Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 the ITN items on the Main Page here— here is the place to do that.

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.

Cillian Murphy in January 2024
Cillian Murphy

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]

  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 it is not possible.

Please do not...[edit]

  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.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[edit]

February 22[edit]


February 21[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime


RD: Hydeia Broadbent[edit]

Article: Hydeia Broadbent (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC
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.

Appears to be well-sourced. Mooonswimmer 23:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems overall well-sourced, one unsourced statement about a book and a TV appearance. JM (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added citations for these both facts. Seems ready to me (just a non-RS Wordpress citation for her sonority). Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ewen MacIntosh[edit]

Article: Ewen MacIntosh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The 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.

240D:1A:4B5:2800:CD0D:DA83:68EA:1330 (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2024 Nuristan landslide[edit]

Article: 2024 Nuristan landslide (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A landslide killed at least 25 people in Afghanistan's Nuristan province. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, VOA, DW, AP, Washington Post
Credits:

Needs expansion. Ainty Painty (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Strong oppose: This bears no significance at all. Article is also a complete stub. Don't just nominate articles for ITN simply because it happened. Tofusaurus (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - good faith nom! Unfortunately, the article is far from ready to be posted, as it is a stub, and while there is no minimum death requirement for posting disasters and accidents, the notability is also a bit questionable. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him | talk) 08:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality The article is a stub. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom We are not a local disaster report, and the article quality isn't there. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose its a stub Setarip (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment in addition to the above, given that Ainty Painty also created it, I would remind them about WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NEVENT, and the fact that not all natural disasters are necessarily going to have long-term notability. We do have List of landslides where these can be documented but as that list shows, not every landslide has a standalone article. Creating a stubby news article on something that may not be easily expanded is discouraged. --Masem (t) 13:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose due to the article being a stub. I will also oppose on notability unless the event turns into something far bigger. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support on notability A large landslide with a high casualty rate is notable as evidenced by global coverage. Not all natural disasters are necessarily going to have long-term notability, but given we have multiple reliable global sources covering it this meets notability criteria. I would also like to point out there's nothing wrong in nominating at ITN in order to draw attention to an article needing expansion, especially when it's breaking news. Unfortunately, given its Afghanistan, a notoriously difficult part of the world to find consistent and reliable news for, this may be all we ever get so far; however this shouldn't lessen its notability. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "there's nothing wrong in nominating at ITN in order to draw attention to an article needing expansion"
    I completely disagree, and I greatly dislike when it occurs. (Note that I'm not commenting on this specific nomination.) The point of nominating an article at ITN is to get an article listed on ITN. Kicking222 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please review NEVENTS. Specifically just because an event gets a burst of coverage in the short term doesn't make it sufficiently notable for WP. That's what Wikinews is for. We want enduring events, and a landslide with a relatively low death toll in a third world country/region just isn't going to get wide coverage. — Masem (t) 18:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think the "third world country/region" part is unnecessary here, as we should work to give coverage to all regions of the world. It's just that this specific event doesn't rise to the threshold of ITN notability. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We do want to cover events from all over the world, and we do have to watch for western biases, but there are events that are the equivalent of "if a tree falls in the woods and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound?" The articles from international sources covering this are extremely short and almost are news-in-brief, compared to other disasters that I've seen from third-world countries that get far more coverage. We sometimes simply cannot support notability of a event if coverage is just lacking, and while we should strive to include such events when the coverage is there, we shouldn't stretch our practices to include them. Masem (t) 01:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I absolutely agree, in this kind of situation the coverage just isn't sufficient sometimes. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    An important thing that NEVENTS says However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose on quality still a stub. JM (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality as a six-sentence stub. The Kip 07:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Fali Sam Nariman[edit]

Article: Fali Sam Nariman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India
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.

Noted Lawyer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose as there are still a few unsourced statements throughout the article. Please ping me once they are sourced. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose 6 unsourced paragraphs/isolated lines. JM (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Abdul Taib Mahmud[edit]

Article: Abdul Taib Mahmud (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1] [2]
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.

Former Chief Minister and Yang Di-Pertua Negeri (Governor) of the Malaysian state of Sarawak. A prominent name in Sarawakian politics as he had formal and informal power over the state for over 40 years. Tofusaurus (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose for now There are two CNs in the Environmental Policy section. Once those are resolved, this can be posted to RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Section has been fixed. Tofusaurus (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support All prior sourcing issues appear to have been fixed, and there are no glaring issues regarding the article's quality. Good for ITN/RD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 20[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports



RD: Ameen Sayani[edit]

Article: Ameen Sayani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India
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: Host of Binaca Geetmala Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose mostly unsourced. JM (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Ihar Lednik[edit]

Article: Ihar Lednik (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Le Monde
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: Reported worldwide, death of a prominent Belarusian opposition figure and political prisoner. I have just created this article, help on expanding would be much appreciated; nominating in order to draw attention to it. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Chrysler Halcyon[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: Chrysler Halcyon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Was in the news; example: CNBC (Post)
News source(s): CNBC
Credits:

Article updated
⚒️★MinecraftPlayer★321⚒️ Let's Chat! 22:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stand corrected, there's an article. Good faith nom, but I still *Oppose MyriadSims (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Good faith nom, but no blurb has been specified. If it was something along the lines of the title of the provided source, I would oppose on notability. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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) RD: Efeso Collins[edit]

Article: Efeso Collins (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3] [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.

Sitting MP for the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, first sitting MP to die in 11 years. -- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support : This is a tragedy and is significant, given his longstanding contributions to Auckland as a world city, as also for the reason stated above. At the very least, he should get a "recent death" mention. 222.152.26.228 (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Preemptive oppose blurb since he's nowhere near the level of Pinera, the last guy to get a blurb and the death doesn't appear to be notable as an event in itself. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as a "recent death" - Collins was an extremely prominent Samoan New Zealander, and alongside Kris Faafoi one of the most high profile Tokelauan people in politics (outside of the Tokelauan government itself). --Prosperosity (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - friendly reminder that notability/relevancy isn't treated as a factor in RD nominations, and that !votes should be instead based on the article quality itself. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk | contribs) 08:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's a good quality article, with lots about his life, mentoring, charity work, the impact he had on society (he played a role in getting Police Ten 7 cancelled), the evolution of his political beliefs, his run for the mayoralty (which sparked a serious debate on the terrible turnout rate in NZ local elections), and the rest of his 25-year political career. It also has a high quality and handsome photo of him, beautiful video of him being celebrated by Sāmoan dancers after giving his maiden speech. I would definitely Support - this is a tragedy for Auckland as a city, and the nation is in mourning. 222.152.26.228 (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, if the bloke who was in Strictly Come Dancing or the guy from Slap Shot gets mentioned instead of Efeso, it would be in very poor taste. 222.152.26.228 (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not the place to dismiss other RD nominations. As the nomination template states, every recently deceased person, animal or organism with a Wiki article is relevant enough to be posted, regardless of what they were known for. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk | contribs) 10:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Robin Windsor[edit]

Article: Robin Windsor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC 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.

2A02:C7C:9241:7B00:8C48:47B6:6279:1761 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still a small amount of unsourced material, unfortunately. Does every entry in the Strictly tables have to be sourced? Also there seems to still be some disagreement over his date of death, which does not seem to have been published anywhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Date of death now confirmed as 20 February. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Multiple unreferenced paragraphs and sections Stephen 05:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Preemptive oppose, but only on the grounds that I strongly feel that Efeso Collins is more worthy of being mentioned. New Zealand is in mourning for him, and by all accounts, the United Kingdom isn't in mourning for Robin Windsor. I'm not dissing him - he seemed like a great guy and his charity work makes him admirable. 222.152.26.228 (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not sure we can do that? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You do realise we can post both of these, right? We don't have to post these one at a time. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk | contribs) 10:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose Needs citation cleanup, I added "citation needed" tags, likely can use existing sources to be put in the right places. Many references are are from the official website rather than an independent source and furthermore a lot of them are bare url's. Otherwise good article. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sources now added. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Paul D'Amato[edit]

Article: Paul D'Amato (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Jensen, Tim (February 20, 2024). "Actor Paul D'Amato Dies; Avid Charity Supporter Throughout Connecticut". Enfield, CT Patch.
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.

Actor with a modest repertoire, but outsized influence due to his scene-stealing appearance in Slap Shot resulting in him becoming the model for the comic book appearance of the character, Wolverine. BD2412 T 15:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose Article still needs work in terms of tone. Moncoposig (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Moncoposig: That is a rather vague criticism, and one that I have not seen in ITN before. Every statement in the article is cited. Can you provide an example of something in the article that "needs work in terms of tone"? BD2412 T 16:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Note: The article has been substantially reworked. I believe this !vote can be disregarded as obsolete. BD2412 T 22:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Article is fully sourced, and after reading through it, I could not find any statements I found to be in a questionable tone. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support For BD2412, tone quality is quite an issue for articles that are being nominated for ITN, but this article has no tone issues that I can find. Good referencing and good length. Looks fine to me. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 22:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Andreas Brehme[edit]

Article: Andreas Brehme (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
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: Successful footballer, best known as the scorer of the goal that won West Germany the 1990 World Cup Abcmaxx (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Sports


RD: Ira von Fürstenberg[edit]

Article: Ira von Fürstenberg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Il Messaggero
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.

Italian socialite and actress. Death announced 19 February. Thriley (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Oppose - 4 CN tags. A bit much, given the length of the article. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him | talk) 08:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral - Sourcing can still be improved upon, but CN tags have been dealt with. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk | contribs) 10:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Kagney Linn Karter[edit]

Article: Kagney Linn Karter (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Mirror
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.

Adult film star Kagney Linn Karter dies at age 36. Heatrave (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Yasmine Gooneratne[edit]

Article: Yasmine Gooneratne (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Sunday Times
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.

She died on 15 February 2024 but her death was reported by Sunday Times only as of today. Unfortunately few sources have reported her demise. Abishe (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak oppose - sourcing on some sections of the article seems kind of sparse. Should probably be improved on before posting. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him | talk) 08:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose for now The article has multiple unsourced statements, and likely needs cleanup. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime


(Posted) British Academy Film Awards[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 77th British Academy Film Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the British Academy Film Awards, Oppenheimer wins Best Film and six other awards, including Best Actor (winner Cillian Murphy pictured). (Post)
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.

Only thing missing is the In Memoriam, seemingly because it hasn't got a source. Otherwise, good prose update and ref for the winners already there. Kingsif (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On every article about the film awards, the information about nods and noms (e.g. The trio of Barbie, Killers of the Flower Moon, and Oppenheimer led the longlists ...) is in the "Ceremony information" section. Shouldn't they be in the "Winners and nominees" section instead? Shouldn't the "Ceremony information" section be named "Ceremony" instead? Is there something I'm missing here? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, do we really need separate sections for the non-recurring awards? Can't we put them together in the awards table? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are talking about things like the BAFTA Fellowship, those don't have nominee lists that are publicly known, so it makes sense to keep them outside the table. — Masem (t) 23:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see why the table has to only contain always-recurring items. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think ITNC is really the place to be chatting about the format of all the film awards articles Kingsif (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
or maybe, copied. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • From previous awards at ITNR, the lists at the bottom that add up the number of noms and wins needs to be sourced. --Masem (t) 22:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The article is of generally good quality and is well-sourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Article looks ready to go. Moncoposig (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Looks fully-cited and well-written. The Kip 03:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted with Best Director as the higher level award. Stephen 05:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I have to point out again that the Statistics section is unsourced, which is what stopped the Emmys from being posted. Either we accept that these are routine CALC and not SNYTH, or this should be pulled until sources are added. --Masem (t) 05:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Just my 2 cents, but I've always been in favor of that material being considered under WP:CALC. The info's already right there in the section above, it's just reformatting what's already there. The Kip 05:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I thought the argument for needing sources was because some editors thought that it was unimportant how many noms/wins something or another had, so the sources were there to show it was considered important - and that, with the Emmys, this was brought up because how many noms/wins various networks had was considered particularly unimportant/irrelevant by those editors (or maybe it's because the networks weren't always listed, so it was SYNTH, but the networks was brought up). As it is, I think it is simple CALC as long as it's only for what is listed, so if we're not concerned with that, it should be fine. Kingsif (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      It's definitely SYNTH, for exactly the reasons you highlight. Particularly so when there are footnotes explaining why certain listings are deemed ambiguous due to whether or not a rising star award is chosen. Either that section should be chopped (or sourced) or the ITN should be pulled. Particularly so as we've not posted the Emmys for the same reason.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      For the Emmys it was shown there were sources that listed what got the most noms/wins (though not necessarily to the same degree as in the RSes), and I do think that there is info for that for the BAFTAs, but I still read the Emmy oppose !votes as more a SNYTH issue in terms of adding up those ourselves and possibly making mistakes in that count. Masem (t) 13:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have removed this deeply controversial section Stephen 00:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And its back already. Masem (t) 01:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've popped a question on whether these sections are SYNTH or not over at WP:NORN, since it feels we need an answer here. — Masem (t) 01:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 17[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: Gamini Jayawickrama Perera[edit]

Article: Gamini Jayawickrama Perera (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Dinamina
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.

Sri Lankan politician, former Minister of Buddha Sasana. Titanciwikitalk/contrib 21:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Johan Galtung[edit]

Article: Johan Galtung (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Dagbladet
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.

Norwegian sociologist, principal founder of the discipline of peace and conflict studies. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mike Procter[edit]

Article: Mike Procter (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
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.

South African Cricketer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Lefty Driesell[edit]

Article: Lefty Driesell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post; Baltimore Sun
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.

Y2hyaXM (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose 3 CN tags. Moncoposig (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Two {cn} tags left. The table after the prose needs sourcing, too. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • One {cn} tag remaining -- or perhaps that paragraph needs to be trimmed down to match the available REFs? The table after the prose still needs a source. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russia takes the city of Avdiivka[edit]

Article: Battle of Avdiivka (2022–2024) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ukrainian forces withdraw from Avdiivka, leading to a Russian victory in the battle. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Ukrainian forces withdraw from Avdiivka, leading to a Russian victory in the battle.
News source(s): BBC;The Guardian
Credits:
  • Oppose as this is covered by ongoing. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Covered by ongoing. --Masem (t) 13:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I will add that this story is falling below the fold in light of Navalny's death. Perhaps if there was more media spotlights on this story there might be reason to cover it outside ongoing, but for now, I think its that Navalny's death just dominating Russia-based news. --Masem (t) 04:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Covered by ongoing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @2G0o2De0ljust to be clear, when you say covered by ongoing, do you mean it doesnt need to be included because the Invasion of Ukraine is listed in ongoing events? Genabab (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Specifically, I mean that the Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present) is listed in ongoing. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest SNOW close per Ongoing. Neutral given the potential significance as a relatively unique development. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support While this is also covered by “Ongoing”, I think that blurbing this is justifiable given the high # of casualties & Avdiivka’s potential value as a logistics hub. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Mainly because it's the first notable change in territory since the fall of Bakhmut in May 2023. Johndavies837 (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per above. This is what ongoing is for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - One of the most significant events in the war so far. We've blurbed events in Ukraine of particular significance before even though the item was in ongoing, I think this justifies a blurb as well. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Bad close While I still oppose the blurb, the consensus has shifted and doesn't appear as clear-cut as when I suggested the SNOW close, I don't think "partial WP:SNOW" is an appropriate closure. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree, though I'm not sure if reopening will be considered wheel-warring of some sort. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since people are still adding !votes I've unclosed this. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of course, we can't say "reopening" here, no, this is an unclosing. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I really don't think this was wheel-warring in any way to "un-close" this. I also believe that despite my objection to blurbing this story this was in no way a WP:SNOW nor was there sufficient time given for everyone to have their say. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In my opinion, it's both. I think the two are synonyms. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was just joking around, it's funny how the first is more natural but the second has kinda become the Wikipedia jargon one. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    When I 1st reopened this discussion, the edit summary I made was “Reopening.” b/c I think that’s the most natural way to say it. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:SNOW continues to be blatantly overused in ITN. It had barely been half a day, and only 4 votes opposing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Half a day, 4 opposes and no supports is enough for SNOW. It's not like one can't reopen it later. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, that is absolutely not enough at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Could you provide your rationale? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Half a day and 4 votes isn't merely enough for a foregone conclusion at all Abcmaxx (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is enough for SNOW, which, like other parts of WP, isn't permanent or foregone. SNOW means that if there seems to be virtually no chance something will pass, close it. A unanimous oppose and five hours in satisfies that criteria. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    5 hours is nowhere near long enough nor are 4 votes unanimous, nor are they enough for that to not be overturned, especially as a lot of nominations concern breaking news and rapidly developing events. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All the votes being 4 opposes is, by definition, unanimous. SNOW does not mean you can't start it again if you are a newer person and do not support it. 5 hours in long enough to make a preliminary close such as SNOW. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was later "partial SNOW closed" after 5 opposes and 3 supports, which was definitely not enough for such a close. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm pretty sure PrecariousWorlds was talking about my SNOW close, at which point all there were was 4 opposes. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Forgot about the first close, my bad. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 02:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - significant shift in the Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Nfitz (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Nfitz: I am assuming you were meant to say Russian invasion of Ukraine? Abcmaxx (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    LOL, yes. Freudian slip! Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as out of the ordinary in this war. Quite a major victory. I'd suggest some more wording about the strategic significance, though I'm not sure how to word it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also support per Maplestrip that this is a wonderful article. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose this isn't a major city like Donetsk or Odesa. Furthermore this was a tactical retreat rather than a decisive military victory. It doesn't mean much militarilly outside of the narrative and propaganda uses either. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "tactical retreat" - is how the Germans sold the retreat from Stalingrad. See also Afghanistan in 2021. Nfitz (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A retreat is a retreat. A retreat egged on by many artillery strikes to prevent encirclement is a retreat. The city has many tactical things, in that it prevents Russia from using Donetsk as a communications hub and breakthrough point. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not doubting that this isn't a military victory, I'm just saying it isn't a particularly significant one. Donetsk still is and will be the main hub die to its significance and size. Avdiivka was lost because Ukraine isn't willing to suffer as many casualties as the Russians are, and ultimately is a small town with very little left in it of any significant military or economic value. Bear in mind Ukraine will say this was a big loss in a push to receive more support in military aid from the West and Russia will claim it's a huge victory because that will drive their propaganda and it's about the only military win they can cling onto since Bakhmut (which also wasn't that significant as it turned out). Abcmaxx (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose doubly covered by ongoing. JM (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose we should decide whether we post all "significant developments", or none of them. I'm under the impression that we have historically chosen the latter (some exceptions like the sinking of the Moskva aside ...), in which case we should avoid posting this too. Banedon (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why do you have that impression? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See the ITN/C archives, e.g. [5] and [6]. Banedon (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Both of these were Pyrrhic but of little tactical significance. I see what you mean though. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It took awhile for reliable sources to confirm exactly what happened in Bakhmut & Mariupol. Also, Bakhmut had little strategic value. I would’ve supported posting the fall of Mariupol & the Russian retreats from Kyiv & Kharkiv if I’d participated in discussions about those events. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose covered by ongoing. The Kip 03:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose covered by ongoing. Polyamorph (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong support – Wow what an article, I would be really proud to show this one off on the front-page. A lot of work by a lot of people to write a detailed description of this long 2-year battle, this feels like what WP:ITN was made for. Excellent update the withdrawal and aftermath too. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would like to refer to WP:ITN#Purpose and point out that this article matches all four items. Our readership is much better served being shown this article directly, rather than keeping it hidden in a two-sentence paragraph in the long broad war article. Even our article on the Battle of Kyiv wasn't this impressive! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong support - A decisive strategic victory of a years-long battle. I think the comparison to Stalingrad is apt. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 13:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I can't oppose this because the supporters are right. This is a major strategic victory, which practically achieves one of Russia's primary goals—that is, fully capture Donetsk. On the other hand, I can't support this on procedural grounds because of the ongoing item, which has been placed there for months with nothing spectacular happening. I proposed a removal of the ongoing item twice and warned that one day a major event would happen that would merit inclusion on its own. That day has cone.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Great article, and while there is ongoing, it's not unprecedented that major events within the context of ongoing are posted to ITN. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Already covered by ongoing. Moreover, the blurb is non-neutral. Grabbing some territory containing burned out buildings while losing 10,000s of troops and 100s of armored vehicles is not necessarily a "victory." Jehochman Talk 18:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It might be a pyrrhic victory, but getting the city absolutely qualifies as a victory. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I understand why this was nominated, but it's unlikely to be a decisive moment in the war. Before the invasion it had a population of 30,000 - a small town. This is a far less important capture than those of Kherson, Mairupol, Sievierodonetsk, and arguably even Bakhmut. Just because the war has largely been a stalemate in the last year doesn't mean we should blurb every advance - that's what the Ongoing entry is for. Modest Genius talk 19:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS. to quote the 'strategic importance' section of the article: "the Russian capture of Avdiivka would not have a strategic impact on the overall war". Modest Genius talk 19:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support alt - normally Id say covered by ongoing, but its a really good article and as a story its gotten enough attention to merit posting on its own. nableezy - 19:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose covered by ongoing, good faith nom though. Hungry403 (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 16[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime


RD: Alain Cribier[edit]

Article: Alain Cribier (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.paris-normandie.fr/id495141/article/2024-02-17/professeur-de-renom-au-chu-de-rouen-alain-cribier-est-mort-lage-de-79-ans
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.

Pioneering French cardiologist. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2024

  • Weak support Well-cited, but a bit short for my liking. The Kip 03:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Idris Ali (politician)[edit]

Article: Idris Ali (politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.deccanherald.com/india/west-bengal/tmc-mla-idris-ali-dies-from-illness-2897354
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.

Indian MP Member of Parliament for the 16th Lok Sabha from Basirhat, West Bengal. --65.94.213.53 (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support I can't see anything particularly wrong with this article. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Are there any REFs to support the date and place of birth listed in the infobox? This should be in the main prose, too. --PFHLai (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: José Gotovitch[edit]

Article: José Gotovitch (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RTBF
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: An important and influential figure in the writing of Belgium's contemporary history. Death only announced on 17 February. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Anyone? —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've done a rudimentary referencing pass on the Background section. The article probably needs some work. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm sorry but I don't understand this. It's cited to two academic articles and a range of press articles. The two points flagged - for which I am grateful - are both entirely uncontroversial and one of them was already sourced. I have fixed both. @Stephen: or another admin. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I saw that the source says in page 2 that he pursued a licentiate degree in history but don't see where it says he finished it in 1961. Now I see it; it's on page 3. I don't see where it says the name of the paper now either.
    Pinging @Stephen since it doesn't work if you edit the ping in. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also, you removed the "in 1961" part as part of Special:Diff/1209218738. I wonder why was that? Anyways, I've restored it now. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bryan Thomas[edit]

Article: Bryan Thomas (architect) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]
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: English architect Ollieisanerd (talkcontribs) 16:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Imtiaz Qureshi[edit]

Article: Imtiaz Qureshi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NDTV
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.

Indian chef. Article is a reasonable start-class biography Article has developed to at least a C-class biography. Rater.js says B-class, but, I think it is a solid C-class. Ktin (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Article appears well sourced Dantus21 (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted, Closed) Alexei Navalny dies[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Proposed image
Articles: Alexei Navalny (talk · history · tag) and Death of Alexei Navalny (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny dies in the Russian Gulag at the age of 47. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny dies in Russian prison near Kharp, Russia at the age of 47.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny dies in a penal colony near Kharp, Russia at the age of 47.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny dies in a penal colony near Kharp, Russia at the age of 47.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ Russian authorities report the death of opposition leader Alexei Navalny in a penal colony near Kharp, Russia at the age of 47.
News source(s): Kommersant; Sky News; Life.ru; The Guardian
Credits:
  • Support-- obvious support here. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. ♠ 11:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- clearly a notable and significant death, especially in the midst of Russia's current condition. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael
  • Support on notability as per above --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support* One of the most important political death of recent times 51.154.145.205 (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support on notability. Reports of this death are already the leading item of news on many publications, in Russian and English. There are some tags in the article that still need addressing. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait The report on his death is one-sided. Alexei's press secretary, Kira Yarmysh: "The Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug is spreading the news of Alexey Navalny's death in IK-3. We have no confirmation of this yet. Alexey's lawyer is currently on his way to Kharp. As soon as we have some information, we will report on it." --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The other side is Russian government which evade answering, if we consider to wait for their respond then I'm afraid we have to wait a life-time. 3000MAX (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, the Russian government is the one which gave their version already. We're waiting for Navalny's lawyer (Leonid Solovyev) to provide independent verification. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Added altblurb2, penal colony is more precise than prison, and describing it as Russian is redundant. Giraffer (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support on notability as a major event in Russian politics, but agree that we should be waiting for confirmation. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support posting altblurb IV given the importance of the announcement either way, and the relative lack of independent verification. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support alt 2 once confirmation is in. Polyamorph (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In the absence of confirmation, support alt 4 for immediate posting. Polyamorph (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support alt 2 if/when confirmation from his team arrives Jaguarnik (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support but wait. This is top news at the moment. However, wait until his death is confirmed. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 12:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    not sure what kind of death confirmation you're waiting for - Putin's press sec has already confirmed that this isn't a mistake - but okay Kasperquickly (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If it's a lie, Putin's the one who would benefit from telling it. If Navalny's own side also says that he died, there's no reason both sides would be lying in the same way Gimmethegepgun (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How would Putin benefit from it, lol? what do you think Navalny's secretly kept alive in a bunker somewhere? Or has escaped prison in the middle of Siberia and is currently on the run?
    Nevermind the severe sanctions that are sure to follow together with the increased arming for the ukrainians, how on earth does putin benefit from faking his deaht? Kasperquickly (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you think that no one has ever falsely announced the death of one of their enemies on purpose? They do so when they believe they have something to gain from announcing their death, but also that keeping them alive might prove useful at some point in the future.
    His death was announced by Putin because he has something to gain from doing so. Why exactly that is isn't something we know, but there's definitely no reason why both him and Navalny's camp would lie and say that he was dead, which is why people here want confirmation from his side as well instead of just taking Russia's word on the matter Gimmethegepgun (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Confirmation of death from Navalny's spokesperson is what we're waiting for. Polyamorph (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    how do u imagine that happening? shes living in the west hasnt been to russia in years? Think shes gonna go undercover into the russian gulag to check whats what? Even if so that would take weeks, months with preparations accounted for. Navalny's lawyer who is factualy in russia has in fact confirmed his death Kasperquickly (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you have a source for that? Kurtis (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    for what? the fact that she resides in the west? literally open her wikipedia article and scroll to the bottom of her biography section Kasperquickly (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, for Navalny's lawyer confirming his death. Which is pretty much what we're all waiting for, actually. She said he was on his way to Kharp an hour ago. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    First of all, its a he, second of all, hes already stated that at the request of his family he's not gonna comment any more on his death Kasperquickly (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The spokesperson (she) said that the lawyer (he) was on his way to Kharp. Do you have any other source actually saying the lawyer confirmed the death? You say he stated it "at the request of the family", but where did he state that? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    literally just google it before asking here
    https://t.me/novaya_pishet/43722
    Адвокат Алексея Навального Леонид Соловьев — «Новой газете»:
    «По решению семьи Алексея Навального я вообще ничего не комментирую. Сейчас разбираемся. Адвокат у Алексея был в среду. Все тогда было нормально». Kasperquickly (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are things that are easy to search and users should be encouraged to check sources themselves. However, this is not one of them - with all search for Navalny's name in Latin script pointing to major news outlets quoting Russian officials - and you would do to provide the source a bit more politely with that in mind. 2A00:23C6:ED9E:D201:D5B8:7566:E08C:C576 (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's also worth noting that Yulia Navalnaya, wife of Alexei Navalny, stated that she wants to wait for confirmation. From Meduza: "Мы не можем верить Путину, они всегда лгут." ("We cannot believe Putin, they always lie."(https://meduza.io/live/2024/02/16/umer-navalnyy-onlayn-meduzy) Jaguarnik (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I checked the website Jaguarnik indicated and did not find that Yulia Navalnaya, stated that she wants to wait for confirmation.
    Yulia Abrosimova spoke in Munich at the KSZE this afternoon in no uncertain terms.https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-68319500 There is no reason to wait to post this news any longer. Wuerzele (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "We can't really believe Putin and his government," she told the Munich Security Conference in Germany. (from the BBC source you linked) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See [8] and search/find for "lawyer" Aaron Liu (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per others. Ecrusized (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support clearly. I think we have the RS we need (NYT, etc. citing Russian authorities). Davey2116 (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support pending confirmation of his death from reputable sources, who have yet to do so as far as I can tell. Kurtis (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support for inclusion, reports for his death are the lead stories for pretty much every global news source this morning.PaulRKil (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, now, no 'pending confirmation' required. ——Serial 13:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment There are a few paragraphs that I saw that lack an ending citation (including one with a quote), so while despite being heavily cited, that needs to be fixed before posting. --Masem (t) 13:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I tagged CNs on these, a total of 8. I suspect most are refs that already exist in the article and/or nearby but just need a ref reuse to cover the information. --Masem (t) 13:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would support blurb on notability, but it may be too soon to say he "dies". If we're to post now, which I think isn't unreasonable, I suggest something to the effect of " is reported dead by Russian authorities". Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed. Most of the news sources ends their report with "authorities say" or "penal service says". So far no independent first-hand reporting from non-government source. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    +1 I agree it's reasonable to post now provided the blurb is clear that this is reported by Russian authorities. Polyamorph (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait for confirmation from his lawyer, and for the 9 cn's on his article to be fixed. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment There's a page about it: Death of Alexei Navalny. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Separate page, at least at this time, is wholly unnecessary, particularly if it is just going to be reaction kudzu. — Masem (t) 13:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support any blurb as highly notable The sum of all human knowledge (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support blub for political murder of leading dissident in Russia. There are ten {{cn}} tags present. It would be a good idea for the nominators or others to patch up as many of these as they can, either by finding a source, or removing dubious or superfluous statements. I will take a quick look to see what I could fix in my limited time available. Jehochman Talk 14:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait With this story, a few cn tags in career prose would not be a major impediment, but as that prose relates to clearly controversial politics and Navalny's arrest, the information should be verifiable before the article is linked on MP. As the article is tagged for presumed dead, I am not sure if it needs a tense update yet or not. Proposed blurbs may need accuracy checks. 2A00:23C6:ED9E:D201:D5B8:7566:E08C:C576 (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Yulia Navalnaya, Alexey Navalny's wife is currently in a live press conference. She appears uncertain about the veracity of state media's claim of Navalny's death. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait until other sources close to Navalny confirms his death (pertaining specifically to his wife and his lawyer). This may or may not be another Lil Tay situation, wherein one side said that the person is already dead, but the other side has not yet confirmed it (and eventually debunked the report). Vida0007 (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of course with Lil Tay it was a publicity stunt by her side. In this case it's his enemies confirming his death. JM (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment There are some articles from Russian news about Anatoly Navalny, father of Alexei Navalny, seemingly confirming the death of his son. However, Kira Yarmysh says that these articles are false and none of Navalny's relatives have confirmed his death. (https://twitter.com/Kira_Yarmysh/status/1758500198442230089) Jaguarnik (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Information Alexei's press secretary, Kira Yarmysh: There have been reports that Alexei Navalny’s father confirmed his death. It is not true. Navalny's relatives did not give such comments. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong Support very significant. I prefer alt blurb 3. Setarip (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait for confirmation as above. Then, support ALT2, oppose ALT3 as the separate death article is a needless WP:CFORK which I have AFDed, and so should not be linked, as it provides no additional encyclopedic value. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait for confirmation, then support ALT2. Also, I'd recommend linking "penal colony" to the specific place like ALT1 does --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support most significant Russian opposition leader, the end of a long period of persecution. JM (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support after it's been confirmed. Suonii180 (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, death of a major political figure Hyder538 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, without any question. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not Ready A quick glance turned up at least a half dozen CN tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support altblurb 3 once the article is ready. Moncoposig (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Notable event, and a death of a popular figure. --cyrfaw (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong support Important political figure, but still under development — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayCubby (talkcontribs) 16:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support. Some tea with your polonium, Mr Navalny? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EXTREMLY STRONG SUPPORT, BUT WAIT Putin may be lying about the death of a political rival, so before we add it, we should at least get confirmation from his family. Redacted II (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Indisputably notable. KlayCax (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Last I checked, reliable secondary sourcing is a requirement before we post someone's death on the main page. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 17:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And we have that? From Sky, The Guardian, The NYT... Aaron Liu (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Sky and Guardian sources in the proposal are based entirely on the official Russian claims, which are known for being untrustworthy. That's not independent sourcing Gimmethegepgun (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of them are reporting what the Russian authorities say, which automatically makes it a question. We need independent sourcing on the actual claim, not something from Russia's govt — Masem (t) 18:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support and NOW. Preferably in version IV, until the little doubt there may be as to the veracity of the report has been quelled. But (at least at the moment of writing this) his article reports his death as a fact, so any of the versions are OK. (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That his article reports the death as fact is a problem with the article, not an argument to propagate the problem here. Sources aren't in agreement yet. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support for posting, and support for stronger wording such as 'prisoner of conscience', 'political prisoner' or 'Putin's opponent'. Supported by sources such as Amnesty International. Melmann 17:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amnesty intentional is known here as a biased but factually true source due to being an advocacy group. Stringing together "opposition leader" and "dies in [prison]" is enough IMO. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support blurb IV This is a major event whether or not he's dead. I'm aware consensus is against me so Support III if and when it's confirmed. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 18:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To clarify, I support posting of IV right now. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 19:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support blurb IV. The news is the announcement. While we should be more careful to say anything too definitive without independent verification for now, it is true that the authorities have reported his death. We can adjust as required later. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support and NOW as major event.
    Already announced by several medias around the globe, and Biden has talked about it...
    To counter counter-arguments, even in the unlikely case it's not true, it would be an event...
    SOURCES:
    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/16/world/aleksei-navalny
    https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/16/politics/navalny-death-biden-trump-divide/index.html
    https://www.lemonde.fr/disparitions/article/2024/02/16/alexei-navalny-de-l-engagement-au-sacrifice_6216957_3382.html
    https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/02/16/reacties-navalny/
    Etc. 2A02:2788:1028:8D5:611A:E2F:9A40:C357 (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The fact that it is an event isn't in doubt, the question is whether we should affirm the veracity of the claims only based on what the Russian government says (as their claim was the one that was reported throughout media, there hasn't been independent verification yet). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Slightly confused about what exactly confirmation might entail. Is there reason to think it's in the government's interests to lie about this? There are many questions about the circumstances, but we're not reporting the circumstances. Why on earth would Russia say he's dead and keep him alive? 2A01:4B00:E809:A00:A912:5EAC:E686:117C (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A relatively simple one would go as such: it's an election year, and announcing his death further intimidates the opposition, but later they could announce "yeah actually no he's still alive lol" in response to criticism Gimmethegepgun (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support the mean blurb, it is indeed a remote gulag, not a regular inside-city perison. Also his death rise questions about Russian terror machine so it'snotible enough. 3000MAX (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also we need to add the point that his death is shady and not a normal natural death. I don't see this fact in any blurb, considering previous assassination attempt of him. 3000MAX (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's Russia, we do not need to state the obvious. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Added article2 There's now a Death of Alexei Navalny article which really should be the main target. Added this to the proposed blurbs as well. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support the original blurb. Now! No waiting ! Close discussion.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support blurb IV for its detail and per above. His death has been confirmed by U.S. Sec. of State Blinken. Hugely noteworthy. That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Two quick points. The President of the United States and numerous high-ranking persons are explicitly blaming Putin for his death. If there was even a chance that he was still alive they would not be making these kinds of statements. Secondly, this is obviously blurb worthy on its merits. The only issue from my perspective is article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support blurb - updated, referenced. ITN soon. Blurb is a given.BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted as "Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny (pictured) reportedly dies in a penal colony near Kharp, Russia at the age of 47." I'm using "reportedly" because the article about the death does not describe it as an unqualified fact yet. Sandstein 21:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • There's at least 5 CN tags, as been previously discussed. Needs to be pulled until fixed. --Masem (t) 21:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Agreed. Too many CNs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      We have never required that articles be fully absent of CN tags. Five in an article of this size, and not on any major points, is acceptable. It's down to two CN tags now. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Sandstein: For the record, I think the use of the word "reportedly" was a smart decision on your part. It emphasizes the lack of credible sources confirming his death, all the while still presenting its announcement and promulgation as a major news event, which it is. Kurtis (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed. I was prepping to post it myself and was going to use a qualifier like that to note it is not 100% certain. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pull There are five cn's, meaning this is not quite ready yet. Article of good quality, as all of the cn's have been fixed. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Adjust the blurb to make the death article the bold link. It's the death which is the event and that article doesn't have any tags. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The death article is 75% or more of just reactions, which is not a good way to write event articles. Also, 5 cn tags should be easily dealt with. Masem (t) 01:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I read both articles and the death article seemed more readable and to the point. The full bio is too big at about 350K and so the death is hard to find there. And the reactions are what makes the death significant. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting support: For an article of this length, 5 cns is alright. It is also pretty easy to add that, especially in this case where they were all removed due to incorrect link rot that was still archived. Now, there's only 1 cn left. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've removed the information connected to the final cn tag, as it basically stated that Navalny lived inside his house while under house arrest. With that, the article is now free of obvious citing issues. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Good job, that's actually pretty funny that someone put a CN tag for Navalny being in his house while under house arrest JM (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Confirmation of Navalny's death from his team: Navalny's spokesperson has confirmed on Twitter that Navalny died yesterday. Giraffer (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    By this we could return using between ALT0, ALT1, ALT2, or ALT3. Suggest ALT2 as it is more clearly worded and linked. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, now that it's confirmed we can label it as confirmed. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note that "reportedly" has been removed since 11:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Aaron Liu (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I know. I was just agreeing with the decision, and pointing out that it was the proper thing to do to wait for confirmation before removing "reportedly". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment How does this "confirmation" change anything? Yesterday, people said the government's announcement wasn't enough to confirm his death, that independent confirmation was needed, and today it's "confirmed" because the government told Navalny's mother? How does this make sense, when in both cases the government is the source? They still haven't seen his body. And for the record, I don't think there was any reason to doubt it when the government announced it yesterday, but this makes no sense. Johndavies837 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's not the government told Navalny's mother (why'd you think that?). It's that the spokeswoman also believes that he's dead. This plus her previous statement that she'll wait for ocnfirmation from a lawyer's visit means confirmation, and we probably don't need any more confirmation for now. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The BBC says Navalny's mother visited the prison today and the prison service (government) gave her a notice saying he died on Friday. This is the same entity which issued a press release on Friday to announce his death. Navalny's team didn't see his body, they were told it was taken to Salekhard and they won't be able to see him until the post-mortem examination is complete. So yes, Navalny's team is simply relying on the notice from the government-run prison. Exact same source as yesterday. Johndavies837 (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We did not take Navalny's mother into account.
    Whatever the reason is, Navalny's team now considers Navalny dead while they didn't yesterday. That is the reason and only reason we count it confirmed. There is no way to speculate the cause here. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In addition to his team, his wife also considers him dead. Wikipedia follows, not leads, so if everyone's reporting him dead, Wikipedia reports him dead. JM (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I understand, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't make sense. The initial argument was that we needed independent confirmation of his death. His team/family now choosing to believe the government's announcement doesn't change the underlying fact that the Russian government is the source. I'm merely pointing this out because I think the government's announcement on Friday was sufficient confirmation, not because I think he's not dead. Either way, case closed. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The fact that his associates and loved ones believe he is dead is enough reason to not hold off on outright stating it as a confirmed fact any longer. At this point, I think it's fair to say that Alexei Navalny is almost certainly deceased. If it transpires that he is somehow still alive, then we can make the necessary changes at that point in time. Kurtis (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment the "reportedly dies" wikilink should be bolded as it is the main article as well. I mentioned this at WP:ERRORS and of was redirected back here but both articles were in the nomination. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was controversial whether it should be included, see above. That article was added to the nomination later. I am also against bolding because... I'm not sure, it'd look weird? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It wasn't controversial at all and the AfD debate gave a very clear consensus. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not talking about whether the article should exist; I'm saying that whether the link should be included was slightly controversial. Masem and Joseph2302 opposed it being linked, and Andrew and the admin who posted supported it. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The AfD only decided that the article should be kept, not that it should be a bolded link (which is a ITN-specific process). For the record, I also oppose bolding as the two links would be visually indistinguishable (cf. MOS:SEAOFBLUE) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Technically, it would be distinguishable as (pictured) interrupts it, but it's still pretty confusing and weird-looking. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, but the (pictured) will likely roll off with the next blurb and then they'll merge. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Right, but the story is that he has died; that IS the main news Abcmaxx (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That doesn't matter as long as we can't figure out a wording that separates the links and isn't any more awkward. Plus, bolding isn't that needed anyways. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well User:Andrew Davidson raised this point and the previous objection were on quality that has long been fixed. The word "(pictured)" seperates it Abcmaxx (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See Chaotic Enby's comment you've replied to. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This really is a non-issue. Not all blurbs have pictures and there's not much wrong in bolding two words in a row, it isn’t a "sea of blue" at all. Much more important we highlight the article that actually covers the story in question. No-one is really going to think his surname or that the article title was Alexei Navalny dies. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The issue is not that someone's going to mistake his surname. It's that people could reasonably think that "Alex Navalny dies" as a whole, including the name, links to the article about hsi death, and get surprised after the click that it leads them to the person, especially since links aren't underlined by default. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My reading of WP:SOB is that two bolded or unbolded links next to each other should be avoided when possible. JM (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What Aaron said, people might interpret "Alexei Navalny dies" as a single link going to his death and be confused. It doesn't really cost much to avoid it, and rewording the blurb could probably be doable (or even, unbolding Navalny and just bolding the link to the death article). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Neither of those articles nor our blurb seems to even mention a key connection:- Navalny's death was announced on the first day of the Munich Security Conference -- the western world's largest annual defence meeting. This was attended and addressed by his wife, Yulia Navalnaya, and the timing of the death made quite an impact. See:
    1. Yulia Navalnaya takes stage at Munich...
    2. Navalny death rocks Munich Security Conference
    3. Navalny death stuns Munich
    We still have work to do...
    Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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.

February 15[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


RD: Fulton Kuykendall[edit]

Article: Fulton Kuykendall (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.ajc.com/sports/atlanta-falcons/former-falcon-fulton-kuykendall-known-as-kaptain-krazy-dies-at-age-70/ZPGZIWPUCZDKRCP3AOA7L37PNU/
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.

65.94.213.53 (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Ready) RD: Roeland Nolte[edit]

Article: Roeland Nolte (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.kncv.nl/k/n1110/news/view/209179/878/overlijden-kncv-erelid-roeland-nolte.html
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.

65.94.213.53 (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Legalisation of same-sex marriage and adoptions in Greece[edit]

Article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Greece (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Hellenic Parliament of Greece votes to legalize same-sex marriage and adoptions, making Greece the first Eastern Orthodox country to do so. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News CNN Reuters
Credits:

This is a historic and significant development for LGBT rights in Greece, especially when they're the first Eastern Orthodox country to legalise same-sex marriage. Tofusaurus (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment - is there any likelihood that this will not become law? I'm not sure whether there's another step after this. --RockstoneSend me a message! 05:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The next step for the bill is to receive assent from the president and for it to be published on the gazette. The bill was proposed by the ND government and was supported by both Syriza and PASOK, the 2 other major parties. I'm not the most familiar with Greek politics but I'd say it's fairly likely it'll become law. Tofusaurus (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose because while perhaps the first Eastern Orthodox country to legalize this, it is far from the first European country and in fact more catching up to the normal the rest of the world has. --Masem (t) 05:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment Same-sex marriage is recognised in just 37 countries, that is hardly 'catching up to the normal the rest of the world has'.
    Traumnovelle (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support from a quick overview of the article it seems good enough. I don't think we should oppose a blurb just because it's not the first on the continent. JM (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per JM. The EO church and its adherents have traditionally broken more socially conservative, and while not quite as much a "woah" moment as it would be if, say, Ukraine or Serbia legalized it, it's still a notable milestone. It's the first nation in the Balkans to have done so as well. The Kip 07:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – Article is impressive and detailed, though it could use a bit more historical context. Level of significance is good. Quick question: does this go in effect immediately? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. While Orthodox, Greece is in the European Union where LGBT agenda is known to be prominent. Likely better fits DYK. Brandmeistertalk 08:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While the expansion on the article the past week has been significant, it isn't actually anywhere near the DYK line. Or do you think the article should go for GA? It does look pretty good. Wouldn't say that "did you know [country] legalized gay marriage in 2024" is a particularly compelling DYK blurb, though. Any particular reason you think this article would work well on DYK? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Struck that, I'm agnostic about DYK now. Brandmeistertalk 20:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose there are >30 countries in the world that have legalized same-sex marriage, so this is not remarkable. You could argue that Greece is the first Eastern Orthodox country to recognize same-sex marriage, but countries are not defined by their religion. Banedon (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose per Banedon. Modest Genius talk 11:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong support - I don't think opposing this on the grounds of Greece not being the first country, or even the first European country, to legalise same-sex marriage, is the right course of action. This is still a significant development in terms of LGBT rights. And even if being a first in *something* had to be a factor (which i.m.o. it doesn't, but it could of course be argued), being the first Balkan or Eastern Orthodox country to do so should be more than enough to fit the criteria. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (he/him | talk) 08:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • For all 200+ counties, if/when they legalize gay marriage, there is nearly always a way to break down some classification of "being first in X" do to this. — Masem (t) 13:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Slovenia was the first Balkan country to legalise same sex marriage. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Both France, Germany, Iceland, the Pitcairn Islands and UK laws didn't make it into ITN and it's rare for a law being passed to make it into ITN, fail to see why same-sex marriage should be any different Traumnovelle (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait until it becomes law, then post the legalisation. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose just as we've opposed it for so many other countries that previously legalised same sex marriages. Being an Eastern Orthodox country isn't a sufficient reason for this to be treated differently to previous countries' nominations for the equivalent legislation. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support As per above, there have been numerous countries that have legalized same-sex marriage, and the number is still growing. Decisions like this we have posted, such as in Taiwan, have usually been due to the country being the first to do so in a geographical region. While that doesn't apply here, this is also the first Eastern Orthodox country to do so. I believe that, because marriage in the Eastern Orthodox tradition is said to be specifically between a man and a woman, and some Eastern Orthodox leaders explicitly denounce same-sex marriage, this is notable enough for ITN. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per 2G0o2De0l. Milestone legalization. Moncoposig (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per the comments --cyrfaw (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, a country legalizing same-sex marriage is ITN-worthy in my opinion. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support First Orthodox Christian-majority country to legalize same-sex marriage. KlayCax (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose largely per Masem. Greece is nominally Orthodox with most people self-identifying as such, but regular church attendance is fairly low and according to Pew Research statistics only around half of all Greeks consider religion an important part of their lives. In short, it is starting to look more like Italy, a country that is nominally Catholic but in practice quite secular. And as noted above, Greece is a member of the EU. So this was coming as inevitably as the sun rising in the east. I think the big story here is that Greece is losing its religiosity. Churches are still crowded during Holy Week, but for much of the rest of the year, it's mostly the older generation, and mainly women. For many Greeks church attendance comes down to baptisms, weddings, funerals, Great Friday and Easter (Pascha). Some will add to that Christmas and their name day. While detailed numbers on church attendance are hard to come by, anecdotal evidence suggests that most of those <30 do so only when obliged for social reasons. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]