Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2023

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

April 30

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Jock Zonfrillo

Article: Jock Zonfrillo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1], [2], [3]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Scottish-Australian chef and television presenter. Known for MasterChef AustraliaHappily888 (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) RD: Broderick Smith

Article: Broderick Smith (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Music (AU)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: English-born Australian multi-intrumentalist, 75. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) RD: Ralph Boston

Article: Ralph Boston (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tennessean
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Olympian who set world record for long jump, 83. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) 2023 Paraguayan general election

Proposed image
Article: 2023 Paraguayan general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the 2023 Paraguayan general election, Santiago Peña (pictured) is elected President of Paraguay (Post)
News source(s): El País (in Spanish), Ultima Hora (in Spanish), DW
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Over 96% of the votes are counted, Pena leads by a 15% lead. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Conditional support - there needs to be a
MOS:PROSE page. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 12:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

(Closed) Caliph of Islamic State killed

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


Article: Abu al-Hussein al-Husseini al-Qurashi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Abu al-Hussein al-Husseini al-Qurashi, Caliph of the Islamic State, is killed (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Abu al-Hussein, Caliph of the Islamic State, is killed
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-65445007
Credits:
Nominator's comments: May not be notable enough, but I think it's fairly significant. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:Oppose on quality - article needs serious expansion to be main page ready and the articles barely been updated. Probably Support - this probably will receive substantial coverage in the coming hours and will be symbolic of the collapse of the Islamic State. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 22:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait @Curbon7. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 00:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Too many unknowns. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Until there is independent confirmation. The person making the claim is Erdogan. Y'know, the guy who is currently 2nd place in polls for next month's election. Also the guy who just a few months ago probably lied about the perpetrators of a bombing to push his own political interests. Yeah that guy. I also do recall false claims in 2017 that Russia killed Baghdadi. Curbon7 (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also the third "caliph" killed in just over a year, only having been leader since late November. At some point, the significance of such a killing decreases. Curbon7 (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see anything within the article about the Turkish government being the perpetrators of the bombing. But I see your point, and I think it'd be best to wait on this story. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The BBC isn't reporting that he was killed, they are reporting that Turkey is claiming he was killed. Also, even if he has been killed, that is becoming a very common event and doesn't need a blurb - should be a recent death instead. BilledMammal (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose although this is an important event, given that ISIS changes Caliphs so often, this kinda loses the ITN-notability. such as, if Saif Al-Adel was killed, it would be a big deal, because Al-Qaeda changes leadership once every 10 years. but if a ISIS leader is killed, it would still be some news, but not as important because, Per Curbon7, it is the third one to be killed in the past years. Oh, and just because Turkey claims they killed him, doesn't mean that they did. there have been false confirmations for kills before. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bordering on disruptive.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Vyacheslav Zaitsev

Article: Vyacheslav Zaitsev (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Moscow Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Russian fashion designer. Article looks good, besides a couple CN tags at the very end. Curbon7 (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) World Chess Championship 2023

Proposed image
Article: World Chess Championship 2023 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Ding Liren (pictured) defeats Ian Nepomniachtchi to win the World Chess Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Ding Liren (pictured) defeats Ian Nepomniachtchi on tiebreaks to become the new World Chess Champion, succeeding Magnus Carlsen.
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: What an awesome match it was! Davey2116 (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Support Skyshifter talk 13:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEADHORSE - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 20:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose Normally the results of world championships should be posted, but given that the best player in the world did not participate in the match, posting this to ITN would give the false impression that Ding actually is the world's best player. In other words, this event was really about crowning the second best player, which isn't notable enough for ITN. Gust Justice (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I Support inclusion, and I strongly disagree that it shouldn't be posted simply because Carlsen didn't play. The world championship is the world championship, and it has always been notable, regardless of strength (which, by the way, isn't lightyears away from the world no. 1). Wretchskull (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are debating article quality only here. Notability is already assumed as this is ITN/R. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was even worth responding to such a ludicrous vote (note the lack of an exclamation point). Clearly, not a soul will take it seriously, especially not the closing admin. -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We posted the 2012 championship, even though it was between the World No. 4 (Anand) and the World No. 20 (Gelfand), and the highest-ranking player at the time (Carlsen) refused to participate in the qualifying Candidates Tournament. I think that gives a clear precedent. Double sharp (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need precedent; we need to ignore unconstructive non-arguments. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will concede that the 2012 article being posted is a good argument to posting it here. I am just sceptical that all events in ITN/R should always be posted, even in edge scenarios like this. Gust Justice (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Carlsen not wanting to play is his decision. By definition, he is no longer the champion. Juxlos (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as ITN/R. It is not the fault of the two players that competed for this title that Carlsen vacated the title. Carcharoth (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support original blurb The article is in fine shape. As far as blurb choice, much as I love Magnus, this was about the two players who showed up. -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb 1 Article is ready –lomrjyotalk 13:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bread Enthusiast (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Double sharp (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 29

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Larry "Gator" Rivers

Article: Larry Rivers (basketball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Recommend linking to his name on main page as Larry "Gator" Rivers. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

RD: Ronnie Cummins

Article: Ronnie Cummins (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Star Tribune
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Major figure in the organic movement. Founder of the Organic Consumers Association. Article has just been created. Thriley (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Not yet ready Article is a stub. please ping me if there is expansion so I can re-assess. Curbon7 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Article has a single line of prose with an orange tag. Article is not ready for ITNRD at all. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Single-sentence stub. Too short to qualify. --PFHLai (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mike Shannon

Article: Mike Shannon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) RD: István Vágó

Article: István Vágó (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Euronews
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WWTBAM. Only one CN tag, rest of the article looks good. Curbon7 (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

April 28

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime


RD: Tim Bachman

Article: Tim Bachman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Toronto Star
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Co-founder of the band Bachman-Turner Overdrive. Article needs some polish. Masem (t) 01:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) RD: Taheri Noor

]

(Posted) RD: Rosemary Cramp

Article: Rosemary Cramp (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Durham University, Newcastle Chronicle
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Death reported 28 April. Prominent archaeologist and the first female professor at Durham University. Very well-cited and holistic, article looks good to go. Curbon7 (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) RD: Ranajit Guha

Article: Ranajit Guha (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Indian Express
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Indian historian. Article needs some work before it can be ready. Edits done. Article has shaped into a C-class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) RD: Taini Jamison

Article: Taini Jamison (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: NZ netball coach who led the national team to a gold in 1967. Article appears to be good quality. Curbon7 (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

RD: David Jacobs

Article: David Jacobs (table tennis) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Indonesian table tennis player. Article is a 2012 GA; prose is holistic and well-cited, but the "Achievements" section is entirely unsourced. Curbon7 (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Support Article is already a GA and looks adequate. Ollieisanerd (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    GAs are a depreciating asset, and sourcing standards have gone up significantly since 2012. As I note, the entire results section is uncited; maybe this was acceptable then, but it is not now. Curbon7 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work It appears that the subject had a disability which was significant for their sport but the article doesn't explain this clearly – the lead doesn't even mention it. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: I have added the disability to the lead, in which case I support this article being on RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Harold Kushner

Article: Harold Kushner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American rabbi. Author of the best selling When Bad Things Happen to Good PeopleThriley (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. The entire "author" section currently lacks any inline references. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've sourced most of the article to the best of my abilities and have also expanded it considerably. Mooonswimmer 18:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) First Republic Bank

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.


Articles: 
a banking crisis.
News source(s): Reuters

Credits:
Nominator's comments: Reuters is reporting that this will happen imminently. As measured by assets, First Republic ($212.6 billion) was slightly larger than Silicon Valley Bank ($209.0 billion) whose collapse we posted last month. Davey2116 (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait — Source provided says that the FDIC is preparing to put it under receivership. If it happens, weak oppose. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose - Silicon Valley Bank was more or less at the start of the crisis. I wouldn't consider another bank being taken into receivership isn't blurb worthy. However, I would absolutely support an ongoing for this. Estar8806 (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support if it actually occurs - absolutely huge news and probably a harbinger for an upcoming economic collapse. However, it hasn't officially occurred yet, just merely being discussed by the FDIC. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 01:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait to see if this gets FDIC'd. I would support posting in the case that it does, but the article would need to be updated with precise details; it's not yet ready to post due to the event being a bit of
WP:CRYSTAL. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support in principle. The hook should mention acquisition by J.P. Morgan. This is the second-biggest failure of a bank in U.S. history, so it's easily notable enough for ITN. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Kaur Singh

Article: Kaur Singh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Zee News
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: - Rushtheeditor (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

April 27

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

  • The
    people with disabilities". This decision is welcomed by disability organizations. (The Guardian)

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

  • 2023 NFL Draft

RD: Wee Willie Harris

Article: Wee Willie Harris (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Yahoo
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: English rocker. Discography needs sources, but the rest of the article appears to be alright. Curbon7 (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) RD: Francis Macnab

Article: Francis Macnab (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.mytributes.com.au/notice/death-notices/macnab-francis/6051355/#:~:text=June%2021%2C%201931%20%E2%80%93%20April%2027,2023%20(aged%2091%20years).
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Boat-rocking Australian Christian minister and psychotherapist. Needs more sourcing, but his life is going to be well documented elsewhere, so that should be quite fixable. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Add Timeline to Ongoing for Russian invasion of Ukraine

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



Article: 
talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post
)

Credits:
Nominator's comments: Would be helpful to add this to the existing link to the Russian invasion of Ukraine per previous discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note - what he means is to modify

timeline)." - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 14:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Support - in
Russian Invasion of Ukraine
was put up for removal from ongoing, a key point made amongst certain editors who opposed was:
  • How do we determine this? Yea, the article itself might not be getting updates but the timeline is getting both consistent and major updates. So do we base this off of the nominated article or the timeline article? - @Onegreatjoke
  • Obviously the main article isn't for daily play-by-play updates; if it was, it'd be the largest page on the site, full of every minute detail of happenings in Bakhmut. This article is meant to be an overview of the conflict. The day-to-day operations are still routinely and constantly being updated at the innumerable forks. - @Curbon7
  • Case of smaller, more specific subarticles getting updated while the large main article is not updated as substantially since its an overview. - @Hurricane Noah
  • The war is still ongoing, and updates are still being made to articles within the topic area. - @Kurtis
  • Given
    Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (12 November 2022–present) is being updated. Perhaps its necessary to add this link hidden under the phrase "(Timeline)" so that editors considering a drawn-out ongoing removal know to check the article likely to be updated. - @Masem
This is true. The slowdown in edit activity that @Interstellarity mentioned in his original nomination was largely the fault of the numerous content forks that absorbed up much of the war's coverage, rendering the central article a mere overview. However, a requirement for ongoing items is that they ought to be frequently updated, and said updates ought to be substantial. Although the original Russian invasion of Ukraine article still receives daily updates, the quantity has slowed and has largely been absorbed by the various timeline/fork articles as the users above pointed out. Considering that we're supposed to be focusing on more recent topics anyway, it feels correct to add the timeline article by the central article to highlight a more in-depth analysis of the war in the past few months rather than just merely having a summary of a whole year's worth of fighting. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 03:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a failure of the current Ongoing standards that we we don't consider an event's timeline equivalent to be sufficient with it's updates to keep an item in ITN. I get the whole "emphasizing Wikipedia as a dynamic resource" thing, but in reality, who doesn't know that already? The issue with an event like this is the page can only contain so much information before it must be split, and the reality is this phase of the war could continue for several years with heavy conflict, but eventually under current Ongoing standards the updates on the MAIN page with decrease to the point of marginal to where it is no longer Ongoing material. Sadly, prior discussion about considering child articles for Ongoing update standards was closed with consensus against such a change. I personally think such a case as this must be given exemption, but that's just me. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And there's the outright
BS such as "Fu Cong, China's Ambassador to the European Union, explained in interviews that the recently declared "friendship with no limits" between Russia and China is actually "nothing but rhetoric"..." He may well be right but how can we tell? See the liar paradox... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support including a link to the Timeline page - Per @Knightoftheswords281. Perhaps even a link to a portal page, considering the sheer amount of articles on the topic, akin to how we blurbed the COVID-19 Pandemic? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While I understand the logic of this proposal (article updates), I don't think the timeline article is particularly useful to readers clicking through from the main page. If a reader is clicking on that link, they probably want to know what the current status in the war is, not a list of events starting last November (an apparently random choice of date). Leave the entry as it is. Modest Genius talk 12:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I periodically do exactly that (click on that link because I want to know what the current status in the war is) and it is absolutely not there. Try it for yourself. Where is significant fighting happening? Are there skirmishes happening all along the front lines, or is it relatively peaceful? I have no idea. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per rationale mentioned above. It would be nice if there were an article that both summarized the current events and provided historical context in the form of a timeline, however, that doesn't appear to exist . Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The main article already links to the timeline article. This information can be found is people want it. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Would just add too much unnecessary clutter to the main page when readers could easily click the ongoing article link and navigate to the associated subpages. Contrary to popular opinion, people generally aren't stupid (which is not to suggest that this proposal implies such an assumption on the part of Interstellarity, of course). Kurtis (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Dick Groat

Article: Dick Groat (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American professional baseball and basketball player who was an eight-time All-Star shortstop and two-time World Series champion in Major League BaseballThriley (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Oppose Article needs more references. Ollieisanerd (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't nominate this earlier because it's in such rough shape. If I have the time, I'll try to reference it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on Quality. Woefully under-sourced. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per DarkSide830. I just removed a paragraph under the first subheader that was completely unsourced, and I was unable to find anything to verify the claims made. The rest of the article isn't too much better off. (For anyone who has the time and inclination to add some new citations, I did manage to find this from 1960, which I think could be useful). Kurtis (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted RD) RD/blurb: Jerry Springer

Proposed image
Article: Jerry Springer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American television personality Jerry Springer (pictured) dies at age 79 (Post)
News source(s): AP, NYT, WaPo, CNN
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
Jerry Springer (1991–2018), dies at age 79. Davey2116 (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose - There's still some unsourced statements that I'm not comfortable to approve yet. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - I'm not sure why people are saying that this is sufficient; while not littered with issues, there are still four CN tags. Considering how high-profile Springer was (I mean, I was like 15% in the process of skipping a heartbeat), I'm guessing that there's been a surge in addition of unsourced statements? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 17:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also oppose blurb - his death was not notable in of itself, meaning that under ITN law, he ought to be banished to the RD section. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 03:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see how anyone argues about him being transformative)
talk) 17:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
No one has said any such thing. --WaltClipper -(talk) 17:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, shit. I stand corrected now. This is going to be interesting. --WaltClipper -(talk) 19:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb? A number of obits refer to the transformative nature of his work. Even The Guardian (UK, not US) article starts with "The talkshow host Jerry Springer, a former mayor of Cincinnati whose work was vastly influential in daytime TV worldwide, has died." Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll second this. This was the one show that truly rivaled and even exceeded Oprah (certainly blurb worthy when she passes, knock on wood not anytime soon) in terms of ratings during the 90s. Perhaps it’s appropriate? DrewieStewie (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure for the moment on my actual vote on a blurb, but I certainly endorse having the debate; he was quite a lot more high-profile than most other RDs. The Kip (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for RD and blurb - Jerry Springer was an icon in American media. Article is decent and gives enough history and background about Springer to any curious reader. That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD - but not a blurb. Work on the article fixed nearly all the issues. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose' Still one unresolved cn tag in the "acting" section. Normally one tag wouldn't be a hold up, but the unreferenced paragraph is about 30-40% of that whole section's text. I'm afraid that probably needs to be fixed before this is ready for prime time. --Jayron32 18:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD and blurb Article looks in better shape. Several obits are noting his impact on television such as being a pioneer to present-day "trash TV", plus we did blurb Betty White (rightfully so). His show had also international spin-offs ranging in languages which shows his international impact. *Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!*. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD or blurb. Article is in better shape and he was a definitely notable television personality with his last name being synonymous with 'trash TV'. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Not a significant or transformative figure, nor any sign in the ar/icle discussion his legacy or the like on television. We are being swayed by the "household name" factor here like the situation around Betty White, when we need to look to see if he had a serious impact on the world. --Masem (t) 19:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Masem: Pretty sure your mind is set, but I added a legacy section.
    TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb, subject pioneered an entire genre of television. That he was competitive with Oprah understates that he was doing something completely different and much more controversial, which has since been widely replicated. BD2412 T 19:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This ^^ without Jerry Springer, there's no reality television as we know it today. Also, as a formality, Support Blurb. DrewieStewie (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel strongly about Harry Belafonte not having a blurb, but... if Belafonte doesn't get one, and Jerry Springer does, that's prima facie evidence that our blurb criteria are broken. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I 100% concur with Floquenbeam. Mr. Belafonte had a short legacy section which informed my oppose. Mr. Springer has no legacy section. --WaltClipper -(talk) 20:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a legacy section on the article now, albeit a short one. You could always feel free to be bold and expand on it, too. 😉 Ah, the beauty of being an editor! That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't actually have to do so. Ah, the joys of being a volunteer. --WaltClipper -(talk) 20:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently working on a legacy section. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have supported a blurb for Harry Belafonte, but when I last checked that discussion, there was fairly overwhelming support for a blurb, so I didn't weigh in before more mixed reactions developed. Now I wish I had. BD2412 T 15:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about this as blurb criteria: does the death itself have its own page? Was this person at any point a head of state? If the answer to either question is "no", do not blurb it. Otherwise, we're wasting energy on whether to blurb than on improving the article to get it on the main page to begin with. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb - His significance is being vastly overstated here. In the article reality television, Jerry Springer isn't even listed. This was a talk show host who was popular and good at what he did, but that does not equate to being a transformative figure in television. --WaltClipper -(talk) 20:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A million percent agreed with Floq. But also think it is indeed broken, so color me unsurprised at further evidence. nableezy - 20:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Clearly does not meet the high bar of a death blurb. I don’t think he was ever as notable as Regis Philbin, who I assume did not get a blurb. Thriley (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thriley: Not only did Regis not get a blurb, he didn't even get posted on RD. No one bothered to improve his article in time to meet the minimum quality standard. Go figure. --WaltClipper -(talk) 20:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I did try. [7][8][9] Kurtis (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regis didn't even make it to RD as the article was largely filled with unreferenced claims at the time. Surprisingly not many votes on that proposal back then either. I would argue, though, that Springer is just as notable if not more notable than Philbin. That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, support RD although culturally signifying for television at a pont in time, there are many important people in the world, and a blurb needs more. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD definitely good enough for RD, person is high-profile, not sure if it should be a blurb, but definitely is enough for RD. Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, Oppose Blurb Article seems fine enough for RD, but not notable enough for Blurb. If this was Oprah Winfrey, then yes, she likely would be blurbed. But Springer just comes us way too short. TheCorriynial (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb. If we aren't posting Belafonte, no way we should post Springer. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the negative feedback loop that plagues ITN. "Someone else who is subjectively more important didn't get a blurb, so this person shouldn't." - Floydian τ ¢ 12:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This death has front-page coverage, which Belafonte’s death didn’t have. However, the update on the death is still too short to demonstrate significance for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Belafonte was on the front page of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal and most certainly many other newspapers. Thriley (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. NYT: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2023/04/26/nytfrontpage/scan.pdfBagumba (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is why we can't make coverage the main criteria for ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)\[reply]
    Because somebody said something untrue? nableezy - 02:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD at least Very notable television personality. I don't mind the inclusion of a possible blurb. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk)
  • Oppose not a worldwide transformative figure. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb This is what RD was made for, popularity=/=blurb significance (there are few talk show hosts who would meet that) and the death itself is not a factor of news. Gotitbro (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. Not widely known outside his own country, unlike the figures we normally blurb (Thatcher, Mandela, popes...). Sandstein 07:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, support RD - As others have pointed out, blurbing a death isn't meant to be some award for an extra notable person. There's a reason why we have RD. Notable people die all the time, entropy marches on. (though I hope Springer can rest in peace now) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only deaths we should blurb should be incredibly notable figures like Elizabeth II, who's death has a profound impact on global or even national affairs. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lol profound impact. nableezy - 15:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted RD. I spotted one or two cn tags, but with an article of this length, this is still acceptable. I do not think we will get a consensus for a blurb here. --Tone 09:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Tone PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stats As usual, our readership decides for itself and the number of views was 1,857,733. That seems significantly more than most other recent deaths and so it doesn't appear that readers are having any trouble finding the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't care about reader stats at all. Masem (t) 12:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed and Andrew did the same thing for Harry Belafonte. Has no relevance to RD at all.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And our readers don't much care for RD entries. One can see this by considering a more routine death such as Richard Riordan, former mayor of LA. He died on April 19 and so the immediate peak in views was 11,139. That then subsided to 540 per day until his entry was posted at RD yesterday. The views then increased to 2,442 so we see that RD attracted about an extra 2000 views – about the same as a mediocre DYK. See also Wikipedia is for readers. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you as always for contributing all of your useful ideas on how to improve this section. WaltClipper -(talk) 17:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Genuine question @WaltCip, is this you being serious or sarcastic? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 17:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew critiques ITN a lot, mostly to point out how out of touch it is with the rest of the Wikipedia when it comes to readership or timeliness. However, I find that at times the criticism tends not to be coupled with any substantive ideas on how to actually improve ITN. It would be more welcomed if he would suggest an RfC or a proposal of some kind. WaltClipper -(talk) 17:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty such discussions on the talk page where I have suggested once again that we treat all RDs alike as other languages do. Per the adage that "you can't manage what you can't measure", such discussions are best informed by data and facts such as the extent to which our readership is clicking through on these entries. See Evidence-based practice... Andrew🐉(talk) 11:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb for the record, doesn't meet the very high bar needed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb—I've been mulling it over pretty heavily over the past day (yeah, really), and although I'm sympathetic to the points made about not blurbing celebrities unless there is something significant about their death, established convention is that we do blurb celebrities who were particularly iconic and transformative; if we wish to discontinue this practice, we should probably start a discussion about it, assuming one hasn't already happened. As for Jerry Springer, I believe that the cultural impact of his talk show has been profound on a global scale. He opened the flood gates for both "trash TV" (as it's called) and for that brand of off-color entertainment as a whole, which has left an indelible mark on society that goes beyond its original medium. In short, I do consider him a transformative figure, and I think he is significant enough for a blurb based on our long-established standards. Kurtis (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Global scale? Sorry, but it's that kind of silly hype that instantly triggers my opposition. Got a source for that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Springer's initial impact on popular culture is that he popularized trashy, lowbrow entertainment for North Americans. This had a domino effect that impacted other genres of TV, namely the comedy and reality genres—and because America is a cultural superpower, its fads and phenomena tend to spread into other countries around the world. If you want references, this writer certainly agrees with me, and I could link many more.

However, keep in mind that my assessment of his legacy is still just an opinion; many people would disagree with the conclusions I've drawn, and I don't consider them to be "incorrect" for adopting a different view from my own. I'm not trying to sway anyone into my line of thinking—I'm voicing support for giving Springer a blurb and explaining why I feel he merits one. If you're inclined to disagree (as seems to be the case), then I encourage you to voice your opposition. At this point, consensus is unlikely to develop in favor of giving him anything more than an RD listing. Kurtis (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I try very hard to avoid posting silly, hyped up opinions here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. Pay me no heed as I continue to flaunt my hyperbolic silliness at ITN. Kurtis (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb His show was so fake that Wayans Bros. parodied it while being on it.
talk) 12:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Support per andrew’s analysis. 107.77.223.214 (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post Posting Oppose RD due to multiple gaps in referencing. Strong Oppose Blurb No where near the level of significance we look for when considering death blurbs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled Way too many {{citation needed}} tags. Schwede66 22:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've fixed up most of the CN tags, @Schewde66:. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging the actual @Schwede66. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reposted When I hid the article from display, it was in second position. When I unhid the article just now, it’s in fourth place. I do not know what ITN-practice is. Should the article go back to second place? Schwede66 17:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine as-is. It had already been up for a few days before the pull.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) World's Strongest Man

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


Article: 2023 World's Strongest Man (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Mitchell Hooper wins the 2023 World's Strongest Man title (Post)
News source(s): The Scotsman; USA Today;
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Like boxing, strongman events seem neglected but so it goes. It's interesting to see a fresh new face win the event... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hooper's article is a stub and the contest's article primarily consists of tables with little prose.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Four sentences PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - currenly a Stub. If/when expanded, please ping me.BabbaQ (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, man I actually like WSM, but you know this has a 0% chance of being posted. Unlike boxing- which I would be happy to see on ITN every now and then- WSM doesn't get spectators, doesn't get TV ratings, and doesn't get media coverage except as a curiosity. It's so unimportant that the event actually ended four days ago and it took any news outlets (the few that bothered to write an article, based on my news search) a couple of days to even notice. -- Kicking222 (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this can somehow be expanded with secondarily-sourced prose, then I might be tempted to throw my support behind this as it would be an interesting topic that doesn't get much coverage on ITN usually. However, we have pretty regularly shot down beauty pageants on ITN, and so I find myself wondering if this would fall into the same category of novelty. --WaltClipper -(talk) 12:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - On second thought, it's hard to see any sort of encyclopedic significance for this event, especially given the lag of coverage that Kicking222 refers to. --WaltClipper -(talk) 12:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    it's hard to see any sort of encyclopedic significance for this event - well, if you really believe that, than you know where to go. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 17:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you want to make a less subjective significance standard, I counterpoint you to the new thread I made on
    WT:ITN today. --WaltClipper -(talk) 17:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose I don't see why this is even a nomination, just because some guy got a title, doesn't make it important. His article is still a stub, and there is tons of problems to be fixed. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did Curbon already do the deed? We found another occurrence of 5426387 doing something that isn't "Per above"! TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you mean pay the $5, than I don't think so. However, he is indeed the reason why Editor isn't replying with per above anymore. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 17:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor not doing "Per above" anymore is great. Curbon refusing to pay his debt is disappointing. I propose from today onward every day he doesn't pay up, he has to pay another 5 dollars. I am joking, of course... unless... TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I'm not sure if this is this is any officially recognized sport event. Alex-h (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This gets very little coverage in the media, so this is not something currently In The News. Often, as said by WaltClip, we shoot down beauty pageants pretty often, and I find these comparable. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose - trivial. nableezy - 15:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all above. Comparatively trivial with little media coverage. The Kip (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all this talk about lacking any sort of encyclopedic significance for this event, when we frequently post and the like dart championships that barely receive any major coverage. The whole "but those are
WP:ITNR" argument doesn't cut it because you're basically saying that since the nombox is green instead of blue, its somehow more worthy of being posted to ITN. By the way, I'm not opposed to dart championships and the like being posted, but at least have some consistency. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 17:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
This is a pretty funny support, in that you provide zero reasons for supporting besides "we post darts". It obviously doesn't matter, since this will never be posted, but I did get a chuckle out of it. -- Kicking222 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am open to posting non-ITNR sport events. However, I agree with the notion by TheBlueSkyClub that this is more akin to a beauty pageant, just with a lot more testosterone. Curbon7 (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article is a disaster. 95% of the article is just tables sourced to a single source, which itself has very little prose. Absolutely none of the actual prose in the body of the article (outside the lede) has any references, and the article as a whole could use with some more prose synopses of the individual events and of the championship as a whole. No way this is main page ready. --Jayron32 18:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 26

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Finbar Cafferkey

Article: Finbar Cafferkey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Irish Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Irish political activist. Killed while fighting for Ukraine. Thriley (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

2023 Dantewada bombing

Article: 
Maoists. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters CNN The Hindu

Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This attack with a double-digit casualty figure marks an escalation in the Insurgency. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Article is not in-depth enough. Close to a stub. Rushtheeditor (talk) 22:19, 01 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on significance The
    Naxalite insurgency has been ongoing for over 50 years; while fighting has been decreasing, it is by no means uncommon, particularly in Chhattisgarh. Curbon7 (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

RD: Billy "The Kid" Emerson

Article: Billy "The Kid" Emerson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [10]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: R&B and R&R musician and songwriter. Article looks good, though the discography needs sources. Curbon7 (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Closed) Aperiodic set from a single prototile

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


Article: Einstein problem (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Mathematicians are able to create "Einstein's Hat" a single prototile that never repeats in a grid. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Super cool science discovery. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Does not appear notable enough for 'In the News'. Compusolus (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose. this is great, but the result was reported last month, so the news is now stale. the finding was actually nominated last month too, but the nomination was closed without a consensus to post. dying (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Certainly a cool discovery but I'm afraid this was nominated a bit too late. Could be a great DYK factoid though if you expand it enough. The blurb would also need to be rephrased to something like "A new shape, a single prototile that never repeats in a grid known as "Einstein's Hat", has been discovered." That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be back The main obstacle when this was first nominated was that the paper was waiting on peer review. This still seems to be the situation and so we're waiting for that ponderous process to conclude. Don't hold your breath... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per @Dying PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with science blurbs is always the question of when to post, at discovery or at publication; ironically, in this very discussion there is disagreement on that. Problem also comes down to "sexy science" vs. science that is equally cool/important but not as flashy. Curbon7 (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this was nominated when first reported a month ago. That nomination failed because the paper hadn't been peer-reviewed. Well it still hasn't got through peer review, so whatever we think of the importance it isn't suitable for posting yet. Re-nominate if/when the tiling has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. (Even the Guardian story linked above is from 3 April, so I don't know why you put this nomination in the 26 April section.) Modest Genius talk 12:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose even with a peer review article, the WP article is lacking a quality I'd expect for general readership, pointing out how niche this concept is without a clear apication beyond affirming prior theory. --Masem (t) 13:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a problem that got solved, big deal, did we post the last time this happened? No, not notable enough for ITN, and wasn't this already nominated before? Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Tangaraju Suppiah

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

Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Singapore killed him today at dawn. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Not a political statement to refer to it as a killing. That's what it is. Singapore (more specifically, the executioner) killed someone. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 22:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(New) RD: Catherine Morris

Article: Catherine Morris (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): insidethegames
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: -- --Rushtheeditor (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) RD: Manfred Weiss (composer)

Article: Manfred Weiss (composer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MDR
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Composer and composition teacher from Dresden, influential over decades, both in East German conditions ("upright attitude") as after German reunification. The article was mostly there, but rather similar to one of the sources, and lacking inline citations. Both fixed, I hope. There could be more ... if someone has the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

RD: Winfried Bischoff

Article: Winfried Bischoff (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former chairman of Lloyds Bank and Citigroup. Curbon7 (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

2023 Kabal explosions

Article: 
Swat, Pakistan.
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, NY Times, DW

Credits:

 Ainty Painty (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on quality as article still needs expansion. Neutral for the moment on notability. The Kip (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose on notability as well, per Kurtis. Tragic incident, but unfortunately not unusual for the region. The Kip (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per The Kip. Additionally, even with the miniscule amount of text, there's some sourcing issues already. Needs a big expansion with reliably sourced text. --Jayron32 17:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—I hate to say it, but much like school shootings in the United States or Al Shabaab attacks in Somalia, terrorist incidents in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are an unfortunately common occurrence. For one to merit being added to the main page, it would need to be exceptional in some form or fashion; think along the lines of the mosque bombing in Peshawar a few months ago, which claimed the lives of 82 people. While I do think that a death toll of 17 is slightly above average, I'm not convinced that it quite reaches the threshold we would expect for a terrorist attack in Pakistan to be featured on ITN. Kurtis (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as I disagree with you, as someone who basically thinks that article = ITN eligibility, I will applaud you for applying the same standard used for US shootings on ITNC to other human-inflicted mass casualty events. I was actually thinking about this yesterday after reading about yet another attack in Mali, if we were to actually have whipped up these articles for these events in shape, ITN would have become a Mali-attack ticker, and the thing is that at least some of the people who oppose US mass shootings because "we don't want ITN to turn into US-shooting-pedia" would have stayed quiet about it. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 20:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - article meets
WP:NEVENTS IMO, so eligible to be posted to ITN by default (again IMO). Needs a lot of work however. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 20:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll give Knight the benefit of the doubt and say that I misunderstood them. Crow eaten. Curbon7 (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how blurbing works and you know that, as that is what a proposal you strongly supported on the talk page proposes. You are of course entitled to !vote by your own standards as you see fit, but it is disingenuous to act like that is now some agreed upon project standard when on the contrary it met stark opposition. Curbon7 (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I near stated that it was a widely accepted practice though? I guess I should have added IMO after default. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 10:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
article meets WP:NEVENTS IMO, so eligible to be posted to ITN by default heavily implies like this is some consensus, looking at it from the perspective of a new user. Curbon7 (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what the issue is in what he said. It technically is eligible to be posted. It's just a matter of whether it meets the individual significance criteria, but that in itself does not compromise eligibility. You can be eligible for apply to a job if you meet the minimum qualifications, but that doesn't mean you'll automatically be hired. --WaltClipper -(talk) 12:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Curbon. This isn't a widely accepted consensus; it was heavily opposed by many at the proposal who are active around ITN/C. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Parkash Singh Badal

Article: Parkash Singh Badal (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of India
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Five time Chief Minister of Punjab (India) User:PrinceofPunjab 16:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Closed; posted to RD) RD/Blurb: Harry Belafonte

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.


Proposed image
Article: Harry Belafonte (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Singer, actor and activist Harry Belafonte dies at aged 96 (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Missing a lot of citations. Mooonswimmer 13:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Indeed, I'm changing my vote to Support. Good work to the editors who got this article sourced. Neutral on blurb, as I often am. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb once fixed He had two distinguished careers, one in entertainment and one in politics at a critical moment for the civil rights movement. His work and death have made waves far outside the US. cart-Talk 16:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Before the discussion RD/blurb continues, the article has so many issues (sourcing, mainly) that it is not ready for any of the two. Fix the article first, then the discussion can continue in a meaningful way. --Tone 16:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think everyone agrees that the article is in need of additional citations before it is added to the main page, which means that the focus of the conversation has naturally diverted towards the element that isn't so clear-cut—whether it should receive a full blurb once ready, or just an RD mention. Kurtis (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Major figure across multiple fields. The Kip (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Article is in really bad quality. Will support when fixed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb when fixed, also think its not that far off rn either. nableezy - 18:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Idk if its the impossibly high standard that Americans have to be considered significant here or what but Belafonte is significantly more than a transformative musician, and he was that, he was also a significant, maybe even instrumental, figure in the civil rights movement in the US. Bill Russell déjà vu tbh, but maybe its just that era of American history doesnt really register with international or younger audiences, but the I dont know who he is argument is a reason to click the link and try to find that out more than a reason to oppose here. nableezy - 09:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, needs fixes to sourcing. When that is fixed, I would support RD only; blurbs are not rewards we grant extra important people, they are a means of conveying information. Merely noting that a person has died, without any elaboration on it, is what the RD link was created for. If we need to explain the manner of his death as unusual or bearing special explanation, then that is what a blurb is for. --Jayron32 18:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Originally I was going to jump on board the bandwagon and support a blurb based on the feedback given above, but as I think about it, I'm finding that Jayron32's argument is also persuasive. The "transformative" criteria on
    WP:ITNRD is just as subjective as any of our other significance criteria. He's tops in his field, but we've turned down plenty of people who are tops in their field. (If InedibleHulk were here, he'd be crowing "old man dies" just as he always had before.) But I can be swayed, and as one not familiar with his work, I'd sure like to know what makes him "greatest of the great" besides just "great". --WaltClipper -(talk) 19:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose blurb. Never heard of him, which is my personal minimal requirement for a blurb. Sandstein 20:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...really? I had never heard of Desmond Tutu before he died, does that mean I should have opposed his nom? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 20:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an invalid reason, and no more arbitrary than the oft-touted "Thatcher/Mandela" standard. When the definition for "transformative figure" is as nebulous and open-ended as it is, anyone can have literally any reason for opposing a blurb, and it is no less valid than someone else's reason. --WaltClipper -(talk) 22:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I'm considering shifting all deaths to RD, regardless of "sIgNiFiCaNcE," or at the very least all non heads-of-state deaths. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 01:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also am also opposed to a a blurb, but "I personally never heard of him, so fuck him" is an excessively parochial and self-aggrandizing metric for blurb RDs. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 21:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a fair interpretation of Sandstein's rationale. What he said was not intended to denigrate Belafonte or the impact that he has had within his field and beyond—he just opposes a blurb for someone who he hasn't heard of because, from his perspective, lack of familiarity means that the person being discussed can't be that famous. I disagree with his rationale, but I wouldn't classify it as "parochial and self-aggrandizing". Kurtis (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is absolutely valid. Sandstein doesn't present it as a universal criterion that all editors, who haven't heard of him, should oppose a blurb but rather uses it as own indicator to support the vote. If someone else, who hasn't heard of someone, didn't oppose a blurb in the past is completely irrelevant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb once all sourcing issues are addressed. Influential and widely honored performer and activist. Funcrunch (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb - thanks Jayron32 (talk · contribs) for saying what I was thinking. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 20:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://variety.com/2023/music/news/harry-belafonte-best-songs-1235594095/
talk) 21:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Oppose blurb, support RD When weighted against the points per Kiril. CoatCheck (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD article needs work, but pretty notable person who excelled in 2 fields. not sure if it belongs as a blurb, but definitely a important figure for RD. - Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Article looks in way better shape than it was when his death was first reported. Belafonte was top of his field and was the oldest inductee to the Rock and Roll hall of fame with a distinguished career. Nearly an EGOT winner too and an influencial civil rights activist with close connections with MLK. Blurb worthy in my opinion. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Great man in many ways, but it would be totally inconsistent to blurb him after all the other people of equal or greater merit we have ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD–finally, after ~8 hours of work, we finally managed to fix all the issues in the article! I might've caused a few errors; feel free to ping me if there's any! Tails Wx 01:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Support blurb with further improvements This is a bio that clearly demonstrates a legacy beyond just being a notable singer. This type of quality bio is what we want to feature. --Masem (t) 01:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in general, preference for blurb Article looks good for posting. I would agree that the distinguished legacy with regards to calypso and thus its influences makes this a clear candidate for a death blurb. Curbon7 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - Internationally notable and transformative figure through his music and activism. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Colin Powell, the first black Secretary of State and major figure in both Gulf Wars didn’t get a blurb. Belafonte lived an amazing and noble life, but I don’t think he meets the high bar of a blurb. Thriley (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stats Our readership is already reading the article regardless and there were 677,886 views yesterday. That seems typical for such stars who usually get about half a million views on the news of their death. For example, Barry Humphries peaked at 379,924 and Len Goodman at 491,046. To stand out, a superstar needs to go up an order of magnitude and get millions of views. See Famous deaths in 2022 for some comparative stats. Note that the similar case of Sidney Poitier was first run at RD and then got a blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. Blurbs are reserved for only a handful of highly important individuals. While Belafonte has no doubt achieved fame, he doesn't rise to that level when compared against similar figures that we haven't blurbed in the past.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, now that the article is improved, and soon please: people have read that he died and will wonder what Wikpedia is doing when coming with that "news" late. I'm neutral on a blurb that doesn't say much more than that he died. How about - for a compromise - have his picture, and not the face but the iconic lead image of him singing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD posted as quality improved. Discussion on blurb can continue.—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, support RD - Per @Knightoftheswords281 and @Jayron32 PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb as it currently is "Singer, actor and activist". That encapsulates him perfectly and explains his historical significance to the "I've never heard of him" crowd and the "He's only a singer" crowd. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb He helped organize the
    March on Washington, was the 1st solo singer to make an album that sold 1,000,000 copies, was the black man to win an Emmy & the 1st black man to win a Tony. That seems notable enough for a blurb to me. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Jayron32's consistency in applying a standard (albeit a personal one) for death blurbs needs to be appreciated and raises a question whether death blurbs (beyond unusual death ones) need to be done away with altogether due to a significantly higher back and forth and opposition and subjectivity than usual ITN noms. A clearer picture might emerge with an official RfC/consensus on this subject. Gotitbro (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the vote of confidence, but the standard I apply is absolutely not a personal one. It's the standard I read at
    WP:ITNRD, which states, as part of a longer elaboration on what standards to apply, "if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." I merely was paraphrasing those instructions. I was not applying my own standard. I would never do that, at least, not where there are such well written standards already in place, which have been so for years. --Jayron32 12:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    We blurbed Kumar, Shane Warne, Betty White, former Portugal,Philippine presidents
    talk) 14:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There's no procedure for photo RD, and so it's even less likely you'll get an agreement for one of those. --WaltClipper -(talk) 12:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd expect a longer 'Legacy' section for someone who would be considered transformative enough to merit a blurb. --WaltClipper -(talk) 12:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose largely per Walt. I won't act like I'm an expert on Belafonte, having not actually heard of him before now, but just gleaning what I can about him, we're talking about someone who was fairly notable for multiple things, but not largely notable for any of them. Ultimately, the civil rights accomplishments of Belafonte are his most notable, but the reality is we've passed over several more notable civil rights icons in the past. That's nothing against Belafonte - it's just a matter of the standards we have for ITN deaths. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the reality is we've passed over several more notable civil rights icons in the past, well, possibly, but maybe we should change that? nableezy - 16:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but I'm generally opposed to death blurbs for achievement in general, as evidenced by the discussion related to this topic some time back. Ergo, I'm certainly not starting this trend. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Influential civil rights activist, his album was the first million-selling LP by a single artist and he was the oldest inductee to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (already depicts his impact in the music industry) and he was an EGOT (depicts his influence as an actor). Article is also in fantastic shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked ready for a blurb. There is a fairly clear consensus to do so, and most of the Opposes are "well we didn't post X, so why should we post Y?" Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unmarked because the marking rationale is false. There's only one vote opposing because we didn't post Colin Powell. Please first carefully read the discussion before taking action. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Remarked as Ready because Amakuru and HiLo48's rationale's were exactly the same without actually naming anyone (and there's also an "Oppose because I've never heard of him"). I won't revert again, but many of these rationales are really weak. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is rationale for blurb.
    talk) 19:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/apr/26/calypso-jazz-orchestral-ballads-the-astonishing-range-of-harry-belafonte
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/25/belafonte-is-gone-poitier-went-before-him-they-were-the-titans-who-uplifted-our-world
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/apr/26/harry-belafonte-activism-civil-rights-movement
talk) 19:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support for RD (obviously). I'm really not opposed to blurb, an EGOT winner and influential civil rights persona should satisfy blurb requirements. Estar8806 (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb for the record. I had withheld judgment before actually !voting. For all the remarking about how excellent his legacy is, that section of his article is lacking, which tells me that his legacy is overstated and not transformative. I suggest people who are involved in the blurb discussion should not be trying to mark it as ready when the consensus is not unanimous. WaltClipper -(talk) 23:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Black Kite did not include a rationale at all in their vote. WaltClipper -(talk) 23:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe read more of the article, like Harry Belafonte § Political and humanitarian activism. nableezy - 23:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb While an important figure, we have declined quite a few nominees for a blurb with a stronger claim to significance. I also note that there are still a few gaps in referencing before this can be posted to RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ad Orientem, the article has already been posted to RD. Curbon7 (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Curbon7 I missed that. I am not going to advocate pulling it, but there are enough gaps that I would not have posted it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, the page was untagged at the time of posting. The paragraph on the Smothers Brothers was partially sourced by its entry further down in his television works. —Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb looking at the article, I don't see how he was "transformative" in his field. Yes, he had a distinguished career as a musician and actor, and was significantly involved in the Civil Rights Movement. To me however, he falls short of the high bar we set for death blurbs. YD407OTZ (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, of course. But oppose blurb as he’s not notable for his death, and thus belongs at RD. BhamBoi (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment His death is documented in only one sentene, which is the minimum update for the death of any ordinary person. Looking back at recently posted death blurbs, there seems to be plenty of content (see Pelé for example). Is it really that no more content can be added regarding his death? Isn’t it possible to, at least, mention the commemorations around the world or provide some information on the funeral? I’m afraid that the quality of the blurb isn’t sufficient for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) India officially surpasses China population wise

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


Article: List of countries and dependencies by population (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: India surpasses China to become the world's most populous country (Post)
Alternative blurb: India surpasses China to become the world's most populous country according to UN statistics.
News source(s): The Guardian - Forbes - BBC - WSJ
Credits:
Nominator's comments: It's happened! Or has it? According to The Guardian, it's already occurred, but most other sources say it hasn't. Either way, a point has to be made in that since @TheTigerKing's original nomination, the UN projection has moved from mid-year to the end of this month, or within the archival period of this nomination. The subject article has been updated, however, it seems to possibly be possibly jumping the gun and probably should be reverted. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 04:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the sources are in agreement. This is obviously significant enough news to merit a blurb, but we need to be 100% sure that it has actually happened before doing so. Kurtis (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should agree to post this at the end of the month? That looks to be the date when most sources agree India will have definitively surpassed China in population (otherwise we can post it sooner but I don't think it makes sense to delay posting this beyond the end of April). Flyingfishee (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per this, "Population experts using previous data from the UN have projected India’s population would surpass China’s in April, but the global body’s latest report did not specify a date" (emphasis added). That source also states this will happen by the end of June, citing the UN State of World Population report. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 05:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending official confirmation This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The target bolded article List of countries and dependencies by population is an absolute mess of unverified data. The population figure in the table for India (and probably other countries as well) can not be found in the source provided. The date for India in the table is listed as 1 March 2023, whereas the date for China is 31 December 2022, so the table is not comparing "like for like". The dates in the table do not match the dates in the footnotes. The source for the India population figure is dated July 2020, and is woefully out of date. The 1 March 2023 date in the table for India does not match the July 2020 date of the projection in the original source. It appears likely that one or more editors are updating the population numbers in the table with little regard for providing a source and the date on which the population figure was extracted. Chrisclear (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It just seems like some sources have not had their access-dates updated with time, which doesn't appear to be a huge issue. DecafPotato (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, unfortunately it is not 'just' that simple. The issue you described is one of the many issues that I observed. As just one example, in the 2 hours since my previous comment, the table now has India at #2, with a new (lower) population figure, which is again, not in the source provided. It's difficult to take the table seriously when it's being "updated" like this with random unverified data multiple times a day. Chrisclear (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It feels like I've seen this headline 50 times in the last five years. As others have said, if we have official confirmation that India has overtaken China, I think it'd be notable enough to post. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the same reason I opposed this last week. The target article currently says "China - 1,411,750,000, India - 1,392,329,000". We can't post an article that contradicts the blurb we are posting. --Jayron32 11:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even the Guardian article says "According to the UN’s projections, which are calculated through a variety of factors.." - in other words they don't actually know, they're sticking out a headline based on the UN's guess. In reality, even though the event has probably occurred, we won't have genuine knowledge on this until India does another census. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The nominated article is orange-tagged and states, "Because the compiled figures are not collected at the same time in every country, or at the same level of accuracy, the resulting numerical comparisons may create misleading conclusions." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nothing has significantly changed since the last nom for this to be posted. It still has not happened (
    WP:CRYSTALBALL
    ) and no exact dates exist for such projections.
Also, there is a reason census figures are prioritized on enwiki, relying on projections is always problematic. If census figures are not immediate, we should tally projections from multiple agencies and wait till they are all on the same page, UNPF is not the only agency tracking pop figures. Gotitbro (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and close There is literally no way to verify this information, and sources don't agree on it. Also, why even nominate the article when you admit that the info might not be true? -- Kicking222 (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Probably the best time to post this would have been in the previous nomination when the announcement was made, because now that we've held ourselves to this standard of waiting until it actually happens, we have no way of ever being sure that we've officially crossed the threshold. So it's a moot exercise. --WaltClipper -(talk) 12:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the page has not even been updated to say India has more people, and there is really no way to verify such thing because the news are saying different things. - Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Attention needed) 2023 Asia heat wave

Article: 2023 Asia heat wave (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Laos reaches a record high temperature of 42.9 °C (108.86 °F) due to a heat wave affecting much of Asia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ 13 people die of heat stroke in India due to a heat wave affecting much of Asia.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Across South and Southeast Asia, 15 people die and dozens are hospitalized due to a record-breaking heat wave.
News source(s): The Independent, Financial Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: A temperature record has been broken in Laos due to how extreme the heat wave is. This was previously nominated under ongoing, but consensus was largely in favour of a blurb instead. Isi96 (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proposed altblurb II for the sake of it, but still undecided on notability. The Kip (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not very significant for a heatwave. We saw hundreds of deaths across Canada and the US last year from a heatwave.
NoahTalk 01:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I stated in my previous nom, its happening, its receiving WP:RS coverage, and is notable for inclusion as an article. Its record breaking, and has already started to kill dozens of people. Although I'd get putting this in ongoing since it has started before the oldest event on ITN rn (the Finnish reactor), I would prefer putting it as a blurb since it has only started getting mainstream coverage in the past few days. WP:MINIMUIMDEATHS is and shall remain a non-existent policy. Plus, this affects a lot more countries than the American-Canadian one (not to say that shouldn't have been posted). - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 01:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Altblurb II is probably best as it emphasises that this heatwave is affecting an entire region and is therefore even more notable than one which only affects one country. Flyingfishee (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Knightoftheswords281 but none of the blurbs so far give a balanced account of the event in my opinion. Jiaminglimjm (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The target article does not present this as a coherent single phenomenon – just as a series of incidents. The blurb is improper synthesis with its vague talk of a heat wave. Insofar as there's a proximate cause, it seems to be a developing
    El Niño but the article says nothing about that. Watch this space... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support Altblurb II as extent of heatwave is shown to be significant and, like the American heatwaves they are record-breaking events. Whilst list could be expanded more, it meets the requirement for ITN. Happily888 (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


RD: Nikolay Bortsov

Article: Nikolay Bortsov (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Meduza
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: One of two incumbent Russian MPs to die today. Sourcing looks good, but prose needs some work. Curbon7 (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

RD: Casper R. Taylor Jr.

Article: Casper R. Taylor Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [11]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former speaker of the Maryland state house. Not bad shape, but prose could use some work. Curbon7 (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Closed) Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon depart their shows

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.


Proposed image
Articles: 
Fox news, and Don Lemon, co-host of CNN This Morning on CNN, depart their respective networks. (Post)
News source(s): Carlson: NYT - CNN - WSJ - NPR - AP - BI - MSNBC - BBC - France24 - DW, Lemon: USA Today - ABC - CNN - NYT - LA Times

Credits:

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: That's all folks! Two great American news media giants have been unexpectedly banished from their networks in a single day. This can have enormous effects in regards to US news media, especially considering that
WP:RS coverage and is In The News, in fact being probably the biggest story in the US and one of the biggest stories of the day globally. (NOTE: CNN 5 (talk · contribs) created the Don Lemon article, but due to parameter limitations in {{ITN candidate}}, he wasn't listed in the above nomination box. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 04:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: José Aníbal Díaz

Article: José Aníbal Díaz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Primerahora
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Puerto Rican politician. Looks okay! Tails Wx 13:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) RD: Tarek Fatah

Article: Tarek Fatah (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of India
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Pakistani Canadian. Famous journalist. Rushtheeditor (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

TheAafi, all referencing issues have been fixed! Tails Wx 04:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no issues, though feel free to ping me if there's any! Tails Wx 04:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support The lede is not good, the "Assassination plot" section is odd, and the sectioning in general is ... unique. Otherwise the article looks sufficient; it appears to be well-cited, holistic, minimal proseline issues. Curbon7 (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved assassination plot to reception. Rushtheeditor (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks good to me. Fahads1982تبادلۂ خیال - Fahads1982 (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Posted. El_C 07:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since all six RD entries, somehow, had been posted less than 24 hours ago, gonna wait a day before posting. El_C 07:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re- Posted. Sorry Gerda, there's no point in me waiting if no one else is. El_C 20:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted): Len Goodman

Article: Len Goodman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Strictly Come Dancing and Dancing with the Stars TV judge and former pro ballroom dancer  The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Has appeared in TV programmes in UK and US - so it has more than a local impact. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Size or scope of impact is no longer a criteria for recent deaths, given that it is subjective. The main page currently includes an Australian priest and local media personality, and an Indian state legislator. The only criteria is the quality of the article. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Filomgraphy section is unsourced. The rest of the article looks good enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support His grandfather worked as a costermonger, selling fruit and vegetables. Young Len would help out on the barrow in Bethnal Green and would dip wilted celery into ice-cold water to stiffen the stalks and make it look fresh. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating, but in what way is that a supporting argument for posting this to RD? GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Celery is a prized foodstuff in the East End. Jellied eels are so over-estimated. Thank you. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? _-_Alsor (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Len's pickled walnuts were also quite big in Dartford, allegedly. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As this appears to be your first contribution on ITN, I would like to inform you that Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD (this is stated in {{ITN candidate}} if the parameter for "recent death" is set to yes). - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 12:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Wilko Johnson? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

Armed attacks and conflicts

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

  • 2022–2023 North Kosovo crisis

Science and technology


RD: Randor Guy

Article: Randor Guy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Needs a bit of referencing! Tails Wx 16:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

RD: Dzhasharbek Uzdenov

Article: Dzhasharbek Uzdenov (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Caucasus Post
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: One of two incumbent Russian MPs to die today. Article is a stub. Curbon7 (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Ready) RD: Nikolay Bortsov

Article: Nikolay Bortsov (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Meduza
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: One of two incumbent Russian MPs to die today. Sourcing looks good, but prose needs some work. Curbon7 (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

RD: Dale Meeks

Article: Dale Meeks (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: British actor, died aged 47. Article is a stub. Just leaving it here in case anyone wants to have a go at it. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Closed) Bed Bath & Beyond

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.


Proposed image
Article: Bed Bath & Beyond (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American retail chain Bed Bath & Beyond files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ American retail chain Bed Bath & Beyond files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, stating that it will cease operations unless it is acquired.
News source(s): NYT, CNN
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: End of a well-known American retailer. Subsidiaries include Buy Buy Baby which will also likely close down. Davey2116 (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose good faith nom - its received some coverage, but doesn't seem to be notable enough for positing IMHO. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 23:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) London Marathon

Proposed image
Sifan Hassan won the women's event on her first attempt
Article: 2023 London Marathon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Kelvin Kiptum breaks the course record at the 2023 London Marathon by over a minute (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At the London Marathon, Sifan Hassan (pictured) wins the women's race, while Kelvin Kiptum wins the men's event and breaks the course record.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: What's unusual about this is that DYK has jumped the gun by running this today on the main page before the event started. There are still updates required to amend the tenses and make it retrospective. I watched it myself and it seemed quite a good race in several respects. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Support looks good, no CN tags, and its not just a table wall. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 17:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN/R and should be included just on the new record anyway, but DYK usually bars articles that have been on the main page in bold, and that hook was a basic CRYSTAL failure (how would you know they wouldnt have a case of explosive diarrhea the morning of the event and had to pull out for example)? Would prefer it be pulled from DYK and posted here. nableezy - 17:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support alt now. nableezy - 15:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Altblurb to cover both mens and womens events as per standard. --Masem (t) 18:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the blurb should emphasise the men's winner setting the second fastest marathon time in history, and fastest ever London marathon time. Flyingfishee (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like a bit more on the race itself ideally but wouldn't oppose on that, but those tenses etc. needs updating first. -- KTC (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready. The article is in good shape, except the 'race summary' stops when the races start and doesn't even mention who won. It needs a few sentences on each of the elite races, describing what happened, who look the lead when, who the winners were, the record-breaking time etc. Should be an easy fix, then altblurb can be posted. Modest Genius talk 11:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The problems noted above seem to have been fixed. Looks good to go. Altblurb is how we usually report these things. --Jayron32 13:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb Article is good to go. The Kip (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is well-referenced. The altblurb is more concise.^^Maxxies (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted altblurb Galobtter (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment I think it’d be good if the blurb mentioned that Kiptum ran the 2nd fastest marathon ever. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) UK Emergency Alert System

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


Article: UK Emergency Alert System (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Kingdom tests its new Emergency Alert System (Post)
News source(s): BBC; Guardian; South China Morning Post
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Most of the mobile phones in the UK blared out this alarm just now. As ITN is especially interested in disasters, it's interesting to note this counter-measure. I'm not sure what happens elsewhere...? Andrew🐉(talk) 14:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose And…? Regions and countries around the world have already done so. Far from being ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the stuff we report has happened before somewhere else. ITN/R exists purely to list items which keep recurring. Novelty or uniqueness is therefore not a requirement. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mundane news item - most countries have an emergency broadcast system which gets updated with time, there's no particularly reason to single the UK's update out. --Masem (t) 15:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - and the state of Illinois tests their tornado warning system the first Tuesday of the month at 10 am monthly. Maybe put that it in ITN/R too? nableezy - 15:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A test going largely as planned with no significant reported failures, side effects or repercussions is not ITN material. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My phone didn't even go off. It appears a number of people's didn't. I think we only post failed tests when they belong to companies headed by Elon Musk. Black Kite (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I just turned emergency alerts off on my phone. It seems mundane because the Americans had such a system for years before we did so its not like its groundbreaking technology. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Zahoor Hussain Khoso

Article: Zahoor Hussain Khoso (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Samaa
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

 Ainty Painty (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Closed) Amritpal Singh

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


Article: 
Sikh-separatist chief of Waris Punjab De, is arrested following a manhunt despite global protests. (Post)
News source(s): CNN BBC The Hindu Al Jazeera

Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is a culmination of a massive manhunt which left over 27 million people without internet, over 200 people arrested and carried out across several Indian states for over a month. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Another arrest rather than a trial. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the thousandth time: the arrests are not ITN material. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In general, individual arrests are not suitable for ITN. I've been in favour of covering mass arrests in the past, depending on the circumstances, and I was content with posting Donald Trump's arraignment. But this is not like either of those things. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Granted, this is a bigger event than a mere arrest - it's a bizarre situation tied into wider events. As an outsider,
    Amritpal Singh manhunt seems a massive over-reaction by the authorities, and Singh is a political leader as well as an accused criminal. But I don't think it's significant enough for ITN, at least not yet. If the arrest, trial and/or outcome lead to bigger protests (more than the existing 2023 Sikh protests), I'll be willing to reconsider. Modest Genius talk 16:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose, Not an event that can be suitable for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Malindi cult

Article: 
a cult in Malindi are found in mass graves near the village of Shakahola after their leader allegedly instructed members to starve themselves.
News source(s): Reuters - BBC - ABC AU - DW - Al Jazeera - The Guardian - SCMP - WaPo - Citizen Digital - AP - Tuko - Reuters2

Credits:

Nominator's comments: This cult in Kenya, led by Paul Nthenge Mackenzie, had its leaders reportedly instruct their followers to starve themselves "to meet Jesus." Reminds me a lot of Jonestown. Although this story technically began a week ago when some survivors were rescued, the story only started receiving widespread coverage in the past four days once large mass graves featuring the victims were unveiled, showing how many people had died. The article needs serious work however. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not use IAR to deal with stale moving news. We can't force news to happen. Also, the article needs a lot of serious work to get anywhere close to posting. Masem (t) 03:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IAR was used when the East Palestine train derailment was posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close Stale news and article that is nowhere near ready for MP exposure. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose An arrest has been made but the trial is pending and so the matter is sub judice. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No reference to any specific individual as perpetrator appears in the proposed blurb. The victims are dead whether or not some of the specifics of their deaths are sub judice. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle - this death count and the unusual nature of the story appears to merit posting, but the article does need some work.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle per Amakuru. This is an interesting item indeed, but I'm not quite sure when and where the apex of this story's newsworthiness is. --WaltClipper -(talk) 14:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This CBS article from over a week ago discusses this, but not particularly in-depth. I think there is potential merit to this nomination on paper, but I agree with Masem that we can't force news to happen. Curbon7 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, body count has raisen to 59 (source). Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle - Not stale, as it's a developing story. And both the high death toll and the unusual circumstances are factors that incline me to support posting this when it's ready. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on significance. I often dislike the criterion quite a few people use (death toll), but I feel it's difficult to ignore 59 dead, which paired with the incredibly unusual circumstances I would support. That many people dying from such a thing should be ITN-worthy in my opinion. Article still isn't great, though. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Article looks good now, so full Support. Thanks, Knight for bringing it up to standard! TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, article isn't ready. Bizarre incident with a high death toll; I've added an altblurb. However the article is very brief and half the content is about Mackenzie's earlier activities, not this cult or the mass grave. Needs major expansion to become postable. Modest Genius talk 16:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Article seems fine now, and the death toll has risen. I wouldn't include the number of rescued in the blurb. Modest Genius talk 11:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Amakuru. Article needs work, but a highly unusual event with an unfortunate death toll. Proposed a slightly-differently-worded altblurb 2. The Kip (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Article needs some expansion and rewriting; it seems rather scattershot in the narrative, the lead is not a proper summary of the article, the body doesn't cover material in the lead, etc. The story is being covered right now, so it clearly isn't stale, but the article needs work to be ready for the main page. --Jayron32 17:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per below. Article looks solid now. --Jayron32 11:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've just significantly expanded the article. I still need to expand the section regarding the actual newsworthy incident; the mass starvations, but I'll get them done tonight. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 18:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Modest Genius, @Jayron32, @GenevieveDEon, @WaltCip, @Amakuru. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 01:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thanks for expanding the article Knightoftheswords281. The number of victims is now 73 according to Reuters. In the same news article, 112 people are reported missing. Maxxies (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - continues to be plastered across the news in Kenya, see for eg The Standard's front page and The Star's. nableezy - 03:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Excellent example of something that was recently discussed on
    WT:ITN, a news story that slowly developed over the course of a few weeks. The brand-new article that resulted looks very good, and the story itself is of course particularly major and atrocious. Seems like a solid subject for us to feature. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This is what happens when we allow consensus and development to actually play out rather than closing things super-fast like. --WaltClipper -(talk) 19:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article looks holistic now and is ready to be posted. Vida0007 (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – but blurb should be rewritten to emphasise the deaths. Sheila1988 (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb 3 or alt blurb 4 It’s an unfortunate & important story w/a high death toll. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 00:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

Armed attacks and conflicts

Disasters and accidents

  • Two people are killed and twelve others are injured in a fire in a restaurant in Madrid, Spain. (Reuters)

International relations


(Attention needed) RD: Frank Shu

Article: Frank Shu (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [12]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Chinese astrophysicist. Article appears to be in quite good shape, though prose is iffy in spots. Curbon7 (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

RD: Mudar Badran

Article: Mudar Badran (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): JPost
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see

Nominator's comments: Three-time prime minister of Jordan, second-longest tenure in that office. Curbon7 (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose Much of the content is not sourced and, in view of what the nominator states, there should be a more detailed and in-depth explanation of Badran's political career and tenure as PM. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Discovery of the Montevideo Maru

Proposed image
Article: 
POWs, is discovered.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The wreckage of the Montevideo Maru (pictured c. 1941), a Japanese vessel sunk by the US during World War II with over 1000 captive Australian nationals onboard, is discovered in the South China Sea.
News source(s): CNN - Reuters - BBC - France24 - DW - NPR - Sky News AU - Al Jazeera - ABC AU - The Telegraph - The Independent - SMH - The Daily Telegraph - VOA

Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This sunk Japanese ship was carrying over a thousand Australian POWs, and is considered one of the darkest and most controversial moments in Australian history. Its discovery has received a lot of coverage from mainstream

WP:RS sources and will hopefully lead to many answers within Australia. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Because despite Hawkeye7's comment, what level is that? For example, to get to this story at the Sydney Morning Herald requires me to go from the front page -> Politics (?) -> Federal. And from there it is the 8th highest story. Behind 4 cartoons stories. It simply is not something that has attracted much attention. And thats even in Australia, for whom it is their worst maritime disaster. A text search for ship on the CNN homepage takes me to this story and this story. The news was when it sunk. This is trivia now. nableezy - 00:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't get this argument. This is one of the most simultaneously restrictive and loose blurb-criteria I've ever seen. By this logic, should ITN feature the marriage between Jonathan Owens and Simone Biles, or how the Whopper is Burger King's advantage over McDonalds since those are at the top of CNN's website? Or some Sydney mom buying her son a house since that's on the front page of the SMH? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, my view is that something being in the news means it is front page news at least somewhere. In the internet age everything is covered internationally. What matters to me is depth and prominence of that coverage. No, I would not cover those stories here either, but they are treated as bigger stories than this in each of those sources. I dont think ITN should feature minor things on the front page of Wikipedia that even news sources dont consider important enough to feature on the front pages of their websites. nableezy - 03:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That may be your view, but it is not the consensus position of ITN (broad international coverage is not explicitly required), and so I do not believe it is your position to hint that someone stop nominating stories just because they don't fit your view of notability. --WaltClipper -(talk) 13:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about broad international coverage Sherlock. I do not believe it to be your position to be the police officer of ITN, a position you seem to have appointed yourself to. Yall can vote for this, i legit do not care, but you make a mockery of every other story you reject while doing so (eg this is ITN worthy but Ralph Yarl is not lulz). What you are showing is how personal bias runs this place, not any objective criteria. And you can do that, again I dont care, but I choose not to. nableezy - 14:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've appointed myself to nothing, other than pointing out your viewpoint doesn't reflect the current consensus and pointing out you're unfairly pillorying a good-faith nom. But you are of course entitled to your opinion. WaltClipper -(talk) 15:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you did that by misreading my position. I dont expect worldwide coverage. I expect it to be front page news somewhere. See here for my general thoughts on what ITNCRIT calls the highly subjective significance criteria. My subjective criteria is is the story front page news at least somewhere. And here it is not. Most days I read pretty deep in to the NYT, and I dont even live in NY, but even sometimes going in to the local coverage sections. But I would only suggest things here that grace their front page, because if it isnt significant enough to be on the front page of whatever news sources Im bringing here then it isnt significant enough to be on the in the news on the front page of Wikipedia. In my opinion obviously. nableezy - 16:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is why the news requirement is that the topic be in the news - not where it is on a news' overall coverage that day, nor how many news sites cover it. Perhaps the only thing is to make sure that there's sufficient topic independence in the news site - eg if this was only being reported by Japanese or Australian sources, that might be too close, but with CNN and The Telegraph covering it, that is not a problem here. Masem (t) 03:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zagalejo: Unfortunately, it seems to have less to do with the suitability of the topic and more to do with the perceived track record of who nominated it—an editor who has recently taken an interest in ITN, has made several submissions over the past month or so (many of which were unsuccessful for one reason or another), and is making a clear effort to learn from his mistakes while still being willing to take risks. That should be applauded, not chastised. Kurtis (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assure you that I applaud the enthusiasm. nableezy - 17:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment due to the lack of unclear nature of the true number of those on board, I would state that instead of "killing over one thousand Australian POWs", it would be better to say "believed to have been carrying over one thousand Australian POWs" before the line about being sunk. That number is still why this wreck and discovery are key, but it does seem the exact numbers have been lost to time. --Masem (t) 00:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also you don't need to spam the source list; that can bog down this page if every ITNC has that many. You just need two or three sources, but you can use all those other sources in the article itself. Masem (t) 00:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The sources demonstrate widespread international coverage and the update seems adequate. As this is
    sustained coverage of a controversial and substantial loss of life, this is quite encyclopedic. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support The discovery is unique, the closing of an event of close to eighty years. Covered internationally as shown by the nominator. --Ouro (blah blah) 02:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The discovery of such a ship is quite important, and this is the end of an over 80-years old mystery. we're 82 years behind on posting this news, but I still think it belongs on ITN just based on merit. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Per Nableezy. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I am sure that if the wreck of Amelia Earhart's plane were found in the Pacific, some people here would still object to an ITN posting on the grounds that the plane actually crashed in 1937, over 85 years ago. To the rest of the world it should be obvious that the event being nominated is the finding of the wreck. The same applies to finding the wreck of Montevideo Maru. The find will go into the history books and will impact several countries, including Japan, Australia, and the U.S. Nsk92 (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Nsk92. BilledMammal (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I'm usually across the aisle (as it were) from many others voicing support here, I think there is merit in posting. It's an interesting historical event getting a sizable amount of international news coverage (and it's not as if there's just one AP article getting spread around, i.e. the NY Times, CNN, and Al Jazeera all have unique articles). I don't love the blurb ideas and would just say "sunk by the US" instead of mentioning a possible death toll. -- Kicking222 (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An interesting historical event belongs at DYK, not ITN. nableezy - 14:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which does not apply here, as the discovery of the wreckage is a current event. Kurtis (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is a current event, but not significant news. nableezy - 17:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—And I'll actually propose a new alternate blurb for consideration: The wreckage of the
    SS Montevideo Maru (pictured c. 1941), a Japanese vessel sunk by the US during World War II with over 1000 captive Australian nationals onboard, is discovered in the South China Sea. Kurtis (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Numbers It's puzzling that the blurbs and the comments above keep talking about the number of Australians being over 1000 when the sources seem to consistently say that it was just less than a thousand, with the rest being from numerous other countries. If the exact numbers are debatable or disputed then we should avoid being specific in the blurb and leave the detail to the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support despite some of the opposition verging on personal attack, yes, this is actually notable based on the amount of news coverage. WaltClipper -(talk) 13:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this discovery is significant, considering the degree of loss of allied civilian life in an allied attack. Still not happy with any of the blurb options, but I won't let that be a roadblock. Curbon7 (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Titanic this is not. A footnote of WWII history except, I assume, to Australians. The article is not in great shape, it rambles on about supposed errors and contradictions in its sources, and it does not tell us, e.g., how the survivors of the sinking were rescued and what reaction, if any, the US Navy had to one of its subs killing 1,000 allied personnel. Sandstein 19:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sinking of Montevideo Maru was the worst-ever maritime disaster in Australia's history.[13] That's way more than a historical footnote. Nsk92 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the 'except to Australians' part. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was important news in 1942. Less so now. Sandstein 22:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, we’re not supposed to oppose an item b/c it may only be of interest to a single country. Also, as a non-Australian who has a history degree, this is interesting to me. I’m guessing it’d interest many others who are interested in history. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose more or less per Nableezy but without the snark. Interesting that the ship was found, but what exactly is the impact of this event? Perhaps the sinking was notable at the time, but what does the finding actually mean other than that we know where the ship us now? DarkSide830 (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination is about the discovery of the wreck, not the sinking. It was not news in 1942, because although
    SS Kachidoki Maru with 950 Allied prisoners on board. On 23-26 October two wolf packs attacked a convoy and sank ten ships, one carrying 1,800 American prisoners of war. Thus, US submarines killed over 4,000 Allied prisoners of war in just six weeks. Looking at the opposes above, I don't think this is widely known, and in my view provides a compelling reason for running this item. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support per Nsk92. Any blub aside from altblurb II is ok - since the fact that it was sunk by a US submarine is significant enough to be necessary in the blurb. Flyingfishee (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bit too niche for ITN. If it was a new article it would have been a good fit for DYK. As Sandstein mentioned, the article quality isn't that great, and it has only a minimal update. Sometimes a great article can make up for a relative lack of news coverage - this is not one of those times. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For those unfamiliar with DYK: If the article was new it would be eligible for DYK. But it still has two possible paths. The article could be expanded fivefold. It is currently 6,490 bytes (1,065 words) "readable prose size", so this would involve expanding it to 32,450 byes (~5,000 words). Or it could be fixed up and nominated for GA, which would also make it eligible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Nsk92. Jusdafax (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a reference point: the discovery of the wreck of the Endurance was posted to ITN in March 2022. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is historically significant, it’s been in the news & posting the discovery of the Endurance set a precedent that the discovery of a shipwreck can be posted to ITN. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - historic finding. Article looks ok for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Resolution of an extremely serious and prominent historic case. The blurb should definitely be one which references the role of US forces in the sinking. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support alt3. Interesting historical story, though the wreck discovery is not the most significant event. The article update is short but does meet our minimum requirements, and the referencing is fine. Not great, but good enough to post. Modest Genius talk 11:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Nsk and Blaylockjam. Notable discovery relative to multiple countries, and it helps in being something unusual to ITNR. The Kip (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Will add pic when it clears cross-wiki projection. --Jayron32 17:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I'm glad to see this story featuring on the main page—and I would just like to add, I have a particular fondness for the blurb you selected. Dare I inquire as to the identity of the cunning linguist who wrote it? (*Gently strokes chin stubble with an air of self-satisfaction.*) Kurtis (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that was a "blink and you missed it" posting. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Been re-added, thankfully. The Kip (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I guess we'll never see that image, lol. DecafPotato (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rambahadur Limbu

Article: Rambahadur Limbu (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deccan Herald
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Last Gurkha recipient of the Victoria Cross  The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

RD: Noor Jehan (elephant)

Article: 
Noor Jehan (elephant) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DAWN, Geo

Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

 Ainty Painty (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) RD: Barry Humphries

Article: Barry Humphries (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Australian actor and comedian, creator of Dame Edna and Sir Les Patterson. Stephen 11:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Oppose There is a massive amount of unsourced text. Steelkamp (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: 12 "citation needed" tags have now been added. 86.187.163.194 (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Found 3 already. 9 left. 86.187.163.194 (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But Bibliography, Filmography and Discography nearly entirely unsourced. 86.187.163.194 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until the remaining 9 CN tags can be sourced. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No CN tags are remaining now. Ollieisanerd (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have now referenced all the 9CN tags along with some other unsourced statements. Ollieisanerd (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Would love to see this on the main page but seeing too many paras with no inline citations and since no footnote refs are present they are likely uncited. This needs to be fixed before we can go ahead (one or two cn tags are there but not enough to impede a posting if the dangling paras are fixed with inline cites). Gotitbro (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We won't know if the paras are uncited until someone checks and adds CN tags if needed? All but three of the Filmography items have articles - do they all need citations as well? Do all the Bibliography items just need ISBNs? 86.187.166.213 (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was that the article contains no
    WP:FOOTNOTES (non-WP:inline citations) and thus needs inline references for every para that remains uncited which are quite a few regardless of whether cn tags have been added to them, the few cn tags that also exist will need to be fixed as well. The bibliography without ISBNs is not an issue (but would be preferable). Gotitbro (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Sorry, but why does it need FOOTNOTES as well as citations? There are currently no CN tags, but just one "page number needed" tag. 86.187.166.213 (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not "as well as" but either of them, but as Ollieisanerd has helped in fixing the issues so not a problem any further. Striking my vote to Support. Gotitbro (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just removed that "page number needed" tag as unnecessary. 86.187.166.213 (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many previously uncited paragraphs have references now. Ollieisanerd (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are right. That is very good. But there are still nine CN tags. 86.187.161.36 (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve fixed the cn tags. Think it’s ready now. yorkshiresky (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even when you made that reply there were no CN tags left. Ollieisanerd (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seven tags were added immediately before that reply was made. They were all subsequently fixed by yorkshiresky. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry my mistake. Thanks to @Yorkshiresky for fixing them. Ollieisanerd (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Congrats to all who pitched in, it looks like it is well-referenced now and in really good shape for the main page. --Jayron32 16:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A comedy icon of British television for decades. A true comic genius. Article is in very good shape now. And it's been two days now. 86.170.226.56 (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have my support Tommie345 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's holding this up? 86.170.226.56 (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some awards and honors do not have their respective source, there are some contents in the subsections "One-man shows" that need sources. Overall, the article is good, but not good enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agreed with Alsor, it's better, but it's not there yet. The commonly-held standard is we need to source awards and honors in its entirety, or remove those statements which cannot be corroborated by secondary sources. --WaltClipper -(talk) 14:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's now been marked as (Ready) for nearly a day?? And it's three days since he died. 86.187.171.169 (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fairly sure all _-_Alsor concerns have been addressed. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks good. Post this ASAP. --38.106.246.204 (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Ready) since 20:07, 24 April 2023. Now four days since he died. What more is needed?? 86.187.233.49 (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important note: Someone needs to revert the incompetent IP who has been edit warring despite several TP notices, and then an admin needs to edit-protect the article so this sort of junk doesn't get added while the article may be at ITN. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some (sourced) tributes would not go amiss? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which one? Ollieisanerd (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now submitted a request for this article to be protected at Requests for page protection. Ollieisanerd (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The page is now semi-protected for a period of three weeks. Ollieisanerd (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Will it even get posted on that time? 86.187.167.234 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nice article. Post already. SN54129 17:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no reason to hold off posting this. Estar8806 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Let's go. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WTF. 86.187.175.83 (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what are you talking about. Ollieisanerd (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been five days since he died. The article is fine. It's been marked Ready for days. Still not posted. Shameful. 81.154.245.183 (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is, it's just that the admins seem to be more focused on other things, and are completely forgetting about this. We now have two days until the cut-off point for posting, and it would be a shame that all the hard effort put into getting this page ready would go to waste. Ollieisanerd (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alas this is a very common story at ITN noms. No wonder people don't bother. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need to post this quickly. T. E. A. Mackie (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Remember this is a volunteer project. We only have a couple of admins who are regularly posting things on ITN, and a lot of them are backlogged. Sometimes this happens, there's not much point in throwing a temper-tantrum over it. You can try pinging Tone if you want to have better luck. --WaltClipper -(talk) 13:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine then, @Tone. Ollieisanerd (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello :) Posting. Tone 18:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much! Ollieisanerd (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Tone, good to know our efforts weren’t in vain. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not "a temper tantrum", is it. It's just folks doing work to shape up an article and seeing it sit here for days at a time, when there is seemingly nothing they can do to progress it. And nominations often seem to get gazumped by more notable ones. It happens time and time again. Folks will eventually just give up and not bother improving stuff. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm with you. But there's basically no appetite within the community for unbundling admin tools to allow non-admins to post to the Main Page. I'm unhappy about it too. WaltClipper -(talk) 12:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, you'll get your reward in heaven. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, there should probably be a new user group called "In the News Patroller", given to users that mainly contribute to ITN, so that non-admins can post to
    Template:In the News, as it is clear now that many admins simply don't have the time to regularly update ITN that often, and this user group would allow for much quicker posting times. Ollieisanerd (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Very good idea, Ollieisanerd. Humphries' death got a whole 7 hours 54 minutes on the Main page.... 86.187.232.202 (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed, discussion moved) Ongoing: 2023 Asia heat wave

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


Article: 2023 Asia heat wave (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The heat wave has been ongoing for about a week as of today. Isi96 (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Target article seems well-sourced and contains enough prose that I'd rate it at least start class. The sources mention that the heat wave is breaking records in multiple countries and that the heat is so excessive that it caused road surfaces to melt in Dhaka, which sounds extreme enough to be notable. Story is still developing. The article doesn't mention high numbers of reported casualties, but this is an ongoing nom, not a standalone blurb nom.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In a scenario of global warming, heat waves are common. In the event that this particular one causes a notorious number of casualties, we may decide to include it as an ITN. But not in ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose - blurb maybe if/when it merits it, but as far as I recall past weather events were blurbed when it merited it, not put in ongoing. nableezy - 17:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Articles needs significant improvement to justify this as a single and notable event. That high temperatures were broken across multiple countries doesn't necessarily equate to a solitary event driving it. --Masem (t) 18:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, weak support ongoing - its happening, its receiving
WP:RS coverage, and is notable for inclusion as an article. Its record breaking, and has already started to kill dozens of people. Although I'd get putting this in ongoing since it has started before the oldest event on ITN rn (the Finnish reactor), I would prefer putting it as a blurb since it has only started getting mainstream coverage in the past few days. The article does need some expansion though. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 19:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 21

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

  • Twitter drops the "state-affiliated" and "government-funded" labels used for the accounts of media organizations. (Al Jazeera)

Disasters and accidents

  • Eight people are killed and 128 others are injured after a rare and large tornado strikes two villages near
    Naypitaw, Myanmar. (AP)

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Emily Meggett

Article: Emily Meggett (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [14]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Gullah chef. Looks pretty good, a little expansion would be nice though. Curbon7 (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) RD: Sergio Rendine

Article: Sergio Rendine (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [15]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Italian opera composer. Needs some work, may be of interest to User:Gerda ArendtCurbon7 (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) RD: Enver Baig

Article: Enver Baig (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DAWN
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

 Ainty Painty (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Curbon7: I have added the death update to the prose, as well as fixed up some ref issues alongside. Article should not be that bad, but the prose could use expansion, therefore I give it a weak support. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's short but it's a start article. It could be expanded if there is more available info about the individual. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 02:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jeremy Nobis

Article: Jeremy Nobis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Salt Lake Tribune
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Nicknamed "The Icon". Died in jail. Needs some expansion. Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Oppose The death is being investigated and so is a work-in-progress. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Russian invasion of Ukraine

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


Article: Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: There hasn't been many updates to the article recently. The only updates that are made are just minor ones. Interstellarity (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There just haven't been many developments in the past couple months. We're only one month into the spring season, I assume actions will increase in the next month or two. If they don't, removal should be considered. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Until Russia leaves Ukrainian soil, I shall vehemently oppose removal. MyriadSims (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How do we determine this? Yea, the article itself might not be getting updates but the timeline is getting both consistent and major updates. So do we base this off of the nominated article or the timeline article? Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Obviously still a major event which continues to get frequent news coverage, even if there isn't as much fighting right now, which will likely change soon. Just looking at the BBC website right now, 3 of the top stories are related to Ukraine/Russia. Johndavies837 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Obviously the main article isn't for daily play-by-play updates; if it was, it'd be the largest page on the site, full of every minute detail of happenings in Bakhmut. This article is meant to be an overview of the conflict. The day-to-day operations are still routinely and constantly being updated at the innumerable forks. Curbon7 (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I feel like this won't go through even though in terms of contribution size, this article has had far less than the Israeli protests, where consensus seems to be heading towards removing it from ongoing. But in any case, oppose, still receiving substantial updates and is still ITN. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 01:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Case of smaller, more specific subarticles getting updated while the large main article is not updated as substantially since its an overview. NoahTalk 02:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think I will have to say this on a Wikipedia page, but the war is not over, the article is still being updated, and, when I search up "Recent news" on Yandex, it brings up the war on at least 6 times out of 10, and this is an important event that is still ongoing. there is still battles surrounding the Kherson and Donetsk areas, and there are still constant Airstrikes in areas such as Kyiv, Lyiv, Kherson, and Luhansk. and I can't go a day without seeing at least one report about it on the news. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, I just went on Google, first headline to pop up: "The Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, has said he is “confident” that Ukraine is prepared to retake more territory as Kyiv readies for a new offensive against invading Russian forces", "Jack Teixeira, the US air national guardsman accused of leaking classified defence documents to a small group of gamers, posted sensitive information months earlier than previously known and to a much larger chat group", "A Moscow court has ordered the arrest in absentia of Bulgarian investigative journalist Christo Grozev, adding him to its list of “foreign agents”, state-owned news agency RIA has reported" you get the point. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/22/russia-ukraine-war-at-a-glance-what-we-know-on-day-423-of-the-invasion Editor 5426387 (Talk) 02:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—The war is still ongoing, and updates are still being made to articles within the topic area. Kurtis (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - still going on, still being updated. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: Israel Judicial Reform unrest

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


Article: 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: Article is no longer being updated frequently, protests have seemed to die down. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - still receiving daily updates, including major entries every couple of days, as evidenced in the history. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 16:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support That history shows only a single substantive edit since April 15, which was also when the last major event occurred. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - still in the news.
talk) 19:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: 2023 French pension reform unrest

Article: 
WP:ONGOING
,

  • "the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status."

So unless this gets updated then we will have to remove this like we did with the Mahsa Amini protests. Plus, the article doesn't even mention anything that happened in between April 6 and April 14 and I feel that a significant update must be added in between that period as well. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support removal Per nom, lacks regular updates. Additionally, will the Sudan article possibly rolling onto Ongoing, will need the space available for this. SpencerT•C 05:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal – Article is not ongoingly being updated. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal as per the above. Compusolus (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal - At this time the protests have slowed down.BabbaQ (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. --Tone 09:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 20

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Richard Riordan

Article: Richard Riordan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former mayor of LA. Needs some source work, but not in bad shape. Curbon7 (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Why? HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because we're running out of time. --WaltClipper -(talk) 13:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kenji Yonekura

Article: Kenji Yonekura (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Nikkansports
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Japanese boxer, also competed in the Olympics. May need a bit of sourcing, otherwise, looks good! Tails Wx 21:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

RD: Salma Khadra Jayyusi

Article: Salma Khadra Jayyusi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Gulf News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Prominent Palestinian poet. Looks good. Curbon7 (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Fakescientist, it should be sourced now! Tails Wx 00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well-sourced, though it could use some expansion! Tails Wx 00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose It may be well sourced, but the content needs to be expanded. It's too short for me. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Buzzfeed News shuts down

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


Article: BuzzFeed News (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American digital media conglomerate BuzzFeed shuts down its news website, causing the company's stock to collapse by 16%. (Post)
News source(s): The Independent - NYT - Variety - NPR - WSJ - NBC - CNN
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Buzzfeed News just shut down, with its parent company's stock value collapsing by 15%. It's the end of an era, eh? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 20:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - on significance. Like Gawker before it, minor detail in the US media landscape. nableezy - 20:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose standard business news. If it were the NYTimes or WaPpst, maybe there would be something with actual significance. --Masem (t) 21:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Web site closes. CoatCheck (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and...? We don't doubt your good faith, but not every news item you read is ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Routine and insignificant event, affecting a small news organization compared to the Reuters, NYTs, and BBCs of the world. It seems like this is SNOW close worthy as well. DecafPotato (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose some news website shuts down temporarily, this is not really a big deal. I would assume something like this would occur every month or so, it just happens to be on a news website. oh, and when I went to visit their website, it is still up and running. so it must be fixed. Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Editor 5426387: It's not temporary, it's PERMANENT as in BuzzFeed News is about to have its head chopped by the guillotine due to funding issues. Although, that doesn't change the notability of this. NoahTalk 22:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Companies die all the time. Unless it is a major brand or major news outlet like NYT then I see no reason for it to be posted. NoahTalk 22:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Solar eclipse 2023

Proposed image
Article: 
South Pacific in Australia, East Timor, and Indonesia. (Post)
News source(s): (New York Times) (People.com)

Credits:

The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 СтасС (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Support - passes
WP:N. I'm American, and I still heard a lot of huff puff about this online. Also, it was pretty big in Oceania, where it was visible, with it becoming a big moment for astrotourism and costing governments tens of millions of dollars (Australian). Additionally, it was a hyrbid solar eclipse, which are exceptionally rare, only accounting for 3% of eclipses in the 21st century. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 18:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose on Quality - Article is a stub with. Also, I can't tell but are the three "series" sections unsourced? Because they look like it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think editors en-wiki do it, Although, I not sure it in this.--СтасС (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing, the entire "related eclipses" section looks completely unnecessary and looks like it could just be deleted outright. may be wrong though. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first off, it's a stub, second off, some hybrid Solar Eclipse is not ITN-worthy, and third, need more sourcing.Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Solar eclipses are
    WP:ITN/R, meaning that at least procedurally, there are ITN-worthy (whatever that means at this point), in fact, arguably one of the most ITN-worthy things. However, hey, I'm at least glad your not saying per above anymore. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 04:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose - Rock moves in front of another rock, not encyclopedic content. Needs to be expanded beyond a stub. --WaltClipper -(talk) 12:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This eclipse belongs to the Solar Saros 129 series, it is the last hybrid one of this series. The next eclipse in this series will be the first total eclipse lf this series: Solar eclipse of April 30, 2041. Count Iblis (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose consists of a short lead section and a gallery of pictures and tables. Needs much more prose to be considered for the main page. --Jayron32 19:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Needs more prose, undersourced. Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - At a first glance, I was going to oppose, but I skimmed Template:Solar eclipses to find the most recently posted total/hybrid eclipse posted to ITN to get an idea of when it'd be ready. The most recent one seems to have been in 2019. In terms of prose, there seems to be just as much here as there was in the Solar eclipse of July 2, 2019 article, which was posted to ITN. There might actually be more, considering that the 2023 article is 10K bytes compared to the 2019 article's 9K. When I was going to prematurely oppose, I had typed out "the main issue holding me back from supporting is the fact that the Inex series, Tritos series, and Metonic series subsections don't have any references", but then I realized that this is normal and it's exactly how it is in the 2019 article which we posted. And as for the raw number of sources, the 2023 article has 7 compared to the 2019 article's 5. So just based off of precedent, this is already greater than or equal to what we've previously deemed worthy of ITN for an eclipse article. Of course, that's not to say we can't demand more from these articles, as the second most recent one posted - the Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 - has an excellent B-class article with over 100K bytes. But I also have to consider that the 2017 one benefited greatly from systemic bias as it was dubbed "The Great American Eclipse" and thus it was widely reported on by a large variety of English-language RS, while the 2019 and 2023 ones were both over the Asia-Pacific region. All of that is to say that I can't fairly think of a reason to oppose this. TL;DR: ITN/R and slightly better than the last total/hybrid eclipse we posted.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 05:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Black Kite, @Jayron32, @WaltCip @Editor 5426387, @Onegreatjoke, @Thebiguglyalien, and @Modest Genius in regards to @Vanilla Wizard's statement. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 18:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Still an Oppose - Regardless of what they said. There is barely any prose at all. There is ZERO prose detailing the actual eclipse in the article. The eclipse for July 2 actually had some sentences detailing the eclipse in its body. This does not. The only prose is in the related eclipses section, which is practically UNSOURCED. So, my opinion has not changed. unless fixes are done I will continue to oppose. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this changes anything. I opposed the 2019 eclipse on the same grounds - lack of prose content. Just because we posted one low-quality article almost 4 years ago doesn't mean we should let another one through now. The simplest way to get this article posted would be to add a couple of paragraphs of referenced prose content, and remove the unreferenced material. Modest Genius talk 11:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping, but "We screwed this up in 2019, so can we screw it up again this year?" is not a rationale that wins my support. We still need more prose about the event. --Jayron32 11:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • By way, don't my topic (Don't my article).--СтасС (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on article quality, partially per Onegreatjoke: article needs a lot of prose expansion and source work in order for this to be ready for the Main Page. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on Quality. As is the case with many of these eclipse articles, prose is lacking, and a good portion of the article is copy-and-paste material about related eclipses. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Harold Riley

Article: Harold Riley (artist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see

Nominator's comments: English painter of world leaders. The article needs additional refs. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 16:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) Starship maiden launch

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


Article: 
talk · history · tag)
Blurb: SpaceX Starship, the most powerful rocket in history, launches from Starbase, Texas, before exploding in the upper atmosphere (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ SpaceX Starship, the most powerful rocket in history, makes its maiden flight
Alternative blurb II: ​ SpaceX launches Starship, the most powerful rocket ever launched
Alternative blurb III: SpaceX Starship, the most powerful rocket in history, launches from Starbase, Texas, before exploding three minutes into the flight
Alternative blurb IV: ​ SpaceX Starship, the most powerful rocket in history, successfully launches from Starbase, Texas, before exploding three minutes into the flight
Alternative blurb V: ​ SpaceX's Starship, the most powerful rocket ever built, explodes in midair on its first launch attempt
Alternative blurb VI: ​ SpaceX conducts an orbital launch test of Starship, which ends in an explosion three minutes into the flight.
News source(s): BBC CNN

Credits:
Nominator's comments: The most powerful rocket ever launched. The beginning of humanity's journey into the Solar System. Incredibly notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mars journey-sized support. Just watched it with my daughters. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, good way of putting it! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm... I'm really put off by the fact that I have to consider ITN-worthy as (yet another) millionaire's whim. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POV. This is way more than just a millionaire's whim, this is a hugely significant event in the history of spaceflight! All over the news, has broken many records. Would we have posted Apollo 4? (Since this was basically on the same scale, if not more significant.) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a good question. I have the suspicion that if ITN were around back then, that only Apollo 8, 11, and 13 (and yes, probably 4) would have been posted due to their overwhelming significance as compared to other launches in the series (despite them all being landmark events in their own right). But we'll never know the answer to that interesting hypothetical. I still contend, of course, the
Watergate burglary would never have made ITN back then. --WaltClipper -(talk) 13:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
This is an important discussion to have as humanity returns to the Moon in the next few years. Personally, I believe all the Apollo missions would've been notable for posting. In regards to the Artemis program, I think we should definitely post the first missions back, until a point where they come routine enough. The event is hugely notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait dangit
    Actual article is not yet ready. Needs a bunch of work. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    On it as we speak PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fingers crossed. I will be making lunch for the family. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support – Article looking alright now, acceptable for main page, and for the record, the maiden flight test was a success. 30km is fine. I hope someone can write a better blurb.. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Holding judgment until the article is ready to roll. --WaltClipper -(talk) 13:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC
  • Neutral - This is a tough call, given that this was a maiden flight and the mission accomplished all of its major objectives of clearing the tower and surviving max-Q (the highest points of dynamic pressure on the spacecraft), but the rocket never staged and the RSO had to detonate it before it could reach orbit. So it never actually crossed the
    Karman Line. If that's considered our threshold for any space flight, then we necessarily have to oppose. On the other hand, it certainly made the news, and it somewhat opens the way to the Moon and Mars. So it's a tough call. --WaltClipper -(talk) 14:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I think the fact that this is the largest rocket ever launched (twice as powerful as the Saturn V) is notable enough PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, and I'm definitely sympathetic to that first. It's a huge "first", and I'm tempted to support on that basis alone. But the Karman Line is a mighty border, and I think you will find a lot of people will consider that to be the barometer of significance even if that wasn't the main objective. --WaltClipper -(talk) 14:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this: The Titanic sank on its maiden voyage and never reached its destination. Do we consider it notable? They built it, tested it, they made their milestones and then some. It's an achievement nonetheless. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I chuckle at that comparison simply because the Titanic was manned/crewed, unlike Starship, and the sinking was considered international news on the basis of it being a catastrophe with very few peers. But otherwise, it's a valid comparison and I see your point. --WaltClipper -(talk) 14:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually expected some chuckling at the comparison, and it was a great loss of life. Granted, no movie will be made of this launch, but still. And support blurb 3 --Ouro (blah blah) 14:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Never say never, we could see an action movie about this launch starring Tom Cruise hanging on to the side :P PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With or without a harness in frame? Cheers. WimePocy 16:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1! --Ouro (blah blah) 15:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Launch was bigger (number of engines and thrust) than the four failed N1 (rocket). Pretty sure failed MAIDEN launches have been posted on ITN. Although it was not on the ground, very likely it will make the Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions once somebody does the calcualtion of the remaining amount of fuel when it detonated.194.102.58.8 (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The most recent maiden launch that got discussed was Terran 1 last month, and that wound up being not posted on grounds that it didn't make it to orbit and complete a 100% nominal mission.
    Likewise, the size of the rocket isn't what makes it noteworthy, it's that it was intended for spaceflight. And it did not reach space any more than SN8 through SN15. Nottheking (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, some significant parts of the text on both the April 17 attempt, and the April 20 successful launch, lack sources. We need to fix that. Once those two issues are fixed, I would support posting this. --Jayron32 14:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added NYT ref should take care of the tags. 194.102.58.8 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to go! --Jayron32 14:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt III, which covers the situation nicely. Mjroots (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wonder if we should classify it as a success. SpaceX is calling it one due to the large amount of valuable data gathered, despite the explosion. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are those who say that no experiment is actually a failure, because You can always learn something. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Very true PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course SpaceX is calling it a success. We shouldn't put that in Wiki voice. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Well we'd need to find other reliable sources when it comes to rocketry branding this as a "failure" then. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally every single news outlets says that this launch is a failure. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every, most in the space industry do not PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Are we going to post every test of this thing? Don't see the notability at the moment, sorry. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is much more than just an average rocket test. This is:
    -The first flight of the Super Heavy booster, as well as the most amount of engines successfully ignited in a flight I believe
    -The most powerful rocket ever flown, twice the thrust of the Saturn V
    -Made it to the upper atmosphere, whereas previous tests were only a few kilometers in altitude
    -All over the news
    Much, much more than a traditional test PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think point 4 is the only relevant one to this discussion. --Jayron32 15:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Though with point 4, it meets ITNR. The first flight was a huge success - the first phase did it's job - unfortunate that stage separation seems to have failed; but fixing that isn't rocket science. And of course the first phase failed to land ... thought so did SLS :). The second stage has been tested in flight numerous times - so nothing major there. Had they gone with the earlier plan of only flying the first stage, they would have been no issue. Nfitz (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who the heck removed rockets from ITNR - but left darts? That's absurd - there's far too little science there already, especially compared to sports events (assuming darts is indeed a sport and not a drinking game). Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, this is definitely more notable and In The News than a darts tournament (though not to disrespect that sport). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Huge achievement and milestone, not all tests are equal. Article is in good shape. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Wait until it succeeds. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It did. Your comment is like arguing Apollo 4 didn't succeed because it didn't land on the Moon. --WaltClipper -(talk) 15:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not comparable whatsoever: Apollo 4 was never planned to land on the Moon; its plan was to make orbit and perform an S-IVB restart. It completed all of its objectives.
    By comparison, this launch did not achieve its objectives. The first-stage burn was anomalous (with at least 6 engines visibly failing) with a proper MECO (main engine cut-off) never being called out. The ship then tumbled before its internal systems ordered a self destruct.
    Had it been a successful mission, we'd have seen proper MECO, then a full second-stage burn. The upper stage would have crossed the Kármán Line and reached space, making a suborbital partial-loop of earth before impacting in the Pacific Ocean.
    This is not what happened, thus it was not a success on the order of Apollo 4. Nottheking (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Great explanation, but I wasn't responding to your !vote. --WaltClipper -(talk) 16:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an argument. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This was the plan, but none of them were metrics of success. In this instance, success was measured by the amound of data collected. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very significant IMO, and the article looks good with a quick skim (though maybe I'm just missing something). TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only thing needed in the article is a pic from the actual launch, same for the blurb. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While no longer ITNR, this particular launch of the heaviest ever rocket and its subsequent explosion make a very good case for ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all over the news, and a significant milestone in man's journey to the Solar System. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - the blurbs only link the actual rocket however, and not the article about the actual launch. Considering how symbiotic the two are, I'd suggest bold linking both articles in the blurb. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unsuccessful test that didn't reach space, let alone orbit. I'll be happy for us to post a blurb if/when this rocket successfully reaches orbit. Modest Genius talk 15:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except it was successful? The principal objective was to test the new rocket and get it off the ground, which it did. Sure, it exploded, but it had already accomplished the former. Like @PrecariousWorlds stated, explosion =/= failure. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 16:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only because SpaceX set very limited criteria, deliberately designed to cover themselves in case the mission wasn't completed. They want to claim some good PR whatever happened. The launch was intended to reach space on a suborbital trajectory and re-enter near Hawaii. That wasn't achieved. The rocket got off the ground, yes, but exploded shortly thereafter. Even if this flight had achieved its full goals, it still wouldn't have entered orbit, so I'm not convinced it would be suitable for ITN. Not even managing stage separation is a major failure for a rocket. Modest Genius talk 16:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you understand the history of SpaceX, you'll know that they take an incredibly iterative testing process, unlike others in the space industry who prefer to get things right on the first go (usually because they are dependent on public funding, rather than SpaceX which has a large pool of private funds). Just look at the early Falcon 9 launches, nearly all of them would be deemed by most as a "failure", yet the immense amount of data gathered from it allowed the Falcon 9 to become the most successful rocket program...ever, now launching twice a week, with no "failures" in over 100 launches. They weren't trying to cover themselves for PR in this launch by saying a RUD was likely, rather making an accurate assessment that this is completely uncharted territory, and following their previous design policy. To say this is a failure implies that it's some devastating loss to SpaceX, when in reality they were completely planning for this outcome. It just isn't accurate. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of the history. I'm also aware that SpaceX has vast legions of fans, who cheer everything they do regardless of how impressive it actually is, and very slick PR to generate positive news coverage. IMO the correct time for ITN to post this rocket is when it successfully reaches orbit, not before. We can't have a blurb for every incremental step towards that goal. Modest Genius talk 16:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I'll bring up previous points:
    This is literally In The News, with significant coverage from just about everywhere, and marks the most powerful rocket launch in history, with twice the thrust of the Saturn V. It is the first flight of Super Heavy, and the integrated stack of Starship. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And it blew up before stage separation. It was a test flight that failed to reach its objectives, didn't get to space, and didn't enter orbit. We have fundamentally different views of whether that is sufficient to justify a blurb in ITN - which is OK - and simply restating them isn't going to change either opinion. Let the discussion play out and see how everyone else !votes. Modest Genius talk 17:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you're right, this discussion isn't getting to anywhere. I can see your point, but I do believe this is notable enough for posting. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way SpaceX laid it out, nearly any outcome would be classified as a success. But they had a planned mission for it (perform a stage separation, reach space, make a suborbital flight that impacted into the Pacific Ocean) that was not completed. Spinning everything into a positive doesn't actually change the definition of spaceflight. Do remember as well: SpaceX calling it a success is a
    primary
    source, not secondary. And the news articles aren't specifically calling it a "success," they're talking about how it exploded.
    I'd also mention that we had a clearer example a last month with the Terran 1 launch: it actually did pass the Kármán Line, and its launchers said that "anything past Max Q made it a huge success," that didn't stop it from being considered a failed launch. And ultimately kept it from being posted to ITN as well. Nottheking (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The rocket failed, full stop. Even SpaceX acknowledged this. What makes this ITN worthy is that its the largest rocket to fly in 50+ years and the largest rocket to go kaboom in 50+ years. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweet never said a failure, only that Starship had an RUD, which as stated above was expected. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just stop denying the facts. If you are into Starship, you would know that "rapid unscheduled disassembly" = rocket go kaboom = failed launch. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we define a launch to a vessel taking off from its original location, then strictly speaking the launch was a success (as the commentators during the live cast said). I had to have my spherical cow moment. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. RUD that was expected to happen is not the same as a complete failure. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of outlets are labeling it as a success. On Wikipedia, we rely on secondary sources to interpret primary ones for us. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 17:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to see these secondary sources; though keep in mind that the talk headers for numerous relevant pages do warn that a lot of ostensibly second sources (such as space.com or Teslerati) are not considered neutral enough for use in sourcing.
    So far what I've seen is that they've been qualifying it, noting that it lifted off, but all noting that it exploded and/or failed to achieve its objectives. That sounds less like "calling it a success" and more "labeling it at least a partial failure." Nottheking (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Partial failure maybe, we could keep arguing semantics all day about this really, but my point is that simply labeling it a failure is misleading. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Reliable source coverage is stating the following regarding this launch in headlines:
    New York Times: "The most powerful rocket ever built got off the launchpad in South Texas but did not achieve its most ambitious goals on Thursday."
    The Verge: "SpaceX’s integrated Starship spacecraft successfully took off from its launchpad in Boca Chica, Texas, on Thursday but didn’t manage to fully complete its test flight."
    CNN: "SpaceX’s Starship, the most powerful rocket ever built, took off from a launch pad on the coast of South Texas on Thursday at 9:28 a.m. ET, but exploded midair before stage separation."
    CBS: "SpaceX launched its 500-foot-tall Starship, by far the world's most powerful rocket, on an uncrewed test flight Thursday morning, but a few minutes after clearing the launch pad it failed in a midair explosion."
  • So it seems not even the media can really decide whether it was technically a success or a failure. This is going to make the conversation here difficult. --WaltClipper -(talk) 16:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately a lot of people just see an explosion and assume "Wow, what a failure!", when in reality they were not even expecting Starship to make it that far, and the valuable data they got out of the launch made it well worth the loss. In this case, I think we should go with what industry experts think rather than sensationalist headlines. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it is confirmed to have failed according to most reputable news sources. Flyingfishee (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't yet a consensus, and a majority of sources actually within the space industry are not deeming it a failure ([16][17][18][19][20] and more) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even the BBC says that it isn't considered a failure PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly I don't think we should take Twitter posts as valid evidence of the success, and secondly even if this launch did succeed it's dubious whether we should post it. The "largest spacecraft" is a record that will certainly be beaten in the next few years so there's no reason for us to jump the gun and post it now, especially when one can (and should) argue that this wasn't even a successful launch in the first place. Flyingfishee (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That twitter post was by an incredibly credible and reliable industry expert who has been covering space for years and writes for Ars Technica, and while I agree we shouldn't use Twitter posts as reliable sources for posting, it's just one example of many that this launch has not been deemed a failure.
    As for the last point, please tell me what spacecraft is launching in the near future that will surpass the power and capacity of Starship. No one in the industry is attempting something of this scale, and even if they were as you say, it is still years away. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The main objective of this test was to clear the launch tower. 2A02:2F0B:B500:5A00:CCF7:1410:791:32C0 (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to put this rudely but frankly most people will view it as failure, and rightly so, if it didn't make it into space. It didn't make it into space and therefore the common opinion is that the launch was a failure. To argue otherwise is like saying chatGPT will cause singularity because it's the closest we've gotten so far. Flyingfishee (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That has no relation to what I'm arguing for here. A majority of reliable sources within the space industry say the opposite, it doesn't really matter what people who don't know the actual objectives of the launch think it is. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is just sugarcoating. Of course all companies/orgs will learn from their failures, and "gather the data" as SpaceX might said. But it's disingenuous to say that a rocket that do somersaults and then exploded a success. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    after considering the arguments of @PrecariousWorlds and @CactiStaccingCrane I think I am able to Support altblurb V or VI. While it was unsuccessful in the common view that doesn't make it non-notable, a failure of something notable can be notable. Therefore it is ITN worthy - we just have to specify that this rocket exploded mid-flight. Flyingfishee (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I think that sounds like a good plan, with my own preference for altblurb III PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb IV—The fact that it successfully cleared the tower is an important element of the story that should be mentioned on the main page. Kurtis (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per Modest Genius' rationale. It did not make it to space.Found5dollar (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: While there's a lot being said by its operators to say "well, the real success was the lessons we learned along the way," it remains that this did not achieve the definition of spaceflight: the stack achieved a maximum altitude of 39 km, well below the 100 km of the Kármán Line. And it did not even achieve its own planned objectives. A successful flight would've resulted in it entering space on a suborbital trajectory, with Starship impacting into the Pacific Ocean.
It's also worth noting that we seemed to decline posting the Terran 1 launch back in March, as that rocket failed to achieve orbit. (though it did reach space, achieving a maximum altitude of nearly 120 km if memory serves) The discussion mostly focused on the fact that it did not achieve its full mission or orbit, and ultimately it went un-posted. By contrast, this was a mission with a lower threshold (suborbital spaceflight, not orbit) and it failed to even achieve spaceflight.
In the grand scheme of things, this wasn't the "first" flight of this program, unless we qualify it rather heavily. It was the first liftoff of a booster designed to go to orbit, except that the mission (even if nominally completed) wasn't orbital. It was preceded by numerous prototypes before it, and (at the risk of trending into
WP:CRYSTAL) will likely be succeeded by further flights. Out of all of them, is this one we can confidently say is of the most encyclopedic significance? I'm pretty confident on a "no" as the answer to that question: the most significant "first" for the program will either be its first flight into space or into orbit. While I'd be open to a debate on which one when the time comes, for now that distinction is purely academic. Nottheking (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Just to crystalball what is gonna happen next launch, SpaceX will try 5 more times until it reentries the atmosphere near Hawaii, and then ITN will decide the incremental rate of success is not worth posting at any of the 6 launch attempts, because incremental. It's a different success path to what ITN has seen in the field, so of course it's gonna stick to the oldschool thinking. 2A02:2F0B:B500:5A00:CCF7:1410:791:32C0 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should have posted Terran 1, and this rocket was much more complex and powerful than Terran 1, so that automatically gives it more weight.
At the end of the day, this is a major milestone in spaceflight history, and is literally In The News PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we've seen, time and again, that simply being "in the news" is not sufficient, hence why ITN doesn't cover all the random celebrity drama that drowns much of it. It needs to both be in the news and have encyclopedic significance. (after all, SpaceX has conducted 12 highly successful launches of StarLink this year alone, and every one of them wound up in the news... And none of them were even nominated here)
And the complexity & power isn't something that we measure here; Wikipedia isn't in the business of making arbitrary numerical cutoff lines, (to borrow from another subject often appearing here, we don't have a
WP:MINIMUMDEATHS) but deal in terms of encyclopedic subjects. In this case, it's spaceflight & orbital spaceflight
, neither of which this met the conditions for.
It's also worth noting that we didn't even get a nomination for SN8 back in December 2020, which in many ways could be counted as the same category: SpaceX labeled it a success, while it was clear it didn't complete its objectives and exploded as a result.
So it's pretty clear that the milestone we're waiting for isn't here: at minimum, it'll need to reach space, not just 39 km up into the stratosphere. Had this succeeded, it'd have made that mark, but just because it was planned isn't sufficient alone. Nottheking (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me where in the
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, especially with how fluid consensus can be on ITN. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 17:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
There's a difference between saying "X wasn't posted so therefore Y shouldn't either" (which wasn't my statement) but rather, "X didn't meet criteria, and there's a large body of X that occurred, and thus it stands there's a logic to it, that when applied to Y, indicates that Y doesn't merit posting either."
Atmospheric rocket-powered flights are fairly commonplace. Mentioning SN8, SN15, and others shows that these are comparatively common events, and not unusual. Had it actually made it to space at minimum, it'd be a different discussion; but for now, it's just another atmospheric test flight. It'd be akin to calling it ITN-worthy that a political candidate of X demographic had been nominated for an election for a country's Prime Minister: while their election might be newsworthy on grounds of them being the first of their kind elected as head of government, if they don't win the election it isn't.
It's the same thing here: it might've been the first liftoff of Super Heavy (but not of Starship) but again, it didn't make it to space, much less orbit. Nottheking (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" It'd be akin to calling it ITN-worthy that a political candidate of X demographic had been nominated for an election for a country's Prime Minister: while their election might be newsworthy on grounds of them being the first of their kind elected as head of government, if they don't win the election it isn't." Flawed analogy, considering there wasn't a winner in this circumstance. And "X didn't meet criteria, and there's a large body of X that occurred, and thus it stands there's a logic to it, that when applied to Y, indicates that Y doesn't merit posting either." is just a more wordy rephrasing of "X wasn't posted so therefore Y shouldn't either". PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it is the biggest rocket to ever flown since the Saturn V and caused the biggest rocket explosion since the N1 (rocket), both are last flown over 50 years ago. Records were made, even if it doesn't reach orbit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter what SpaceX or a random person define the launch either as a success or failure (it failed). But a rocket that broke many spaceflight records should be listed as ITNs. Even more so if it caused a failure as this would made appearance all over international news. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I support blurb V and VI because it is short and sweet. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that also creates notability. This is one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guess that Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions need an update... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have enough data to update it at the present moment. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It did not explode; it was destroyed by its own on-board self-destruct. The Superheavy Booster was already effectively depleted, leaving just the propellant load aboard Starship itself (~1200t vs. 3400t on Superheavy) to be scattered. Since we saw it as a big white cloud, that means it did not ignite; there was no combustion, and no explosion beyond the power of the pyrotechnics fired that ripped the vessel open. Had a detonation of the propellant actually occurred, we'd have seen a brilliant reddish-to-purplish fireball. (and again, even if it had detonated, most of its propellant had been consumed by that point: it'd have been a smaller explosion than destroyed N1 L5, as well as numerous other disasters like at Halifax or Beirut)
Likewise, size doesn't matter in terms of notability, it's what it actually does that matters. There weren't that many records made, and those it did required heavy qualification. As more engines failed (at least 6) it's possible it didn't even break its own prior record for greatest thrust generated. (from its own static fire last month) The only actual record I can think of was "greatest rocket thrust to lift off of the ground," a record it'd have taken from the N1 rocket. But that's not a very significant record or first.
Overall, it seems like it's trying to pre-emptively ride on the coattails of far more significant records & that SpaceX hopes to achieve down the line here, such as "first 100% reusable spacecraft to orbit," "first methane-burning rocket to orbit" and "first full-flow staged combustion rocket to space or orbit." It could have started chipping away at those had it succeeded at its flight plan, but alas, it did not. Nottheking (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. Suppose if the Sea Dragon launches today then you wouldn't call its failed flight ITN worthy, but you absolutely would if it goes to orbit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. If it made it to orbit I'd consider that very ITN-worthy; the first orbital flight of any orbital-class vehicle should be ITN. A failed attempt less so... Unless the failure was unusual enough to merit consideration on other criteria. (i.e, a bad enough disaster that results in people dying would almost certainly be ITN, given that's a very unusual form of deadly disaster)
So far Starship prototypes have taken to the sky at least 10 times so far. I am patiently waiting for the one that finally makes it into orbit. (or at least space) The news isn't about that something exists, but rather what it does. Nottheking (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well the news certainly is about something that exists, as this is all over the front page of just about every major outlet PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative blurb VI.
I don't think that we should mention "the most powerful rocket ever built" when descring failure that resulted in failure.
Otherwise, support, main story.
talk) 20:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Support alt blurb V due to significance (and the record that it sets) and quality of article. The arguments against posting pertaining to Starship's failure to reach space are ignoring the intention of the flight -- to crash into the water anyways. -- Mebigrouxboy (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It surpassed the N1 as the most powerful rocket to ever blow up. --Carnildo (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Much as I despise Elon and generally don't care about the endless parade of rockets going up right now, the notability and news coverage are both there, and the article is acceptable. I'm rather indifferent about which blurb to use, as long as it's NPOV. -- Kicking222 (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. We need to decide this now before it falls off the news cycle. People above are roughly 2:1 in favor of posting, which is good enough for me in terms of consensus. Image to follow once protected at Commons. Sandstein 09:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Sandstein PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose. I get that Elon has his fanboys here who can ram through every one of his ventures as "noteworthy", but nothing about yet another failed SpaceX launch meets any threshold of notability. Morgan695 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a way to critique the posting without launching into
    personal attacks. Curbon7 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • (
    Edit conflict) Pull per all above. If we began giving out nickels for every rocket that failed, we'd be millionaires... Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'd like to see those other 20,000,000 failed rockets, if you please. --WaltClipper -(talk) 18:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok then. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support. This story is clearly in the mainstream news worldwide, so just from the angle of notability and the basic guidelines of "substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest," this is clearly ITN-worthy. The rest comes down to minor details about whether it was a "success" or "failure," without recognizing it can be both, and both would be justification for it being on ITN. If you look at sources that don't either love or hate Mr. Musk, it is quite clear that it was both an achievement in terms of the "tallest and the most powerful rocket ever flown" in human history, and that it had a failure in separation. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting to see how so much more polarized people are since the Falcon Heavy maiden launch. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose/pull We could debate if the "within certain parameters successful" nature of this makes it ITN-worthy for a long while, or we could just acknowledge that accepting it for the box basically means any attempt to launch something at space now qualifies, setting a horrible precedent for every unimportant step to get a blurb. Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the most powerful rocket ever, the text currently on the main page, sounds a bit too
    WP:HYPE to me. Any interest in changing this to the most powerful rocket to date? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - is first launched. Is the word first needed here? Could possibly be removed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Pamela Chopra

Article: Pamela Chopra (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Indian Playback singer Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

April 19

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

  • Crime in Costa Rica
    • President
      Rodrigo Chaves orders a series of measures to fight increasing crime in Costa Rica, including the deployment of more police, tougher juvenile laws, extradition of foreign criminals, and restrictions on the sale of ammunition. (Reuters)

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Bob Berry

Article: Bob Berry (American football) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Oregon Live
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American quarterback. Needs some source work, but not too bad. Curbon7 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Muboshgu, @PFHLai, @Curbon7, article has been referenced. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 13:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there appears to be some confusion over his death date. The cited source, and most newspaper articles, say he died on Wednesday (19 April). But legacy.com obit and an IP editor saying they speak for his family, have said 17 April.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: Are you referring to this on 17th? If so, it's a different Bob Berry (see full name and other details). —Bagumba (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pretty much every source says it was April 19 (including PFA and PFR) – besides that, the article is good enough for RD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted @Bagumba: yes, you're right it was that one and I didn't notice it was a different Bob Berry. That, combined with the IP edit changing it to the 17th, has me confused. All good otherwise so posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Larry LeGrande

Article: Larry LeGrande (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [21]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Died on April 13, not reported until April 19 – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) RD: Martin Petzold

Article: Martin Petzold (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MDR
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Tenor in opera and concert, a former member of the Thomanerchor, who sang the Evangelist in Bach's Christmas Oratorio more than 300 times. I wrote the article back in 2012. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

RD: Dave Wilcox

Article: Dave Wilcox (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Pro Football Hall of Famer. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Ready) RD: Richard Riordan

Article: Richard Riordan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former mayor of LA. Needs some source work, but not in bad shape. Curbon7 (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) Sanaa stampede

Article: 
talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 90 people are killed and 322 people injured in a stampede in Sanaa, Yemen. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Reuters, The Guardian

Credits:

Nominator's comments: Article is still quite short, will be updated with more information as it becomes available and confirmed Mooonswimmer 02:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, RE: and there seems to be no lasting impact — don't go out of your way to provoke and be offensive. ITNC is not a free-for-all. El_C 13:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not agreeing with @Andrew Davidson, but how exactly is it offensive? Do you mean he's being offensive towards the people affected? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 13:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly insensitive at best and a dog whistle at worse, Knightoftheswords281. I can't force humanity or compassion on your or Andrew Davidson's part, but I will enforce minimal decorum. El_C 13:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@El C and @Kurtis, oh I'm not saying that @Andrew Davidson was incorrect in his assertion that this has no lasting impact, I was just asking for clarification since for whatever reason, I interpreted El C's remarks about Andrew Davidson being offensive as being directed towards members of ITN and not the victims. I would like to ask El C, how could his statements be a dogwhistle? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 16:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Referring to the deaths of so many people as having "no lasting impact" will be offensive to the moral sensibilities of most readers because they can envision themselves losing a loved one in such a tragic event. When someone says (even inadvertently) that other people's losses will have no lasting impact, it almost feels like they're saying that my losses will have no lasting impact. It is as though I am vicariously experiencing the death of a relative or close friend in the stampede, and am reading that comment as I grieve for my deceased loved one. That is what makes it offensive to people other than those affected by this tragedy—we feel their feelings as if they were our own. Kurtis (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Knightoftheswords281 and Andrew Davidson: The many hundreds (probably thousands) of people who've lost loved ones in this horrific tragedy will most assuredly experience a "lasting impact" from this event. Kurtis (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as I will always say, if you think it fails
you know where to go. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 13:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Because the deaths of 85 people and the injuries of 322 have "no lasting impact". Sure. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of callous bullshit that got LaserLegs banned, Andrew. Cut it out. --WaltClipper -(talk) 17:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, one glaring CN tag needs fixing. If that is fixed, I think this is sufficiently developed to post (though, of course, more expansion is invited). --Jayron32 13:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. ARandomName123 (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Looks to be of sufficient length and depth for a main page posting, and everything is tied to a reliable source. Though as I said before, don't feel the need to stop making it even better. --Jayron32 13:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—An absolutely horrific tragedy. Kurtis (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Suggest changing blurb.
talk) 18:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

(Closed) Miguel Díaz-Canel is re-elected for a second term

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


Article: Miguel Díaz-Canel (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Cuba's National Assembly re-elects Miguel Diaz-Canel as president for a second term despite the country's economic challenges. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Prensa Latina
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Article needs to be updated, could use some expansion and better sectioning Mooonswimmer 21:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The president of Cuba is not recognized as having significant power (hence why this is not ITNR), instead that being the first leader if the communist party, whichDiaz-Canal also holds. So there is no real change here. --Masem (t) 21:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The president of Cuba has no real power on his own. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Bud Shuster

Article: Bud Shuster (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [22]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The archetypical Pennsylvania Republican. Needs a lot of source work. Curbon7 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) RD: Moonbin

Article: Moonbin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Yonhap News, Fantagio via Pinkvilla, NME, ABS-CBN News, Reuters, NY Times, BBC News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: K-pop idol best known for being a member of the boyband Astro and its sub-unit Moonbin & SanhaVida0007 (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps consider for blurb? - Based on the fact that it was one of the first items on the BBC newsreel just now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by our article he does not seem to have been a massive figure in any of the fields, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd give a no on that, but when I first heard about his death, I did think the idea does have some weight. He doesn't seem like that major a figure in K-pop from my (limited) understanding of the genre going off what I know, but also going off what I know, he is a pretty well-known person within K-pop circles. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the BBC rn, its seems that his death, like many other Kpop-artists deaths, are receiving a lot of coverage in relation to the slave-esque working conditions within the industry (see for example, Sulli#Death and impact, which also received a lot of international attetion). My understanding is that blurbs for deaths are posted if a) the individual was GOATed, or b) their death was extremely unusual or otherwise notable in of itself, none of which is really applicable to our boy here. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think it warrants a blurb either, though a tragic death. Still, it was worth bringing up IMO PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD contingent on the missing citations in the filmography section being fixed. I do not see anything unsourced that needs one in the article body. Oppose blurb. ~
    problem solving 14:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support Article looks good now. Ollieisanerd (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article looks good.
    talk 15:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Weak conditional support - there are still some uncited sentences. Also, I'm concerned about the section on his career, where the latter two subsections are in list format instead of prose. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've since tagged the sections in question. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two yellow tags and two CN tags still left. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The citation needed are for cameo roles that I feel are unimportant and may even warrant removal. Lightoil (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Update Looks like the cn tags have been addressed now. Vida0007 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Withdrawn) Torkham landslide

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


Article: 2023 Torkham landslide (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Pakistan, a landslide caused by a thunderstorm buries dozens of people and trucks, resulting in the closure of a a major border crossing with Afghanistan. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters - Al Jazeera - VOA - AP - ABC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: A major landslide that in addition to causing three fatalities, has buried dozens of people and twenty trucks, leading to the closure of a notable border with Afghanistan - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 14:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is not in a state worth posting on the main page. It's basically a stub, with the information basically being a restatement of the blurb (that there had been such a landslide) or banal and uninteresting information about the number of emergency vehicles responding to the event; which is probably so trivial that it doesn't belong and feels like padding the total text. The article needs a considerable expansion before this is main page ready. --Jayron32 16:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jayron and quality issues with the article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality for now. Article isn't much longer than a stub. The Kip (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. There's too little information available to make an informed decision or write a minimum-length article. If/when more details emerge (e.g. casualty numbers), and the article is updated, I'll be willing to reconsider. Modest Genius talk 19:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet ready Still very short. Curbon7 (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) India becomes the world's most populous country

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.


 Regards,
theTigerKing  11:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support but wait for India to actually overtake China - As per @Maplestrip. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support when India actually supersedes China per above. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 12:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - also the bolded article is orange-tagged. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 18:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The UN projection is that it'll overtake China by mid-2023, not that it has already happened.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article does not reflect this information, and the UN report says that this isn't estimated to happen until mid-2023. ARandomName123 (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article still says that China is the most populated, so Article Should be updated. and I'm pretty sure 1,411,750,000 is larger than 1,392,329,000. even if that was the case where it is larger, this would naturally still not be ITN-worthy, for that a country surpassing another in population is not really that ITN-worthy. basically, article should be updated. Editor 5426387 (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Curbon7 it's happened again! The Kip (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose by virtue of the fact that this is an estimate. I think it's irresponsible to run a ITN story on something that may not have happened yet. DarkSide830 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose now because it hasn't even happened yet, but Support for when it does happy. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- India is projected to have 3 million more people by the middle of the 2023. We may not have definite date and time on when it will happen this year. Different statistics and population measuring websites have their timers running at different rate and scales. And most importantly, they are just the projections and estimates. Exact figures at a given point may be hard to extrapolate, given different countries have their own way and timelines of determining the population of its people within its national borders. Thought was good to have it nominated considering it is trending everywhere today. Will nevertheless, it will become a fact this year that the country has actually over taken China as the worlds most populous nation on the planet. Regards,
    theTigerKing  14:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose for now, at least, since everyone else has brought up that it hasn't actually happened yet. But since India is on track to become the most populous country sometime this year, I'll support when it makes it. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per above. DecafPotato (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per above. It hasn't actually happened yet. The Kip (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    WP:CRYSTALBALL, there is a reason we rely on recent censuses or relaible ("current") population estimates; both haven't happened yet. Gotitbro (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Wait until the official censuses of China and India have been released. We cannot rely on projections alone, not to mention that the target article still states that China is more populous than India (as of this writing, at least). Vida0007 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2021 census of India has been delayed multiple times by the authorities. There is no clear indication when the census will be conducted. It could be after the next general election planned in May 2024. Maxxies (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as premature at this point. The sources quoted say that India is projected to become the most populous country some time in mid-2023, not that it has already happened. Nsk92 (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. At this time, it is only a projection. It would be preferable to wait until it is actually happened. However, the population estimate would not be able to be verified as the estimate and projection are based on the 2011 Indian Census. The 2021 Indian census has been delayed several times and no timeline has been provided by the Indian authorities for this census.^^Maxxies (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Ongoing: 2023 Sudan clashes

Article: 
talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post
)

Credits:

Nominator's comments: As the conflict has entered its fourth day, casualties approach 3,000, and one ceasefire has already failed, I think it is time to move this from blurb to ongoing. Curbon7 (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article looks appropriate for ongoing when the blurb rolls off. We shouldn't move to ongoing before then, but starting the discussion is helpful. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull The number of casualties is sourced to The Meghalayan. Checking that out, I find that it's a news site based in NE India. I doubt that they have any reporters anywhere near the scene and so are just compiling rumours from the Internet as clickbait. The article contains a map which shows areas supposedly controlled by each side. So far as I can tell, that's OR / speculation.
Essentially, this is a chaotic civil war and the sides are naturally making wild claims and accusations of atrocities, false flag operations and any other propaganda which occurs to them. Russian mercenaries are involved in this as there's gold to be gained and so you can expect dirty tricks and misinformation from them too.
We're an encyclopedia, not a news source, and so we're supposed to work from reliable sources to provide settled facts. This conflict is an uncertain work-in-progress and so we should await the verdict of history rather than joining the fray too.
Andrew🐉(talk) 12:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the appropriate place to soapbox about your opinions on the war. It's clearly a topic which is well covered in the news. --Jayron32 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is of the quality of our article, which is poor. For example, the NYT reports that, "In the turmoil, it was unclear who controlled various parts of the capital. Each day, one side or the other has claimed control of key installations, including airports and the state broadcaster, only to have the claims quickly disputed." But our article leads with a precise and detailed map showing the supposed control of each side. A footnote explains that this is "Based upon Timeline section" and that's tagged as "
improper synthesis". Another section has an orange cleanup tag which has been there for over two days. The general situation seems quite chaotic due to the fog of war and so we can't expect quick fixes for such issues. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
If that's what you had meant, you should have said that instead of what you said the first time. --Jayron32 15:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the opportunity to dig deeper into this subject right now, but I'm uncomfortable that no one below has responded to these concerns either. Death toll is now cited to Al Jazeera at least, but beyond that, do you still feel like written coverage of these clashes is improving yet? Is our own article on the subject at a high enough quality right now? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when it would roll off, the article is receiving appropriate, continuous updates and that qualifies it for ongoing. It's fine leaving it as a blurb for now, but it also seems to qualify for Ongoing when and if it would roll off. --Jayron32 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support if still ongoing when its blurb rolls off per @Jayron32. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 12:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above, if the situation is still ongoing Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once blurb rolls off, assuming the conflict is still active. The Kip (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Quite an alarming situation. From what experts predict, this is likely the start of a years long conflict and likely to become a proxy war between regional powers. Citing: [23] Ecrusized (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    . . . likely to become a proxy war between regional powers. Oh no, not another one of those. Kurtis (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—A significant and ongoing development. Kurtis (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing when the blurb rolls off, not before. The situation continues to be very fluid and zones of control are changing rapidly. Teh article is getting substantial updates every day. Modest Genius talk 19:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the reason behind waiting for the blurb rolling off? Is there a consensus for not double posting? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the most significant political events happening at this moment Synotia (moan) 10:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bob Maguire

Article: Bob Maguire (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-19/father-bob-maguire-catholic-priest-dies/101814184
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Rebel Catholic priest in Melbourne, Australia. Better known than any other priest in this city of 5 million people. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

  • READY The article has attracted a large amount of editing since the death. Looks good to me. HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is adequate enough for RD. Ollieisanerd (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WHY ARE THE ADMINS IGNORING THIS??? Several Admin actions have occurred since the most recent comment above. My question is a serious one. HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In part, the new vector skin makes it hard to see all the noms on a page. Masem (t) 02:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins are people too, you can't just snap your fingers and summon one like royalty. There are only around three admins who actively post RDs, and they have lives too. I also have some noms that have been tagged as ready for a couple days, and I'm not complaining, because I know it'll get done eventually. Or if a nom is about to roll-off this page, just leave a message on the talk page and that usually does the trick. Curbon7 (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat - Several Admin actions have occurred since the most recent comment above. You might know, but it's not obvious to me who the posting Admins are. It's 28 hours since I suggested the article was ready. In a time critical environment, ignoring it for that long simply isn't good enough. You want the glory of being an Admin? Do your job!!!! If you can't do it, something really needs to change. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone (like you) mark it ready in the header line so that it would stand out to help the admins identify it? Masem (t) 03:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where? I am but a humble editor, who can never remember all the arcane rules and policies of this place. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A job is something you are paid to do. Admins are volunteers like everybody else here, and if you think youre entitled to somebody's time and attention for free then let me introduce you to a place called Wikipedia. Anyway, given there was one oppose when you proclaimed "ready" and now one support, it doesnt seem readily apparent that there was consensus for the posting. Youd have been better off pinging Fakescientist8000 and asking them to look again then demanding some action taken. And for the record support - looks fine for RD. nableezy - 05:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One rule here that I do remember is that we don't vote. Admins are supposed assess the quality of contributions. And the sequence of comments, including mine, obviously addressed that Oppose. I know we're all volunteers, but Admins are very powerful volunteers who have sought a special status. If they cannot cope with the role, sack 'em! Or change the system. HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: please consider this a formal warning for civility. Carry on with language like that and you will end up with a block. Admins are no more required to give their time to any particular job than you are, or indeed required to give their time at all. The best way to encourage us to do what you want is to ask politely, the worst way is to demand and insult. Thryduulf (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's exactly the kind of behaviour from Admins that has led to my general lack of respect for them. Threatening me won't change my opinion. Acknowledging that I might be just a little bit right would help a lot. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you were a little bit right I would have acknowledged that. You were not. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready. There are multiple citation needed tags and a tag for vague time. I do not have time at the moment to attempt to resolve the tags. Thryduulf (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you not say this three days ago? we are now almost halfway through the period a nomination will sit here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because when I left the comment above was the first time I've seen the article. I don't look at ITN every day, and don't look at every nomination when I do. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • HiLo's little temper tantrum about admins aside, this article still has a few CN tags left in it before it can be put onto the Main Page. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 05:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Todd Haimes

Article: Todd Haimes (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Significant figure in NYC theatre history. A stub at the second but being actively updated so should be long enough if/by time this is approved Star Mississippi 17:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Oppose Article is a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article seems worse than it actually is because it doesn't have sections. It's actually not too bad for holisticity, I think the only thing is some expansion of his later career, which only has a brief mention. Curbon7 (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Curbon7. Trying to find more that isn't just the rehashed obituaries. There's a fair amount in context of Roundabout's 50th. Star Mississippi 13:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Expanded enough to become start-class, and no longer a stub! Well-sourced! Tails Wx 03:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 00:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you @Stephen @Tails Wx. Team work makes it all work. Star Mississippi 01:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Star Mississippi, no problem! And isn't it also "Team work makes the dream work"? ;) Tails Wx 01:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 18

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

  • Netflix ends its DVD rental service after 25 years, citing the reduced demand for physical rentals. (BBC News)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime


(Attention needed) RD: April Stevens

Article: April Stevens (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [24]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Singer in the 1950s and 60s. Needs significant source work. Curbon7 (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@PFHLai, @Muboshgu, @Curbon7, I've since sourced the article. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sadly, discogs is not a reliable source, and one reference is a "bare url". - I'd normally fix it, but have no access to the site. - Can you please provide better references for the recordings than discogs? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced discogs with better sources. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention needed) RD: Charles Stanley

Article: Charles Stanley (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
televangelist. Needs some source work. Curbon7 (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

@Curbon7, @Fakescientist8000, I've sourced up the article. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 22:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Supriyo v. Union of India

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


Article: Supriyo v. Union of India (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Supreme Court of India begins its consideration of landmark cases petitioning for the legalization of same-sex marriage in India. (Post)
News source(s): BBC - TheIndianExpress
Credits:
Nominator's comments: A significant development in a country ruled by a right-wing Hindu nationalist party, an arguably healthy expression of judiciary-state separation. Previously in 2018, the Supreme Court also decriminalized homosexuality in India. OutwardSpiral (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really what ongoing is for, consider nominating when a decision is announced? Courcelles (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OutwardSpiral you have proposed a blurb but also marked it as "Ongoing"; you can't do both as there are no blurbs in the Ongoing section.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated! Thank you for pointing it out -- indeed, the article was nominated as a blurb, and I misinterpreted the ongoing tag. OutwardSpiral (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOAP
I hope you do realise that Narendra Modi never once said anything unfavourable against homosexuals while Manmohan Singh, the so-called progressive left wing prime minister called it contrary to India's values. When Shashi Tharoor proposed to legalise same sex marriage, his own party didn't support him in the lok sabha while the head of the RSS publicly called for the respect of sexual minorities with hindu based arguments Varoon2542 (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but A blurb on the verdict (if in favour of same-sex marriage) would be more sensible. DogeChungus (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose trials don't typically go in ongoing, if that's the objective here. Neutral on a blurb of the verdict. The Kip (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the Supreme Court indeed legalizes same-sex marriage in India, this should be posted. It would be historic and notable from multiple angles. It would be the largest country to have same-sex marriage. It would literally double the number of people on earth in a same-sex marriage country b/c of India’s large population. It would also be notable as a post-colonial non-Western country legalizing. With this said, I’m not sure if this should be in ongoing; granted the trial is two weeks long if I remember correctly, which may be an argument for doing so. -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, if it results in legalization I think there's a solid argument for a blurb, for the reasons listed. I just personally don't think it should be in ongoing, nor blurbed until a verdict is reached. The Kip (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merely 'begins consideration'. If the court makes a landmark ruling, we can consider it then. Simply starting their work is not significant enough to post. Modest Genius talk 11:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nothing finalized, neither definitive nor firm. Not noticeable yet. What is clear is that it's a case that indeed has an important impact on society, more than any other in which one has to pay millions to others for defamations. Let's discuss this when we have a firm sentence. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Dominion v. Fox

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


Article: Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Dominion Voting Systems agrees to a $787 million settlement in their lawsuit against Fox News over defamation claims from the 2020 United States presidential election. (Post)
News source(s): CNBC
Credits:
 Masem (t) 20:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Significant settlement in a highly watched case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Considering this is one of the biggest impacts from Trump's attempts to steal the 2020 election, this would make sense for the notability guidelines. No issues on quality, either. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per above, Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. The Kip (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don’t see any notable consequences from this. Neither is Dominion Voting Systems a global brand so that its defamation can be considered a big deal, nor is Fox News banned from broadcasting as a result, nor does this ruling prevent Trump from running for president. This would’ve been a scandal had Trump been an incumbent president, but it’s just a minor fallout with a long delay.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is easily one of the largest settlements for a defamation suit in legal history. Dominion is not a global brand, but Fox is. This is being widely described as a de-facto admission of guilt on the part of Fox. It may have a significant impact on the networks reputation and may also be a harbinger for the remaining legal cases Fox is facing. Trump was not a party to the case, so it's impact, or lack thereof on him is irrelevant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, Fox isn’t banned from broadcasting as a result. However this will affect its reputation is too early to say, and it’d be challenging to measure it in foreseeable future (probably by number of viewers). I tried to compare this to Volkswagen emissions scandal, but it appears to be a minor thing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, a discussion to revisit its reliability at
    WP:RSPSS will also take place.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support I added a single cn tag and I'd like to see some expansion of the section on the settlement. But the article is good enough to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - quality and significance both good enough. nableezy - 22:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is not a particularly serious crime (worse is an electoral crime or a call to uprising), nor has it had an important international follow-up, nor is it going to change anything. Fights between two big companies. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This was an electoral "crime", Fox lied about Dominion's voting machines to influence the election and sow doubt about the results. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not a criminal case but a civil one, but I question how one thinks that three quarters of a billion dollars is somehow not "serious". nableezy - 22:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - quality check, significance check, this is quite historic that one of the major news channels in America admits lying about news concerning the US election. And then also paying out a major sum of money for it.BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is in good quality, {{citation needed}} tag resolved! Tails Wx 23:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — The traditionally hesitant ITN is eager to support a settlement in a meaningless case. In the United States, this will receive a few days attention at most. ITN has very rarely, if ever, covered a lawsuit between two companies. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Quality article (although could use a little more information regarding the settlement), historically significant settlement amount. SpencerT•C 00:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Ultimately, most cases are settled out of court. Sure this one is notable, but what are the impacts of such a settlement? DarkSide830 (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ElijahPepe, and the fact that this is a side-story in the general election. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ElijahPepe. DecafPotato (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Big news in Australia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about the world? Murdoch's circle of lies spans three countries, but not much more. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no requirements for posting a blurb in ITN that the news it covers relates to "the world". --Jayron32 12:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. The Dadeville shooting, the Supreme Court case on the Sabbath, and the shooting of Ralph Yarl are all notable because they were top headlines in the U.S. Conversely, local news in Tanzania or Cambodia is also notable because it's in the news there.elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally no one, in this discussion, argued for any of that. In this current conversation, you were the only person to mention any of that. Also, zero of those stories are posted in ITN right now. If you're going to invent things that no one said or did, and then object to that, well, that's just silly. You need to focus on the words that are being said, and talk with people about what they are saying, not invent things never said, and then pretend like that's a reasonable objection. --Jayron32 17:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how you're getting from point A to B. I'm saying that the logic that something somewhere in the world is notable is unreasonable, and it applies the same here. ITN implicitly has that in order to prevent it from getting stories that have zero impact. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - quality is fine for posting to ITN. Passes
WP:NEVENTS. To @ElijahPepe, I would like to ask, especially with how fluid consensus on ITN can be, I would like to state that just because we haven't posted these types of stories before doesn't mean that we should never. Consensus (again, especially on ITN) can change. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Vladimir Kara-Murza

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


Article: Vladimir Kara-Murza (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Russian opposition politician Vladimir Kara-Murza is convicted in a Moscow court on charges of treason and violating Russia's war censorship laws, and sentenced to 25 years in prison. (Post)
News source(s): (AP)
Credits:
 СтасС (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Somewhat covered by ongoing, and otherwise, not sure if notable enough for blurbing; I don't remember if we blurbed Navalny's arrest. The Kip (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose covered by ongoing. --Masem (t) 20:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. Already covered by ongoing, and will continue to be covered by ongoing until it is removed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per above - Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This case has had much greater international coverage than the one above. But it is covered in ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this is covered by the ongoing item. However, if notable related events continue to happen (e.g. arrests, information leaks, changes in economic sanctions etc.) while the invasion is in a slow mode, with the Battle of Bakhmut being the main military engagement, there are growing arguments that the ongoing item should be removed so that space for new blurbs is freed (anyway, we won’t keep it in ongoing for good).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Attention needed) RD: Chris Smith

Article: Chris Smith (defensive end) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: NFL/XFL DE, died this morning. 31. The Kip (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - @Curbon7, @Fakescientist8000, @The Kip; I've fixed the sourcing issues. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 21:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Albert del Rosario

Article: Albert del Rosario (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Closed) Beijing hospital fire

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


Article: 2023 Beijing hospital fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Twenty-nine people are killed during a fire at a hospital in Beijing, China. (Post)
News source(s): Xinhua (Al Jazeera)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Good day. Need update news. СтасС (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopening now that an article has emerged. Oppose on quality, as it's a stub. The Kip (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the creator of the article, I'm currently in the process of expanding it, and will vote once I am done doing so! Tails Wx 16:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, an article creator voting on their own work. I wonder how that'll go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, instead of needless sarcasm, we should praise article writers for their hard work, and for their transparency when commenting on an ITN nomination of said work. -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done long ago: curprev 16:36, 18 April 2023‎ Tails Wx talk contribs‎ 111 bytes +111‎ Start thanked Tag: Visual edit--СтасС (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that writing articles is bad, nor is being transparent about writing those articles. What I do have an issue with is with the article creator voting on his/her/their own article on ITN/C, because voting is more for third parties to look at its notability/quality/"does this belong on ITN" from a neutral POV, and I don't think that the article creator (and I'm not trying to single anybody out! This goes for anyone) would ever 'Oppose' their own work. Just my 2 cents on it. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't remember the exact nom, but there was one within the last week or so in which the article creator voted against posting. The Kip (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Kicking that we should be applauding people who create articles and then bringing them forward for an ITN nomination. Cheers to you too! --WaltClipper -(talk) 18:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that is, where am I in the credits section? ;) Tails Wx 18:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--СтасС (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Tails Wx 19:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per above, Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • When do you put in our template this news?--СтасС (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pending expansion. The article has two small paragraphs, and not much else. Is this really all the information we have? --Jayron32 16:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Article is still marked as a stub. Vida0007 (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Ralph Yarl shooting

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


Article: 
African American boy, is shot for accidentally ringing the doorbell to the wrong house while picking up his siblings, leading to protests and charges. (Post)
News source(s): NYT - NPR - NBC - CNN - - CBS - BBC - ABC - Axios - AP - MSNBC - Rolling Stone - Time - Vox - The Independent - USA Today - PBS - NYP - Huff Post - ABC (Australia) - South China Morning Post

Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is a crazy story; a boy was shot and wounded allegedly just for knocking on the wrong door while picking up his younger siblings. It's led to plenty of protests, $1.5 million USD being raised, and charges. Has widespread, sustained
WP:NEVENTS. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 17

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

  • Recycling in Australia
    • Further sites of illicit soft plastic storage are found in Sydney after the collapse of commercial plastic recycler REDcycle. After taking $20 million from Coles and Woolworths to recycle soft plastics at 2,000 locations, the company instead stored 12,000 tonnes of plastics at more than 44 locations across Australia. (9 News) (The Guardian)
  • The provincial health ministry of
    Santa Fe, Argentina, asks the public to "not underestimate" the current situation of dengue fever after the province surpasses 10,000 cases and reports its third death from the disease amid a national outbreak. (La Capital) (Infobae)

International relations

Law and crime

Sports


(Posted) RD: Paul Hinrichs

]

(Attention needed) RD: April Stevens

Article: April Stevens (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [25]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Singer in the 1950s and 60s. Needs significant source work. Curbon7 (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@PFHLai, @Muboshgu, @Curbon7, I've since sourced the article. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sadly, discogs is not a reliable source, and one reference is a "bare url". - I'd normally fix it, but have no access to the site. - Can you please provide better references for the recordings than discogs? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced discogs with better sources. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks good! We've got 27 minutes for this to be posted to the main page, so, uh... Tails Wx 23:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Oleh Barna

Article: Oleh Barna (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Unian.net
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former Ukrainian MP KIA. Curbon7 (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Closed) Syria truffle hunter attack

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


Article: 
killed by the Islamic State in the deserts near Hama. (Post)
News source(s): WaPo - VOA - The National

Credits:
Nominator's comments: A high casualty event with an unusual twist: 36 truffle hunters were killed by ISIL, as well as five shepherds in another part of Syria. The article is in need of serious expansion, however. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now for multiple issues, sadly. 1, the article's a stub and needs expansion, and 2, there's a tag, though it can be fixed! Tails Wx 21:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on significance (and the EUAA link doesnt say anything about this). nableezy - 22:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on significance/notability, article quality, and the fact that that the article is tagged. Sure, the article can be fixed, but it's gonna take a lot of effort and sources to do so. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, Editor 5426387 (Talk) 01:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, article's a stub. The Kip (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Could be convinced that this is notable if there's a government response. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list of ongoing armed conflicts. Syria is categorised as a war but not a major one.
  • Ongoing Note that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights maintains a "daily death toll" for incidents like this and they list several incidents every day. Some parts of the world like Syria and Sudan have endemic conflict and violence and so it goes. See the map for the hotspots which typically last for years. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose But maybe find hook for DYK around the truffs? For me it was interesting to learn that in Syria it also has truffs.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Article needs work. Alex-h (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose seemingly a common event in that part of the world, as noted in that article's bg section and above. --Masem (t) 20:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality; article has little information about the event itself; it is mostly background information currently. Would need some expansion to be main-page ready. --Jayron32 12:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to article quality, although the attack is important enough to be posted. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) SpaceX Starship

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.



Proposed image
Articles: 
maiden flight.
News source(s): CNN, Reuters, BBC

Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Launch in around 2-3 hours since nomination (12:00-13:00 GMT), so add the nomination here as a prep. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely support, but add to the blurb that it's the largest rocket created up to date. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is
WP:ITN/R. Article is of sufficient quality to be posted (though there is one CN tag in the Mission profile section). - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 12:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Not anymore btw... it was removed from ITN/R. NoahTalk 12:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both largest and most powerful rocket built ever. NoahTalk 12:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Assuming the launch isn't delayed or scrubbed. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close - Launch scrubbed. --WaltClipper -(talk) 13:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Faith Thomas

Article: Faith Thomas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPNcricinfo The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First Aboriginal woman to play for the Australian cricket team.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 05:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant

Proposed image
Article: Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Finland, Unit 3 of the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant (pictured), Europe's largest nuclear reactor, begins regular operation after eighteen years of delayed construction. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters - VOA - AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This factory has a fairly intriguing backstory that I'm sure will dazzle many of our readers: it was scheduled to be completed 14 years ago, but then suffered several delays and became widely scrutinized. Its opening is also interesting as it comes amongst an ongoing debate about nuclear energy in Europe, especially as Germany just closed down all theirs and Russia shut off energy supply to Finland in May. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 03:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Major national event involving a notable facility in Finland receiving international coverage. Article is sufficient for the main page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this is like on page 12 below the fold of even European papers. nableezy - 04:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive. - ITN criteria. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 04:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I do that? nableezy - 04:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You just insinuated that it shouldn't be posted since even most Europeans would care. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 05:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, thats not what I did. If you dont understand my comment maybe dont badger me about it? nableezy - 19:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's... not really what they did.
    They're using the example of most Europeans not caring about an event in Europe to illustrate the idea that this isn't particularly significant. That criteria would be moreso if they insinuated it shouldn't be posted because it's only about Finland. The Kip (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of Germany shutting down their last nuclear power plants this weekend this is interesting. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting =/= notable. The Kip (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, right. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One of ITN's stated purposes is to point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. Interesting might not be equal to notable, but interesting should nonetheless play a major role in determining which articles to post. Despite your oppose rationale of "more suited to DYK" (which is inapplicable DYK only applies to a new article or a five-fold expansion of an existing article), this is actually making news and we should be serving Wikipedia's readers by providing information from a well-written article, not withholding it on account of a draconian standard of significance established by a handful of users. --WaltClipper -(talk) 13:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With the clarification that this is not Europe's largest nuclear plant but rather an expansion of the existing power plant with what is now the largest single reactor in Europe, I see even less significance here. Beyond that, its not on the front page of the just the world section of WSJ, NYT, Washington Post, Times of London, Le Monde. Hell, it isnt even the top Finland story in Le Monde's international section, that would be this story on Finland erecting a barrier with Russia. Seems like there is consensus to post, but I dont really get why, this is barely news. nableezy - 22:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nice to see there's at least one country in the world that knows the right way to generate energy. Still, "largest in Europe" isn't ITN material. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"largest in Europe" isn't ITN material That about sums up
WP:ITN's bewildering idiosyncrasies in a nutshell. --WaltClipper -(talk) 12:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
TIL what 'idiosyncrasies' means. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what is an idiosyncrasy here. I think it's darn clear by now that I have a high bar when it comes to ITN. In fact, I could probably be swayed to at least strike my vote here. However, I'm not seeing that bar met at the moment. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've created your own standard that's not based in any policy or guideline. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As compared to the rigid standards that accompany most other nominations? The standard is "significance". The significance billing here is "largest in Europe", which is an arbitrary distinction. It is the same reason I opposed the self-driving cars nom, which I would have supported if it were a "world first", such as was the case with the Ghana and the malaria vaccine. Don't get me wrong, I find this quite interesting, but a lot of the other arguments regarding the merits of posting seem a little sensationalist. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
significance of which nowhere in ITN is a clearly defined variable for it is defined. Under these rules, sure, you maybe able to have exceptionally high standards for ITN, but @WaltCip for example has a low bar for ITN stories (this is why I think the significance criterion should be deprecated or majorly reformed). - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 17:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And why am I being called out for this? I said my bar was higher, and I acknowledge that others may not have said bar. It's that simple. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
Wikipedia talk:ITN/C, please, and don't take it out on DarkSide. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

April 16

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Admin decision needed) The Phantom of the Opera

Proposed image
Article: The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Phantom of the Opera, (Majestic Theater pictured) the longest-running Broadway show, closes after 35 years and 13,981 performances. (Post)
News source(s): AP, NPR, BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Major theater news with articles popping up around the world about this milestone. While not an award like the Tony's (which is listed on recurring items), It is a rare occurrence and treated very much like an award. Art, and particularly theater, are not highlighted often on ITN, but this occurrence is arguably the most notable event in theater in decades. The last time a longest running show closed was Cats in 2000, and It will take about 10 years for Chicago to break this record if the show lasts that long. Found5dollar (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This probably is more suited for DYK. 167.91.2.226 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to see how it would be eligible, unless it becomes a GA very quickly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - I was actually just about to nominate this myself. Per my "subject article = newsworthy" clause, I think it should be posted. This is a major drama-related news (I know a lot of y'all like that) that had already been receiving sustained, international,
CN}} tags. On a similar note, I would also support including the Majestic theater as a bolded article, as it would be a great way to feature a GA on the main page. By the way, for the folks that always oppose ITN noms with "this is more suited to DYK," are y'all actually aware of the criteria for posting to DYK? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 16:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The date and final cast were set some time ago. The only updates I see in the last week are a performance-by-performance log of the actor performing the phantom. So it's already undue, and I can't imagine what else there is to say. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not really ITNR-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean ITN? Because this wasn't nominated for
    WP:ITN/R. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 18:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Yes. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Trivial trivia is
    WP:DYK's cup of tea, not ours. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Should clarify its the longest ever running show, as the blurb could be read as longest running at the time of its last performance. But oppose on significance. nableezy - 22:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admittedly I'm very uninformed about opera, but what's stopping them from just performing again in 1-2 years? We've had issues in ITN in the past where "best of their generation" athletes announced their retirements, only to come out of retirement. YD407OTZ (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a revival production which isn't counted as adding to the original production run, so the numbering would restart. So a 2025 revival would break the run record in 2061. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if article sourced. Huge milestone in English-language musical theatre and impossible to surpass for at least a decade and likely even longer. However, the article has several sourcing deficiencies at the moment. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm always a bit unconvinced with the ending of theatre runs, as a new Phantom of the Opera will surely go in production in a few years. That being said, this is indeed a record. If the article is updated sufficiently and well-cited, I'd enjoy seeing it on ITN. I think this is a great subject for us to feature, a fine moment to celebrate the longevity of this play. Right now, I feel like the article isn't quite there yet. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Professional theater almost never makes it to ITN; the Tony Awards are ITN/R but no one ever bothers to nominate them nor bring them up to quality. This is an opportunity to post a story in an area that has almost zero representation. --WaltClipper -(talk) 13:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can wait to see your nomination this June. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll put it on my radar. --WaltClipper -(talk) 14:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The end of an era as they say. NoahTalk 14:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The show started in London years ahead of Broadway. It's still running there but there's talk of it ending later this year and, if that happens, there would be an encore as the primary and longest run is the one that matters most. Note also that we had this nominated last September. It's effectively like sports retirements as you can expect that there will be yet more productions and revivals in due course. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Unabashed Phantom fan here, I think it can barely meet notability requirements but not by much. Fine if it doesn't get posted, although we do have very little theatre coverage and some change might be nice. The Kip (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Yeah, tricky one. Whilst "Longest Broadway Show" is a thing, as Andrew says, it's been running since 1986 in London (apart from a Covid break) with over twice as many performances than the Boradway version. However, even that is not going to break any West End show records either because of The Mousetrap, and at least two other West End shows have more performances than the target article. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mostly per Andrew. This is like sports retirements. As people sometimes go out of retirement, it’s not unlikely that the musical will be staged again.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril Simeonovski: Once a Broadway production closes, it's done for good and it won't have another "run". There are revival performances but they usually happen in single years and not for prolonged periods of time. --WaltClipper -(talk) 12:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when an “original run” ends, any future revival won’t be “original” any more. However, Broadway theatre doesn’t really indicate that revivals are rare and short-lived (Chicago is a proof for that). So, if the musical with the second-longest original run in history had a long revival, it’s normal to expect the one with the longest run to get it as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for asking, but what exactly is the problem with posting pop culture on ITN? --WaltClipper -(talk) 14:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support important, well-known record; per ITN guidelines, a story in the news deemed significant by ITN users. One orange tag, but otherwise article appears in reasonable condition. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Top theatre news along with a record for a classic, good to cover news beyond the usual drab. Should post this before it becomes stale. Gotitbro (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Interesting record, but more trivia than anything else. And we will assuredly see performances of this musical in the future, "revivals" or not. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ahmad Jamal

Article: Ahmad Jamal (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, Pitchfork
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: "Awards and honors", "Compilations" need sourcing. Discography needs assessment. Mooonswimmer 00:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Closed) Saikazaki bombing

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.


Nominator's comments: The attempted assassination of Japanese PM Fumio Kishida. It has widespread
WP:NEVENTS. I'm surprised that this hasn't been nominated yet. By the way, for the people who will oppose because he didn't die, bear in mind that we posted the stabbing of Salman Rushdie in August. I don't know about you, but the Prime Minister of Japan is more important than some author that most folks my age don't know (especially considering what happened to Abe in July). Unfortunately, the subject article looks like the lungs of a chain smoker. It needs some serious rehab before posting. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe that would go against precedent though. If ITN was only going to accept “crazy” style assassination attempts, then what would be classified crazy? A drone strike isn’t “crazy” enough to be a significant assassination attempt, so why would a pipe bomb?
talk) 04:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no "precedent" at ITN. The closest thing to that is ITNR, which is not precedent but the result of consensus from rigorous discussion. Every non-ITNR candidate is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Curbon7 (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems counter-productive though. ITN for attempted assassination of the Iraqi Prime Minister had four comments (only) and all directly about failed assassination attempts not being posted on ITN before it was SNOW closed. If precedent doesn’t matter, then that discussion (as well as the linked above discussion for former Brazil president attempted assassination ITN) mean nothing and are basically defunct. Obviously neither would be posted since they aren’t news anymore, but precedent basically closed them, so saying ITN doesn’t have precedent is false. Maybe an RfC discussion for ITNR might be best for this type of situation since there are two previous attempted assassinations that were not posted to ITN (one directly closed on grounds that it failed).
talk) 20:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Dadeville shooting

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.


Proposed image
The site of the shooting, pictured before its renovation from a bank.
Article: 
mass shooting at a 16th birthday celebration in a Dadeville, Alabama, Alabama dance studio (pictured) (Post)
News source(s): NYT - AP - USA Today - CNN - NPR

Credits:
Nominator's comments: Twenty casualties, including a beloved high school athlete. All I'm going to say is that it passed
WP:NEVENTS, it's notable enough to have its own article, and it's literally in the news. The article does need some quality-related fixes, however. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) 2023 Dubai apartment fire

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


Article: 2023 Dubai apartment fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: An apartment fire kills 16 and injures 9 in Al-Ras, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, Gulf News, ABC News
Credits:
 Ainty Painty (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending improvements - there's very little actual information on the fire. Also, the response section needs greater clarity and sourcing, and the aftermath section should paradoxically probably be integrated into the background section, since all info contained in there are about prior events. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 20:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually in the process of rewriting and expanding the aftermath section. I will move it up to the background section shortly. Kurtis (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on
notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support after improvement, if this can make it past the Council of No. Fires in the UAE are not typical, and this is the latest of four such articles in that category.--WaltClipper -(talk) 12:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, fires in the UAE are actually quite common. Check out this
list of fires involving high-rise building façades and pay particularly close attention to their prevalence in Emirati cities like Dubai or Sharjah. Kurtis (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Atique Ahmed

Article: 
Atique Ahmed and his brother was shot dead live on TV in Prayagraj, India. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Guardian

Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

 Ainty Painty (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Comment - given the circumstances of his death, I think this should maybe be blurbed (especially considering this is receiving international coverage). - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 00:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality per Black Kite. Oppose blurb on notability, it's an interesting story but he wasn't the sort of figure that would merit a blurb. The Kip (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD Oppose until quality issues are fixed per Black Kite and The Kip, though Strong Oppose any sort of blurb for both the previously noted quality issues and notability issues. I only learned of this man through his death, which kind of slices any blurb argument in half, imo. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've read the requirements for a death blurb backwards. They say, and I quote, "
    if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb. An assassination is generally considered the kind of death that merits additional commentary as being notable on its own, as opposed to dying from natural causes. --Jayron32 12:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - Before voting on whether or not to blurb, please take heed of Jayron32's comment above, copied from ITNRD; assassinations and public shootings, particularly those of public figures, almost certainly rise to the standard of being a blurbworthy event. --WaltClipper -(talk) 12:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb He was really a strictly local politician, turned into a strictly local gangster. And in the world of criminality death is not something exceptional. Lack of general notiblity. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Local politician from one part of the country. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is already strong consensus against blurbing. Focus on the RD criteria instead. Curbon7 (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, article quality has sufficiently expanded since. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 06:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports


(Posted) RD: Irma Blank

Article: Irma Blank (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): artnews.com, also one in Italian
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Unusual German-Italian artist, new article, derived from the German. There's much more detail in the sources if someone has time and interest. Not my topic but we share the place of birth ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

RD: Mufti Abdul Shakoor

Article: 
talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DAWN, Geo

Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

 Ainty Painty (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Corach Rambler wins Grand National

Article: 2023 Grand National (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In horse racing, following a delay to proceedings following protests, Corach Rambler (jockeyed by Derek Fox) wins the Grand National. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 XxLuckyCxX (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Conditional Support - unfortunately, the article, as with many ITN/R competitions mostly consists of a table wall (plus some background). There's nothing about the actual race itself aside from the lead. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 17:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Sudan clashes

Article: 
Clashes erupt after fighters from the Rapid Support Forces attacked several army camps in Sudan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Credits:
  • support rsf have at least one airport under control, possibly the capital. Rsf is more popular against the junta.49.205.151.137 (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • extreme support - it is probably even more than a coup attempt at this point Braganza (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article is sufficiently referenced and the even is important inasmuch as this looks like a civil war/coup attempt. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 13:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support though recommend trying to improve the reading flow on the events, and nixxing the flags in the reactions section. --Masem (t) 13:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Sourced. Length is ok.BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme wait seems to be an ongoing situation. We have to wait and see how it turns out, and if it is a simple confrontations or something worse (like a possible failed or successful coup d'état). _-_Alsor (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - even if the coup fails, its still pretty notable. Also, the article is in surprisingly good shape for such a recent article (though as @Masem pointed out, the events section probably needs to be modified for greater readability.
- Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per Alsor. Situation is still developing. I think waiting to assess the situation would be prudent. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait seems more appropriate. There is a pending move discussion ongoing as well. - Indefensible (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It happened. It's notable. The article is ready. If it ends up becoming something more than a single confrontation, then we can move it to ongoing after it falls off ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait The blurb is not really descriptive. Both sides seem to claim a lot according to BBC, so I'd prefer to wait to be able to have a more descriptive blurb.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support important event with the article in pretty good shape for an ongoing conflict. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support even if it failed an attempted coup would still be significant. Flyingfishee (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
War in Sudan – ongoing since 2008
  • Oppose Confused and competing claims so it's not reliable. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get you. Is the article not reliable or what? There is a full on war right now. Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Information is still coming in and much of it disputed. We know there is conflict, but many of the details are still murky. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would ongoing fit better then, in your opinion? DecafPotato (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the bold linked article now that this has been posted, the first thing I read is that this is "Part of the Sudanese transition to democracy". That's such obvious BS that one doesn't need go any further. Essentially, mayhem in Sudan is like shootings in the US and we already have it listed as a war in the list of ongoing armed conflicts. That entry has about 400,000 deaths since 2008 and so these latest skirmishes are just a drop in the ocean. They just seem to be attracting attention because they are happening in the capital. No doubt someone will claim that this "democracy" has resulted in an "election" and we'll be forced to run that too. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow I'm not remotely surprised that you can't see how this represents a significant uptick in the conflict. The Kip (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The situation has escalated and clashes have spread throughout the country [26]. No reason to wait with posting at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support considerable escalation in the last 24h; article is acceptable enough and can only improve w additional exposure Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on significance. Article looks decent, but I have not examined it in great detail. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support due to significance and likelihood to stay in the news. -- Mebigrouxboy (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm not sure what's murky about this - military units attacking the government with fighter jets is absolutely ITN. Nfitz (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - notable enough, has extensive media cover with information becoming more reliable by the hour. The article is well written and sources
FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
2023 Sudan clashes, could you (or anyone else) fix the link? Thanks, ansh.666 21:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Done - it's been moved again since this comment, to
2023 Sudanese clashes, so that's the current link target. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

(Closed) Ford launches hands-free driving on UK motorways

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


Article: Self-driving car (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Kingdom's Department for Transport approves Ford Motor Company's on 2,300 miles (3,700 km) of motorways in England, Scotland and Wales. The UK becomes the first European country to approve hands-free driving technology on public roads. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC News)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Good day. New technology--СтасС (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Like the malaria vaccine below, approval of an established technology by one country (and here, specifically only on some parts of that country) is not really an ITN featured item. --Masem (t) 15:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Blurb lacks car.
    RAN1 (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I mean,
    RAN1 (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose fairly trivial. The Kip (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work It's in the news but the target article hasn't been updated. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - not a very riveting story, but its in the news. Target article has not been updated however.
- Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 23:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not really relevant. There are many issues that are "in the news", but we cannot include all "In the news" per se. Good faith nomination, of course _-_Alsor (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Either we start adding more items to ITN or we stagnate. --WaltClipper -(talk) 13:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    but not with the first news that comes before our eyes. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "First European country" is an arbitrary distinction and not ITN worthy. Additionally, the page itself does not appear to mention this new legislation. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Trivial trivia. Curbon7 (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not ITN worthy. --RockstoneSend me a message! 08:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't see any noteworthy advancement in self-driving technology here. This is just approving another safety system Ford has implemented that makes sure the driver's eyes are on the road, in contrast to the traditional method of checking if the driver is attentative by keeping their hands on the wheel. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Ghana becomes first country to approve Oxford malaria vaccine R21/Matrix-M

Article: Malaria vaccine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Ghana becomes the first country to approve the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ R21/Matrix-M, a proven-effective malaria vaccine, is first approved for use by regulators in Ghana.
News source(s): (Pharmaceutical Technology), AP, The Guardian, BBC
Credits:
  • Oppose One nation approving a vaccine is not really ITN worthy. --Masem (t) 13:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am going to change my !vote on this, though I have added an altblurb that is towards my reasoning. That is, when I look back at the news about this, I don't see a really good point where the vaccine clearly became *the* candidate for use; it was shown to meet WHO's requirement in 2021, and had successful human testing in 2022, but never a point that marked it as ready to be used to the public. Its clear from other articles that Ghana must have seen the last phase 3 tests (yet to be publicly published) and opted to go with it; WHO is also looking into it but how soon that is, is not clear. So this seems like a key point. We're clearly not going to post when other countries approve it for use (though maybe consider the WHO's approval). --Masem (t) 14:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • One could argue that a malaria vaccine in itself is newsworthy. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      the vaccine yes (although Masem has not questioned this), its approval by a specific country no. It is purely a bureaucratic formality. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I ain't questionin' that anybody was questionin' anything, just pointin' out. Cheers, --Ouro (blah blah) 17:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mid Support - sure you can dismiss this as "just one nation," but I don't think folks in the first-world are aware of how crippling malaria is in the tropics. We're talking about what is the sixth most fatal cause of death in most low-income countries, a scourge that exterminates half a million people annually, many of whom (80%) are children, one that devastates these countries financially. This vaccine developed by Oxford is the most efficient malaria vaccine to be developed, primarily in that is able to combat the disease well before its destructive symptoms raise their ugly heads. Even if it's just "one country," this is still likely the start of a major medical miracle. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The development of the vaccine would have been the ITN item, not approval by one country, on that same reasoning - its what the vaccine means to the part of the world suffering from malaria. Masem (t) 15:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it has to start somewhere. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "has to start somewhere" was the successful creation and human trials of the vaccine. Masem (t) 23:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No question there. But if nobody chose to actually use the vaccine then we would have probably never known much about it. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close. If Ghana is Malaria free, we can talk about it, but that doesn't seem possible with this vaccine according to the articleParadise Chronicle (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. The Kip (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if the article's improved per Knightoftheswords. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work The topic is more significant than most of the stuff posted at ITN but the target article is quite broad and has some issues including orange cleanup tags. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support an effective malaria vaccine has been a major international goal for a long time and it's great to see progress on it. Also the vaccine being approved for use is probably the most significant stage of it's development so it's not like there will be a better time than now. Flyingfishee (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Either we start adding more items to ITN or we stagnate. Pluswhich, a working malaria vaccine should be major medical news. What more is it going to take? --WaltClipper -(talk) 13:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support per Masem. In fact, I felt quite compelled to oppose per their original comment as well, but have also felt swayed by the amendment. This vaccine is quite significant, so I think it deserves a little extra ITN recognition at checkpoints that we would not post for other vaccines. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A malaria vaccine with 77% efficacy (WHO goal was 75%) being approved for use by a national regulator for the first time is absolutely significant for posting. Curbon7 (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 20:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 14

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Science and technology


RD: Mark Sheehan

Article: Mark Sheehan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sky News, The Independent
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Irish musician, singer, composer and producer, and member of The Script. Could be a long shot as the article is painfully short but I will still try since it has no sourcing issues (although it only has six references). Vida0007 (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

[Posted] RD: Ed Koren

Article: Ed Koren (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American cartoonist. Regularly featured in The New Yorker magazine. Thriley (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Oppose. Woefully unsourced. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ve cited the body of the article. The books just have to be cited now. Thriley (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have finished up the sourcing of the books, so this article should be good to go. Marking as ready. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Article lead states that his work included "children's books and political cartoons" but this is not described further in the article body. What types of political cartoons or views did Koren espouse? SpencerT•C 17:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spencer I've clarified this further in the article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still think the depth could use work (no mention of children's books in the body of the article, which is also mentioned in the lede). Strike weak oppose but don't think this is quite ready for posting. SpencerT•C 03:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Koren is known as a cartoonist first and foremost. I don’t think minor work he did should hold up this nomination. He literally made tens of thousands of illustrations in his lifetime. Thriley (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spencer It appears that the children's books part of the lead has been removed, so I don't think that there needs to be a whole lot in there, but I can try. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Elisabeth Kopp

Article: Elisabeth Kopp (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SRF St.Galler Tagblatt Handelsblatt
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First Female Federal Councilor of Switzerland. The Federal Council is the Government of Switzerland. She died on the 7 April 2023 but her death was only made known on the 14 April 2023. Nominated the article before, but as 7 April was archived and only two have made comments I renominate. Sources use to mention she died on Good Friday (Karfreitag) instead of 7 April. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Posted) JUICE mission launch

Article: Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The European Space Agency launches the Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The European Space Agency launches the Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer, which will study potential bodies of water on three Galilean moons.
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65273857
Credits:

Nominator's comments: New major mission to Jupiter's moons, launched successfully this morning. Article needs some cleaning and sourcing Kenmelken (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, important mission with a mediocre article. Artem.G (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a fan of space-related things, major research mission to an interesting region of the Solar System that launched in the early afternoon (CEST) :) --Ouro (blah blah) 17:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - ITN/R. Article is of decent quality. Space is indeed fucking juicy. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 17:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under which qualification is this ITN/R? GreatCaesarsGhost 17:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch. I had to go back and read and stand corrected. For missions like this, they are ITN/R when they arrive, not launch, apparently. That said, it won't arrive at Jupiter for 8 years, and won't attain orbit at Ganymede until 3 after that, so I think it is also okay to post the launch as a regular nomination. I've fixed the nomination. Thanks for pointing that out! Kenmelken (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is decent. --Jayron32 18:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Notability and quality is here. I will say though, it would be nice if the blurb noted the goal/significance of the mission though. No ideas come to mind at the moment, but just my two cents. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks decent enough for posting now.BabbaQ (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and I'd also support a slightly-expanded blurb. The article is in good shape, and it's a particularly notable launch. Plus, I can't wait to see what JUICE has to say in 15753 years. -- Kicking222 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Sandstein 22:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work The history section is orange-tagged and talks about the probe's construction being in the future. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2023 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan

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.


Nominator's comments: Good day. Noise events. This is news has like in fr-wiki and in zh-wiki (Chinese wiki).-СтасС (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fellas, it's In The News. This is tensions rising in a geopolitical hotspot. @Knightoftheswords281 makes good points, this should be posted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support (edit: pending article expansion since at this stage, its mostly just background) - I was actually considering making an article about this. Appears to pass

WP:NEVENTS with wide-spread news coverage. In other words, it has its own article, so it should be good (edit, adding blurb). - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 11:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose per DecafPotato Hungry403 (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - routine escalation - we are likely still years away from the Chinese invasion. Nfitz (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 13

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Thubten Zopa Rinpoche

Article: Thubten Zopa Rinpoche (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [27]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Tibetan Buddhist monk. Looks good. Curbon7 (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

RD: Judith Miller (antiques expert)

Article: Judith Miller (antiques expert) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

 Thriley (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Closed) RD/Blurb: Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah

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


Article: 
Prime Minister of Kuwait Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah died at the age of 81. (Post)
News source(s): APP, Al Arabiya, Wam

Credits:
 Ainty Painty (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article has not been properly updated (still in present tense, no mention of death). Furthermore, even if that were done, there's several cn tags that need resolving. It's also fantastically incomplete. For someone who served as a major political leader of his country, there are entire years of his premiership with no coverage at all. The article needs a LOT of work to be main-page ready. --Jayron32 15:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose blurb Article would barely be acceptable for RD at the current state. Way too short, not notable, and horrible quality for a blurb mention. Weak weak support RD. Cheers. WimePocy 17:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "
    In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb. --Jayron32 17:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose RD on quality, blurb on notability Article's in a dreadful state and in my opinion he doesn't meet the notability bar for a blurb anyways. The Kip (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The monarch still retains significant power in Kuwait, to blurb a PM we would need to show an outsized impact of the position here. Gotitbro (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb - think its good enough for RD already though. But yes, the PM in Kuwait is not in charge of much, so this wouldnt come close to blurb-worthy on the "this person is very important" scale, even if that were the scale we consistently used. nableezy - 20:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Article is well-sourced. -- Fahads1982Talk - 22:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb The PM of Kuwait is a figure with little real executive power, so I don't think he is ITNR-worthy. The current content seems totally sourced, but holding office for eight years I think is insufficient. It needs to be expanded. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mishary94 states that the former prime minister's son, Mubarak Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah, died, not the prime minister. I've opened a discussion on their talk page for clarification, but in the meantime, I'm not quite sure if Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah or his son died. Tails Wx 01:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Mary Quant

Article: Mary Quant (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
Swinging London, popularized the miniskirt and hot pants as well, and even briefly got into making dolls (Mentioned in articles See also). Article May need some work, however. TheCorriynial (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

(Posted) RD: Rabey Hasani Nadwi

Article: Rabey Hasani Nadwi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Baserat ,The Times of India
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see

Nominator's comments: -- Indian Islamic scholar -- Fahads1982 (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This needs a lot of work. ─
(talk) 12:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

(Closed) Cyclone Ilsa

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


Article: Cyclone Ilsa (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Tropical Cyclone Ilsa approaches the coast of Western Australia and will intensify into a category five storm, making it the state's most powerful cyclone to make landfall in 14 years. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-13/wa-cyclone-ilsa-upgraded-category-5-pilbara-kimberley-/102219020
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Cyclone Ilsa will hit the Kimberley and Pilbara regions, with extreme weather such as flooding already occurring. Residents living in areas between Broome and Whim Creek (which are 700km apart) have already been issued warnings (precisely yellow alerts), while Port Hedland is preparing to go into lockdown.
  • Wait This could turn out to be a very violent storm, but for now we haven't seen any of that yet. Ping me when this changes. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, ping me too as well when it gets stronger. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Per above - Editor 5426387 (Talk) 05:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sparsely populated area around landfall site where impact is likely to be minimal as a result of said lack of population. NoahTalk 10:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're ignoring regional, rural and remote areas? Well, A: it will be violent and have a lot of impact, B: it will be the most powerful in 14 years and C: yes even if most of the towns it will hit are small and in the outback (except some larger ones like Broome and Port Hedland), it will. Still affect a lot of people because it's spanning at least 700km across the northwestern coast and will have an impact on weather elsewhere in Australia as well as in Indonesia and East Timor, plus maybe other countries (I'm not saying it will be a cyclone in all these regions, but it will cause wind and rain even where I am in New South Wales, on the east coast). Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A. It was violent but has weakened now, and the impact part is
    WP:CRYSTAL
    . Wait for reliable sources to demonstrate that there is a widespread severe impact warranting posting.
    B. ITN doesn't look at the power of a storm, we are focused solely on impact; the standard is to send things like that over to DYK. It also isn't powerful anymore. Speaking from experience, there is a strong inclinicity to not post things like weather records and storm power here on the grounds of climate change.
    C. We don't focus on how many people are "affected". Anyone getting rainfall or slightly increased winds is "affected". We focus on damage and deaths here because those can easily display how severe a storm was. Sadly many weather events affect a lot of people, but we can't post them all or else there would be hundreds of blurb a year. That's why we settle on things like damage and deaths. NoahTalk 01:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We focus on damage and deaths here – Is there a policy or guideline that supports this? If not, then it's just something that a few editors made up and are attempting to enforce on others. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been practiced at ITN for years and is the reason most experienced weather editors will not nominate anything without significant damage or deaths. Anyone who has been here remembers how storms used to get opposed for higher and higher death tolls simply due to the frequency that was experienced. The compromise was essentially to quit nominating or supporting run of the mill storms at ITN (ie anything that doesn't satisfy WP:MINIMUMDEATHS). While Cat 5s are more rare, there haven't been any reported fatalities and the damage is normal for a tropical cyclone. ITN regulars have also made it very clear in the past that weather records are a no go topic and that's why I won't bring one here no matter what it is. The issue with affected is the vagueness of the term and that's pretty much why it isn't blurbable; millions could be affected simply by getting 1 inch of rain while overall it's not very impactful while others could be drenched by multiple feet of rain. NoahTalk 02:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CONSENSUS is clear on this. "Regulars" of a certain area don't have any additional authority over it, and discussions should be based on policy. There is no WP:DEATHTOLL because that metric has nothing to do with policy or determining whether something is notable/encyclopedic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose This nomination is premature. Cyclone hasn't even made landfall, and there will likely be low or no deaths. In the unlikely event there are a significant amount of deaths or it breaks some sort of windspeed record or other type of record, I will support. Steelkamp (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upon landfall, there is no WP:MINIMUIMDEATHS and my doctrine is that if it can get its own article, its notable enough to be posted to ITN. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 12:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many storms get their own articles but shouldn't be posted here, otherwise we would be flooding ITN with cyclone stories. Some years have like 60-80 articles for storms. NoahTalk 12:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    you know where to go. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 13:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I mean yeah, I do agree that ITN should lessen its standards a bit (especially for sports records there's no need for ITN to have their standards so ridiculously high for it) but, just because a cyclone gets its own article doesn't automatically mean it should be on ITN imo. Also, just because I don't believe an article should be on ITN does not mean I believe that the article should be deleted outright. Article creation and ITN nominations have different standards so even though i'm opposing the nom i'm not "going to go where I know to go". Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. The issue here isn't that our standards for ITN are too high. It's that they're artificial and have no basis in P&G, meanwhile
    WP:NEVENTS remains obscenely unenforced. Compare recent deaths; thousands of deaths happen every day, but recent deaths gets along just fine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The issue arises on the criterion for inclusion on ITN. What would make, this cyclone, apt for being posted? As we all know, that question is the principal reason for ITN's issues regarding posting, civility, etc. At this point, I think (and this is something that @GreatCaesarsGhost called for before) it would frankly be best remove all discussion of "significance" on ITN and endorse a posting philosophy of just assessing a story's merit based of quality. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was also called for at the village pump recently, where there was a fairly strong consensus that the current haphazardly applied standards are not acceptable, but the discussion went stale before any alternative could be implemented. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I think about it, you're right. When we decide to nominate and post something, everything comes down to opinion. When knights said "my doctrine is that if it can get its own article, its notable enough to be posted to ITN." that's his opinion and when I say "I know that there's no minimum deaths requirement but this is just a cyclone" that's my opinion. When I thought about that for a minute I came to realize just how pretty much EVERYTHING with ITN nominations is strictly opinion based. There is practically not a SINGLE guideline followed ever. Even some of the """principles""" mentioned on the general criteria are literally never used and if they are, they're not defined ever.
    • "The length and depth of coverage itself (are the articles long and go into great detail, or are the articles short and cursory?)" Completely subjective. How do we define whether an article is short or not?
    • "The number of unique articles about the topic (does each major news source dedicate its own reporting staff to covering the story, or are they all simply reposting the same article?)" Tell me a single instance when someone bases an argument around this.
    • "The frequency of updates about the topic (is the article posted once and forgotten about, or is it continuously updated, and are new articles related to the topic appearing all the time?)" Aside from never seeing this used as argument, how do we define?? What is considered frequent enough?? If only one news source is updating it frequently is that good enough??
    • "The types of news sources reporting the story (is the topic being covered by major, national news organizations with a reputation for high-quality journalism?)" Also have never seen this used.
    And then I consider some of the "frowned upon" reasons
    • "Arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful.","arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community." Is listed as unhelpful yet i'd argue is ignored often. As much as some American-centric nominations can be annoying, just look at the amount of people in the indictment of trump nomination going "This is just American-centric so i'm opposing on that" littered throughout when that's supposedly considered "frowned upon".
    • "Arguments addressing how many international newspapers/news channels are or are not covering the story on their front page or main webpage. A story highlighted in many newspapers or news channels has a good chance of being significant for ITN, but we do not base the posting primarily on how many such sites have covered it or consider it important." Yes, that can be true. BUT, didn't the guidelines literally list THREE """principles""" directly related to this?!?!?
    Then I com back to this nomination and I have to wonder, what truly makes a cyclone good to post on the main page? Do we strictly follow deaths and damages to see if this cyclone can be posted or do we follow the fact that this cyclone is not only a category 5 (in Australian scale) but the strongest cyclone to strike landfall in Australia in 14 years as good enough? When you think about it, whether we consider ITN nominations fit for the main page or not comes SOLELY to opinion. Even the guidelines understand this stating "It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits." and "Whether a topic is significant enough for inclusion in ITN is often contentious, and ultimately, there are no rules or guidance". Yet, is that a good thing or should there be actual set in stone minimums that determine if a nomination is good enough? @
    WP:NEVENT
    as a justification for your support. Yet, that isn't even mentioned in the guidelines. I have seen multiple people use NEVENT to determine their support or oppose. Yet, that isn't even a ITN guideline and is technically nothing but opinion.
    Sorry for the long rant, I just had a random epiphany and just wanted to ramble. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is basically the thought process that I went through while reading discussions about ITN over the last few months. The conclusion I've come to is that if "significance" is arbitrary (and if counting significance !votes when closing is a violation of
    WP:PROJPAGE that explicitly discourage different corners of Wikipedia from coming up with their own processes that diverge from or contradict sitewide processes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I think what matters is that we REALLY need some solid guidelines. I've seen votes based off of personal opinion be disregarded in a system which is ENTIRELY based off of personal opinion. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and another thing. The guidelines states that
    • "There is consensus to post the event."
    is a solid guideline. Yet, what defines consensus? I've seen consensuses either being written off as a no consensus or the vote is given to the complete opposite of the consensus. So what's the definition of consensus here? Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is defined at
    WP:Guidelines as Wikipedia defines them, giving further evidence of the fact that they haven't been given proper scrutiny. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    "The length and depth of coverage itself (are the articles long and go into great detail, or are the articles short and cursory?)" Completely subjective. How do we define whether an article is short or not? – The same way we define the length and quality of any article: weighing it against some requirements like containing all due and encyclopedic published information, having references, not being a stub, etc. DecafPotato (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I know that there's no minimum deaths requirement but this is just a cyclone. Sure, the strongest cyclone in 14 years but it's still a cyclone that's hitting a rural area. Plus, saying "if it can get its own article, its notable enough to be posted to ITN" as that would mean that every single cyclone with an article would get posted to ITN and we'd be having like 60 storms in the main page every year.Onegreatjoke (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my oppose because I had a random-a** epiphany. Am currently neutral at the moment. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We had the worst ever (in terms of intensity and $ of damage), in Canada last year (Hurricane Fiona), and it still couldn't get through ITN for near a week after it made it's 3rd landfall (perhaps if it had hit Maine rather than Puerto Rico ...). So the standard seems to be no rush. Nfitz (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Craig Breen

Article: Craig Breen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [29]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Killed in a pre-event test accident for WRC Croatia event. Filip Cro (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

April 12

Armed conflicts and attacks

  • Mali war

Business and economy

  • NPR announces that it will no longer use Twitter after the social media site labeled it and the BBC as "government-funded media". Shortly thereafter, Twitter CEO Elon Musk announces that the labelling of the BBC will be changed to "publicly-funded media". (BBC News) (CNBC)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime


RD: Tamilla Nasirova

Article: Tamilla Nasirova (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): apa.az (English), pravda.az (Azerbaijani)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Azerbaijani mathematician Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(Ready) RD: Tibisay Lucena

Article: Tibisay Lucena (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN, ABC, Infobae
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Senior Venezuelan public official, head of the country's electoral council for 14 years. NoonIcarus (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

While I see the issue with referencing and could be solved, I don't understand how at its current size the article can be considered a stub. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article was (at the time of my !vote) marked as a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it was not. Curbon7 (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added references, as well as translated the Career section from Spanish. The article now includes content regarding her position as minister. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks alright. No referencing issues. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks RD ready now.BabbaQ (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro states that "She was first elected to this post (president of the National Electoral Council) in 2006, and was reelected in 2009 for the 2009-2013 period." but the career section lacks info on her work during these years in such a high-profile position. Please expand. --PFHLai (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PFHLai: I have expanded content regarding the 2006, 2013 and 2018 elections. Is the section better? --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the section further, adding information about the 2017 Constituent Assembly election. I'm tagging the headline as ready, per the other comments. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I wasn't able to help much here. I was doing spot checks and fixes and suddenly had to go offline. There is a {failed verification} tag that still needs to be fixed. PFHLai (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Louis Gaskin

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support I've fixed up some of the tensing issues as well as some minor MOS corrections, but this article should be good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article seems well cited for its size. Rockstone, you should've used the word "executed" instead of "killed". CR-1-AB (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot

|}

  • Not yet ready The article is not nearly ready. For these kinds of articles, we don't need his biography to be super in-depth, as that isn't really the focus, but there isn't anything at all about his biography. The description of the murders is also light, as the article doesn't even state where they occurred, and the article is unclear about whether he burgled the first house or not (the article states towards the end that stolen property was retrieved, but the description of the crime itself makes it seem like he remained outside the entire time). Curbon7 (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Raymond Sawada

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support Article is fine, and good enough for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Career statistic box is uncited. Curbon7 (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a source, but I will admit I'm not sure why one would be needed considering the External links section contains links to five different sources for career statistics. Something I will bring up with the WikiProject. — GhostRiver 23:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 17:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Keshub Mahindra

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support- Article is well-sourced. -- Fahads1982Talk 09:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is in good shape for ITN/RD. Cheers. WimePocy 15:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article lacks information about the subject's business career. It is unclear what industries Mahindra Group is even involved in based on the article. SpencerT•C 17:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Ping Thanks for highlighting. Edits are done. Article has shaped into a decent C-class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Please have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

(Posted) Pazigyi massacre

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support pending article improvements, as there isn't enough about the actual contents of the massacre in my opinion (most of the article is just background information). However, an event with this many casualties caused by the country's own military is certainly notable. DecafPotato (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Appears to be notable and sourcing is sufficient. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Article needs work but is ok for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. The article looks minimally sufficient for posting but would benefit from further improvements as the story unfolds and more information becomes available.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support At the point I am reading it now, it looks sufficient (though improvement and expansion, as always is quite invited), but I think it is main-page ready. Of note, the blurb above doesn't reflect what is written in the article, though. The article only says "at least 100" not 120. --Jayron32 11:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article might need some expansion, but this is also shocking - this attack has a abnormally very high death toll and also the deadliest since the coup. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Shocking. Needs further expansion but is sufficient. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. The article is underwhelming - mostly background and reactions - but does meet our minimum requirements. The incident is getting media attention and the death toll is unusually high, though I question why we're highlighting one air raid over the wider Myanmar civil war, which has killed thousands. Modest Genius talk 13:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've proposed an altblurb, which I think provides a better explanation of the situation and has more relevant links. Modest Genius talk 13:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's because the civil war was never blurbed nor put on ongoing and I doubt it could realistically be placed there now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above
Aure entuluva (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alttext for the more relevant links. However, the alt text should still mention the village- i.e. killed in airstrikes on Pazigyi village- so that it's about this specific massacre as opposed to the other recent ones targetting other villages. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked altblurb. Modest Genius talk 15:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Horrifying development, with over 100 people murdered. I'm undecided on which blurb I prefer. Kurtis (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because its death toll makes it easily important enough & the article is good enough. Alt2 because it's shorter & contains enough info. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - not sure I support the alt though, I get it but also this is more firmly in the massacre of civilians/terrorism than battle in civil war territory. nableezy - 17:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted with a blurb largely based on alt 2, which can be discussed for possible improvement here: "In the Myanmar civil war, the military junta's air force kills over 100 civilians in Pazigyi." Sandstein 17:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note CNN is reporting the death toll as at least 165. [30] CJ-Moki (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Kourakou and Tondobi attacks

Template:Atop
Template:ITN candidate

Comment -
WP:NEWSEVENT. Unless death toll is abnormally high, we shouldn't post based on how many lost their lives. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
There was this village last May attacked three times. The first time, eleven soldiers, no article. Then 17 civilians, no article, but after about 50 civilians, bam, current event. So no, divided by two villages, this "isn't that bad" for Burkina Faso. Still very bad there, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose Death tolls are high, but not abnormally high as in Solhan and Tadaryat massacres. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now based on quality. Article is a bit too light on information right now, it's barely passed the stub phase. Needs more information to be worth posting, IMHO. Fix that and I'll change my vote to support. --Jayron32 13:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality As stated above, article is pretty bare. No opinion on significance yet. Curbon7 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality per above. Not a stub, but still far too barebones for ITN. The Kip (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per above - Editor 5426387 (Talk) 21:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    2023 Burkina Faso attacks needs to be merged into this. This pair of jihadist massacres are important enough to be posted, so it should be if the article is good enough after the merge. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Template:Abot

(Closed) 2023 Rutgers University strike

Template:Atop
Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose – Seems to only affect a single university, and not even a significant one at that. And while
    WP:POINT is. DecafPotato (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Amending my response: "not even a significant [university]" was incorrect. However, I maintain that that a strike contained to a single university is not ITN-worthy. DecafPotato (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Appears to fail WP:Notability (events). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless it evolves into nationwide strikes. For now, it's only happening in one out of over 5,000 higher education institutions in the country, so it's extremely unlikely to cause any disruptions in the US higher education.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose – It's a nice looking article, and the event is of surprising scale and significance. I think either the article is a bit too short, or the event a bit too localized, for our purposes. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

April 11

Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2023 April 11
Template:Cob


(Posted) RD: Anne Perry

Template:ITN candidate

  • Weak support Some minor missed citations, especially in the Bibliography section, but those are probably covered by previous cited statements. Fine for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Think the article has been improved enough to meet ITN standards. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Improved enough to appear on the main page. MurielMary (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Improved and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 17:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Maya Wildevuur

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Freddie Scappaticci

Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) 2023 Pentagon document leaks

Template:Atop
Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose, Politico says there's a crisis but immediately says it's only ruffled feathers. Abductive (reasoning) 19:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose already covered by ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per abductive , this crisis is just ruffled feathers, and this is well cover by the ongoing. --Masem (t) 20:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all above, and the fact that this is already covered. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per above - Editor 5426387 (Talk) 20:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    10 dollars, anyone? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The documents, despite the name, are not entirely about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

  • With the recent arrest and controversy stirring around this incident we should reconsider inclusion for ITN. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Fernando Sánchez Dragó

Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose for now for two reasons 1) Article could use some expansion, there's very little on his work history, seems like a scattershot listing of random events from his life rather than a cohesive narrative. More prose could really help fill in the gaps. 2) There's some unreferenced statements in the biography, and that needs to be fixed. If both of those problems are remedied, this would be ready for the main page. --Jayron32 11:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article is very short, is a
    WP:SANDWICH, and has some statements missing citations. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

(Closed) Good Friday Agreement

Template:Atop
Template:ITN candidate Proposed by — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stucco9951 (talkcontribs) 07:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

April 10

Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2023 April 10
Template:Cob


(Posted) RD: Karl Berger

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support. Updated, long enough, and well referenced. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose seems fine for RD purposes, but the Discography could benefit from more referencing. I had a quick look at the current source (https://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/artist/karl-berger, and I've only checked the first and last few entries, but failed to match those item listed on our wikipage.) --PFHLai (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some, but am too tired for more today - moved him one day up - when the news was announced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now all items are referenced (which means some are missing until a reference is found), as it's his last chance --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All items have been referenced, article is good. Marking as ready. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @PFHLai to double check on the status of the article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. It passes my random spot-checks. -- PFHLai (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Texas dairy farm explosion

Template:Atop
Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose Sadly, the death of cattle in such an incident without significant human deaths really doesn't gain significance. It may be possible to DYK this ("DYK that the explosion killed 3% of the state's cattle?" but it doesn't feel right for ITN. --Masem (t) 21:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The deaths of cattle wouldn’t normally be ITN-worthy, but 18,000 dead cows may make it ITN-worthy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does this
    qualify for an article? A death count, whether it be human or cattle, 18 or 18,000, has zero bearing on notability in and of itself. For what it's worth, way more than 18,000 cattle are killed every day. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support One of the largest losses of cattle in quite some time. NoahTalk 03:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sadly, people are more worried about the economic effects of these deaths rather than the actual effects. I understand that humans are quite human-centric, so if you need evidence that this is notable, take a look at Texas' cow population before and after the explosion. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. There have been no human casualties, it's an event with an impact in a very specific area of the world, so the impact and international interest is minimal. It's not clear to me that, if it had happened in another part of the world, it would even have its own article in Wikipedia. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think a catastrophic incident needs to have human casualties to be considered significant for ITN. That said, 3% of one US state's cattle population is frankly just not comparable to, for example, the 2020 Danish mink cull. Curbon7 (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

(Posted) RD: Al Jaffee

Template:ITN candidate

Was just about to nominate this ;) There are some unsourced paragraphs, let me see if I can reference them! Tails Wx 23:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Wow, you do it the hard way, eh? I normally just remove the unsourced material. /s Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
What? Scientists (like us two) don't just
dissect (on Wikipedia, removing unsourced material) all the time, we collect data, and research (like researching the sources to add on unsourced sentences!) Anyway, there are sources out there, so I'll "data-collect", "research", and go the hard way! ;) Tails Wx 23:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Tails Wx You're missing the first four letters! :) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whaa? For clarity, what are they? Tails Wx 00:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
F, a, k, and e. :) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, haha! :D Anyway, back to work. I'll update you (or whenever someone else is) when the sourcing work is done! Tails Wx 00:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted Fakescientist8000's removals. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are a few (two or three) that may need sourcing but the information they have is not controversial and may be due to where the citations are placed. --Masem (t) 00:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The source work is much appreciated. Tisnec (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An excellent and entertaining article which is more worthy of a blurb and/or picture than the current entries. It badly needs some examples of his work but has some nice quotes such as, "This is the core of Jaffee's work: the idea that to be alive is to be constantly beleaguered by annoying idiots, poorly designed products and the unapologetic ferocity of fate. Competence and intelligence are not rewarded in life but punished. ... He's uncommonly interested in figuring out how things work, and exasperated because things NEVER work." Sounds just like Wikipedia, eh? Andrew🐉(talk) 06:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly, one fold-in image (as non-free) would be reasonable, but that's not holding up an RD. It would be one thing if we knew plenty of free images were available but none were used on an RD article, non-free images on a page already filed with free images is less obvious of being "wrong" and would take some more careful debate to include. Masem (t) 12:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And I see just now that a smart non-free choice has been made that shows a cover of MAD that incldes his own self-portrait AND the concept of a fold-in. That's perfect. Masem (t) 12:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, self-portraits which include the artist's work are especially good for this. See David Sutherland and Wally Fawkes for other recent examples. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One of the all-time greats. (Still some unreferenced bits.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • PostedBagumba (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Pierre Lacotte

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support Triggered by all of the red links, but since those are just interwiki redirects it's ok. Article is big enough and well cited. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well cited now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postedfilelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2023 April 9
Template:Cob


(Posted) RD: Huub Oosterhuis

Template:ITN candidate

  • Comment: Pretty close. I added a ref and an ISBN, but has 2 CN tags left. SpencerT•C 17:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One cn tag left. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. More than long enough and sufficiently cited. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support cn fixed, article ok now. Grimes2 (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Muhammad Rapsel Ali

Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) 2023 Pentagon document leaks

Template:Atop
Template:ITN candidate

  • Wait until there is a clearer picture of the degree to which this is just a misdirect. BD2412 T 02:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — "Apparent" tells all. I believe the documents are real, but this is an event that will linger in the news cycle and assessing its impact (for ITN purposes) is difficult. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is a first in my experience, that an article creator opposed their article be blurbed at ITN. Jusdafax (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Listen man, maybe he just doesn't want to deal with the talk page stuff. :P Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait The article describes something so vague and uncertain, it's not ready to nominate. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to wait on this, but if this just ends up being a Russian spin-job (which is what it looks like) then I see no real reason to post this item. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why they would publish certain documents online if that was the case.[31]. Mellk (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per above.
- Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 05:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

(Posted) 2023 Masters Tournament

Template:ITN candidate

Looks fine, plenty of text summary, which is welcome. Looks sourced. Support. Tone 16:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a really good looking sporting event article mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Decent prose summary for all four rounds; I don't see any issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article has plenty of prose and looks good to go. The Kip (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the article could do with some cleanup for readability (it would benefit from having the tables/scorecards split away from interrupting the prose, and the participant list is a bit confusing, but otherwise it's updated and suitable.Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting, now that I've seen some more support. Feel free to update the picture. --Tone 20:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nicely expanded event article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2023 April 8
Template:Cob


(Posted) RD: Andreas K. W. Meyer

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: James Timlin

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Michael Lerner

Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose for now Many citations needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose more sources are needed. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2023 April 7
Template:Cob


RD: Elisabeth Kopp

Template:ITN candidate

  • Question Should this be dated April 7 or April 14 since her death was reported on April 14? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    April 7. Vacant0 (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose One whole paragraph is unsourced, including some sentences. I've added cn tags. Once this is fixed, I'll change my vote to Support. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ian Bairnson

Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose Article has been orange tagged, as well as a few unsourced statements across this short article means that it is currently not ready for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose could pepper with cn tags. not ready yet. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ben Ferencz

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support - Article is well-sourced. --TheDutchViewer (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support there's one cn tage that should be fixed, but the article, in general, looks so good. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written and well-sourced article. Mooonswimmer 17:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted RIP, prosecutor of Nazis. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Rachel Pollack

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Paul Cattermole

Template:ITN candidate

April 6

Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2023 April 6
Template:Cob


RD: Mimi Sheraton

Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose. Article is a borderline stub. Needs expansion before posting to the main page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jane LaTour

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Hobie Landrith

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Ingvar Hirdwall

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support Article in good shape and well referenced. Ollieisanerd (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weal support article is well cited and in good shape per Ollie, but its size worries me. Should be good, but expansion would be heavily appreciated. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U - I have expanded the article further per your request. Cheers.BabbaQ (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Template:Ping Thank you! Article is good, so I've decided to reinvent the weal. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

(Closed) Women's Finalissima

Template:Atop
Template:ITN candidate

  • Comment This is a minor trophy, while notable for the England women's team I would say this match is relatively insignificant and not ITN-worthy. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Not a significant international honor in women's soccer and is basically equivalent to a supercup rather than a full-fledged tournament final. Besides that, the article has not been properly developed with a match summary or most of the necessary buildup. SounderBruce 05:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's at least as ITN-worthy as darts championships. 51.154.145.205 (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Facetious comparisons with other ITNR items can rest. Gotitbro (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Football is already the most well-represented sport on ITNR, to feature events beyond that they need to have stand out notability and this is not it. Gotitbro (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - minor event. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per all above. Minor event in soccer, the most represented sport on ITN by far save for darts. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose - This is not a premium event, and as noted above, football is already well supplied with high profile international events. This is nothing like the recent case of the World Baseball Classic, where it was a genuinely worldwide event in a sport that's otherwise desperately short of them. This is an inter-regional playoff in a sport where both regional and global events are already very high profile and well reported. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

(Posted) RD: Nora Forster

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Bruce Petty

Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose Article is a bit short, but mainly the lack of citations throws me off. This needs more citations in order to be ITNRD ready. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per user above. Ollieisanerd (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got a name... Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Josep Piqué

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support Article is in good shape for what it's worth. Ollieisanerd (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article is not in good shape: some sources needed and should be extended. I'm working on it. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC) Support Article is no longer a stub, and is sourced. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not a stub anymore, everything is sourced now. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article expanded. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I continue to expand it. I guess I'll have it finished by today. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks good now.BabbaQ (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • PostedBagumba (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 5

Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2023 April 5
Template:Cob


(Closed) Ongoing removal: 2023 French pension reform strikes

Template:Atop
Template:ITN candidate

Post-nom comment, at the time of nomination there had been only one article update in the preceding ~week (adding a quote from the US White House) + gnoming edits. Since then, these article additions have been made and more protests have occurred.
[majestic titan] 18:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Support removal—This story has largely run its course and serves no real purpose being on the main page. Kurtis (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Welp, guess I spoke too soon. Let's keep it on for at least a little longer. Kurtis (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per above - Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. While there are still some protests ongoing, it seems that the main wave of protests have stopped on or before 30 March. Vida0007 (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportParadise Chronicle (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - based on two reasons. Firstly, the article is still receiving daily updates, and we usually remove from ongoing when an article hasn't been updated in a hot minute. Secondly, we still have news like how meetings with PM Elizabeth Borne and the French unions have failed, which is expected to usher in a fresh new wave of protests and strikes tomorrow (Politico). We should wait to remove this one. Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 01:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per Knight. The Kip (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, article not receiving regular significant updates. SpencerT•C 04:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per Knightsoftheswords281. I've added a quick cursory update to bring the article up to date, but it's worth holding off on an ongoing removal until we see how the April 6 protests unfold. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 09:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Knight, but also noting we had 30 March listed instead of 28 March for weeks, probably a typo of 20 March.
    RAN1 (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak support The removal is not based on the fact the event is ended (the strikes are still going) but that there's no significant updates to the article to reflect that. --Masem (t) 12:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The protests are not over yet. Let’s wait another week at least before a new discussion on removal.BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait to remove for now. My usual standard is roughly either 1 week, or not older than the oldest blurb on the main page. While other than the purely perfunctory addition made by Patar above, there hasn't been continuous updates to the article over more than a week, it does appear that these are ramping up again, and it seems likely that the protests today will be worth adding. I think it's a little premature to take this down yet, but in a day or two if the article is not expanded considerably with ongoing events, I will be glad to reconsider and will support removal. --Jayron32 12:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This was back in the news over the last 24 hours and more strikes are expected in the next few days [32]. If those turn out to be small, then we can re-assess. Modest Genius talk 15:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Protests appear to be firing up again. On a related note though, I have only seen one substantive update to the article on the Israeli protests over the last four days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not discussing the Israeli protests article in this discussion. Please don't bring up unrelated topics. It distracts from the topic at hand. --Jayron32 17:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now: Protests have not stopped. There are still weekly protests and ongoing strikes. Maxxies (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In the news literally now - Pension protesters set fire to Macron's brasserie of choice. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - looks to still be in the news and still in heavy action. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Seems like this will be getting regular updates again. It's as if they sprung back to life the instant this was nominated for ongoing removal. WaltClipper -(talk) 11:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abottom

(Closed) 2023 Visit of Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Poland

Template:Atop
Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose I think this should be covered by ongoing (similar to the other trips to and from Ukraine that were not posted). The award is interesting but do not see its notability beyond the current context; the grant of such national honours is also common practice to maintain friendly relations and we do not usually post them. Gotitbro (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Gotitbro PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - we didn't post the visits to the UK or the US so I doubt we'll be posting this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Obviously. He literally visited Poland 2 months ago, and has made 6 total visits to the country. This is not historic. Curbon7 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We can't blurb every leader's visit to or from Ukraine. I doubt this even merits its own article. Modest Genius talk 15:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Would lay out my reasons why, but everyone above have essentially brought up the points I would've said. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

April 4

Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2023 April 4
Template:Cob


The upcoming Artemis 2 Moon mission

Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose Post when the mission actually happens. The Kip (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Kip. Would prefer to blurb it when the mission actually happens. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ada Bello

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Craig Breedlove

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support All those numbers and decimals make hard reading but the pictures are good. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose some content need sources. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All content appears to have been sourced, so it looks good to go. Cheers. WimePocy 12:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - sourced. Quality looks good. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready There are two whole unsourced paragraphs. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved! Tails Wx 15:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Tails. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support let's go! _-_Alsor (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bob Lee (businessman)

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support—His article cites plenty of sources and is very informative. Kurtis (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is in solid enough shape, thanks to good work by several editors in just the past day. DFlhb (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very notable person/page. Situation is ongoing, but I think no matter how he died, this would inevitably have been nominated. Kire1975 (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
    WP:ITNRD." Cheers. WimePocy 12:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support - Sources, quality is good. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is good in quality, enough for ITNRD. Cheers. WimePocy 14:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Good work, all who spiffed this up. -- Kicking222 (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tea Petrin

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) Donald Trump arraigned

Template:Atop
Template:ITN candidate

* Oppose: He was not arrested. He was arraigned after being indicted by a grand jury. I support the arraignment being featured in the news, but this is not factual. Ppt91talk 19:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it will get to trial, User talk:ElijahPepe? Given the talk about the defence trying to change the jurisdiction and the judge, I'd think their strategy would be be to tie it up in court for years until it is moot. Nfitz (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The defense will find it difficult to delay the inevitable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the question is what is fast. He dragged the 1973 racism case against him for 2 years, including a $100 million defamation counter-suit against the US Justice Department, before finally coming to an agreement to settle; and had he continued to fight that in court, it could have gone for years. The 2013 State of New York case against him got dragged on for almost 4 years before Trump settled and paid out $25 million. I don't see why this wouldn't be dragged out in court for many years - presumably trying to outwait the current (elected) District Attorney, Trump's death, or a change of government. I think this is a significant story. I can see holding it off a few weeks, or even months, if there's bigger aspects coming. But I don't see that happening; however what else will he be charged over in the next few months ... perhaps that's something we don't need to consider at this time. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this case drags on, and continues to have massive developments and stay in the news, perhaps we should consider for ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed target article to
Indictment of Donald Trump, because I would hate having an orange tag on the Main Page. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
MANDY? Because of course Trump would plead not guilty? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Hulk experience. The Kip (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if theres a conviction and something comes out of it lets talk, but until them its all theatre and I don't think we need to be a part of it. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am
KING  21:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Wait for years? And then it will be the trial will only last a few months, we should wait for a decision. Then wait for the appeal. And the next appeal. We'd be doing a RD on him first ... This is major, significant, international, news. I was wait for the charges on the nomination last week. Now we've got the charges - and they are more significiant than may expected. Even earlier today, I heard media comments that there may be some felonies in there as well. But 34 felonies? Nfitz (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - First US president to be arraigned. We were told to wait until he was arraigned, stop moving the goalpost. City1661 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's called "In the News" not "fair trial completed". This is a very significant story. Looking on TV, I haven't seen so many TV networks go live since 9/11 - many were foreign. Just because it happened in New York City or the USA, doesn't mean it isn't important. I've vehemently opposed the frequent posting of typical crimes in the USA, even if they'd be shockingly unique in normal advanced democracies - but this is exceptional. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add to ongoing, and fold into the general topic of legal investigations involving the subject. BD2412 T 23:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ongoing doesn't make sense. The only next actions before December (the next in-person date) is the raft of motions that Trump's lawyers will try to use to clear all the charges before trial, which will still take months to process.
    Mind you, I've seen rumors that Trump may also be arraigned from the other criminal cases pending against him, but that's nothing we can assert right now. Masem (t) 00:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There will be constant commentary on it, though, emanating from all sides. We have all seen how the media will jump to make any scrap of news on this case their top headline. BD2412 T 01:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Constant commentary is not something that makes a topic newsworthy. Its ongoing events that do that. We shouldn't even be trying to seek out that much commentary at this time, per
    WP:RECENTISM, and wait until the matter has been well laid to rest to figure out how to right on commentary. That's what separates us as being an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper. Masem (t) 03:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment "Pleads not guilty" should not be the focus of the blurb. Nobody pleads guilty at arraignment. Simplest blurb would be "Former U.S. President Donald Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records".hako9 (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"charged with" would be simpler than "faces". He was facing the charges before he was charged! It's the charges being laid that is significant, and historical, here. Nfitz (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just another example of
WP:MANDY. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It's also just Reuters, beyond the headline. Cool Canadian company. But no CBC. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - normally I would go on a lengthy rant about why this should be posted, but everything's already been said so Imma pull an @Editor 5426387 and say per above.
- Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PP oppose. Give that guy some more attention for what? Who cares? He is "on trial" more or less since the beginning his presidency with his withheld tax returns and much more since the revolt of the 6 January. Pull.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a meaningful difference between being metaphorically "on trial" and being actually on trial...  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tq The reliable sources that published the information about the event. It's apparent from your commentary that you don't care, but here at Wikipedia, personal feelings don't matter in decision making. Reliable sources do. --Jayron32 12:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:Abot

(Posted) RD: Klaus Teuber

Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) 2023 Voorschoten train crash

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose - Tragic incident, but as @Amakuru and @Rockstone35 have pointed out, this isn't really notable enough to post. Unfortunately, many accidents like this happen all the time. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this isn't quite as common as first appears. We have two trains colliding with an obstruction on the line. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are unusual accidents regularly, we don't post every single one. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rare incident and tragic, but not significant enough that it led to protests like Thessaly or disaster in East Palestine, Ohio. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Fatal train accidents in Europe are not common, but with only one fatality it does not seem to me to be noticeable enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stats FYI there are hundreds of people killed on the railways each year in Europe and that's not including the suicides. See Railway safety statistics in the EU. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose one of hundreds, one fatality, yadda yadda yadda, but it's not US-centric so therefore it should be picture blurb'd and held up onto the Main Page for 3 weeks minimum. Cheers. WimePocy 13:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

April 3

Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2023 April 3
Template:Cob


(Posted) RD: Roy McGrath

Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) WWE sold to UFC parent Endeavor

Template:Atop
Template:ITN candidate

Template:Abot

RD: Greg Francis

Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose Unfortunately young, but article needs expansion in order to be considered for ITNRD. Cheers. WimePocy 13:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, At his age it is better to know the cause of death. Alex-h (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cause of death was not released. Curbon7 (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Enrique Mendoza

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Nigel Lawson

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support Looks good to me. Not notable enough for blurb, I think. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is fine enough for ITNRD - but this old chap was a rapscallion with longevity, so not worthy for a blurb. Cheers. WimePocy 11:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Notable British politician. Don't think a blurb has been suggested and do not see support building for only a former Chancellor of the Exchquer ([as a point] his daughter is perhaps more well known internationally than him). Gotitbro (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I only knew Adams, Griffiths and Farage, but the article is clear, no blurb proposed. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is in good shape. Ollieisanerd (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Six {cn} tags remain, mostly in the "In government" subsection. Other than that, this is well-written. Vida0007 (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Rm ready given CN tags. SpencerT•C 03:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose cn tags must be fixed. Not ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've added the missing citations. Looks ready now. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Finland Joins NATO

Template:ITN candidate

  • Per the article in question "Currently, Finland is scheduled to become an official member of the alliance on 4 April 2023" Why jump the gun? --Jayron32 17:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the explanation, I don't recommend we post it early, I just started the discussion early so we can have a blurb ready on time, as it is a scheduled event that we know will take place in a matter of hours. Theres precedent for this too as was done when
    KING  17:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Wait until 1:35 UTC Tuesday, then post immediately - I think new members of NATO should be in ITN/R, this is definitely notable enough. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a race. Nothing particularly harmful happens if the posting occurs some time after that. --Jayron32 17:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is definitely ITN-worthy, and I second trying to get it in ASAP. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also as @Blaylockjam10 pointed out, we did post North Macedonia joining NATO in March 2020, and especially given what else was happening in that month, I think that sets a good precedent. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the article Enlargement of NATO be a better target? The article as a whole is a GA. Just an idea. Maybe bold both? --Jayron32 17:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like keeping Finland-NATO relations as a target article because it contains most of the information related to Finland's accession (I think keying something along the lines of "finland accession to NATO" will redirect there), but if there's a way to fit in a link to Enlargement of NATO then that could make sense, too.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When N. Macedonia (the last country to join NATO before Finland) joined NATO, the blurb linked to the North Macedonia–NATO relations article. Also, that blurb used NATO instead of North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like NATO is more recognisable at this point than typing out the 'North Atlantic Treaty Organisation'. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It’s why I suggested alt blurb 2. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per above - User:Editor 5426387 (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until effective, then consider this a Support per above. Agree that new members of NATO would make sense for ITN/R. Also, I'd recommend changing the target photo if we use one at all. As much as I like the Finnish flag, it would feel a little odd just using the svg of it. Maybe a photo of leaders from Finland and NATO shaking hands would be more appropriate?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main page image/ITN

at right is a photo of klaus korhonen, finnish ambassador to nato, shaking hands with nato secretary general jens stoltenberg, when finland submitted its official application to join nato back in may. this seems like a decent image to feature until someone uploads a picture of today's ceremony to commons. dying (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait It hasn't happened yet, when it does happen, then this will be a Support. TomMasterRealTALK 17:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait then Support per above. The Kip (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as a young geopolitical geek myself, this is a historic moment; I get to see NATO expand in my lifetime and actually be able to remember it. Agree with wait until actually in effect and also @
WP:ITN/R. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 18:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Well Sweden should be joining next, and many others have applied, so there will be no shortage of new members entering NATO. Still, this is rather historic. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when it actually happens. Big geopolitical shift. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but wait to post per nominator Plenty of huge military implications, especially as Finland and Russia are border neighbors. Aside from a huge block of text in the application section of the target article, it looks well-sourced and good to go. Aeromachinator (talk to me here) 19:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added several paragraph breaks. It's still a massive chunk, though. Someone might want to remove the extraneous "2022"s and "2023"s and limit the citations to three, per
    WP:OVERCITE. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Wait per nomination, but otherwise looks good to go. DecafPotato (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, then support per above. I’d prefer alt blurb 2 or alt blurb 3. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odota, sitten Tuki per above and Google Translate. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, once the timing is correct tomorrow per nom. Estar8806 (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALTBLURB III at 13:25 UTC per all above, also a nice way for the Finnish to stick it to Ol' Vladdy. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why ten minutes early? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major event, it is obvious. Once the timing is right this should be posted quickly as possible. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per everything above. Major news and today's the day!
    話して~! ) 09:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Posted [33] -- KTC (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    2 hours and 45 minutes early. Finland isn't yet part of NATO I believe. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Finland is now officially a member, membership becomes effective once the applicant country deposits their instrument of accession to the depository (the U.S. State Department). In this case it happened at 12:46 UTC when Anthony Blinken received the document. The final formality (the flag raising ceremony) takes place in a few minutes. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am
    KING  13:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I see. Still, four minutes late. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good thing that we're not a news ticker where this sort of thing would be problematic. Right? --WaltClipper -(talk) 17:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's a very good thing indeed, I concur PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Finland–NATO relations, which is bolded in the blurb, is orange-tagged and contains swathes of unreferenced text (the "History" section and the "European Union membership" sub-section are fully unreferenced). While it's true that this is major news and should be posted, the article is not of sufficient quality to appear on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The unreferenced sections are a problem, but the article seems to be updated, so I’m not worried about that. However, I’m not sure what
    Template:Ping (who put the update tag in the article) thinks. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Post-posting support Historic. Davey2116 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can we change the bolded article to NATO, at least until the Finland-NATO relations article is fixed? NATO is a GA, it has been updated, and it should be fine for the front page. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finland joining Nato is now appearing at the bottom of the itn list even though it is newer news than other items. I've started a discussion of this on the talk page. Fdfexoex (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Galarrwuy Yunupingu

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support I've done a bit of work fixing it up and adding better refs supporting some of the information. Also found and added some CC images. I think it's in good enough shape for RD now. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Notable man with good coverage and the article checks out. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is in good shape with citations and is well beyond a stub. Very interesting person, who I sadly only have learned of since his passing. TartarTorte 16:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted --Jayron32 17:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2

Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2023 April 2
Template:Cob


(Needs attention) 2023 Bulgarian parliamentary election

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support Potentially worth waiting a few hours to post due to the results not fully being in, but otherwise I don't think there are any issues with the article. Regarding the blurb, how about an altblurb of 'In the Bulgarian parliamentary election, the GERB—SDS coalition, led by Boyko Borisov (pictured), narrowly beat the PP–DB alliance, winning the most seats in the Assembly.'? Quinby (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting though that using terms like coalition could be misleading, and may suggest more of a bloc politics in the country, so more neutral words like 'alliance', 'grouping' or 'list' may be better. Quinby (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Quinnnnnby Added the altblurb PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. A quick check reveals major problems with the article, for example the expanded results table in the "Results" section doesn't match the abbreviated table in the Infobox. I haven't looked much further than that, but with such a glaring inconsistency in that case, I worry about the accuracy and stability of the rest of the article. Get it together first before we even consider posting this on the main page. --Jayron32 17:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jayron32 If I'm correct, the vote discrepancy was due to differing interpretations of the NOTA vote, and its been fixed. There is however an issue of posting it now, with the final seats not released regionally, but after a few days, this news is less relevant. Quinby (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Full of polls and projections, saying "According to parallel counts of sample polling stations by several polling agencies, the final result was a close race ..." We should wait for the actual official result. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Only estimated results are available, and they show <2% between the top two parties - within the margin of error and too close to call. We should wait for the full official results, and use the date they become available for determining the blurb order. Modest Genius talk 10:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This looks detailed & well-sourced. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) NCAA Division I men's/women's basketball tournament championships

Template:ITN candidate

  • Personally, I also think that posting lower-tier sport in ITN is ridiculous. You have to follow consensus; you don't necessarily have to agree with it. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support combined Men's page is also sufficiently covered and sourced now.—Bagumba (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There a reason this isnt being posted? Besides sour grapes of course. nableezy - 18:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure an admin that doesn't think that posting amateur sports to ITN is somewhat daft will be along at some point. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I could do it, I don't think it's daft. But I'm hesitant to post quite yet, because - although I think there's a clear enough consensus that the women's blurb is ready - I don't think there has been sufficient support that the men's blurb is ready. If no one object strenuously enough in the next hour or so, I'll post the women's and wait for the men's. But I'd like to see a clear consensus the men's blurb is ready, if people could continue to comment on that below. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The men's article looks ready to me. I have not edited these articles but won't post the blurb because I voted above. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it's fine; feel free to post it. Hopefully this is the last year we'll have to go through this nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging
    Template:Ping all of you supported posting women's final - your feedback and evaluation on the men's final would be much appreciated. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I agree with Pawnkingthree; article is ready to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted women's blurb. As mentioned above, waiting a little longer to confirm consensus for combined blurb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support combined. Both articles look good. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted combined. No one has said it's not ready, a couple more people have said it is, and I imagine the Donald Trump discussion has sucked (and will continue to suck) all the available oxygen out of this room, so I've gone ahead and posted the combined blurb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2023 Andorran parliamentary election

Template:ITN candidate

Conditional support regarding quality - damn, everyone in Europe having an election today? - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bulgaria is having one aswell! ITN is gonna be so much fun in the coming days... Rushtheeditor (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's about 200 sovereign states and so this might as well be a permanent feature like RD. It would look like this:
Elections: Andorra, Bulgaria, Finland, Montenegro, Turkmenistan...
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but all RD's if transformed into blurbs are essentially the same, "X died at y age." Elections tell us who won, if power shifted or stayed the same, etc. Deaths lend themselves to a rotating list, elections can be summarized in a sentence the way we do it. Courcelles (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And that the same could be done with "Deadly natural disasters: Tornadoes in the United States...". And that's not ITN's goal. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's backwards. RD should be expanded to explain who the person was and how they died because their name is not enough. Elections seem more samey per the adage that "no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah what on Earth is going on, there's like five different elections today lol PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Going to be a blurb avalanche PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, with how stale ITN can be at times, I'm all for it. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 14:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is a table farm with very little prose. Has absolutely no meaningful lead section, very little prose is provided explaining the election process, campaigns, results themselves and their implications, etc. etc. Not something we should be posting on the main page. Write the article first before asking it to be posted! --Jayron32 18:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per recent improvements. --Jayron32 10:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Run-of-the-mill table article. More prose needed, asap. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Post posting support Article was fixed, thank you to Alsonario to cleaning the article up. Cheers. WimePocy 14:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2023 Montenegrin presidential election

Template:ITN candidate

Support - I think heads of state generally are considered ITN/R, but I'm not certain. Anyway, article looks good and the significance is there. However, the phrasing of the blurb feels a little weird, something along the lines of "Jakov Milatović is elected President of Montenegro, defeating incumbent Milo Đukanović" might be better, particularly to emphasize the fact that the incumbent was defeated. Estar8806 (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb I - looks good, is mostly prose and not a table wall. Agree with @Estar8806 that we should emphasize that his opponent was incumbent. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support AB1 Change of head of state is ITN/RThis post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - no !vote on blurb choice. But definitely ready for ITN. Significant and sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - dont think this is ITN/R, that says Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, which in Montenegro (if our article is to be believed) is the Government of Montenegro headed by the Prime Minister of Montenegro, not the President. nableezy - 01:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination does state that this is not ITN/R. The nominator rather does make a compelling argument that this is a major turning point for this country. Curbon7 (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The box says yes and so do a couple of votes though. nableezy - 01:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Major event, support.
talk) 10:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

(Closed) Bombing in Saint Petersburg

Template:Atop
Template:ITN candidate

Comment - Would this be covered by the ongoing? Obviously there is notable death mentioned in the nom's comments, but he's already been nominated for RD, which I presume will be posted. I think that the ongoing + that RD would sufficiently cover this. Estar8806 (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no definitive evidence that this was related to the war, and considering that we posted the Kyivan helicopter crash in January, I would say no. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sure, terrorist attacks in Russia are rare, but this only killed one person. The person himself being a simple Russian propagandist. So I personally oppose. Besides, we blurbed the helicopter crash because it killed 3 high-ranking Ukrainian politicians. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom. Considering it's not necessarily related to the ongoing war, seems good for posting. Estar8806 (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is only one confirmed death (Tatarsky). Mellk (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Many people were injured from this bombing as well. From the article 30 people were injured, 24 were hospitalized, 6 were seriously injured. 2607:FEA8:E300:B8C:90C3:9BA8:BC6D:EB69 (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Article is still in rough shape, includes mentions and inclusions of loosely or completely unrelated events. Open to changing my vote if there are improvements or further evidence supporting the articles assertions. (eg, Why is the October 5th incident mentioned?) Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle as an unusual and major event for Russia. Haven't actually looked at the article yet, so I can't speak to its quality. Kurtis (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Well I've looked at the article and this appears to have been a targeted assassination of a particular person, who has been separately nominated for RD. Such events are not rare – they are quite common in Russia, especially lately – see
    2022–2023 Russian mystery fires, &c. The main problem is that the claims and sources are not reliable. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Good point, but I feel like the fact that this has killed or injured 37 other people prevents it from being another assassination. Checking those articles, this is the only event in months that has this high of a death toll. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one person killed, according to the article. BorgQueen (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I'm normally an inclusionist on ITN but Andrew has made a persuasive argument above. Plus the article quality isn't that great at the moment. RD for Vladlen Tatarsky should suffice. BorgQueen (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom. The targeted murder of a war propagandist in a totalitarian police state is not ITN material. The war is being covered in ongoing. If the incident rates little or no coverage there, that kinda says a lot in itself. Beyond which, Andrew has raised a very legitimate point about sources and their reliability. A lot of what is being reported is coming from the Russian government and the Russian press/media. Excuse me for repeating myself. Clearly something happened. The event is undoubtedly WP:notable. But it's not enough for ITN and we really don't know much beyond what the Russians are saying. I'm fine with RD conditional on article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt Blurb Notable figure and a rare thing to happen to 30 other Russians. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Insignificant incident in country in which many suspicious deaths happen kills one and hurts a couple couple dozen other people. Yeah, no, not blurb-worthy. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thirty is not a couple (a couple dozen were hospitalized). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good. About half a dozen never will be. Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder to everyone (including you), that
Ohio train derailment we posted still hasn't killed or sickened anyone more than countless thousands of fish, insects and birds (maybe a fox). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The train derailment was the top story in most news outlets though PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The assassination should be an RD entry. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That way, it doesn't look like an assassination. If that's the point, it makes sense. If not, though... InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think Tatarsky is sufficiently notable to justify blurbing his murder, which is what this amounts to. He didn't even have an article until his death was reported, so can't have had that big an impact on the war. Does that also disqualify him from RD? If not, the biographical article could be posted there instead. Modest Genius talk 16:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN, and RD by extension, is designed to feature newly created (or expanded) articles. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

(Posted) 2023 Finnish parliamentary election

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Vladlen Tatarsky

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support - Sourced. Prose looks ok. Length as well. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A lot of what we are getting is coming from Russian sources, but that's probably unavoidable. I think the article is OK for RD. Opposing the proposed blurb though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb As seen above, death is a story. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD article is good enough for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking this as Ready for RD. Discussion regarding a possible blurb is ongoing above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD - Article is in good shape for posting. Jusdafax (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Pulled then Reposted) RD: Ryuichi Sakamoto

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support - Legendary musician Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Tqq; focus on the quality of the article, not the importance of the person. Curbon7 (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True, and for what it's worth, the quality of their article is solid too. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article is in great shape, no objections to posting. PolarManne (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Awards and discography sections need a bit more citations before I approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Missing sources have been added to the Awards and Nominations and the Discography sections. Is it to your satisfaction? Maxxies (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article looks good. Ollieisanerd (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Anarchyte (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a bunch of paragraphs with no citations. I don’t think this was acceptable to post. Thriley (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, my tools count 8
    Template:Tl tags! Tails Wx 22:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This is now up to ten, so definitely needs more work! Octopusplushie (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh...see, this is why we shouldn't have jumped the gun and posted it when it had so many tags and issues! Tails Wx 03:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled We can reinstate the article once it's up to scratch. Schwede66 00:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been significantly improved with citation links thanks to the combined effort of several editors. At this time, there are no missing citations. Maxxies (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A major figure with about half a million readers so far. The
    Template:Tl seem quite petty and not significant as the article has over 100 citations and there are many eyes on the topic. I checked out one of the tags and addressed it; it wasn't difficult. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Reposted All sourcing is up to scratch now. Black Kite (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post reposting support Article is up to ITNRD standards. Cheers. WimePocy 14:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Salim Durani

Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose Article is a stub, and expansion is needed in order for this to qualify for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Haziqul Khairi

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support The article looks good enough to post.Fahads1982 (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Fahads1982. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks good. And ready.BabbaQ (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support still waiting for this article to post.

Fahads1982 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. Multiple major positions mentioned in the lede, including Chief Justice and role in the Council of Islamic Ideology are not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article. SpencerT•C 03:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose agree with Spencer. It's necessary to expand the article to show his notability. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadan stampedes in Pakistan

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Seymour Stein

Template:ITN candidate

April 1

Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2023 April 1
Template:Cob

(Closed) 2023 Aston by-election

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose and defer to DYK. It's an absolute fantastic DYK hook, but still just a routine by-election for one legislative seat for ITN purposes. Courcelles (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A simple by-election. Sure, it's an over a century achievement but it's still just for a single seat. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is one seat out of 151 in one legislature of one country. While it might have been an upset, this still has no real significance except for this very small area of Australia.
I'd suggest proposing this for DYK. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - while I am in favour of posting some sub-national elections, individual constituency by-elections are still well below the radar. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but definitely submit to DYK! --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Trivial trivia. Curbon7 (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ab

(Posted) Tornado outbreak of March 31, 2023

Template:ITN candidate

  • Wait - Tornado outbreak is nowhere near done yet. Article is way to barebones to nominate. Mjeims (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - 21 deaths and climbing. King O' FoolsTalk 19:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - storms in the spring and other normal things. nableezy - 01:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • still opposed, you have this youre going to be the weather channel the rest of the spring/summer. Yes, its sad, no it isnt anything out of the ordinary or so widely covered it should be on the main page as something people have seen in the news and want more information on. nableezy - 05:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – Extent of impact is unclear as the outbreak is ongoing. We'll be able to better assess tomorrow. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support combined blurb – the impacts are indeed extensive and with the previous outbreak still fresh on ITN it seems reasonable to combine them. We'll have to wait and see if we have to go for a triple on Tuesday. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Plus the forecast is suggesting an even worse series of tornadic storms on Tues-Wed, this one to focus in slightly higher latitudes. It has been an exceptional winter and spring. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was considering nominating this, but decided to wait until more damage occurs to get a better chance of pushing this true. Now its at six deaths, and has also affected 165 K customers. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 07:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to wait, per others. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Vanilla Wizard's blurb. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We are already blurbing a similar tornado outbreak which happened recently and so it would be excessive to have a second blurb. Just update the first blurb or replace it with an Ongoing link to a more encyclopedic article like Tornadoes in the United States which explains that "...they are most common in spring ... Because spring is a transitional period for the climate, there are more chances of cooler air meeting with warmer air, resulting in more thunderstorms." Note that it's similar here in the UK where we have had a spate of hail, heavy rain and thunderstorms lately. This is not especially new, "March brings breezes loud and shrill, stirs the dancing daffodil." Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose without fatalities. And per Andrew. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There’s at least six confirmed dead. The Kip (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Per the above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Support combined blurb as per @Vanilla Wizard PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While now 11 have been confirmed dead, this is typical damage of a tornado outbreak for this time of year, and given that it was broad across multiple states, it is nowhere near the density that the previous outbreak that we covered had. --Masem (t) 16:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. Tragic to be sure, but this is just not that far out of the ordinary for these sorts of events. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll is now at 21 and likely to climb. The number of injuries and extent of damage has sadly moved this into the realm of a fairly major disaster. Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nom says 600 injuries, article says ">70". That's a massive gap that fundamentally changes the importance of this event. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Standalone Blurb While numbers like these would crush the InedibleHulk MCE Bar of Approval, they still fall way short on my Biologically Induced, Growingly Recurrent, Horribly Ordinary Natural Disaster Assessment (BIG RHONDA). Is there a twist? I think not. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Tornado outbreak of March 24–27, 2023, which is still on ITN right now, resulted in 22 fatalities +2 non-tornadic fatalities (total of 24 confirmed deaths) and >31 injuries. The nominated article states that the Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023 resulted in >17 fatalities +3 non-tornadic fatalities (total of 20 confirme deaths) and >87 injuries. I think it would be difficult to argue at this time that the March 31 to April 1 outbreak was less notable on the grounds that it was less destructive, as the two seemed more or less equally devastating. Would it be possible to consolidate the two tornado-related blurbs?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like:
A bit wordy, but more concise than having two separate blurbs.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. It also
Template:S got shafted. "Kill" is shorter than "leave dead", I find. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I also like combining the two tornado events. Jusdafax (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also support combined blurb. Another outbreak is currently in the forecast for Tuesday, and if that turns out to also be major then it might complicate things slightly, but for now this seems like the most elegant solution. Ionmars10 (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb as the death tolls for both is significant. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb per above. Should there be an image for this one, like tornado damage or something? I'm heading to Sullivan, Indiana, a town that was hit by an EF3 tornado during the outbreak, so if I manage to take photos of the damage there, it could be used! Tails Wx 01:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A combined blurb seems reasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support combined blurb Makes the most sense in this situation. Kafoxe (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have been very wary of combined disparate storm systems in the past, since we cannot claim causality between the events. Combining the blurbs is not a smart idea. If it were the case that, say, a weather system dropped torandoes in some states and later massive flooding in others, that would be reason to combine the blurbs. But two systems separated by a week isn't something we should be combining. --Masem (t) 02:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either individual or combined blurbs. This outbreak has enough to stand alone, but with the earlier outbreak and the potential for another major, newsworthy outbreak this coming Tuesday it may be prudent to combine blurbs.
    E) 03:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support combined or separate blurb. --RockstoneSend me a message! 06:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Clarification. As noted (but seemingly ignored) previously, there is no basis for the 600+ injuries claim. This is not substantiated by the target article, and rather, the first linked source notes that 600 was a prior estimate that was not substantiated. I have adjusted the above blurbs accordingly. I Support a blurb in general, but particularly would lean towards the combined blurb proposal. DarkSide830 (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Combined with the understanding that we may need to expand in a few days (another widespread outbreak is anticipated). Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support combined, the disaster has now become a significant event. --WaltClipper -(talk) 14:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postedfilelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]