Wikipedia talk:In the news

Timeline of Israel-Hamas war

Hello! Could we have also a link to the timeline of the Israel-Hamas war? Otherwise it is tricky to find how this war is changing.

Right now there is one for the Russian invasion and another one for Sudan. So I guess it would be more consistent.

I am not skilled enough to try myself.

Best! 93.34.8.202 (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• The OP IP has a point. Currently we list four wars in Ongoing like this:

Israel–Hamas war, Myanmar civil war, Russian invasion of Ukraine (timeline), War in Sudan (timeline)

But all these wars have timeline pages so it seems quite inconsistent to display timelines for some but not others. The missing timelines include Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war, which has several subsidiary timeline pages, and Timeline of the Myanmar civil war (2021–present).

I've made a nomination to get this discussed.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Y A link has been added now. Thanks for the suggestion. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the Myanmar civil war was removed from the Ongoing list? GigaDerp (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

An idea for RD Blurb guidance, defining what doesn't qualify

Instead of trying to be more explicit as to when an RD qualifies for a urn, perhaps we could add a short list of reasonings that, in isolation of any other argument, are not considered sufficient for a blurb.
For example, using a current nom, simply winning a Nobel or the like, or being awarded with multiple awards, isn't sufficient on its own. Producing or being in lots of creative works wouldn't either, nor being like the first to do something significant or a being world record holder. Similarly, just being famous or a household name is not typically considered sufficient by itself. That's not say that these aspects would not contribute towards considering a blurb when coupled with other factors, but adopting some advice that narrows when we consider blurbs, rather than the inverse of trying to define explicit bounds, may be an easily way to help in RD blurb mom's. — Masem (t) 13:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to have such an "arguments to avoid" list. Maybe also "being an influence on famous people" could be in there, and also "but X had a death blurb, so Y should have one". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

People don't follow WP:ITN/C#Please do not... guidance as it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Id think that while there are those that inadvereny ignore these once in a while, having written do-nots we can point to as gentle reminds will help. — Masem (t) 16:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, ideally those votes should just be ignored by the admin considering posting. Not counting such votes should encourage people to provide better rationale. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:ITNRD says that major figures are determined on a sui generis basis. That doesnt give administrators much leeway to discount !votes, and doing so would be a WP:SUPERVOTE, barring more objective updates to WP:ITNRD. —Bagumba (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not how I would take sui generis here: that means we should not be comparing a blurb suggestion of one person to previous successful or failed nominations (each discussion of a blurb being its own unique thing). That doesn't mean some type of ground rules - like what we'd expect to see of a great figure, or what is typically not acceptable to support a great figure - can't be applied as long as those rules are applied generally and not from a comparative standpoint. Masem (t) 04:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but the community hasn't codified what those ground rules are for "major figures". —Bagumba (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"The community hasn't done it yet" is not an argument for, well, not doing it now. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 07:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating one way or another. —Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 07:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Masem on this one. I would interpret sui generis to mean votes should not directly compare x to y (which I think is somewhat hard to do with a theoretical bar as we have for notability in general, but that's another argument). I'm talking about discounting votes that don't make sense or are unproductive (ie the "who?" votes, which quite frankly be grounds for individual sanctions, but that's also another argument). I'm generally in favor of discontinuing death blurbs simply on notability alone, but most do not agree, so I think this would at least be a worthwhile starting point towards generating more productive blurb discussions. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't patrol ITNC enough to reprimand !voters for saying like "It's only country X". However, I would discount their !vote if I was closing the dicsussion, as it's presumably at "Please do not" by prior consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Nobel prizes are given for a reason and that reason may well result in a blurb -- see Peter Higgs for a recent example. There's no formula for this; it just depends who shows up to vote. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Higgs wasn't posted just because he won a Nobel, which is the argument I'm trying to advocate here. The Nobel was but one facet behind him being a great figure (It is in hindsight that added "Nobel-winning" to the blurb probably wasn't appropriate but that's a wholly different matter) Masem (t) 11:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  The achievement for which he won the Nobel was pretty much the only reason he got a blurb. If he hadn't won the Nobel then he wouldn't have been blurbed. And it might have gone differently because there were six physicists in three groups who independently arrived at the same conclusion in the same year. So, he wasn't essential and it's mainly a matter of good fortune that his is the name that has become attached to the discovery.

  Alice Munro is having more trouble because she's not such a big name and literature is more subjective and a matter of taste. See Nobel Prize in Literature#Criticism for other issues. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  At least she's not blessed/saddled with WWE Championship#Disputes. If the recent dead had to qualify for urns, I'd say The Undertaker has definitely earned one. But if we're talking blurbs (as I think Masem meant), it seems clear Ric Flair is the only viable candidate in his medium, living or dead. As for further guidance, Muboshgu's right. It would just be more for most voters to ignore. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  One could argue that same for processes like AFD, why have advice that editors will ignore? Well the idea us that the more you remind editors (and indirectly admin) that we have guidelines on what's appropriate, they'll learn these guidelines exist, and for admins, a reminder of what votes they should discount on determining a course of action. — Masem (t) 23:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't really follow AfD like the regulars do. I have seen a lot of articles that entirely lack references, don't follow the Manual of Style in multiple ways, are orange-tagged for those things and aren't even nominated for deletion, though. In general, I think there's this problem with an encyclopedia anyone can edit existing within a world in which not everyone reads the instructions, much less comprehends, interprets and/or follows them. Continually adaptive correction and reactive enforcement, that's my only way forward. As a lapsed idealist myself, I appreciate your enthusiasm for some wonderfully preemptive educational solution, but seriously, "come on", "wake up", "smell the roses" and other such embittered dismissive mantra. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  AFD is no different from ITN: AFD has a lot of people that come by for the first time to a deletion discussion and express one of multiple reasons that are listed at WP:ATA. If there are a fair number of these, other editors will point out the ATA problem, but moreso, the closing admin (who does have responsibility for knowing the "rules") is supposed to ignore these. No one there has issues with those ATA arguments existing.

  My argument for the same here is that there are clearly common but unwritten reasons for not supporting the blurb for an RD (beyond quality issues) that could be written down in a format like ATA (though with consensus first as to what to right down) that we then have as a tool to caution newer editors that are !voting along these lines and that ITN admins should be aware of as to disregard !votes that fall within these ATA-like areas. Masem (t) 14:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's some mental gymnastics there. Of course he won the Nobel for it. But not every Nobel winning achievement is created equal. Higgs probably has one of the biggest such achievements across all Nobels in the years since. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Add undisputed boxing champions

Since 2007 with the inclusion of the WBO titles, there has been 10 occurences, making such achievments extremely rare. Rarer are articles about the fights that led to it. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the last occurrences, there have been nineteen people getting the achievement, including five doing it twice in different weight classes. The last times were May 2024 (Oleksandr Usyk, male heavyweight), March 2024 (Seniesa Estrada, female minimumweight), December 2023 (Naoya Inoue, male super bantamweight), November 2023 (Katie Taylor, female light welterweight). This seems to be too common to deserve a front-page blurb each time. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is articles about fights. That'll reduce it to size. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The fact that not all of them have had articles created for them doesn't make those that do have articles any more notable. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wait. Nominate this if one of the boxers in the bout isn't Caucasian and is posted. This is not recent, but Oscar De La Hoya vs. Manny Pacquiao (Hispanic American vs. Filipino) was declined at ITN, then Manny Pacquiao vs. Ricky Hatton was approved (Filipino vs. Caucasian British), then Floyd Mayweather vs. Manny Pacquiao (African American vs. Filipino) was dragged into the mud of ITN/C but was eventually posted. These examples are years ago, and boxing has went down in significance since then (probably not as niche as rowing, but who knows?), so let's see if it's an undisputed women's bantamweight title that's up for grabs and we'll see similar levels of support. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: Cited examples were not unification bouts, but in theory, unification bouts, more so for men, are rare, and should be more "important" than these. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Not quite boxing or unifications, but three undisputed UFC bantamweight championship bouts (featuring three women, two men and one former boxer) were shot down back in the day (UFC 168, UFC 173 and UFC 193); two were closed and one just stopped. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Now that Usyk holds the title, I guess we could see more such titles, but honestly, this is something that literally hadn't happened in nearly 24 years. I'm not sure holding the undisputed heavyweight championship is common enough to count as "recurring". Perhaps we can revisit this idea if someone else takes the title after Usyk. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Changes in heads of state ITNR

Presently our ITNR for changes of heads of states says "Changes in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election."
In the past I am certain that we have presumed that table to be correct, and importantly the green marked cells is the position of the govt that holds ultimate power over the executive branch and is not merely symbolic or similar. But in the discussion of the helicopter crash that killed the president of Iran, there is debate whether the succession of the president qualifies, an issue that would apply to many other Middle Eastern and Asian states. On the case of Iran, while it is true the president oversees the executive branch, it is also the case that this position is largely ceremonial with the Supreme Leader being the one that not only has full control on the govt but is also heavily involved in the selection of the president. As such the table above correctly marks the Supreme Leader as the main holder of power in Iran, so their succession would clearly be ITNR. But one can also argue because the president does administer the exec branch that they are the office that ITNR would recognize for succession. (that doesn't mean non ITNR succession couldnt be nominated, they'd just have to viewed on their terms)
I swear we've used the green cells in the table as the delimited here in the past for determining ITNR for appropriate cases of succession, but I can't find firm discussion on this. I think we should see what the opinions are on this and if there's a clear consensud for one approach over another, document that on ITNR. — Masem (t) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel like there was a recent discussion about this on this talk page. But maybe it was about changing the "elections" portion of ITNR and not specifically about succession. Natg 19 (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

For the most part, I think the code is coloured correctly. Iran is just a bit exceptional, as a theocracy, with a "supreme" level of management. This bonus level or its boss' secret powers to disqualify candidates don't make the elected executive position ceremonial, though. The President of Iran (even acting) has a lot of day-to-day business on his plate that someone like my king or his supreme leader does not. Major decisions will fall in line with the upper echelon's master plan, of course, but that's a sign of unity, not weakness.

If I suggested otherwise at our talk at the nom, I don't care about blurbing the change; several of the linked articles in the existing blurb already cover it. I also don't think Khameini's shading or lack thereof will be substantial when the time comes; people will vote as it suits them.

I was just trying to make the underlying facts clear. A lot of Iranian governance, foreign and domestic, is routinely obfuscated and warped by the American, British and Israeli media, while much Iranian media is censored in those bubbles. Combined with its bona fide strangeness and losses in translation which affect all "other" languages, I can't and won't blame anyone for missing some key points earlier and wish you all well in your table endeavours. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally, if we're blurbing a president's death, I think that would make the office notable enough to mention the succession of the office. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The hypothetical, if a high ranking but not head or state nor head of executive ( such as a cabinet member) died in a helicopter crash, we'd still cover thatthe issue raised in this case is whether the succession to that position falls into ITNR. This crash is a min ITNR entry but meets the requirements for significance, that's no question. But whether we would include the succession once named is what's in question. — Masem (t) 16:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)