Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Keir Starmer
Keir Starmer

Glossary[edit]

  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps[edit]

  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers[edit]

  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...[edit]

  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...[edit]

  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates[edit]

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

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

Archives[edit]

July 9[edit]


July 8[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


Women's high-jump WR[edit]

Article: Yaroslava Mahuchikh (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In athletics, Yaroslava Mahuchikh breaks the 37-year-old women's high-jump world record (Post)
Alternative blurb: Yaroslava Mahuchikh breaks the women's high-jump world record with 2.10 m, which had not been broken for 37 years.
News source(s): AP

One of the longest-standing records in athletics, from 1987. Women's high jump world record progression 81.196.30.56 (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand what "world" means. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb1 article is in good condition, and it's notable because of how long the record stood; the altblurb reduces ambiguity, so that's why I prefer it over the original blurb. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb article is in a good shape and breaking decades old record is blurbworthy. PrinceofPunjabTALK 06:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The target article doesn't have much of an update and has lots of uncited facts.
  2. Another athletics world record was broken at the same event – see Guardian
  3. This was a warm-up for the Olympics which we're about to run. I suppose more world records will be broken at that.
  4. The record has not been ratified and there can be technical objections.
  5. There are so many sports with so many stats that records are broken all the time. For example, Lewis Hamilton won the British Grand Prix on Sunday which extended his record of wins and was the first time a driver had won a race for the ninth time. At Wimbledon, there's an new amazing record. There was a recent record at the Tour de France which we didn't run. And so on...
Andrew🐉(talk) 07:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From above "This is a notable world record which has been unbroken for 37 years." HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping as high as possible is probably a much more mainstream world record than having the most victories in which the winning tennis player came back from two sets to zero. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cycling record had lasted for 55 years but we still didn't post it. These numbers seem fairly arbitrary and there will tend to be a natural plateau as sports are established and become mature. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
If more people here understood Le Tour, we would have posted that cycling record, but comments made it obvious too many didn't and weren't interested in learning. HiLo48 (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly less notable than Cavendish's record, as high jump has less news coverage than Le Tour. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article needs a couple of references, especially in the awards sections (the awards articles are cited so this is easy to fix), and some sentences in the prose also need sources. Other than that, all fine. If I remember correctly, we post breaking of long-standing records in athletics, as well as breaking of 100m and marathon whenever they happen (been a while since Usain Bolt but marathon got broken a couple of times in the past decade). --Tone 08:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy to support featuring this if the update was more extensive. I'd expect more details than "she broke the world record (2.10 metres) in high jump at the Wanda Diamond League in Paris." I imagine she didn't use a particularly different technique or anything, but surely we can write something about the five-second moment in which she made history? Perhaps even just an interview quote about how she felt about it? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I used to write extensive updates on world records in athletics but got fully disparaged after an unfortunate discussion last year, so I decided to give up on it indefinitely because there's simply no point to produce content that some people don't value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion last year was a very similar case – two world records being broken at the Meeting de Paris. We have a full article for this event – 2024 Meeting de Paris – which is more substantial and would make a better target than just one of the athletes. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very sad to hear this. This was exactly what I was worried about. I have been active on this front-page feature because I hoped it would inspire people to write more detailed articles, but instead it only demotivates people who put the work in... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both on WP:ITNSIGNIF and WP:ITNQUALITY. Many world records get broken frequently and don't very often meet the significance to get posted- this has way less media coverage than Mark Cavendish breaking the Tour de France record last week, which didn't get consensus to post. And Mahuchikh's article and 2024 Meeting de Paris each have 2 sentences about it, which is not enough to meet the quality threshold. Picking this world record over any others (including the other one broken at the same event) would be arbitrary as it hasn't demonstrated enough coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Many world records get broken frequently", but this one hasn't been. That sort of comment suggests you haven't read the previous discussion. It's quite unhelpful, AND irrelevant! 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

July 7[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Health and environment

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


RD: Bengt I. Samuelsson[edit]

Article: Bengt I. Samuelsson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SVT
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Swedish biochemist and Nobel laureate. 240F:7A:6253:1:95E7:6EC1:9755:1E3E (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose two orange tags. PrinceofPunjabTALK 06:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jane McAlevey[edit]

Article: Jane McAlevey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2024 French legislative election[edit]

Article: 2024 French legislative election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The New Popular Front obtains a relative majority in the National Assembly following the 2024 French legislative election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The New Popular Front wins the most seats in the National Assembly following the 2024 French legislative election.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The New Popular Front obtains a plurality in the National Assembly following the 2024 French legislative election.
Alternative blurb III: Prime Minister of France Gabriel Attal resigns after the New Popular Front obtains a plurality in the National Assembly following the 2024 legislative election.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ In the French legislative election the New Popular Front becomes the largest bloc in the National Assembly, but fails to win an overall majority
Alternative blurb V: ​ In France, the legislative election results in a hung parliament, with the New Popular Front obtaining a plurality.
News source(s): Le Monde
Credits:

Unexpected result, as the National Rally and their allies were originally predicted to get the most seats, but only came in third place after the NPF and Ensemble. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. We still need a clearer idea of what the results were; this is a much murkier situation than last week's UK vote. (where Labour clearly won a decisive majority that lined up with expectations; contrast here where we have a surprise result) Also, given that even the article linked for "relative majority" itself is called Plurality, I would recommend the blurb actually use that to avoid confusion. Nottheking (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait the results sections is missing information once filled support Shadow4dark (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Propose ALTV unless a government is somehow formed. The Kip (contribs) 02:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd go with this if it becomes clear in the next few days that they are not going to be able to form a new government. For now I'd stick to Alt II until the dust settles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any of the proposed blurbs, with alt2 or 5 as my preference. Would support blurbing again if/when a new PM is chosen, since even though Attal resigned (and is continuing as caretaker) it doesn't seem like this will be resolved anytime soon. Davey2116 (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt2 or alt4 once it’s ready Those seem like the best blurbs. However, the “Potential outcomes and pre-election comments” subsection in the “Aftermath” section seems like it’s awkward now that the election has happened. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my understanding of this at all, and appears to be a fringe interpretation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding comes from the Collins-Robert French Dictionary which is not fringe. It gives the meanings as refractory, rebellious, insubordinate, undefeated, unsubdued. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 6[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Joe Egan (musician)[edit]

Article: Joe Egan (musician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NME
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Scottish musician and co-founder of Stealers Wheel. 240F:7A:6253:1:38AB:9905:A2DA:8D62 (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not ready, article needs expansion. PrinceofPunjabTALK 06:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with previous comment. Little more than a stub in substance. Ref (chew)(do) 06:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Khyree Jackson[edit]

Article: Khyree Jackson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

NFL cornerback recent death. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support RIP, a tragic death. Article is in a good enough shape. PrinceofPunjabTALK 14:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support nothing holding back this article about an NFL player. Bremps... 21:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support and André Drege too. Both sportsmen of the same age who had their lives tragically cut short on the same day. Both articles seem good, though Jackson's is more detailed. 1779Days (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can nominate that one independently. Bremps... 01:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Date and place of birth are both unreferenced. Schwede66 10:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: Fixed. Typically on NFL player articles that information is pulled from the ESPN or NFL biography and not appropriately cited. --Engineerchange (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mirta Díaz-Balart[edit]

Article: Mirta Díaz-Balart (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CiberCuba
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

First wife of Fidel Castro. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose given the lack of detail in her article, which is rated Start class. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait there are some more references needed otherwise article is okay. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait More citations needed. Bremps... 22:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masoud Pezeshkian elected President of Iran[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2024 Iranian presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Masoud Pezeshkian (pictured) is elected President of Iran. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian (pictured) is elected president in the second round of the 2024 presidential election.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In Iran, the reformist candidate Masoud Pezeshkian (pictured) is elected president in the second round of the 2024 presidential election.
Alternative blurb III: ​ In Iran, the reformist candidate Masoud Pezeshkian (pictured) is declared the winner of the second round of presidential elections.
News source(s): New York Times BBC
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

He is elected president of Iran. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine it was marked as ITNR because it was thought to be a general election. Looking at the three different elections that took place in Iran this year, it is not at all clear to me which one was the general election, so this might not be ITNR. Gödel2200 (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The president of Iran does not hold the highest political authority, but does have many of the powers of an executive president, and is not just a figurehead. Among the Reformist presidents, Khatami was generally seen as having a big influence; Rouhani's reformist actions were generally seen as less successful; Ahmedinejad's role as a hardliner president was generally seen as him being mostly in control of executive power. Relations between the West and Iran have changed significantly between Reformist and hardliner Iranian presidents. This does satisfy ITN/R in any reasonable interpretation of real political power and both national and international effects. Boud (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any question of whether this election should be posted. But ITNR specifically says changes in the people who administer the executive of their country qualify, and according to the List of current heads of state and government article, that position is the supreme leader, not the president, so the election would technically not qualify for ITNR under that clause. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Iran, the president is the head of government. See President of Iran. He chooses all ministers and cabinet members. The supreme leader is the head of state, but not the head of government. 175.159.120.175 (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 5[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Liana Isakadze[edit]

Article: Liana Isakadze (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Strad
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Prominent Georgian violinist, child prodigy, all over Europe early, then also conductor and artistic director of the Chamber Orchestra of Georgia, festival creator internationally. The article was practically a mirror of her website, which is no longer live but there in an archived copy in German. Much better since we got a Strad obit today. The long lists of conductors and colleagues are not referenced other than her site, but are credible I think. Help by someone knowing Georgian wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slight oppose The stuff about Facebook is uncited. Listing a paragraph of names isn't the best way to present info to a reader. Otherwise, the article is alright. Bremps... 12:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The facebook thing can only be cited to her website, which I try to avoid. We could do it, or drop it, or find another ref. - I hate these lists, I really do, but - as I said above - I have no time to look for more detailed records of her music making. Repeating: help wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the cite to her website. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Stanley Moss[edit]

Article: Stanley Moss (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are the books in his bibliography fine if they aren't cited (as they are effectively their own citation)? Anyway, the Amazon links certainly need to be removed so Oppose for now. Bremps... 04:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are their own citation, but they require ISBNs. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Vic Seixas[edit]

Article: Vic Seixas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

American tennis player. 240F:7A:6253:1:64C5:9819:81E5:D319 (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support article is in a good shape. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jon Landau (film producer)[edit]

Article: Jon Landau (film producer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

American film producer. 240F:7A:6253:1:64C5:9819:81E5:D319 (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Awards and Filmography section needs sourcing and Career section needs a lot of expansion. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 4[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) United Kingdom general election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2024 United Kingdom general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the United Kingdom, the Labour Party (leader Keir Starmer pictured) wins the general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Labour Party (leader Keir Starmer pictured) wins a landslide victory in the United Kingdom general election
Alternative blurb II: Keir Starmer becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom after his Labour Party wins a landslide victory in the general election (after he becomes PM, probably tomorrow morning)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn09xn9je7lt
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Putting this out in front so we can get it ready as and when results come in overnight This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly, we're going to need sources to use the second blurb re being a landslide, though I know the exit polls suggest it will be that way. --Masem (t) 22:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BBC says "Labour landslide predicted", as do most other sources This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not just the BBC. Sky News, the Telegraph, the Guardian ... in fact most UK news sources ... are already using it on their front pages (although at the moment it of course says "predicted" or "expected"). But yes, stick with the original blurb, we can always change it later. Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. I'm not going to get worked up over it, but FWIW I don't recall the word "landslide" ever being used in an election blurb before. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we rarely use such terms on the Main Page in my experience. Granted, I have been away for a while. If anything, we may choose to use a less bombastic phrasing such as "significant gain in seats", or something more British. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original blurb. It's factual and to the point. We can update tomorrow after Sir Kier becomes PM. The votes are still being counted but there is no doubt who won. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either original Blurb or AltBlurb II. (later purely among the implication that's part of ITN/R: that this will mean Keir Starmer becomes PM) Obviously, we'll be waiting for the official results (rather than just the exit polls) and such to make it official. Article appears to be in great shape; hopefully this quality will be maintained through all the official results being added. I'm somewhat neutral (mildly opposed) on whether we should bother describing the margin of the election. However, if there's an applicable superlative, (e.g, it break's Labour's old record for most seats won) then that would have a much more convincing argument to be mentioned on the front page. Nottheking (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original blurb as it is the most concise. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original blurb but wait until the full results come out. I don't really see much of a need for the blurb to indicate that the result was a landslide; the reader will see that immediately after going to the page. The blurb only needs to state who won the election. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original blurb and wait Good article, important event. Results are pretty clear but post after the votes are fully done being counted Hungry403 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think its fair to call it a landslide now Hungry403 (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sunak just conceded, effectively. Toss-up between original blurb and alt-1. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original blurb unless the ultimate seat count surpasses Labour's old record for most seats won, in which case support alt-1 or alt-2 and add the superlative, per Nottheking. FlipandFlopped 04:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original blurb as it's now official. Oppose alt blurbs until sources use the phrase "landslide" — Czello (music) 04:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with "landslide" wording; they're on course to 400, which is Blair numbers. Sceptre (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted As Labour has already got more than 50 per cent of the electorate seats (362 right now, with 326 needed for a majority), it's probably safe to post ALT0 at this point. I don't think it'll be long before "landslide" can be added to the blurb. Schwede66 04:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been other "landslide" elections. Have we ever used that term in an election blurb? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. I don't think we've ever done such a thing, and the Conservatives arguably won a landslide last time. I'm a little baffled as to why Schwede66 has suggested this and strongly recommend that no admin should change this.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT or ALT2 blurb as Labour has now won 400 seats, I think we're now ready to add "landslide" now. 92.27.253.187 (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support landslide. Davey2116 (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt-1 as it is more condense. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 06:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Majority would be a better word than "landslide". ITN should save the word "landslide" for the actual landslides that kill lots of people (they seem to have stopped counting in New Guinea). For elections, we should stick to words that more accurately describe the result such as supermajority. Simply winning a majority is a significant achievement when so many countries have systems that require complex coalitions such as we see in the current Netherlands blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't generally use the term supermajority for this, in the UK. Secretlondon (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't matter because Labour don't seem to have quite that many seats (433 is two thirds of 650). The point is to use appropriate technical terms rather than colourful journalistic metaphors. In the Westminster system, the key thing is to get a "working majority". Andrew🐉(talk) 07:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose landslide or majority or anything else. Longstanding precedent is that we don't attempt to add "nuance" or editorialisation to election results, even those that are "disputed" or "near-unanimous" or whatever, and there's no reason to deviate from that here. The current simple blurb that they won is completely sufficient and should not be changed.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The convention in Britain is that a 100-seat majority is a landslide; Labour have won a 170-seat majority. If anything qualifies, this does. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What convention? See Landslides in the United Kingdom. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems a bit disingenuous, Andrew Davidson. See United Kingdom general election records#Most seats won by party (1945–present). The current result is just barely below the all-time post-war record. (though I don't see a need to change the blurb). Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose landslide as an editorialising term. "Supermajority" isn't great either as the Parliament does not operate with a supermajority system as far as I know (no equivalent of, say, the 60-vote filibuster in the US Senate). Stating that Labour won a majority by themselves (and, when confirmed, that Starmer becomes PM) is the most objective thing to do. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the Westminster system, a substantial majority is significant because it means that the PM can force through legislation without having to appease rebels and rivals in his own party. See the US House of Representatives for the difficulty of getting things done with a narrow majority. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I find it funny this was nominated before any seat was even called. It might be good to mention just how historic this win is, the worst result for the Conservative Party I believe in its entire 200 year existence. This is a pretty crazy result as the dominant party in UK politics is going extinct. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The popular vote for the Conservatives was still quite substantial while the vote for Labour was little changed. The result in seats was a typical quirk of the first-past-the-post system. The main novelty is the advent of Reform UK which got the next largest popular vote and so split the centre-right vote.
    What helped Labour is that their leader looks and sounds like a conservative -- a safe pair of hands, rather than a radical like Corbyn, a wild child like Boris or a city slicker like Rishi. It's interesting that our blurb calls him "Sir Keir Starmer", like a "knight of the shires". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that the title has been removed now as admins tussle over the blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull. While obviously this is notable, 2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#Results is not updated. 12:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC) ~~ Jessintime (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those look like numerical results once the full complete tally is known. The results that Labour won was based on factors like sufficient tallies from the various locals as well as candidates conceding that they lost, all reported in RSes. — Masem (t) 12:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jessintime There's currently 2 seats to go (out of 650), until those are declared, these "results" figures don't exist. But that doesn't change the outcome that Labour have won, a fact that was confirmed in reliable sources before this was posted. And the article has been updated with this information and aftermath, and so WP:ITNQUALITY is met. We have posted other countries in a similar state i.e. where 95+% of results are known and the election result is assured. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Standard practice for ITN has been to post once the general outcome has been confirmed, since it's rare to instantly get total figures for every single constituent election from any country. There will always be stragglers, so yes, there will be some small gaps in the data as everyone in the world waits for those stragglers. However, it remains that all the RSes have reported that Labour has won a majority of seats, and that won't change. And Keir Starmer has already been appointed Prime Minister. Nottheking (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just reply here since this is pretty much moot. My concern is that we posted an article on an election with an entire results table left blank. Did we really need to wait until all 650 seats were called before updating it? I've seen other stories held up for far less. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 3[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Jack Rowell[edit]

Article: Jack Rowell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Needs an infobox but only a few more citations. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose multiple cn tags. PrinceofPunjabTALK 07:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose issue persists. Bremps... 22:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Mark Cavendish[edit]

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


Article: Mark Cavendish (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ British cyclist Mark Cavendish wins a record 35th stage of the Tour de France (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport Guardian USA Today ESPN NBC NEWS WSJ
Credits:
Paul W (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aficionados regard the result of the Tour de France as much more then the first person to crosss the finish line, but the non-cycling world is generally ignorant of such detail. So sadly, I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a monumental achievement that has taken 50 years to break. It's not trivia. There's often major records on ITN, sports or otherwise (longest person in space etc) Torqueing (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a huge 49 years old record, and yes it's newsworthy. Eddy Merckx should be mention in the blurb too. Mark Cavendish breaks Eddy Merckx’s 49-years-old record for most career Tour de France stage wins with 35th victory. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, while impressive, this still counts as sports trivia in view of ITN. For TDF, we post the winner. --Tone 07:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a record that has stood for a long time being broken, and a target article Mark Cavendish that's a GA. This is more in the news than the eventual TdF winners usually are (because it's a record that has stood for nearly 50 years that was thought unbreakable for most of that time), and that article is nowhere near the quality of Cavendish's article either. Monumental achievement with worldwide coverage, which is higher enough to meet the threshold of WP:ITNSIGNIF. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Winning a stage in a multiple-day cycling race has absolutely no meaning. One may not win a single stage but eventually win the race. I don't see a reason to post a meaningless record. If it were a record set at one-day classics, it'd be a much stronger argument for posting, but it's clearly not. Note also that he's not finished half of the Tour de France editions he entered and was ranked well below 100th place in all editions he finished, so it's completely worthless to talk about any notable record here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He's a sprinter, and they often don't complete all three weeks, different physiology. Where he finishes in the general classification is a complete irrelevance. Ericoides (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why one-day classics exist – to make sprinters more competitive. A sprinter breaking a record in a race that he can barely finish is completely irrelevant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To claim "Winning a stage in a multiple-day cycling race has absolutely no meaning" suggests you have absolutely no understanding of cycling. See today's L'Equipe, which only devotes seven pages to the Cavendish record. Ericoides (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I'm not personally supporting this item as of sufficient encyclopaedic interest for ITN, but the achievement itself certainly isn't insignificant. Stage wins on the Tour de France are a big deal and treated as such in reliable sources. Wikipedians' opinions on their relevance is what's "meaningless" here.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ericoides: I’ve been avidly following cycling about 18 years now, and that’s why I know that this record isn’t significant at all. In multiple-day cycling races, time is what counts, not the number of stage wins. You may say whatever you want about my understanding of cycling and cite zillion sources stating that this is a big achievement, but that won’t change the established fact that these stage victories won’t help Cavendish ever win Tour de France. This record is trivial as Ronnie O’Sullivan’s 1,000 century breaks achieved in 2019 or LeBron James breaking Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s long-standing record for most points in the NBA.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not trying to win the Tour; it's an event within an event. As David Millar said in his ITV commentary this afternoon, "the Tour de France is the world championships for sprinters." Ericoides (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is trivia. Winning a record number of tours would be worth mentioning in the tour result post (which is, as noted, ITNR), but this is a mere footnote. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per all above. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose minor sports trivia. An impressive personal achievement but we can't post every similar record in every sport. When the race concludes, the winner can be posted per WP:ITNR. I recommend you work on improving the 2024 Tour de France article so that will be ready to go e.g. by adding prose summaries of each stage. Modest Genius talk 11:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An amazing achievement, transcending the sport. Ericoides (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dismissing this as trivia is absolute rubbish. The most notable cycling sporting event in the world has had a longstanding record broken that will go unchallenged for a very long time. The closest competitor to challenge his record is Tadej Pogačar who only has 12 stage wins at the moment. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Final note, after searching the archives I found numerous examples of prior posting of notable sports records being broken, so I don't see how there isn't precedence for posting this in some form or another. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Records based on competing and winning (or whatever the aspect) a number of times, which the chances of improving simply increase with the person participating in more events, are records that are ripe to be broken and not really fair. More approach records that would make sense are breaking race times or other measurable factors in a competitive sport, or achieving a certain type of scoring record within a single game and/or season. But as others have said, when the race is done and we post the result (per ITNR), it makes sense to possibly include this record too. — Masem (t) 16:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I guess you had to be there. Call back when someone actually wins the race. CoatCheck (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) 2024 Ukrainian coup attempt allegations[edit]

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


Article: 2024 Ukrainian coup attempt allegations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An alleged pro-Russian coup is foiled by the Security Service of Ukraine that sought to oust Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

I noticed that nobody was talking about a foiled coup yesterday in Ukraine that major news outlets are talking about so I decided to make a page for it, I feel that this is just as notable as any other coup and should be included in the news. Scu ba (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. A quite worrying development of the ongoing war, but the (alleged) coup wasn't actually attempted, so oppose on notability. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly oppose per above. poor zelenskyy Ion.want.uu (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There have been a few assassination plots targeting the president as well over the past 2 years. And I believe there was a coup plot foiled shortly before the war. So unless something is at least attempted, like in Bolivia, I don't think it's worth posting. Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose respectfully. It seems like this was simply the arrest of four alleged Russophilic activists who were discussing a coup plot via instant messages. An actual attempted coup that could pose a real threat to Zelenskyy would definitely be notable, but an alleged coup plot that had already failed before anything could have even been attempted is not big enough to warrant a separate blurb for an event already covered in Ongoing.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 12:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This would only not be covered by ongoing if the coup had actually happened. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Vanilla Wizard. I'm not convinced this is notable enough for a stand-alone article, let alone ITN. Modest Genius talk 14:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 2[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Rick Cluff[edit]

Article: Rick Cluff (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Globe and Mail
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Canadian Radio host and journalist. Ktin (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article quality seems alright. Bremps... 20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jean Daubigny[edit]

Article: Jean Daubigny (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): L'Union
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

French civil servant and criminal convicted of tax evasion. Jmanlucas (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support meets bare minimum requirement. PrinceofPunjabTALK 07:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has a deprecated controversy section. Probably not postable as is. Bremps... 20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Aydos Sadykov[edit]

Article: Aydos Sadykov (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Kazakh opposition figure who died after an assassination attempt in Kyiv. Article will need some sourcing work. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose biography section have some unsourced statements. PrinceofPunjabTALK 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) BB(5) discovery[edit]

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


Article: Busy beaver (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In computer science, researchers discover the fifth Busy beaver number. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A group of mathematical researchers announces the discovery of the fifth Busy beaver number.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The fifth Busy beaver number is discovered, establishing a new quantitative limit on the behavior of small computer programs.
News source(s): Quanta Magazine , Shtetl-Optimized
Credits:
I guess the article needs work to be understandable to non-experts and should highlight more about the new discovery, but I think this is a big deal for computer science and mathematics. It's been 41 years since progress was made on this problem, it closely relates to the limits of mathematical knowledge and mathematical proof, it was a big online volunteer collaboration over several years, and it's one of the first new mathematical results to be formalized in a proof assistant contemporaneously with its announcement (which helped other mathematicians be more confident more quickly that the result was correct). It's also very likely the largest Busy Beaver number that humanity will ever be able to discover. So this is potentially the only progress on this problem that Wikipedia will ever be able to announce! Schoen (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support just beat me too it! Big thing in computer science tho Ion.want.uu (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wow! Didn't follow it too closely, I'm surprised it was actually discovered. Science at ITN is always great, and, as Schoen says, this is likely the largest Busy Beaver number we'll be able to discover (for two-state Turing machines at least). Not only does the state space grow very fast, but these numbers are inherently uncomputable, meaning you can't just throw more computing power to find them, you need to go through mathematical proofs for each Turing machine. By the way, for anyone curious, the number is 47 176 870. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A lower bound on the sixth Busy Beaver number is 10⇈15, or 1010...15 times...10. Needless to say, we don't have enough space in this universe to even write it down. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose primary because the target article is terribly undersourced and is the symptom of being far too technical for an encyclopedia. Besides that, I'd like to see at least either a peer-review article or a more mainstream news source covering this, because as the Quantum article points out, this is more a curiosity than a breakthrough in mathematics. --Masem (t) 02:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This does not seem to be in the news. For comparison, I can easily show you more mainstream coverage of real beavers in my area of London (a project that I helped with myself). Andrew🐉(talk) 07:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Target article is extremely poorly sourced (indeed, the main paragraph explaining it has precisely zero sources) and is not written in anything like an accessible manner; we do not expect technical articles to be dumbed down but even the introduction to this article makes assumptions that the reader knows what a halting Turing machine, its "states", or transition tables are. It is unfortunate that a lot of computer science articles are like this. Black Kite (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but unfortunately the article is nearly fully unsourced, and is nowhere near being ready for the main page. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While I'm open to posting mathematical advances, there are multiple problems with this: a) The topic is extremely esoteric and doesn't seem to have any application - the 'applications' section of the article speculates about uses in principle but indicates they are all impossible in practice. b) The fifth BB number has been known since 1990, but was only conjectured not proven [2]. While proving it now is useful, it's hardly a surprise. c) There is no formal publication of this result. The team's own website announcement [3] states "we are currently working on a human-readable paper" i.e. it hasn't been written up yet, let alone peer reviewed. A peer-reviewed publication is a requirement for posting scientific news. d) There's little to no coverage in mainstream media, I couldn't find anything beyond that Quanta article. e) The article is incomprehensible to most of our readers, who would not learn anything from clicking on that bold link. So while I commend the nomination, I don't think this is suitable for ITN. Modest Genius talk 19:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability. There should be more news like this in encyclopedia on the front page. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that it's notability is questionable as the only independent source I've seen is the linked quantum magazine article. That fails the actual "ITN" part. — Masem (t) 22:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all above. Poorly-sourced article that doesn't explain why these numbers matter (certainly not to an extent remotely close to establishing main page notability), and if my bachelor's in mathematics is not nearly enough to comprehend the article, main page readers don't have a chance. -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not hard: I'm in the middle of an infinite coin row (all heads up). I read card 1 of 5. The heads up side says "1. leave tails up" "2. look to its immediate right" "3. do card 2 to it". Card 2-Heads is the same except 3. is "do card 3". Card 3-Heads is the same except 3. is "do card 4". Card 4-Heads says "1. leave tails up" "2. immediate left" "3. card 1". Card 5-Heads says tails/right/END. 1-Tails says tails/left/3 2-Tails says tails/right/2. 3-Tails is heads/left/5. 4-Tails is tails/left/4 5-Tails is heads/left/1. They just proved that you need ≥6 cards to end @ over 4,098 tails or after step 47,176,870 and these are the best possible cards. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's pretty easy to describe how to emulate the five-state Beaver. But in order for someone to care a lot about the behavior of these "cards", we might also want to connect this to "this is one of the purest ways to model and reason about what computers do, and what computers can potentially do". And indeed "the cards can do math, potentially as well as any other system can do math". Or maybe "computer programs' behavior is complex and hard to predict, in a very fundamental mathematical sense; people have now managed to fully analyze the behavior of some small computer programs, which was extremely difficult, and there's good reason to think humanity will never make it to the next step of fully analyzing the behavior of very slightly larger computer programs". Schoen (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I apologize if my reasons are short sighted, I know next to nothing about computer science. The article is very hard to understand for the average reader, and I fail to see how this discovery is used outside of the problem itself. Also missing citations Hungry403 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - While the Busy Beaver problem is important in computability theory, and the discovery of a new member in a short and hard-to-determine sequence is very interesting, the combination of the two does not have any wider consequences. The discovery of BB(5) doesn't actually advance computability theory at all, and the number itself has no immediate wider applications. I also think the target article lacks a clear explanation for non-specialists, and is overall not ready for the home page. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Legendary sports competitor breaks a nearly 50 year longstanding record is largely opposed as trivia, but this isn't? Absurd. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not saying that this is the way things should be, but I don't think it should be a surprise that Wikipedia is more nerd than jock. Bremps... 19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Dick Schoof (Netherlands PM)[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Dick Schoof (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Dick Schoof becomes Prime Minister of the Netherlands. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Dick Schoof is sworn in as Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the Netherlands, a new cabinet is sworn in with independent politician Dick Schoof serving as prime minister.
Alternative blurb III: ​ In the Netherlands, Dick Schoof succeeds four-term prime minister Mark Rutte.
News source(s): AP
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

One interesting thing about this succession is that Schoof is not part of the coalition party. Mark Rutte was PM for 13+ years, will serve as the next SG of NATO (1 October), which was just made official on 26 June. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 19:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support because he succeeded 13-year incumbent Mark Rutte, and this concludes government appointment from the November 2023 Dutch election. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link it to the election. Doesn't have to be bold, but it's obviously correlated. Not with rutte at nato too.49.205.145.3 (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2024 Uttar Pradesh stampede[edit]

Article: 2024 Uttar Pradesh stampede (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 121 people are killed in a stampede during a religious event in Uttar Pradesh, India. (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan Times
Credits:

Article will need some work before it's ready. Estreyeria (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: