Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/August 2025

Support Assassinated journalist. The article looks fine. Gotitbro (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This received widespread coverage, especially given the IDF has admitted to intentionally killing him. Additionally, considering that four other journalists were also killed in this same bombing, I recommend a blurb be included. Something like "Anas Al-Sharif and four other Al Jazeera journalists are killed by the Israel Defense Forces." StereoFolic (talk)
- I would support a blurb, but Israel has already killed 200 journalists and this as such does not singularly stand out. Also would appear to be covered by ongoing. Gotitbro (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD as article looks good quality-wise, oppose blurb as covered by ongoing. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work The article states in Wikipedia's voice that the IDF "falsely claimed that he was a Hamas operative". As I understand it, the IDF presented evidence but the claim is disputed. The word "falsely" seems to be going too far. As this is a contentious topic, we need to be sure that the presentation is neutral. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is the IDF a reliable source? The IDF has been responsible for killing over 230 journalists in in less than 2 years (to put things into perspective, that's more than the ones killed in WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War, the Yugoslav wars, the US post‑9/11 Afghan war, and the Korean War COMBINED). Of course the IDF will lie about his associations. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not reliable <> false. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Since when is this an argument for Wikipedia? IDF is not a reliable source when it comes to this topic, this is not up for debate. Regardless, the issue at hand here is the targeted of a well-known Palestinian journalist and his colleagues while they were in a tent in front of a packed hospital. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a work-in-progress and the phrasing in question has been removed. One reason is that it was supported by The Canary, which has been removed as an unreliable source. More work still seems needed as I notice a Template:Tl for another detail. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support as he was one of the most well known journalists in Palestine covering major events of the genocide in the past years. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb IDF assassinated journalist justifying Hamas without solid evidence.

~~95.183.203.20 (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)~~ -striking IP user comment due to WP:ECR on ARBPIA -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 12:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurb - One of 200 journalists killed by Israel, and this specific journalist doesn't stand out as highly-influential. Didn't even have an article till yesterday. — ^EF⁵ 07:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People have used this same argument for the other 200 journalists... That's exactly the issue with what Israel is doing, it is killing so many at such a fast rate that people can't keep up and grief each life. I'd say Anas was very well known in Palestine, and outside Palestine - we literally had a call with him last week during a protest in the Netherlands. Feels surreal to hear he was murdered - and in front of a hospital no less. I think the fact that there are no Al Jazeera journalists left, how known he was, and the way he was killed, should grant his name on the Recent Deaths. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because when people die en-masse it usually takes away from the individual importance of their death (albeit all 200 deaths are obviously important). It’s sort of like posting one single victim of a bombing that claimed 200 lives, in my eyes. And ongoing also covers this. ^EF⁵ 08:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but in this case Israel had already for months threatened to murder Anas. This was a targeted assassination. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even taking that into account, how many other people have the IDF targeted for assassination? We're picking one name out of the hat to make that featured when there's still a huge number left over, which is why we should let the ongoing cover this rather than feature one individual. Masem (t) 12:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb. This page is "In The News" and this is getting big coverage - certainly here, it's the top story on the BBC front page and most other UK news orgs. Black Kite (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems to be OK in terms of quality for an RD. But we don't normally blurb events covered by an event already listed as "ongoing" (in this case, Gaza war), except for the most exceptional or important developments, which this does not seem to be. Sandstein 11:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb on the basis that the amount of deaths in Gaza by the IDF, including that of journalists and aid workers, is covered by the ongoing, and it does not make sense to elevate the death of one journalist, even if this was a very influencial journalist, above all the others (particularly those that are actually trying to live in Gaza) to be a blurb, it actually would look really bad. RD is fine in this situation, though in terms of quality, the article could be a bit cleaner. Masem (t) 12:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, since this mass killing of journalists in a single airstrike has been widely covered by all international news organizations. And I believe it's of particular importance to this encyclopedia, since we rely on reliable news sources for our content. -Darouet (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, covered by ongoing. Support RD article seems good enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, add to RD, part of ongoing. Why make it a top news story of one journalist's death in war instead of others? To put it in perspective: Cnn: 2024 Deadliest year for journalists. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurb, covered by ongoing. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - especially given the limited press freedoms permitted during this genocide. Lf8u2 (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Covered in ongoing. Atrocious war crimes have been committed by both sides. This doesn't stand out compared to what is occurring on a near daily basis and it is already fading from news coverage. Neutral on RD until NPOV concerns raised have been resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both sides argument? This is ridiculous. Israel has killed over 230 journalists in less than two years, no wonder the news coverage is fading! Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that was disquieting. "This doesn't stand out compared to what is occurring on a near daily basis", yes but perpetrated by Israel rather than random occurences or events of armed conflict. Neither are any POV issues apparent to me at the article (those highlighted by Andrew appear to have been resolved). Gotitbro (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:RGW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RGW is an essay, not official Wikipedia guildelines by the way. In this particular article, trying to be "neutral" is taking the side of the perpetrator. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Death as the main story, this seems to a more widespread story than previous Israeli killings of journalists since they declared they planned to assassinate him. --Spec tral Ion 22:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD – Notable individual, article is in good shape. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, Support RD The Netanyahu regime is committing war crimes daily in Gaza, including the targeted assassination of journalists. By necessity, that is covered by ongoing in all but the most radical of cases, or else we would become a Gaza updates ticker. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 23:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as RD for now. Please continue the discussion whether this should be upgraded to a blurb. Schwede 66 03:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assassination of Anas Al-Sharif quit fine not going now @Schwede66 QalasQalas (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) More than 500 arrested in support of Palestine Action

Comment Sad turn of events (the designation and arrests) but I am afraid this is covered under the ongoing Gaza war where events of much more significance are the mass starvation and occupation approved by the Netanyahu cabinet. Gotitbro (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that's fair enough. Makes sense to not have overlap. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)^talk 21:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As authoritarian as these arrests are, it's covered by ongoing Nfitz (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vaguely support concept, oppose it as it stand currently I'd be fine with posting this, but the current blurb is insufficient and the target article needs to be the protests/arrests not the organizers of the protests. Scuba 22:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I feel there are two issues with this nomination. Firstly, I think the target article should be the primary subject of the article, the protests, rather than any secondary subjects. Secondly, as others have already pointed out, I feel this is already covered by ongoing. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support but the wording is definitely biased. This is not in "UK Politics" but "UK policing/law and order". And in the UK you quite obviously don't get arrested simply for showing support for direct action groups. And I think even that phrasing underplays the frightening nature of a group that's prepared to enter military bases and mess with safety critical equipment. In a country where until recently, "direct action" merely meant breaking windows, climbing infrastructure (that's not on military bases) and generally glueing yourself to things. Mainly for annoyance and financial harm, where the worst you could say was that innocent people may have died due to their actions because ambulances were delayed. These people however, could easily be directly responsible for deaths if they aren't very careful about what they do and don't mess with. And that means they risk being shot by UK military personnel if the threat is immediate and there's no realistic alternative. So don't be running toward any radars with hammers ignoring shouted warnings by figures in camouflage gear, would be my advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRIPPY42 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC) Template:Small[reply]
Spray painting UAVs is not something anyone would call "frightening". This is milder than anything Just Stop Oil did but even that wasn't designated terror. Ludicrous assertions to base notability on. Gotitbro (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose covered by ongoing + nowhere near the significance/coverage of other protests that we didn't post. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose covered by ongoing and not that notable. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if we’re not going to post protests with 5 million participants, why the heck are we seriously considering a protest with 500? ^EF⁵ 16:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I am not very educated in this so I sorry if this is wrong but it seems like the government is arresting people for supporting a designated terrorist group. That seems pretty routine/normal. People committed a crime, they get arrested, and there is no mention of notable people being arrested. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, those arrested included Jonathon Porritt and Moazzam Begg. Observer. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a group which has very recently been designated as a terrorist group by government fiat. Unlike every other proscribed group in UK law, it has only ever caused property damage and never directly harmed or threatened any person. These moves are widely viewed (rightly or wrongly) as a heavy-handed and draconian attack on freedom of speech, particularly in the area of criticism of the government's perceived support of the current government of Israel. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) Crystal Palace win the Community Shield

Oppose good faith suggestion but the level of football additions has to be higher than what the nominator himself has described as often a "glorified friendly". An event of low importance doesn't become more important because its new winner is a smaller team. For the uninformed, this is at least the fourth honour of English football (open to debate whether the EFL Championship means more given its stakes) Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the end of season Championship playoff, featuring two of the 3rd to 6th best teams in the second tier, you're winning the right to probably get beaten more than you win in the following Premier League, before going back down again. In the Community Shield, you're settling who is the better team, the winner of last year's Premier League or last year's FA Cup, the two most prestigious domestic trophies. So by definition, the Shield has more honour attached. It's only seen as a friendly (by some) because it's held at the start of the season rather than the end, so, like today, you see a lot of new players bedding in. And since it is only a standalone match, with the two more prestigious trophies to come, it's seen as less important. But it's still seen as a victory in a competitive match any player and manager wants to win. If, as happened here, it doesn't go the way the odds suggest, questions are immediately asked about the fitness of the favourites to win the two better trophies to come. I definitely only proposed this because it's seemingly part of a wider trend in English football where the big boys are getting beaten on a more regular basis by this group of second ranked teams. So players like the Palace defender or the Newcastle striker who have been heavily touted as Liverpool's next acquisitions, might want to think again. Albeit the transfer market seems to show players are still basically motivated by money and past glories, not their actual chances of winning a trophy with team X and manager Y in this new successful second rank group. Arsenal, City, Chelsea, all trophyless last year. The effort by UEFA to further reduce the appeal for a player who might want to join the currently flying high Palace or other second ranked teams, rather than the likes of the faded joke of a club Manchester United (and City?), chokers Arsenal, unpredictable Chelsea, or might not be all that nailed on title favourites Liverpool, only adds to the intrigue. If anything, we might never be getting a so called routine Community Shield between the likes of Chelsea/City/Arsenal/Liverpool ever again. No longer a routine glorified friendly where who wins doesn't really matter. If Liverpool are poor title defenders this season, the signs were likely first exposed here, by Palace, and in their prior Carling Cup defeat to Newcastle. A leaky defence and paying star player Mo Salah for what he's done, not what he can do in future. Because he was totally anonymous today, as he was in the Carling Cup final. And then this starts to look less like an upset given at least two Palace players, Guehe and Wharton, are being tipped for the England side at the forthcoming World Cup off the back of successes like this, which were hardly a surprise. OliversArmyWinsDaTing (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't 2025 FA Community Shield be the target article here since it's the event/subject of the news article? Edit: added news source since nom omitted one.5.57.243.123 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! Cheers ;-) OliversArmyWinsDaTing (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. England has competitive league and cup. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose We already have many football items, and the Community Shield represents the lowest of all ‘competitive’ cups in English football. To post it would be to effectively say any and all football in England is worth posting. We should probably be limiting the football items we already regularly post, not adding a pre-season pseudo-friendly to the pile. And no, no fancruft essay on how cool this individual game was will sway this, so don’t even try. Kingsif (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t rank as a competition at all in that sense, it's a super cup. A standalone game. Trying to rank it alongside the 38 game Premier League, and the several games needed to win the FA Cup or League Cup, is daft. But if you tried to argue that somehow winning the FA Cup / Premier League and then this trophy, was less of an achievement than winning the League Cup, which these days sees teams play their backups or youngsters due to fixture congestion, people would think you were a sandwich short of a picnic. Certainly quite ignorant of football (and therefore, probably not English at all). It's easily the third "best" trophy in English football, for anyone who feels the need to think in these frankly extremely simplistic terms. And the third best trophy in the biggest football nation in the world, will obviously be more worthy than the top competion in pretty much all the other countries in the world. Just like the Pro Bowl (if it was still actually a real game) would outrank, in that crude sense, any SuperBowl not played by NFL teams. FletchTheWretch (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support The Premier League is the de facto top domestic league in the world, and the FA Cup is the most prestigious domestic knockout competition in the world too. So why on Earth would people not be interested in the resulting super cup final? It's only fixture congestion that means it opens the season. If it was at the end, there'd be no doubt it would be hailed as the greatest football game in the world, bar the World Cup final of course. FletchTheWretch (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Close, nominator's been blocked for sockpuppetry. Also this is a Mickey Mouse cup, the result of the match doesn't stop it being a glorified friendly Kowal2701 (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Kunishige Kamamato

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2025 August 9 Template:Cob

Oppose There are several unsourced paragraphs in the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
using vote for not ready would be more useful EditorShane3456 (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you say that, Template:U. This is for recent death, which automatically qualifies once an article is decent. When you say "oppose", you are saying that it's not ready. For news items, that's a completely different story, as "oppose" can mean that you don't think it's notable, or that the article isn't ready, hence there's a need to be more specific. But for RD, "oppose" is just fine. Schwede 66 23:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few paragraphs have remained footnote-deficient. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 9

(Closed) 80th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

Oppose While this blurb is aimed around the ceremony of the event (as I had suggested on talk) and not strictly the anniversary (which was covered on Aug 6th OTD), the article has no mention of the actual ceremony, outside of the update to the number of deaths attributed to the bombings. And given this seems to be done annually, its hard to see why we'd post a X0th ceremony without the ceremony being a significant event in of itself. Masem (t) 20:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think its notable that dignitaries from 90 different nations came, that the survivors spoke about frustration at the current state of the world regarding both war and nuclear politics and that it was noted by multiple organisations that israel dignitaries were not invited and that chinese dignitaries did not attend (Al jazeera notes that this anniversary is also the first time a russian dignitarie was invited since the russian invasion [17])

but on the other hand i also see what you mean in regards to the article failing to be meet relevance to the blurb. this is however, the best article i could find on this honestly. i can also see counter points to what I view as notable about the event in that (asside from maybe those who didnt appear) that this generally all excepected of a being anniversary of such an event AssanEcho (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears stale-ish, should have covered this on the day of the bombings as this is ever more relevant now (the doomsday clock has never been more closer to midnight). Gotitbro (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean and even totally agree, but its just that i didnt know about this yesterday and evidently nobody else nominated this before me so its just the unfortunate nature of things. AssanEcho (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Better for an OTD. ^EF⁵ 22:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Should be OTD. Also why not Hiroshima instead? No prejudice against relisting for the 100th anniversary of Hiroshima on August 6, 2045. Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No notable news event is happening today, it would be better for OTD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we have "Today's Featured Article" and "On this day" literally for things like this. The actual commemoration in 2025 isn't a major event. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stale by 80 years. Would be a good fit for Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries. –DMartin 23:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

RD: Ray Brooks

Oppose Article is orange-tagged and entire filmography is unsourced. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Audu Ogbeh

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2025 August 8 Template:Cob

Support but needs some work, updated death section.

QalasQalas (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is well-sourced and of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Posted – Schwede 66 03:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 8

(Posted) RD: William H. Webster

Not Quite Ready A handful of CN tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should we blurb him? He's listed as a Level 5 vital article and is the only person to be both FBI director and CIA director. I'm neutral on a blurb for now, but in the meantime, support RD since the CN tags have been fixed. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 15,000 people with level 5 vital articles, most of them are likely unblurbable. RachelTensions (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, and like I said, I'm neutral on whether he should be blurbed. I was simply bringing it up for potential consideration. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the article is sourced, there is barely any information besides his appointment for his tenure as FBI director. Can this be even slightly expanded? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support sufficient quality, well-cited. –DMartin 08:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as ready since several people have agreed that the concerns have been fixed and there are no new ones. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted – Schwede 66 03:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted blurb) RD/blurb: Jim Lovell

Blurb - I’m usually against blurbs for old people who have died, but it’s a quality article and Jim Lovell is a highly-influential person in his field. One of the first three people to see the opposite side of the moon and one of only three people in history who have managed to survive a spaceflight in a heavily-damaged craft. ^EF⁵ 19:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb. Apollo 13 commander who helped turn failed moon mission into triumph of on-the-fly engineering. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - exceeds quality requirements substantially. Would support a blurb. Polyamorph (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb Featured article. A legend. Grimes 2 19:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - no article quality concerns (it's an FA). Extremely well known figure in and outside of the aerospace community; popularity further boosted by Apollo 13 (film).
WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the blurb suggestion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Article in good shape and article does establish how Lovell is influential in his field. In the coming hours, I wouldn't be surprised with the influx in article viewership and international obits either. Also the man was one of three people to see the opposite end of the moon. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb FA article and well known American space icon. --Engineerchange (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb I found one statement that needs a CN but one or two's is not a significant issue, and probably should be easily sourcable. Article demonstrates why he was a great figure clearly, and already high quality otherwise. Masem (t) 19:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - But I'd pump the brakes on a blurb, as his death was not unexpected and there have been astronauts of arguably similar caliber to Lovell who were not blurbed. While I recognize Apollo 13 was a legendary mission on account of the risks involved and the danger averted, it will be difficult to communicate that importance to readers in comparison to the other "firsts" of space flight (which admittedly he had Apollo 8 as one of them). I think a greater argument needs to be made about why Lovell in particular merits the stand-out attention compared to other highly-regarded astronauts at NASA, such as Jim McDivitt, who was not blurbed. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What immediately stands out is the lack of any type of legacy section in McDivitt's article to explain how he was a major figure (and not simply an astronaut that had some historic missions), whereas Lovell's has that. I agree that not every astronaut should merit a blurb, and also just being one on a key historic mission is not sufficient either. Masem (t) 20:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Lovell's article does a good job at establishing why he's at the top of his field, extending a bit further than just simply an astronaut. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You want to have a go at writing one? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD. Neutral on Blurb - I'm not too sure if he should blurbed but given how the article is an FA I feel that this should be posted to rd already or at least labelled ready. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb Featured article. Well-known astronaut who took part in several historic spaceflights. MidnightMayhem (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - Great article, legendary man. Jusdafax (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Featured article. Top of his field. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 20:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Featured article (!) of someone with a lasting impact. What ITN was made for. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb. Augustresende (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Blurb Featured Article QalasQalas (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish those supporting a blurb here did the same for Frank Borman’s death given that Borman was a more prominent figure in the field of human spaceflight than Lovell (note that Borman’s article was also featured at the time of that nomination even though that’s not a valid criterion to support a blurb). I don’t want to be the party-pooper and the first one to oppose a blurb, but it’d not be fair for Borman and his legacy if Lovell gets a blurb. Did we really lower the criteria for a death blurb in less than two years?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that Lovell is probably more well known outside of the aerospace community because of the movie Apollo 13. I would have supported a blurb for Borman if I was editing at the time. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apollo 13 was a failed mission as it didn’t achieve its objective, and popularity gained through a film documenting the story doesn’t make someone significant or transformative in their field. He may be more well-known outside of the aerospace community than Borman, but that doesn’t make a stronger case for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether "fair" or not, being the subject of a film documentary which increased his fame and popularity makes him more of a "major figure" than Borman. Natg 19 (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are documentaries about mediocre people in many fields because of interesting stories, but that doesn’t mean they’re more significant than other greater figures. This is an encyclopaedia and someone’s significance should be established on the basis of their contribution within the respective field, not as a result of popularity gained through the show business.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I got into trouble last week for saying that RDs of household names are more likely to get blurbed than transformative figures that people haven't heard of. To be honest, other than Armstrong and Aldrin, the actual first people on the moon, you probably can't separate the Apollo astronauts in terms of how transformative they are. So it ends up that the few that most people have heard of are the ones we blurb. Michael Collins got a blurb in 2021, I guess his claim to fame is being the third man on Apollo 11. Lovell gets the nod because of his role on the failed mission Apollo 13 and of course we've all seen the movie where Tom Hanks plays him. Borman, on the other hand, not such a household name unless you're a space buff or were alive at the time of the missions. But he was transformative as the commander of the first mission to go around the moon. It's not necessarily a bad thing to blurb the people that readers have heard of, and I don't oppose blurbing Lovell. I imagine that's what readers expect from us. But we should probably be more explicit that that's what we do. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I am looking for whether we have, in the article, sources affirming the person was considered a great figure (beyond just fame), as to avoid the original research of WP editors making that claim themselves. Lowell's has it, Borman is not quite there with that. Masem (t) 12:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb And for the record, I did support a blurb for Frank Borman, as well as bringing both articles to Featured. Lovell was the last surviving member of NASA Astronaut Group 2. His death means that the oldest living astronaut is now NASA Astronaut Group 3 astronaut Buzz Aldrin. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Article quality is best in standard (as it is a FA), and the notability aspect should be self explanatory. Good to go. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 22:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, I did not spot any glaring issues with the article. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, clear consensus for a blurb. Step hen 22:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting support blurb. BilboBeggins (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting support blurb Jim Lovell was one of the most popular astronauts in the 1970's due to their feat they made on Apollo 13. And also one of the oldest astronauts in history, does absolutely deserve a blurb for dying. EditorShane3456 (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting support blurb: have huge impact on apollo 13. ROY is WAR Talk! 02:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expand blurb The blurb seems too bland and lacking in specific context. It could use a mention of Apollo 13 as I didn't recall that this was his mission. I've suggested an alt. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blurbs should not be expanded beyond the basic details, as that's going to lead to more debate as to how to identify what is important about a person, and blurbs are supposed to be concise. Also, those types of details are better left for the article to communicate. Establishing he was an American astronaut is sufficient. Masem (t) 14:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the widely watched movie that will be the main reason why people will know of Lovell, it would be smart to add that context to the blurb. It also doesn't have to be long. For examples:
Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell (pictured) dies at the age of 97. (one extra word)

American astronaut Jim Lovell (pictured), the commander of Apollo 13, dies at the age of 97. (five extra words) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to either of these blurbs, with preference for the longer one with "American astronaut". Natg 19 (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to either of these as well. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the words to T:ITN per the above. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We don't editoralise blurbs in this fashion. This was discussed and rejected at Errors yesterday. Please revert back to the agreed consensus version that has been io for days. — Amakuru (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editorialising is expressing an opinion. But command of Apollo 13 is not an opinion – it's a basic fact and the main claim to fame of the subject. The expanded blurb is still much shorter than the blurb about the helicopter crash. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement

~~WAIT too early to POST NOW~~ Suppprt/Altblurb2 QalasQalas (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Signing hasn't actually occurred, target article hasn't been updated, and if this agreement actually goes through, it may make sense to have a separate article for the agreement. ForsythiaJo (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peace agreement now signed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability, a major regional conflict is closer to a resolution than ever.Trepang2 (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. Page has not been adequately updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work, lots of work. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a poor target for this as that region doesn't seem to be the focus of this. The Zangezur corridor is better but doesn't explain the details well. The text of the declaration indicate that the details have yet to be hammered out and signed. The main impact seems to be that this sees the US taking over the mediation role which Russia previously had. And the OSCE Minsk Group seems to be terminated. Turkey seems to have an interest in this too but their part is unclear. A specific article which ties all this together would be best. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, technically that's a declaration to formalize the text of future peace treaty to be signed later. Still newsworthy in my opininon as a major step, so added altblurb. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The alt links to a new article which ought to be the target. That’s better: Armenia–Azerbaijan peace agreement.
  
  Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson I concur QalasQalas (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read today, the proper peace treaty will be signed on 11 August. Perhaps we can wait. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt Blurb important event Braganza (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Support Alt Blurb Possibly the end of a 37 year long conflict GodzillamanRor (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support unless Russophiles topple the government this marks the end of one of the major post-Soviet conflicts and opens a new chapter in Caucasian geopolitics. Scuba 22:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I came here to nominate this myself. Details of the agreement notwisthstanding, the basic premise is that this document politically ends the end the 37 year long Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Found5dollar (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support a historic agreement, which meets WP:ITNSIGNIF. And article about agreement (which is the one we should have in bold) meets WP:ITNQUALITY. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The joint declaration text should be summarised. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Joseph2302. Historic event, and the agreement article is good enough. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 02:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously historic moment and article on the agreement is fine quality-wise, if not a tad short. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose ink on paper until anything on the ground changes over Zangezur.46.71.192.180 (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, um, there is ink on paper, so... DarkSide830 (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, misread. But still, what would be the criteria proving something has "changed" here exactly? DarkSide830 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The agreement is a framework for the future peace deal, rather than a binding peace deal. It is still quite possible that the entire thing will fall through, since, in particular, Azerbaijan demands that Armenia amends its constitution before a binding peace deal is signed, as explained in this Reuters story[18]. However, compared with the previous state of affairs the agreement is a major development. Nsk92 (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's inaccurate to describe this as the end to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as it has basically nothing to do with it. If we mean the territorial conflict, that's been over ever since Azerbaijan reconquered it. If we mean the ethnic conflict (i.e. the right of ethnically cleansed Karabakh Armenians to go home), that conflict is ongoing. Either way, all this deal does is gift Azerbaijan a US-controlled corridor. That's a lot less exciting than the erroneous "end to the 37 year long conflict" description. Vanilla Wizard 💙 15:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a landmark peace deal in the caucasian mountains which has been in a jumbleidoodle of conflict since 1991. shane (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support altblurb time to post it. Notable and historic. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support altblurb 1 as it is succinct and more accurate than altblurb 2. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 doesn't read right. Shouldn't it be "... to formalize Template:Font color future peace treatyTemplate:Font color ending the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" – changes highlighted.
Template:@ITNA Something will have to be done... _-_Alsor (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted – Schwede 66 23:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Grass Wonder

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2025 August 7 Template:Cob

Support article is well cited and extremely detailed. It’s always interesting to see a non-human RD. –DMartin 23:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Finally a non-human RD. The article is also well cited and detailed. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support article seems to be in good shape and quality, well sourced. and I do agree its always interesting to see a non-human RD. Guy141 (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several unsourced short paragraphs which can be quickly fixed. It'll be ready for RD once this is addressed. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 4 {CN} tags in the prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 7

(Posted) RD: Myint Swe

Wait Two CN tags, including one for birthplace. I'd like to see verification for it before I support. Jmanlucas (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Support. It was really easy to fix the tags so I just went ahead and did it. Jmanlucas (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Comment there's some unsourced lines. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)~~ Fixed the remaining cn tag. May be good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) US tariffs

Gaismagorm (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NTRUMP Ion.want.uu (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is not a standalone event and can be added to the article. It doesn't need to be an ITN. Trump doesn't look to stop tariffs and we can't continue to be putting them in the news.

Heatrave (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

at the very least wait a little bit. The stock market isn't even open right now. We won't know the true effects until a bit later. If it crashes the stock market, or (somehow) causes it to have an enormous jump, then support in terms of notability. If nothing really comes of it (at least not immediately), then I don't know.

Support in principle The tariffs taking effect is a notable and unusual event that could have significant effects on the global economy. As per Gaismagorm, it may be better to wait and see if any such effects arise, and then blurb those. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Despite the delay, a continuation of the story we already posted about the trade war created by the tariffs from March. Masem (t) 12:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose NOT everyday it's already POSTED on March. QalasQalas (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third time I’m saying this in the past few days, but “welcome to the US”. Oppose as these were posted in March and still continue. ^EF⁵ 13:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The tariffs posted in March are the not the same as the tariffs that went into effect yesterday: those were specifically against Canada, Mexico, and China, but the tariffs from yesterday are wide-reaching, involving dozens of countries. Natg 19 (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the others are correct in that this was posted, but these "Liberation Day tariffs" were posted in April (not March). 18:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - tariff rates for goods from various countries and categories seems to be changing on a near-daily basis in that country. I really don't think yet another change on local consumer taxes on goods (and services?) is particularly. Particularly as these are all relatively small trade partners. The rates on the 3 largest trade partners (Mexico, China, Canada) aren't even changing. Nfitz (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. IDB.S (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:ITNTRUMP. ROY is WAR Talk! 02:30, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing this meets all the thresholds for ongoing- it's an ongoing event with frequent updates and articles are constantly updated. The notion that we cannot put something onto ongoing without it first being a blurb is ridiculous- this is exactly the sort of article that should be on ongoing. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2025 August 6 Template:Cob

August 6

(Posted) RD: Salvador Chuliá Hernández

Support Article ok. A less known composer of regional scope. Grimes 2 23:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: David Dale

Not Ready It's a stub and orange tagged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole wikibio has only 219 words of prose and just one source. DoB was tagged for being OR. More work needed, with time running out for this nom. --PFHLai (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Eddie Palmieri

Support. Looks good. BD2412 T 17:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks adequate with no major issues. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not Ready Per Alexcalamaro. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the Discography section is unsourced. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discography has remained orange-tagged for lack of sourcing. There are also multiple footnotes in the main prose tagged for failed verification. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lloyd A. Williams

Support The article is short but looks good enough for RD. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Leonard Lopate

Not ready due to a handful of citation problems. –DMartin 18:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Career section is orange tagged, and with good reason. Please fix citation issues as soon as possible. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 01:54, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Career section has remained orange-tagged for inadequate sourcing. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited everything. Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ready Took some work but articles is now of sufficient quality. –DMartin 18:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Military Aircraft Crash in Ghana

Are you asking for a blurb, or a usual RD nomination? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This makes more sense as an accident blurb, which had some notable people among the dead, than a RD blurb. Masem (t) 15:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly i do not know the best fit and leave it to moderators to decide. But it definitely needs a blurb. A former deputy minister was also involved in the crash Heatrave (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping The way you worded it would only fit for a blurb, I've updated the nomination. You should make separated RD noms for the deceased individuals though. –DMartin 17:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb until at the very least the crash has a standalone article. –DMartin 18:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel this might work better as two separate RD nominations, if there are no other impacts from this helicopter crash. Khuft (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality due to lack of article on the crash, per above. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality per above. There does seem to be sources that can easily be used to create the article and demonstrate notability. It's primarily a question of who will create the article and make it sufficient enough for this nomination. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources like news reporting don't demonstrate notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could have the two biographies be two bolded links if anyone wanted to fix up Edward Omane Boamah. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait… I'll try to do something. ArionStar (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can help. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to oppose since the target article does not currently demonstrate notability. I'd be open to support if it was switched to the two biographies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the crash article, can we please lose the excessive Reactions section? Statements of "hopes and prayers" from leaders of other countries without any type of action or support for resolving the effects of the crash are clutter and don't help the article. Masem (t) 12:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support/AltBlurb Significant event

QalasQalas (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Article now exists and is in good shape, although the aftermath section could be expanded a bit (however this is not a deal breaker for me since I understand it's been a day since the accident). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support multiple famous politicians among the victims. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt 2 Ready. ArionStar (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added altblurb3. I don't see the reason why we need an image for this blurb if the image is not directly related to the event since a "similar" helicopter is irrelevant to the crash in question. I also think we don't need to be so verbose with information in the blurb since that's what's the article is for. Edit: Rephrasing.5.57.243.123 (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability and quality article now in existance and all the previous quality issues mentioned look to have been fixed, article is now well sourced and of adequate length. Significant tragedy. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Alt Blurb 2) - Two major politicians among 8 total victims, seems notable. --DannyC55 (Talk) 22:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to to use the most verbose version of the blurb though since blurbs are supposed to be concise. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's in the news per nom and the article is decent enough. Also, we have established by precedent that mass-casualty incidents resulting in the deaths of far more junior legislators/officials can be posted. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 03:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:@ITNA ArionStar (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I've used ALT3 as the basis for the blurb, but copy edited it and added the names of the two ministers. Schwede 66 01:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific fraud

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2025 August 5 Template:Cob

Comment I think that this would be a better blurb if it were referring to a specific paper mill, or to a specific collection of paper mills. Saying that paper mills in general threaten scientific integrity seems less verifiable to me. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is no clearly identifiable event here that is suitable for ITN. If some relevant article can be improved to FA status or something relevant can be nominated for DYK, that would be a more reasonable way to have a main page item on the topic. Nsk92 (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nsk. People are constantly making studies on things, what makes this one blurbable? ^EF⁵ 19:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, oppose on quality this is the news reporting on a just-published scientific peer reviewed paper evaluating the scope of fraud in scientific publishing. It is similar to past reports of scientific events and should be looked that through that lens. And this is an important topic because such fraud threatens the typical science publishing model. Quality is somewhat poor with some unsourced paragraphs and while I can see it uses mid paragraph cites which is normally fine in scientific writing, is not WP's style. Also likely more can be written in the update to explain the significance of the problem Masem (t) 13:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What do we mean when we say in Wikipedia voice that research paper mills are a "major industry"? How do we classify that and maintain that with reliable sources? _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how the NYT puts it,Template:Quotewhile Science says Template:QuoteBut, reviewing this, I think we can lose the word "major" and so I've trimmed it.

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this isn't an event. It's a trend. It's a depressing trend, but still just a trend. There isn't one specific reason why this should be posted at this moment. How would we order it in terms of chronology? I suppose the article is important, and once again it's something we all need to look out for, but it's still just a trend. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is "in the news" as that's where I found it this morning. Our stated purpose includes:

To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.

On the latter point, note that the current blurbs are 3, 7 and 10 days old and so are no longer in the news. This item would therefore improve the current stale set.

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PingI think the "event" was meant to be this study which was published on the 4th, but that wasn't clear from the blurb. I've added an alt. –DMartin 18:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I have no opinion. I was primarily concerned that it wasn't an event. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody wants to strikethorugh my original Oppose comment, please do. Uh, Wikipedia is buggy and my browser crashes whenever I try to edit the source of a semi-protected/extended-protected/any other protected page. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and close this is not news. –DMartin 18:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Retraced. See below. –DMartin 18:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb that makes it clear this is information from a new study. –DMartin 18:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb on notability I was skeptical about the original blurb, since it didn't reference anything "in the news", but the altblurb corrects that. Oppose for now on quality as there are only two short sentences about this new study. If the new insights get fleshed out more, I'm willing to fully support. Khuft (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality per above. Undecided on notability. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle but suggest that we need a more narrow target article before we push this to front This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle I like the idea of this blurb, but I don't like that its phrased more like a change over time rather than an event/study being released. I also don't like that there isn't really a unique target article, only a small section regarding the new study on the already linked article. I will come back to check in on this blurb later. Hungry403 (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't seem like anything has changed so I am changing my vote to an oppose Hungry403 (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support altblurb as it is a more clear event than the original blurb. It would be better if, for example, the study finding the paper mills had its own article, rather than just linking to the general scientific misconduct article. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm inclined to agree, it's exceedingly rare for a single study to have its own article. Looking at Category:Academic journal articles, there's only a handful. –DMartin 03:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per above two comments, Unless a dedicated article is created for the scandal in which case we can assess then. The update is too small and the proposed target article too broad for this to be really considered an ITN event. — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since it's not an event. Unless this research somehow managed to expose an actual major fraud that are noteworthy enough, I doubt that this will be of any significant value. NotKringe (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific coverage is generally not based on a discrete event but the publication of a peer reviewed paper that gets news coverage. Just like when we post the UN climate assessments, it's not the event of climate change but the publication that is the trigger. Masem (t) 13:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Though important, I haven't seen much coverage of this particular scientific paper. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I feel the target article is too broad for the blurb compared to the width for the target articles of what's usually posted. I feel this would be a better fit for DYK. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too nebulous and time-unspecific. This isn't a new discovery, more of a widely known fact and process that has been developing for decades. Would at least require an article about the study itself rather than a vast topic article, but even then this isn't groundbreaking. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the study gets a standalone article (per Amakuru). Many studies are published each day, so a new one – especially one highlighting an existing trend – isn't especially newsworthy. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We don't need a standalone article to blurb scientific news at ITN. Though this is neither a breakthrough nor a new discovery. That the advent of the internet (and now AI tools like GPT) has exploded the market for research/diploma mills and predatory publishers is a well known fact. Though it is also a fact that academic publishers themsleves engage in predatory gatekepping (pricing/access) practices which provides an avenue/thrust for these bad actors to proliferate. Gotitbro (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 5

(REVIEWS NEEDED) RD: Snyder Rini

Support – Former head of government, article is not perfect but good enough for RD. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a handful of {CN} tags remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Honors section covered by reference for the statement in the final career paragraph; appropriate depth. Spencer^T•C 06:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:@ITNA Support It looks like Koozehkanani’s article has enough references & details. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted – Schwede 66 03:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Shidrak Yousif

Support Adequate depth although relatively short, fully referenced. Spencer^T•C 06:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:@ITNA Support It looks like Yousif’s article has enough references & details. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2025 Uttarakhand flash flood

Wait - if the death toll stays at 5, I would oppose posting. If the toll goes over 35, per my previous rationale at July 2025 Central Texas floods, I will support. ^EF⁵ 00:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait as only five deaths have been confirmed right now. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the death toll becomes clear, per above. Departure– (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose unless things change, it looks like this isn't going to be significant enough for the front page. –DMartin 03:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - with roughly 50-100 missing, this has major disaster potential, but as it's unconfirmed let's hold off. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for full impact per above. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait to see if there's more deaths confirmed. Iamrighthere (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If an entire village has been wiped out, that might be notable even beyond the death toll. Gotitbro (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jorge Costa

Support well sourced and looks fine. QalasQalas (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is well sourced and lengthy enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 01:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support marking as ready. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for attention this has been marked "ready" for 2.5 days. In fact, in that time, User:RevampedEditor has improved it further. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Easily meets the minimum requirements, should be posted. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Col Joye

Support Quality article, well cited. I'll look into getting an image. –DMartin 00:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still three outstanding CN tags. Please fix and ping when removed. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 01:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Both CN tags have been fixed. I think people tend to forget that we don't need to cite that the sky is blue. –DMartin 03:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmartin969 I don't believe the specific charting of two of Joye's songs nor his induction into the ARIA Hall of Fame count as 'common sense' nor as 'something everyone should know'. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 10:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a point there. It does tend to irritate me when people see non-controversial statements and tag them as cn when they're cited elsewhere in the article or on wiki. –DMartin 22:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sentencing of Evghenia Guțul

Oppose To me this seems like a pretty low-significance sub-national event. --Spec tral Ion 17:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We may disagree on the sentencing's significance, but the involvement of Russia certainly makes it an international event, rather than sub-national. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is significant, particularly it concerns several countries. It is important in the context of what happens in the region. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subnational event, national at most. Unlikeley to have farreaching consequences. –DMartin 23:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading her article, it definitely is not a sub-national event. She tried to undermine Moldova's EU aspirations, form a breakaway republic, and sought Putins help multiple times in effect inviting a foreign superpower (and current occupying force) to interfere in Moldova's internal disputes and foreign relations. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose regional politician. Scuba 01:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose regional/subnational effects. ArionStar (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle Arrest of the head of an autonomous region is actually quite notable and rises above "subnational news". Khuft (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gaugazia was independent as recently as 1995. Transdnistria is still de facto independent from Moldova, as are other Russian puppet states such as Abhkazia, South Ossetia and arguably Republic of Srpska. If the First Minister of Scotland, or the president of Northern Cyprus ir Greenland was arrested on being an agent of another superpower we would post that. We did post the arrest of Catalan separatist leaders. This is a scenario of similar calibre. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think what needs to be taken into account, especially when comparing this case with that of the Catalan leaders, is that they were arrested and convicted for promoting a unilateral declaration of independence. In this case, Guțul has been convicted for her suspicious financing of a party, something that could have happened in any other subnational territory or at the national level in any country. That is why I have doubts that it is ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping The key difference here is suspicious financing is the first step before becoming a Russian puppet state, as Luhansk PR and Donetsk PR have shown. If Gaugazia is allowed to declare independence there will be no going back unless one is prepared to declare war on Russia. Wholly different modus operandi which means the Catalan comparison has to be nuanced, Catalonia is a vastly different political climate. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability – While a subdivision of Moldova, Gagauzia is also an autonomous region with a special status and a history of independence. The Russian involvement makes this clear the threshold of noteworthiness, especially when considering Russian influence in neighboring Transnistria. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:@ITNA perhaps an admin can decide on this before it becomes stale? Abcmaxx (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at this point, there certainly isn't consensus to post this item. Schwede 66 05:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping all the opposes are on the basis that it is supposedly a sub-national event but as several posts point out, it definitely is not a sub-national event and very much international powers are involved. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Schwede66. There is no consensus to post at this time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping I agree. If an admin decides on the merits of arguments rather than a direct tally, the oppose votes based solely on this story being a "sub-national"/"regional" event aren't as convincing, as it involves Russia, Moldova, the autonomous Gagauzia, fears of separatism, and continent-wide concerns of Russian election meddling. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention needed) RD/Blurb: Ion Iliescu

Comment His article needs a lot and deep work, but I'm sure it won't be difficult and there will be plenty of sources of information. I think that, as the first president of Romania after the fall of Ceaușescu and apparently the architect of Romania's transition to democracy, the blurb makes a lot of sense. But first, let's work on the quality of the article. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb The one bit on his legacy in the articles shows him rather low on the significant figures of Romanian history. A lot more would be needed to support this. Oppose RD with massive gaps of sourcing. Masem (t) 20:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb OLDMANDIES. Manner of death not notable, and no immediate impact This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality Article needs some ref work before posting. Oppose blurb on quality Ideally, I'd support blurbing the first president/head of state as it does show their significance to their respective region, however this article does little to establish a profound legacy to Romania or establish him as the architect of Romania's democratic transition. Given how the article does establish the controversy around him, I guess that's a good start. Once the article does a better job at detailing Iliescu's impact in post-Ceausescu Romania, then I'd consider supporting a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose blurb for the usual reasons. We cannot be posting to ITN every time an elderly person who used to be famous dies. We have recent deaths for a reason. –DMartin 23:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Blurb, Support RD Article quality isn't great (cn tags) and there isn't really much content on the article about what he did during his presidency, nor is there a legacy section. Should still good enough for an RD though. Hungry403 (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Blurb once quality assured. I don't understand the above opposes. This was a multi-term president and de facto founding father of the modern nation after the fall of communism. There is no world in which we don't blurb him while also giving an easy space to an American singer who happened by chance to be the first female to top the chart after its inception (not saying that was a wrong decision, but Iliescu is clearly of greater long-term significance). Unless we give up and declare the battle against WP:SYSTEMICBIAS to be lost for good. I'll work on the article later today if nobody else solves the issues first. — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb on significance. Iliescu was the leading figure in the Romanian Revolution that removed Ceaușescu from office, and he literally paved the way for Romania to transition from a communist one-party state to a multi-party democracy with a free market economy. He’s to Romania what is Nelson Mandela to South Africa. Dismissing him on significance is a classical example of systemic bias as pointed out by Amakuru immediately above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is supported by the article. This is why claims of such importance for a RD blurb absolutely must be sourced in the target article, and not given hand-waving reasons for importance. Masem (t) 11:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly supports it. Did you read the article, especially the “Romanian Revolution” and “Presidency (1990–2004)” sections, or you’re looking for a “Legacy” section?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the Revolution nor Presidency sections that specifically outline what actions he took that led to later sources considering him one of the major figures in Romania. They don't have to be in a legacy section, but I would think that as a service to the reader, summarizing these sources that illustrate directly why he's a great figure in a Legacy section (and briefly summized in the lede) is far more helpful. But here the problem is that these are claims that just because he was a leader of an organization in the revolution or was its first president after, doesn't equate to why he's a great figure, as that's requiring a leap of original research we should not be relying on. Masem (t) 12:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Needs watching The name is familiar and he's classed as WP:VITAL and so I wouldn't be surprised by a blurb. But when I checked the article just now, I found him described as "a Romanian criminal against humanity, demon and traitor". I rolled that back but this POV had been there for 25 mins which indicates that the article needs better protection. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Template:Edit conflict[reply]
I've applied protection. Schwede 66 23:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb on quality(?) - I'm inclined to agree with Kiril's logic, but the article doesn't reflect it at the moment, and unless it's updated to, I don't support a blurb. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability Oppose on quality

QalasQalas (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support while his article is not one of a good quality, I believe he was the most notable person out of everyone that died in August 2025. Definitely worthy to mention. The article would need some sort of temporary lock as well, since he was such a controversial person that vandalism is common for his Wikipedia page. Iamrighthere (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both on quality Article needs to be updated and revanced before we can even think of putting this in recent deaths. Once quality issues subside, let debate play out regarding significance/notability. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 01:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready, article as too few citations. Neutral on blurb due to world leader, but I feel the article needs improving for blurbing. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC) Support a highly notable person and a level 5 essential, B class article that has seen many improvements in recent days. 1779Days (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that there are lots of CN tags here, so unless they are fixed in the next ~24hr, this is going to go stale, even for an RD Masem (t) 00:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Boris Yukhananov

Oppose: Sourcing seems too small, and many pharagraphs go without a single inline citation. NeoGaze (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per NeoGaze, there is a significant lack of sources. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready No inline citations. –DMartin 23:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many references, and yet little inline citations. For an article of this length, that is both dastardly and requires immediate fixing. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 01:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2025 Texas proposed redistricting

Just post "Ongoing: Second presidency of Donald Trump", as that is what is in the news every single day. The gerrymandering, the 15000 bond for tourists, the nuclear reactor on the moon, the Epstein files, the tariffs, ... we can fill ITN with stupid, dangerous, autocratic US politics articles which get worldwide attention every day. Fram (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be content with a catch-all ongoing item and proposed one myself at the outset. What seems unacceptable is that ITN just presents a "nothing to see here", "head in the sand", "I see no ships" facade which risks being seen as compliant denialism or self-censorship. Acting like the only important thing going down currently is French cycling is absurd. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But this one is just a symptom, it is not important (on a larger scale) in itself, hence why it will be rejected. Fram (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cycling races have no importance or impact (on a larger scale) but we're currently posting two of them. The tsunami that didn't happen and the football are not much better. When I look at the BBC's World News page currently, it's leading with several Trump-related items and this Texas matter is in the top tier. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But (if I may) a) BBC is arguably a news-focused site (of course, the ITN section of Wikipedia is news-focused, but we need not overtrumpise things over here, I come to ITN/C as my primary news source (I kid You not!) because the items posted here are selected by the people for the people, from diverse sources, reasons and backgrounds), and b) I appreciate the use of gerrymandering, haven't seen that word in a while. That being said, soft oppose from me on account of this not necessarily being top world news in my book, however impactful from the democratic rule of law state point of view. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its moreso that we don't have any clear picture of what the impact will be from the encyclopedic, 10+ year view. Disasters or sports events are "one and done" type things, and we can readily make assessments of what the impacts are within a few days from those things. Something involving internal politics, short of a few events like elections or changing of elected heads of state, are far more difficult to project what the net result will be. They are great news stories, but they are not great encyclopedic content because we lack the foresight to know what the end result would be. It doesn't mean we shouldn't cover them as encyclepedic-quality event articles, but from an ITN perspective, they are not great stories. And of course there's the fact that anything that goes on the US is heavily biased in terms of weight of coverage by the media in the first place. Masem (t) 12:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Flee" is quite a POV breach. And neither redistricting in Texas nor gerrymandering in the United States (and opposition to them) are particularly unique events. The heft of the story's coverage stems from the issuance of [political] arrest warrants which has already been rejected below. Gotitbro (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Andrew, arrest warrants and dragging legislators to be arrested for what are probably false charges is unique to America 77eagle (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clear up misunderstanding, the arrest warrants are not to put them in jail but to bring them back to the "locked" statehouse until they are dismissed by the speaker. They are not being arrested on criminal counts (though they are trying to spin bribery charges on that) Masem (t) 13:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The word "flee" is used for this in headlines by many respectable sources including ABC News, Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, Independent, Irish Times, NPR, Politico, Time magazine, USA Today, Washington Post. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And news media regularly uses unencyclopedic emotive headlines and phraseology. ITN is not an exception to the encyclopedic [and NPOV] framing of enwiki. Gotitbro (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ITN regularly uses the same language. Here's a couple of examples in the last year:
Sheikh Hasina resigns as the prime minister of Bangladesh and flees to India following anti-government protests.

Syrian rebel forces capture Damascus following multiple offensives as overthrown president Bashar al-Assad flees to Russia.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely inapt comparisons. The problem is not with the term used but whether the term is valid for framing the event at all. Gotitbro (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This. "Flee" in the two examples are proper uses, the implication they left and are never coming back. Here, the TX govt wants to make it look like they abandoned their seats, when quorum breaks are a valid politic tactic under the TX constitution (per its supreme court in 2021), and the lawmakers haven't fled never to come back, but simply until the end of the special session. "Flee" feeds one side of the story here. Masem (t) 12:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Flee" doesn't mean "never to come back". In all these cases, the out-of-power politicians have decamped to a more friendly jurisdiction to escape the possibility of detention and punishment. Whether they come back or not is another matter. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as usual, “welcome to the United States”. My own city is gerrymandered to high hell, but didn’t really even make local news. A state being gerrymandered is more significant, but until there’s long-term effects I don’t see this being posted. *Neutral on an “ongoing”. ^EF⁵ 13:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose political infighting should not be posted on ITN. Natg 19 (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't political infighting; this is a usurpation of the rule of law in the third biggest country in the world 77eagle (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not? It is political infighting. The arrest warrants are just a ploy to get the Democrats back to Texas, but this is all caused by the politics of gerrymandering. I don't think this will result in any actual arrests, nor will anyone go to prison. Natg 19 (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. That's not the point; The fact that arrest warrants were drafted and bribery charges developed is.

2. People will go to prison if in Abbott's jurisdiction. Your belief that this is a bluff, considering what happened to Alex Padilla and, to a lesser extent, Chris Van Hollen, is mind-numbing. 77eagle (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would Hitler's arrest of Ernst Thälmann and other high-ranking officials and politicians be considered mere political infighting? By your logic, it would be. 77eagle (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Padilla or Van Hollen? Padilla was "arrested" but was not charged and was quickly released. I do not believe Van Hollen was arrested, though the Trump administration disapproved of his visit to El Salvador in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case. The comparison to Hitler is extreme and ludicrous. Hitler used a purge of political rivals to consolidate power, and this is not what is happening in Texas. Natg 19 (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think you understand what my point is. I’m trying to gather what your line is between political infighting and political consolidation and intimidation. 77eagle (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think an oppose !vote is an oppose !vote and is best left as one, and this thread would be best left here without any further unneeded elaboration of any other editors' intent with said !vote. Describing another editor's reasoning as "mind-numbing" and rebutting with a WP:WAX argument when their reasoning is clear and intending to make a long reply chain even longer to learn about another editor's intent is bordering on WP:BLUDGEONing. Departure– (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom (in the news, international coverage, article looks good).

Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - the blurb can never hope to cover all the relevant context in a single sentence, and as it is, this is just a subnational squabble right now. Departure– (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His first blurb was longer; I believe he edited it. 77eagle (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - local gerrymandering? Really? Nfitz (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't all gerrymanders local? Howard the Duck (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This literally only covers one region - Texas. It can happen on the national level too in places that redistrict entire countries simultaneously. Or if one suddenly changed or jerry-rigged the parameters that proportion seats nationally, it could be considered at a national level. Still ... a single of 50 local jurisdictions within 200 countries? We see an absurd amount of US nominations (and even blurbs), especially compared to bigger and even larger nations. Nfitz (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Oppose - to Andrew's credit, I do think this article is of encyclopaedic interest, is in the news and is probably interesting to a swathe of readers. However, it doesn't seem unprecedented (there was a "flight from Texas" of Democratic local representatives before, was there not?) and gerrymandering (though in this case egregious) is quite common in the US (the former Texas map was already gerrymandered, and on the other side of the aisle, the Illinois map also looks quite gerrymandered). Khuft (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement for news to be unprecedented. For example, we posted another story about Texas quite recently – July 2025 Central Texas floods. This was a similar locality and it has flooded so many times before that it's called Flash Flood Alley – "the most flash-flood prone region in the United States". Most ITN stories have precedents and we even have a free pass for many of them – WP:ITN/R. So, I'm not understanding this objection. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To Andrews credit, the situation, with mid decade redistricting, is unprecedented. However, this looks to be a first salvo is a larger civil conflict, as several blue states have vowed to do the same if TX goes through with theirs. Or it may not happen at all. We are at a point that it doesn't make to post as ITN because of how open ended the story is.

And most ITNR topics are debated before they are added to the list. That establishes the precedent there. Masem (t) 21:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current blurb is framed around the fleeing of the Democratic legislators, which happened already during the 2003 Texas redistricting - and thus seems more like a feature of Texan politics rather than a dramatic, ITN-worthy catastrophe. Also, I heard somewhere that the Texan governor can just continue to call special legislative sessions - so the stunt is likely to fail in the end anyway. In the end, my objection (besides the other objection on the ubiquity of gerrymandering in the US) is that this is local political news. Your (Masem's) point - the mid-cycle redistricting - is indeed unprecedented, but that's not what's being put forward by the blurb. Khuft (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: there was another "walkout" by Texas Democratic legislators in 2021, apparently. So this would be the third since the year 2000. Khuft (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support if reworded. Important event, but wording is too sensationalist for my liking. –DMartin — Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Khuft, EF5 etc. Gerrymandering is already super common in the US, and I would expect this to create a larger chain reaction as Masem suggests. For now I'll oppose and wait for more consequences. Hungry403 (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This is a significant and unusual event which is being covered internationally. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until there's significant and more permanent fallout, such as Democratic lawmakers being removed from office. Johndavies837 (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even then it's pretty local. We don't post when lawmakers in other countries are put in jail, let alone removed from office. Nfitz (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order The linked article doesn't mention the word "flee". It must if this is to make any sense to readers.HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. Sub-national political drama, irrelevant for ITN. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Regional US controversy. No global significance. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Texas gerrymandering shouldn't even be news in the US. That it's technically in the news now is a poor reflection of the increasing polarisation of US reactionaries, nothing more. Kingsif (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I feel this is too local in terms of impact for ITN. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Dharmasthala mass burial case

Wait on further developments The matter seems remarkable but as there are lots of allegations which are still being investigated, I reckon it's not ready for ITN yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality - no article. ^EF⁵ 13:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting protests as they don't even have a standalone article. Wouldn't be opposed to posting the case itself, but it's stale having broke over a month ago. –DMartin 23:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per DMartin. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Arrest Warrants for Texas Congressional Democrats

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2025 August 4 Template:Cob

Oppose good faith nom. As said below for the firing of the economic stats person by Trump, internal politics of any nation are not good stories for ITN. Add a few other issues: that the situation over Texas redistricting should have be the target article, not Abbott, and there's questionable authority of what Abbott can actually do in this situation and the validity of the warrants. Masem (t) 03:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I figured a warrant on this scale wasn't an American issue, as it would be just as internationally shocking if it happened in Hungary or Colombia. If I get a few more oppositions, I'll withdraw.

Thank you-- 77eagle (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Masem, not even the arrest its just the warrants. Who knows if these warrants are even valid? Maybe if there's a dramatic follow-up I will support but for now I have to oppose. Hungry403 (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also wish there was an article for the warrants, but that's not your fault. Hungry403 (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha

Template:Withdraw As promised, thanks for the feedback. 77eagle (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC) Template:Abot[reply]

August 4

(Posted) RD: Antonio Oteiza

Support Article ok. Interesting religious sculptures in an old tradition by a priest. Grimes 2 14:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Terry Reid

Support Satis. Grimes 2 04:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Arrest of Jair Bolsonaro

Oppose and wait for sentencing - simply arresting someone isn’t as significant as the crime their charged with. I could hypothetically get arrested for murder, but only be let free on the grounds of justifiable homicide. Murder isn’t the case here, but it’s the best example I could come up with. ^EF⁵ 21:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose we did not post his indictment Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2024, since he has only been charged. This is a house arrest and basicly to assure he doesn't flee the country while the trial continues, but not a sentencing yet. Masem (t) 21:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose per Masem. Departure– (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Withdraw The final issue is what matters. ArionStar (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Stella Rimington

Support Article looks fully-cited and all publications have ISBNs. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support FYI, I took the picture. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, there is no precedent to have photo RDs, except in exceptional or special situations. Natg 19 (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support DoB is sourced. Grimes 2 19:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ready well cited and good quality. –DMartin 23:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted – Schwede 66 23:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: James Whale

Not yet ready There are a handful of unsourced claims. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I made a couple of minor fixes, everhthing should be in order now. –DMartin 23:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ready now The page has been improved. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Shibu Soren

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2025 August 3 Template:Cob

Oppose: Some unsourced like his Life imprisonment and acquittal are there unsourced. Also in Personal life, and the ref2 should be fix. ROY is WAR Talk! 08:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced problem fixed, Spworld2 (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree per @Royiswariii unsourced and WP:CN QalasQalas (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
source added Spworld2 (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost ready Still a number of statements without inline citaitons. Election results are not directly cited, but I'm nor sure what the proceudre there is. –DMartin
Support seems good. Rushtheeditor
Elections results section is orange-tagged for lack of sourcing. There are also a handful of {CN} tags in the prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 3

(Posted) RD: Fritz Lobinger

Support so interesting. Article looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 1 and 2 state that he was born in Passau. The article says that he was born in Nabburg, which is some Template:Cvt from Passau. This needs to be clarified. Schwede 66 23:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fritz Lobinger was born in Passau on 22 January 1929 and had grown up in Nabburg. Clarified that in the article. Grimes 2 20:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is long enough and fully sourced. Marking as ready. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Hilary Weston

Support Well cited and fleshed out. A better infobox image would be nice, did she ever have an offical photo that we could use? –DMartin 23:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian government photos are not public domain the way they are in the USA. Abebenjoe (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing citation for date of birth. Curbon7 (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a new footnote for the date and place of birth under "Early life". --PFHLai (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Posted – Schwede 66 10:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Loni Anderson

Comment - Restoring deleted nom (not sure why this was done) from Revision as of 16:20, 4 August 2025 - CoatCheck (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I fixed a couple cn tags. Everything else looks good and well cited. –DMartin 23:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Orange-tagged. Schwede 66 23:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple paragraphs carry {CN} tags. Filmography is largely unsourced and orange-tagged. Please add more REFs. Time is running out for this nom. --PFHLai (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Tour de France Femmes

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2025 August 2 Template:Cob

Now been updated. Turini2 (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The update does not cite any sources. Kingsif (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead? The results and the final mountain stages section are sourced. Turini2 (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The results section, at the time I wrote the comment. Kingsif (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right, I think I was editing literally at the time you were writing it! Turini2 (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bolded target article. I think the blurb should feature an image like the Tour de France blurb did from last week. Edit: Rephrasing. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should have a route map... but map workshop hasn't yet responded. (and the person who makes the excellent Tour de France maps has never made Tour de France Femmes maps... despite several requests...) Turini2 (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support really good prose summary of the race, so meets WP:ITNQUALITY. Issues regarding a map is not a reason to avoid posting this- not least because the route is covered in tables and prose anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Generally agree with everything said above and strongly support the visibility of women's sports. - OtharLuin (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appears that Template:Ping has posted it. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2

(Posted) RD: Vladimir Popov

With 600+ words of prose, this wikibio is more than long enough to qualify. No glaring gap in coverage of the subject's life. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found in expected spots. AGF on non-English sources. Earwig has no complaints. So, this wikibio is READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Template:@ITNA can we please post before it falls off? Abcmaxx (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this after the item got archived. Schwede 66 05:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) US Labor Statistics

Comment Would "jobs report" be more consistent with the jargon? Placeholderer (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy-edited the blurb to make it plural. Alt blurbs can be suggested in the nomination template too. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – No notability whatsoever outside the USA. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The news coverage is global, as noted in the nomination. In any case, WP:ITNDONT says above that we should not "Template:Tq" Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: WP:ITNR is NOT place for ONLY US Politics, similar events occured in Africa before they're denied to POST. QalasQalas (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on significance, oppose on quality This is a significant event being covered internationally, but the article needs improvement before it's of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:TRUMPCRUFT and the Commissioner of Labor Statistics is not someone who can be called particularly notable. Gotitbro (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and snow close trivial and irrelevant for ITN. I don't know what you should think about what happens in other countries. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Internal politics of any nation unrelated to transitions of elected govt officials, even if widely covered in news worldwide, are never good ITN items, because it opens a whole can of worms of how far down do we allow such topics go. (Moreso per NTRUMP here). Masem (t) 12:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Gotitbro and Masem. NotKringe (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Half of the National Weather Service was wiped completely out but we didn’t post that. ^EF⁵ 12:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Trump fires someone he doesn't like, more at eleven. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 12:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2025 Copa América Femenina

Note, 2024 Copa América final was ITNR, this is not. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a discussion for the talk page, but if we have a men's tournament that is ITNR, and there is an equivalent women's tourney (though here, at different times) we really should consider ITNR for the womens' tourney. Masem (t) 15:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. ArionStar (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, it depends on the coverage of the event- blanket statements like this fall foul of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:FEC0:9CC1:F669:AA74:EB0:5D50 (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Needs a match summary. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 03:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moraljaya67: the content is better now. ArionStar (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: not every single sports competition needs to be ITN. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 07:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's South American? ArionStar (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, not just because “it’s South American”. ^EF⁵ 15:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 23:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No prose match summary. Have we posted this before, incidentally? Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is "prose match summary"? ArionStar (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A description of the final in prose (a match report, if you like). Just the result is not sufficient per a lot of precedence here. For an example, see the women's Euro 2025 final article. Black Kite (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like this? ArionStar (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but in better English ("the ball came back to shirt 18 who finished near the small box" - WTF?). Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a la match summary. ^EF⁵ 15:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability Template:Small but still oppose on quality for now. A match summary has been added, but it is brief. In my opinion, too brief for an eight-goal match that went to penalties. I can try to expand it myself but no promises. Kingsif (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
match summary looks good now, but it sort of needs an post-match section, doesn't need to be too long given it happened yesterday Kowal2701 (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would also question the tables in the route to the final section. I think it's previously been agreed that these are not accessible e.g. for screen-readers, and so should be changed before an article is posted to the MP? Kingsif (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything's ok on my phone. ArionStar (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I edited it, but screen reader =/= mobile? Kingsif (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do u mean "screen reader"? ArionStar (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The profile of women's football has grown to the point that it would be untenable to consider a premier men's competition worthy, but not the equivalent women's competition. Gronk's Fortune (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SOCKSTRIKE. Izno (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info Summary added. ArionStar (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've re-written the match report to remove the odd wording which probably came from the source. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank u so much. ArionStar (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality match summary is sourced entirely to one primary source. Better sources should be added, as current orange tagged for over reliance on one source is correct. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced that this is a problem (after all, match reports are going to be pretty similar), but I've expanded it slightly and added a secondary source (BBC Sport). Black Kite (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5, Kingsif and Joseph2302: the quality was improved. ArionStar (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: article looks fine to me QalasQalas (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good. I'm perplexed why some would say we should discriminate between the men's and women's tournaments. It's a bit heavy with primary sources rather than some more secondary sources; the primary are fine as they document the match results the best. But add a few more secondary - still good to go. Nfitz (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not discrimination- it's based on coverage. Fact is that men's Copa America is much bigger event than this. The only Questions for this nomination is does this event pass WP:ITNSIGNIF and WP:ITNQUALITY or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it were primarily about things being bigger events and coverage, then we wouldn't have Gaelic and Australian-rules Football listed in ITN. Nfitz (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info Post-match added. ArionStar (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: based on quality. Fixer88 (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:@ITNA ready? ArionStar (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. — Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) British & Irish Lions tour to Australia

Template:Side box

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.

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2025 August 1 Template:Cob

Oppose. This is barely in the news even in Australia, much less internationally. It's not important enough for ITN. Steelkamp (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The blue riband events in international rugger are the Rugby World Cup, Six Nations and The Rugby Championship. Lions tours are a bit of fun in the summer every four years, but as Steelkampbnotes, not of sufficient importance to post, even in their own countries let alone the world as a whole. — Amakuru (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above & the fact that this isn't ITN/R. TwistedAxe [contact] 04:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having read the ITN discussion from four years ago, I'm amazed it got posted then. Neither the news coverage nor the impact is sufficient for blurbing. (As an aside, and I say this as a fan of the sport, there's already so much rugby union on ITN/R.) -- Kicking222 (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability While this tour has had more attention than some others, it's still getting less coverage than the women's World Cup set to start in a few weeks (which I assume will be posted). But this has too little impact in a sport that does have ample club and international events. Also, oppose on quality. While you can't expect every match in the tour to have a decent prose summary, it would be ideal if the tests did, but I still would've accepted quality if there was a sufficient reaction/aftermatch section, i.e. a post-event prose update, that would fulfill update requirements to have the article actually indicate the event has concluded and how. But the only non-list-y prose is in the 'schedule' section, which wouldn't be sufficient in the first place and also hasn't been updated so is still talking about the tour as happening in future. Kingsif (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability the coverage level of this is insufficient to meet WP:ITNSIGNIF. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 1

(Posted) RD: Jeannie Seely