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:
|
Structure
[edit]This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. Eight days of current nominations are maintained – older days are archived.
To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.
December 15
[edit]|
December 15, 2025 (Monday)
|
Blurb/RD: Rob Reiner
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Filmmaker and actor Rob Reiner and his wife are stabbed to death in Los Angeles (Post)
Alternative blurb: Filmmaker and actor Rob Reiner and his wife are murdered at their home in Los Angeles
News source(s): Variety, USA Today
Credits:
- Nominated by ElijahPepe (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:ITNQUALITY.
elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb, oppose on quality An Emmy Award winning actor and filmmaker is found stabbed to death with his wife with their deaths being investigated as a homicide is very blurb worthy. This is also a pro-argument where their deaths are the story as well. Seeing notable Hollywood filmmakers and actors stabbed to death in their LA mansions isn’t common either. Articles quality needs to be beefed up a bit but that won’t be a problem with coming obits. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Well sourced, and also a homocide investigation of a celebrity is big news. Julesucks (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment — I did not originally propose this as a blurb and I officially oppose one. Reiner, while notable, did not significantly affect the film industry. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- The argument wouldn’t be death by natural causes or old age, the blurb argument here is their possible murder/circumstance of their deaths. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- If he had died of natural causes then yes I wouldn’t support a blurb since he didn’t impact the movie industry but in this case the circumstances of his death is what’s driving the news articles and in this case his death is the story. As per my rationale if this is a double homicide that includes an Emmy award winning actor and filmmaker then that’s very rare so to speak TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know if we post murders unless in the most shocking of cases. Can someone here at the time of XXXTentacion's murder confirm whether that was blurbed?
- The argument wouldn’t be death by natural causes or old age, the blurb argument here is their possible murder/circumstance of their deaths. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Update: Yeah it wasn’t, just RD. This should be just RD too then. Ezlo Jeslan (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm still undecided on a blurb, but XXXTentacion's murder not being blurbed is not dispositive. Reiner was a significantly more prominent figure in his field. Dr Fell (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, he’s what pops up in my mind as I was a big fan of that music scene. Any better examples? Ezlo Jeslan (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm saying it must be looked at holistically: the stature of the victim and the newsworthiness of the death itself. This is breaking news, so it's unsurprising there isn't enough information on the death itself to properly assess. But in terms of stature, Reiner and XXXTentacion are chalk and cheese. Dr Fell (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, he’s what pops up in my mind as I was a big fan of that music scene. Any better examples? Ezlo Jeslan (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm still undecided on a blurb, but XXXTentacion's murder not being blurbed is not dispositive. Reiner was a significantly more prominent figure in his field. Dr Fell (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Update: Yeah it wasn’t, just RD. This should be just RD too then. Ezlo Jeslan (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb, per ElijahPepe. Ezlo Jeslan (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb. Double homicide of the director of some of the most widely-know films. It's implausible to suggest that This Is Spinal Tap, The Princess Bride, and A Few Good Men were not highly influential films in each of their genres. BD2412 T 04:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb Strongly disagree with the above discussion; he absolutely had industry and cultural impact. Three films in the National Film Registry, two commercially successful and critically lauded Stephen King adaptations (Stand by Me, Misery), the first mainstream mockumentary with Spinal Tap, cofounded Castle Rock Entertainment which produced Seinfeld, major role in All in the Family which is one of the most groundbreaking and successful sitcoms of all time... This plus the unusual circumstances around his death merit a blurb. DigitalIceAge (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose anything at this point due to quality, the article is far too unsourced throughout, not only career but all most of the filmography section (most specifically, TV appearances and awards). It's going to take a lot of time for that to even get close to RD, by which point we may have more details on the homocide to better determine if a blurb is warranted (on the basis of unusual death). Mind you, I think there's potential to also consider a blurb as a major figure, but nothing in the article establishes that either at this point, so that's a ways off as well. Masem (t) 04:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb when article is in better shape. Besides “Death as the story”, Reiner was a director of many well known movies. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 04:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not Ready Referencing is quite poor. This is going to require some work before it can be posted even to RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb with no comment on article quality, though my support is (as always) contingent upon the article being adequately written and sourced. The violent murder of a very successful and influential director alongside his wife is a major news story, and in my opinion, merits being on the main page. Kurtis (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I created Draft:Death of Rob Reiner. Thriley (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb Once article is updated. The knife murder/assassination of a well-known celebrity is a rare occurrence, and it is gathering a breadth of significant coverage across global sources. As such, the manner of death makes this notable regardless of arguments about his impact in the field of acting or etc. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 05:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Assassination seems to be a very inappropriate word for family violence, @Flipandflopped. Nfitz (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Blurb In addition to his behind the camera credits, his portrayal as liberal-leaning Michael Stivic was legendary and was the perfect foil for Archie Bunker in a TV series that changed telvision. CoatCheck (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I see no confirmation that this was a murder or stabbing in the article/sources; the police are investigating it as such but that would not make either the blurbs apt or fulfill the death as a story criteria for now. Transformative is also weak here and so is the article shape. The article needs to be worked on, police need to give confirmation and the legacy needs to established within the article for a valid assessment to be given. Gotitbro (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- There's certainly other sources that clearly say that Carl's son stabbed them. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't wait a bit for things to settle down. Nfitz (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: There are a lot of rumors flying around in the news; RD is certainly merited and a blurb might be, but I recommend slowing this down for at least a day or so until more facts emerge about the deaths of the Reiners. KConWiki (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
RD: Zulfiqar Ahmad Naqshbandi
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Siasat Daily
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:ITNQUALITY.
Ainty Painty (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
December 14
[edit]|
December 14, 2025 (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
2025 Chilean presidential election
[edit]Blurb: José Antonio Kast (pictured) wins the Chilean presidential election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: José Antonio Kast (pictured) of the Republican Party of Chile wins the presidential election runoff.
Alternative blurb II: José Antonio Kast (pictured) of the Republican Party wins the Chilean presidential election.
Credits:
- Nominated by Nice4What (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Projected winner according to several Chilean media sources; article(s) updated. I'm sure Western media sources will be reporting on this shortly. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support alt feel like we need to include his party in the blurb. Scuba 22:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not necessarily opposed, but I don't believe parties are typically included in blurbs for presidential elections? Regardless, the country should be specified in the blurb; altblurb2 looks better than 1. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- That's what I was going to say. I don't think it's ever been added to the blurb about the party represented by the winner of a presidential election. In fact, I think it's unnecessary. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not necessarily opposed, but I don't believe parties are typically included in blurbs for presidential elections? Regardless, the country should be specified in the blurb; altblurb2 looks better than 1. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Alt II but Wait Landslide victory. Campaign section needs attention. Analysis in the Results section is limited to the first round and a bit hand wavy. Dr Fell (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support as long as the Republican Party is dubbed as far-right (which it is). --Bedivere (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is not necessary either, and has not been included in previous blurbs. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Election blurbs in past have not typically included candidate or party ideologies. I don't believe that is necessary. Goosedukeee (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wait, then support alt blurb 2 Per Dr Fell, the campaign section needs expansion before the article can be posted on ITN. CastleFort1 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wait The Campaign section needs expansion, and the Results section also needs expansion and updating. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
RD: Gary Rowell
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Abcmaxx (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Needs a lot more sources but widely available Abcmaxx (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready – Severe lack of sources. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready there are sources in the box for his height, then his entire career is unsourced (including an alleged profane quote), then the next source is his death. I know WP:NOTCOMPULSORY but I haven't a clue why somebody would suggest an article as bad as this, knowing the posting criteria, without improving it first. Is it to get the award on the user talk page? You'd be much more likely to get one by improving a page to a reasonable state. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Democratic Party of Hong Kong
[edit]Blurb: The Democratic Party, Hong Kong's last pro-democracy camp, dissolves to end an era of city's opposition politics. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Hong Kong's main opposition party, the pro-democracy Democratic Party (former chairman Lo Kin-hei pictured), is dissolved.
Alternative blurb II: Hong Kong's last remaining major party of the pro-democracy camp, the Democrats, is disbanded.
News source(s): The Associated Press, Reuters
Article needs updating
UCinternational (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose the blurb is weirdly worded and sounded like some sort of news headline more than anything. NotKringe (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The entirety of the HK pro-dem movement has been dead since more than four years now. We posted the conviction and imprisonment of of most of its leaders not that long ago, something actually substantial. Gotitbro (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Can you adjust the blurb to make it more clear on the significance of the event?
- Strong support – This was Hong Kong's main opposition party for decades (suggested altblurb to make this clear); its dissolution marks the formal "end of an era of [Hong Kong]'s once-diverse political landscape."—undoubtably a notable development that has received major international media attention since 2014. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- 'Oppose - Per User:Gotitbro. Kvinnen (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Nice4What. Significant (and grim) milestone. Would benefit from the broader awareness that ITN can offer. Added a pithier alt blurb. Dr Fell (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your agreement!— though its worth noting that reliable sources call the Democratic Party the last major pro-democracy party left; there are a handful of remaining minor parties (see Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong) § Current). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- String support The end of last democratic party in whole China. ArionStar (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Nice4What and Dr Fell. Significant player in Hong Kong politics since Chinese annexation, de facto representative for democracy of both the 2014 Hong Kong protests and the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests and the related 2019 Hong Kong local elections.
- Support Definitely the major representative party for the pan-democrats for many decades, and it is particularly notable for being the last to be dissolved. I would agree with NotKringe that the blurbs are a bit oddly worded. Ornithoptera (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Thriley (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Altblurb2 Per above, although I do further agree that the blurbs are not ideally phrased. Alt2 seems the best of the bunch. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 05:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) Bondi Beach shooting
[edit]Blurb: A mass shooting at Bondi Beach, Australia, leaves eleven people dead. (Post)
Alternative blurb: 11 people are killed in a mass shooting during a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach.
Alternative blurb II: Eleven people are killed in a mass shooting, declared a terror attack by authorities.
Alternative blurb III:
News source(s): The Telegraph, BBC, Times of Israel, ABC News (Australia)
Credits:
- Nominated by Bakhos2010 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Nightmares26 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Three deaths are tragic. We should wait for the article to became notable. Bakhos Let's talk! 09:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note: There are currently two articles for the topic: Bondi Beach shooting and Bondi Beach shooting (2025). Mr rnddude (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Just merged the latter to the former. Jalapeño (u t g) 09:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wait situation is still developing, wait for it to cool down a bit since reports can be conflicting and can change in mere minutes. Jalapeño (u t g) 09:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Would note this is a rather significant event that happened on Hanukkah, and was targeted at a Hanukkah celebration event. Would suggest rewriting the blurb to reflect that.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
strong opposeper below. 2 vs. 3 is not so different.Psephguru (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)- At least 10 dead and may be related to ISIS/the Arab-Israeli conflict considering this happened during a Hanukkah celebration. Jalapeño (u t g) 09:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- The blurb dint say that. Plus no sourcced connection thereof to the Arab attacks. Everything Jewish is not Arab.Psephguru (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Psephguru: The death toll is now at least 10 FWIW. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 10:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- support orginal blurbPsephguru (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Psephguru: The death toll is now at least 10 FWIW. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 10:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- The blurb dint say that. Plus no sourcced connection thereof to the Arab attacks. Everything Jewish is not Arab.Psephguru (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- At least 10 dead and may be related to ISIS/the Arab-Israeli conflict considering this happened during a Hanukkah celebration. Jalapeño (u t g) 09:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wait but Strong Support: Worst mass shooting in Australia since Port Arthur massacre (Australia). At least 10 dead; https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/gunshots-in-bondi-beach-as-police-urge-people-to-stay-away-20251214-p5nnks Nightmares26 (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support, once the article has settled down a bit. Estimated death toll is now at least ten, and may I remind international observers that this is extremely out of the ordinary in Australia. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Alt blurb: ... people are killed in a mass shooting during a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support this alt blurb, the nature of the event is significant here as it’s likely racially motivated. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have added the alt blurb as you mentioned. Currently the number seems to be 10 (9 victims, 1 perpetrator). Gust Justice (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Alt blurb: ... people are killed in a mass shooting during a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wait tied for second worst mass shooting in Australia alongside Hope Forest (Port Arthur being the worst), will change to support once the flurry of edits slows down a bit (I got three edit conflicts). Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 10:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wait a couple hours for information to become clearer and article to become more stable. I’ll change to strong support then as this is an extremely significant and tragic massacre. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Major mass shooting. -- Veggies (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Alt blurb once the situation becomes more clear and the article can be expanded. Is being covered globally and by all the international news bureaus. Gust Justice (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support
original blurb, more serious than the 2024 Westfield Bondi Junction incident (which passed ITN) and most serious incident since Port Arthur in 1996. - Mailer Diablo 10:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)- The first two alt blurb is also fine, now that more information has emerged to ascertain its details. - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Death toll now 12, designated a terrorist incident. Black Kite (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment – Added altblurb accounting for terror designation. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I would support this Alt blurb II, but I think it should still include the location and potentially the context (if room). SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- oppose NPOV is for the reactions, not ITN or led.Psephguru (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Combine with Brown The shootings at Bondi and Brown U. seem to be getting similar levels of live coverage and so readers will be looking for both. And it would look odd to post one but not the other. A simple navigational blurb like Alt3, perhaps. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC) (edit conflict)
- Weak Support Also I minor tweaked yours.Psephguru (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose two shootings occurring on opposite sides of the globe with seemingly no relation other than time doesn't really make sense to combine, especially when one seems substantially more notable than the other Jone425 (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose alt III, while two mass shootings on the same day is a horrible coincidence, that's apparently all they have in common. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 11:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- There's surely more than two "mass" shootings with more than one fatality in the last few days. All I see that ties these together is that they are in privileged elitist white anglophone settings, in (somewhat) functional liberal democracies. There was zero support for posting a blurb about 11 people killed in South Africa last week, with 3 out of 4 objections saying that people get shot in South Africa all the time, despite 3 being killed every day in that country. The shooting deaths of 3 in Mexico last weekend wasn't even raised here. (USA is about 130 a day; Australia is less than 1 a day). I'm appalled over some of the relatively minor events that get raised here in relation to rich countries - especially the USA. Obviously a terrorist targeting a specific ethnic group with 11 deaths is very, very different than two deaths in a local shooting with no indications of terrorism, or anything. Nfitz (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- No way - There's zero connection between the two, and the Brown shooting was already decided to be non-suitable for a blurb. -- Veggies (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- For what it's worth the nominator of that one withdrew, but you are correct in that it did not get posted. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 11:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: This is probably one of the most absurd ideas I have heard, these two are events are not related in any way apart from the fact that they occurred a day apart. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 11:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hell no No connection between the two besides occurring on the same day, just a coincidence. The only time I've seen where 2 separate blurbs could have been combined is with the Belgrade school shooting and the Mladenovac and Smederevo shootings in 2023, with the former occurring 1 day before the latter in the same country, and otherwise not being connected. Jalapeño (u t g) 12:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- No way Andre, no way. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wait, then support - clearly receiving quite widespread coverage internationally, and the most deadly shooting in the country's history for decades. however, the situation is still developing with details changing rapidly - we should at least wait until there isn't still ongoing panic at the scene Jone425 (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Alt blurb It is important to mention the Jewish connection. HillelAmadeus (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support. This event has received a vast amount of coverage from many worldwide media outlets such as BBC News, Reuters, The New York Times and others. I support alternative blurb 2 as the declaration by police that it is terror attack seems to now be a key detail. This is the sort of article that should get covered in this section. I agree with HillelAmadeus that mentioning the Jewish connection in alternative blurb 1 is important, but I like both proposed blurbs. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb I. Mass shooting targetting Jews celebrating Hanukkah, extensive international coverage. Noon (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I second that. It’s completely clear. Failing to acknowledge that Jews were targeted, or that the scene specifically targeted Hanukkah celebrations, is simply ignoring the facts. ScottyNolan (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb I High number of victims in a country unaccustomed to this type of violence, classified as terrorist and discriminatory in nature, it seems. Article looks ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Rare Australian shooting and terrorist attack against a specific minority. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Major notability, rare occurrence, + it's a terrorist attack. Blurb 0 is best but needs that angle included also. Nixinova T ⁄ C 13:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article in good shape for what we know now and definitely seems like directed terrorism. Masem (t) 13:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support with the Alt blurb: 11 people are killed in a mass shooting during a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach. It is the most accurate description of events. ShoBDin (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Alt blurb I The news here at present is going with this non-stop. This is the biggest mass shooting in Australia since the Port Arthur massacre. Police immediately declared this an act of terrorism and this is getting strong international coverage, which is not surprising given this sort of stuff just doesn't happen here. TarnishedPathtalk 14:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb I with alteration. At least 11 people are killed and 29 are injured in a mass shooting at a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach. I think the blurb should make mention of the 29 hospitalized as many RSes are reporting. It's definitely significant that this was a Hanukkah celebration event. Multiple RSes have Australian PM and Primer calling it a terror attack targeted against the Jewish community. Would support adding mention of terror attack if that is done at ITN given that it has been confirmed now. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Alt blurb 1 Mass shootings with significant casualties are a rare event in Australia, and it being a targeted attack against a religious group makes it further significant. The blurb should not be combined with the Rhode Island shooting and it also should specify that the shooting took place at or in proximity to the Hanukkah celebrations. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 14:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support altblurb 1 Major terror attack with a clear religious connection. Not sure if we have labelled items as "terror attacks" on ITN based on breaking news coverage (please guide me if such precedents exist), so avoiding alt blurb 2 for now. Gotitbro (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Major support. 11 dead in an anti-semetic terror attack!? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb 1 This is one of the worst terrorist attacks in Australian history. Guz13 (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support for alt blurb 1 - With the addition of the declaration as a terror attack. Kvinnen (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb I. Mass shooting targetting Jews celebrating Hanukkah. It’s completely clear. Failing to acknowledge that Jews were targeted, or that the scene specifically targeted Hanukkah celebrations is simply ignoring the facts. ScottyNolan (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is already altblurb 1 that has been posted. Gotitbro (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Posting-Posting Support For all of the above reasons, but the blurb should label it as a terrorist attack, which it is. hungry (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: article has little stability, and there's endless back and forth on key elements on the lede such as whether to call it a mass shooting or terrorist attack. There's also an ever growing "reactions" section. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Post-Posting Support but blurb currently used is too passive. The attack wasn't during a Hanukkah celebration; it targeted the celebration. It wasn't merely a mass shooting; it was a terrorist attack. Dr Fell (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment – I agree with Lenny Marks that it'd be worth including the number of injuries as that toll is especially high. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Post-posting blurb wording request We should use the word anti-Semitic in there somewhere. Terrible terrorist attack. May their memories be a blessing. -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
(Withdrawn) 2025 Brown University shooting
[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 shooting at Brown University leaves 2 people dead. (Post)
News source(s): CNN NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by HwyNerd Mike (talk · give credit)
- Created by Red0ctober22 (talk · give credit)
- Oppose Sadly there's too many school shootings in the United States to post all of them. 2 dead is not enough to post. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is not just another shooting, this is an Ivy League School. JaxsonR (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I can't even start to understand how what sports league that students play in has even the slightest bit of relevance in this. The shooting appears to be in an academic building, not a play area. Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- In the US, "Ivy League" is generally understood to mean a very prominent, exclusive, or just really good school. The sports league part is often an afterthought. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 04:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- That's not what the link that @JaxsonR used says. It's predominantly about a local sports league - it's not even national! But if it's about elitism - how is that actually not worse? I simply can't believe such silliness. Nfitz (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- In the US, "Ivy League" is generally understood to mean a very prominent, exclusive, or just really good school. The sports league part is often an afterthought. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 04:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I can't even start to understand how what sports league that students play in has even the slightest bit of relevance in this. The shooting appears to be in an academic building, not a play area. Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is not just another shooting, this is an Ivy League School. JaxsonR (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support. The incident has received extensive national and international media coverage, resulted in multiple fatalities, involved a highly prominent institution, and prompted public comment from President Trump.akidfrombethany!(talk|contribs) 03:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- But such shootings are quite frequent, even major ones with casaulties probably every month.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- If Trump didn't comment on something I would find it more unusual. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 04:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose While the shooting at an ivy college is not common, shootings are in the U.S. and the death toll doesn't make it one of the many deadliest shootings in the country. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - this nomination is completely absurd. Only two people dead? In that particular county there's regular incidents where a dozen or two are shot. And here we have a nomination for this? Do we nominate any time 2 people are killed in the world? This should be closed quickly with prejudice. Nfitz (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Withdrawn HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 04:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
December 13
[edit]|
December 13, 2025 (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
|
RD: Bobby Rousseau
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NHL Gazette
Credits:
- Updated and 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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Canadian hockey player and notable Hall of Fame snub. Article is fully sourced and updated. --The Robot Parade 08:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
RD: Abraham Quintanilla
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Parade LA Times
Credits:
- Updated and 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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Mexican-American record producer, known for being the father of Selena. Article has been fully sourced and updated. --The Robot Parade 07:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support nomination for ITN – jona ✉ 00:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
RD: Ra'ad Sa'ad
[edit]| The Arab–Israeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmedis not extended confirmed, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. |
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ToI WP
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Palestinian militant for Hamas. Article is detailed and sourced, though death is only according to Israel forces. --The Robot Parade 07:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support – Article is well sourced, of a sufficient length, and updated. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Sufficient quality. ROY is WAR Talk! 01:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
RD: José Bantolo
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBCP News
Credits:
- Nominated by QuicoleJR (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Kataholos2025 (talk · give credit) and Kelisi (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Filipino bishop. Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Quality article, updated.–DMartin 02:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
RD: Peter Greene
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline NBC news
Credits:
- Nominated by ItsShandog (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Strattonsmith (talk · give credit) and ItsShandog (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American character actor best known for playing villains in films such as Pulp Fiction and The Mask ItsShandog (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Picture The name doesn't do it for me but a photo is immediately recognisable and we have a reasonably good free one. And I've already seen enough of Geoff Keighley, thank you. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what you haven't understood... _-_Alsor (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: What's the purpose of including a photo? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Strange question but there's an answer at WP:IMGCONTENT,
The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people...
Andrew🐉(talk) 23:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)- Strange answer, I figured there was enough context for you to understand that I meant in this particular instance, not pictures in general. To make it more clear: Why a photo for Greene's death, when it's unusual for RDs? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- As I indicated, the name Peter Green(e) is common and, to me, mainly suggests Peter Green (musician). The picture is a better clue in this case and there isn't a good blurb picture currently so it's a good opportunity to post an RD pic. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Although it's unlikely that people will believe that we are referring to the Fleetwood Mac musician, as if they've heard of him they're probably also aware that he died five years ago. Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of that. Notice that there's a big spike in the readership for the musician's article. This must be spillover from the actor as his article was the top read yesterday. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Which means ITN is really not needed for people to help locate the article, and hatnotes help with close matches. So a picture of an RD will not change that. Masem (t) 13:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of that. Notice that there's a big spike in the readership for the musician's article. This must be spillover from the actor as his article was the top read yesterday. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Although it's unlikely that people will believe that we are referring to the Fleetwood Mac musician, as if they've heard of him they're probably also aware that he died five years ago. Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- As I indicated, the name Peter Green(e) is common and, to me, mainly suggests Peter Green (musician). The picture is a better clue in this case and there isn't a good blurb picture currently so it's a good opportunity to post an RD pic. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Strange answer, I figured there was enough context for you to understand that I meant in this particular instance, not pictures in general. To make it more clear: Why a photo for Greene's death, when it's unusual for RDs? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Strange question but there's an answer at WP:IMGCONTENT,
- Comment If editors agree with Andrew's point about there being confusion on which Peter Green(e) is meant, an easy solution would be to post this to RD as "Peter Greene (actor)". Khuft (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is why we should look to talk about implementing the de.wiki style of short RDs (has been in some discussion but we should formalize an RFC towards that) that would include at least the profession to help distinguish. Masem (t) 13:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready for RD – There are two unsourced claims in the "Early Life" section, and citations for minor films in the filmography are missing (not a deal breaker for major entries); once this is cleared up, article should be good to go. I oppose Andrew's proposal of adding a picture (I fear this idea will only delay this RD's posting, as have several of Andrew's recent blurb proposals) and that there's no need to distinguish
"actor"
since Peter Greene is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Lionel Messi's 2025 India Tour
[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: Lionel Messi's India tour begins in Kolkata but descends into chaos as angry fans rip up seats and throw objects in protest at his brief appearance. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/dec/13/lionel-messi-india-tour-chaos-angry-fans-seats-pitch-kolkata, https://www.aljazeera.com/sports/2025/12/13/messis-tour-of-india-gets-off-to-chaotic-start-with-fans-throwing-bottles, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g66nll48do
Credits:
- Nominated by Raydann (talk · give credit)
- Oppose trivial. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose sports trivia This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose per others. Natg 19 (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
December 12
[edit]|
December 12, 2025 (Friday)
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
|
RD: Magda Umer
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TVP World, Polish Radio
Credits:
- Nominated by EUPBR (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:ITNQUALITY.
EUPBR (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support and comment. Discography mostly sourced. Prose a bit on the short side. A terrible loss for Polish culture. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. Expanded prose a bit w references from the corresponding Polish Wikipedia article. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Joanna Trollope
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by ItsShandog (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Mb2437 (talk · give credit) and ItsShandog (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Bestselling British novelist. ItsShandog (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support once the bibliography is cited. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Done. ItsShandog (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yep, looks good. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Done. ItsShandog (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Article is well written and properly sourced. Baldwin de Toeni (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Ongoing: US naval deployment in the Caribbean
[edit]Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
- Created by Placeholderer (talk · give credit)
- Updated by SandyGeorgia (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: As per User:FallingGravity's suggestion in the comments of the Skipper oil tanker seizure ITN nomination. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- oppose There is no need to force this into ongoing. Beyond the attack on the crude oil tank, there has been no further development. I reiterate what has been said the five hundred times it has been nominated and has not been successful. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment The article title seems much longer than the other Ongoing entries and its scope seems rather vague. Other articles in the same space include Operation Southern Spear and 2025 United States military strikes on alleged drug traffickers so maybe we need more time for the topic to gel. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose At this stage, its far too slow of a news story. The US is not destroying or capturing boats each day, and while there is a lot of heated discussion during this last week, its not representative of the daily-type coverage that comparatively the Ukraine conflict is getting. Masem (t) 13:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Stalish per Masem and Alsor; agree with Andrew, last time I checked the topic about a week ago: multiple duplications and scattered content on the same thing in different articles. This is more of the same. Gotitbro (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Not receiving rolling coverage as is Ukraine This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support According to WP:ONGOING the criteria is that the target article is getting regular updates about a topic "frequently in the news", and individual events may not be blurb-worthy. Here the article has gotten regular updates since August, and we haven't been posting the boat strikes despite multiple casualties. If we're looking for a major war like the Ukraine invasion that's not required per the criteria. FallingGravity 15:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- The frequency should be on a near-daily basis, which what is happening with Venezuela is not really getting, there have been bursts that last a few days, but not routinely for a long period, yet. Masem (t) 15:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as per others. If there is some escalation where troops are actually deployed to Venezuela, then sure. But right now, no. Khuft (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support The article is getting regular more-than-daily updates and is thus suitable for ongoing. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose – As above. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support - A logical ITN ongoing candidate, as I see it. Major international news, and the article is well-updated and maintained. Highly likely to remain an issue into the new year. Jusdafax (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- I doubt it is "major", for if it were – a blurb candidate is where we should rest the case. All I see is flubber from the Trump camp for now (WP:NTRUMP and all that). Gotitbro (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support A topic that's always in the news. ArionStar (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose a topic that's rarely in the news. There's been a deployment to the Persian Gulf for the best part of a half-century now, with far more serious incidents over the years. Trump pulling his tiny taskforce out and waving it around for his own ego, isn't news. Nfitz (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Small in scale, narrowly focused and slow moving. Routine US deployment. Dr Fell (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
December 11
[edit]|
December 11, 2025 (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Stanley Baxter
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Drchriswilliams (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Goodreg3 (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Scottish actor and comedian. A star of British television for several decades, with peak of fame in 1970s Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The sourcing needs a lot of work before this can be posted. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support I'm surprised to find that he was still living and suppose that his heyday is so long ago that many won't know him now. But he was quite a big TV star in his day and notice that he already has a legacy section. I'd be suggesting a blurb or photo posting but the fine image is not fully free yet, alas. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: Did you review article quality at all? Early life and Career are both full of unsourced statements, which means this can't run yet. Since this is an RD nom, quality is the primary (read: only) concern, and that includes sourcing. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- The nominator seems to be systematically adding citations. Myself, I'm more concerned with contentious issues as they are the priority per WP:V. I usually check the talk pages of nominated articles to see if there are such unresolved issues and I have been discussing one there. It's good for editors to look at articles from different perspectives as, if they all just focus on the same thing, then other things will be missed. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: Did you review article quality at all? Early life and Career are both full of unsourced statements, which means this can't run yet. Since this is an RD nom, quality is the primary (read: only) concern, and that includes sourcing. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) The Game Awards
[edit]Blurb: In video games, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 wins nine awards including Game of the Year at The Game Awards. (Post)
Alternative blurb: At The Game Awards Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 wins game of the year, its director Guillaume Broche wins best game direction.
Alternative blurb II: Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 wins Game of the Year at the Game Awards.
Alternative blurb III: At the Game Awards, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 wins Game of the Year
News source(s): Polygon, NYTimes, Variety
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Rhain (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is not yet an ITNR but has been posted the last 5 times, and I had an ongoing talk page discussion to add it to ITNR. There was lots of pre-award coverage from more mainstream sources like NYTimes and Variety earlier today, so would expect to see that in the next 12-24hr to support this being in the news (and not just in video games). Masem (t) 04:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support The article looks good and we really should add this to ITNR already. Mlb96 (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support clearly should be ITNR (and looks like it will indeed be added for next time). Article looks good. FunIsOptional (talk) (please use ping!) 04:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Added Altblurb that more closely mirrors other media/art awards like the Acadmey Awards, BAFTAS, Emmys, etc.–DMartin 04:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Except that the award for game direction is not given to an individual but to the game. The only individual award is the best actor on. Masem (t) 05:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support It's high time we get around to reporting on this.–DMartin 04:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Also Weak Support adding to ITNR, I'd personally prefer the D.I.C.E. Awards, as they more often descfribed as to as the "video game equivalent of the Academy Awards".[1][2][3], but we need some gaming award in ITNR.–DMartin 04:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion of the ITNR should take place on the talk page, but I'll point out TGA also have been called the Oscars of video games, but also has the benefit of mainstream news coverage, whereas DICE awards tend to only get covered by gaming media. Masem (t) 05:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Also Weak Support adding to ITNR, I'd personally prefer the D.I.C.E. Awards, as they more often descfribed as to as the "video game equivalent of the Academy Awards".[1][2][3], but we need some gaming award in ITNR.–DMartin 04:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support This should be an INTR now, we post it every year. Article quality looks good to me. We should post the altblurb. hungry (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support but suggest that we need to kill one sports event if we want to add this to ITN/R This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not relevant, there is enough space as it is Omnifalcon (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- What on earth have sports events got to do with this? Logically, if we really want to make room, we should cut an awards event. 10:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Added altblurb2 like in this format. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 06:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Alt blurb 2 is the best. ROY is WAR Talk! 07:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Definite support per my comments on the talk page. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Alt blurb 1 is the best. KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Alt1 is flat out wrong, because they do not award the best game direction to an individual but to the game itself (even if the director was the one that accepted it on stage) Masem (t) 19:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support and I've added an alt3. This is the most widely reported 'game of the year' award out there, and should probably be on ITNR. The article is of high quality, with good referencing and as much prose as could realistically be written about an awards ceremony. Good work. Modest Genius talk 18:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient and the main awards event in gaming is significant enough to post. I'm fine with any of the blurbs except the inaccurate alt1, with my first choice being alt2. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Alt II Good article and (not officially) is regularly posted in ITN Scooglers (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Already unofficially ITN/R and likely to be made official once the talk discussion is closed (it could honestly be SNOW closed right now). Article quality sufficient to post, topic is sufficiently in the news, etc. I support alt II but have no opposition to alt III & I would also support alt I if it's modified for accuracy per Masem's comment above. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support alt2 on conciseness. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Personally, I'd also support adding this to ITNR given that it's been posted every time in the previous five years. — Gestrid (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 05:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Question I'm not opposed to the blurb, but is there any reason why Geoff Knightley, who is simply the host of the award, got the blurb image? Especially since the blurb is about the GOTY award and not the man himself. NotKringe (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's really the only suitable image available. The 2022 and 2023 blurbs had the GOTY winners' writer and director, respectively, but unfortunately we have no such photo this year. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- I see. That's kinda unfortunate. NotKringe (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- The only other possible alternative is a photo of Jennifer English, the Expedition 33 actor who won Best Performance; I believe it's reserved as an alternate. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- I like this choice, and am glad it's the one we went with. She actually won something, unlike Keighley, and it provides a nice opportunity to have the ITN picture be a woman, which is unfortunately quite rare at ITN. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- The only other possible alternative is a photo of Jennifer English, the Expedition 33 actor who won Best Performance; I believe it's reserved as an alternate. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- When the GDC awards come this next march, where it is expected the game to be nominated again, they have a free license photostream for nearly all of the nominees and winners of the GDC Awards, so expecting we'll be able to get one then, but right now, this team was well known until the game got released so not much we can pull now Masem (t) 13:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- I see. That's kinda unfortunate. NotKringe (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that the picture of Knightley is not encyclopedic; it seems unduly promotional as he's not a major figure. Above, I suggested running a famous face from RD (Peter Greene). Another option would be to show a map for the Yemen offensive blurb as the geography of that part of the world will be unfamiliar to most. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- I also agree that a picture of Keighley is inappropriate—he is the host every year. If this becomes ITN/R, then we'd see Keighley every year on the front page, despite not achieving any award. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's happened thrice now, so I just wanted to add: it's Keighley, not Knightley. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I also agree that a picture of Keighley is inappropriate—he is the host every year. If this becomes ITN/R, then we'd see Keighley every year on the front page, despite not achieving any award. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's really the only suitable image available. The 2022 and 2023 blurbs had the GOTY winners' writer and director, respectively, but unfortunately we have no such photo this year. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Via categorization there is a free image of the game's music composer (Lorien Testard) and one of the lead vocalists (Alice Deport-Percier) here File:Lorien Testard et Alice Duport-Percier lors du concert du ZEVENT 2025.jpg, and as the game also won for best music at TGA, this may be an appropriate substitue. Masem (t) 23:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- We also now have photos (awaiting VRT processing) of Guillaume Broche (the game's director and writer) and Nicholas Maxson-Francombe (art director), which should be suitable alternatives. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- They are rather poor quality. Stephen 03:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- They seem perfectly fine considering their display size, but fair enough if you have a higher bar for the Main Page; the Jennifer English photo is still a great choice. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- They are rather poor quality. Stephen 03:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- We also now have photos (awaiting VRT processing) of Guillaume Broche (the game's director and writer) and Nicholas Maxson-Francombe (art director), which should be suitable alternatives. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Question I'm not opposed to the blurb, but is there any reason why Geoff Knightley, who is simply the host of the award, got the blurb image? Especially since the blurb is about the GOTY award and not the man himself. NotKringe (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
RD: Jenista Mhagama
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Citizen
Credits:
- Nominated by QuicoleJR (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Salumu Simba Omary (talk · give credit) and Jkaharper (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Tanzanian politician. Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support - article meets requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
RD: John Varley (author)
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Locus
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by emceeaich (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Hugo award winning SF writer, if anyone has improvements to his bio section to get it cleaned up for inclusion, that'd be kind Emceeaich (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: too many unsourced on this article. ROY is WAR Talk! 01:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
RD: Harold Wayne Nichols
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS News
Credits:
- Nominated by CoryGlee (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ~2025-39875-45 (talk · give credit) and Theallman (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American serial rapist and convicted murderer. On death row since May 1990 in Tennessee. CoryGlee 21:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) 2025 Bulgarian budget protests
[edit]Blurb: After several days of Gen-Z dominated protests, the Zhelyazkov Government in Bulgaria decided to resign. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In Bulgaria, prime minister Rosen Zhelyazkov (pictured) and his government resign following weeks of protests.
Alternative blurb II: Bulgarian Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov resigns after days of protests.
News source(s): POLITICO
Credits:
- Nominated by VitoxxMass (talk · give credit)
Article updated
VitoxxMass (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support, propose altblurb Obviously major given the fall of the government, and article is in great shape. The Kip (contribs) 19:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support when ready article is pretty good but needs more on the resignation of the government. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support ArionStar (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- As mentioned to you by another editor last week, please review WP:NOTAVOTE. It would help to include your reasoning. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 06:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- The best blurb is alternative blurb I. ArionStar (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- As mentioned to you by another editor last week, please review WP:NOTAVOTE. It would help to include your reasoning. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 06:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support: sufficient or ITN. ROY is WAR Talk! 07:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support altblurb Sufficient enough to warrant ITN. --Mr. Lechkar (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support altblurb Another update to the current political crisis in Bulgaria. CastleFort1 (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support alt per above. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 03:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Posted – robertsky (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
RD: Jim Ward (voice actor)
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Kotaku
Credits:
- Nominated by Mr. Lechkar (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Voice of Doug Dimmadome and Chet Ubetcha in The Fairly OddParents, as well as Captain Qwark. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
'support" needed citations have been added. 19:33 (UTC)
- Oppose Sadly my nomination for Jeff Garcia was orange tagged and this one is too so. KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- I suggest you not to vote based on what happened to your nomination, Kreamymate, that's a poor & quick judgement. CoryGlee 21:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support ... largely referenced, gaps are easily filled and contextualized. CoryGlee 21:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: It's a rather short article, I would almost consider it a stub. There just isn't content on his life on the internet. Would need a lot more prose before its RD ready. ----The Robot Parade 22:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Earliest known fire-making evidence discovered
[edit]Blurb: Evidence for the earliest-known example of prehistoric fire-making in the control of fire by early humans is discovered in England. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Evidence for the earliest-known example of prehistoric fire-making by early humans, dating back 350,000 years earlier than previously believed, is discovered in England.
Alternative blurb II: A discovery in England shows that humans first made fire at least 350,000 years earlier than previously thought.
News source(s): BBC, NBC, Nature (peer-review article)
Credits:
- Nominated by Jusdafax (talk · give credit)
- Created by Ryulong (talk · give credit)
- Updated by GreenC (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Well-cited target article, updated, no tags. Evidence pushes back date from 50k to 400k years ago. Jusdafax (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment – This is undoubtably interesting, but the article only has a single-sentence update with no indication as to why this discovery is noteworthy/significant. For the blurb: wouldn't stating that the evidence pushes the date back substantially (which should be stated in the article) be more interesting that saying it was discovered in England? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 03:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Update: Oppose — Nature article itself states that, though the evidence is ambiguous, there are sites in Kenya "dating to 1.6–1.4 million years ago", along with others in South Africa and Israel; and that in Europe, there was already "occasional signals of fire use from around 400 thousand years ago." One of the senior authors of the study even stated "I think many of us had a hunch that there was regular use of fire in Europe around 400,000 years ago. But we didn’t have the evidence." The new discovery does not suggest that the control of fire is earlier than believed (as the blurb states) as this was already largely suspected, it's just that this site in England is best/earliest evidence of it so far. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the discovery is not that humans began using fire, but that they began creating it. Here's a quote from the BBC article: "There is evidence that early humans learned to capture, maintain, and use natural wildfires as far back as 2 million years ago. But the ability to create it was the key development that accelerated our evolution, according to Prof Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum. [...] Prof Stringer adds that creating fire at will was one of the main drivers of a virtuous and accelerating evolutionary cycle." CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- A 2017 article written by two archeologists states: "Conventional thinking has long held that our human ancestors gained control of fire—including the ability to create it—very early in prehistory, long before Neanderthals came along some 250,000 years ago. ... It is hard to imagine that our ancestors could have left Africa and colonized the higher, and often much colder, latitudes of Europe and Asia without fire." No exact date given, but "long before" the year 50k demonstrated by the artifacts in France. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, and "Conventional thinking" is there is life elsewhere in the Universe. This concerns actual physical evidence with a set date and place and method. -- GreenC 20:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's VERY suitable for this. KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Then the blurb should simply state that what was found in England is the oldest
"physical evidence with a set date and place and method"
, not that it has reshaped when researchers believe fire was first created. And with that in mind, the story might not be as significant as some have been led to believe. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, and "Conventional thinking" is there is life elsewhere in the Universe. This concerns actual physical evidence with a set date and place and method. -- GreenC 20:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- A 2017 article written by two archeologists states: "Conventional thinking has long held that our human ancestors gained control of fire—including the ability to create it—very early in prehistory, long before Neanderthals came along some 250,000 years ago. ... It is hard to imagine that our ancestors could have left Africa and colonized the higher, and often much colder, latitudes of Europe and Asia without fire." No exact date given, but "long before" the year 50k demonstrated by the artifacts in France. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the discovery is not that humans began using fire, but that they began creating it. Here's a quote from the BBC article: "There is evidence that early humans learned to capture, maintain, and use natural wildfires as far back as 2 million years ago. But the ability to create it was the key development that accelerated our evolution, according to Prof Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum. [...] Prof Stringer adds that creating fire at will was one of the main drivers of a virtuous and accelerating evolutionary cycle." CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Update: Oppose — Nature article itself states that, though the evidence is ambiguous, there are sites in Kenya "dating to 1.6–1.4 million years ago", along with others in South Africa and Israel; and that in Europe, there was already "occasional signals of fire use from around 400 thousand years ago." One of the senior authors of the study even stated "I think many of us had a hunch that there was regular use of fire in Europe around 400,000 years ago. But we didn’t have the evidence." The new discovery does not suggest that the control of fire is earlier than believed (as the blurb states) as this was already largely suspected, it's just that this site in England is best/earliest evidence of it so far. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Comment –
Evidence pushes back date from 50k to 400k years ago
Shouldn't that really be the focus of the blurb? More like "New discoveries in England show the earliest control of fire by humans occurred c. 400,000 years ago, 350,000 years earlier than previously thought." 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC) - Comment - As always, alt-blurb suggestions are welcome. As for the article, I’m sure it will be expanded in short order. Jusdafax (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak Support Seems interesting enough for a blurb... although it would be better if the evidence was more specificOppose per Natg19 Elisecars727 (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)- Comment—I've added an alt-blurb which mentions the fact that fire-making evidence dates back 350,000 years earlier than previously believed. Kurtis (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support, as human control of fire is a huge step in development and it's a big gap. Added an altblurb which I think states down the main points more succinctly. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support – Either of the altblurbs. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Very good ITN material of high encyclopaedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Good ITN worthy. I do not know about this but it's interesting to me. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose – Article isn't appropriately updated; only the lede has been. There has been a mention of the 415,000 BP England site in the text cited to a source from 2006; it's very unclear from the article why this is in the news now. The article clearly states that hominids have been using fire for over a million years (see also the timeline), so I think it's extra important to make the significance and interest in this specific site very clear in the article. Needs work. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose There's a clarification needed in the lead. Of the three blurbs I prefer the third one, as it is not written in passive voice. Cambalachero (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The target article mentions 1 million year old evidence of fire from south Africa. Is this much younger evidence only being called notable because it was found in Europe instead of Africa? Or is this evidence of how fire was created (flint and pyrite, instead of saved over from a previous fire)? ~2025-39726-97 (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- The latter. Deliberate creation of fire versus use of naturally-created fire. Dr Fell (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose the blurb contradicts the body of the article; once the news-media glazing is removed I doubt there is a blurb-able update here. ~2025-35132-06 (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Definately a very interesting historical discovery that may reshape thinking on the prehistoric world. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose this is very speculative, and other researchers do not agree with the findings. Per the NBC source,
Other outside researchers were less convinced.
In an email, Wil Roebroeks, a professor emeritus of paleolithic archaeology at Leiden University in the Netherlands, wrote that much of the evidence here is “circumstantial.”
There are other, earlier suggestions that human ancestors used fire in present-day South Africa, Israel and Kenya, but those examples are the subject of some debate and interpretation.
Natg 19 (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC) - Support Some oppose votes appear to be confusing the use of fire with the making of fire. They are different, and the lead section explains. Remember the movie Quest for Fire (film)? The opening scene they had fire, lost it in the swamp, and had to go on a quest to find it again ie. they didn't know how to make fire. On the quest, they learn how to make fire from another tribe, by rubbing sticks together. They didn't grab a burning stick from a wildfire lightning strike or from another tribe. Also, there will always be some minority of researchers who find a reason to oppose, but this was peer reviewed in the Nature, the highest caliber, I don't see much controversy. -- GreenC 20:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Support because while yes this is notable however Natg 19 has a very good point that in the source it is disputed. KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per the comments above about the dubious nature of the discovery. No prejudice against posting at a future date if the findings are better backed up. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support Highly encyclopedic and covered. ArionStar (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. DYK candidate This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I would suggest everyone replying here read our article about this, us homo sapiens and our siblings gained the ability to create/control fire in the savannahs of Africa. This is evidence but not a new finding and as such the blurbs/reportage is misleading to say the least. I was already unconvinced of its significance but the fact that the evidence part is itself questionable, this is a firm no from me. Gotitbro (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Gotitbro. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Natg and Gotitbro. I think this clears the ITN significance threshold and is notable per se, but I am opposing on quality concerns about the accuracy of the blurb's premise. We should not be relaying information in wikivoice on the main page if the sources are not on consensus. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 03:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Alt Blurb II Definitionally encyclopaedic. Alt II makes it clear to the reader that this is evidence for the earliest known deliberate creation of fire, dispensing with concerns about confusion with earlier uses of naturally-created fire. Dr Fell (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - Because these are initial findings and it's years and years until something is settled enough in science. Initial findings shouldn't be treated as definitive no matter how tantalizing they seem. ITN should really just be for absolutely confirmed information. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
RD: Arthur Konrad
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Liechtensteiner Vaterland
Credits:
- Created and nominated by TheBritinator (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Former mayor of Vaduz. TheBritinator (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Article is too short. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's more than stub length, and that's fine enough for RD.–DMartin 06:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- With only 226 words of prose, this brand new wikibio is a bit stubby, IMO. DYK, our neighbour on MainPage, requires at least 1500 characters (~300 words). I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for the same minimum length. We want to showcase good contents on MainPage, where readers are expected to click and read. Stubby articles with fewer than 300 words are rarely taken to ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps worth mentioning that this length is more or less exhausted the available sources. TheBritinator (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- If I may suggest, can the bullet-points after the prose be converted into prose, with explanations on the occasions he received the honours and what he did to earn them? Also, did he lose the 1995 election to Ospelt or did he simply retire from the Mayor's office and leave? Any info on the re-elections over his 15 years as Mayor? Such prose should bring the wikibio comfortably into start class. BTW, any REFs for the specific dates in the infobox for his time in office as Mayor, please? And, the infobox states that he was born in Vaduz, but this is not mentioned in the prose with a footnote. Hope this helps. -- PFHLai (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback. I have expanded the article slightly to include some of this information. TheBritinator (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- If I may suggest, can the bullet-points after the prose be converted into prose, with explanations on the occasions he received the honours and what he did to earn them? Also, did he lose the 1995 election to Ospelt or did he simply retire from the Mayor's office and leave? Any info on the re-elections over his 15 years as Mayor? Such prose should bring the wikibio comfortably into start class. BTW, any REFs for the specific dates in the infobox for his time in office as Mayor, please? And, the infobox states that he was born in Vaduz, but this is not mentioned in the prose with a footnote. Hope this helps. -- PFHLai (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps worth mentioning that this length is more or less exhausted the available sources. TheBritinator (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Dmartin969: ITN typically enforces a minimum of 1500 bytes, just like DYK. This article does not meet that minimum. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- With only 226 words of prose, this brand new wikibio is a bit stubby, IMO. DYK, our neighbour on MainPage, requires at least 1500 characters (~300 words). I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for the same minimum length. We want to showcase good contents on MainPage, where readers are expected to click and read. Stubby articles with fewer than 300 words are rarely taken to ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's more than stub length, and that's fine enough for RD.–DMartin 06:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Quality article, I'd call this ready.–DMartin 06:34, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support after some thinking I am going to support. I think that it is not so important to strictly enforce length limits, but more to look at how the article actually is. As @TheBritinator: points out, there just isn't much more to be written about him with the sources now. It's not the sort of blatant "this has one unreferenced sentence" stub that is unacceptable here. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
December 10
[edit]|
December 10, 2025 (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
American seizure of the oil tanker Skipper
[edit]Blurb: The United States seizes an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela. (Post)
News source(s): "Trump Says the US has Seized an Oil Tanker Off the Coast of Venezuela". Associated Press. December 10, 2025. "US Seizes Sanctioned Oil Tanker Off Coast of Venezuela, Trump Says". Reuters. December 10, 2025.
Credits:
- Nominated by PizzaKing13 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Not sure if videos are allowed for ITN nominations. The guidelines didn't mention it. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 06:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support as this is a major international incident, but I'm interested to see what coverage it's getting outside of the US.–DMartin 06:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can find. So far, I've found Venezuela's condemnation and Guyana's statement regarding the ship flying the Guyanese flag. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 06:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support, new level of escalation.Wi1-ch (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support extreme escalation of the naval deployment. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'd make the video a GIF for purposes a main page image. Video on the target article is fine, but I think the best we've done in the past is animated GIFS when it comes to moving images for an ITN blurb. Masem (t) 13:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support A major build-up. ArionStar (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wait the tanker itself appears to have been of questionable use the guardian, so under maritime law the US may have had a right to seize it. I'd rather see us have a better understanding of any legal issues here cleared up before rushing to post on a story that feels RGW-ish to point out this capture (as a lot of ppl online are running around saying this is piracy by the US) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)
WaitWeak oppose – Per Al Jazeera, a similar boat seizure occurred a decade ago, and the US seized oil from ships as recently as 2020. An analyst for CNN also called the boarding "absolutely normal" and France24 reports that this seizure is separate from Trump's recent campaign against Venezuela. Regarding quality, the article would benefit from including a section about legal analysis rather than just politicians' reactions. And as most of the support !votes so far have only been brief sentences amounting to "major news", I've removed the "(Ready)" indicator to allow for a more substantive discussion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)- Seizure of MV Morning Glory a decade ago was in no way similar! Then the Libyan authorities asked the US to board the tanker controlled by rebel Libyan forces.Wi1-ch (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Seems to be unrelated to the "drug terrorists" campaign that the Trump administration is carrying out, as the claim is that this vessel was circumventing sanctions against Iran. Natg 19 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- For what it's worth DHS secretary Kristi Noem says they are related according to PBS. FallingGravity 23:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wait - doesn't seem particularly unusual given sanctions, etc. Is there suggestion this is extralegal? Nfitz (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. I think, if nothing else, we should consider this tiff between the US and Venezuela as an Ongoing item. Looking more deeply at this particular situation, the reporting I'm seeing seems to be suggesting as more of a blip in the larger conflict rather than some sort of massive escalation. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb or adding 2025 United States naval deployment in the Caribbean to Ongoing. This and the boat strikes are notable diplomatic incidents and the proposed blurb doesn't weigh in on the tank seizure's legality. We don't have to settle legal issues or online debates since that's not our job as Wikipedians. FallingGravity 23:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose – Enforcement of sanctions, even if rare, seems routine. No casualties and no conflict. Might be worth posting if more ships are seized. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is not "routine enforcement of sanctions"! It is the seizure of a foreign ship in international waters. It is an extremely rare incident.Wi1-ch (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- The ship has been under sanction since 2022, I think you'll find that's exactly what it is. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- If the seizure of this ship was in a US port, that would be more or less normal enforcement of sanctions. But not in international waters.Wi1-ch (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- The ship has been under sanction since 2022, I think you'll find that's exactly what it is. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is not "routine enforcement of sanctions"! It is the seizure of a foreign ship in international waters. It is an extremely rare incident.Wi1-ch (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support per FallingGravity and dmartin. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 03:12, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - no one could even suggest there was anything illegal about this. Routine sanctions enforcement; and ego-waving by a tyrant. Nfitz (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- "No one could even suggest there was anything illegal": how about this [1]?Wi1-ch (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Iran seized a tanker days after this incident. What to make of this, I don't know. Could just be coincidence. Putting this here in case it helps anyone make their decision. Bremps... 06:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to add that ship seizures aren't altogether rare; see Russian shadow fleet § Enforcement actions. This is/was getting a lot of media attention for its connection to the Venezuela crisis, but with more context, it's not especially unusual. I'd like to formally change my !vote to weak oppose (will update above) at this point, in hopes that this nomination isn't prematurely marked as "(Ready)" again. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
RD: Sophie Kinsella
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
Credits:
- Nominated by ~2025-39872-54 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Mb2437 (talk · give credit) and Monkeysoap (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Author of Shopaholic series. ~2025-39872-54 (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready several areas uncited. Natg 19 (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support after remaining uncited statements referenced. Baldwin de Toeni (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Where are the sources/REFs for the Bibliography section? ISBNs for publications? --PFHLai (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
RD: Jeff Garcia
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): listed E
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Kreamymate (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Notable actor death. Kreamymate (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Orange-tagged for needing more citations => not ready. Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- "oppose" orange tagged 00:48,11 December 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegiantmouse00O2 (talk • contribs)
(Posted) Australia teen social media ban
[edit]Blurb: Australia's Online Safety Amendment takes effect, age-restricting social media sites for users under the age of 16. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Rushtheeditor (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: First ever such ban. Rushtheeditor (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, support. I've encountered multiple news articles on this also recently e.g. in German online media (Der Spiegel, if I recall correctly) - so there's (to my astonishment) quite a lot of global interest in what otherwise would be considered just local news. Khuft (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- I was looking to nominate this but I think this is stale as it looked like enforcement started last week of November. And if that wasn't the case our article is not clear on this and needs updating. I'd support this but quality and timing need to be checked. Masem (t) 21:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- The article states
The legislation allows the government to determine which social media platforms must ban age-restricted users and proclaim a date for the commencement of the ban, with those provisions taking force on 10 December 2025.
so it just started today. Natg 19 (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC) - The lead of the article says it was passed at the end of November of last year and came into effect today. So I wouldn't call that stale. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 21:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- It took effect today on December 10. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe I was thinking of articles on sites that already started to add the necessary requirements to meet this, and backlash to that. If it started enforcement today, the certainly not stake, but still should ha E a good quality check. Masem (t) 00:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- The article states
- Needs update citing sources covering its first-day effects / implementation, though I support in principle on notability. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Also a lot of primary sour ING to the legislation and subsequent reports. Those are fine to link but we should use third party sources to break down the legalese. Masem (t) 00:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support First ever such ban. Other countries are considering similar bans and their decisions will be influenced by the outcomes in Australia. Attracting news coverage and commentary all over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-31117-87 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support First country to issue a ban like this for something that billions of people around the world use. Wouldn't be surprised if this set a precedent for future countries to do something similar. qw3rty.exe ✉︎ 23:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Received persistent international news coverage and has potentially global ramifications. Also adds some nice variety to our blurb choices. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support several have expressed this sentiment about but I actually do support this due to the seemingly huge impacts it's having and the enormous media focus. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support This ban will set a worldwide trend, so its notable. Grimes2 23:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Landmark legislation. Generating significant coverage – and controversy. Article already has a good level of detail. Dr Fell (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support, albeit hesitantly. I'm not particularly convinced by the "It's likely to spark changes in other countries" logic per WP:CRYSTAL. However, this event is receiving extremely large amounts of mainstream media coverage.
- Comment
The blurb overstates the scope of the law since "social media sites" is a broad term, and the article mentions some social media platforms like Discord and Pinterest won't be affected.FallingGravity 00:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC) - Posted Stephen 00:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Post-posting support Internationally significant and likely to have wide consequences.–DMartin 06:37, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Strong Post-posting support: This is a big news to all and first time to do this. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
December 9
[edit]|
December 9, 2025 (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: George Mira
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Miami Herald
Credits:
- Updated and 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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American football player for the Uni. of Miami Hurricanes. Traveled around football leagues. While I want to expand the article further, I believe it's currently of quality for RD. --The Robot Parade 21:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Pablo Rodríguez Grez
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): EMOL
Credits:
- Updated and 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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Influencial Chilean politician and lawyer. Died on the 9th, death announced on the 10th. Article is fully sourced and detailed. --The Robot Parade 17:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
OpposeThe Pinochet typewriter anecdote has a failed verification tagand the source doesn't seem to mention it.FallingGravity 00:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)- @FallingGravity: The source does mention the typewriter but the original quote is in Spanish. I've altered it so that the quote is only paraphrased, not directly translated. ----The Robot Parade 18:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article appears to be of sufficient quality. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
(Stale) 2025 Turner Prize
[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: Nnena Kalu wins the 2025 Turner Prize. (Post)
Alternative blurb: British-Nigerian artist Nnena Kalu wins the Turner Prize
News source(s): BBC, NYT
Credits:
- Created and nominated by CohenTheBohemian (talk · give credit)
- Comment: we've never posted the Turner Prize before. It was nominated in 2012 and in 2013, but was unsuccessful both times and hasn't been nominated since. That's not a disqualification, just context. I realise there are probably copyright issues, but I find it very strange that neither article has any images, either of the works or artists. Otherwise, the textual content of both seems decent enough and is well referenced. The article quality seems good enough to me, the question is whether this controversial UK-only prize is significant enough to blurb. I'm refraining from !voting for now but have added an altblurb. Modest Genius talk 16:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- The lack of images is indeed because of copyright concerns. If anyone reading this is an expert at images, please help out.
- As for significance: yeah, tricky as there's nothing to directly compare it to, but in my opinion it has roughly the profile of the Booker, which is ITNR; and lots of ITNR items are limited to a single country, so at least I'm not embarrassed to propose it. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The Turner Prize is not even part of the List of awards considered the highest in a field. Grimes2 17:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
To be fair, there's no overlap between the literature category in that list and the literature awards under ITN/R (perhaps some of those prizes should be rediscussed).Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)- There is a discussion of literature prizes currently going on at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Literary_prizes_in_ITN/R. Feel free to comment there. Modest Genius talk 17:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'll be sure to leave a comment. I also realize now that this award is not related to literature. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- There is a discussion of literature prizes currently going on at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Literary_prizes_in_ITN/R. Feel free to comment there. Modest Genius talk 17:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Precedent is compelling here. Dr Fell (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The topic really needs images but it hasn't got any and isn't likely to any time soon. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support in principle, but quality is too thin for ITN.–DMartin 01:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Is there anything in particular you think needs fattening up? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Rod Paige
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Houston Chronicle
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Normantas Bataitis (talk · give credit), Eggmaster37 (talk · give credit), Jkaharper (talk · give credit) and TDKR Chicago 101 (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Former U.S. Education Secretary. Article updated and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support - article meets requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support - article is in good shape. TheInevitables (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Good quality article and meets requirements Scooglers (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
RD: Béatrice Picard
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): suggest
Credits:
- Nominated by Commandant Quacks-a-lot (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Canadian actress. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The article is a stub, and most of what is there is unsourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for now The article will have to be expanded before being posted to RD. It's a stub. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Currently at 206 words of prose, this wikibio is too stubby to qualify. Is there anything else to write about her life and career? A sentence with the date and place of birth, plus footnote(s), is a must for any wikibio. Any info on her upbringing/education? What happened between 1958 and 2008? That is a big time-leap in the prose. It's perfectly normal to not have footnotes in the lead paragraph, but the expectation is that everything mentioned in the lead will be expanded upon in the main prose with footnotes there. Please expand the main prose. --PFHLai (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Dixie Deans
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Black Kite (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jmorrison230582 (talk · give credit), Robby.is.on (talk · give credit) and 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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Iconic Scottish footballer. Article is pretty good. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment There's a discrepancy between the article body and infobox. Body says he played for Shelbourne and ended his career at Partick Thistle. Infobox makes no mention of Shelbourne and says he ended his career at Adelaide City. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- OK fixed. Shelbourne had simply been left out of the infobox (it is covered by the source). He did return to Partick Thistle in 1980, but never played a league game or signed a contract, which why this isn't in the infobox - I've made this clear in the body. Black Kite (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Article appears fully sourced and detailed. Should be good to go at this point. ----The Robot Parade 19:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
December 8
[edit]|
December 8, 2025 (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Jubilant Sykes
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hylton, Chelsea (9 December 2025). "Son of Grammy-nominated singer Jubilant Sykes arrested in father's killing at Santa Monica home, police say". MSN. Retrieved 9 December 2025.
Credits:
- Nominated by NeoGaze (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ForsythiaJo (talk · give credit) and Gerda Arendt (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American baritone singer, was found stabbed to death at his home on December 8. NeoGaze (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- The intro, apart from the dates, has eight words, so {{lead too short}} applies. The whole wikibio currently has 278 words of prose, so it could use a few more sentences to bring it more comfortably into start class -- and qualify for ITN. A sentence with the date (and place) of birth, plus footnote(s), is a must for any wikibio. Any REFs and footnotes for his upbringing/education/early career? Who are the "they" in "Upon arrival, they found Sykes..."? Discography needs more REFs (just one at this time). How come the Grammy-nominated Mass is not listed in the Discography? --PFHLai (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- I added a bit, expanded the lead, added (or used) refs for year of birth and place, refs for the recordings, adding Mass, ref for venues. More would be nice, but I'm busy in RL now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
RD: Raul Malo
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): People, The Hollywood Reporter
Credits:
- Nominated by ~2025-39225-30 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by MyGosh789 (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American musician and frontman of The Mavericks. ~2025-39225-30 (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: Was looking at this article yesterday, and its a good faith nom. But in the "Life and career" section there isn't any actual prose on his 30+ career. (Additionally, the chart positions are unsourced). All but a stub. --The Robot Parade 16:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
RD/blurb: Iain Douglas-Hamilton
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Elephant conservationist Iain Douglas-Hamilton (pictured) dies at the age of 83. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Canberra Times, France24,The Guardian, NYT, Straits Times, Tanzania Times, The Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Normantas Bataitis (talk · give credit) and Andrew Davidson (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Scottish zoologist. One of the world's foremost authorities on the African elephant. Thriley (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- I want to note that I nominated this for RD. I don't think he is blurb worthy. Thriley (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb The subject is commonly considered the elephant equivalent of Jane Goodall, who we blurbed this year. His conservation work seems quite significant in helping to preserve the species. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose RD on quality Several unsourced statements and the last paragraph of "Awards, works and publications" fails WP:NOTPROMO/NPOV. Oppose blurb at this point as its not clear how comparable he is to Goodall, there needs to be far more discussion in the article along those lines. Masem (t) 20:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- FYI, here's what Goodall said about him, "There’s no question that Iain’s legacy will last forever. It was he who brought the elephant as a sentient being to the attention of the world." Andrew🐉(talk) 20:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, sure, but his death is not global news. Goodall’s was. That’s the distinction at play This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- I've listed respectable sources from five continents above. That's global coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is the type of stuff that should be in the article (likely using obits where possible) to weigh in favor of showing why he was considered a major figure, because right now, what's present is nowhere close to indicate that type of threshold of importance. Masem (t) 13:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- The article is already quite large and includes content of this sort. For example, the lead says
This seems adequate to show impact at a similar level to Jane Goodall. The body of the article could use some work and I've started by doing some copy-editing but don't have the bandwidth to do more quickly. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)Douglas-Hamilton pioneered the first in-depth scientific study of elephant social behaviour in Tanzania's Lake Manyara National Park, aged 23. His work in the 1960s paved the way for much of today's understanding of elephants and current conservation practices. During the 1970s, he investigated the status of elephants throughout Africa and was the first to alert the world to the ivory poaching holocaust, bringing about the first global ivory trade ban in 1989.
- The problem is that we're missing an step that is OR for us, how those accomplishments make him a great figure. I do not question they likely do, but it's not WP's place to make that extrapolation. You want things like Goodall's quote and other statements from obits that make it clear his work to protect elephants was way he was widely regarded. Masem (t) 14:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, it's not OR because the blurb doesn't state that the subject is a major figure; it just says that he has died. Blurbing this is like the standard ITN process of determining whether something is significant or ongoing or in the news. These are explicitly subjective decisions which we make as an editorial choice. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- We want the rational behind why we are using a blurb to not be based on subjective original research arguments. Which means the article should have sourced discussion that connects these elements to why he was a major figure to eliminate any potential OR Masem (t) 21:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- You might want this but ITN doesn't as all that's needed is a consensus. WP:ITNSIGNIF indicates that such ITN consensus discussions are "highly subjective". Andrew🐉(talk) 23:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- If you want to convince editors that he should have a blurb, this should all be clearly in the article, and I would also argue that it's a quality issue to not have this on the article if we are blurbing it. It should be an easy task to do if he was truly a major figure. Masem (t) 20:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- You might want this but ITN doesn't as all that's needed is a consensus. WP:ITNSIGNIF indicates that such ITN consensus discussions are "highly subjective". Andrew🐉(talk) 23:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- We want the rational behind why we are using a blurb to not be based on subjective original research arguments. Which means the article should have sourced discussion that connects these elements to why he was a major figure to eliminate any potential OR Masem (t) 21:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, it's not OR because the blurb doesn't state that the subject is a major figure; it just says that he has died. Blurbing this is like the standard ITN process of determining whether something is significant or ongoing or in the news. These are explicitly subjective decisions which we make as an editorial choice. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is that we're missing an step that is OR for us, how those accomplishments make him a great figure. I do not question they likely do, but it's not WP's place to make that extrapolation. You want things like Goodall's quote and other statements from obits that make it clear his work to protect elephants was way he was widely regarded. Masem (t) 14:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- The article is already quite large and includes content of this sort. For example, the lead says
- Okay, sure, but his death is not global news. Goodall’s was. That’s the distinction at play This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- FYI, here's what Goodall said about him, "There’s no question that Iain’s legacy will last forever. It was he who brought the elephant as a sentient being to the attention of the world." Andrew🐉(talk) 20:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Blurb nomination a joke? Article needs a lot of work. Grimes2 20:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality due to sourcing issues, although I will note for the record that I removed to paragraph Masem was referring to. Weak oppose blurb because he's not as well-known as Goodall and nothing in the article explains why he deserves a blurb, although I could potentially be convinced to support if someone wrote a strong Legacy section in the article. I'd try to write one myself, but there aren't enough non-paywalled obits and I don't have an NYT subscription. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Please take another look as the coverage has expanded -- see the BBC, for example,
His groundbreaking research exposed the devastating effects of poaching - often at great risk to his own safety - and was instrumental in the banning of the international ivory trade.
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Please take another look as the coverage has expanded -- see the BBC, for example,
- Support blurb per Goodall precedent but the article needs work before posting. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb per precedents. Didgogns (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose blurb Goodall was blurbed because she was world front page news. This random guy is not This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose RD – Still lots of uncited text. Blurbing here is currently way out; the article would need significant updates. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Is death the story? No. Is it receiving inordinate coverage? No. Is the person "transformative"? Unevidenced. There is no Goodall "precedent" here, we judge ITN items on their own merit. These RD blurb noms are getting out of hand. Gotitbro (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Global coverage such as the BBC quote above is evidence of the subject's transformative impact –
groundbreaking research ... instrumental in the banning of the international ivory trade
. The article needs work but so did Jane Goodall's... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Global coverage such as the BBC quote above is evidence of the subject's transformative impact –
- Yes, clearly we need to tell very influential or transformative people to stop dying all at once. It's getting like 2016 all over again! Black Kite (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose RD on quality. Far too many unsourced statements, and no ISBNs or citations for books. I also oppose blurb based on notability. I echo Grimes2's statements. --The Robot Parade 16:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb – Yet another blurb discussion that will only delay this from being posted to RD, an occurrence that's become far too frequent lately. Douglas-Hamilton should not be compared to Goodall; the latter was the top of her field and globally known. Not ready for RD based on quality too, as there are several unsourced paragraphs. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb – I get it that he was the "Jane Goodall of elephants", but Jane Goodall was iconic for the conservation movement overall, not just for her work with chimpanzees. Khuft (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Jane Goodall was more famous and I was wondering why as it seems that their conservation careers were quite similar. It appears that Goodall became famous in the US in the 1960s as a result of National Geographic articles and TV documentary, Miss Goodall and the Wild Chimpanzees. IDH's equivalent documentary was The Family that lives with Elephants which was 8 years later and a UK production not a US one. So, the difference seems to have been a bigger impact in US media. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Unfortunately he isn't transformative like Goodall. ArionStar (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- See "...Iain’s ongoing advocacy against ivory poaching has been transformative...". Andrew🐉(talk) 20:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- A unknown journal said… ArionStar (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- That journal has been published since 1983 by specialist groups of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. It seems to be a reasonably respectable peer-reviewed journal and so it's not clear why ArionStar is sneering at it. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:37, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pachyderm Journal? Where's Nature (journal) remembering his legacy? A respectable but unknown work. ArionStar (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pachyderm is published by the IUCN which does have an article and is quite respectable. Browsing some more, I see their in memoriam statement starts
Iain Douglas-Hamilton was to African elephants what Jane Goodall was to chimpanzees. ... His passing, a few days ago, has left a void as large as the one Jane has...
The subsequent details don't use the exact word "transformative" but explain how he made such a difference. It's puzzling that editors here don't see it. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pachyderm is published by the IUCN which does have an article and is quite respectable. Browsing some more, I see their in memoriam statement starts
- Pachyderm Journal? Where's Nature (journal) remembering his legacy? A respectable but unknown work. ArionStar (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- That journal has been published since 1983 by specialist groups of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. It seems to be a reasonably respectable peer-reviewed journal and so it's not clear why ArionStar is sneering at it. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:37, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- A unknown journal said… ArionStar (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- See "...Iain’s ongoing advocacy against ivory poaching has been transformative...". Andrew🐉(talk) 20:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb and close Despite a fervent and impassioned defence from Andrew, it's pretty clear that consensus to blurb isn't gonna happen.–DMartin 06:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose RD Three days later and the article is still no where close to ready. Blurb discussions are, as usual, an unneeded distraction. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Blurb nomination is now effectively rendered stale, not that it had the support anyways. Discussion should focus on article quality going forward. --The Robot Parade 20:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Bill Ratliff
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TexasTribune
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by The Robot Parade (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American politican who served as 40th lieutenant governor of Texas. Article has been fully updated, sourced, and should be adequate in length. --The Robot Parade 17:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Almost ready @The Robot Parade: there are two CN tags that need to be fixed first. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)- @QuicoleJR: Issues fixed. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I'm happy to support now. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- @QuicoleJR: Issues fixed. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support I cannot find any issues. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
RD: John Noble Wilford
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Staraction (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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American reporter. Article may need some work before Main Page appearance. Staraction (talk · contribs) 23:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose bunch of unreferenced stuff in the Biography section. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support – Article is in good shape and well sourced. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- There are two sentences that are unsourced. Therefore, it is not ready, yet. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- I placed two citation needed tags. Schwede66 20:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- The intro, apart from the dates, has a single sentence with fifteen words, so {{lead too short}} applies. And, how come the prose has no mention of the Carl Segan Award in 2001 (and footnotes, please)? --PFHLai (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) 2025 Sanriku earthquake
[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 Mw 7.6 earthquake strikes north-eastern Japan. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by ~2025-39341-05 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- The correct approach for ITN would be to wait to judge if this is something gnificant for the main page, not posting as soon as it happens. Right now there's only 3 injuries which are s far below posting level. Masem (t) 16:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wait/oppose only a few injuries, not big enough for posting. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Officially an Oppose. The earthquake had minimal impact and the tsunami did not affect the coast as much as anticipated. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for now since it looks like the biggest impact was disrupting some rail services and a few fires This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for now Impact and injuries are limited main page posting isn't warranted yet. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 17:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Updated below
Wait until more details emerge. Right now it looks now like this is going to be pretty insignificant.–DMartin 20:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC) - Oppose - a relatively deep quake in an extremely well-prepared area that often gets major earthquakes. Seemingly minor damage, with only a couple dozen injuries; no deaths.
- Oppose per above. Thankfully, seems to have had a comparatively minimal impact. The Kip (contribs) 00:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose minimal impact per above. Departure– (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose and close Thankfully minimal impact.–DMartin 03:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Ongoing: 2025 Cambodia‒Thailand conflict (again)
[edit]Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Alternative blurb: Thousands of civilians were evacuated from the Cambodia–Thailand border following renewed clashes and air strikes.
News source(s): [2][3]
Credits:
- Nominated by NotKringe (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: It seems that the peace treaty failed to held up, and there's a major escalation again. With the RTA conducting air strikes and the RCA launches rockets into each other's borders.
- Comment - Wouldn't this be better as a blurb in this instance? Onegreatjoke (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- I say it depends on the frequency of updates. I understand why the current ongoing events are still listed given the constant updates, while other ongoing events like Myanmar Civil War are not.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- I've decided to make it an ongoing since this is a continued update of the whole border crisis. I've nominated this as ongoing once back in July but it was rejected as fighting eased around that time. Although I'm fine with giving it a blurb again (even if somewhat reduandant). NotKringe (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Start with a blurb and switch over to ongoing if it continues. Who knows if this will keep escalating. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support if orange-tag is resolved – I can see that the updates of the past three days have been formatted like a timeline. I don't think this is good setup for the future; I am not sure what this article will look like in a week if this keeps going on like this. Despite that, this feels like a good example of the kind of article that Ongoing is used for: daily updates. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Fat too early to consider ongoing, and we have far too many ongoing entries there already, it needs trimming. Masem (t) 13:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- maybe after 1-3 more days it could be ongoing? Shawdowpouncer2 (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- We generally want a blurb first, and if the event still meets the ongoing criteria when it falls off the blurb in the ITN box, then ongoing is appropriate Masem (t) 15:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Aight, it seems like the clash is still ongoing with substantial update, so I think it's probably an appropiate timing for blurb/ongoing. Though I do admit that the update still feels a bit timeline-y. NotKringe (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- maybe after 1-3 more days it could be ongoing? Shawdowpouncer2 (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wait/Conditional support I agree with Masem on it being a bit early to nominate, since this might fizzle out, if it significantly flares up again, I feel a blurb might be more appropriate, though the orange-tag still needs to be addressed regardless. Give it 1-3 days. ~2025-39341-05 (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe a blurb first for the airstrike and then ongoing later if this persists? NotKringe (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - if we had an ongoing for all the border disputes with occasional flare ups we'd have a half-dozen or so for just the Caucuses, and another half-dozen for each Middle Eastern country. A score total! Maybe a blurb if it escalates for another day or two. Nfitz (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the news today, the clashes seems to escalate further than the one in July, as the RTA has reportedly already entered beyond the border, so I think this will definitely warrants a blurb. NotKringe (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose – Many conflicts are ongoing. If a significant escalation occurred, it'd likely be a blurb first; if the page was continuously updated after the blurb and widespread coverage was sustained, then a discussion to add to "Ongoing" would be appropriate. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose – Tagged with LLM. Support – If this is fixed. JaxsonR (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support Once maint issues are fixed. Significant escalation, as a continuation of the crisis earlier this year which we blurbed a blurb itself may not be necessary. Gotitbro (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb per above. Didgogns (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't seem sustained enough for ongoing. List of ongoing armed conflicts has it as one of many low level conflicts with comparatively few fatalities. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb as a major escalation, oppose ongoing for now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note Stale for blurb. Last blurb entry is 10 December as of this entry. 05:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsky (talk • contribs)
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:
- ^ "The Last of Us takes the big prize (and many others) at the Oscars of video games". Digital Trends. February 7, 2014. Archived from the original on November 4, 2021. Retrieved November 4, 2021.
- ^ "DICE Awards turn 20: How gaming's Academy Awards have grown". VentureBeat. February 21, 2017. Archived from the original on October 25, 2020. Retrieved November 4, 2021.
- ^ "Control nominated for eight "video game Oscars" D.I.C.E. Awards and five GDC Awards". Remedy Entertainment. January 14, 2020. Archived from the original on November 6, 2021. Retrieved November 4, 2021.