Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
| Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
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.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary[edit]
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]
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.
Headers[edit]
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]
Please do not...[edit]
Suggesting updates[edit]There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
[edit]Archives of posted stories: Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/Archives
Sections
[edit]This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.
November 17
[edit]November 16
[edit]|
November 16, 2025 (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
2025 MotoGP World Championship
[edit]Blurb: In motor racing, Marc Márquez (pictured) win the MotoGP World Championship. (Post)
News source(s): Auto Hebdo of 1
Credits:
- Nominated by Moraljaya67 (talk · give credit)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Renominate this article since the MotoGP season was ended. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 01:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
RD: Barbara R. Hatton
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Legacy.com
Credits:
- Nominated by Coqui002 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Normantas Bataitis (talk · give credit) and Coqui002 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Died on 3 November. Death reported 16 November. Coqui002 (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
November 15
[edit]|
November 15, 2025 (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Franklin Sonn
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SABC
Credits:
- Nominated by QuicoleJR (talk · give credit)
- Updated by StarDeg (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: South African educator, businessman, and diplomat. Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
November 14
[edit]|
November 14, 2025 (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Rachel Cooke
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Observer
Credits:
- Nominated by QuicoleJR (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ~2025-33707-82 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: British journalist and author. Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
RD: Todd Snider
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC News/AP
Credits:
- Nominated by Wizzito (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Country singer wizzito | say hello! 22:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
(Ready) RD: Kenny Easley
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American football player. Article is a GA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support It's a GA, and no indications that quality has dropped since approval.—Bagumba (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Ready Good Article, updated.–DMartin 04:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Alice Wong
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Innisfree987 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American disability activist and writer. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support article looks good enough to be posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Posted Schwede66 03:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
RD: Sharna Fernandez
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): IOL, SABC News
Credits:
- Nominated by Lefcentreright (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former banker-turned-politician-turned-real estate agent. Lefcentreright Discuss 14:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
RD: Roger Burrows
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Former DA KZN leader Roger Burrows dies – News24, 'A stalwart of our party': DA mourns Roger Burrows – IOL
Credits:
- Nominated by Lefcentreright (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former South African politician, member of parliament and the provincial legislature. Lefcentreright Discuss 11:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
RD: Kamini Kaushal
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Zee News
Credits:
- Nominated by ~2025-33738-44 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Shakirfan (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Veteran Indian actress. ~2025-33738-44 (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose due to insufficient sourcing. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
RD: John Beam
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Bremps (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Shot and killed. Suspected perp arrested. Article still needs work. Preliminary check reveals that the subject is notable. Bremps... 01:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Still a stub. We do not post stubs, but if article is expanded, support. Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Also, I am not sure if the subject is actually notable, but that is not to be decided here. Seems to me to be a run-of-the-mill coach. Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Please see Talk:John Beam. Bremps... 03:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- The article still has the "{{Amfoot-coach-stub}}" content on it, but its content has been slightly expanded, though. ~2025-33408-48 (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Also, I am not sure if the subject is actually notable, but that is not to be decided here. Seems to me to be a run-of-the-mill coach. Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support No longer marked as a stub, Wiki notability established. As an adopted Oaklander, this incident is heinous and upsetting, and we are greatly shaken. That said, I commend Wikipedia editors for creating a solid page quickly that meets criteria for ITNRD. DrewieStewie (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Still WP:STUBby at 1294 B (215 words).—Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
RD: Stephen Corey Bryant
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today, CBS News
Credits:
- Nominated by EF5 (talk · give credit)
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: Was executed at 6:00 p.m. today. EF5 23:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what's going on with the template. EF5 23:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Should be fixed. The 'nominator' parameter should only have your username, instead of a signature. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 23:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Breaking Rust
[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.
Blurb: An AI-generated singer tops Billboard's Country Digital Song Sales chart. (Post)
News source(s): ABC, EuroNews, Guardian, SF Chronicle, The Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Created by Ronnotel (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Have we posted things like this before? (or in the last 2-3 years) Not sure if we should post a charting single at ITN. I get that the "hook" is that this is AI-generated, but that seems more like a "fun fact".
- This seems more appropriate for DYK - which it actually qualifies for(!) as the article was created on Nov 11. Natg 19 (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- As I understand it, this is a first and seems significant in showing the impact of AI on the creative arts. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - LLMs are just tools, and are incapable of independent creative work. We don't post when songs produced without this assistance top the charts, so why should we post when this one does? GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for very obvious reasons. Scuba 20:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Computer generated vocalists are nothing new (e.g. Hatsune Miku), as are tools that can automatically generate songs on a computer. All that's different here is that it's using the hot buzzword in tech at the moment. As others have mentioned this would be much better suited for DYK. PolarManne (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose It's worth noting that the song reached the top of the Country Digital Song Sales Billboard chart (note the link is a redirect, and how the target doesn't appear there), one of four Country charts Billboard tracks. It's also conceivable much of this was driven by the fact people heard about the slop and rushed to "check it out" as it were--this does not equate to an equal ranking on Billboard's Hot Country Songs ranking. Slop is slop. There's multiple genocides going on right now and I simply can't come to equate people streaming slop digitally to ITN's globalistic and impact-driven standards. Departure– (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose If we this were the "Music In the News" section then this'd be good but as of now we don't even cover when massive albums release and break records. Stupid country listeners enjoying slop is hardly news. TheFellaVB (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Merely because I think that "Country Digital sales" is a bit of a weak metric. If an AI-generated song were a proper #1 It'd be a different story.–DMartin 23:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
RD: Saalumarada Thimmakka
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1][2]
Credits:
- Nominated by Srf123 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Fylindfotberserk (talk · give credit)
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: Indian environmentalist. Srf123 (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article seems to be in good enough shaped and well sourced, although I feel like her career and achievements sections could be expanded a little more, currently a third of the article is for the "Alleged misuse of name" section. TheFellaVB (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Talk page has compelling evidence that the claimed age listed in her article is false. Painting17 (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- But the majority of sources give the probably false figure? We are about verifiability really. Has anyone written about the age dispute? Secretlondon (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Talk page has compelling evidence that the claimed age listed in her article is false. Painting17 (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
2025 Summer Deaflympics
[edit]Blurb: The 25th Summer Deaflympics officially opens in Japan on 15 November (Post)
Alternative blurb: Japan officially inaugurates the 25th Summer Deaflympics in Tokyo on 15 November
Alternative blurb II: International Committee of Sports for the Deaf unveils the opening ceremony of the 2025 Summer Deaflympics on on 15 November
News source(s): Olympics, The Mainichi
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Abishe (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ~2025-31713-63 (talk · give credit), Josh0108 (alt) (talk · give credit) and 42.144.113.133 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is the Olympics for the deaf. Since Japan sits in the Pacific Ring of Fire and considered to be the land of rising sun as the time has hit past 12 am in Japan local time, so posting it under 14 November nominations, although the date in Japan has gone past 14 November. File:2025 Summer Deaflympics.png Abishe (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I count over 150 red links in the target article. And one of the two sources is not independent. I see no description of the opening in Tokyo, and no independent sources about the games in the article that aren't near a year old! Nfitz (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose sadly I don't think this will be notable enough to warrant blurbing, considering that we have never blurbed any of the previous disability-related sport competition bar Paralympics. NotKringe (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose wildly undersourced for the main page, and I've got concerns about notability too. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
(Attention needed) BHP liable over the Mariana dam disaster
[edit]Blurb: High Court of Justice in England rules BHP liable for the 2015 Samarco dam disaster (damage pictured) in Mariana, Minas Gerais, Brazil. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian Reuters Al Jazeera G1
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: About 600,000 people seeking compensation (including myself) awaited the decision. By the way, I personally met with Thomas Goodhead at a local visit to my city and he said the repercussions of the decision would be international. ArionStar (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose it's simply just an update on a ten-year-old domestic disaster. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- It's the world's largest mining company being held judicially responsible for the biggest environmental disaster in Brazil. ArionStar (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support For the same reasons as named as ArionStar, it warrants significance upon the basis of it's uniqueness. Kingofmapps (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment In a case like this, the significance is going to be how much in damages they will have to pay, as currently plaintiffs are seeking 36 billion GBP. If the penalty remains at that size when it is decided in the second trial, that might be reason to post. If they get away with anything less than a billion, its a slap on the wrist. Masem (t) 16:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support – Significant example of international corporate liability, with transnational ramifications. Even if the event took ten years, the judgement took place today. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. 2600 etc (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Needs work To start with, the lead of the nominated article says nothing about this news but explains some other settlement on 6 Nov. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Question This is notable, but would it not be better to post when the result of damages is known? I note that BHP are appealing and they are also claiming that the $30bn they have already paid out in Brazil limits the damages due. Black Kite (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: based on my experience on ITN, such information is secondary; the main and most important information is that the world's largest mining company (BHP) was found liable; in a trial of such magnitude (222 pages and involving 3 countries), the judge unlikely would change her mind due to an appeal. ArionStar (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Eh... The judge won't change her mind, because it is likely that she is not the one handling the appeal, but a judge or a panel at the Court of Appeal. – robertsky (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: based on my experience on ITN, such information is secondary; the main and most important information is that the world's largest mining company (BHP) was found liable; in a trial of such magnitude (222 pages and involving 3 countries), the judge unlikely would change her mind due to an appeal. ArionStar (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Question to @Admins willing to post ITN: How much support is required to be considered "consensus"? ArionStar (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Flu decimates elephant seals
[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.
Blurb: A strain of influenza H5N1 decimates populations of elephant seals (pictured) and other mammals. (Post)
News source(s): BBC; El Pais; NYT;
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
(later) ... I'm usually prepared to leap in and start bold editing but there's a lot to digest here. The elephant seals seem to have been hit hard in 2023 and the current news seems due to a study of the subsequent impact. The human flu season is just taking off in the UK. Australia had a tough season in its winter but they were affected by a different strain from what's now worrying the UK. I'm not sure how it's going in the US but I suppose that RFK and the decimation of US health agencies hasn't helped. I tried asking Gemini for a summary of the strain situation in the UK and it gave me a long answer with good sources but it's quite complex and not easy to summarise. Hmm... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: Not a current event. Deaths took place in 2022-2023 and the study cited was released in Sep 2025. User:WoodElf 15:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which study you're talking about but the coverage in El Pais and the New York Times was triggered by this study published yesterday: Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Viruses (HPAIV) Associated with Major Southern Elephant Seal Decline. The BBC report was published on 6 Nov and seems based on research mainly in Argentina but cites lots of other papers. My point is that we have a wave of coverage in the news now. Peer-reviewed science takes time to reach the press ... Andrew🐉(talk) 16:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose If seals could write ... but they can't and the human researchers are off by about 2 years here. If these news reports were about an ongoing pandemic maybe we could feature it but this is stale by all standards. PS: Gemini is the worst of the lot when it comes to LLMs (annoying to get a taste of with almost every Google search now, and pizza glue anyone), so I wouldn't bother with it. Gotitbro (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
RD: Michèle Audin
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): femmes et maths L'Humanite
Credits:
- Nominated by Secretlondon (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: French professor of mathematics and writer. Female academic. Member of Oulipo. Secretlondon (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Needs sources for some of her mathematics research. Cannot find an English language death notice. Secretlondon (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
RD: Diego Causero
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Vatican News in Czech
Credits:
- Nominated by Secretlondon (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Italian Vatican diplomat. Head of mission in various countries. Secretlondon (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
RD: Dan McGrath
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
Credits:
- Nominated by Brainulator9 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Flyless Kyle (talk · give credit) and Connormah (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American television writer, won an Emmy for his work on The Simpsons. Citations are missing. -Brainulator9 (TALK) 01:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
November 13
[edit]|
November 13, 2025 (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
(Ready) RD: Juan Ponce Enrile
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rappler, Rolling Stone Philippines
Credits:
- Nominated by Royiswariii (talk · give credit)
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: Chief Presidential Legal Counsel of the Philippines, the Martial law implementor and former Senate President of the Philippines ROY is WAR Talk! 09:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Quite a few unsourced paragraphs in different parts of the article. CMD (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think it is Done now. They added reliable sources. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Marked ready. The article has no tags and it's good to go. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 05:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) 27th Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan
[edit]Blurb: An amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan creates a new court of final appeal and establishes the position of Chief of Defence Forces, strengthening military rule. (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bremps (talk · give credit)
- Created by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Article is not in a good state and does not state all of the things in the blurb. Needs updating. NY Times article notes a massive overhaul of Pakistan's legal structure. Bremps... 16:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: Firstly I think this should have a WP:CTOP tag since this is South Asia. I am opposing since this
is not particularly news for English speakersfeels too domestic. This may be better for DYK assuming it meets criteria. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 17:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)- I'm pretty sure ITN doesn't just restrict news down to "news for people in the Anglosphere". ~2025-30824-70 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- I moreso said that since this is English Wikipedia. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 18:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- This argument is generally frowned upon. Bremps... 18:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- I have struck my statement and added a new reason. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 19:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- This argument is generally frowned upon. Bremps... 18:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- I moreso said that since this is English Wikipedia. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 18:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Pakistani English (108 million native speakers) is one of the official languages of Pakistan. ~2025-32105-73 (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure ITN doesn't just restrict news down to "news for people in the Anglosphere". ~2025-30824-70 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- "Please do not... Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one." - from the top of this page. 'Too domestic' is exactly that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as too domestic. I doubt we'd blurb similar for any other country, Anglosphere or not. The Kip (contribs) 17:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- We blurbed the overturning of Roe, the US government shutdown, the Kirk and Minnesota legislator shootings, and even outside the US the Bougainville independence referendum, the last Northern Irish election, and Mexico's judicial reform last year. We're not allergic to domestic. Bremps... 18:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t think I voted on Roe as I wasn’t as active here at that time, but I voted against the Minnesota shootings and iirc the Kirk shooting as well. The Kip (contribs) 21:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- We blurbed the overturning of Roe, the US government shutdown, the Kirk and Minnesota legislator shootings, and even outside the US the Bougainville independence referendum, the last Northern Irish election, and Mexico's judicial reform last year. We're not allergic to domestic. Bremps... 18:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Just reading the article the Amendment it seams it will have quite the impact on the judicial system Otto (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support - likely to be the most notable single event in Pakistan’s ongoing transition from civilian-military hybrid regime back to something closer to a military dictatorship. Pakistan is one of the most populous and powerful (nuclear weapons) countries in the world. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support per both. 2600 etc (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support as this is a very clear sign of democratic backsliding within Pakistan. Also I don't think this is "too domestic", given the fairly clear and likely major impact this amendment will have, and many other more "domestic" things have been posted, as Bremps said. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support – We posted the failure of the Australian Voice referendum. A successful constitutional change seems at least as notable. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I think the blurb needs to be a bit more direct on what the impacts are. This is not just a new court but as implied, gives the military a much stronger role in the govt, as I read the NYtimes article on this. Worded as is, it seems very inconsequential, so the blurb should be stronger as to why this was significant. Masem (t) 04:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a selection of headlines which seem clearer:

- Pakistan assembly votes to give strongman Asim Munir lifetime legal immunity
- Asim Munir is taking Pakistan Army to 7th-century Arabia
- Trump's "Favourite Field Marshal" Asim Munir Gains More Powers
- ‘Funeral for democracy’: Pakistan parliament grants lifelong immunity and sweeping powers to army chief Munir
- ‘Trump’s favourite Field Marshal’: Asim Munir’s rise as Pakistan’s 'real ruler'
- Just think about what such legal immunity means – lifetime despotic power. Like Trump said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody..."
- Andrew🐉(talk) 11:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not questioning what sources are saying to that though the article could be stronger, but definitely the nominated blurb downplays that. Masem (t) 12:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support, major change in Pakistan's power balance. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Per Chaotic. ArionStar (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose (for now) The creation of a new court seems to me to be entirely domestic and irrelevant to ITN. And for the rest... I think the accusations of democratic backsliding or military rule are biased. Andrew has cited sources that support this, but they are not from major newspapers that can convince me that this is really what has happened in Pakistan. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- We live in a world where the Financial Times is "not a major newspaper". Howard the Duck (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Financial Times is not calling Munir the "real ruler" or talking about a "funeral for democracy". Big differences. Is just talking about a lifetime legal immunity which does not necessarily represent a democratic disorder. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- A head of state having legal immunity while in office is rather normal; someone having lifetime legal immunity is very rare and no self proclaiming democratic country does that. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Some Euorpean monarchs have legal immmunity even after their abdication. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- A head of state having legal immunity while in office is rather normal; someone having lifetime legal immunity is very rare and no self proclaiming democratic country does that. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Financial Times is not calling Munir the "real ruler" or talking about a "funeral for democracy". Big differences. Is just talking about a lifetime legal immunity which does not necessarily represent a democratic disorder. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- We live in a world where the Financial Times is "not a major newspaper". Howard the Duck (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- I recommend more folks also take a look at the state of the article in addition to notability. Bremps... 13:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Bzweebl and others. ~2025-30824-70 (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, dictator move of interest only to dictator. Abductive (reasoning) 09:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- It would also be of interest to Pakistan's population as well as the people in the territories surrounding, would it not? ~2025-30824-70 (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Not really. Democratic backsliding is characterized by lack of public support or public opposition. Abductive (reasoning) 20:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- It would also be of interest to Pakistan's population as well as the people in the territories surrounding, would it not? ~2025-30824-70 (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Chaotic Enby and Bzweebl in particular.A major shift in the political landscape of Pakistan. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support per reasons above (the creeping militarization and democratic backsliding of a nuclear-armed state), and I believe this has been marked as ready for over a day now. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Not relevant on an international scale in any sense. Even if this was something in the US for example (eg. packing the SCOTUS bench, or a hypothetical bill dis-establishing SCOTUS or somethign of that nature) I would still oppose as not being notable. Democratic backsliding and militarization does not merit posting to ITN unless the chief executive (Prime minister) gets removed or changed, in my view., and also feels like WP: CRYSTALBALL violations. Not internationally, intellectually, nor morally time-sensitive enough to merit posting. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose we don't post every single constitutional amendment around the world, why should we give special treatment to Pakistan? Scuba 20:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe because not all constitutional amendments are of equal significance...? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- note it was signed into law on the 13th, not the 12th.Psephguru (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Posted as there is rough consensus to do so. There has been some discussion about making the blurb clearer regarding the consequences of this constitutional change, and I sympathise with that. The current blurb is wordy and only gets to the point late in the piece. Suggestions for alt blurbs, and the related discussion, would be welcome. Schwede66 03:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Pull for the following reasons:
- There isn't a consensus as there were six opposes and this makes seven.
- The topic is contentious per WP:CT/SA and so special caution is expected – not "rough" treatment
- It's not just the blurb that needs work. As noted above, the coverage indicates that the main effect of this is to empower Asim Munir as a military dictator, commanding all the armed forces and being above the law for life. For another example, see the NYT report which leads with a big picture of him. But the bold article doesn't even mention him once – a remarkable level of obfuscation which seems deceptive.
- Pull/oppose on quality for the reasons noted by Andrew. The article currently doesn't mention the implications of democratic backsliding and how exactly military rule is being strengthened, and the lead section doesn't make the significance of the amendment clear. 9ninety (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Might it be easier for those asking for a "pull" to simply edit the article and add a mention of Asim Munir, rather than go through the entire bureaucratic process of pulling this story, and for it to likely not get reposted though it deserves to be up (as often is the case for pulled stories)? I don't see how this is a "quality" concern; the article is in good quality, though more can be done to improve it. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
November 12
[edit]|
November 12, 2025 (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Needs reviews) RD: Jim Avila
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Wizzito (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Journalist for ABC News wizzito | say hello! 22:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Dylan (dog)
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Clarin
Credits:
- Nominated by The Robot Parade (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former President of Argentina Alberto Fernández's dog. Article is short but cover's Dylan's life with sufficent detail and quality. --The Robot Parade 06:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support couldn’t see anything unsourced and prose is fine. 1brianm7 (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support looks to meet WP:ITNQUALITY. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Disambiguate The dog is named after the famous singer who is named after the famous poet. To avoid confusion per WP:EASTEREGG, we should post this with the disambiguation as Dylan (dog). Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with not making it ambiguous when there's clear primary topic for the name (which isn't this), though nobody ever actually ends up doing this... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support but wikilinked as Dylan, without the
"(dog)"
. Bob Dylan and Dylan Thomas are not known mononymously as "Dylan", so I don't believe any possible confusion could exist. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC) - Ready This is probably the best-sourced article an individual dog has ever had.–DMartin 23:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Not even close. Hachikō and Balto in particular would like a word. —Cryptic 00:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- I guess I stand corrected lol.–DMartin 02:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Not even close. Hachikō and Balto in particular would like a word. —Cryptic 00:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Posted Schwede66 03:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) US Government shutdown ends
[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.
Blurb: The United States federal government shutdown ends after 44 days. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The United States federal government re-opens after a record 44-day shutdown.
News source(s): AP
Credits:
- Nominated by 1brianm7 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by 5225C (talk · give credit)
- Suggest just removing the blurb entirely. If this must be posted, I'd suggest "The United States federal government re-opens after a record 44-day shutdown." 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- @5225C: I've added that as an altblurb.–DMartin 04:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support altblurb Obviously this is major news and is going to be discussed for a while.–DMartin 04:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose or at least Alter current blurb. We dont need a new blurb for this and though I was still opposed to the original blurb, its there and we might as well make it useful to bring that up to date. Masem (t) 04:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- How would altering the current blurb differ from putting up a new blurb? 1brianm7 (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- It wouldn't bump the blurb to the top. But I guess it's a moot point now. ~2025-31615-11 (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- It would rplace the blurb, but not gain new precedence on timing, so at least when this was proposed, it was 3rd on the list and would have been there. Masem (t) 12:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- How would altering the current blurb differ from putting up a new blurb? 1brianm7 (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Alter current blurb Just alter the current blurb to the wording of the main blurb supplied here. Similarly to how we update death tolls etc.Basetornado (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Update Rather than posting it at the top and rolling off the current one.While some case could be made for a "govt. shutdown" (record breaking etc.), the end of it isn't inherently notable.Updating the extant blurb suffices.Gotitbro (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)- Oppose Any new blurb, since the previous one has rolled off now. Gotitbro (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Pull The article has been orange-tagged for several days now. I pointed this out in the ongoing nomination below and nothing was done. It therefore seems clear that the article is unable to maintain the level of quality required by ITN. As the shutdown seems to be in abeyance for the holiday season, we should give a rest. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- The old blurb has been pulled now and we don't need another one until the new year. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Pull the current blurb for the shutdown has been updated, so this is just redundant. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - The updated version of the current blurb does not follow our usual headline style, and emphasises the record-breaking (which is pointless trivia) rather than the impact and conclusion of the shutdown. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Bump with the updated blurb. The end of the longest shutdown looks equally notable and logically consistent with posting it. Brandmeister talk 08:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Previous blurb has fallen off, I don’t quite understand a ton of the debate above, but I presume that there is no prejudice for this running because an old blurb’s wording was amended for three hours, should consensus decide. 1brianm7 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: related to WP:ITNTRUMP. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, Trump is not directly responsible for the shutdown, as it's Congress who's responsible for passing the budget. Trump and his party do hold a government trifecta, though... Howard the Duck (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: if we hadn't just posted this same story a few days ago, I would support doing so now. However I don't think this justifies two blurbs in as many weeks. An update to an existing blurb would make more sense, but the old one has been pulled due to article quality issues. If/when those are fixed, I would support restoring the blurb to the template with updated wording, but not at the top as a new story. Modest Genius talk 11:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose and close The blurb was already updated. The discussion is now unnecessary. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is Wikipedia not USÆpedia. Why do we keep getting these trivial local nominations for this particular country? Problems passing budgets are bog-standard the world over. Nfitz (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Calling for me to be topic banned after one blurb nomination must be some kind of record. 1brianm7 (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- That is ridiculous. This is hardly even 'trivial nominations': the United States is simply a world power, hence why it received more coverage than other nations. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 19:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Being a world power does not mean that everything that happens in the United States is truly noteworthy. Post-WWII marketing (or propaganda) continues to prevail. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- My mistake. I didn't mean to imply that absolutely everything in the US deserves to be ITN. We don't need to see Trump every day for doing a thing, but its status as a world power means it will receive more coverage and scrutiny for most things. I doubt we would post the government of Eritrea being shutdown. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 20:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- That is precisely why not everything that receives extensive and intense coverage and scrutiny is important (or anything that is not reported in the press is not important), and that is why the debate here is important. And that is precisely why I do not believe the US government shutdown should be ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- You win. Thanks for the stimuli of argumentation. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 21:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- That is precisely why not everything that receives extensive and intense coverage and scrutiny is important (or anything that is not reported in the press is not important), and that is why the debate here is important. And that is precisely why I do not believe the US government shutdown should be ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- My mistake. I didn't mean to imply that absolutely everything in the US deserves to be ITN. We don't need to see Trump every day for doing a thing, but its status as a world power means it will receive more coverage and scrutiny for most things. I doubt we would post the government of Eritrea being shutdown. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 20:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Being a world power does not mean that everything that happens in the United States is truly noteworthy. Post-WWII marketing (or propaganda) continues to prevail. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- That is ridiculous. This is hardly even 'trivial nominations': the United States is simply a world power, hence why it received more coverage than other nations. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 19:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: WP:ITNCDONT states "Please do not… oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country". This is hardly "local news", it's national news affecting nearly everyone in a country of 300 million people. This was more than a "problem passing a budget", millions of people were affected directly.–DMartin 22:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Calling for me to be topic banned after one blurb nomination must be some kind of record. 1brianm7 (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alsor. The original blurb was a mistake. Impact was never significant. Leave confected political crises to cable news. Dr Fell (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose post this event once is more than enough; I argued we should have waited for the shutdown to end instead of posting it once it past an arbitrary milestone, but you guys argued to post it anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard the Duck (talk • contribs) 22:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Last US penny
[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.
Blurb: The Philadelphia Mint produces the last United States penny (pictured), ending over 230 years of production. (Post)
News source(s): Press Release, AP, New York Times, The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Chorchapu (talk · give credit)
- Weak support This is definitely novel and interesting, I'm just not sure it's significant enough for ITN.–DMartin 00:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm also slightly skeptical as, without an act of Congress abolishing the currency, the next administration could simply start production again.–DMartin 01:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support significant and interesting. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Although its pretty sad to see the end of penny, I don't think that a termination of minting on a single type of coin (not even ending their usage) would be important. Most the updates on banknote series aren't considerable ITN, and so, a single coin is obviously not worth of it. FK8438 (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral notability but the blurb should say "circulating" as proof/collectors pennies may still be struck Omnifalcon (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - totally mundane and local. Countries often do this, making it the opposite of novel. Have we posted other countries doing this? Nfitz (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Nfitz. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This is really what DYK seems far more appropriate for even though it does not fit the criteria. Its a nice bit of trivia that would do great there but not here at ITN. Masem (t) 04:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support The coin is one of the most recognizable and long-standing in the world, so it's significant. Trepang2 (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Trivial and as noted above not abolished either. Currency updates unless actually significant aren't going to be blurbed at ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral -- did we post when Canada did this? If so, I would support. --RockstoneSend me a message! 05:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose There are still lots of pennies in circulation and they are still legal tender. Production might be restarted and so the claim of being last seems implausible. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support – The articles are good, but I actually expected something a lot bigger here. It doesn't feel like an article that warrants featuring to such a degree. Still, I see all the work that our editors are doing to our US penny article and it feels reasonable to celebrate that. The 'debate' article is similarly very well-updated. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose both as trivia and as an obvious WP:CRYSTAL violation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose while it's kinda neat, it likely won't have much effect especially since the old pennies are still in circulation. Even if they weren't, it'd still just be a bit of neat trivia. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose trivial and irrelevant for ITN and outside the US. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Completely withdrawing the penny might be worth posting. As I understand it, this is just ending the current production run, without committing to never making more or a withdrawal from circulation. Re-nominate if/when they're officially withdrawn. Modest Genius talk 12:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Limited impact. ArionStar (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) US shutdown -- kicking the can
[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.
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
- Oppose for now Ongoing at least personally is more for things that are going to continue to happen for the forseeable future. Considering this is likely to end relatively soon and the blurb is still up at time of writing, don't believe it's suitable for ongoing. Would also add that while it may start up again in January, it's not really suitable to have an ongoing just because it might. If there hadn't been the vote and the blurb had rolled off, then I would likely support. But it's an oppose with the facts as they are currently. Basetornado (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support – Meets my primary Ongoing requirement of having (extremely) regular edits/additions. A perfect example of our work on covering ongoing events. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Senate has passed the CR, House is to vote by tomorrow, and bill expected on president's desk friday. There's no indication neither of those steps will be stalled so it makes no sense to put to ongoing at all. And if the article has an orange tag, the blurb needs to be removed. Masem (t) 13:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Wait. The shutdown hasn't ended yet and the blurb isn't rotating off. If/when the budget is passed we can consider updating the blurb - and this will cease to be an ongoing event. Modest Genius talk 13:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Modest Genius: and what's the timeline for that? This wil continue indefintiely, maybe I'm just pessimisitc but I think there's a real possiblity that it'll continue for a lot longer.–DMartin 14:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose It seems likely that the shutdown will end will roll off just before or as this is posted (if it's not to bold to presume that it will be posted). No sense in moving it to the ongoing slot until that point, which is in the very immediate future. 1brianm7 (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- If it hasn't ended by tomorrow, I'd support this. 1brianm7 (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Strong Support We need to quit with these arbitrary milestones and moving goalposts. It's an ongoing event, it's going to continue indefinitely, it should be in ongoing. End of story.–DMartin 14:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Indefinitely is a bit of a stretch as the Senate's passed a budget and the House is on its way to Washington. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- It's not certain whether or not this one will pass the House assuming everyone votes with their party (219-214). CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 16:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Chorchapu: The problem with that is that people have been making claims like this since the shutdown started. Yeah this might be the end of the shutdown, but we've said that loads of times previously and yet here we are.–DMartin 22:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think there's been a single time during the shutdown when it's looked so close to ending. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Indefinitely is a bit of a stretch as the Senate's passed a budget and the House is on its way to Washington. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Wait the House is making its way to Washington for a vote on the budget so this may very well be over in just a few days. But if the budget doesn't pass then I'd definitely support pending the orange tag's fixing. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support A government shutdown this long in the worlds third largest country by population, largest by economy, and watched all over the world politically is unheard of, then we should not be moving goalposts by saying this is America-centric. Lukt64 (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Wait/Oppose given the shutdown is seemingly approaching its end, there's no reason for us to hotshot this into ongoing for a day before removing it. The Kip (contribs) 17:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Per the excellent oppose rationales given above. If an event is about to end that is the antithesis of what ongoing is meant for, regardless of whatever minor lingering updates it might generate after that. Gotitbro (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as this event is about to end. 2600 etc (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- This might just be me disagreeing, but I think we hold off on the sentiment that it's 'about to end'. Like DMartin said, we've heard this be said plenty of times over the last month and a half. It is looking more likely than ever, but I still don't think we should be saying this until we know for certain. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 23:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- The senate passed a CR, the house has now reconviened to vote on it. It is far far closer to ending compared to a week ago where it appeared to be in limbo. Masem (t) 23:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- This might just be me disagreeing, but I think we hold off on the sentiment that it's 'about to end'. Like DMartin said, we've heard this be said plenty of times over the last month and a half. It is looking more likely than ever, but I still don't think we should be saying this until we know for certain. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 23:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as this event is about to end. 2600 etc (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Kicking the can is the top of the fun lol. ArionStar (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This is silly. A local budget issue would never be in ongoing. And it's clearly been all but over for a couple of days, with the Republican majority in the USA House. Nfitz (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Unless Trump suddenly reneges on his commitment to sign the spending bill (which is very unlikely), this will be over by the end of the night. Update existing blurb to mention the shutdown has ended instead. PolarManne (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment The House just passed the budget to end the shutdown and pending Trump's signature the shutdown in nearly over, actually definitely for real this time, we promise. (AP) Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
November 11
[edit]|
November 11, 2025 (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(New) RD: Carmen Moreno (singer)
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Polskie Radio
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
- Created by Dr. Blofeld (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Pioneering Polish jazz vocalist, had no article yet, unbelievable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Any REF & footnote for the date of birth, please? Looking for such a sentence in the main prose. The info is the infobox without a source. The intro has only a single sentence and thus, {{lead too short}} applies. Is "Swinging Queen of Polish Jazz" a quote from some source? This could use some elaboration in the main prose with a footnote or two. --PFHLai (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- PFHLai, I copied the date to the body where the reference already was, and repeated that same ref to the quote in the lead. Polish articles have only one sentence for a lead. Before I get to writing more, I would like to see progress for two articles nominated for 10 November, and need to improve one to come for that day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
(Pulled) 2025 Iraqi parliamentary election
[edit]Blurb: The Reconstruction and Development Coalition, led by Prime Minister Mohammed Shia' al-Sudani (pictured), places first in the Iraqi parliamentary election. (Post)
News source(s): [3], [4]
Credits:
- Nominated by PtolemyXV (talk · give credit)
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.
PtolemyXV (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Conditional support This is ITNR per List of current heads of state and government. I would fully support once the tables are completely filled with information on seats and percentages in "Results by province". As for the rest of the content, the article is very good. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support ITNR and article looks fine. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support, I did not spot any glaring issues in terms of prose from a quick readthrough. ~2025-33437-63 (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support ArionStar (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: ArionStar (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- First-ever time posting something on ITN for me. Now, I just have to figure out how to upload the image locally! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Aaaaand done! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- First-ever time posting something on ITN for me. Now, I just have to figure out how to upload the image locally! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: ArionStar (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I am not sure if this is ready. I share Alsor's concerns that there are tables with missing data (2025_Iraqi_parliamentary_election#Results_by_province). Natg 19 (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- We don’t generally post elections where the results section has no prose. Schwede66 19:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- My bad, sorry. Feel free to take it down until it is updated. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Just saw your edit summary. Bad luck! Don't let that discourage you, Chaotic Enby. I very much appreciate another admin helping out here. Schwede66 21:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of your comment if you don't have any plans to post this? This happens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_Dutch_general_election#%22In_the_news%22 if you don't post it after the issues are solved. Shadow4dark (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Just saw your edit summary. Bad luck! Don't let that discourage you, Chaotic Enby. I very much appreciate another admin helping out here. Schwede66 21:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- My bad, sorry. Feel free to take it down until it is updated. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Not sure why this nom was pulled. Article is looking good. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support good written and the results are ready. Shadow4dark (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- How are the results ready? The tables are incomplete with percentage of votes and number of seats empty. Natg 19 (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- National Results looks ready, only the regional sections are empty. Shadow4dark (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- How are the results ready? The tables are incomplete with percentage of votes and number of seats empty. Natg 19 (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
(Attention needed) 2025 Turkish Air Force Lockheed C-130 crash
[edit]Blurb: A Turkish Air Force C-130 Hercules cargo plane crashes near the Azerbaijan–Georgia border, killing all twenty people on board. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A Turkish Air Force C-130 Hercules breaks up inflight near the Azerbaijan–Georgia border, killing all twenty people on board.
News source(s): CBS
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: I'm surprised no one has nominated this one yet. ArionStar (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Notable and ok article. Bremps... 13:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose – I don't believe plane crashes are inherently notable (and are likely posted more than they should be), and this is the 22nd aircraft incident in 2025 to have a Wikipedia article. Other incidents with similar fatality counts (2025 IBM Airlines Boeing 737 incident) weren't posted, and I don't see what makes this crash any different — is it because it was a military incident? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- 2025 IBM Airlines Boeing 737 incident was covered by the ongoing Sudanese civil war (2023–present); the American one (with 14 deaths) was posted. ArionStar (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose this is not disasterpedia. Therefore, we cannot include any aircraft accidents, whether civil or military. If there is not an overwhelming number of fatalities, IMHO, it is not ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- How much would it be considered as "overwhelming number of fatalities"? ArionStar (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- If is a civil aircraft, and as several editors have commented several times before, around 100 victims and, if fewer, the circumstances or those involved must be exceptional. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Already commented my support, but I feel that the circumstances of this one are exceptional. It's an inflight breakup with video showing the plane still largely intact but in pieces as it falls. That's not really common.Basetornado (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- If is a civil aircraft, and as several editors have commented several times before, around 100 victims and, if fewer, the circumstances or those involved must be exceptional. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- How much would it be considered as "overwhelming number of fatalities"? ArionStar (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support While I do agree with the comments saying we don't post military crashes normally. I feel this is notable for what happened, rather than it just being a military crash. This doesn't appear to be pilot error or they got lost etc. The plane broke up in mid-air and there's video of the seperated fuselage with wings attached falling, while the cockpit section is also falling. It doesn't appear to be a "run of the mill" crash so to speak.Basetornado (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Altblurb Added an altblurb that shows why it's notable. Again, not just a crash, but a midair break up. Happy for it to be edited etc if someone has better wording to show that fact.Basetornado (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose we typically do not post military craft disasters unless civilians were involved, as such accidents are considered part of the risk of being in the military. Masem (t) 20:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support The article’s quality is good enough & this is deadlier than the Louisville plane crash that’s currently being blurbed. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose isn't there a precedent to not post run-of-the-mill military crashes? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support both on notability and quality.–DMartin 02:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment This one is tricky because the cause of the breakup is mysterious and seems unusual. That makes it interesting but it tends to encourage speculation rather than hard facts. Perhaps we should wait on the diagnosis. Note that there was a similar breakup in 2017 which was due to a propellor failure. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Cleto Escobedo III
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Staff, T. M. Z. (2025-11-11). "Jimmy Kimmel's Band Leader Cleto of Cleto and the Cletones Dead". TMZ. Retrieved 2025-11-11., Moore, Julia; Esquibias, Liza (November 11, 2025). "Jimmy Kimmel's Lifelong Friend and 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!' Band Leader Cleto Escobedo Dies at 59: 'We Are Heartbroken'". People.com.
Credits:
- Nominated by BD2412 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Thriley (talk · give credit)
- Updated by The Robot Parade (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Jimmy Kimmel's bandleader. No separate article for the person as of now, but the article on the band has a substantial focus on the person. BD2412 T 22:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- I made a separate article. Based on the coverage in The NY Times, I think he passes notability. Thriley (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Wrote the article after Thriley's creation, should be satisfactory for RD. ----The Robot Parade 00:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support fully read through the article and it is well sourced and written. Props to Robot Parade for destubbing quickly and accurately. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support, I did not spot any glaring issues from a quick readthrough. ~2025-32859-99 (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Ready Excellent quality.–DMartin 01:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) 2025 Islamabad suicide bombing
[edit]Blurb: A suicide bombing kills twelve in Islamabad. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A suicide bombing attack kills twelve outside the District Judicial Complex in Islamabad, Pakistan.
News source(s): Dawn, The Hindu, New York Times, The Straits Times, Al Jazeera
Credits:
- Nominated by Bremps (talk · give credit)
- Updated by JulDer Wiki (talk · give credit), Grumpylawnchair (talk · give credit), LuniZunie (talk · give credit), RealKnockout (talk · give credit) and dmartin969 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Major news, not to be confused with India attack. Article still in state of updating. Top minister stated Pakistan was in a "state of war". Bremps... 20:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
OpposePoor blurb writing. ArionStar (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)- It's punchy. Bremps... 20:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Striked. It's just a temporary oppose. ArionStar (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- It's punchy. Bremps... 20:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- This does not seem like a valid oppose rationale to me. If you don't like the current blurb, you can always write an alternate one. Natg 19 (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem fair. Next time you should propose an altblurb instead of opposing the topic outright.–DMartin 21:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Wow, opposing because of writing? Not fair. CoryGlee 21:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- I've already been warned exactly because of this reason; I'm avoiding editing blurbs since a user requested a topic ban against me last time. ArionStar (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- No one should be requesting any bans or sending warnings if you're just making an altburb, unless you're editing pre-exisiting ones which I don't think you should be doing unless you're just updating info. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- I've already been warned exactly because of this reason; I'm avoiding editing blurbs since a user requested a topic ban against me last time. ArionStar (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Added altblurb with more detailed information.–DMartin 21:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support on notability. The list of terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2025 is quite long, but this is in the capital and seems to be one of the deadlier attacks in recent times. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2025 shows that such attacks are common – there were 7 in October. The list of ongoing armed conflicts has this as a tier 3 conflict, below all the major and minor wars. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Andrew Davidson – unfortunately, it is common in Pakistan. I would only support this in case a notable perpetrator were to be found (not militants), I mean any state actor. CoryGlee 22:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support short but high quality article, and seems to have much more coverage than other previous incidents. Most listed incidents in 2025 also have a much lower death count, a lot of them only being one, two, or three killed, so this attack definitely seems to be an outlier. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Most listed incidents in 2025 also seem to be targeting army forces and largely happening in Balochistan so the attack's circumstances do seem somewhat out of the ordinary. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support First terrorist attack in Islamabad since 2005, and against a major district court of the city. The violence in Pakistan is usually confined to the border regions, and the death toll is pretty high. Also, the Pakistani defence minister said the country is now in a "state of war". All in all, a rather exceptional case. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Grumpylawnchair. 2600 etc (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Grumpylawnchair. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on notability. Dr Fell (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Grumpylawnchair and V. L. Mastikosa. Ready?–DMartin 14:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Grumpulawnchair and V. L. Mastikosa JulDer Wiki (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Andrew and others. Terrorist attacks in Pakistan are not unusual and this one does not seem particulary notable. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Grumpylawnchair and V. L. Mastikosa. Don't really understand how others don't see notability in the first successful bombing in the capital in decades. Hsnkn (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Notable for location in country, not just country.Basetornado (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support per above; this appears to be a notable development in the 2025 Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Posted – robertsky (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)- Oppose Terror attacks are common in Pakistan even in Islamabad but the 2025 Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict should be among the listed ongoing conflicts.
(Posted) RD: Micheal Ray Richardson
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:
- Nominated by Natg 19 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Bagumba (talk · give credit)
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: Still needs some work. Natg 19 (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready – don't want to pass a definitive judgement. But there are at least three subheads without a single reference, and though the rest is indeed thoroughly sourced, I am afraid that his stats should be referenced too. CoryGlee 16:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Needs more citations. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 04:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support article has been improved and is now sufficiently cited. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support C-class article with sufficient breadth and citations to reliable sources. @CoryGlee and Chorchapu: Can you have another look based on the updates? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
RD (blurb discussion closed): Sally Kirkland
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American actress Sally Kirkland dies at 84. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Oscar-nominated American actress Sally Kirkland dies at 84.
News source(s): NBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by 2600 etc (talk · give credit)
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: Not ready due to missing citations. 2600 etc (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb: It doesn't seem like she did anything to change the industry. I support RD since she was notable, however. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 16:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb just… no. We’re well past jumping the shark at this point. The Kip (contribs) 16:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready, major sourcing issues. Once fixed, I strongly oppose blurb since even by the standards of actors who are usually nominated, this is stretching it way too far. ~2025-32416-84 (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Snow close on the blurb issue We can't just be blurbing anyone, even Oscar winners. Let's exclude someone from blurb consideration if that person does not have a "legacy" section. Bremps... 16:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Do we really need to close this? I agree it's not notable enough for a blurb but let's still have this up to discuss having it under RDs. TheFellaVB (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. The discussion has only been open for a couple of hours and munging the nomination makes it confusing so I have reverted this improper interference. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- I mean snow close any blurb talk. RD is only focused on article quality. Bremps... 19:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. The discussion has only been open for a couple of hours and munging the nomination makes it confusing so I have reverted this improper interference. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Do we really need to close this? I agree it's not notable enough for a blurb but let's still have this up to discuss having it under RDs. TheFellaVB (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Needs work I'm not familiar with this actress but she seems to be another veteran that our readership will be interested in. The gender imbalance in our blurbs this year has worsened as the tally is now 20 men to just 2 women. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- I've been waiting for the numbers to see how she compares with the other recent veteran actresses and, for the record, here they are. She's at the low end, comparable with the weak performance of James Watson, who all the other actresses managed to beat. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb: most of the news obits I've seen don't really say much about her legacy or impact in the entertainment industry. The only notable thing in THR's obit is that she was "one of" the first actresses to appear nude in a stage play. They basically glance over her Oscar-nomination, barely mentioning why her performance was nominated. I went to the NYTimes website to see what they had to say about her. I couldn't find an obit, but I did read a very interesting article about Bugles Across America. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 18:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb OLDWOMANDIES This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb. Can we please stop nominating blurbs for every moderately successful actor who dies of old age? Kirkland is clearly a long way short of being the top of her field, let alone meeting the Thatcher/Mandela standard of influence. Also oppose RD because the article is a mess, short and full of cn tags. The poor state of the article is itself an indication of how little influence she had. Modest Genius talk 19:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb since its another #disruptiveRDblurb nomination. Article is also of rough quality, so I oppose RD as well. Let's remove the blurb nom, and focus on getting the quality ready for RD. ----The Robot Parade 20:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- 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 21:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- We could easily post every such person. Deaths in 2025 posts over 20 deaths every day and it's one of the most popular pages on Wikipedia. DYK posts 9-18 fresh blurbs every day as it's very popular with editors who like to get things done. Other language Wikipedias post long lists of dead people on their main page. Every other mainpage section changes its content every day. It's only the English ITN that has got stuck in this remarkably unproductive state in which almost nothing gets posted. We've had James Watson as the top blurb for four days and counting. ITN is blatantly broken and what we're seeing here is the reason why. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- We do post "lists of dead people" on our main page - that is the RD line. The current guidelines maintain that blurbs are for "major figures" type of people. Your proposal for "de.wiki" style for RD can be a good compromise, but that still does not allow for blurbing every person who dies. Natg 19 (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- If you're so keen to post another blurb, why did you oppose the Booker Prize nomination below? That's much closer to being in postable condition and is on ITNR. We can get another blurb up without needing to drop (or change) our death blurb standards. Modest Genius talk 12:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Too trashy for my taste. The novel that is getting much more attention currently is Mary Shelley's classic Frankenstein. That's in the news because of the latest adaptation. The cultural impact of that work seems much greater and ties in nicely to humanity's hubristic creation of AI in a similar mashed-up fashion. But ITN/R's gerrymandering means that the lesser work gets more promotion here. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- We could easily post every such person. Deaths in 2025 posts over 20 deaths every day and it's one of the most popular pages on Wikipedia. DYK posts 9-18 fresh blurbs every day as it's very popular with editors who like to get things done. Other language Wikipedias post long lists of dead people on their main page. Every other mainpage section changes its content every day. It's only the English ITN that has got stuck in this remarkably unproductive state in which almost nothing gets posted. We've had James Watson as the top blurb for four days and counting. ITN is blatantly broken and what we're seeing here is the reason why. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Simply a case of OWD Noah, BSBATalk 23:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb, per others. Not ready for RD until the filmography and awards sections are referenced. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb We do not need blurbs for every single actor who dies, oppose per others. Not ready/Oppose RD due to the many CN tags in the article hungry (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD once ready. Dr Fell (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Dr Fell, that is not a helpful comment. Every person who has an article and who has died is eligible for an RD entry. All we assess here is whether an article is ready to be posted. Schwede66 03:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- RD not ready. As for blurb, I'm not familiar with the actress, but more importantly, the article is not of particularly high quality and the illness/death section is just one line. I don't see this one happening. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb – As above. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment It is SNOWing that no blurb is going to happen here, so please lets not comment on that. That said Oppose RD as woefully undersourced with the usual problems for american actors (lack of sources in filmograph sections). Masem (t) 04:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) BBC redux
[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.
Blurb: The BBC's Director-General Tim Davie (pictured) resigns over allegations of bias, while its chair, Samir Shah, makes a statement to parliament. (Post)
News source(s): UK front pages, Bloomberg, Reuters, NYT, Al Jazeera, AFR, NZ Herald, South China Morning Post
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Created by Rockwizfan (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Keivan.f (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose, trumped-up bullshit. Abductive (reasoning) 08:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Although there are headlines about resignations and apologies and suchlike, that's really just a news-ticker type of story and not something that itself rises to the level of WP:ITNSIGNIF. There are long-term questions about how the BBC operates in the modern world, where political division permeates deeply, and articles such as [5] present this saga in a very different way from the narrative in the Daily Telegraph. But those are long-term questions and this week's events are only one symptom of that long-running saga, not a major transformative development in themselves. — Amakuru (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- That's backwards. The news-ticker stories are the routine stuff like typhoons, sports results and minor disasters. This BBC matter has been building for a while and so there's lots of heavyweight analysis such as Why the BBC Is Facing Its Gravest Crisis in Decades and BBC resignations over Trump scandal show the pressures on public broadcasters. As the BBC is a major cultural institution, its governance and future is quite a big deal for the English-speaking world. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Procedural snow close. There was extensive opposition for reasons clearly beyond no article (including precedential) by multiple editors for this to be re-opened. Gotitbro (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose We just did this. There's an article now, but it reads like a hatchet job on the BBC and needs fixing quite badly. For example there's a sentence
Additionally, the BBC was criticised for its coverage of extremist contributors, particularly on BBC Arabic, with concerns raised about biased coverage in relation to the Israel-Hamas conflict.
which is sourced to the Telegraph ... who were the ones doing the criticising. Please attribute stuff like this, it doesn't reflect well as regards NPOV. Black Kite (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose It's effectively a political hit job to keep conservatives happy. They resigned because of an edit in a show 4 years ago. It has been in the news, I can agree on that. But it's all just a political hit job, rather than anything meaningful.Basetornado (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- My understanding is that Tim Davie is a conservative appointment and so the current socialist government is content to see him go so that they can influence the choice of successor. It appears that he's a scapegoat for a bundle of issues in which the BBC's centrist ethos naturally gets attacked by extremists of all sorts. Its main problem seems to be that the management is weak in handling egotistical "talent" and so tends to be accident-prone. Anyway, whatever the details, you fail to explain why we shouldn't report them, given the level of widespread coverage. If it's a hit job, why isn't that something we should report and explain? Andrew🐉(talk) 12:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- If the reasons for the removal of the DG are that convoluted, all the more
- evidence the initial rationale further looses significance. I simply don't see we or the media would even have been discussing this "scandal" if it didn't involve WP:NTRUMP stuff. Gotitbro (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Apropos of nothing, but did you just describe this government as "socialist", Andrew? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised about anything these days, but ... er ... really? Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- My understanding is that Tim Davie is a conservative appointment and so the current socialist government is content to see him go so that they can influence the choice of successor. It appears that he's a scapegoat for a bundle of issues in which the BBC's centrist ethos naturally gets attacked by extremists of all sorts. Its main problem seems to be that the management is weak in handling egotistical "talent" and so tends to be accident-prone. Anyway, whatever the details, you fail to explain why we shouldn't report them, given the level of widespread coverage. If it's a hit job, why isn't that something we should report and explain? Andrew🐉(talk) 12:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose and snow close Borrowing the words of Black Kite from the last nomination: The programme in question wasn't actually produced by the BBC - the scandal is that they didn't fact-check it. Despite the resignations, this doesn't rise to the level of ITN. I also do not see a consensus for this to be posted forming.~2025-32416-84 (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Opposition to the last nom and this one are either 1) this isn’t significant or 2) this is a bone being thrown to conservatives to keep them happy. The former is clearly false, given the growing amount of coverage this is getting. The latter is POV/OR and entirely without merit. Dr Fell (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- A news story may grab headlines for days but in terms of WP and long-term significance, it may just be a burst of coverage. Scandals like this are very much stories that dont make sense for ITN to cover unless we are talking court resolution or if they occur in the govt and lead to the change of leadership. Masem (t) 13:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
RD: Tatsuya Nakadai
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Japan News
Credits:
- Nominated by ~2025-32647-66 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Japanese actor. ~2025-32647-66 (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready, major sourcing issues.~2025-32416-84 (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Should be under Nov. 8, given that his death was on that day. It got me confused. wizzito | say hello! 22:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- If no one knows about the death till the news comes out, we'll go with the day of the news. Some unfortunate people are just found dead a long time after they die. Oh, well... -PFHLai (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
(Closed, person alive) RD/Blurb: Dharmendra
[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.
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Indian actor and politician Dharmendra (pictured) dies at the age of 89 (Post)
News source(s): Zee News
Credits:
- Nominated by Rushtheeditor (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
- Oppose blurb absolutely not This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- "Absolutely not" is not a valid rationale. Loytra✨ 05:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose RD on quality some unsourced sections, and its really weird that the Health Issues section is that high up in addition to the later Illness section. There's some general improvements that are needed overall. Oppose blurb as while the legacy section is there, its not really doing the job to establish why he was a major figure in Indian film and/or politics, and that absolutely needs strengthing to justify this. Masem (t) 05:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- I withdraw the nomination. Rushtheeditor (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Rushtheeditor: If you wish to withdraw only the blurb you can simply remove that paramater from the template. I think this can still continue as an RD nom. Gotitbro (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- The article is currently calling his death a hoax and is in present tense. Unless the media coverage changes, this probably can't continue as a RD nom by virtue of him being alive. 1brianm7 (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Rushtheeditor: If you wish to withdraw only the blurb you can simply remove that paramater from the template. I think this can still continue as an RD nom. Gotitbro (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- I withdraw the nomination. Rushtheeditor (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
RD: Irfan Siddiqui
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The News
Credits:
- Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)
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.
Ainty Painty (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Almost ready, writings could use more references, other than that I did not spot any glaring issues. ~2025-32416-84 (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Better than when I found it but would appreciate another pair of eyes. Removed a lot of WP:SYNTH and content that failed WP:V. Bremps... 03:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
RD: Arfa Sayeda Zehra
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SAMAA TV
Credits:
- Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)
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.
Ainty Painty (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Good to go. CoryGlee 20:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Any REF & footnote for the date and place of birth, please? Looking for such a sentence in the main prose. The info is the infobox without a source. --PFHLai (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
November 10
[edit]|
November 10, 2025 (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Willi Gundlach
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Techical University of Dortmund
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Musicologist, a pioneer of making Fanny Hensel known a a composer, educator of educators, inspiring conductor. Not much changed since I wrote the article in 2017. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Appropriate depth, fully referenced. SpencerT•C 16:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support 4463 characters (713 words) "readable prose size" and sourced. Grimes2 16:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Date of birth is unreferenced. Schwede66 02:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- referenced now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- A number of old links in REFs (from 2017) need to be refreshed. --PFHLai (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- The TU doesn't have a personal page for him any more, only the obit. It misses the early section. Please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- adding: two newspaper links are no longer there but would be pay-walled by now anyway - I combined one with an archived one (Meier). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
(Needs reviews) RD: Gisela Bock
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FAZ
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Grimes2 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Pioneering German historian of women's history and feminist. Expanded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Stefka Evstatieva
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bulgarian News Agency
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Bulgarian soprano who sang at all the major opera houses in Europe and the US, where she settled with her family for decades. Article was poor and tagged until she died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Herzl Bodinger
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ynet, Jerusalem Post
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Chomik1129 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former commander of the Israeli Air Force. Chomik! (talk?) 00:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Any REF & footnote for the DoB, please? Looking for such a sentence in the main prose. The info is the infobox without a source. --PFHLai (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Removed it since I couldn't find any reliable sources saying his exact date of birth. Chomik! (talk?) 12:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) 2025 Booker Prize
[edit]Blurb: The novel Flesh by Hungarian-British author David Szalay (pictured) is awarded the Booker Prize. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Author David Szalay is awarded the Booker Prize for his novel Flesh.
News source(s): New York Times, The Guardian, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Golan1911 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Steve Quinn (talk · give credit)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: One of the most prestigious literary awards in the world. Also, this is a significant event in the arts. Golan1911 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC) Golan1911
- Either the author or the book need to be the featured article, not the prize. (I do not understand the need for the year prize article, since there was no ceremony, just the nominations and winner) Masem (t) 22:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Fixed. Book should be main per ITNR.–DMartin 23:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Masem: most of the yearly Booker Prize articles are mere lists of judges and nominees. However the 2012 article shows the quality that can be attained if editors put the effort in. Modest Genius talk 14:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Given the 2012 prize was adjusted to deal with fallout from the the 2011 one, I can sorta see that. But the bulk of the 2012 is fluff (like reiterating the short summary of each book nominated), and tge 2011/2012 controversy is something that would easily fit on the overall Booker prize page. Masem (t) 15:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Added info on booker prize win to critical reception. Seems ready to go, everything that needs to be sourced seems sourced. Basetornado (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Procedural abstain but I register my objection to this being ITN/R This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Any particular reason you oppose it being included in ITNR? We include plenty of other awards.–DMartin 20:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- The Booker Prize is listed as ITN/R, if you have any disagreements with this you should take it to the ITN talk page. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The lead is too skimpy and the article doesn't seem to explain the literary merits of the story well enough so that it's not clear why it's any better than a Jilly Cooper work or trashy airport novel. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. 2600 etc (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support alt blurb. The article isn't the greatest but does meet our minimum standards. This is ITNR and I don't see a good reason not to post it. Incidentally, we don't include years in blurbs, so I've piped those out above. Modest Genius talk 16:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support I'd be more comfortable if the main article was more fleshed out(no pun intended), but it's of acceptable quality, as are the ither linked articles.–DMartin 21:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Not quite ready. A major ITN/R item, but the book's article is weak. Another couple of good edits should push it over the line. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)- So the 2025 Booker Prize article and the article for the book have both been expanded since then. The article for the prize had significant additions. Golan1911 (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. Good to go. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- So the 2025 Booker Prize article and the article for the book have both been expanded since then. The article for the prize had significant additions. Golan1911 (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Posted Schwede66 09:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) 2025 Delhi car explosion
[edit]Blurb: A car explosion in Delhi kills at least 13 people. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
- Created by RationalPuff (talk · give credit)
Thriley (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Wait, but support when finished. This is way to early and the perp is still unknown. JaxsonR (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it's been four days and the perp is in the article now. Time to post it — chop chop! Einsof (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Wait for more information. A rapidly developing news story; there's so many different ways this could go. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Why wait? The news is what it is, and if this particular story is unsatisfyingly incomplete, so be it. ~2025-31453-37 (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support
on notability, oppose on qualityPoorly written in areas, unsourced in others. Additionally the background section makes it appear that the discovery of explosives earlier in the day is linked. It may well be, but unless im missing something there is no link found yet.Edited: Much better now, seems to be ready to go.Basetornado (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Basetornado (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)- Comment Cleaned up a lot. Will likely need more time to get further information before it's posted. Currently most reputable sources are reporting the cause is unknown, while Indian sources are jumping to it being a terror attack and claiming links etc from unnamed sources. The names thrown about as responsible are stereotypically muslim names, and it wouldn't be the first time an Indian media source jumps on that and spreads misinformation. Happy for it to be posted etc, when more info comes out, but want to be careful with such a potentially touchy subject. Basetornado (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see any sources labelling it a terrorist attack outright but officially it is being investigated as such and reports link it to investigations prior in the day and week and progress on it, pretty standard media procedure. Local RS providing reportage and analysis from police investigations is not what should be labelled jumping the gun or misinfo ([6]). Though yes, official confirmation should be affirmed to not give any of this undue prominence. But highly unlikely that this is a mere mishap or not related to investigations on the same day hours earlier. Gotitbro (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- It was a lot of jumping the gun and misinformation. A lot has been cleaned up. Yes it is unlikely, but when reputable sources are explicitly saying that no cause has been reported yet etc. Calling it a terror attack etc is jumping the gun. Indian media has a bad history with reporting crimes linked to muslims. I feel it's fair to be more cautious with local sources based on that history. Basetornado (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- And I repeat no RS explicitly lists this as a terrorist attack even now, merely reporting on police procedure is not it. We do not label/castigate the entirety of any domestic media as unreliable, though I generally avoid/peg [as does enwiki generally] broadcast below print media. If you have identified some deliberate misinfo please take it to WP:RSN, but from what I have seen this is general fare an incident like this anywhere elsewhere and not a trace of misinformation - which is a very specific term for false info. The Hindu and Indian Express are explicitly labelled as RS at WP:RSPP (among other print sources) and have reported the same, if by "reputable sources" you only mean international wire agencies of course with limited boots on the ground they would circumscribe initial reporting to official press releases but then again RS has never been limited to these (though these news agencies also detail the terrorism investigation). Sure we can be cautious for any incident like this (the reason {{current event}} exists) but that isn't reason enough to call reportage misinfo without an evidentiary trace of it. Gotitbro (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- It was being called a terror attack in Indian media broadly. That was the point. The article was also treating it as a terror attack, before reliable sources about it were known. That was the jumping and potential for misinfo. What i'm saying is that Indian media on topics very much like this, can jump to conclusions etc. Which means on topics like this, Indian media should be treated more cautiously than normally. It doesn't mean they can't be believed. Just making sure we're more careful than usual. That's all. Basetornado (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- It wasn't at anytime I checked those sources and isn't now, so I dispute that. The wikivoiced edits came from a single editor here and isn't a flaw of the sources. Ultimately, {{current}} already takes care of the initial rushed reporting in these incidents. I wouldn't treat this any different (as for cautiousness and recency) from how I would treat incidents like the Kirk assassination in the US or the recent mass stabbings in the UK (despite considering the media bias in those incidents as well). Gotitbro (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- I removed some of that editors work, which was jumping the gun and potentially misinformation. The sources I had been looking at online, quite a few of the Indian sources were calling it a terror attack. While the international sources and some Indian sources as well were making it clear that it hadn't been described as that at that point, even if that was a possibility. I also am naturally suspicious of smaller Indian sources, because of the history of Indian media with stories like this. Hence why I was calling for caution and to potentially wait, so we aren't sending it to the front page with information that is quickly shown to be false. That's all I was doing. Let this be the end of it. Basetornado (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- It wasn't at anytime I checked those sources and isn't now, so I dispute that. The wikivoiced edits came from a single editor here and isn't a flaw of the sources. Ultimately, {{current}} already takes care of the initial rushed reporting in these incidents. I wouldn't treat this any different (as for cautiousness and recency) from how I would treat incidents like the Kirk assassination in the US or the recent mass stabbings in the UK (despite considering the media bias in those incidents as well). Gotitbro (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- It was being called a terror attack in Indian media broadly. That was the point. The article was also treating it as a terror attack, before reliable sources about it were known. That was the jumping and potential for misinfo. What i'm saying is that Indian media on topics very much like this, can jump to conclusions etc. Which means on topics like this, Indian media should be treated more cautiously than normally. It doesn't mean they can't be believed. Just making sure we're more careful than usual. That's all. Basetornado (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- And I repeat no RS explicitly lists this as a terrorist attack even now, merely reporting on police procedure is not it. We do not label/castigate the entirety of any domestic media as unreliable, though I generally avoid/peg [as does enwiki generally] broadcast below print media. If you have identified some deliberate misinfo please take it to WP:RSN, but from what I have seen this is general fare an incident like this anywhere elsewhere and not a trace of misinformation - which is a very specific term for false info. The Hindu and Indian Express are explicitly labelled as RS at WP:RSPP (among other print sources) and have reported the same, if by "reputable sources" you only mean international wire agencies of course with limited boots on the ground they would circumscribe initial reporting to official press releases but then again RS has never been limited to these (though these news agencies also detail the terrorism investigation). Sure we can be cautious for any incident like this (the reason {{current event}} exists) but that isn't reason enough to call reportage misinfo without an evidentiary trace of it. Gotitbro (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- It was a lot of jumping the gun and misinformation. A lot has been cleaned up. Yes it is unlikely, but when reputable sources are explicitly saying that no cause has been reported yet etc. Calling it a terror attack etc is jumping the gun. Indian media has a bad history with reporting crimes linked to muslims. I feel it's fair to be more cautious with local sources based on that history. Basetornado (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see any sources labelling it a terrorist attack outright but officially it is being investigated as such and reports link it to investigations prior in the day and week and progress on it, pretty standard media procedure. Local RS providing reportage and analysis from police investigations is not what should be labelled jumping the gun or misinfo ([6]). Though yes, official confirmation should be affirmed to not give any of this undue prominence. But highly unlikely that this is a mere mishap or not related to investigations on the same day hours earlier. Gotitbro (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Cleaned up a lot. Will likely need more time to get further information before it's posted. Currently most reputable sources are reporting the cause is unknown, while Indian sources are jumping to it being a terror attack and claiming links etc from unnamed sources. The names thrown about as responsible are stereotypically muslim names, and it wouldn't be the first time an Indian media source jumps on that and spreads misinformation. Happy for it to be posted etc, when more info comes out, but want to be careful with such a potentially touchy subject. Basetornado (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Likely a terror attack (per the article and news reports). Article quality looks fine enough for an RD. Gotitbro (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- The article is still filled with unsourced information, guesses and misinformation. One example is the lead said it was caused by ammonium nitrate, but none of the 6 sources used mention that, and instead say the cause is unknown. I changed that and am cleaning it up. But, it's not ready as is. Basetornado (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- The nitrate bit wasn't there when I had a look at it nor were the preliminary reports being presented as wiki[voiced] fact (though these do indicate it being used [7]), good to see it has been reverted. Gotitbro (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- The unsourced claim about ammonium nitrate was added by an IP editor 22 minutes before you commented here. This isn't a legitimate reason to claim the article is of overall low quality, since highly viewed articles always attract a churn of low-quality edits that we simply revert back to stable, sourced text. This comment should be struck. Einsof (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- At the time I said that it was of overall low quality, that was just one of the issues with it. It wasn't the only issue. It is much better now. But at the time, it was of poor quality.Basetornado (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- The article is still filled with unsourced information, guesses and misinformation. One example is the lead said it was caused by ammonium nitrate, but none of the 6 sources used mention that, and instead say the cause is unknown. I changed that and am cleaning it up. But, it's not ready as is. Basetornado (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support article looks a lot better quality wise now. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 14:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support. This page received more than 7500 page views in the last day, and therefore squarely falls within the purpose of ITN, "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." The article is of decent quality. Litigating this submission to death would be a real shame, although ITNC seems to love to do that. Einsof (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- That's only one if the purposes of ITN, we have to balance all four. We do not use pageviews to determine what gets posted. Note that this is not in opposition to post this blurb (it otherwise seems to be appropriate) , just that this is not an appropriate support cite. Masem (t) 15:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- No, I actually cited two of the four prongs (the second being quality), and the article actually passes all four (the article is dynamically updated, and many readers outside India might not be aware of this event). Einsof (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- That's only one if the purposes of ITN, we have to balance all four. We do not use pageviews to determine what gets posted. Note that this is not in opposition to post this blurb (it otherwise seems to be appropriate) , just that this is not an appropriate support cite. Masem (t) 15:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support due to the high number of page views, a notable accident, and article is of the right quality. 2600 etc (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support significant attack in the nation's capital, with casualties. Samuelled (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Wait, support when finished. Loads of irrelevant and unsourced information in the article, and the overall article doesn't yet meet fully Wikipedia standard. Some editors are driven by emotions and bias. Changes in the article is happening rapidly. Once the situation stabilises and things unfold it will be possible to draw a line. RationalPuff (talk)
- Well, editing has slowed down enough that a bot removed the "current" template, so surely the people who said to wait must be mollified. Where is the post? Einsof (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Posted – robertsky (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) Typhoon Fung-wong
[edit]Blurb: Typhoon Fung-wong hits the Philippines, killing at least 27 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Typhoon Fung-wong hits the Philippines, leaving over a million people displaced.
News source(s): BBC AP Guardian Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Chorchapu (talk · give credit)
- Created by Vida0007 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Strong typhoon hitting the Philippines, death toll likely to rise in the coming hours and days. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Wait until impact is more known. The Kip (contribs) 02:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Wait for more info about impact, death toll, and damage. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Wait:Minimal impact in Philippines, possible greater impact in Taiwan later in the week. But if the impact it currently has is the most it has etc, I would oppose. Basetornado (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Wait for full impact. ~2025-32138-10 (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Another deadly typhoon. ArionStar (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Marked ready. The article is well-cited. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 02:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @The Kip, SnowyRiver28, Basetornado, and ~2025-32138-10:. The typhoon has mostly dissipated and death tolls are now probably final. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: ArionStar (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support altblurb Million displaced seems more notable overall.Basetornado (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Posted with the two blurbs combined. Others can adjust as needed. – robertsky (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
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: