tied for the strongest an Atlantic hurricane has ever been while making landfall, which is a far more blurbworthy stat than being tied for 3rd strongest in general. I'll try to come up with an alt5 to reflect that. However, the List of Atlantic hurricane records article doesn't even have a list of most intense landfalls, so it still might not be a good page to link to. I suppose we could just add Template:Most intense landfalling Atlantic hurricanes to that article?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Came up with an alt5, but it's too long and feels a little redundant since it mentions both the strength of the storm and the strength of the landfall. I couldn't think of a less clunky way of describing how this is the strongest landfall in Atlantic history. I'd personally support any blurb, doesn't have to be one of the ones I suggested, but I would prefer that whichever blurb is posted mentions why this storm is especially significant.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until impacts are known - I thought something being a 5 or otherwise being meteorolgically significant didn't make it notable for ITN? Nine deaths is not significant enough to blurb and the impacts are not currently known. EF5 15:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A storm just being a 5 isn't enough, but if there is more meteorological significance, then we do tend to blurb. We blurbed Hurricane Milton last year prior to its landfall in Florida based on the meteorological significance of Milton being the strongest ever recorded in the Gulf of Mexico and one of the strongest of all time. Melissa is even stronger than Milton was, and is actually making landfall at that intensity, so I don't think posting now is premature.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 1 – Noteworthy, devastating hurricane with widespread coverage; article is in good shape. I am unsure if the death count is significant enough at the time, as EF5 mentioned, but I would be okay with alt 2 too (if it were written to be less awkward). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Melissa has now made landfall, as verified by the 1 PM EDT bulletin. They explicitly use the wording "...ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL HURRICANE LANDFALLS ON RECORD IN THE ATLANTIC BASIN..." and sure enough List of the most intense tropical cyclones now shows that Melissa is now tied with 1935 Labor Day hurricane for the highest recorded intensity at landfall--both Category 5, winds of 185 mph (298 km/h), and pressure of 892 mb. @Nice4What: I'll adjust ALT3 accordingly. Departure– (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support on Quality. Article quality seems fine I SUPPOSE. I still don't that so many article subsections are only one or two lines, but so be it. My preference is for altblurb VI that I just proposed. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait weather records alone are not good ITN, but it's the impact of such record breaking events that are what make news. It will likely take several hours or days to get an idea of the magnitude of damage to know how serious this was, and that's what we should focus on (the 9 deaths that I last saw listed is not yet significant on its own) Masem (t) 19:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Way too soon. It's barely made landfall at the first island, and we have no idea how serious the damage is going to be. Nfitz (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now that it has made landfall – as the most intense Atlantic hurricane since records began – a blurb is certainly warranted. Blurb can be updated as it passes through Jamaica and Cuba, and more is known about its impact. Dr Fell (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarification, the intensity upon landfall was tied strongest with the 1935 Labor Day hurricane. The overall intensity of 892 millibars is still higher than Hurricane Wilma (2005)'s 882 millibar intensity. In terms of wind speed, 185 mph is part of a very large tie with hurricanes such as Hurricane Dorian (2019) for second strongest, behind Hurricane Allen's 190 mph strength. Departure– (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Tied as the most intense landfalling hurricane in Atlantic history and as we get more damage reports, this storm will be notable for the main page from an impact perspective. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 22:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb 5 and post ASAP, already a recordbreaking storm.–DMartin 01:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked as ready Most editors here seem to support, and the wait !votes saying "wait for landfall" or "9 deaths isn't enough" are outdated. The confirrmed death toll has risen to 16 and it'll most likely only go up as we learn more about its effects in Jamaica. Currently crossing Cuba with another landfall expected over the Bahamas, then Bermuda later this week, still at hurricane intensity.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb 3 or 5. Strongest Atlantic hurricane in twenty years is already significant. I would shift the blurb to be about the impact in a few days once that's known. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: this should've been posted even before the hurricane made landfall in Jamaica. Like NorthernFalcon said, the hurricane itself was in the news, which is especially significant because news about Jamaica doesn't tend to reach international audiences. Now, many news outlets are saying that 70% of the country has no electricity so they can't get up to date information. My experience living through multiple major hurricanes in the United States is that electricity restoration takes at least 2 weeks. Maybe we can post the blurb in 2 weeks.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 16:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Only two weeks? So not as major as some other weather events. Nfitz (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added alt6 to reflect impacts. I really strongly oppose any of the other blurbs; we should be focusing on impacts, not meteorological trivia. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We should mention impacts in the blurb, but the fact that no Atlantic storm has ever been more dangerous than this one while making landfall is an important part of why this one matters and not just trivia for weather nerds.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is an argument for mentioning it in the article. However, couldn't it be dealt with by doing "Category 5 Hurricane Melissa leaves more than 40 people dead across the Caribbean. rather than Hurricane Melissa leaves more than 40 people dead across the Caribbean.? Nfitz (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been lots of category 5s, but this is an all-time record, and one which explains why its impact is so severe. And that suggested language might imply it's currently Category 5 when the reader reads it. I think a good solution is gluing together the 1st half of alt6 and the second half of alt5, maybe something like Hurricane Melissa leaves more than 55 people dead across the Caribbean after making the most intense landfall in the Atlantic basin's history. I think that'd do a decent enough job at explaining why this one is exceptionally bad.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A record for what? Not pressure. Windspeed is difficult to measure. I'm not sure what needs to be added other than the Category 5 prefix - you don't source the "most intense" or the standard. Nfitz (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A record for what? Not pressure. Windspeed is difficult to measure. Actually, yes to both, there has never been a storm this side of the globe that actually hit land with a lower pressure or higher wind speed. I'm actually surprised it seems controversial to mention that. We had no trouble saying Milton was one of the strongest ever, and Milton was weaker than Melissa and wasn't actually over land while it was at its worst. The only other hurricanes that were stronger (a very small category) weakened substantially before landfall. This was the strongest storm any human in the western hemisphere has ever experienced, and we dragged our feet about whether we should post it at all for some reason. I hate to be one of those people who complains about bias, but the only difference I see is that Milton was headed to the US and Melissa wasn't.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just realizing that the intensity of the landfall is only high locally - it doesn't exceed other hurricanes like Typhoon Goni. Nor are most of the deaths from the landfill on Jamaica - they are in Haiti, on a separate island and some distance from the landfall! Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. ITN is not the place post simple weather records that would be of limited interest (that's DYK) but instead the impact of devasting weather systems. ITN us generally not good for noting any item that only getting g coverage for some superlative (biggest, largest, etc) reason. Masem (t) 21:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, sure, but the impacts are what I'd wager most people care about. The lion's share of why that's a big deal is because one would expect higher impacts. For what it's worth, I've studied the topic in the past, and the correlation is somewhat dubious (though I suspect it's better for strength at landfall vs overall maximum intensity), but either way, I think the HUMAN impact is what people generally care about. You could argue the intensity is the bigger news to this point, but is there a bar at which loss of life would be the bigger news? I suspect there is, but gauging where that bar is is a bit of an uncomfortable discussion to say the least. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt6; in my opinion, we should be focused on impacts instead of meteorological records that don't have wider significance.
WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Siege of El Fasher

[edit]
Article: Siege of El Fasher (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Sudanese civil war, the Rapid Support Forces capture Al-Fashir after a siege. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Sudanese civil war, at least 2,500 people are killed in massacres that occur after Al-Fashir is conquered by the Rapid Support Forces.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the Sudanese civil war, at least 2,500 people are killed in massacres that occur after Al-Fashir is conquered by the Rapid Support Forces.
Alternative blurb III: ​ In the Sudanese civil war, the Rapid Support Forces capture Al-Fashir and kill at least 2,500 people in a massacre.
News source(s): [15] [16] [17] [18]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Following the Fall El-Fasher to RSF forces during the Sudanese civil war, massacres and ethnic cleansing have been reported in the city. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose good faith nom, but covered by ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its a massive development in the war, one of the biggest in years. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
post-posting support for the terribly and notoriously high number of victims. At the time of my comment, the number of victims was unknown. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the linked Sky article below is true, switch to post-posting support - potentially tens of thousands killed in mere days is a horrific development that exceeds ongoing. The Kip (contribs) 19:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, massive development in the war as it was the last SAF foothold in Darfur, combined with ~2500+ civilians being killed en masse. Jebiguess (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb or altblurb II Utterly horrific. Even though the war is posted on ongoing, this is an exceptional enough event that warrants posting. Bremps... 23:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New reports suggests TENS OF THOUSANDS. Dead! If this doesnt need to go on the front page idk what does! Pencilceaser123 (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment. Honestly I'm rather disturbed by the use of passive voice in both of these blurbs, and in the one posted to the front page. Why exactly are we avoiding explicitly describing the RSF as the perpetrator of this massacre? I'd suggest an alt in active voice, but it's likely this will move off the front page soon anyway. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt3, per Grnrchst - the facts are fairly clear, and it is weird for us not to be direct about this. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on Active vs Passive voice: I think there's a misunderstanding on what the use of passive voice means. It's not less direct than active voice - it's just a way to emphasize another part of the sentence. In this particular case, the use of the passive voice emphasises the victims - at least 2500 people have died. The active voice would emphasize the RSF, and relegating the victims to the object of the sentence. For me, this is a clear case where the use of passive voice is actually better than the use of active voice.Khuft (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

[edit]

(Posted) RD: Juan Salgado Brito

[edit]
Article: Juan Salgado Brito (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): proceso.com.mx
Credits:

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: Brand new article on a Mexican politician. 13:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

RD: Al Nagler

[edit]
Article: Al Nagler (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): skyandtelescope.org
Credits:

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: Brand new article on an American optical designer and amateur astronomer. 13:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Really well made article on paper, but looking into it there are a LOT of citations to televue.com, his company's official website. Could be against WP:PRIMARY, no? Additionally, birthdate is not cited. ----The Robot Parade 23:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: George Atkinson (safety)

[edit]
Article: George Atkinson (safety) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN CBS
Credits:

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 football safety who was a member of the Oakland Raider's "Soul Patrol" defense of the 1970s. Article has been fully updated, and should be sourced well enough for RD. (I personally want to put more work in to renovate this article, but I don't think anything right now prevents it from RD). --The Robot Parade 03:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Nuclear-powered cruise missile

[edit]
Most editors oppose this nomination. I cannot see this changing. Schwede66 21:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed image
Article: 9M730 Burevestnik (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russia announces the first long-range test of a nuclear-powered cruise missile. (Post)
News source(s): ABC, BBC, CNN, DW, France24, Moscow Times, NYT
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Nuclear submarines have extensive range and endurance and this development now brings this capability to the air. Watch out for a radioactive exhaust though... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Good faith nomination, but the BBC report says that the claim was made by the Russian government, relates to a test in 2023, and cannot be verified. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This weapon has been in development for some time but it's global news now as a result of a test on 21 October, six days ago. ("Gen Gerasimov said the missile was in the air for 15 hours during the test on 21 October" — BBC ). The exact details are obviously classified and may be exaggerated so that's why the suggested blurb starts "Russia announces", which is our usual way of signalling such a claim. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – It's in the news and the article has been updated. Seeing how little new information has been added to the article about the nature of the missile, it leaves me a bit unimpressed. Still, this is a finely-written article about a new technology that has been properly tested for the first time, and as per the news coverage might be very significant. I find it comparable in kind to a first test of a new type of rocket, or to the grand opening of a new piece of infrastructure. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I first read about this in the NYT, which had it as its lead story this morning when I started browsing the news. This mentions the current state of play in Ukraine but goes on to say, "Some scholars said, however, that the Burevestnik announcement should be viewed less in the context of battlefield developments in Ukraine and more related to Moscow’s offer to extend New START, the last remaining arms control treaty between the United States and Russia." So, there's more to this than Ukraine. This weapons project was started in 2001 after Bush withdrew from the ABM treaty. That was long before the current conflict with Ukraine and so its main context is the nuclear arms race which has been ongoing since WW2. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is not stale because what we're reporting here is the first long-range test and this was just announced just yesterday, on Sunday. The fact that the weapon has been in the news before is irrelevant because ITN routinely repeats the same recurring news topics day after day and year after year, per WP:ITN/R and the general complaints about endless elections deaths and disasters. The nomination in 2021 was unsuccessful because the test hadn't happened yet and wasn't in the news. Now it has and it is. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such vainglorious leaders prefer to claim success rather than failure but often have to revisit issues when they are, in fact, not successful the first time. Key differences this time include that the claim originates with a general, not Putin, and they've gone into more specific detail, which seems more convincing and plausible. Anyway, it's not our job to figure out the truth. The topic is in the news, being covered by all the major news media, and we have an article about it which our readers will be looking for. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They aren't even claiming it's the first test. And if we are willing to ignore the first claim in 2023 that testing had been completed (which we didn't nominate), why do we know this really happened (I ask rhetorically). That articles exist doesn't mean it's in the news. I don't see it on BBC's World Wide Web front page - or on CNN's - but I see dozens of other stories we haven't nominated. Nfitz (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The BBC and CNN run hundreds of news stories and constantly scroll these to keep their sites fresh. ITN is quite the opposite as little gets nominated and even less gets posted. Beggars can't be choosers. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for agreeing with me! Nfitz (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is some radioactive exhaust in this missile, but it is acceptable compared to what it is intended use it, how likely it is going to be used. I was going to explain here how a nuclear jet (turboreactive) engine works, but I found that Wikipedia has an article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft . In the Burevestnik case, the nuclear jet engine is of the open type, and some radioactive materials (due to neutron-induced radioactivity of air) is emitted. However, such emissions are negligible compared to the intended purpose of this device. Also, this induced radioactivity of air is very short-lasting (minutes for most isotopes) and quickly disperses in the atmosphere.
https://www.techinsider.ru/weapon/1642669-moshchnyi-i-bystryi-burevestnik-kak-ustroeny-yadernye-dvigateli-dlya-raket/ - use Google Translate to English. ApoieRacional (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me - acceptable to whom? GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, do not blame the messenger. It will never be acceptable to me, but it is acceptable to General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, Lockheed Martin and BWX Technologies, which have been or are working on this technology now: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+US+corporations+have+developed+nuclear+jet+engines%3F .
How is this material to the discussion? GreatCaesarsGhost 18:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The US equivalent – Project Pluto – would have produced significant radioactive fallout as it flew and this was one reason it was cancelled. The extent to which this is happening in the Russian testing has a bearing on the impact of the event. There's a reason that atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons was banned -- see The atomic bomb marker inside your body. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your opposition is based on purely moral grounds. Even though I 100% support you on this issue, the rules of "in the news" do not have the the moral clause ! ApoieRacional (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read GCG's objection as moral, but as being about the reliability of the source: a government led by someone who habitually lies. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If it was any other weapon, yes i'd agree with opposing, but seems to be the first successful test of a nuclear powered cruise missile. I'd argue would be similar to posting about the first nuclear submarine etc. Basetornado (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Checking on this after another day, I find a good video roundup by DW (one of the best news channels IMO) which seems a good introduction to the topic and includes film of the missile in flight and expert assessments. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not having seen the video, what do you think we should take away from this for the ITN discussion? Does it have more information we should be incorporating into our article? Does it make clear that this is the main moment of news for this new technology? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not a newsticker, and that article says that this missile dates back to 2018 with various stages of testing. Also this was "announced"; governments announce all sorts of things all the time, does not necessarily mean it is based in truth, and given the authoritarian and heavilly propaganda-based methods of this particular government, if Wikipedia is to remain neutral, it should avoid reporting on politically-motivated posturing and claims that are difficult to verify independently. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I find the source/Putin arguments unconvincing as other sources (evidenced by Andrew above) believe the claims to be true. But I still oppose this, on the grounds that Nfitz rationales above: this isn't news, the missile has been tested multiple times since 2018 and even officially announced (beyond undeclared tests) which experts believe to be true. Gotitbro (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all above. The Kip (contribs) 02:42, 29 October 2025 (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.

(Closed as stale) Cameroonian elections

[edit]
Stale. Schwede66 19:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed image
Article: 2025 Cameroonian presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Paul Biya (pictured) is declared the president of Cameroon. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Supreme Court of Cameroon declares Paul Biya (pictured) the winner of the presidential election, despite rejection of the opposition and amid protests.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Paul Biya (pictured) is declared the winner of the disputed presidential election in Cameroon
Alternative blurb III: ​ The Supreme Court of Cameroon declares Paul Biya (pictured) the winner of the disputed 2025 presidential election.
News source(s): AP, CNN, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Reuters, DW
Credits:

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: Cameroonian elections come around rarely. Some discussion should be had about the legitimacy of the election and if its worth making a disclaimer. JulDer Wiki (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, lean oppose While their Supreme Court has announced Biya won again, there is a high chance it was rigged, since remember, this guy has been in power for 40+ years. I want to wait for the outcome of the protests if possible SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We post clearly rigged elections regularly (Russia being the ur-example) This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would have oppose those nomination(s) had I done it back then and will do in the future SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article seems too scrappy. For example, the campaign section is almost empty. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It already has more content than the previous election's article, but more detail on some of these sections is less covered in media as in much of the developed world. JulDer Wiki (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous article is still graded as start class and doesn't seem to have been posted at ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose INTR but too short for my liking. It should cover the campaign and election more in detail. As for the disputed part, even a farce election is an election and I think it's fine to post as long as we make it clear it's so. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose posting rigged elections political theater is not significant, unlike actual elections where there is a chance to change the government. 204.61.56.37 (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does "rigged election" have a robust enough definition to be a heuristic in determining not to post an election result? Will we not post the 2028 Turkish presidential election? What about next year's Brazilian election? Some Republicans believe the 2020 election was rigged; should it have not been posted? Some Democrats think the 2024 election was rigged; another election to not blurb? I think better to blurb and if there is a significant and well-documented doubt on the integrity of the election, note that the results are disputed in the blurb and ensure the dispute is prominently featured in the election article. Dr Fell (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you refer to the Turkish and Brazilian elections by their country name, but the US 2020 and 2024 elections without this distinction. As one of the millions of people who lives outside the USA, my advice to you is to reconsider that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2025 (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.

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:

  1. ^ "Live verkiezingen: PVV gaat D66 voorbij als grootste partij, piepklein verschil" (in Dutch). Retrieved 30 October 2025.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1320303313"