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.
One person is killed and 28 others are injured when a tornado causes the roof of a theater in Belvidere, Illinois, to collapse during a concert. (WIFR-TV)
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: Latvian-born American physician associated with the Miracle on Ice team. Flibirigit (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Weak Support: Looks good with no unsourced claims. Not sure if notable enough, though. Octopusplushie (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone w/an article is automatically notable enough for RD if their article is good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sourced and RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article looks good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have edited the blurb to make it clearer that it was the cover of the well which collapsed. It's an interesting headline as I wasn't previously familiar with stepwells. But, per
WP:NEWSEVENT, it's not really an encyclopedic topic -- just another fatal accident. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support - Accidental mass fatalities seem to get a lot of oppose votes these days, but I disagree. And I also think that the unusual nature of this accident is noteworthy. The blurb could do with clarifying that the actual collapse was a concrete floor over the top of the well, which was not what I would have understood from the proposed blurb. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't say anything about concrete – it has "covered by grills and tiles". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSEVENT, "... early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Update I've revised the blurb again as it appears that the stepwell is ancient but the temple is comparatively new and was built over the well. So, I think "floor" is a better word than "cover" to explain what collapsed. Also, note that there was a similar collapse a year ago – see 13 die in village well collapse at wedding.... Such incidents don't seem to generate long-term coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good sourcing. High number of fatalities. Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Support per all above - definitely ready for ITNRD, marking as ready. Cheers. WimePocy 11:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is not in good condition. It's too short right now and needs expansion. Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality The article is too short, lacking details. Needs expansion. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on Quality - Article is pretty stubby. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pending expansion. Per Onegreatjoke, article needs improvement largely by expanding what little bit is there, before posting on the main page. --Jayron32 14:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality Not much more than a stub. Neutral on notability. The Kip (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is this alluding to :)? Gotitbro (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curbon7 promised to donate $5 to the Wikimedia Foundation if Editor5426387 made a vote without saying 'per the above' PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OR if Editor Prime Number make an argument that isn't a logical fallacy. Don't forget that! :-) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that I didn't learn about this sooner. However, @Curbon7, I will say, I look into the ITN archives out of boredom, and 5426387 did make an argument that wasn't just "per the above" on the Super Bowl nomination back in February. It didn't go anywhere since by then the Super Bowl was posted, and I don't know when this bet occurred, or if previous votes count, but, I found one. Better donate 5 bones, my guy ;) TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. Also neutral on notability. I still think there are editors who want to turn MP into something gloomy. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't really have much of a choice when the nomination system here has lately been predisposed to favor disasters and a handful of other ITN/R topics. ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 13:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And that's a problem. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Tragic event that gained international coverage. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support big news. I heard about this disaster yesterday. The article is a little think but it has the essential facts and seems to be verifiable. Good enough. JehochmanTalk 15:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. Alex-h (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a quality article and significance is questionable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Haven't looked at the article yet, but on significance alone, I oppose. Haven't seen any news coverage on it as of now, but maybe that's just lack of trying looking for some on my part. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand records its first case of rabies in a human. A patient who had been in hospital since early March died from the disease, which did not spread further. (News24)
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) rules that the United States violated its 1955 friendship treaty with Iran when it allowed its domestic courts to freeze assets held by Iranian companies, but said that the ICJ does not have jurisdiction over the US$1.75 billion worth of frozen assets held by the Central Bank of Iran. Both countries claimed victory in the ruling. (Reuters)
The Vatican officially repudiates the discovery doctrine, writing that the 15th-century papal bulls which promoted it were "manipulated for political purposes by competing colonial powers in order to justify immoral acts against indigenous peoples that were carried out, at times, without opposition from ecclesiastical authorities". (Al Jazeera)
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 comedian, radio and television presenter HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support I've fixed many of the article's issues, but there should be no major ones that remain. Article now looks good enough for ITNRD. Cheers. WimePocy 14:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks ok now.BabbaQ (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Needs some copyediting before this is fully main page ready. SpencerT•C 03:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spencer, I've done some copy-editing, let me know if additional copy-edits are needed or not! TailsWx 04:36, 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.
Nominator's comments: Died today, founded Usborne Publishing (which may need some work) but his article is fine. phrogge'sup?edits 01:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support the article before contained a lot of advertising content but is sourced now. Blythwood (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article could use additional detail about his publishing career. Between starting his company in 1973 and receiving an award in 2012, the article has a sentence with a list of books his company published but not much more. SpencerT•C 06:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I've now added a feature interview and some articles from reliable source outlets on the influence of the books he published. Blythwood (talk) 21:22, 5 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.
Nominator's comments: Died on March 27, announced today. Member of the U.S. House, uncle of the comedian. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support Article looks good for RD. Side note, it's uncle of the comedians Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dreadful news, but the article's alright and the scientist is taking it pretty well, so cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sourced and good enough for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus to post. Opinions are divided, with a slight majority for posting, but there is no rough consensus for doing so, nor does it appear likely from the direction the discussion is taking that consensus to post will come about. This does not preclude another nomination if there are significant developments in the story. Sandstein 07:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
indicted by a New York grand jury, becoming the first U.S. president to face criminal charges. News source(s):NYTCNN
Comment First current or former president to be indicted, not just first former president. Might be more concise to just say first American president to be indicted and charged with crimes? I have no thoughts on a !vote yet. It's definitely going to be enormous news in the United States and very likely to receive large coverage across the world. Maybe once/if we have a standalone article about the ramifications of this news story it can be posted, but right now it might be a little soon since we don't know what he will be charged with yet and he has not been arrested yet. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I will not support an article at ITN that only has a footnote update on such an important matter. NoahTalk 21:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose How many times do we have to talk about WP:BPLCRIME in this space? Exhausting. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indictments are not convictions, only that there is reasonable cause for him to be under arrest and under trial to determine guilt. Masem (t) 22:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is exactly what I'm referring to. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read
WP:BLPCRIME before bringing it up, unless you are of the view that Donald Trump is not a public figure. nableezy - 23:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It isn't a violation of
WP:BLPCRIME to say that an indictment of a former US president is newsworthy. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
The point is BLPCRIME does not apply here at all. It very specifically says for people who are not public figures. nableezy - 22:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Presidents have been indicted before. Not in the US, but they have. We don't need to post every first at ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under this logic, 1/6 should not have been posted because "riots at governmental buildings/coups occur. Not in the US, but they have. We don't need to post every first at ITN." - Knightsoftheswords281i.eCrusader1096(Talk-Contribs-Wikis) 22:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were other obvious reasons to post 1/6 beyond "it hadn't happened before". More specifically, this is a campaign finance violation, which aren't exactly rare in the US. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major news with historic gravity. -TenorTwelve (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a worldwide news page, not a list of news about U.S. politics. I'm so tired of this american/western bias here, jesus. it's like every other news piece is american congress this, american funded court that, american enemies do this (very bad!) thing, heroic american troops do that. Daikido (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are we on the same ITN? Because its frankly the opposite; lot of stories get put down because they occurred in the west (especially if they occurred in America). There is legit one story about America on ITN right now. Also, ITN entries do not require global significance to be posted and such arguments are actually discouraged from being used here. - Knightsoftheswords281i.eCrusader1096(Talk-Contribs-Wikis) 22:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This may be an incredibly controversial opinion, but we are a wikipedia primarily centered around the Anglosphere, just the same as the Spanish wikipedia is centered around the Hispanic world. Naturally, more weight is given to articles in the west. Also, the USA is so central to how the world functions that its domestic politics affect the world an incredible amount. I don't think it's some injustice to place more weight on domestic affairs in the US. That being said, I do not think we should become a US politics ticker, nor do I think we should re-inforce a bias to the west, we should try to have a diverse array of stories we post, but for something like this I think it's okay to place more emphasis on the US. Just my opinion, I may be wrong. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to your opinion. But it is not and should not be our policy to focus on the Anglosphere. We already have a source-bias problem there, because it is generally necessary to be able to both read the source language and write English in order to contribute. That's a lot easier to find people for if the source language is also English. We should absolutely not compound that by intentionally focussing on Anglophones. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said we should intentionally focus on the Anglosphere, I even think we should strive not to in many circumstances, my point was that we shouldn't oppose this story purely based on the fact that it's America-centric PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely based opinion. Look I support attempts to broaden coverage of the rest of the world, but this whole circus that occurs whenever a US-based story occurs or this attempt to "combat systemic bias" by opposing western stories is trivial and petty, and a direct violation of
The indictment of a former president, one of the most powerful jobs in the world, is not newsworthy? Manumaker08 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop accusing of anti-Americanism to those who do not think the same as you. The world is bigger than you may think. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a being says its not a cat, but meows, acts, and looks like a cat, its a cat. ITN has no requirement for global significance and
I mean, the media is definitely over-blowing it. This probably has little impact on the next election. A conviction doesn't preclude Trump from running and if we are honest, it's probably not impacting very many voters if any. Most likely this situation results in the paying of a fine by Trump and not much else. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not “accusing of anti-Americanism” when multiple oppose votes above literally opposed solely because “oh posting this is America-centric” or some variation thereof. The Kip (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article is currently a stub and probably gets rolled into the current linked article anyway. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Unlike some other people on here I'm not inherently against posting indictments of current/former political leaders, and the historic significance of this can't be understated (though some are trying...). However, the
Indictment of Donald Trump is expanded per Knightoftheswords281's suggestion, then I will support it. Mount Patagonia (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Suggest !wait - Maybe it's a little too early to accurately assess the notability? We don't know what the ramifications will be yet.
Indictment of Donald Trump was started after this nomination was posted and it'll take time to develop into a suitable target article. I recommend holding off from !voting for at least a couple of hours, if not a day. Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Wait for now. Obviously this is too short of an update now, but by later tonight, it should be fleshed out as those relevant comment. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article at
WP:BLPCRIME is not a complete bar on these pre-conviction legal matters, especially for public figures, which Trump obviously is. There's a lot of US stuff that gets nominated here that would be too American-centric to post, but this is not one of them, and posting would help our readers navigate to the an important and highly sought-after item in the news. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Wait. As far as I can tell there is no indication yet of what the indictment is for, and whether it will turn out to be something utterly minor. BD2412T 22:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we should wait until we know the actual charges. The indictment is still sealed. Clear historical first.331dot (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that waiting until the actual charges are, and the article expanded, are known. --Masem (t) 22:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; with Putin we knew what the charges were. And also agree the article needs expansion. 331dot (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, we knew what the charges were and still falsely accused them of child abduction instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not false, many RS claim that. Russia has no authority to move a single Ukrainian civilian from Ukraine, they are an invader, much less force Russian citizenship on them. But I've already said too much. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb wasn't about what many RS claimed about Russia, it was just about what the ICC prosecutor alleged Putin and Lvova-Belova did. Which was "unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation", not child abduction. If anyone's abducting children, it's their underlings, minions or goons. High-level politicians play high-level games. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. We don't want to have our remarks struck due to sanctions. We should make facetious remarks about imaginary screenplays instead. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's absolutely refreshing to see Wikipedia's "In the News" not following the example of mainstream US media, who as usual imply, by the size of their headlines, that Donald Trump is the most important and interesting person in the world. Bishonen | tålk 23:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose. If he gets convicted, or indicted on an offense more likely to lead to conviction, then we can consider posting. BilledMammal (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Couldn't we have a pic of Stormy Daniels instead? Hawkeye7(discuss) 23:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't do arrests. We ignored the rules for Putin and Lvova-Belova, and proved we can't be trusted to present allegations as allegations or even get the allegation correct. Right off the bat, it was one payment and Michael Cohen made it, not Trump. Trump is accused of falsifying a record of the repayment. Not again, for any BLPs. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Bishonen you are in my top 3 admins or editors ever, but cmon it is not just the mainstream US media. This is the top story everywhere. Al-Jazeera Arabic (and English), BBC, The Guardian, Le Figaro, The Chosun Ilbo, Bild, Sydney Morning Herald are all leading with this. This is the top story on every single newspaper I look at it in multiple languages. I dont get the idea of waiting either, right now is when people would be looking for information on this story, right now is when it is most relevant to post to our in the news section. nableezy - 23:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to repeat myself but we are not a newspaper. We do not care how many RSes cover a story, we want to make sure we get the story right first and foremost for the enduring topic of an encyclopedia. That we have no idea what he was indicted for is the issue. Which should be known in a few days. Masem (t) 00:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying this thing like it applies to this discussion. ITN exists to direct our readers towards topics they are reading about in the news. So yes, it matters how many news sources are covering something, as that correlates to the number of people reading about it and in turn searching here for more information about it. Nothing in the blurb I proposed is not solidly backed up by a ton of reliable sources. So the bit about we dont know is likewise not relevant here. nableezy - 03:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nableezy! Indeed, the mainstream media all over the world publicize everything about DT as if the least detail connected with him or word out of his mouth ("Alvin Bragg is a Soros-backed animal") was the most newsworthy thing in the world. And this, still, even after the media's soul-searching ever since 2016: "We created this monster!" Yeah, you did, guys, and Trump must be delighted to see the size of, say, Wapo's headline. Bishonen | tålk 08:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Premature The alleged indictment is under seal. Until it is published this is conjecture. Ok... it's well sourced and widely reported conjecture. But it is not real until the indictment is unsealed and publicly put on the record. Same for the leaked SCOTUS decision that overturned Roe v Wade. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support — The indictment of Donald Trump has no meaningful impact on the world. However, given that this story is the top headline around the world (above Finland's accession to NATO), I'm going to support putting this in ITN. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nableezy, who did the same thing I did, look at multiple worldwide news sources. It's at the top around the globe. The news of the indctment itself is news. Opposers don't make a convincing case, as I see it. Jusdafax (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Up until 15 or so minutes ago, there was another top story about the Paltrow verdict. Before that, it was NATO. Before that, the Vatican and the Pope personally. Opposers never think Supporters are convincing, nor vice versa, that's the point. But news changes. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Paltrow was the top story in multiple newspapers across the world in multiple languages? I call bs. nableezy - 00:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only read French and English, and thought I was talking about multiple worldwide news sources here. So you may be right. But I shit you not. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not just the front page, but the top story? Push everything off for the multiple stories that run off this story level of story? Cmon, the last time that happened was when some old lady died in Scotland. nableezy - 01:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot resist a cmon. Have it your way (meaning I like your alt). I could care less about Gwyneth Paltrow, but the important thing to happen today is still the Vatican's renunciation of the discovery doctrine. It's just one step, sure. But a much bigger step than this one step. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While I would oppose this in principle, as nableezy said it is the headline right now. ITN is intended for global news, and I agree that American/Western news tends to wrongfully dominate ITN, but this is not the event to try to make that point. Estar8806 (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I forgot to mention my support is conditional on the link being changed as others above have mentioned. Estar8806 (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a historical event and a high-profile occurence. Despite no arrest or convict as of now, it is something with historical precedent that warrants a mention. Jennytacular (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An image of Trump's portrait is definetly not needed, the attorney office should likely be the photo. If that doesn't suffice, an image should not be added and just a passing mention. Jennytacular (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And Hulk makes three, removed...for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major story in international English-language media, a historic moment for the US. It's absurd to say that this is not a noteworthy current event. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. It is true that ITN usually posts convictions rather than indictments, but this is quite historic for the U.S. and is a top story globally. Also, we did post both of his impeachments, which are the political equivalent of indictments rather than convictions. Davey2116 (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposed blurb uses terminology/jargon that is specific to a small number of countries. Specifically, "indicted" and "grand jury". I suggest that these two terms are linked to Indictment and either Grand jury or Grand juries in the United States to make the article more accessible to all readers. Chrisclear (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As far as I can tell, the person involved in this news item has only been charged and has not yet been found guilty by a court. Chrisclear (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I am bewildered this is even debated. The idea that we should ignore this because the west or the USA gets a lot of attention already is a pretty silly argument. How would this anti-west framework even work? If the West starts nuking certain ethnic groups would we ignore that? Is it "something unprecedented" + "the west" = "Wikipedia ignores". It's silly, as for the idea that merely being charged is not sufficient, only conviction that's silly too. The most recent head of state of the most powerful nation on earth is being forced through the criminal procedure. How is this up for debate? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you're cool with saying he made multiple payments to a porn star we only know Michael Cohen paid once? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said he made multiple payments, but if that's what New York says and they have the proof for it then absolutely. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb you just Strongly Supported says that. The target article, which isn't what it should be, makes the payment plan clear. Cohen paid Daniels, Trump repayed Cohen. We won't know if the state has proof (of any wrongdoing) until its evidence is tested in court. Just so you know, not trying to sway you. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb was corrected and we know the state has proof beyond probable cause at a bare minimum. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nableezy. Call it “America-centric” all you want, it’s a massive story that the former leader of the global hegemon is now facing charges for the first time in history. The Kip (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, basically per WP:IAR, because it's Trump. Nsk92 (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously. The sheer scale of coverage alone qualifies. This will drastically alter American history. Blade Jogger 2049Talk 00:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
offered an alt I think works a bit better, nableezy - 01:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support While posting this would break precedent this is the story of the month. Not having this on ITN would be a failure to meet the goals of ITN Aure entuluva (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since when did we start posting indictments instead of convictions? (And please don't say "since we posted the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for Putin"). Banedon (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support with reservations, Mr. Trump is an important political figure in the 3rd largest country by population, and this is a story that will be widely covered by news media globally. While I wouldn't normally support this in most other circumstances, this is one where I think we really should make an exception for reasons mentioned prior. I do think the wording of this could be reworded however to flow better. Planetberaure (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Per Nsk92. My understanding is that indictments aren't normally ITN-worthy, but this is the former President of the United States and a uniquely high-profile person. The fact that criminal charges are being formally pressed against a former POTUS is unprecedented, and a major development. Kurtis(talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Et tu, Kurtis? C'est la vie. But FWIW, it won't be a fact until he's arraigned, probably Tuesday. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I know it’s not conventional, but this indictment strikes me as being uniquely consequential and newsworthy. That being said, I do see the opposing points and am open to reconsidering. Kurtis(talk) 11:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to neutral. I've been mulling it over since yesterday, and ultimately, I'm not sure where I land. On the one hand, convention is to wait until a conviction takes place, which I think is a good thing; we don't want to contribute to the perception that someone is guilty before they've even had a trial. Approving this could conceivably set a precedent for other indictments, which wouldn't be desirable. But on the other hand, a current or former POTUS even being charged with a crime is pretty remarkable, and it's proving to be big news. Kurtis(talk) 07:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: We post convictions, not indictments. Now, if Trump supporters start rioting in the streets over the indictment, that would be worth posting, but the post would be about the riots, not the indictment. --Carnildo (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until Tuesday, which appears to be the date Trump has agreed to be taken into custody, which means we'll also know all of the charges at that point. --Masem (t) 02:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb2. Link to the article about the indictment. Update the blurb and article as this story develops. On Tuesday we can add “and arrested” and say specifically what the 34 counts are. JehochmanTalk 02:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The number of counts is not known. It is what is claimed to be the number from those with inside information, but it is no way official, and definitely something we cannot support on the main page. --Masem (t) 02:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources report 34 counts. It’s good enough for starters. Soon we will know more and update the blurb. It’s like a disaster where we keep updating the toll. (Unlike a disaster, this is great, great news.) JehochmanTalk 02:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is ABSOLUTELY NOT, and a major violation of BLPCRIME to include in the blurb. He's indicted on at least one count, and that number may be higher, which is the same way we handle death tolls, reporting "At least (known death toll)" and updating as we go along. Masem (t) 02:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLPCRIME does not apply to public figures. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This is THE political news that people have been waiting on for years. This is amongst the first of likely several, and has historic implications as well as implications for the 2024 race. If any US political news made it as an ITN article over the past 6 years, this would be an obvious contender for top 3. People that oppose this either don't understand the full gravity of how "NEWS" worthy it is, or are biased and trying to mask it with feigned concern. When you think rationally about this, this is prime ITN material, especially on the English Wikipedia. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Especially on the English Wikipedia' my eye. This is Wikipedia in English, not Wikipedia about Anglophones. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Seems like a no-brainer at this point to post this -- a former US President and current presidential candidate has been indicted for the first time in US history, and on 34 criminal charges, is clearly of major political significance for the US, and is being widely covered globally with interest for potential domestic and international implications. --PopularMax (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This event has been quite widely spoken of for the past week, and yes it is only an indictment but I'm sure the whole Bill Clinton ordeal would have made ITN had it happened more recently. And though, yes, that was a different situation the publicity behind it is largely the same. Daneelis114 03:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support a formal indictment of an US former president. Yes, we probably won’t post a former president of Paraguay or Fiji being arrested, but let’s face reality: the US is simply much more relevant to any audience outside those countries. Juxlos (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More US-centric news. Not a sitting president. Not even convicted. CoatCheck (talk) 04:52, 31 March 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." The Kip (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder People face their charges at arraignment in America. When they literally (albeit sometimes virtually) face a judge. Until then, it's just a figure of speech and if it's posted early, no amount of reasoning can fix it later on ERRORS. Also bear in mind that nobody explicitly asked for a picture with this one. Nobody. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As per above, this is the first time that a former US president has been indicted. Even though convictions are generally considered for ITN, it's hard to ignore the criminal indictment of a former president of the most powerful country on Earth and its significant political and social ramifications. Waiting for his arraignment (most probably short) would not not change the initial significance of his indictment. I do not think that we should be seeking to be sensational by waiting to post only his arraignment as this is one of the steps that follows an indictment.^^Maxxies (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're misunderstanding me, I'm just saying don't write that he's become a president facing charges until it's true, not don't post (in my Vote I'm saying don't post, but not in the Reminder). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt about the indictment. The district attorney has confirmed it. Arraignment will happen when Trump flies to New York and presents himself in court. The indictment has already happened. JehochmanTalk 08:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a better way I might convey that my problem isn't with the indictment, but rather that the president will only hear/face his charges/judge on the coming Tuesday (at which time, unless something changes, half these blurbs will become accurate for the first time), just let me know. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Post conviction. Pavlor (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An historic decision. First former U.S President to be indicted.BabbaQ (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- this story is literally everywhere. It would make Wikipedia look ridiculous to not also post it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 08:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on the actual posting - it's clearly big news, but other users are correct that we don't normally post individual arrests or indictments. We should definitely wait until it actually happens and the charge list is unsealed. And I want to stress again that the fact that a person is charged with a stated offence is frequently a public fact about them, and we shouldn't shy away from that. I appreciate not wanting to present the information in such a way as to prejudice a trial, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover it. And I notice that some of the people who are keen to rely on BLPCRIME when it protects prominent right-wing politicians, are not so exercised when speculating about other alleged criminals. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to bring up that we posted the arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin by the ICC, so this isn't too much of a stretch. In fact, I'd even argue it's more notable due to the real chance that Trump will be arrested, while the ICC's decision was largely symbolic. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed - I'm leaning support due to the fact that this is literally In The News, at the top of every news outlet, and the indictment of a former global hegemon, as others have pointed out, is big news. Opposing based on the fact that this is America-centric is not really a strong point. However, @InedibleHulk has made quite good counter-arguments, and it might be best to wait, as per the above. Hmmm PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to your heart, PW, not this ringworn old blob of cholestorolic vapourlock (but if you happen to never write "however" again, I'd appreciate it). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of remark I mean, when I say that your posting at ITNC includes a lot of wildly unhelpful material that is tolerated out of all proportion to its relevance. Can a third party comment on this phenonomenon, please? GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's better than Indeed. We don't want to have our remarks struck due to sanctions. We should make facetious remarks about imaginary screenplays instead. Anyone want to have to guess what the hell that means? I can't bother. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is as good as yours when it comes to that phrase
Better to be a bit more relaxed, in my humble opinion. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NEVER! That's when they get you. But yeah, I'll pace quietly. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this editor is consistently disruptive, but not so egregiously as to warrant sanction. Just don't look. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We post convictions, not indictments. The story could end up being a whole pile of nothing yet. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until it is official, then post the indictment. If that means we're a couple days late to the news, so be it; it'll be on the main page for a couple of weeks regardless, based on the current slow news cycle. Anarchyte (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't generally post indictments, we post convictions. I don't see this as necessary to break that standard. Furthermore, the article highlighted is neither sufficiently updated nor of sufficient quality. There are basically two fragmentary sentences (one in the lead and one in the timeline", and the article suffers from
WP:PROSELINE quality problems. --Jayron32 11:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose i'd rather wait for a conviction. Onegreatjoke (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a mere charge. We should reconsider if/when he is convicted. Modest Geniustalk 12:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Narrow support on significance, but oppose on quality of this 50%
Support: After a brief check, this is currently on the front page of the websites for the BBC (where it is the top story), Times of India and Le Monde. Countless others have it as the top story of their "world" sections. This has ramifications beyond the United States. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the same reason I opposed the Putin blurb, mere charges and arrests [for them] should never be up on the main page. This has been the standard with the Putin posting being an aberration. Furthermore, at least in posting that we knew what the exact charges were and there was an arrest warrant (which is what that posting hinged on and not the mere indictment by the ICC); there is no such thing here, no exact charges have been revealed nor is the person up for arrest (as of this moment). Even those wanting this to be posted should wait for the exact charges to be revealed and the person being up for arrest/arrested (though I would still oppose for the reasons stated here initially and for a basic deference to BLP). Gotitbro (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait this is important enough to post, but we should wait for the charges to be announced. The "Stormy Daniels" payments being the main charge is still speculation at this time -- "business fraud" is what has been announced. 217.180.228.188 (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it appears there is consensus to post, and given that this story is dominating headlines worldwide, I really think it makes Wikipedia look silly to not have already posted it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 17:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Picture - If this is posted, we need a picture of Trump like we posted a picture of Putin. Son Of The Desert (Talk) 18:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Conviction, not indictment. There are 100 ways for an indictment to end, and 98 of them are non-stories. --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 19:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – It is not the first time a former President of a country has been indicted. News has relevance pretty much in the US alone. Yakme (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this matter? I constantly see this, but the note up top explicitly admonishes people against opposing because an article only relates to one country. Are people just unable to read or...? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - we don't know why he was indicted - there's rumours out there. If he's actually charged, or flees into exile, then I think we need IAR and post this. It's a massive story - unlike anything we've seen in a half-century since Vice-President Agnew (who was also facing indictment on similar charges). Yeah, we have a problem with an American bias here - but this is big. Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Bish and Black Kite. No conviction yet, we don't know the contents of the indictment, it's presumably something to do with campaign finance laws that are not infrequently broken. If there is a fallout, it will presumably occur after a trial is complete. Also: this may briefly have made headlines outside the US, but as I write, it no longer is very prominent; it's dropped off of the front page for the non-US outlets that I checked; at best, there's a followup opinion piece or two visible. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there some smiling photo of him? If we have to have an image, then are the AI generated ones of him being arrested not CC licensed? Half kidding, but I dont think we need his photo for this blurb, it adds nothing to it. nableezy - 23:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When he surrenders on Tuesday we can add his photo. The mugshot. JehochmanTalk
Support - While not a completely unique event, it is still unprecedented for the United States and follows a lengthy investigation that was itself a long-running news story. While there's no guarantee this will be considered a big deal in a few years, I'm satisfied that it's a big deal right now, and suitable for the infobox. Tisnec (talk) 02:50, 1 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) US Senate votes to end COVID-19 emergency
WP:SNOW close - consensus is not going to develop for posting. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
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: This about as much of a declaration of end to the pandemic we can hope for. WHO will never declare it. 2A02:2F0B:B500:5A00:41F3:1AF6:93B2:B1C5 (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - For all practical purposes, the pandemic has already been over for quite some time. There is no need to post an official announcement of its end that only deals with one country out of more than 190. Son Of The Desert (Talk) 17:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? Let's not get carried away, the US is not the WHO and, therefore, the end of the pandemic can only be declared by this organization. This is far from being ITNR-worthy when, moreover, it is not even the only country to have done so. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Irregardless of what the nominator thinks, the WHO will eventually declare covid-19 has moved from a global pandemic to a global endemic. When that happens, it's news and we'll post it. In the meantime, the United States is just one country. Gopchunk (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't feel like I need to explain why. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I understand why you've nominated this, but there are numerous flaws in the idea. The bill hasn't become law yet - Biden still has to sign it. The US Senate doesn't get to decide when a global pandemic is over. That's not what they've done anyway - the bill is related to emergency powers and funding that were granted to the US federal government to tackle the pandemic, not a declaration of when the pandemic itself began or ended. Those powers were due to expire in May anyway. There's no reason to post the US response to the pandemic over other countries'. Wait for the WHO declaration that Covid is endemic, whenever that may be. And finally, there's no updated article, which is an immediate fail for ITN. Modest Geniustalk 19:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The WHO will, eventually, declare that the pandemic is over. The United States is not the WHO. DecafPotato (talk) 19:37, 30 March 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) Fort Campbell collision
Consensus is not to post. Stephen 23:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose Article is a stub. Not worthy of the main page given that. Will reevaluate if that ever changes. --Jayron32 14:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still opposed. Reading the source material; it is a tragedy, but from my reading of the source articles, it looks like this is likely that this event is generating a lot of one-off stories (many of which are reprints from newswires) of relatively short length and it doesn't seem like this level of reporting indicates significance of a level that would indicate posting on ITN right now. Willing to be proven wrong in the future, with more indepth coverage. But it's not there now, from what I see. --Jayron32 16:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is a stub as Jayron mentioned. Though I would like to say that the main reason why the airshow crash was posted was specifically because it got a LOT of media attention. So this would likely have to receive some as well. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. According to
WP:PERSISTENCE), let alone being listed in ITN. Plus the article is currently a four sentence stub. Modest Geniustalk 14:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
Oppose — U.S.-centric story. I'll change my vote if there is sustained coverage. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the instructions at the top of this page "Please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country... This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." --Jayron32 15:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we generally do not include the result of disasters to military personnel while in their duties, as this was. --Masem (t) 15:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While that now meets our minimum length and referencing requirements, it doesn't change my view of the (lack of) significance. Modest Geniustalk 16:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Dallas airshow was a very contentious posting, probably not a good testcase. There were also other factors which contributed to that posting, particulalry that the two aircraft invovled were historic planes among the last of their kind. This appears to involve two Black Hawk helicopters; helicopter crashes are fairly common compared to other aviation disasters. Curbon7 (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We generally don't post deaths that occur during standard military operations since that is an inherent risk associated with being in the military. NoahTalk 16:14, 30 March 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.
Thirty-one people are killed and more than 200 others are rescued after a ferry catches fire near an island in Basilan, Philippines. At least seven are still missing. (AP)
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: Game developer, creator of Bubsy and co-founder of Bend Studio. The date of death is not clear but it has to be no later than March 29 given the twitter reports. Masem (t) 16:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Weak oppose Bleh. Article is pretty short, one long list with a single citation added to it, overall, I don't think this is ITNRD ready. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RD: Girish Bapat
Article:
WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Some A lot of issues. Rushtheeditor (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Strongly Oppose: Article has more than "some citation issues", it is unfortunately lacking in any detail. It does not explain anything Bapat did through his career, only the offices he held. This article really needs a lot more to it. Octopusplushie (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is orange tagged and is far from ready for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No objections to the posting, but why do people fail to notice the instruction that significance is a non-factor in posting to RD? Any person, or even animal, is eligible if they have an article that is good enough. Son Of The Desert (Talk) 18:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two Portuguese women are killed in a stabbing attack at an Isma'ilismShia religious centre in Lisbon, Portugal. Police shoot the suspect, an Afghan man, in the leg at the scene, before arresting him and taking him to a hospital. (BBC News)
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 No. 2 countertenor, Britten's Oberon in 1967, and as good in Early Music as world premieres. The article was pretty much there, but references missing + I was on vacation. I hope he can still appear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
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.
Oppose - Per @Sandstein, and, while this is a tragedy, death tolls do not automatically mean notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per
WP:NEWSEVENT, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I think this policy should come up way more often on ITN. It feels like every single disaster over 15 or so deaths gets posted regardless of actual significance (though not to downplay these tragedies). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just ITN, but NOTNEWS overall that needs to be more strictly enforced. We shouldn't have articles on things like bus accidents like this in the first place, though a list of traffic accidents in (country) would be appropriate. Masem (t) 12:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We recently posted a bus plunge in Panama. I don't see what makes this any different in terms of postability. Regardless, the article is at AfD, so that precludes this discussion until that is resolved. Curbon7 (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - while I generally revile arguments such as
WP:NEWSEVENT
being used in a section dedicated to covering the news, I think instances like this where there really shouldn't be an article at all are acceptable cases for those points to be invoked.
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) Lisbon mass stabbing
(
NON-ADMIN CLOSURE
)
Good faith nom, but consensus to post unlikely to develop. The Kip (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Agreed, I'd like to know what the bar is myself. ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 23:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Id say yall set the bar when you reflexively oppose any shooting with more casualties and substantially more coverage because it "Amurica doing Amurican things". nableezy - 23:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My bar for mass casualty events is at twelve, either dead or seriously injured. Still bad news when lower, never good. But not "major", absent some extraordinary twist. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Personally my bar is at 15 dead minimum. So this will be an oppose from me.Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It feels weird to have a "minimum death toll" for notability. As Andrew pointed out above, WP:NEWSEVENT says "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scratched out what I wrote. Though, i've noticed that the article itself doesn't even really talk about the stabbing. Rather it just mentions the perpetrator, victims, and aftermath. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is not a thing and should not be a thing. Candidates should be assessed on significance, not an arbitrary number. Curbon7 (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Regardless, I don't really see this event as being that notable for ITN. It killed two people, which is sad, but that doesn't really make it notable from any other stabbing in europe or probably even portugal. That's why i'm voting oppose. Onegreatjoke (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because although this is rare for Portugal, its death toll is low & we know very little about the motive. This should be on DYK instead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is in good shape, and reliable sources are giving this the attention to indicate it is significant. --Jayron32 13:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Absent a very unusual scenario or context (which there doesn't appear to be here), I don't see how an event with such a low death toll reaches the bar for ITN, regardless of whether it's in the USA, Portugal or anywhere else. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability 2 deaths, multiple injuries, a shooting in Tennessee had more deaths and got shot down, and so will this. Cheers. WimePocy 16:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Personally, I feel a mass killing, gun or stabbing, should only make ITN if there's a major conversation occurring because of it. I would oppose most mass shootings in America in general, except things such as Uvalde and Buffalo, because conversations for gun restrictions were the result of that. Nashville, nor Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay had that, IMO. Then again, I'm not sure I have much of a say when it comes to how significant this event is, because, well, I'm not Portuguese. Though, I feel my point remains. If no major action/large conversation is taken because of this, then this should not be blurbed. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 19:01, 29 March 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.
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 sourcing work needed. Mooonswimmer 14:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support, Wikipedia wouldn't function without his work (; Synotia (moan) 16:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable enough, article looks good. Ollieisanerd (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The biography section is almost entirely unsourced. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article looks OK.Alex-h (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is fine and ITNRD ready. Cheers. WimePocy 16:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet ready As Nythar states above, the Biography section is still mostly unsourced, and the article is made up almost entirely of one or two sentence paragraphs. Curbon7 (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The final sentence in Jacob Ziv#Biography has one footnote, but there are none in the several paragraphs before that. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Needs additional depth about what he accomplished in his political roles. SpencerT•C 03:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Sources are mostly elections results, and the article does not go in-depth about anything except public offices. Need larger and more detailed biography. --Octopusplushie (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, support in principle. NoahTalk 12:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality per Hurricane Noah. Will flip vote when expanded. The Kip (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Count me as a Support now. Article's been suitably expanded. The Kip (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support From what I can see right now, the article is short, but definitely well more developed than a stub, and well-referenced. There's enough information here as of now for posting on the main page. Additionally, news sources appear to be covering the story in a way that indicates that it is significant enough for the main page. --Jayron32 17:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks more expanded since it was nominated. It's well-sourced, and I would go with the original blurb! TailsWx 17:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It’s an important story & the quality seems just barely good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable event by its rarity and death toll Sheila1988 (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSEVENT, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
You're sure that an arson attack killing 40 people from several countries is a routine event?! Had this happened in the
developed world (even if only a couple of miles away in El Paso, Texas), it'd have been posted within a few hours of being created. The article would be much longer & have been edited by several times as many people. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
...such as the deaths of 38 people at a deportation center. Curbon7 (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
38 is not a lot – it's comparable with the Saudi bus crash. Migrant deaths are commonplace and, when they are crammed into boats, trucks, camps and the like, you will tend to get death tolls of this size. Overall, the UN estimates about 100/week over the last 10 years. It's an ongoing problem like the cartel war in Mexico for which the stats so far this year include:
1,383 Reported Fatalities
273 Battles
130 Riots
927 Violence against civilians
It's not our job to detail each such incident. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This is a horrific tragedy, but ITN isn't just a "disaster with high death toll" ticker. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high death toll and the article looks ok. Such numbers of victims are usually postable. Brandmeistertalk 12:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above, article is fine in both quality and notability. Cheers. WimePocy 13:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marked "ready". I am ineligible to post, as I voted and am thus
WP:INVOLVED. Any other admin who hasn't voted can post it, given the widespread support. --Jayron32 14:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
No consensus to post, and unlikely to develop. --Tone 08:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Support. The proper target article is in good shape. For the blurb, I recommend the concise altblurb. We can understand the practical effect that he will become First Minister, though some further formalities are required. To my mind this is like the US presidential election where we announce the vote results, not the meeting of the Electoral College. JehochmanTalk 11:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Firstly, this is not on ITNR so I've removed that flag. Scotland is not a sovereign country (it is part of the United Kingdom) so its first minister is only the leader of a regional government. It's equivalent to the leader of an Indian state, Belgian community or US state - none of which we post in ITN. Secondly, I don't see how his ethnicity is relevant to the position. Thirdly, it's an internal party succession with no associated popular election. There's no reason to treat this differently from any other local government succession. Modest Geniustalk 11:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was a close discussion, and the result was wrong. Scotland is a country, not a state. Not ITNR does not mean it has to be rejected. This is a significant event that is widely in the news. JehochmanTalk 11:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in that discussion, "when comparing different sovereign states it's mostly just semantics whether they refer to their largest sub-national entities as states, provinces, regions, cantons, communities, nations or countries". The fact that
the major subdivisions of the UK are called countries is historical and doesn't make them sovereign. I'm British, I know how the UK works. Modest Geniustalk 12:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I trust you do. California would be the ~7th largest country in the world by GDP, and has the same population as Canada, but we post elections in Monaco, which have much, much less significance and zero global news coverage. Our criteria is borken. JehochmanTalk 12:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Topic has been covered sufficiently by news sources, article is in sufficiently good shape. The lack of ITNR is a non-issue as many stories are posted in the ITN box that are not in ITNR. --Jayron32 12:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not ITNR and Scotland is mot a sovereign nation, so it’s more close to be a sub-national political event than an statal one. There’s no way this should be posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I think there's a difference between the UK's subnational governments and those of countries like America. The fact that I and many other foreigners know about Sturgeon but not say Heather Stefanson or Tim Walz is demonstrative of this.
Well, the same can be said for famous US Governors, like Ron DeSantis or Gavin Newsom, who are recognisable names overseas like Sturgeon. I don't think many people would be able to name the First Ministers of Wales or Northern Ireland (I even live in the UK and I don't know them).
While the UK and the USA have very different political systems, I feel like you can draw an equivalence between the constituent countries of the UK to US states. Both have an elected legislature in the style of the overall federal legislature, both have significant regional autonomy and control over many of their own affairs, etc. The only meaningful difference here is that the USA has 50 while the UK has 4, which if you adjust for population is roughly like 8-9 states to 4 UK countries. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be honest, although that is true, I think another difference lies in the timing. You cited how we didn't post the 2022 Cali elections, which ignore that they were apart of the wider midterm elections that year and were thus already technically covered. This, as far as I know, is an independent election time-wise. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 13:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was no popular election here - voters didn't get a say. Only party members were involved. Modest Geniustalk 13:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
America is a continent, btw. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
America primarily refers to the United States (see that that redirects to "United States", not "The Americas". Actually, America, by itself, is not a continent. There's North America, and South America, but there's no continent referred to "America". --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I know many in South America prefer to use "America" to refer to the two landmasses as a whole. If I'm perfectly honest the whole idea of a continent is stupid, there are incredibly arbitrary borders (Europe ends at the Ural Mountains and Black Sea. Why? Don't ask questions. North America and Africa both end at man-made canals, why? Who knows? And there's some mysterious sea border between Oceania and Asia that no one can quite define. Also, why are we even grouping these places together? The Middle East is insanely different from the Central Turkic states, which are different from Eastern Russia, which is different from China, which is different from Thailand, which is different from India, which is different from the Philippines, and etc. etc. Why are all of these places grouped together into "Asia"? Asia was literally just a Roman Province, same for Africa. Well I have no clue how I got from the Scottish First Minister to ranting about geographical divisions but I'm getting off topic so I better stop.). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Scotland is merely a region within a nation. We didn't post the 2022 California election result, and even if we were to include regional subdivisions for ITN, we would have to wait for his approval from the Scottish parliament. He has only been elected party leader, not First Minister yet. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subnational + he hasn't even been formally elected as First Minister.The Kip (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the overall proposal. Couruu (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck that bit of my oppose. The Kip (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's explicitly not ITNR. But it is making the headlines. And for the record, I would also support a sufficiently prominent sub-national election elsewhere in the world. I am interested to see what becomes of the NSW proposal further down, once it is a done deal and not ongoing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I support in principle the idea of posting election results in large sub-national regions, but Scotland is nowhere near the largest and most influential sub-national regions, so until such a practice becomes much more common I will oppose. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support (altblurb)- Simply because it's an election not listed on ITNR doesn't make it ineligible for ITN, which is what most of the opposition I've seen so far has been based on. Without regard to the fact that Yousaf is the first muslim leader of a major political party in the UK (I think in the whole of the West, if I'm not mistaken) but it is a major moment for the Scottish independence movement. For example, The Independent reports that Labour and the Conservatives are calling Scottish independence "dead"[4]. Not only is his election being reported covered by major UK news outlets (such as the Guardian[5]). , but also by primarily U.S. sources like CNN[6] and global sources like Al Jazeera.[7]Estar8806 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose -- We do not post the elections of subnational entities. We wouldn't post this same story if it happened in a US state or Canadian Province, even though US states and Canadian Provinces are more independent than Scotland is. To post this story would smack of UK-centrism, already a huge problem here. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Objection! Scotland has Scots law. You don't see that kind of self-rule in Nova Scotia or Manitoba. If Ontario wants to reject the monarchy, it needs permission from the nine other provincial legislatures, the federal government and the monarchy. Scotland just fights (historically). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... Good point. I have a feeling that I don't understand Canadian federalism very well. Here in the US though, Louisiana has its own legal system that's a hybrid of civil and common-law, and here in Florida, juries consist of only 6 people (except for capital felonies). -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, all fifty states are absolutely positively 100% sovereign. Florida Man is popular for a reason that just wouldn't fly in one of the hippy or yippie states. Here, we can't publish (decent) crime comics, anywhere, despite that panic having died out with the MPs who thought it made sense at the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Cajuns are arguably more Canadian than hippy, yippie or Floridian, by virtue of their Acadian "bloodline". And those poor historical souls were arguably more French than anything. And as any Gallic historian can tell you, France probably had something to do with Gaelic diverging from Celtic and Welsh back in the foggy days when unicorns represented more than a district, ward, factory, metropolitan statistical area or fen. Maybe I'm just rambling. Support Photo Blurb because this formerly magic kingdom and its promising new ruler are still In The News today. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The election of a leader of a subnational govt. shouldn’t be posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - for the same reason as opposing the Sturgeon announcement, we dont post sub-national office changes. We would never post the election of the governor of California, which remains a much more consequential position in nearly every regard. nableezy - 23:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Subnational entity, and conceptually the position is no more powerful or constitutionally significant than the governor of California, which we wouldn't generally post... And that's before we even consider that California has a population more than seven times that of Scotland. — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my prior rationale for supporting changes in the holder of First Minister of Scotland. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a reason changes to heads of state/government of non-sovereign entities are not included in ITNR and why such noms have not received support here. A case can be made that this election is significant, with the choosen head being the first from an ethnic minority background, but this stemming from a mere party election and not a popular vote is not fully convincing as to the latter's notability. Gotitbro (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's more notable for trying to call an independence referendum on his first day in attempted service than for being...whatever one calls a native Glaswegian ethnic minority or minority ethnic leader in Scotland. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. what about the first Zhuang governor of Guangxi province while we're at it? Sheila1988 (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yes, Scotland has less autonomy than some other subnational entities. But 1), the countries of the UK get significantly more worldwide media coverage than things like the governor of California (which, like I said when Sturgeon resigned, has a higher population and GDP and msot other metrics than some sovereign states, proving that "a bunch more people live there" isn't a valid reason to oppose), and 2) the campaign for Scottish independence remains significant and ITN-worthy in my opinion. DecafPotato (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment from nominator. I'll remember all this 'we don't do regions' during the US primaries then. but no doubt the US bias will rule differently at that point and we'll have a whole bunch of stuff about Super Tuesday and guff that only affects 'regions' of the US. 148.64.29.90 (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, we have never posted Super Tuesday in ITN. Modest Geniustalk 11:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, and this may be controversial, but I think a major US party nomination (especially for a contentious race like what's going on in the Republican party) could be argued for notability in ITN. I live in the UK, so it's not out of some American bias, but because American politics naturally has more weight as a. It is predominantly the focus of most major, reliable news outlets, and b. The US heavily influences the entire world. That being said, I'm sure there's plenty of good counter-arguments. Just my take. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, If it is not ITNR it does not mean it is not suitable for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support, a major event. Khan, Sunak, now Yousaf
Strong oppose We wouldn't post if AOC became Governor of New York, or Omar the Governor of Minnesota, or Haaland the Leader of the Democratic party. Not ITNR, and not very notable. Sunak was an exception as it is somewhat the British equivalent of the US president, but this is a subnational election being held in a country-that-really-isn't. Cheers. WimePocy 16:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only relating to one area does not disqualify something from ITN, and I'd hardly classify Scotland's first minister as 'minor' – the fact that it made international news already distinguishes it from the 'US governor' comparison as well. DecafPotato (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does it? High-profile governor's races make it to international news occasionally. --RockstoneSend me a message! 05:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, we have a long standing aversion to sub-national politics for a reason: it becomes very difficult to decide where to draw the line. I could see this creeping further to include, for example the governor of California, mayors of Paris, Tokyo, Berlin... We already feature a lot of political news, no need to expand this - Dumelow (talk) 07:09, 30 March 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.
The Iraqi Parliament passes 206–12 a series of amendments reducing the electoral districts in each governorate to one, ahead of local elections in November. Voting blocs and independent members who boycotted the vote claim the amendments make it more difficult for the opposition to get elected. (Al Jazeera)
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: A key figure in Italian journalism, I didn't manage to nominate him until now. At the moment, the main issue is the evident lack of sources, but I hope I'll be able to solve it as soon as possible. Oltrepier (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Oltrepier Have you been able to work on it? The article still needs a lot of work. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alsoriano97 Actually, I don't know if I'll be able to work on it as much as I would like to: sorry... Oltrepier (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 needs updating The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Cuba holds election. Needs updates. Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose on quality Article needs considerable updates/expansion. The Kip (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing of value has changed in a single-party country. And the article, as pointed out above, is far from perfect. --Bedivere (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I searched
WP:ITNR and there is nothing saying that single-party countries are to be excluded. Is your rationale based on ITNR or personal opinion? Tube·of·Light 02:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose - Single-party state, elections effectively mean nothing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do post the results of sham elections, such as Kazakhstan which is currently posted, but there is a distinction between the circumstances there and here. Curbon7 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to defend Kazakhstan's government, but Kazakhstan is more akin to a competitive-authoritarian or illiberal democratic system, not a true one-party state. Besides, Kazakhstan's was notable in that it was the most competitive in their history, in relative terms. AFAIK not so in CubaThis post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hence there is a distinction between the circumstances there and here. Curbon7 (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality (note: there is nothing in ITNR saying single-party elections are not ITNR) Tube·of·Light 02:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blurb is not accurate. The CPC did not win the election because the candidates do not represent that party and are not necessarily members. Instead, the candidates represent local assemblies and other bodies such as women's organisations. And there's no "winning" because it's not a competitive process. The voters just get to approve the single choice for each constituency. Most voters just tick a box saying that they approve all 470 candidates. So, what matters is who was selected as candidates by the National Candidature Commission. But the article doesn't list them – there's no list of names, who they represent and which constituency they were elected to. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support if and only if the blurb can be written in a concise way that explains the actual result without implying that this was in any sense a competitive election for the Communist Party as an organisation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrote altblutb to account for the single-party nature of Cuba. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nom per above. Article is completely inadequate for one covering national "elections" and the elections were just a rubber stamp affair in a Communist police state. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb is 100% false, with claim that neither Castro were involved in the 1976 "election". The Communist Part of Cuba won all the seats in 1976, and Fidel Castro was both the leader of the party and of the country before and after the 1976 election. Perhaps User:Rushtheeditor can explain this Stalin-like historical revision? Nfitz (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? I saw that ON the page, and I DID NOT write that on there. I assumed (my fault) that it was true and posted it. Do not accuse me of such ‘historical revision’. Rushtheeditor (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uncalled for. Mistakes happen; stating that an editor's honest mistake is a Stalin-like historical revision is absolutely a
personal attack. Curbon7 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support altblurb - oppose the tut-tutting of the anti-countering systemic bias in favor of entrenching it fuller crowd. People want to talk about elections but had no problem posting this "election" in which 140k people decided the UK PM, or this one in which not even that level of "election" took place. nableezy - 20:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITN/R and all the arguments about Cuba's elections dont count because I dont believe in Cuban elections should be ignored and tossed aside. The only objection that has merit here is quality, and of the people discussing it that does not seem to be a stopping point here. This should be posted, and the people advocating for keeping ITN a bastion of Western superiority should be rebuked. nableezy - 16:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I apologize for the original blurb. I see how it is wrong and I will learn from this and be more careful when proposing blurbs. Again, I am sorry for this. Rushtheeditor (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all, we all make mistakes and people can sometimes
Support. Feels like SNOW is in the offing here, but I still passionately believe that we should post these sorts of elections. No one's refuting that Cuba's a one-party system, and I can understand a lack of belief that anything will change with this election. However, I believe this is an ITN/R election and thus merits posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I, and I suspect some others are opposing this, is because this was not in fact an election in any generally accepted sense of the term. The labels of the Communist Party notwithstanding. You can call a turd a strawberry, but that doesn't make it so and I don't think we should be promoting that kind of blatant fantasy to our readers. The subject is certainly notable enough for coverage in the encyclopedia. But presenting this farce on the main page as an election would be gravely misleading. Wikipedia should not be serving turds and labeling them strawberries. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you sit in judgment of another country's system of governance and deny it the legitimacy of Wikipedia's front page? And that is not systemic bias? nableezy - 22:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider the Communist Party or any official organ of the Cuban Government as a
reliable source. I am unaware of any reliable source that treats this as in any way, an election in the generally accepted sense of the term. If you want to call that systemic bias, then I plead guilty. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Besides the al-Jazeera source cited, there is Reuters, NBC News, hell even Fox calls them elections. Uncontested ones of course, but they are elections according to reliable sources. nableezy - 23:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are all reporting the claims of the Cuban government, which is entirely proper. We should likewise report the claims, and we do in the article. But none of them have in any way suggested that what the Cubans are labeling elections, are in fact such. No reliable source has called these true elections, and many have made it fairly clear that they are not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the "blatant fantasy" here? We know this election happened. You can debate the actual impact, but there was indeed a parliamentary election just held in Cuba, legitimate or not. Call it a semantic argument, but the phrase "sham election" contains the word "election" in it. The phrase simply means the election was not legitimate. The only way for you to believe this "turd" is a "strawberry" is if. quite frankly, you can't read or you didn't actually click on the article. It's not our job to cater to those who have no interest in actually reading what Wikipedia has to tell them. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn". DarkSide830 (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – There is no clause that excludes one-party or unfair elections from being posted to ITN. DecafPotato (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait We have no idea how any potential discussion on the removal of Cuban parliamentary elections from R might go, best to let that play out first, like with the despised and printed rocket failure. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question do we post Chinese parliamentary (not merely Xi) elections? Because I feel that's the most appropriate comparison/precedent here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. Do RS come out and confirm politics (not merely government) as a significant motive and do we feel that an election winner of that motive is sufficiently interesting to post? If so, sure, sounds like news. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. So we Oppose. We may still disagree on whether a political motive is more crucial to promoting potentially developing election coverage than in the retelling of a relatively popular modern horror story as it unfolds. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes elections are ITNR, but that is not the sole criteria. Firstly we have to look at the article quality (per ITNR itself) which is completely absent here, a few barebones paras mostly about the results without any contextual information on the history, conduct, impact and analysis. Secondly, we have to look at the precedent for such noms here on ITN; we have not posted elections or other leadership changes in similar one-party communist states beyond the general secretary positions, i.e., who actually holds power. The recent examples being China and Vietnam. This fails on both criterias, and I see no reason to deviate. Gotitbro (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Looking at the detail, there's some mysteries which the article doesn't explain. The number of seats was reduced by over a hundred but it's not clear what the practical effect of this has been. And exactly how many are there? There's a couple of numbers floating around – 470 and 474 – but which is it? I get the impression that the detail is fuzzy because it doesn't much matter. The actual headline figure seems to be the turnout as the closest thing the system gives to a verdict on the government (which doesn't change). Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Elections are ITNR because the assumption is that they are of political significance and therefore in the news. This assumption does not apply in the case of sham elections of rubberstamp parliaments in autocracies, because such "elections" have no political impact. Sandstein 09:06, 29 March 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) Covenant School shooting
Per ITN precedent with respect to shooting geography. I leave open the possibility of reopening
iff RS's come out and confirm politics as a significant motive and we feel that a shooter of that motive is sufficiently interesting to post. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
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:
Nashville, Tennessee, before being killed by police. (NOTE: Only include this if allegations of this being a hate crime or relating to the perpretrator's transgender identity are true) News source(s):BBC, CNNAl Jazeera
Nominator's comments: I'm not going to convince anyone with this so instead I will plead with you to be civil. If we cannot than I think we should consider asking the arbitration committee to lay down some sort of law. Aure entuluva (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mass shootings such as this are commonplace in the United States.
are slow to progress and all of these claims are still in dispute and unverified, it's best to wait. If these accusations are authenticated, I will support.
I'm just concerned with the fact there have been 9 shootings with more victims than this one thus far this year and that there has been a mass shooting five of the past seven days. NoahTalk 02:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major news story, #1 story in the U.S. today, high quality article to post. For the purposes of ITN, the number that happen per year is irrelevant. Motive is irrelevant. The other mass shootings don't get this kind of news coverage. The ones that rise to
"No Way to Prevent This" mockery are the almost 1:1 the ones that we should be posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The other mass shootings don't get this kind of news coverage; I would disagree with this statement at the moment to be honest. With most mass shootings of this scale, there's a lot of instant coverage which tapers off in the following days. Curbon7 (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many mass shootings don't have Wikipedia articles because they don't get this kind of news coverage. And "instant coverage which tapers off in the following days" refers to a lot of what ITN posts, or should be posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tragic, but as is the case with many of these shootings, not notable to ITN levels. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - an absurd nomination. Six deaths in a US shooting - that must make it Tuesday. We've had this discussion before. Reading the nomination statement, User:Hurricane Noah nominated this fully knowing it wouldn't go through. Isn't that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point?Nfitz (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, it isn't Hurricane Noah–I don't see their green glow with a splotch of red at the end of the nominator statement! TailsWx 04:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wx ... I completely misread the first three posts! Nfitz (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - tragic but predictable in a country awash with guns. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose fourth deadliest mass shooting in the first three months of 2023, fifth at a school since the last couple years. Kind of like posting a bombing in Kabul pre-2019. Juxlos (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens article, suggesting that this may not be a run-of-the-mill event. dying (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose per
WP:NOTUSA. But I appreciate the effort. Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose Tragic but not notable. Commonplace and predictable in the US. Ericoides (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by the nominator The notability isn't from the death count as much as it is from where the shooting happened. People care about children and school shootings are rare even in the US. By my count there have been 14 school shootings with more deaths in US history. Source: US school shooting before 2000, US school shootings since 2000Aure entuluva (talk) 05:13, 28 March 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.
Note I support the close for the moment but am prepared to re-open the discussion if strong evidence emerges that this was some sort of terrorist/anti-religiously motivated incident. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question why is this closed with a yellow box? Banedon (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note Regardless of motive, I think RS have made it pretty clear that a woman who is also a man and shoots up a school that is also a church is a "sufficiently interesting" type of shooter, at least compared to a simple terrorist who shoots women anywhere mostly because he's a man with a political preference for men. Even if you just think of her as a woman who shot someone else's children, that's pretty unusual. But yeah, viewed purely in terms of an American with a gun and inclusive death toll, he or she doesn't stand out. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2 Please do not delete other editors' comments because you do not agree with them. The close on this nomination is not a hard close and may be re-opened by any editor in good standing who believes the facts now available justify further discussion. FWIW I am ambivalent on that question. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note 3 The box this was closed with used to be yellow, only one of us knows why and it doesn't matter anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – For the record, this is still in news around the world, which is a longer period than I recall (most) other U.S. shootings getting, and there are a lot of investigations into the motive and background of the perpetrator. I didn't !vote in the pre-close discussing, but I would be open to re-opening the discussion, as this is very much still a developing story. DecafPotato (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is news around this is the return to the non-debate around gun control, with Democrats trying to push on it hard, while Republicans are deflecting this on the shooter being a trans person. There's little about the actual shooting that's in the news at this point compared to the politic debate. Masem (t) 03:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which I think does contribute to the significance of this shooting in particular, no? DecafPotato (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks good to go, well cited and concise. Bluemarsman (talk) 19:18, 01 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Relatively light in the career section but article as a whole meets minimum standards, fully referenced. SpencerT•C 04:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough of this negativity for now. I regret my part in it. If someone bothers to get this article into posting shape, we can resume debating posting. Until such time, there's no benefit to keeping this open. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I'm unsurprised that the article is of far lesser quality than previous years, since it's since been removed from ITN/R. Well done, everyone. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it's not just that, it's the relentless hatred that's stopped me bothering. Fuck it, why bother? The ex-colonials win and the encyclopedia loses. Standard stuff these days. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this article was of the quality of previous years, I would have supported, not that it would help with the below. I do think the arguments of ITN being only suitable for surprising things that aren't scheduled events to be reasonably blind that almost everything outside of an act of God is scheduled, and something being "amateur" or "niche" isn't of itself not culturally relevant. If you do want to fix it up, or just want someone to update the item, drop me a line. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on significance. A minor event with limited international coverage. nableezy - 19:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Amateur competition with only two entrants, little public interest, and all the other significance issues that were raised in the recent discussion on WT:ITN. Modest Geniustalk 19:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not being on ITBR does not exclude a topic from being discussed as its ITNC entry. Masem (t) 19:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of that. I specifically referred to the significance concerns that were discussed there, not the outcome (delisting). Many of those arguments also apply to an individual nomination. Modest Geniustalk 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, albeit I believe he meant that his oppose is based off the same significance reasons given to remove it from ITNR (as opposed to arguing it shouldn’t be posted because it was removed). The Kip (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried writing relevant comments with your !votes? GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant. When we post a sport, we usually post someone's picture and both sources agree he's the hero here (though not "MVP", exactly). He's also not mentioned at the target article. If that's not reason enough, its latest source is from 2016. Retrieved then, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nableezy. The Kip (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are we happy now? Did we somehow improve the English-language Wikipedia by doing this? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, it seems like the entire reason this was on ITN/R at all was to appease some disgruntled old hand. The main page should not be held hostage by vested contributors, and yes I think not featuring unimportant crap like a rowing race between two and only two universities on the main page is improving Wikipedia. nableezy - 19:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, seems like you're full of hatred against a 200-year institution which is broadcast around the globe. The main page was never "held hostage" (emotive language, typical of people like you), I always produced top quality material for ITN. You fucked it all up for a large number of people, so well done you. Applause. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wee bit childish, innit. But hatred would imply I give a shit. Hint, I dont. nableezy - 19:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what you may believe about its significance, it still receives absolutely minimal media coverage; having googled it, literally the only non-UK-based source reporting on the race or its results is the Olympics/IOC. Arguing for it to be kept, as a limited-coverage event between two and only two colleges, is effectively akin to arguing for us to post the result of
Michigan versus Ohio State every year, which obviously should not be posted (and British editors would certainly be opposed to). The wider, not-just-British consensus was that it doesn’t meet ITNR’s standards for inclusion, and the consensus here seems to be that it doesn’t meet ITNC’s either; you can either accept the consensus of the English-language (not just English!) Wikipedia, or continue to be a sore loser of sorts as your comments are indicating. The Kip (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose Article is far too brief at this stage. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The way this process has played out is sad. Just very, very sad. An ugly vendetta has spilled out into open view on ITN/C and completely poisoned the well. I think there is plenty of shame to go around for all of us. Can we just close this before it gets worse. ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 20:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Theres only one person showing any type of vendetta here, but apparently its just the ex-colonists (imagine thinking being a colonizer is a good thing lol) lashing out. There is exactly one person acting like a child here. Guess who it is. nableezy - 20:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody appears rosy here, and I certainly find it depressing that you indirectly referred to an editor's long-time work as unimportant crap. I ask again the same question posed by Muboshgu: How have we improved the encyclopedia through this rabid and toxic bickering? ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 20:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Boat Race is unimportant crap. The articles are lovely. They can still be on the main page as DYK and FA when they make GA and FA. They just dont belong "In The News" because the news (worldwide) largely ignores it as unimportant. Asked and answered on the question. But the only toxicity is coming from one person here. One person you seem disinclined to say anything about. nableezy - 20:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you show a little sensitivity and civility here? 331dot (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure if Im not called an ex-colonial who fucked it all up for a large number of people. Strange sliding scale you have for civility. And why does this need sensitivity? Compared to things like this I think Im a paragon of sensitivity and civility. But theres that sliding scale I guess. nableezy - 20:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That this was removed from ITNR kinda shows ITN has lost its way and purpose. The vitriol here doesn't help. The article involved might have gotten more work and attention had there been a willingness to post it, as it has previously. Does that help the encyclopedia? If you want Michigan v Ohio State posted, nominate it and tell us why. Neither Michigan or Ohio State is as old as Cambridge and Oxford, but maybe we've missed something. This longtime race watched live by hundreds of thousands and on TV by millions between two ancient universities is important to some, even if others don't think so. We should be thinking about readers here and we're not. Sorry to digress but, that's my two cents. And I do support this on the merits. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I can pay attention and update the article, having no interest in the race and taking vitriol, anyone can. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. NoahTalk 20:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recommend removing this nomination until the article has been improved further. When it is more complete it could be renominated. Please do not be deterred by the negativism in this thread, of which there is sadly too much. Last year's Boat Race article became
featured. This one could be featured too, and appear on the home page through that alternative, if not through the News. JehochmanTalk 20:48, 27 March 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.
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: Jorge Luis Borges' widow and the sole owner of the rights to his work. Needs more update. BorgQueen (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I've added 3 cn tags. Once this gets resolved, I think it'll be ready for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple CN tags need to be addressed. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Venezuelan government officials and businessmen are arrested in an anti-corruption probe targeting state oil company PDVSA and cryptocurrency regulator Sunacrip. (Reuters)
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: Son of Andrew Lloyd Webber, followed his father's footsteps and became a composer. Article looks good, well cited. Ollieisanerd (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
(Closed) Ongoing: 2023 New South Wales state election
(
NON-ADMIN CLOSURE
)
WP:SNOW. Subnational + elections don't typically go in ongoing. The Kip (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
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.
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.
A small but I think reasonable request: Can we please wait for more than a bloody hour before SNOW closing a nomination, especially if it has only garnered three !votes? --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 14:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so, but considering it was three quick opposes on an item that would already be highly unlikely to post considering precedence, in my opinion it was justified. The Kip (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a reasonable request at all.
WP:SNOW is dominating. We've had a long-standing rule not to post the elections of individual states within a federation unless there's a very good reason. Now, I'd like to see that rule loosened somewhat, but if we started posting every subnational election, that's all ITN would ever be. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
God damnit, I didn't say post every bloody subnational election (and no, we don't have a "long-standing rule"), please do not insinuate that was what I meant. I said can we not SNOW close good-faith nominations within an hour. I thought we were collectively going to try and steer away from making ITN/C a walled garden culture. ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 13:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This has been going on for a while now, and just now Netenyahu's defence minister publicaly called on him to freeze the legislation. It's a big deal and there have been threats of civil war. Son Of The Desert (Talk) 18:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to the current French ones, where the number of protestors have been near a million, the numbers here are far less significant. I realize recent changes may cause these to grow. However, I would point out the same issue that most of our protest articles start as: a pure timeline without a significant background section and larger narrative section is not very helpful to readers. Masem (t) 19:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a proportion of the population I wouldnt say that this is less significant. nableezy - 19:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late, but with ~700,000 Israeli protesters (7-8% of the population) it’s hard to say so. Juxlos (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a huge deal with serious implications for Israel's long term politics and constitutional order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this was nominated before last month, but it was dismissed as "politics as usual." This is anything but: this can have immense ramifications for Israeli politics and can change the very structure of the country's government. Additionally, @Masem's point regarding the French protests is misleading; 1.5% of France is protesting, and with these protests, as many as nearly 3% have been protesting in Israel. The comparison is not apt. However, I will agree with you @Masem in that it should be expanded into more of an article of proper prose. Crusader1096 (message) 23:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support once expanded per Knightoftheswords281. DecafPotato (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. They've been going long enough at a large enough scale to merit an ongoing event. The Kip (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support agreed with all above. It also seems these protests won't be ending any time in the near future, or at least the month. Daneellis114 03:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, especially with news of Netanyahu firing Israel's defense minister. This will only escalate from here. Blade Jogger 2049Talk 18:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment Given what has happened over the weekend in Israel, I really think that 1) this needs to be a blurb along the style of "Mass protest arise in Israel after Netanyahu fires its defense minister." and 2) the article needs to be more in depth about what is happening in the govt instead of just covering the protests. eg 2023 Israeli judicial reform and these protests should be in the same article since their timelines go hand in hand. --Masem (t) 03:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Concur with Masem, I think this could have made a lot of sense as a blurb with consideration for subsequent Ongoing after time as a blurb. SpencerT•C 04:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree blurb over ongoing, something like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu postpones consideration of judicial overhaul in the wake of mass protests, nableezy - 05:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. In light of recent developments, I would also support a blurb with a subsequent drop-off to ongoing. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Closed) Asteroid 2023 DZ2
Consensus to post unlikely to develop. --Tone 14:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 DZ2 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Asteroid 2023 DZ2(pictured) makes a close pass between the Earth and the Moon. (Post) News source(s):BBC; NPR Credits:
Nominator's comments: A near miss this time, it seems, but it will return so it's a reminder of the importance of rocketry and space development. Relevant agencies will be using this as a drill/exercise for planetary defense. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no significant impact, not visible without good telescopes, etc. Yes, we do need to be aware of the importance of tracking objects that may hit earth, but close misses are not really good ITN stories, since we generally do not post on "what ifs" --Masem (t) 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a once a decade close approach by an object this large and (other than Apophis in 2029) these things are never visible without a telescope. -- Kheider (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apophis will be visible without a telescope IIRC. I think when it does pass by Earth we should post it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google 2023 DZ2 and look at the news tab instead of assuming. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No you. Reaffirming my suggestion to send to AFD. Close passes like this aren't all that infrequent, and a flurry of sensationalist headlines every time there's one doesn't really add up to GNG for the object in question. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are we looking at the same #4: "The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the use of astrophotography or automated technology.[note 2]", because that's definitely not fulfilled. The NASTRO fail seems pretty clear...the place where there's some room for disagreement is GNG, but I still feel that it's not satisfied. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Three not smaller* objects got this close or closer since the start of a campaign 25 years ago, to stop missing ones from systemic bias (looking where it's easier to discover an asteroid). *size is how big it'd be if it was the most likely shade of gray cause its light reflection efficiency isn't known beyond "most asteroids are between 5 and 25%". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it should be AfD'd, feel free to bring it there. DecafPotato (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, an IP technically can’t create an AFD without an (autoconfirmed?) editor to finish the process. Courcelles (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. The Kip (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - NEO passes happen a lot, obviously didn't hit anything, no real reason why we should post it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Masem. Alex-h (talk) 12:05, 27 March 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) Einstein problem
(
Non-admin closure) Consensus to post is unlikely to develop. Cheers. WimePocy 13:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
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: Thanks to GenevieveDEon for suggesting this. The maths requires care to define exactly but its visual nature makes it more accessible than most maths breakthroughs and so we should take this opportunity to show our readers the remarkable new hat shape. There are at least two possible target articles and so I've highlighted them both. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't "Einstein" be lowercase? DFlhb (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As I mentioned on the main ITN talk page, the discovery is currently only in pre-print, so I don't know that it's been appropriately reviewed. And neither of the two proposed target articles is in good shape. Aperiodic tiling doesn't even link to Einstein problem, even though the latter is clearly about the former. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Science News reports that "While the paper has yet to be peer-reviewed, the experts interviewed for this article agree that the result seems likely to hold up to detailed scrutiny." Formal publication might take months or years and, by then, the result will be well known and the news will be stale. This therefore seems the best window for us to share this development. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, thank you. If the articles can be improved, I would be inclined to reverse my position. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We always wait on the publication of a peer-reviewed paper for ITN. Masem (t) 15:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. Just about nothing that appears at ITN is based on a peer-reviewed paper that has been through the ponderous process of academic publishing. Instead, most stories are based on news reports and press releases. For example, see the Afghan earthquake which has just been posted. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For all scientific and medical-based stories (this is one), we expect a peer-reviewed source per SCIRS and MEDRS. Newspapers and the general media are not experts to be able to judge if the results are valid. Masem (t) 18:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the details of a recent earthquake, such as its magnitude, are a scientific matter – that science is seismology. The same applies to other occurrences such as weather (meteorology), space (astronomy and astrophysics), &c. Just about everything is covered in some way by academia but we do not require peer-reviewed papers. What we require is that it's in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bit of a difference between the occurrence of a massive natural disaster (reported by mainstream news, with immediate and up-to-date facts) and the solving of a long-standing math problem (which still requires peer-review to confirm). The Kip (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The key difference is that insisting on a different level of sourcing for mathematics introduces an arbitrary and systemic bias. It accentuates ITN's tendency to run topics which are recurring, repetitive and routine while shutting out those which are actually new. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, given how math proofs can generally be easily verified by other skilled mathematicians, compared to other scientific fields where the peer-review has to be based on an assessment of the data quality and methods used rather than recreation, expecting a peer-reviewed source for a mathematics proof is absolutely reasonable and within expectations.
Now, in a case like this, where the result is an interesting result but one with little practical application, as opposed to demonstrating, hypothetically, that NP-hard problems can be solved in P-time which would have massive impacts on computing technology, that the news is reporting it prior to a peer-review shows that its more a curiosity than a groundbreaking discovery. So we're not creating a bias here. Masem (t) 13:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at the evidence and do the math. There's 10 nominations at WP:ITN/C currently which are STEM in some way. The only ones which have been posted are those which feature some deaths - the earthquake and tornado. So, that's all that matters in practise. But the trouble is that "if it bleeds, it leads" is a journalistic, tabloid sensibility. ITN is posting sensational stories and snubbing science. That's systemic bias. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It may take a while, but peer review exists for a reason. --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 14:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this actually... important? I've read the target articles and sources, and while the problem has existed for a long time and might have applications in material sciences, I'm not convinced (but could be!) this really matters all that much. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, maybe not as important as a darts tournament or a storm, but I think that a solution to a half century problem deserves to be posted. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem and Genevieve. The Kip (talk) 01:01, 26 March 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.
Support, article is relatively short but very well sourced. DFlhb (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see just a couple statements that could use citations but this is well sourced for a bio. --Masem (t) 02:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moore is a very influential person in the field of computer science, and in fact has a whole "law" of Computer Science named after him (Moore's law). RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support blurb obviously. Household name due to the law 5.44.170.26 (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely wouldn't consider this to be an obvious blurb. Gordon Moore is not a name that everyone would know (i.e. not really a household name), and I doubt the average person has heard of Moore's law either. A highly influential businessman and engineer, who co-founded and oversaw a company that could stake a legitimate claim to having changed the world, but I feel like blurbs are generally reserved for individuals who are known to pretty near everyone. Kurtis(talk) 10:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a blurb; Steve Jobs had one when he died, and I'd say Moore was just as significant if not more. DFlhb (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that Steve Jobs was a household name—everyone knew who he was. Gordon Moore is certainly a major figure in electronics engineering (indeed, I argue above that Moore flat-out changed the world) but he doesn't have the same name recognition. Kurtis(talk) 18:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb - Sadly, Moore was definitely not a household name. There's an issue of small sample sizes here - Wikipedia editors are vastly disproportionately likely to have heard of him. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lead is sparse.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. The lead the is sparse but still works. --Tone 09:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was borderline of when I'd apply the orange {{Lead too short}}.—Bagumba (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, Oppose blurb - Notable figure, but not enough to warrant a blurb.
I feel like we need an ITN/R for recent deaths, so we can figure out who is notable enough for a blurb and who isn't. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Call it ITN/BD for blurbable deaths and put Gene Hackman and William Shatner on the list. Fdfexoex (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of a morbid subject, but yes I think we should probably post them when they die (hopefully later rather than sooner). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creating such a list would be impossible. When examining those recent deaths that do occur and determining whether they are eligible for a blurb, one of the factors that comes into play is the suddenness or unexpectedness of the death. For example, if the currently-serving head of state of a country dropped dead tomorrow, this would or should prompt a blurb (notwithstanding those editors who have their own personal criteria that exclude all but the most transcendent people from receiving blurbs). As a famous figure becomes older and gains distance from the apex of their career, it becomes more difficult to justify them having a blurb. The list would need to be changing constantly in order to reflect the reality of the current consensus. I don't think anyone would be up to the task. --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 14:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that whether to blurb a recent death depends, for some of us, on the extent to which their article is updated, following their death. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems to have posted with missing citations. Premature post. Would not recommend a pull though. Instead someone knowledgeable and who has the ability to, should go in and fix the article. I am out today. Ktin (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROSELINE issues. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Still seems to meet
WP:ITNQUALITY: Articles should be well referenced; one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, but any contentious statements must have a source, and having entire sections without any sources is unacceptable. —Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
A rocket attack targets a U.S. military base in Syria in retaliation for retaliatory airstrikes from the United States hours earlier. No damages or casualties are reported. (Al Arabiya)
Nominator's comments: High casualty event that surprisingly went under my radar (did anyone else hear about this? I legit just learned about this today). Unusual in its area. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 22:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per
WP:NEWSEVENT, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
you know where to go. Curbon7 (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Gas leaks and explosions are commonplace. There was one in Swansea two weeks ago and another in Chester just today. Routine accidents. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for different reasons. I honestly don't think that this is "in the news". As you yourself mentioned "High casualty event that surprisingly went under my radar (did anyone else hear about this? I legit just learned about this today)." so this really isn't in the news. Heck, even I rarely heard anything about it. It is definitely unusual though so my mind could change. Though I will say, the I don't like the comment "A mass casualty explosion at a factory in a first world country is 'not notable?'" kind of implies that if it happened in a third world country the overall impact would be "lesser". Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the impact is more pronounced given that that industrial catastrophes of this scale typically occur in third world countries with more lax building regulations, etc. Not saying its inherently less important, but to be honest, if someone stated that a factory blew up, resulting in seven dead and ten injuries, without prior context, I personally would assume it to be a third world country.
Also, although media coverage seems to have been limited, mainstream sources like CNN, NYT, and CBS are still covering it (see listed sources above). - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 14:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honeslty, i do think the article is too stubby though. The timeline (why is the section called timeline?) and the background sections could use a bit more expansion. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOppose on Quality By killing or wounding more than twelve, becoming known to me at the time and having the extraordinary chocolate factory twist, this story meets the InedibleHulk MCE Bar of Approval. I don't think we should name the company, though. Too promotional, too little previously earned notability. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose solely on article quality. Take out the reactions and you have all of nine sentences about the event. That's not enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Article is much improved. But not really sure of the level of coverage of this event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on Quality. While I am pleased to see this article was created (because it did not appear to exist last time I checked), it is still a bit stubby as Onegreatjoke noted. And even regardless of the quality issues this may fall a little below the notability line (I feel compelled to vote Neutral on Importance here as this is a local story for me and I'll make sure to abstain to prevent bias). DarkSide830 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking quality oppose, though I think notability's still going to miss here. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A little thin in terms of depth, with the article overly reliant on two big quotations that could probably be shortened and integrated into existing text. SpencerT•C 03:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because this is not notable enough. Factory explosions happen quite frequently, and the only thing that makes this stand out is that it's a chocolate factory. Additionally, it's too short to cover all the necessary stuff. Octopusplushie (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look to be good, just maybe provide a smidge more detail about its results and you would have my Support vote. :) Octopusplushie (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Tornado outbreak with an unusually large death count (it struck at night) that is expected to rise. Better image likely to come. Teemu08 (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Currently the top headline on the BBC (as seen from the UK). GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support given the scale of the devastation. Rest in Peace to the victims. --RockstoneSend me a message! 14:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -
WP:MINIMUMDEATHS does not exist, but we historically have tended to post disasters of this magnitude, with this high of a death toll being a major contributing factor.--⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 14:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
Crossed out the latter image (one currently used) as it is being marked for deletion. Infinity (talk - contributions) 23:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article seems to be of good quality. Highly visible and "in the news" tragedy. Kafoxe (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per above. RIP. Also, support @RandomInfinity17's calls for the other image to be used, with the blurb acknowledging that the picture shows the wider tornado system. Crusader1096 (message) 16:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appears to be a dissonance between the fatality number reported in multiple sections of the article. The Rolling Fork-Silver City tornado section mentions the fatality number as both 19 and 23, while two more are added for Amory. I believe we should rectify this before ITN posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per above. The article is in good shape. --Maxxies (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support
Deeply saddening event with extreme damage and a high death toll, so I strongly support this being posted onto ITN
User:Idontknowlol7
Support, notable tornado outbreak, and as per above. That was a really catastrophic tornado hitting Rolling Fork, Silver City and Amory, worst I've seen ever. TailsWx 17:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Clearly an extreme and deadly weather event with major media coverage. Article appears to be in decent shape. Jusdafax (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—It’s not like highly destructive tornado outbreaks in the American South and Midwest are uncommon, but a death toll of 23 people does seem exceptional to me. Kurtis(talk) 18:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article looks ready to be posted; I saw no {cn} tags in it. This is also an exceptionally catastrophic tornado outbreak which is receiving national and international news coverage. And as reflected in the article's title now, I fear that we have not yet seen the end of this particular tornado outbreak. Vida0007 (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The casualties now include at least two dead from Alabama. Perhaps the blurb could be changed to something like "in the Southern United States, including the states of Mississippi and Alabama."? Kafoxe (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with just "in the Southern United States", because that's what the article says. DecafPotato (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: unfortunate but important. Article seems ready –lomrjyotalk 01:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The image associated with this nomination does not have copyright information associated with it, and it is NOT free for use. This needs to be changed before publishing. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the press piece applies, I saw it widely shared on social media but not by anyone associated with Planet. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support using this image as a replacement for the Planet imagery now that it's been removed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be posted? It's been up for nearly 24 hours with unanimous support. --RockstoneSend me a message! 06:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. I'll write 25 as per article. --Tone 08:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at a glance, the vast majority of fatalities were caused by a single tornado. Should that one specifically get its own? Juxlos (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment The article says that the tornado in the blurb caused 22 deaths, so the blurb should be changed. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 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.
Nominator's comments: Notable Fijian political figure. Article is lengthy and extensive, but is unfortunately basically unsourced. I'll try my best to remedy it. Crusader1096 (message) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose Still lacks citations. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
contractor is killed and five others are injured when a drone hits a U.S. base near Al-Hasakah in northern Syria. The United States responds with airstrikes on Iranian-linked targets, killing eleven people. (Al Jazeera)
Armed conflict for control of the favelas in Greater Rio de Janeiro
Comment: Article could use a little more prose for depth, ISBNs or refs for his works, and some trimming of the selected works which is on the lengthy side. SpencerT•C 04:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] IAAF bans trans athletes
(
Non-admin closure) Stale, and consensus to post will not develop. Cheers. WimePocy 12:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
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.
Except that it is considered a temporary measure until they debate how to handle trans athletes further, and currently has zero effects on competing athletes. Masem (t) 00:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see any update to the bolded article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Temporary decision, article isn't of sufficient quality. I can see the notability, but how does this actually affect most sports in the world? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good faith nom, but its temporary for now, so its significance is still up in the air. Crusader1096 (message) 06:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work The article needs updating to reflect the latest rule changes. And it's rather ongoing as there were previous rules and there will be a working party on more. Getting the technicalities about testosterone right seems complex. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid we would never be able to feature something without an updated article, so I would recommend getting active in editing in the field (perhaps starting with non-locked articles initially, to learn the ropes). ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the target article hasn't even been edited at all in over ten days. DecafPotato (talk) 16:46, 24 March 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.
WP:ITN/R includes "The first and last launches of any type of rocket". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll reiterate my frequent refrain that space exploration is poorly suited to ITN/R, as we will inevitably find ourselves parsing whether what the thing did matches the wording of the guideline. That said, I cannot even tell what the thing did at this stage, so Wait for article to be fleshed out. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to an article like this for ITN, and this could be the humble start of quite cheaply produced rocketry! But it's not a particularly big-impact mission as it stands, nor is it particularly promising just yet. If the article were a solid B-class with a lot of detail, I would be happy to see it featured, but right now it doesn't feel ready for the front page. Waiting until a rocket by this team reaches orbit might be more helpful for our project, but I can already see that being mass-opposed when the time comes... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article hasn't been expanded since the nomination, so I feel like Oppose, as the article doesn't feel particularly ready for a prominent feature on the front page. I'd rather wait for a successful launch, with the hope that the article will be more impressive at that time. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely a first for a printjob, maybe the last of the Terrans, update reasonably complete. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Sure...article does need expansion, but this is ITN/R. I don't know, honestly. Cheers. WimePocy 13:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeComment While this is a very interesting news, I don't think it is ITN-worthy at this time. I would prefer to wait until they have a successful launch. Otherwise, this could be perceived as promoting indirectly someone's business.--Maxxies (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current ITN/R guidelines state that the first launch of any rocket, whether successful or unsuccessful, automatically satisfies the notability requirement for an item. If you would like to propose a change in those guidelines, you are invited to do so at
We have (very rarely) IAR'd to not post something ITNR in the past, including one instance a few months ago. Curbon7 (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sagittarian Milky Way, I think it was another rocket launch, if I recall correctly. I don't remember which or exactly when. Curbon7 (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Support. Article is fine. No way notable enough in general, but ITN/R wins again. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've occasionally wondered if an engineering student firing a sounding rocket made of
Karman Line would count as an ITN/R launch. --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 17:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
To be honest, if this thought can to mind, perhaps we should consider going to try for a discussion at WT:ITN? TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly encourage it, I'd open it myself except I'm not confident in my argumentative ability. The Kip (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - the fact that its 3D printed makes it somewhat notable in that regard IMO. Crusader1096 (message) 18:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Oppose – Yes, it's ITN/R, but it feels like only by a technicality, and doesn't have the significance to actually be on ITN. DecafPotato (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose Not notable enough. NoahTalk 20:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IAR opposes really need to be an overwhelming consensus (somewhere in the range of 95%) in order to be considered sufficient to bar an ITN/R item from posting. In other words, it has to be something that contravenes the spirit of the ITN/R criterion if not the letter. In addition, straight-up vote-votes like "not notable" are about as helpful to a posting admin as no rationale at all. Really, the best place to make a case is on
WT:ITN, where this is already being discussed. --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 20:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
A support !vote specifically saying that they disagree that it should be posted but reluctantly support because of its ITN/R status are a very strong case for how this shouldn't be posted. And like I said, I feel as though this is only ITN/R by a technicality without any established significance, which, in my opinion, contravenes the spirit of the ITN/R criterion if not the letter. DecafPotato (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support the story, but wait until orbit - ITN/R, my guys. And as for the legitimacy of this being ITN/R, I think it's
a. Good to have positive, diverse stories to post
b. This is the first flight of a new orbital rocket by a new company, which alone is quite notable, especially considering the massively growing significance of the space industry on our every day lives
c. 3D printing technology pushed to a new extreme, which only adds to the notability.
Unfortunately, I don't think it should be posted until a successful orbital launch, which will probably be soon. I feel like ITN/R should be updated to say that only successful orbital launches be notable (though one near-future exception to this could be the maiden launch of SpaceX Starship, if it ends in failure). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support since this is in ITNR. Also, I watched it from my university's parking garage last night, and witnessed the 2nd stage fail to ignite, so that was interesting. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Despite the second-stage failure, this first-ever of its kind 3-D printed launch is notable and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Oppose - The use of 3D printing as a novel fabrication technique seems to be popular as way of trying to boost the significance of otherwise small-scale developments, and this is a striking example of that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... to 3D-print almost an entire fracking rocket is no small-scale development, hence support. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am quite surprised an administrator has not posted this yet. I know I'm echoing LaserLegs from long ago who got similarly angry about a nomination for Blue Origin, but that nomination was even more clear-cut that the event was not to be posted. Are admins waiting for the resolution of the discussion on
Given that the WT:ITN discussion seems to be leaning towards 'remove from ITN/R', the "support since this is ITN/R" !votes likely won't have much weight. DecafPotato (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If true, this should be a damn effective tactic going forward. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see why the manufacturing technique is important here. Otherwise it's an entirely unremarkable launch, by one of dozens of commercial providers who have entered the field in the last decade. Modest Geniustalk 19:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previously, such aerospace vehicles were hand-crafted which is quite labour-intensive. The 3D printing process makes manufacture more automated and mechanical, lowering costs significantly. It enables construction of complex geometries such as cooling arrays for nozzles and these can be redesigned and iterated much more easily. It also simplifies the supply chain by bringing more of the construction in house. As it's quite a radical change in the way such vehicles are built, passing the stress test of max q was an important validation of it. To characterise this as just another launch is to completely miss the point. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Argentine mathematician Luis Caffarelli wins this year's Abel Prize "for his seminal contributions to regularity theory for nonlinear partial differential equations including free-boundary problems and the Monge–Ampère equation". He becomes the first Latin American to win this prize. (The Guardian)
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: She was the only Italian transgender person that survived Nazi concentration camps. I should note that she actually passed away on 22 March. Also, I would like to thank everyone who helped clean this article up, and especially KamillaŚ, who translated it from it.wiki in the first place. --Oltrepier (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support: I was just nominating it myself! Looks to be in good shaped. Note: moved to the 22nd bc her death was announced hen as well. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article appears to be in good order. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Just announced, so articles are still being updated. Joofjoof (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment That should be just Ethernet not "the Ethernet" as it's a family of protocols, not a particular network. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Metcalfe's article needs a lot of sourcing work. --Masem (t) 12:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Striking out the second 'the' in the blurb per Andrew's comment. Cheers. WimePocy 11:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Metcalfe's article still needs a good amount of work, but the Ethernet article looks good so I'm excited to see this featured once BLP guidelines are met. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready. Unfortunately there's an orange tag on the article, which seems to be justified. It's mostly stuff that should be easy enough to source though, just needs a bit more work. Modest Geniustalk 19:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Joofjoof has fixed the citation issues and I've just done a light copyedit. Seems good enough to post now. Modest Geniustalk 18:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work The red link for his main work is embarrassing. I'll try to get a stub started but lack the time and expertise to expand it. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a lot of work. regularity theory is just a definition and partial differential equation is largely uncited. Might have been acceptable if Caffarelli's article was particularly good, but it's not up-to-snuff yet either. I hope people will be able to bring these articles to a higher level. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
jihadists and injure many others while defending a military base in the south of the country. (Xinhua)
2018–2023 Haitian crisis
The United Nations reports that 187 people have been killed in a wave of violence in Haiti in the past eleven days during clashes between gangs. Since the beginning of the year, 531 people have been murdered in the country. (AP)(France24)
Tanzania reports that five people have died from an outbreak of Marburg virus. The Health Ministry added that three others are being treated and that 161 people are being tracked by authorities, although the ministry stated that this is not of serious concern for the country. (AFP via Al Arabiya)
a bill with harsher provisions against homosexual relationships. The bill includes the charges of "aggravated homosexuality" and "attempted homosexuality" with sentences of up to 10 years in prison. (AP)
Support Article looks good! Fahads1982Talk 11:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support definitely notable, and changed blurb into present tense. - azpineapple | T/C 13:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Article feels a little sparse, but probably good enough for ITNR. The Kip (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Agree with The Kip on this one, but it meets the minimum requirement for ITNR (though there is now one {cn} tag, pertaining to the quake's impacts in Tajikistan). Also transferred this nom and the now-posted WBC 2023 nom to 21 March, as both happened on that date (and not 22 March). Vida0007 (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder This is not an ITNR nomination, judge on significance and article quality. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article is decent, I've seen shorter article be posted to ITN. Crusader1096 (message) 18:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good. Amazing game --TorsodogTalk 06:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. This year's edition of WBC may have been a bigger baseball tournament than World Series ever was. MarioJump83 (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Tweaked because of "defeats" vs "defeat"
MOS:ENGVAR debate. Also, the general WBC page should be included.—Bagumba (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't understand why this blurb with a quite thin article (limited text) was posted that fast after just a few hours, while other blurbs with many more supports are posted days later. I have serious questions on this process. Things need to be fair and consistent, otherwise the credibility is lost. Maxxies (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't post stubs or poorly sourced pages. It had a game summary of multiple paragraphs. The other subjective criteria, I leave to the participants (or I otherwise !vote), and there was unanimous support among a handful of participants after many hours. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree strongly. This does not address the weaknesses of the article pointed out after it was posted and how the process is fair and consistent. While I certainly support the idea of having blurbs posted for current events as soon as possible, very few people had the opportunity to provide their comments, especially those who live in the Americas, in Europe and Africa. The blurb was proposed late in the evening/night and posted in the middle of the night/early morning. Does it mean that we should stay awake all night? My goal is here is to foster an inclusive environment and facilitate engagement of most for quality blurbs and articles. Otherwise, some people may feel that their commitment to ITN may not be worth their time and effort. Maxxies (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I posted based on the !votes at the time. No problem if consensus happens to change afterwards. There is no minimum wait time, and this is not close, timewise, to other posts that have been faster. We are all volunteers here, so nobody should expect anyone to "stay awake all night". However, we have historically posted once there is consensus among a sufficient number of participants. If the community wishes tighter guidelines than what has been done in the past, they are free form a consensus to amend
WP:ITN/A, which reads: Editors at ITN/C declare their support or opposition and, after a few hours, it's usually fairly clear if enough people express reasonable arguments in favour of posting. If the consensus is not entirely clear, consider letting the nomination run for more time, especially if the nomination is less than 24 hours old. —Bagumba (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Considering a handful of supports before posting can only increase the risk of bias. At this time, I am not confident that the process is fair and consistent. I rest my case. Maxxies (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article is still quite lacking in background and explanation. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the previous nomination for details. Generally, the article is quite sketchy. For a more developed example, see 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup which has about 5 times the prose and hasn't even started yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of an unequal comparison, considering one is solely the championship article and one is for an entire tournament. The Kip (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't understood that the article is just about a single game in this event. That seems odd as our articles usually cover all of a tournament. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tournament blurbs usually have a target article of the championship game/final rather than the tournament as a whole. The Kip (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the posted blurb links to both the general tournament and the individual final, though the final itself is the only thing bolded. DecafPotato (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I'm obviously not voting to pull; I hate to agree with Andrew, but it's a worthwhile point that the article seems thin on prose. Not bad enough to pull, however. The Kip (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. Hell, the road to the final section is pretty just a table and not a prose detailing how they got there. Also no aftermath section. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That prose is in the subarticles, and the table is sourced. What aftermath is missing? The players returned to spring training. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the irony. Any sporting event that had as little prose as this one, but was one from outside the USAsphere, would immediately have been opposed by multiple people for exactly that reason. The article is crap; a five-line summary of the final and nothing else. Well done, everyone. Might be useful as a future "well this was posted, so ..." example, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't even on free TV or basic cable in the US (in Japan 97.3% of TVs that were on were tuned in by the time of the stunning last ball (17 inches of perfectly aimed swing in the air at 87 mph after 102 mph) but Japan has few English speakers (Japanese to or from English is hard to learn (Less related than English and Bengali, badly correlated English soundoletters vs stylized pictograms, different sounds, l and r no longer the same phoneme, sentences are almost completely backwards. Phoneme splitting is hard! In some languages
light l can change meaning and English-only people like me don't even notice. But ace and ass we notice right away but Japanese only has 1 kind of A and only 5 vowels instead of 12+ in English))) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
Yeah I didn't see the problem. And American interest in the WBC seems to be growing as you said which is pretty cool, baseball gets to have something kind of like the soccer World Cup. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2022 § (Posted) Argentina wins World Cup, the initial wait's and oppose's were because there was literally zero prose of the actual match at the time. It eventually got posted within 2 hours of the nomination with 5 support's and some unredacted wait's (presumably their concerns were resolved). —Bagumba (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage To understand the event better, I just looked through the coverage in the NYT. I had to search for it because nothing is listed on its online front page, not even in the section at the bottom which summarises the sports section, The Athletic. That has six other stories such as "Can Princeton Crack the Elite Eight?" and "Fans Are Furious About the N.H.L.’s New Uniform Deal." But when you search, there are several articles about this event and, after reading them, two main points emerged. Firstly, that the MVP, Shohei Ohtani, is something special because he excels at both pitching and hitting and such all-round play is not usual in baseball at professional level. And, secondly, that the US has trouble fielding a team for this event because, somehow, it interferes with pre-season training for the regular season. The problem seems to be that the players don't actually get to play which I still don't fully understand. Anyway, our article doesn't seem to convey or explain these key points.
The general impression is what I gleaned from an earlier perusal – that the event is not well-established and supported like the World Series, say, but is still quite anomalous and shaky. And the issue for us here is that the nominated article does a poor job of explaining all this to the general reader. We are regularly told that ITN is not just for running headlines but is expected to highlight detailed, quality encyclopedic articles. Myself, I don't mind if articles aren't perfect because Wikipedia's focus is speed not perfection. But I do expect a level playing field in which all types of topic are held to the same standard.
To be fair none of the Ivy League basketballers have reached the top 8 in 44 years even though at least 1 of 8 schools is in the tournament each year and they only need to win 3 games in a row. It'll be interesting to see if brains can still beat jocks in post-1970s college basketball (a series of rule changes and, ironically, nerdier statistics have made it much harder) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The US team has these problems for a number of reasons: players in the world's 2nd strongest club league (Japan) seem much more likely to find the change of schedule and small risk of injury worth it (most years don't have a preseason tournament, players usually train then play exhibition training games this time of year), the regular season+postseason already fill about all space that's available at the current level of global heating. The record low is 23F/-5C and if they played spring training at home instead of Florida or Arizona then more games would get snowed on. Snow games are accepted in American football but undesirable in baseball. If they made spring training start before the current mid-February the players bodies wouldn't be able to heal as much as they could. Pitchers' throwing side ulnar collateral ligament especially, they tear at least a little every x years or so and only post-1974 surgeons knew how to let them play again by sowing on a replacement tendon (after a long potentially never complete heal, even Ohtani did this). It is very hard on the elbow to throw 102.0 mph like him with an anti-runup rule (pivot foot naked eye not touching ground rectangle at any time between standing still and release is a foul, the rectangle is only 6 inches front-to-back 24 left-to-right)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - While not as well-developed as other world championships in other sports, the WBC is clearly the premier international baseball tournament. The 'World' Series is a strictly North American event between regional teams; obviously we should post it, but it's on a par with the FA Cup, not the FIFA World Cup. The WBC, while it doesn't have the same high profile as the World Cup, is at least in the same tier as it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Per CNN, while "scientists have previously found nucleobases and vitamins in certain carbon-rich meteorites, [...] there was always the question of contamination by exposure to the Earth’s environment" and "since the Hayabusa2 spacecraft collected two samples directly from asteroid Ryugu and delivered them to Earth in sealed capsules, contamination can be ruled out". The findings are published in peer-reviewed Nature Communications. Brandmeistertalk 08:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As interesting as this story is, it's hardly new information, just a corroboration of previous theory. For example, the article notes "Unlike in previous instances when nucleobases and vitamins were also found in certain carbon-rich meteorites, the contamination by exposure to the Earth’s environment was ruled out as the samples were collected directly from asteroid and delivered to Earth in sealed capsules." So it's probable that we've found such a meteorite before and simply were unable to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt there was no contamination. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: This is definitely interesting news, but it is buried pretty deep into the article. The article is of good quality though, so this is a support from me.--WMrapids (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This finding suggests that the RNA-World of which the relics exist in many important biomolecules, see .e.g. here that gave rise to modern life, may be a universal feature of life throughout the universe, rather than only here on Earth. Count Iblis (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Very interesting news, and I'd like to see it posted, but I'm not sure if it's really notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like opposing but the story seems lacking. The molecules in question are fairly simple organic compounds and so it's not surprising to confirm their presence. The sampling mission was posted at ITN in
Oppose on the simple basis that the update to our article isn't significant enough. If, inspired by this news, someone wrote a whole major section or article about the molecular analysis of Ryugu, then that might have been a meaningful article to feature. Here we'd basically be featuring the same text as we did a few years ago. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is potentially extraordinary! --Ouro (blah blah) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -per Count Iblis. Notable discovery with big implications. The article is in fine shape, a credit to the 'pedia. Opposers fail to convince me, though I agree it would be helpful to have more relevant text in the target article. Nevertheless, this is a Japanese space triumph with a payoff. Jusdafax (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems like notable scientific news (it’d be good to post notable scientific news more often) & the update seems sufficient. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An NBA legend and the article is in decent shape. Aure entuluva (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet ready Orange-tagged for citations; several inline CN tags present. Curbon7 (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons outlined by Curbon. Orange-tagged article, for CN. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support all reference issues addressed and resolved! Feel free to ping me if any additional issues exist or pop up! TailsWx 00:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tails Wx, thanks for your work! You did a lot to improve the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Glad I could help! TailsWx 03:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I hope I did everything right! TailsWx 13:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Above issues have been addressed and the article is expected level of comprehensive. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Close paraphrasing issues with NBA.com[18]@Tails Wx: Courtesy ping if you're interested in helping to clean it up.—Bagumba (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I resolved the copyvios, and added a few more refs. Marking "ready".—Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and nice work! TailsWx 12:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This election is part of Kazakhstan's attempt at democratization and saw more parties win seats for the first time in nearly 20 years. ShadZ01 (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support - Notable for the reasons Shad gave. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's ITN/R and therefore notable enough, and the article seems to be in good shape, but it lacks information about how many seats each party won. Once that is added, consider this a support vote. Son Of The Desert (Talk) 15:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Son of the Desert. Will switch to support when election results are fully detailed. The Kip (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon expansion as stated per above, article lacks clear information regarding the results. Crusader1096 (message) 16:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support when expanded, as stated above by everyone else. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Could use a little expansion on the results, but seems ready enough for ITN. Estar8806 (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks perfectly fine, it just needs a bit more info about how many seats each party won. TomMasterRealTALK 00:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. Article looks good!! Cheers. WimePocy 12:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's orange-tagged and the lead does not summarise the
bloated body nor give any details of the outcome. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support. The article is comprehensive, thoroughly referenced, and has been updated with the results & related prose. Normally I would like to see a bit more prose discussion of the outcome, but the rest of the article is good enough to outweigh that concern. Seems ready. Modest Geniustalk 19:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: British actor, declared brain dead on March 16, died March 20. TailsWx 23:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Needs work The article completely fails to explain the subject's key feature – that he was remarkably short (4' 4") and styled himself "king of the dwarfs". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Article goes as follows - short lead section, directly followed by the death section, with a singular note that repeats what is already said in the death section. Nothing on the subject, merely a stub. This needs fixing ASAP. Cheers. WimePocy 12:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 politician. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Filmography is unreferenced. Additionally article is heavily balanced toward his political career and would need additional prose regarding his film career. SpencerT•C 21:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: As suggested below. There's work to do on the update... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as mentioned, not really updated. Additionally, the blurb above leaves out too much information for the reader. The IPCC's 6th assessment on what? What was the warning about? Finally, I question the long term applicability of this story given how prior UN predictions about climate change have aged wildly unwell and its pretty obvious that when it comes to climate change, everyone is naturally incentivized to exaggerate the severity to generate clicks and attention. Crusader1096 (message) 14:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Yes, yes,
WP:RGW, but this is massive, massive news - a wake-up call to the world, in case all the previous evidence wasn't convincing enough. And it's made headlines across multiple reliable sources. I find Knightoftheswords's oppose rationale unconvincing; any perceived lack of accuracy regarding any prior assessments by the United Nations does not and will not diminish the significance of their office nor of this story. --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 15:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support Very significant even if the report would not get countries like mine to change their practices. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I would be less opposed to this nom if the major components of this report had not already been published. As the article acknowledges, this report is composed of three main parts, the most recent having been published nearly a year ago. While the headlines are about the finished report at the moment, if any country is only now having a "wake-up call", they must have been asleep over the past two years. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - @Knightoftheswords281 makes some good points, and the blurb isn't fit for posting, but at the end of the day I do think this is an event that should be ITN/R. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per DarkSide. I can certainly see its notability, but the most recent part of the report having been published a year ago raises questions as to whether this is even eligible for ITNR or not. The Kip (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AR6 Synthesis Report, the final part of AR6, was published today. Masem (t) 20:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose today's publication of the report doesn't really change anything or tell us anything we didn't already know before (either from previous reports/news or from parts of this report that were already in the public domain). I don't think the publication itself is ITN-worthy 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:60F7:5482:A96:B5CC (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per DarkSide. There's not much in here we didn't already know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article looks good. --Maxxies (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose on noteworthiness. Article seems sufficient quality, but it's not clear to me that the mere publication of a report saying what was already well-known is itself significant. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 00:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers There isn't much in this sixth and final report that we don't already know. Unfortunate, but stale. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support These reports are a very big deal. The previous one was published almost ten years ago and we posted it, so I don't see anything that could objectively prevent this from being posted (of course, if the article is sufficiently expanded).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have not featured this before, and AFAIK the last nom was shut down due to a want of the full report. This is the highest level assesment we can have for climate change and only the sixth in line since the first in the 1990s. Gotitbro (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Good quality, and I would throw in support of the blurb! TailsWx 12:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. We can't control how IPCC reports are published in parts. Is it the headline story of reputable news organizations globally? Yes. I think that demonstrates it's worthy to be on ITN. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There's nothing in the report that we didn't know already. Son Of The Desert (Talk) 15:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Altblurb may be a little sensational. Not to understate the effects of climate change, but it sounds like we're directly commanding governments to change their policy in regards to the climate, by saying "actions humanity must take NOW to avoid global warming". Maybe I'm wrong though, what do you all think? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also looks like it has a tense error; surely "outline" is meant to be "outlining". — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 16:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I think you're right. Perhaps "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change completes its Sixth Assessment Report, outlining what can be done to prevent climate change by 2030."? Not too sure if this is the best we have, but it's not as sensational as the first altblurb and giving a little more information. Then again, I didn't read too much, so I can't say if the information I'm giving in this blurb is accurate. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV does not mean creating undue weight for opposing viewpoints. Since this is the consensus of climatology scientists across the world, it's not an overstatement to phrase it in terms of requiring imminent action. --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 18:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The report is written as a strong warning that all governments need to take action "now", not "wait a few years and take action", if 1.5 in 2030 is to be avoided. It is a strongly worded warning, so Walt is correct that this blurb represents the direness of the situation from the IPCC's view. Masem (t) 12:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand. Should've read up on the assessment beforehand, then before commenting. Thanks! TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a specific news event and a significant report. -TenorTwelve (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Knightoftheswords, this seems to be just more sensationalism. Its for sure notable and I agree with the sentiment of the report, but the UN has been warning about irreversible climate change for as long as Wikipedia has been around. Should we post every time the UN makes a report on the climate?
Strong support (with changes to blurb: ... a stark warning on the effects of 1.5 °C warming of the climate). Not mentioned elsewhere so far as I can see, but significant is the fact that this completes the IPCC's sixth assessment cycle, i.e., it will serve as the definitive piece of climate change reporting until the 2030s. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This was all pretty much explained in the last five. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: British peer, former Minister of Defence and last living MP elected in 1955 The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Ancestry needs a cite. Probably should have one for the arms too. Honours is missing two cites. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This blurb should replace the existing bank collapse blurb. Major development in a developing global banking crisis. This is a breaking story, the Swiss government press conference announcing the acquisition is ongoing as I type this. Sandstein 19:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability. I'm still working on getting the article in shape (and I can't speak Swiss German, so I'm relying heavily on U.S./U.K. financial media to expand this); it may be several hours before the quality is there. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 19:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk, thanks for your work. Swiss media are published in Standard German and French, not Swiss German, which should help. Here are a few Swiss media live blogs which should be accessible with Google Translate if necessary: Swiss TV, Swiss Radio. There is also Swissinfo in English. Sandstein 19:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative blurb 2 as an independent entry (i.e. at the top of ITN). I think it is the most precise; there is good sourcing for it, and the global significance is obvious. The page appears to be good to post at this point, though development will be needed to make the article
Support on notability. This is a major development in the history of Switzerland, of its financial sector, and it is of great importance to the rest of the world.
Support something If there was an article covering the ongoing crisis in the banking sector, I think I'd support putting that in ongoing. But clearly this is a very significant move. On Friday people were openly warning that Credit Suisse was teetering on the brink and its collapse could set off a financial panic. Not sure how to frame this as a blurb that keeps everything in the context of a crisis in the global banking system. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If more banks fail, perhaps we should consider an ongoing nomination for this item? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, propose altblurb Significance is obvious, wrote altblurb for conciseness/clarity. The Kip (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, propose altblurb, can be linked to the article on Bank collapses. Technically this is the fourth and not the third bank to collapse in March. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a bank failure; UBS stepped to acquire the bank to ward off a future collapse. Only two banks so far have been tank over by a government as a result of a failure. --Masem (t) 20:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem, that is true, but my understanding is that the two US banks were also not actually insolvent yet, either, when they were taken over. Maybe a better alt blurb would be "After a series of bank failures in the United States, UBS acquires Credit Suisse to prevent its failure". The proposed altblurb makes it sound like a standard corporate merger, whereas this was more like a shotgun wedding pushed through by global financial regulators to prevent the collapse of a globally systemically relevant bank and thereby a major financial crisis. Sandstein 20:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is complicated because UBS had been looking to acquire Credit Suisse's stable operations for a long time. The controversy at the bank is more related to its investment banking subsidiary First Boston, which is primarily based in the US, so UBS wanted to acquire the Credit Suisse assets minus the First Boston stuff. The current situation is giving UBS a chance to acquire Credit Suisse at a steep discount and also get numerous guarantees from the government over the investment banking subsidiary. Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but the article needs to be expanded before it gets posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril Simeonovski, I've expanded the article, although there is still much room for expansion; the global financial press will certainly provide ample coverage in the coming days. Sandstein 22:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the great work. Looks good to go now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a new burb and an expanded article. The altburb implies that there is a direct link to the US bank collapses and this event, even though the root causes of these two events are different. Technically, Credit Suisse did not fail as the blurb said. This acquisition prevents its failure and possibly a major financial crisis. The term "fail" in the blurb does not seem to be exact.--Maxxies (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Altblurb 2 proposed. Sandstein 22:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Credit Suisse did not fail. A major reason for the acquisition was to prevent volatility in the global markets, and it is also important to note that UBS has been looking to acquire Credit Suisse for a long time. Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this happened in a calm environment, two of the largest banks in the world merging would be major financial news. Juxlos (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate blurb Something like
After a
series of bank failures in the United States, the Swiss government arranges for the takeover of embattled bank Credit Suisse by its competitor UBS, to prevent further financial contagion. This wasn’t a normal M&A deal, but a government-backed private-sector bailout, and in my opinion should be noted as such. Credit Suisse’s AT1 bond holders are getting wiped out; shareholders are getting a 60-70% haircut; and the Swiss National Bank has stood behind all this guaranteeing $100 billion+ in backstops & extra liquidity. 2601:642:4C02:5D7E:5952:3E9E:551C:3E8A (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose. Credit Suisse did not fail, and acquisition's not nearly as noteworthy. Furthermore, it is irresponsible to conflate the US failures with this event. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb IV CS is a globally systemically important bank, and the acquisition is basically described as a "shotgun wedding" forced upon UBS. Just the merger by itself would have been ITN-worthy, the circumstances make it more so. However, conflating it witb SVB et al. would be somewhat of an OR violation. Juxlos (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support altburb II per above. DecafPotato (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Changing my vote to supporting altburb IV per Chrisclear. DecafPotato (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposed blurb, oppose altblurb 1, oppose altblurb 2, oppose altblurb 3. This has no direct relation to Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, or US bank failures generally. I added altblurb 4, which I support, and I would support a similar blurb that does not try to draw a dubious line between this and American banks. I also support altblurb 5. Chrisclear (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any of the blurbs connecting this to the US banks, CS has had its own issues for months now. Dont think the acquisition is all that front-page worthy by itself either, but if there is any blurb worth posting it is only altblurb 4. nableezy - 04:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added Alt V as basically every RS noted that the Swiss government was heavily involved in the deal. Juxlos (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support altburb V: Don't support burbs I to III. Readers must reach their own conclusions after reading the article, whether or not, or to what extent was the event related to US bank bailouts, and not CS's own making. — hako9 (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb V - Per all of the insightful comments above. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt V Lets not tie this to whatever happened in the USA at SVB / Signature bank, they are seperate events. ✨ 4 🧚♂am
I agree that they should not be tied, but we should be aware that the collapse of SVB did trigger a general panic around banking globally as a result. Panics are hard to document and , per RECENTISM, we should not rush to make a connection (the timing aspects can be discussed on the CS page) but we should be aware that most economic experts point to SVB as the first domino here. Masem (t) 12:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and any of these blurbs work for me. I find #3 to be brief and factual. Jusdafax (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resigned support - I suppose given that we already posted the story about the Silicon Valley Bank's collapse, we sort of have to continue the story here on ITN, since this now has international impact. But for God's sake let's trim down the number of alt-blurbs. I support using either IV or V, none of the others, certainly not the ones referring to the U.S. bank collapses.--⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 15:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb IV or V This is a big deal, an economic disaster averted or stalled for now. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb V A major deal and the target articles look ready to be posted for ITN. Vida0007 (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support Altblurb V seems like the best hook for this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Used Altblurb V. -- tariqabjotu 21:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting question. Has UBS "announced its intention to acquire" or actually "acquired"? If the former, then this violates the CRYSTALBALL principle and we should only post until after the acquisition is done, whatever that may mean. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Swiss government has changed the laws of the Swiss Confederation to enforce the merger between the two companies. This merger is not subject to a shareholder vote, and there is not a way for either party to pull out. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 18:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, wasn't sure at first, so it's final now. So how come the blurb reads "announces its intention to acquire" and not "acquires"? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL says: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. —Bagumba (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The acquisition has happened now, so why does our blurb read "announces its intent to acquire" and not "acquires"? We should change our blurb, since I now understand that the acquistion has actually happened now.QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Closed) Sargassum bloom
Good faith nom, but unlikely to gain consensus. Anarchyte (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: It seems that these annual blooms have become a big deal since 2011 but I noticed it now because it's in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I've seen this all over the news, it doesn't seem like a major disaster or the like, more another sign of climate change. --Masem (t) 14:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Climate change is quite major. This particular aspect is affecting numerous countries and thousands of people. Compare Gualaca bus crash, which we posted last month. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This may well be on its way to become a big thing in around U.S. Gulf states and Caribbean, but I'm afraid that this blooming is still far away from this becoming actually disruptive and dangerous to the oceans. MarioJump83 (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mario and Masem. Lacks current significance. The Kip (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the Gulf Stream weakening doesn't let this into New York in the future. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nom per above. Might make a good DYK though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a new article and so doesn't qualify for DYK. And DYK has no need of nominations – it has so many that it's currently having to schedule two batches of 8 every day. ITN, on the other hand, is moribund . So far today, there's just this nomination. Yesterday, no nominations at all. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SLOWCYCLE, just because there hasn't been much these last few days doesn't mean this should be posted. The Kip (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
This is not even close to a slow cycle for ITN. I remember when Christopher Lee's death got posted. I am pretty sure his body had turned to dust by time he finally rolled off the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a page with records like oldest image, oldest bottom blurb and oldest top blurb? Would be interesting. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I remember a few months ago there was a two week gap between new blurbs, but there was possibly a longer break. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That treaty is not in force yet. We're still waiting for member states to ratify it locally. Masem (t) 02:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing it and don't need it to tell me life is precious. I just linked it to show that technically more powerful and definitely more influential people than I agree. If I hadn't, there's a 76% chance someone would have thrown
And yes, I'm aware that about 24% of future opposers will think it more important to showcase Putin for a bit longer, because he's an adult male human life form and it's cool to hate. But in my humble opinion, this uncivilized mass of shifty asexual perennial blob is the lesser abyss to stare into. Call me a pervert. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Even though this is not on the news, decomponsimg sargassum has major impacts on marine ecosystem, fishing, health and tourism in affected areas. For these regions, this is a major ecological disaster that impacts the lives of millions of people. The article could be misleading as it does not highlight the significant damages caused by decomposing sargassum.--Maxxies (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article does detail the issue of decomposition. For example, in section Biological impacts, "The decomposition of large quantities of Sargassum along coastlines consumes oxygen, creating large oxygen-depleted zones resulting in fish kills. Decomposing sargassum additionally creates hydrogen sulfide gas, which causes a range of health impacts in humans. During the sargassum inundation event in 2018, 11,000 Acute Sargassum Toxicity cases were reported in an 8-month span on just the Caribbean islands of Guadalupe and Martinique."
Also, the topic is quite clearly in the news as many major media are carrying the story.
Just because the news covers it doesn't mean it is an encyclopedic worthy story. Eg: we would have posted when the DOE talked about the lab-leak theory as every source was rushing to post about that. The fact our article states "The size of annual blooms in the Atlantic increased by over a hundred-fold, starting in 2011, as a result of factors including increased fertilizer runoff in major rivers such as the Amazon and Congo." makes this story far far less compelling because this particular bloom is largest so far. Masem (t) 12:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the article describes briefly some of the biological impacts of the decomposition of sargassum, there are no details on the health problems encountered by the population in the affected areas. It does not detail the disastrous impacts on the fishing sector, tourism or even the marine life. These inundations are recurrent and have been occurring for many years and had a very limited coverage, even less on their impacts. Thanks for nominating this important story. Maxxies (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The entire point of ITN is to report topics which are in the news. And this topic is clearly encyclopedic too because we already had an article about it and the phenomenon is the subject of scientific study such as this. It's far more worthy of consideration than showbiz, sport, shootings and such. They are ephemeral topics while this is a developing long-term phenomenon with international significance. Science! Andrew🐉(talk) 13:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if there is interest in a climate change story, IPCC just released a new report today (March 20) that, once an article has been made for it would be a good ITNC candidate. --Masem (t) 13:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I have made a start above. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacks of general significance. Being "in the news" does not mean that "could/should be In The News". _-_Alsor (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the proposed image is from 2018. DecafPotato (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2018 was a record year for this phenomenon but ITN didn't report it then. Measurements taken in January indicate that this year will be even bigger. That's in the news now and so it's a good time to let our readers know what's going on. The picture is worth a thousand words. There are perhaps other pictures which we might use (example right) so we have a choice... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that readers would expect the image to depict the event (unless it's like a picture of a person), so it's misleading to make the image one that doesn't actually represent the specific blurbed event. And the other image is also from last year. Additionally, the blurbed article doesn't have any information about this specific event, unless I'm missing something. DecafPotato (talk) 20:05, 21 March 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.
Comment - Should it be moved to DYK because it's trivial? UltimateFantasyY (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and SNOW close Truly amazing! Though it is trivial, however, so oppose and SNOW close. But it isn't snowing, it's supposed to rain 5-7 inches here through Saturday! TailsWx 23:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hungary announces that a vote on Finland's membership application will take place on March 27. Fidesz parliamentary group leader Máté Kocsis says that Sweden's application will be considered at a later date. (AFP via Barron's)
Law and crime
Russian invasion of Ukraine
ICC arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova
The
abduction and forced adoption of children from Ukraine. (AP)
No. 1 seed Purdue is defeated 58–63 by No 16 seed Fairleigh Dickinson, only the second time a 16 seed has defeated a 1 seed in the tournament's history and the first time since 2018. (USA Today)
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: Better sources on the way. The Kip (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
All sources I see right now point back to TMZ, so this should be still dubious. Masem (t) 19:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now we have a non TMZ source (Deadline Hollywood) --Masem (t) 19:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AP now confirming as well. The Kip (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The body is well sourced, but the filmographies etc need sourcing. --Masem (t) 00:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Incredible career, very sad news. Support this nomination.--SitcomyFan (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support,Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Full citations are still needed on all filmography tables. They are partially done at this point. Masem (t) 17:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Films now fully sourced, some additional citations needed for TV and video game roles however. The Kip (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Not updated yet but surely will soon be. Appreciate we have the ongoing link but this seems a major development - Dumelow (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits but I wonder if the "on war crimes charges" should be removed, given that it's only a charge. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, absent a revolution in Russia it is doubtful Putin (and the other person charged, the Children's rights official) will ever see the inside of an ICC courtroom or even be arrested. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but not ready. Wow, that was unexpected. There's no chance of Putin being arrested any time soon, but this is still a big deal in international relations. We don't normally post mere arrest warrants, but for Putin I think we should make an
WP:IAR exception. The problem is getting a suitable update somewhere - I don't think a couple of sentences in Putin's long biography article is particularly helpful to readers. Is there one of the Ukraine war articles that could be updated? Or a new article started? Modest Geniustalk 15:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Update: the altblurb is good and the new target article has a small but sufficient update. Seems postable now. Modest Geniustalk 16:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: would
War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine be a possible link here? Masem (t) 15:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Child abductions in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is another possibility once it's updated. I've suggested an altblurb also naming the second suspect - Dumelow (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes that would be a good option - it gives context on the specific crime, rather than a general biography (I think most readers will already know who Putin is). Modest Geniustalk 15:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't aware that one existed but agreed that is more appropriate to the specific charge in place. Masem (t) 16:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Conditional & Reluctant Support Normally I would oppose a report of war crimes charges as I think they should be covered by ongoing and singling out an individual in a blurb based on a charge only, could raise BLP issues. However, this is Putin himself and that puts things on an entirely different level. The main problem at the moment is that this needs to be substantially expanded. Ideally it should be the subject of its own article. As of right now, this cannot be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir Putin arrest warrant is now an article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Weak support - unprecedented act indeed, but let's be honest, the ICC knows that the chance of this warrant being carried out is extremely low, and will almost certainly come with major escalation. This is at least in part a virtue signal. Crusader1096 (message) 15:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on the importance, international coverage and quality of the articles. This is simply unprecedented. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
dont really know whats unprecedented about the ICC issuing an unenforceable warrant, but plenty of heads of state have been charged previously. This has next to no chance of doing anything, as the Russians would likely react similar to what the
US would do. It is in the news though, but all the same, covered by ongoing and of little impact. nableezy - 16:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Can somebody please tell me what is unprecedented about this? I guess a warrant against the head of state of a UNSC permanent member, but again several heads of state were indicted while they were heads of state for actions in an ongoing armed conflict. Off the top of my head Omar Bashir for crimes against humanity in Darfur. Gaddafi for the Libyan Civil War. Russia isnt a signatory to the Rome Statute, this is effectively a press release. nableezy - 16:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that a warrant against the head of state of a UNSC permanent member is both entirely unprecedented and significant. I think that's where the minds of most people in support of posting this are. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 17:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think ICC issues unenforceable warrant against target that will never be brought to trial unless there is a regime change being a non-event and not at all unprecedented, but thats just me I guess. nableezy - 17:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the precedent cited below on Bashir and Gaddafi being posted when indicted then my objections are lessened, though this still is indeed covered by ongoing. nableezy - 20:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support significant development in the Ukraine war, and the ICC is the global body for prosecuting war crimes. While it may seem that the odds of carrying out the warrant are low right now, many former heads of state have been arrested and prosecuted years afterwards. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Almost certain to amount to nothing seeing as there's basically no chance Putin ever shows up to face these charges. If Putin does eventually come before such a court and is found guilty however? Now that's ITN material. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ICC issuing arrest warrants in general is uncommon, never mind against the leader of a major world power engaged in warfare against another country, for conduct in said war. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative blurb. This is unprecedented in the history of the ICC, and it is extremely significant in that the head of state of a P5 country is being charged. I like the focus on the article relating to the abductions, though both that article and Putin's biography are nowupdated to include this information, which was absent at the time of the nom. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 16:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb - there are two items which lack references, but this is not serious enough to prevent it being posted. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed the reference issues; please let me know if there is anything else that needs fixing. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - Unprecedented in ICC history, major development in the war.
The head of state of a nuclear power having an arrest warrant from the largest criminal court in the world is big news. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb Major news, think its good to include Maria Lvova-Belova in the blurb and important to note that the charges relate to the alleged abduction of children. ✨ 4 🧚♂am
Support – Unprecented and major enough to be posted regardless of the 'ongoing' (like we did for the annexations last year). DecafPotato (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted altblurb in a slightly more concise form. Image can be added once it is protected on Commons. Sandstein 17:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:BLPCRIME note, I think we should probably use the less concise version; something like "alleged involvement in" or "suspected involvement in" seems more compliant with that policy than the thing that got posted. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 17:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
In my view, "arrest warrant" implies that they are accused, not yet convicted of crimes. If other admins disagree, feel free to adjust, but "involvement in" is euphemistic; they are accused of ordering these crimes. Sandstein 18:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, one would need to look at the arrest warrants to determine what specifically their respective relation to the abductions is alleged to be. That would complicate the blurb and make it overlong. Sandstein 19:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
Vladimir Putin arrest warrant? Seems to be the root article for this topic. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Still a very new article that needs community examination before posting it to the front page. Sandstein 19:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article is absolutely unnecessary, making too much fine grain on the level of detail we should cover. Put it with
Child abductions in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine instead. Masem (t) 19:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Post-posting oppose per Nableezy. A nuclear power answers to no courthouse. --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 17:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that's relevant, and nuclear powers UK and France are members of the ICC 331dot (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose. Not really relevant given that Russia (and even the US) don't recognise this court. Also no chance anything will come of it, and we already have a line item in Ongoing for everything related to the Ukraine war. — Amakuru (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose. This is not really ITN worthy as it has no real world significance. It is very unlikely this will result in any real world action in the next month. On the off chance something comes of it, it will come months or years down the line and we should post that if it ever happens.
Today there were lots of high profile news stories that "China's Xi to meet Putin in Moscow next week". Why are we not reporting that too as it seems more likely to actually happen?
But we already have Russian invasion of Ukraine in Ongoing to cover the numerous and various news stories arising from this conflict. How is this different?
WP:PERP
says "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law."
Presidents meeting each other is a routine activity. International courts issuing warrants for permanent members of the UN Security Council who are engaged in open warfare is not routine. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclones, floods and other disasters are routine. Elections of national leaders are routine. Sporting events are routine. And yet we post all these. What's supposed to matter is significance and Xi's meeting with Putin seems more significant than the ICC because China is a superpower and the ICC isn't. Neither China nor Russia nor the USA is a signatory to the ICC. Even the Ukraine hasn't ratified it. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to nominate Xi's visit and check out opinions. As for ICC's arrest warrants, regardless of enforceability and bureaucratic obstacles, this is a major public degradation of Putin's international standing that would enter history textbooks as a symbol of everyone's equality before the law, regardless of ranks, and determination to seek justice at the highest possible level. That alone is sufficient for a blurb. Brandmeistertalk 22:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - it doesn't really matter whether or not something will come of it. What does matter is that it's making news around the world and is unprecedented to boot.
Post-posting support. Obviously there will be little to no immediate practical effect barring a dramatic Russian collapse, but an ICC warrant is significant and news in and of itself. ITN has blurbed both previous ICC warrants of sitting world leaders: Omar al-Bashir [21] and Muammar Gaddaffi. [22] al-Bashir's trial still has not occured, though after the 2019 coup, he might be handed over to the ICC. Gaddaffi of course, was killed in the war, so never stood trial. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support ICC warrants for heads of state are highly uncommon, let alone the leader of a UNSC permanent member. The Kip (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support It doesn't matter that nothing will probably come of it. The ICC is widely recognised worldwide, even by those who don't recognise its jurisdiction over their own country. It's an arrest warrant for a major current world leader. It's clearly notable news. -- KTC (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really??? As far as I can tell there are exactly two sentences in the bolded article about this, plus one in the lead. That is completely inadequate coverage for an ITN blurb and to the best of my recollection has never been considered acceptable in the past. We need to slow down and actually look at what we are linking. ITN is not a news ticker and we should not be lowering, or simply ignoring our standards just because something is grabbing headlines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...or we can be responsive to what happens in the world and remain relevant. I would urge you to review the stated purpose of ITN for which this IMHO checks at least three of the boxes. Quality can always be improved, but perfect should not be the enemy of good. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, we should become a news ticker? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should
-help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
-showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.
-point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
-emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.
If you disagree with these things, I believe you know where the discussion page is. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support A significant action by a respected organization with great moral weight against Putin’s crimes.-TenorTwelve (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Untested allegations against two living people, tiny update and covered by Ongoing. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - The ICC has never made an arrest warrant against a (sitting) head of state. As others have said, it doesn't matter if a trial occurs (which it almost certainly will not), it's still important nonetheless. Estar8806 (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. Multiple times untrue. nableezy - 23:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every criminal suspect deserves a fair trial. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most annoying part of the BLP correction from every unsourced tidbit should be retained cus it may in fact be verifiable of yesteryear to today's unambiguous facts should be suppressed because other future things may not be true. It is unambiguously true that an arrest warrant was issued for Putin by the ICC on these charges, and no future trial, conviction, acquittal or anything else would change that from being true. nableezy - 23:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the for the abduction of children from Ukraine part I find prejudicial. That's the charge. The two never-to-be defendants weren't neccesssarily served the warrant for actually abducting children. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. I am not really surprised but still disgusted by the number of Putin's defenders who came out of the woodwork here. Shameful. Nsk92 (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to me, you've got it wrong, I did the same for Lvova-Belova and I'd do the same for you. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since when did we start posting arrests instead of convictions? Banedon (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did we consider an Event article that only has Background and Reactions "ready"? Since now, bud. This is yet another stupid fucking precedent to have to remember we threw on the pile, like the Mandela/Thatcher Standard, Lebrongate or
I'm sure I'll get killed for this but I actually think the LeBron record will go down as more significant. This is DYK material here. The fact that the arrests are likely getting merged into the abductions article substantiates the fact that in-actionable warrants such as these are footnotes in a much larger story. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to kill you, they'll have to get through me next! LeBron setting an all-time NBA scoring record is still a bigger deal than yet another Putin hater trying to hurt him with words. As are the facts that Nelson Mandela and Margaret Thatcher are dead (I don't think anyone here really still cares that 197 died in this suicide bombing or 306 in that flood, though). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: The current event article was never even the target for this In The News fiasco. Just Putin and missing children. Two things that have already happened. At least it got his picture on the front page. That'll show him. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's an entirely symbolic move, as acknowledged by all parties, and there's virtually no chance that an arrest will follow it. Not the sort of thing we should post at ITN – we shouldn't just consider whether an event is unprecedented, but whether it has real consequences or the potential to. — Goszei (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull Firstly Ongoing exists for a reason. We should also not be throwing out BLP in any case, these are still just charges not a conviction (Bashir and Gaddafi might have been posted but those were a decade ago; regardless mistakes should not be repeated). Gotitbro (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no BLP involved here. Saying X has an arrest warrant for crime Y does not say X committed crime Y. And while this is just charges, this is for one of the top world leaders. Masem (t) 14:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While formal indictments might be included in articles without BLP violations, it is something else to feature these on the main page through ITN. All the recent indictment noms for politicians et al have been shot down at ITN, with an ask for formal convictions. I don't see why we need to move away from precedent, opening a Pandora's box whenever some high profile person gets charged. Gotitbro (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly this case with Putin falls into the IAR-type territory due to the ongoing war and Putin's and Russia's position. We also know any trial is unlikely to happen, so waiting until the results of that highly unlikely trial would be pointless. So this is an IAR-type area.
We are going to have to think about this as next week, it is expected that NY State will arrest Trump on various charges. There may be other reasons to post (Trump is calling for his supporters to revolt, so we may have significant protests that would be appropriate), but there is something to be said about the arrest of a former President. Masem (t) 19:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actual arrests and mere arrest warrants require different assessments (though I would not support either). Gotitbro (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Posting the arrest warrants for Gaddafi & al-Bashir set a precedent for posting this & the arrest warrant for Putin is even more notable since he’s the leader of a UNSC permanent member state. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - Historic decision. Clearly appropriate for ITN, even if there is not a huge amount of update about it.BabbaQ (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - For a head of state to be wanted for war crimes is clearly a signficant development in international relations. I know it's not unique, but that's not a barrier here. And I support the detailed blurb used; there's no BLP violation in specifying the nature of the charges for which the accused are wanted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this up on ERRORS, but the current blurb is absolutely a BLP violation. The arrest warrant is not for "abducting" children, it is, according to the ICC news release, for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation. The current blurb is both inaccurate and a BLP violation and needs to be corrected. nableezy - 15:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)][reply]
Unlawful deportation is abduction. This is 'you don't need to cite that the sky is blue. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. The crime here is the unlawful transfer of civilians in to or out of occupied territory. Abduction in the Rome Statute is about forced disappearances, not transferring civilians in to or out of occupied territory. And yes, this is definitely something that needs to be cited, and BLP applies to Vladimir Putin as well as every other living person. I dare say that our BLP policy's main purpose is to protect the people we dislike the most from our biases. nableezy - 19:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you may not participate in this discussion due to the extended confirmed restriction applied to the topic area. nableezy - 19:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for multiple reasons. Firstly, the ICC isn't a global judicial authority as the ICJ, which is a UN organ, and this view has recently gained support with the numerous controversies surrounding its work. Note that Russia and the United States withdrew from the Rome Statute, whereas China, India, Indonesia and Turkey have never signed it. These countries make up almost a half of world's total population and include three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Secondly, it's been a long-standing practice that we post convictions, not arrest warrants or arrests, so this posting practically violates both
WP:PERP. Thirdly, the updates in both articles on the people involved are too short and don't indicate that they've committed the alleged crimes. A reader of Maria Lvova-Belova would guess that she rescued a 15-year-old boy given that she's a mother of 5 biological and 18 adopted children. There's absolutely nothing about why that adoption is considered abduction. How the boy's parents and relatives reacted? Did the they file a lawsuit? These are highly relevant questions that should be addressed in the article. Fourthly, this is covered by the ongoing item.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
And this is the problem with using "abduction" when the charge is not that. It makes one think kidnapping. The charge is the unlawful transfer of civilians from occupied territory. nableezy - 16:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—The ICC issuing an arrest warrant for a current, former, and in one case future head of government and/or state is not unprecedented. In the past, they've indicted Omar al-Bashir (Sudan), Muammar Gaddafi (Libya), Laurent Gbagbo (Ivory Coast), and Uhuru Kenyatta (Kenya). Out of the four, the only one who ever spent any time behind bars in the Hague is Gbagbo, and he was ultimately acquitted of all charges in 2018. Gaddafi was killed before he could stand trial, the charges against Kenyatta were dropped due to alleged witness tampering in Kenya, and Bashir is supposed to be transferred into ICC custody from Sudan, but the status of his impending extradition is in limbo. So, suffice it to say, the ICC has had a... less-than-stellar record when it comes to prosecuting and convicting heads of state. Nevertheless, the symbolic significance of issuing an arrest warrant for the leader of Russia—either the second or third most powerful country in the world, depending on how you rank China—should not be understated. Kurtis(talk) 20:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose— More or less a symbolic move, the war is already featured in the ongoing section and int'l news outlets seem to have already moved on to other incidents of this war, mostly. DogeChungus (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Has anyone looked at the featured article lately? After a quick look there are multiple broken references, and some interesting sentences (the construct "sometimes maybe" looks especially strange in an article discussing war crimes). Since it's protected, there isn't much I can do about them.
In my movie script, Putin is arrested and taken to the Hague to be put on trial, where he reveals that Donald Trump granted him American citizenship. Whereupon American commandos launch a daring raid to rescue him.
Post-posting oppose 1.-Already in ongoing. 2.-Unfortunately, it's an order that cannot be fulfilled 3.-If we have hardly posted arrests or indictments, it makes no sense to post arrest warrant issues now. Only Putin's conviction for crimes against humanity would be ITN-worthy. . _-_Alsor (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As stated in the nom below, we were waiting for the death toll to stop increasing so rapidly before removing it. 111 more bodies were recovered just yesterday between Malawi and Mozambique. The storm is considered dissipated as soon as the low-level center can't be tracked or the agencies simply decide to stop tracking it and the article transitions to past tense. This is regardless of whether or not the remnants still exist and are still causing flooding. In this case, heavy rainfall is still occurring over the flooded areas and floods haven't begun to recede as of the latest reports. NoahTalk 15:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull While heavy rain is still falling and floods are still killing people, the cyclone itself has "dissipated". This is part of the reason why ongoing is honestly inappropriate for tropical cyclones. They are "finished" as soon as they degrade enough that agencies don't bother tracking them anymore. We can't keep this here forever while the hunt for survivors and remains is conducted. As far as Meteo France and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center are concerned, the disaster ended on March 14–15 when they ceased tracking it. NoahTalk 16:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON. It should be nominated once the tournament concludes.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
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.
The tournament is ITN/R but doesn't need to be ongoing. We'll have the article ready to post after the final game concludes on Tuesday. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work A typical sports article with lots of flags and scores and tables and not much else. And there are other issues such as the use of future tense. And it doesn't seem suitable for Ongoing as it's nearly over. And there's an issue with some of the teams which are rather phony. For example, though baseball originated in Britain, the game has died out there and is only played by a tiny number of amateurs. And just about none of these are on the roster for the so-called GB team which seems to have been packed with ringers. These claim to be British in the same way that Boris Johnson was American – a technicality of birth or parentage. But they are really Americans who play in the US, right? The article doesn't explain this. The sport has generally struggled to establish itself as an international sport, having been removed from the Olympics, and so this shaky background needs explaining. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the odd team composition is all interesting to bring up, I don't see any of that as being necessary to establish the prose of the article unless it's something specific to WBC 2023. Most of what you are describing seems to be an issue with the competition in general rather than its yearly iterations. --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 12:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon. The tournament is only at the quarter-final stage and doesn't conclude until Tuesday (which is a weird day to hold the final, why wouldn't it get a prime weekend slot?). I suggest you withdraw this nomination and come back once they tournament is actually completed. The article will need referenced prose - not just tables - describing what happened at the tournament, during the final etc. Modest Geniustalk 12:03, 17 March 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 to Ongoing) Ongoing: 2023 French pension reform strikes
Oppose Not enough substantial editing activity to be ongoingNoahTalk 00:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy SNOW close Article is on the verge of being a stub, and also has 11 edits in the past week on it. This is not Ongoing worthy. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does this meet the criteria for
WP:SNOW? Just because an article is a stub doesn't mean that it can't be posted, and whose to say that there won't be an uptick in edit activity? Additionally, you can't invoke the snowball clause for only two opposes. Crusader1096 (message) 02:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
We dont post things to ongoing on the chance that there will be an uptick in editing activity. That is getting into
WP:CRYSTAL territory there. A blurb would be more appropriate as Masem has said below once the article is updated enough. NoahTalk 02:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It isn't
WP:Crystal to wait until an article is expanded. WP:SNOW is becoming stupidly overused at this point. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Anybody who calls for
WP:SNOW struck through, in my opinion. --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 12:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
Probably this should be first improved but brought as a blurb - the decision by Macron to push through the retirement age bill today is causing a newfound round of protests, which have been covered by the news (they ahve been a million strong at times). --Masem (t) 01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready: this might be significant enough to post, but the article is pure
WP:PROSELINE. It doesn't even explain why the protests are happening - just one sentence saying it's related to pension age - or why the government is attempting to bring in these reforms. What's there is well-referenced, but it needs to explain the causes of the protests. Modest Geniustalk 12:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support when updated per above. The Kip (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as its definitely ongoing and the article looks very good and ready to post. Flyingfishee (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not ongoing, maybe blurb - This is In The News, and is getting bigger and bigger (especially as it's about an issue that will only become more relevant as demographics in the western world age), so I could hear arguments for its notability, but we post a blurb first, and if by the time the blurb has rolled off the event is still ongoing, then we can post it to ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the page quality is acceptable and it's receiving updates. The incident has been ongoing for at least two month and It had to be on the main page sooner than this. The incident is statewide, serious and ongoing. Still making news and further protests are announced [23]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhhossein (talk • contribs) 06:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, The strike is ongoing and the article is OK. Alex-h (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article is tagged for update and expansion Stephen 02:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ongoing strikes are getting significant enough coverage for ITN for some time now, makes sense for ongoing. Estar8806 (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a pretty major thing occurring over in France, and don't see it stopping anytime soon. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is in decent shape and updated, looks good to go! TailsWx 00:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is updated, and it should ideally be a blurb. Not sure what a good blurb would be, my current suggestion is something like this.
pension reform bill
continue since January 2023.
It definitely needs workshopping, I just wanted to put something down so others can chime in with better ideas. Soni (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to Ongoing. It's less clear to me if there's consensus for a blurb above, so putting this in ongoing for now. Sam Walton (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll from Cyclone Freddy increases to over 300, with most of the deaths occurring in Malawi. (Al Jazeera)
Law and crime
Two police officers are killed by a 16-year-old gunman while responding to a domestic dispute call at an apartment complex in Inglewood, Edmonton, Canada. The perpetrator kills himself after seriously wounding his mother. (CBC News)
Weak Support That's Jacqueline Summers Gold, by the way, once hailed as the 16th richest woman in Britain and former chair of three apparently leadworthy companies (two notable). The article needs more pronouns, or at least to refer to her by her cool and only slightly longer surname. I'd do it, but I don't want to. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support - Sourced and ready. Looks ok.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality Article is still far too short/sparse on details for ITN. The Kip (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready. Article still needs a lot of work. Vida0007 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon expansion - currently not enough information on the actual flood itself outside of the lead. Also, both of the computers I use in a string of bad luck are or will be broken so I'm currently on mobile and thus can't fully tell, but the article seems to be a little short. Crusader1096 (message) 23:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet ready Quite short, and omits key details about the event itself. Curbon7 (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not see consensus developing for us to post this one. The technology itself looks breathtaking and will surely impact all of us in some form or the other. If you want to see how it will impact some of our articles, join the discussion at
WP:LLM. Closing this one. Ktin (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
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: Very unorthodox nomination, but this is (in my opinion) a HUGELY relevant event. It is In The News, sending shockwaves throughout the internet and tech world, and is a groundbreaking innovation in Artificial Intelligence, a technology that will probably come to define this era. This is truly a breakthrough, and (in my opinion) qualifies for ITN. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — No worldwide significance. Product releases aren't suitable for ITN. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? This is already having a gigantic impact. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The BBC article shows it suggesting you can make omelettes with flour. GPT's "humor" aside, it's just another chatbot.
Oppose. Just another example of why Searle's Chinese room argument is so sound, and of no wider significance. Main page is not for advertising. Courcelles (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Companies doing company things. Not ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tech news today. I don't believe we announced the other AIs. Maybe when it turns into Skynet (of course by then though...) CoatCheck (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose - This is not an advertising ticker. We shouldn't overstep
WP:CRYSTAL in foretelling the impact of this product. And it's not AI: it's just a statistical large data model with no self-awareness. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose The original ChatGPT had made such a shockwave, I feel, that any new additions won't top when it first showed up. I could be wrong on that, after all I don't pay very much attention to the tech world, but even then, I still oppose for the reasons brought up previously as well. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose its just a new product, how is this ITN-worthy? It's just another service from OpenAI, nothing special. TomMasterRealTALK 19:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neater than a new camera phone, but still, ten against one. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - i do feel like people are missing the point a bit. It isn't just some "new product". From what's been told, this new AI version is MUCH stronger than its predecessor by over a quadrillion times. Yet, what makes me oppose this is that it's not that great. It's a major improvement from its previous but it's still not blurbable imo. I would possibly support the blurbing of a hypothetical GPT-5 depending on how good it is but GPT-4 just isn't good enough. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get "a quadrillion times stronger" from? The originally rumored figure was that it had about 570 times more parameters (from 175 billion to 100 trillion), and even that was deemed an exaggeration by OpenAI. Ionmars10 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 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.
Nominator's comments: Very unusual weather phenomenon for the region that is causing widespread destruction in Peru. Death toll is expected to increase. WMrapids (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sources say this has killed six to eight people, not at least 60. About that many have died in the rainy season. Unless I'm missing something (I read Spanish poorly). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose since we don't know what the hell has actually happened due to conflicting sources (multiple Spanish sources say 58-60 deaths for the storm and some say 6). Collapsed further discussion under InedibleHulk's oppose due to its size and it's now straying off the topic of the storm itself. NoahTalk 22:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do indeed mention 58 and 3 deaths. I have put a ton of sources on the TP for expansion but sadly it seems nobody wants to help out the article. Cyclone activity is rare in Peru as sources cited it being the first such event since 1997–98.NoahTalk 09:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are in Spanish, which I don't read well enough to know. The English ones in your list put the toll at around six, one adding Later, INDECI said 58 people had been killed since the start of the rainy season, which began some months ago. It did not provide a specific time frame for the casualties. Can you share one English source here for "at least 60"? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I can only find 3 major English sources (including the two above) discussing it in detail and they all published similar information. [25] title translates directly as "Peru underwater. Cyclone Yaku: 60 dead and 15,000 homeless without response from the Boluarte coup government". My guess is that official sources aren't differentiating the deaths because Yaku was simply worsening existing rain/flood problems and wasn't the only factor in the recent rains. NoahTalk 20:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll understand if I trust the story shared by the staff of Reuters, DW and Bloomberg over a post by someone whose username translates to "fight kings". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not their username but rather their actual name, which is Lucha Reyes. A lot of Spanish names translate to words in English. If you trust the English sources only on these storms, then articles won't go anywhere because they don't provide adequate information. NoahTalk 21:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's real name is Lucha Reyes. The English sources we've always trusted, unlike La Izquierda Diario, do provide adequate information. They mention the six dead INDECI blames on the cyclone and the 58 it says have died since Decemberish. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lucha Reyes (Peruvian singer) exists... last name actually was Reyes and her common name was Lucha. Her professional partner's first name translates to pity in English. Not hard to believe someone actually being named Lucha. Articles would be absolute shit if not for local language sources because English sources do not provide in-depth coverage of the impact but rather a summary. NoahTalk 21:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, only her last name was Reyes. Same deal with
Hurricane Helms. It's fine for entertainers to take stage names, but when a supposed reporter for a socialist opinion website does it, that's pretty fugazi. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose since we don't know what the hell has actually happened due to conflicting sources (multiple Spanish sources say 58-60 deaths for the storm and some say 6). Not going to bother arguing with you anymore since it's just talking to a wall. I already mentioned quite a few names in Spanish translate to words in English. If you want to biased against Spanish sources due to the name of the reporter, so be it. NoahTalk 21:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Jerry Tuite, so no Wall or Malice intended. I appreciate that some real Spanish names (like Reyes) do translate to English words. But "Lucha" is not one of them and searching Wikipedia for an example to the contrary is fruitless. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that Lucha isn't a real name? What evidence do you have of that? NoahTalk 21:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's more a lack of evidence, despite searching Wikipedia, combined with a knowledge of many lucha libre stage names, such as Luchasaurus. What I trust less about Lucha Reyes' "diary" than its language is that it's a socialist opinion site, not hard news. Plus, multiple actual and reputable newswires have contradicted his or her claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few newspapers in Central and South America are affiliated with either the state or a political party. That simply comes with the territory. I haven't thoroughly vetted that source, but that has to be done before declaring it entirely unreliable as there are state/political party-affiliated sources that have been deemed reliable in the past for other countries for various articles across Wikipedia. For example, every Chinese news source would be considered unreliable since they are state-affiliated, but that isn't the case. It is decided on a case-by-case basis and sometimes takes hours of searching for an individual source. Given that multiple Spanish sources have stated 60, maybe there was simply confusion on their part. That does happen from time to time in English news reporting, especially when multiple figures are coming out in short order. Reuters had to issue a correction for Freddy's death toll in Malawi today. NoahTalk 22:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm far from smart when it comes to
Communism in China. It's the "alternative media", in Americanist terms (as "fight kings" might suggest). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Needs expansion This is a highly unusal event but the article needs a significant expansion to make it into ITN. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm supporting this now. Once again, this is an unusual disaster. MarioJump83 (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual disaster with a decent amount of deaths. The article is in okay shape now but could always use more expansion. NoahTalk 16:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meets impact standards, and on top of that this event should be one that readers are particularly curious about. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Giving the article a bit of a skim, might have missed some stuff I'm unaware of, but meets notability standards IMO, it's rare for hurricanes to hit Ecuador and Peru. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support60 deaths, unusual event, and the impacts section has beeb expanded (particularly for Peru)! TailsWx 21:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That 60 deaths part is a misunderstanding, but the rest seems true. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Reuters explains it as well. Later, INDECI said 58 people had been killed since the start of the rainy season... only 6 have occurred, and the other 58 are from the other events of the rainy season! TailsWx 22:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Deaths or no, there is no need to meet a
WP:MINIMUMDEATHS toll in order to merit posting, and there are good reasons for posting this, not the least of which is the rarity of this storm. --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 14:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose Due to contradictory sources. Support When an accurate death toll is found. 47.23.10.234 (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People's Republic of China as the sole Chinese state. (AP)
Ecuador withdraws its ambassador from Argentina in protest at the latter sheltering Ecuadorian politician María de los Ángeles Duarte since 2020, refusing to give information of her whereabouts. Hours later, Argentina also withdraws its ambassador from Ecuador, escalating diplomatic tensions between the two nations. (Infobae)
Nominator's comments: Kind of surprised we don't have a nomination for this. "First direct contact between the Russian and United States Air Forces since the Cold War", per the article. Blurb might need improvement, since the facts are disputed. Banedon (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Covered by the Ukraine ongoing for all purposes. It hasn't really tripped the relationship between the US and Russia that's already not stressed by the Ukraine war. --Masem (t) 02:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it's covered by Ongoing, just loosely connected. But I also know we still don't know much and that nobody died in this downing/crash/whatever. We don't mourn robots here, and shouldn't always anticipate doom. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless the US invokes Article 5 over this, in which case, it's been a pleasure editing with you all. Juxlos (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about you, but the first thing I'll do when I see the mushroom cloud rising in the distance is post it to ITN. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Of all the death and destruction being caused in the Ukraine war, one drone being forced down is a drop in the ocean. This is covered by the entry in ongoing. If it prompted a major response from the US we can consider that as a nomination, but right now it's a minor diplomatic scuffle, akin to the missile that accidentally hit Poland a few months ago. Modest Geniustalk 12:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a big enough incident that it needs its own posting in addition to the ongoing. Curbon7 (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose. If this had been a piloted plane that's a different matter. Based on the video, this actually looks accidental (it was physically struck by a Russian fighter trying to do a near pass; no sane pilot will ever intentionally collide with another object in the air). BD2412T 16:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's just a drone being downed in the ocean, its not something big. TomMasterRealTALK 01:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 yesterday but death was only announced today; saw no {cn} tags but there is still no section about his death yet. Vida0007 (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Film soundtracks and Japanese audience sections do not contain any sources. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article orange tagged for lacking sources. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Catastrophic flooding ongoing in Malawi with the death toll rapidly rising (199 confirmed as of this nomination). Rainfall is continuing across Malawi and Mozambique in association with the cyclone's remnants. The article is continually being expanded and meets criteria for ongoing. Opting to nominate instead of add it myself given my involvement in the tropical cyclone project. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Disaster is still continuing and rain is expected through at least Friday if not longer. NoahTalk 19:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Very much an ongoing event and very much in the news. Quality seems A-OK. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 20:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above - was not expecting this to last as long as it has. Crusader1096 (message) 20:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the only tropical cyclone on record to outlive a long month (31 days). And it broke the record by days. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support its still going as the cyclone's remnants is still bringing heavy rainfall and 238 fatalities is confirmed so far which is very notable for a tropical cyclones
Posted to ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is this really ongoing? Our article on this topic has this as the first line of the lede. Very Intense Tropical Cyclone Freddy was an exceptionally long-lived storm that tracked across the Indian Ocean for more than five weeks in February and March 2023.. Can any knowledgeable editor, update the lede if it is indeed ongoing. If it is not ongoing, we should not include this in the ongoing section. Ktin (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rainfall is still ongoing and expected to continue for a few more days as a result of the remnant moisture. The storm is no longer being tracked and is considered "dissipated" as of this morning because its center position could not be located. That doesn't mean the disaster is over. NoahTalk 21:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it thanks. If the storm is "dissipated," I would recommend removing it from ongoing. Alternately, if the storm is ongoing, I would recommend the lede of the target article be updated. Ktin (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is no longer a tropical cyclone and the wind map is no longer "rotation around a center" but it is still raining. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's still otherwise worthy of ongoing (I have no idea) maybe the link can be Cyclone Freddy flooding or something piped to the article. If a 1993 or 2011-level or worse Mississippi flood was caused by a storm new states could start flooding for months after the storm disappears. The rivers in this part of the world aren't as long in water travel time as the Mississippi but an organized wind map still existing is not needed for water from that storm to still be rising in many homes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need to look to Relief Web to see how the disaster is progressing. NoahTalk 00:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can remove it if the death toll starts to wane off in a day or so (which is expected). We would not give ongoing coverage to continued humanitarian efforts, similarly to the Turkey/Syria quake. Masem (t) 01:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Main issue is rainfall. [26] specifically mentions "Over the next 48 hours, very heavy rainfall is forecast over southern Malawi and over Zambezia, Sofala and Tete Provinces (central-northern Mozambique)". This would still be ongoing as long as the article is updated, heavy rainfall is occurring, and scores of people are being reported deceased. NoahTalk 01:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
101 more dead in Malawi today and missing there increased from 41 to 201. No word on increases in Mozambique yet, but more likely there since they couldnt access many areas. NoahTalk 14:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull The cyclone moved on, rain lasts forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclone Freddy kills at least 99 people in Malawi, including 85 people in Blantyre. It is the longest-lived tropical cyclone on record, according to the WMO, having formed on February 4. (The Guardian)
Thirty-four people are killed after a boat carrying migrants from Madagascar to the island of Mayotte sinks. (Arab News)
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 March 3, but death was only announced on March 13; article looks mostly ok, with just a few places missing citations which we can hopefully fix quickly. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support No unsourced content now. Looks to be ready for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article seems to meet requirements, could use some ref clean up though. - Indefensible (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, lovingly improved since you brought it here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing to complain. Y OK. Grimes2 (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tone I didn't realize it had posted already! Next time I would appreciate a notification. I went ahead and sent one to everyone else. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Third largest banking collapse in US history, right behind SVB and WaMu. 29th largest bank in the US by assets according to the Federal Reserve, $110 billion in assets or thereabouts. No article yet on its collapse Collapse of Signature Bank is still a W.I.P., so feel free to oppose on quality for the time being if needed. Juxlos (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support - two of the largest bank failures in American history occurring in a few days is certainly a major - and worrying - event. Crusader1096 (message) 04:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article on the SB collapse has since been created. Crusader1096 (message) 04:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – and also link
2023 United States bank failures once it's expanded. DecafPotato (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Amending because the blurb was updated with the article
Collapse of Signature Bank, in which case I have to oppose on quality for the time being. DecafPotato (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I have spent a lot of time today adding information about the Signature collapse to its article and overhauling it. I have ported some of that material to the new
Collapse of Signature Bank page, but I fear that it will actually be quite redundant the way that the page is structured. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment While one can call the Signature Bank a bank failure, my read of articles states it was done preemptively to prevent a mass rush on the bank markets following the SVB failure (which came out of nowhere). As such I don't think an update is necessary, but it is wise to be looking at a broad article on 2023 bank collapses if they keep happening and suggest that for ongoing. We definitely can't keep adding more banks to blurbs. --Masem (t) 04:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully it stops at 2 large banks, but if an increasing number of banks collapse we would just have to do it with a number ticker a la natural disaster fatalities. Juxlos (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is incredibly worrying for global economy. MarioJump83 (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on qualityNow Support The article needs to be expanded. Currently, there are very few details. Once the article is improved, I will gladly support it. As Massem suggested, future bank failures should be included in a broad article if that trend continues. --Maxxies (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are more details now in the article. Maxxies (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's an article that's currently under construction at
2023 United States bank failures. I don't oppose updating for now, but I do think that we may want to consider the article under construction as the bold entry if we're going to be making this update. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 05:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree. It will provide a better insight on what is currently happening. I would certainly prefer to see this article compiling bank failures on ITN. Maybe if US bank collapses continue, why not consider this article as an ongoing event? Maxxies (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Photo RD Whatever else this collapse portends, I think it's high time a bank was pictured, or a banker or something. Kaja Kallas had a good run. But times change. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this issue became moot when the Oscars blurb was added with image of Michelle Yeoh. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mootish. I think a hundred billion dollars is worth more (in importance bucks) than a movie which might see a hundred million in sales, if lucky. But Michelle Yeoh is definitely the Best Picture, aesthetically, and both are about as topical. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bah! Let Yeoh enjoy the spotlight. She deserves it :) SWinxy (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot dispute a bah. She can have it, then the director, then maybe the next bank. Seems that movie was pretty lucky after all, already raking in over a tenth of a billion before the Wikipedian consideration. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The 29th largest bank of a single country…… _-_Alsor (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are we seriously going to have this argument again? Crusader1096 (message) 07:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is roughly a full half the size of the last one, where it counts, in dollars and cents. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same arguments, you have the same arguments. And we should respect it. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per
WP:ERRORS, there are serious issues with these claims. Our list of rankings is not reliable and, in any case, the authorities are taking action and so the matter is a work-in-progress. So, we should wait rather than rushing to make sensational claims. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Third-largest is verified by Reuters. The 29th largest is my quip, not part of the hook. Juxlos (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not impressed as the Reuters source admits to the amusing error of dropping a billion. The discussion at
WP:ERRORS indicates that they still have more work to do in explaining what a "bank" is in this context. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It's extremely clear to anyone with mild familiarity of the subject matter that "bank" in this context is referring to a depository institution. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bank Classification is not simple and that's just in the US. We should not assume that our international and general readership understands this complexity and jargon in a particular way. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure? But we're talking a bout failures of U.S. banks here, so we would be a bit amiss if we were to include entities that were not considered banks in the United States on the list. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 14:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Entities such as Lehman Brothers were certainly considered banks and they are shown as such on Wikipedia being in categories like Banks based in New York City. The issue which arises especially in the US is the divide introduced by the Glass–Steagall legislation which separated commercial and investment banking in a way which is not so common in other countries. Both sides of the Glass-Steagall divide were still banks and they have both failed in a big way. If we're going make claims like "second-largest", then this distinction is vital. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this note above. Ktin (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was pointed out on the talk page of the List of largest failures. Maybe that article needs to be reformatted to include Lehman and other banks-but-not-exactly-banks in the same. I was surprised when I opened the article and saw that Lehman wasn't on top of it. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the issues with the wording of the current blurb are resolved on
2023 United States bank failures, but it's currently not in a postable shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Working on that. Any help on improving the article would be much appreciated. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 13:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I joined you in expanding the article. Now it should be fine.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse of Signature Bank. Reywas92Talk 14:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Redirected again, you were right about redirecting. —Alalch E. 16:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the link in the article to point once more to Signature Bank after merger. Pinging editors who wanted to see this: @Reywas92 and DecafPotato:. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good on quality now, but I would still like to see
March 2023 United States bank failures linked somehow. DecafPotato (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Would
largest bank failures in U.S. history work for you? — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 17:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That works I guess. —Alalch E. 17:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two bank failures is not a trend, so at this time it would be far too soon to use that article as a target. The situation does change day to day so this might be appropriate later. Masem (t) 18:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to have common cause (i.e. bank runs), and the Federal Reserve created a whole new lending facility to try to stem the contagion from both failures. I think that boldlinking the article on the bank failures (which also includes the bank failure that kicked this all off, Silvergate Bank) is more than warranted given the extraordinary nature of the response to these failures. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 18:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about
Following
third major U.S. bank failure of March 2023
.
?
WP:ERRORS, I think noting that this is the third major bank failure this month is more important than the scale of them, but possibly both could work, in text following the third major U.S. bank failure of March 2023 text. DecafPotato (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I like that. —Alalch E. 19:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
largest bank failures in U.S. history. I think all three articles are in good enough shape to post, and I believe that the article covering the March bank collapses should be boldlinked. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 18:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I also think the 2023 collapses link should be boldfaced because it also covers the third (and the first to collapse) bank, which is essential to what's happening. —Alalch E. 18:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's also better to make all of this an ongoing news story about the FED interest rates hikes and the economic fallout from that. A lot more banks and companies will go belly up.Count Iblis (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - obviously just bump the blurb back up and merge them together, though. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely. NB Could be out of date by tomorrow. Thelisteninghand (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Updated Blurb per nom. No sense messing with combined articles or Ongoing at the moment though, we're just talking about two incidents that are in the same bucket and may stand as more notable when considered together. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Two bank collapses within a couple days is obviously significant. Curbon7 (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. If the trend continues and there are more developments, then a standalone article and ongoing might be appropriate, but this incident isn't individually ITN worthy. — Amakuru (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moody's has downgraded the outlook for the banking sector. Yet even with these banking crises, the stock market actually took a 1% bounce yesterday - 2% for the NASDAQ. A very healthy clawback. I don't think it means the ITN item is totally insignificant, but it speaks to one of the major difficulties in tracking complex economic stories through ITN! --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 12:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's my concern still is that while many major sources are talking of this as a larger trend, it really is OR at this point to say "two banks failed and some stock corrections" == major event. Its the same reason that when the DOE report about their stance on the lab leak theory was all over the place, it wasn't the type of news that Wikipedia, including ITN, would really give much weight to. Its the 10-yr view we need to consider with topics like these if they will be long-lasting or just a burst of coverage. Its still something to watch for, but the news over the last few days, particularly when the FDIC assured all funds would be covered and alleviating major concerns, have made this story less compelling than when the SVB closure was first announced. Masem (t) 12:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I would have said support but it looks like other banks are now getting affected: Switzerland's Credit Suisse seems to be in trouble (and apparently this has been ongoing since at least 3 March). Per these articles from AP, CNN, and The Guardian, it looks like this is a bigger event now. I say we should wait for more developments before we update this, although admittedly the collapse of SVB and Signature are big news and frankly, ITN worthy. Vida0007 (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the issue is getting larger (and collecting more bank casualties with it), I'm beginning to think we could go with Masem and Amakuru's suggestions of putting it on Ongoing. I still support a blurb, but since the problem is most likely not ending at SVB and Signature, I think a spot in Ongoing can work as well. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that suggestion would be fine with me. Vida0007 (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Credit Suisse has been shaky since... 2021? Also, it is not an US bank, so it's hard to say if it would be related. The Swiss National Bank just bailed it out, anyway. Juxlos (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support updating blurb &/or adding it to ongoing This is clearly a major additional event, so I think it’d be best to update the blurb, but more banks may fail, so it could be an ongoing crisis. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support updating blurb to include both Signature and Silvergate bank as well. Yes, please do link to the March 2023 failures article. Not too sure about making it ongoing. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs attention most of the early !oppose votes were over article length and quality, which seems to be mostly resolved by now. Significance has at least been established to some extent, in that most financial/business newspapers still have them as headline news a week in. Juxlos (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: Well cited and pretty well rounded article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Are photographs of the artist's 3D sculptures Creative Commons safe under UK Freedom of Panorama, if they weren't "permanent" installations? Cielquiparle (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right so I've removed them. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks ready. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: Influential Czech composer who received foreign commissions while banned in his home country from 1971 to 1989, influential then also as professor from 1991. - Article had only few inline citations, and few works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC) KTC (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support Looks good for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Article is mostly in good shape but has a few uncited paragraphs. Revolutionary figure in the sport of high jumping TartarTorte 20:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of
WP:PROSELINE issues in the second half of the article. Curbon7 (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Wait Two obvious problems. Date of birth lacks an inline reference. Non-notable children should not be listed by name. Schwede66 17:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsourced paragraphs. (And are those paragraphs with only one source at the end mostly covered by that said source?)—Bagumba (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recurring item. The ceremony is still ongoing, with best picture not being announced, but the news is that almighty Fraser himself has won best actor while the Daniels best director(s?). Edit: having had BP announced, I am striking the original blurb. Crusader1096 (message) 03:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
per ITNR we go with the winning film. That EEAAO won 7 awards including Best Picture is what we should be noting, which would give us an opportunity to feature a picture of Michelle Yeoh instead. --Masem (t) 03:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Michelle Yeoh was the actress, not the directors. Otherwise Support. Mount Patagonia (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-deserved. Can we do a rotation of images for Yeoh, Quan, Curtis, and the Daniels? I'd love to see all of them featured for a few hours each. Davey2116 (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever's image is being shown should have their award in the blurb. It's weird, showing Yeoh as the lead actress but not mentioning that she won the Oscar for lead actress. starship.paint (exalt) 04:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is probably a bit more about the ceremony that should be included (no big "slap" to worry about, but we still have the usual things like in Memorandum to be added). Also note that the film page appears to be in very good shape for highlighting. --Masem (t) 03:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support but perhaps use the poster or a picture of the entire cast (including the directors, who themselves won 3 awards) instead of just Michelle Yeoh? Consultant Wiki (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the 95th Academy Awards, Everything Everywhere All at Once (best actress winner Michelle Yeoh pictured) wins seven awards, including Best Picture
Posting. Looks good. In Memoriam should probably have a separate reference but I suppose it is included somewhere in the other ones. The prose summary is fine. Regarding the picture, we can cycle some of the cast and crew. --Tone 08:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did also believe the film itself was potential for a bold link with its quality but no further comments on that, yet. Masem (t) 12:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The film article looks to be in a great shape. I don't mind it being bolded. Tone 15:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally not a fan of additional bolds, save for an FA (or GA). Keep the thing the thing. —Bagumba (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: An article I started a good few years ago whose subject has now died. I've not kept a close eye on it but have tidied it up a bit today - Dumelow (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support Article appears to be well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is fine for RD. Marking as ready. Cheers, because its my birthday!. WimePocy 14:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Maybe blurb) Article is a GA, and the name Bud Grant is well known in both the NFL and CFL worlds, and even in the NBA world (Yes, he played basketball for the Lakers and won the 1950 Finals with them). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCorriynial (talk • contribs) 17:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need a blurb for him. Article has been GA for 15 years, so it should not automatically be taken as quality. I'm reviewing it to see if there's anything glaring. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While a blurb would be nice (I'd support it), as he's one of the greatest all-time NFL coaches, one of the greatest all-time CFL coaches (one of the top five winningest coaches ever), a great CFL player, a (briefly) great NFL player, as well as NBA player, I'd bet immediately there would be a bunch of opposes due to being "too America-centric." But anyway, the article is good enough quality it appears to qualify for RD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb if he were the winningest, or highest-record, or longest-serving, coach in NFL history I could possibly support (though you'd get opposes even then), but having not even a single first-place record renders this a no-go IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb. Qualified to be posted under RD but not noteworthy enough to be blurbed. Article looks ready though. Vida0007 (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not Quite Ready Almost there but the Coaching Tree section near the bottom has some referencing gaps. Should be a quick fix for anyone with access to sources. As soon as that is fixed this can be just treated as a support for RD. No need to ping me. Not really feeling a blurb here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: With her 87th win, Shiffrin overtakes Ingemar Stenmark's 34 y/o (!!) all-time record wins. If posted with photo, I think this victory-gesture-photo is the most appropriate. cart-Talk 17:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. cart-Talk 17:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We tend to avoid posting singular athlete achievements like this unless it is a well-known record to be broken (eg something like Four-minute mile), as otherwise, these are records likely to be broken in the future as well. --Masem (t) 17:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly because the number of World Cup titles is what counts more in alpine skiing (race victories just ease the road to winning a World Cup title). Marcel Hirscher won his record sixth World Cup title in 2017 and went on to win a total of eight before retiring, but the problem is that we didn’t mention it anywhere because we don’t regularly post the World Cup winners due to quality problems. I think it’s more important to work on improving the articles on the World Cups, which contain bare tables, so that we post them regularly than singling out one such record. As for notability, compare this to Ronnie O’Sullivan surpassing Stephen Hendry’s record in the number of ranking titles won and the Golden State Warriors setting a new winning record in the regular season.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bagumba; if Lebron James's record in basketball didn't pass muster at ITN, how could someone get on here with a record in a much more niche sport? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC) (UPDATE: See below. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose again, per Bagumba. Considering we set a really high bar for sports records to meet in order for them to make it to ITN by denying LeBron's record, I doubt we blurb her. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nom - It's a shame that we set a very high bar at ITN/C for some things or another, but it is what it is, we are unlikely to post any major individual achievements except for those which are spectacularly extraordinary beyond any sort of conceivable threshold. --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 23:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Begumba and Kiril. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This referring to the Lebron James's record is just odd. His record was a US achievement on a national level, that past by relatively unnoticed here in Europe. This is an international record that is making headlines in Europe, US, Canada and parts of Asia. This is more like winning a bunch of Wimbledon Championships, and we've posted plenty of those. cart-Talk 08:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basketball is a very important sport in the US (not to mention other countries), whereas skiing is not very important anywhere outside of possibly the Nordics (as you yourself admit below). I don't know if we post regular skiing stuff outside of the Olympics, but regardless I don't think this record raises to the level of, say, the first under-two hour marathon or the four-minute mile. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, this was the Wikipedia in the English language, not the US Wikipedia. Skiing is bigger than basketball in the Nordic countries and central Europe. It is also big in Canada, Japan and Korea. Even if basketball is a big sport, it shouldn't eclipse other sports and set the standards for them. That is like saying we shouldn't post elections from small states at ITN. Btw, the nom is about a US skier if we stick to the US Wiki agenda. cart-Talk 17:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
W.carter, check out the LeBron James discussion to see the links to articles for Le Monde, El Pais, La Repubblica, The Guardian, and other non-U.S. news sources. Just because you didn't see it and/or didn't care about it doesn't mean it was "relatively unnoticed" worldwide. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu, of course I read about it online, and with a brother-in-law who is a US basketball coach, it's hard to not hear about a thing like that, do not assume things you don't know anything about. But it wasn't broadcasted on radio and tv like this record was. And I still think an international record is more significant than a national. cart-Talk 01:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't assuming anything, I was reading where you said it was "relatively unnoticed" even though it was quite noticed. There is way too much of people talking about things they know nothing about on this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not national level, all the strong non-USA players play there, a large percent of the superstars grew up in Eurasia or Africa with no American connections like citizenship or ancestry. The gap to the second strongest league in the world is large, even the strongest domestic soccer league isn't consistently obviously better than the second strongest. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the US league is the strongest in the world and the players come from all over the world (Heck, my own sister was drafted from Sweden and played basketball for a New York college!) As long as the teams don't play teams from other nations, it's by definition a national league. cart-Talk 16:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By 1995 75% of big four USA sports have had Canadian team(s) in their top league. So barely international (Canadian football and American football are different sports kind of like rugby union and league and have a deal to not directly compete though some Canadians follow both) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some consider Toronto a Canadian city, but many Canadians prefer to think of it as a global metropolis that just happens to technically sit above that oddly southern part of the border. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more like Dubai, on account of its preposterously gigantic tower. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our tower is only 1.3% shorter than yours, Dubai is 1.5 CN Towers tall. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my tower, I'm a bushpig. There's a hotel nearby standing three storeys tall and even that freaks me out. "Yours" is that 1776er, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, world's tallest structure outside of Asia, Toronto, putting one end of a really long string on something that floats/sinks/flies, topography, putting really long things on topography, some very hollow antennas only a few meters wide that'd fall without by a forest stretched of diagonal cables, and oil rigs that bend way more than land towers (up to 84+ feet) and might collapse if the sea didn't partly cancel their weight (like 90% is underwater). There's a 16 foot tall thin piece that makes it 1,792 feet tall though (1,806 feet above sea level, 1,813 above lowest tide on record (the offshore wind side of a cyclone), about 1,794.5 above the highest (the 2012 hurricane that flooded Ground Zero with seawater but we only got the onshore wind side)). I've freaked out looking at flat land only 2 floors high as far as the eye can see. The other sub-3 floor neighborhoods I've seen and a bus ride to the Rockies and back didn't bother me but the way this neighborhood I wanted to walk across looked from that vantage point it looked so weird. Walking in the country for the first time gave thoughts of walking too far out, this very local lack of signs of man in sight (besides one dirt road) continuing forever and starving to death though I knew I only needed to walk a few more miles. You ever dream you ran so fast you couldn't see where you're going, are now probably remote enough to starve to death if you weren't superhumanly fast, do a 180 and run a similar time and effort to get unlost, and find out you're not superhuman anymore? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On further review, I'll concede that Toronto is indeed more like New York than Dubai. And yes, I forgot about those freaky transmission towers among the trees. Definitely scarier than the local haunted hotel. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was the new box fucking up the text when you've written too much and me missing every fuckup. They're in a forest of diagonal steel cables pulling every Xth "floor" in every direction. I don't think they even have floors or stairs though, it's a glorified elevator. If they were in a forest they might fall down as soon as a storm drops heavy crap on the cables. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what kind of fucked-up box you're talking about, but the forest towers I see are just steel frames, no floors, some thin steps welded on that make my knees weak even imagining climbing. Blinking red light on the top, like a caribou. If you ever go to visit, you'll see they're in clearings so no heavy crap (or what the natives call "wood") may intervene, but from a distance, there seems harmony. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's pretty much it, looks like a needle from far away, is really steel frame up to 2,121 feet tall, no floors, blinking red light at the top. steel cables tugging on various heights but except up close it looks like it's standing up unassisted. Maybe they don't all have elevators. The tallest ever made had an elevator until it collapsed, no walls. Its article has a vertiginous photo that makes it look infinitely tall. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The box you get when you click the reply link under each comment. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the box I get, I'm a bushpig. Old skin, manual indentation and no Javascript, the way the Browser Gods intended. Anyway, the towers I know are more like 200 feet, and anyone who can't climb 200 feet on a cold and windy day to change a lightbulb should probably find a new path through life (but not wanting to scale that next two thousand feet by hand is understandable, and those brave souls deserve all the luxury in the world). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the heaviest crap that falls in a windstorm, anyway; occasionally something like the January 1998 North American ice storm comes drizzling in and all those fine lines are exactly what doom them to crumble while cubier creatures cope. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Gushue wins! I don't know Dunstone from Adam, but that's the sort of sport record a "typical" Canadian freaks out about, I hear, not alpine skiing. Objectively one hell of a skip, in any case, respected or not (and a mighty fine day for the real Ontarian London). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if anyone's ever curled naked? At least for one or two stones. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Heavens forbid we post an ITN item about a woman athlete beating a major international record set by a man 34 years ago. Nsk92 (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this clearly isn't about men or women. LeBron's record was not posted, and he's a man. Dash Hyphen (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LeBron was national, Shiffrin is international, that's the big difference. cart-Talk 14:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The strongest league in the world by far and half of the superstars seem to have no connection to the Western Hemisphere growing up by now. Their first connection besides being fans is moving here to play at around 18 years old. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question - We very rarely post skiing news at all. This is a world-spanning contest; is there any argument for posting her latest victory as the main story, rather than the record it sets? GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Skiing competitions are not that big even when world-vide, so they take a backseat to say cricket and soccer unless something extraordinary and unprecedented happens. Like this. That's why I made the nom, to widen the scope of ITN just a smidgen. cart-Talk 15:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Important comment. This event (FIS Alpine Skiing) is in
Constructive comment indeed, that is sort of an idea to make this work, even if you instinctively place the male name first in a blurb that is really about highlighting the female's accomplishment. ;-) Alt blub added, let's see were this can take us. cart-Talk 17:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BUT I just realized we can't post a blurb about them being winners of the World Cup yet, since the cup doesn't end until 19 March. There are four more events to run. cart-Talk 18:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem and W.carter: I totally agree that posting the World Cup winners should be prioritised because it's an ITN/R item that doesn't get regularly posted due to quality problems. However, note that she clinched the World Cup title last weekend and the season ends next weekend when she may win additional races, so it's very unclear how this record can fit in that blurb (in Formula One, we post a blurb when the winner is known, not when the season ends, and the same logic should apply here). At the very least, it's good that we have this discussion to direct attention to alpine skiing and its ITN/R item in the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the men's and women's version of alpine skiing occur at the same time, both should be featured in the same blurb. If it is the case that a person can cinch before the end of the season in this sport, then it should be posted when both positions have been cinched, and if that's before the end of the season, great. Masem (t) 23:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I’d still like to see this story posted after very long time, but adding this record to the blurb would seem redundant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support when ready The bar for significance is too high. This is a major record in a significant sport that has gone unbroken for decades, and it is being covered by major sources. Furthermore, the oldest two blurbs on the front page happened last month. We should post this. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll strike that. Also, the article isn't ready on quality yet, so I'll see if I can get some work done to it. NorthernFalcon (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support FIS Alpine Skiing blurb per Masem, even if we can't post it until 19 March. I was going to Oppose this, despite it being far more notable than such things as national basketball records, but since that article is ITNR, if it can be improved to a sufficiently adequate status, then all is good. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I said if it can be improved to a sufficiently adequate status. I'd have a go myself, but my knowledge of Alpine skiing is on a par with my knowledge of quantum physics. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that I replied to you, but that's only because of the garbage editor. I started to write my comment replying to the main post, and then you posted before I posted, and now here we are in this conondrum :( 194.230.148.207 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no problem. I think we agree anyway. Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait till March 19, then post both winners (pending article cleanup), mentioning Shiffrin's record and picturing her for longer. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - I absolutely agree with InedibleHulk in this case. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I stole the idea from Masem (whose comments I also often think are unimportant or wrong). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Would just be better though that we re-nom the competition when it has ended and note Shiffrin's record as well in the blurb. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This weekend she won both the slalom and the giant slalom races, and there are already very low odds (high probability) that she’d win another race next weekend with a slalom and a giant slalom on the schedule. How will be this accommodated in the blurb? Will we report on the record-breaking 87th win if she has more than that? I know it’s a crystal-ball reasoning, but it’s definitely something to consider before making such suggestions.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose record blurb, neutral on skiing blurb I don't know to what extent skiing is covered by ITNR, but I'll still oppose any record mention (except as ancillary) per the Lebron James precedent. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support LeBron should not have been pulled. Two wrongs don't make a right. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, but "we were insulting the Turks and Syrians because they had an earthquake," or some nonsense. Crusader1096 (message) 03:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to support this, as the event is ITNR, with an emphasis on this record. That doesn't mean LeBron's record shouldn't be pulled from the ITN. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per IndelibleHulk. Banedon (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm here compelled to correct the spelling of my username, I should also clarify that I'm not waiting to call her the most successful alpine skier. Just the record. Regardless of the upended man, racewise, Annemarie Moser-Pröll is still the better woman overall. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - again, the idea that Lebron's should have been pulled because it occurred at the same time as the Turko-Syrian earthquake and thus we were somehow being insulting to the victims is complete idiocy. Crusader1096 (message) 03:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some did. There was also a huff-puff when the image was changed from the earthquake to something else. Curbon7 (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose individual records like this. It's not a very meaningful record either, given the number of events has varied substantially over the years. If you want us to post more skiing stories - and I have no objection to that - the place to start was the
WP:ITNR, so is automatically posted if the article is good enough, but it wasn't even nominated this year. Modest Geniustalk 11:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Was Michael Phelps posted? Having more Olympic golds than anyone is easier when the number of 50 to 400 meter swim races increased to vast amounts. They probably have a men and women alternating 4x200 meter 50 meters per style relay by now. And the same thing in 4x400 of course. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Wait Opposing the posting of records of sportspersons; sports are well covered on ITNR, no need to open the floodgates for individual records. Both sports retirements and the postings of such records have rightly been considered against. Suggesting wait (per Masem) on the basis that this is part of an ITNR event and can be accomodated there but that will require a new nom when this event actually concludes. Gotitbro (talk) 17:40, 13 March 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.
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.
Nominator's comments: Peruvian singer and YouTuber. I already knew him. ay bicam sonam
... --08:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Weak Oppose I'm not too sure if the article is up to snuff yet, but that's mostly because in the Personal Life section, there's a bit of vague, unspecific language. I have nothing to do right now, though, so I'll try to fix that. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues aside, there are still many unsourced covers in the music/career section. Cheers, because its my birthday!. WimePocy 13:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Frankly, I'm unsure if this fits into ITN or not. He's definitely not the head of state, but his predecessor was blurbed when he became premier. To be fair, though, that was 10 years back, so I say oppose, since he's not the guy with the most power. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Like the Xi nomination yesterday, this is simply rubber-stamping the decision made by the CCP a few months ago. China is a one-party state, where this supposed parliament simply confirms the decisions that were already made by the party. Li Qiang became Xi's effective deputy in October due to the retirement of Li Keqiang. The new activity is the People's Congress dutifully re-appointing Xi as head of state and appointing Li Qiang as head of government. As far as I am aware, those roles were never in doubt after the Party Congress. Modest Geniustalk 15:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support As mentions per @TheBlueSkyClub, Keqiang was blurbed, that and that Qiang is a closer ally to Jinping, we have posted fixed elections before, this election fits into it, that and the rise of power that Xi has, definitely has to be noted on, even if this election is a small factor on it. Vriend1917 (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 politician. Needs some sourcing! TailsWx 04:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:POINT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose since he was just one among 543 lok sabha members i doubt he was a particularly famous figure in india, let alone abroad. Synotia (moan) 13:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Synotia: All people who died recently are eligible for RD (if they have an article and it is high enough quality). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not because you can do something, that you should do it. A mantra that would also have made the DYK section suck less had they followed it :^) Synotia (moan) 23:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post". Please read the links at the bottom of the nomination box. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the guideline is there in order to not print a law codex of cases where people are notable and non-notable for the small section.
But I am still a person who values "quality over quantity"; this does not contradict the rule in question. Synotia (moan) 11:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well... quality in this case would mean article quality. And, to be fair, not too great as the nominator mentions. If by quality you mean if the person is qualified to make it on ITN/RD, then it does contradict the rule in question, as the box states that "any person, animal, or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be enough to post". TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet ready Article is not holistic, and is only partially sourced. Curbon7 (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted) Iran and Saudi Arabia reestablish diplomatic relations
Nominator's comments: Restoration of diplomatic relations for two significant powers. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 02:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - significant considering these countries are engaged in a Cold War, however, its only a two sentence update in the article. Crusader1096 (message) 02:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting, the update was six sentences (one in the lead, three in the "History" section, and two in the "International efforts to normalize relations" section), though there is some repetition between the different sections. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 03:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, oppose on quality The bolded article has some fundamental issues. Many contentious claims are left unsourced, and the second half of the article suffers from
WP:PROSELINE and is quite informal. The update is also quite short for the purposes of this kind of blurb. Curbon7 (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support in principle especially if/once embassies reopen. Already political repercussions are being felt. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Over the past 40 years, virtually every conflict in the Middle East (and really, much of the Islamic World as a whole) has either been a direct result of, or heavily influenced by, the schism between Iran and Saudi Arabia. These two countries have basically been locked in a regional Cold War, and many other nearby countries—Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, just to name a few—have paid the price in the loss and destruction of countless human lives. The fact that these two countries are even sitting at the bargaining table in the first place, regardless of their motives or the actual long-term viability of any peace agreement signed, is huge news and should be treated as such. Kurtis(talk) 04:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge regional development with global implications and biggest international relations story at the moment aside from all of the fallout of the Russo-Ukraine War. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work Reading though the article, there seems to be too much clumsy, confusing text. For example, "Relations continued until 1943 when an Iranian pilgrim, Abu Taleb Yazdi, was executed by the Saudi government who allegedly threw his vomit on the Kaba.", "...the rift between both countries looks wide and unbridgeable for now." Generally, it seems to be a long catalog of incidents which have caused relations to wax and wane repeatedly. This latest development seems to be just part of this pattern. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. A two-sentence update to an existing article this long on hostile that has been around for decades isn't close to enough. For example, I know there are reactions from the US worried about China stepping into these negotiations. --Masem (t) 17:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the NYT opines "This is among the topsiest and turviest of developments anyone could have imagined, a shift that left heads spinning in capitals around the globe".VRtalk 00:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've imagined topsier, but no, never turvier. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality per Masem. Two sentences is nowhere near adequate if this is supposed to be a blurb worthy event. Additionally, the article has significant gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, when it is updated, then it'll be a support. TomMasterRealTALK 02:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've expanded
Iran-Saudi Arabia relations#March 2023 restoration of relations, please look again, Masem, Ad Orientem, TomMasterReal and Andrew Davidson. If you further suggestions for improvement, please let me know.VRtalk 17:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Overall far too many referencing gaps remain. The article is going to need some work before it can be linked on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
China-Saudi Arabia relations may be more viable options, if someone wants to shift the focus to the parts American sources already seem the most spun out about. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support - Per the above comments kindly made by other editors PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 20 [citation needed] tags all need to be fixed up, but once they are this feels like an excellent subject to feature and the article is properly updated. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – Article looks acceptable for a front-page feature and I want to commend Mx. Granger, Ad Orientem, Vice Regent and others for the great work on this article the past few days. There's still some concerns, notably the errors in the citations, and I have a hard time confirming any signficant amount of the article myself in a brief ITN-review. It's important that the content of this article is particularly accurate and there's a lot. From what I've checked, the article looks good, however, and it would be a good feature! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Moving from oppose. Good job to everyone who worked to update the article and fix the missing cites. Alas, this event appears to have been a bit of a 2 day wonder and has now more or less faded from the news cycle. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tremendously important for the Middle East, and most certainly in the news. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 18:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith nomination but consensus to post will not develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: Semi-fatal kidnapping of four Americans of Mexico that is receiving extensive coverage from journalists, geopolitical analysts, the governments involved, and the like. Has renewed discussion regarding Mexican cartels. Crusader1096 (message) 01:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Normally crime-related news are not really something that would be posted on the ITN, but this one may well become a political scandal for both governments involved. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kidnappings in Mexico are commonplace. Even of tourists. Again, wikipedia is not a news journal, it’s an encyclopedia. _-_Alsor (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kidnappings in Mexico may be common, but drug cartel kidnappings of Americans aren't especially common. Hell, its uncommon to see Mexican cartels attempt to backtrack this much and grovel from a kidnapping. Crusader1096 (message) 02:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't do arrests. Too many unanswered questions, too many living people. I'd say wait for a judicial resolution, but I doubt anyone would nominate it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This seems like missing white woman syndrome with tourists; I don't think we post Mexican kidnappings for the same reason we don't post school shootings in its northern neighbor. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, if this does blow up between the two countries as suggested above, I might be willing to reconsider this, but only if this turns big as a story. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do post school shootings in the US if they meet a certain death threshold or have a highly notable motive (e.g, racism, incelism, etc), i.e, if they stand out, just like this story.
Also, all of the four victims were black and three women. Crusader1096 (message) 04:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per CNN, "the four were abducted at gunpoint in Matamoros in what is believed to be a case of mistaken identity". Is that one of your et cetera motives? Human error? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, two of the four victims are still black, because this death toll is substandard (and the dead Mexican woman is missing from all your blurbs). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you of the opinion that this particular attack meets that death threshold or has that special motivation? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yet another story over-covered by a press that acknowledges the public's interest in stories such as this. Odd and tragic, but probably not lf lasting or wide-reaching impact. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless this results in a diplomatic incident between the two countries, for which there’s no indication so far.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How did we manage to get five alt-blurbs for a currently nearly unanimously opposed news item? In any case, oppose, this is something that I don't think ITN in 2011 would have bent to post in terms of significance. ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 14:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as stale - the event that's currently making the headlines, such as it is, is the arrest of the alleged perpetrators after they were captured by (presumably) other cartel members. And as noted, we don't generally post arrests unless they're part of huge busts, which this certainly isn't. The kidnapping, and the subsequent release of some captives and deaths of others, happened a little while back. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it's not important enough. Had the victims been Haitians or Mexicans, this wouldn't have been nominated & would be unlikely to have an article. Much worse things frequently happen in the Mexican drug war, including January's 2023 Ciudad Juárez prison attack & 2023 Sinaloa unrest, neither of which were nominated. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arely Pablo Servando, 33, was a Mexican. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a notable event to make it to ITN. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 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.
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: A member of the Alou family, I'll reference this up in the coming hours – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support article looks in good shape! TailsWx 02:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article is OK. Alex-h (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article still has three citation needed tags. Flibirigit (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. All CN tags now gone. --PFHLai (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted) Failure of Silicon Valley Bank
Clear support after posting. No further input needed.—Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: This is a very large bank failure following a run on the bank from investors. Was 18th largest bank in the US. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support; this is especially significant because of SVB's client base of venture capital funded startups (and at least one payroll processor, Rippling). --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 18:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, bordering on Wait On on hand its bankruptcy is definitely significant (2nd largest bankruptcy in US history!?), and a part of me is salty that we missed on reporting the collapse of FTX when it turned out to be more significant than we initially though (because discussion was shut down before its ramifications really took hold) and I don't want to miss out on another potentially significant one. On the other hand, I feel like we should probably wait to see if it does have a major impact on non-tech startup sectors of the economy. I'm also kinda weary about the article quality. Mount Patagonia (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the second largest bank failure in US history. Copyedit: it should be "second" spelled out, per
Support Major reliable sources are sufficiently covering this story, the article is in good enough shape and sufficiently updated. --Jayron32 19:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose good faith nom. While large as bank failures go, the long-term significance is likely to be pretty limited. This isn't
Bear Sterns or Jay Cooke & Company. The economy is pretty healthy, and banks do fail now and then. FWIW, we rarely post corporate bankruptcies. In fact, I can't remember the last time we posted one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support in principle, but the blurb should mention that it failed as a result of a bank run.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. For a seemingly huge news, I feel the article is a bit short, especially the section about SVB's collapse. However, I see no {cn} tags in it, and I think it meets the minimum requirements, even if I am not sure about the long-term ramifications of its collapse. Vida0007 (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose May be the second-largest bank failure, but the bank size itself is ~ #29 in bank sizes compared to other major banks like Chase, and assets <10% of what Chase carries (see [33]) It's not a major bank and while its failure may be a sign of a weakening economy, we cannot infer this from this closing. --Masem (t) 21:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I doubt very much that the ruin of the 18th bank of a country is something ITNR-worthy and internationally interesting/important. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Honestly, I don't know about this. On one hand, yes this is the second largest bank failure in American history. One the other hand, Masem has a good point. So really, I feel as if we need to wait to see if there are economic effects notable enough for this to be blurbed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It remains an irrelevant bank beyond the United States. Another case of American centrism. Can’t wait to see when the 14th largest bank in Serbia collapses and is posted on Main Page. _-_Alsor (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alsoriano97, does the 14th largest bank in Serbia have US$175 billion in assets? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the one with $175 billion in assets is still the 18th largest bank in the United States. _-_Alsor (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're overly hung up on the "18th largest" factoid rather than acknowledging the actual impact of the collapse. The U.S. and Serbia are not equal in many respects and treating their events on a 1-to-1 basis is based on a fallacy. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which impact have the collapse of the 18th largest bank of the United States? _-_Alsor (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the US is the world's largest economy by nominal GDP and second-largest by PPP. From Economy of the United States, The U.S. dollar is the currency of record most used in international transactions and is the world's foremost reserve currency. To act like the US economy doesn't have massive international impacts, and even trying to compare it to Serbia, who has an economy 400 times smaller than the US (IMF estimates by nominal GDP), is absurd. DecafPotato (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said otherwise. But just because it happens in the U.S. doesn't mean it has free reign to be posted on Main Page. But well, I'm not discovering anything new or anything that hasn't already been commented on by dozens of editors. _-_Alsor (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But just because it happens in the U.S. doesn't mean it has free reign to be posted on Main Page. That's just a strawman – no one has said anything of the sort. I (and others, like Sideswipe9th) have given quantifiable proof of how this isn't US-internal. And even then:
Arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful. Almost all news is of greater interest to a particular place and/or group of people than to the world at large, and 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. DecafPotato (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Considering that SVB's total assets is twicethrice Serbia's GDP, it really is comparing watermelons to cherries to say that this is US centrism. We wouldn't post an Argentinian debt default, either, but a US debt default is an entirely different story. Juxlos (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It remains an irrelevant bank beyond the United States. That's not strictly true. Northern Ireland (where I live) gets a lot of investment and interest from Silicon Valley based companies. There's already talks within our local tech community of emergency meetings being called by local team/branch leaders due to the secondary impacts this is expected to have on access to investment capital. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please abstain from voicing opinions on the topic you do not know anything about. Wikipedia will be better for it. Synotia (moan) 17:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I see enough support to post. Opposition is setting unnecessarily high bars for what would ever get posted here. The SVB article is significantly improved from where it was earlier today and the new article on the event is getting into decent shape too. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support while this bank might not be the biggest in the US, its collapse is as others have said the second largest in US history. It's also going to have a disproportionately large effect on Silicon Valley businesses, with companies like Roku having lodged substantial amounts of their capital into it, and many startups being placed into precarious positions because of it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support – per above. DecafPotato (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This bank's collapse will cause ripple effects throughout California, especially Silicon Valley, and may reverberate across the financial world. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting support: per the Financial Times, "it is by far the biggest bank failure since the global financial crisis". Juxlos (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting
WP:NOTCRYSTAL
content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support. There should be an ongoing news item here about the inflation problem and the tightening by the FED. The cause of the collapse of the bank is the higher interest rates that the markets have not have to deal with for a decade. So, we should expect a lot more failures, not just banks whose bond holding have become worthless collateral, but many other companies will now have become zombie companies that cannot survive at 6 percent interest rates for long. Many trillions of dollars of corporate debt is going to roll over to the much higher interest rates. This will cause a recession, it is debatable how bad this will be, but one thing is certain: the stock market will tank because it has hardly factored in any of the effects of the much higher interest rates. The stock market may lose 2/3 of its value, even in a soft-landing scenario because of inflated earnings estimates. The S&P500 could sink below 1500 and take more than a decade to climb back above 4000. Count Iblis (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ITN does not post on expectations. If and when the crisis begins, it should be posted, but
WP:CRYSTAL applies otherwise and Wikipedia is not /r/WallStreetBets. Juxlos (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Post-posting support - This is a major matter, and deserves the attention it's getting. Yes, in some areas (eg changes of government) we treat all sovereign states fairly equally in principle. But in many others, the situation on the ground directly affects the degree of focus that events receive. The USA's financial sector is huge, and the failure of a major specialist lender within it has immediate widespread consequences. Some kinds of story out of a nation the size of the USA become routine which wouldn't in other areas; but equally, the USA is capable of producing stories of certain kinds that many other countries don't. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:42, 11 March 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) Xi Jinping re-elected
Consensus will likely not develop given 7 de facto opposes (counting Modest Genius) within the first 24 hours, 6 of which were in principle, and the duplication with the leader election. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: Chinese leader re-elected for 3rd term. User:Editor 5426387 (message) 02:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Article is too short. Needs expansion. Fix that problem, and you'll have something to post. --Jayron32 15:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article isn't there, but this is highly notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: didn't we post this a few months ago, when the Communist Party granted him another term as leader? This is just confirming the same decision. Modest Geniustalk 15:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We did, and I supported that decision. I therefore oppose this as needless duplication. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose again, I agree with Modest Genius, I thought we already nominated this? TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all of the above. Not only that the target article is still marked as a stub, but also because this has already been effectively posted a few months ago. Vida0007 (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:36, 10 March 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.
gambling addiction. Beginning in 2028, gambling companies will also no longer be able to sponsor professional sports clubs. (Reuters)
Disasters and accidents
Six people are killed and at least 79 others are injured in a collision between a train and a bus transporting civil servants to work in Lagos, Nigeria. (BBC News)
LGBTQ community with up to 10 years in prison. The bill would also criminalize the "promotion" of homosexuality and "abetting" or "conspiring" to engage in same-sex relations. (Reuters)
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: A lot of sourcing work needed, large unsourced filmography. Mooonswimmer 02:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Rough Shape Somewhat surprising considering how controversial the subject was. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Electra Glide in Blue sticks in my mind as a significant movie and it's interesting to recall that he was the star. I never watched Baretta or the Little Rascals but can see how they would matter to US readers. And with the high drama of his real life too, that's quite an article and so I expect that readers will be turning up in large numbers. As the name is quite common, burying it in RD without any context or picture is a waste of time. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change how RD works, make a formal proposal. Arguing that we shouldn't post this unless we blurb it because you find his name commonplace is not a convincing position, and it looks like disruption. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's already an open proposal on the ITN talk page and I have commented there. The issue here is what's to be done in this case. What I notice now is that the subject first performed under his real name of
Mickey Gubitosi. That seems more eye-catching. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
He's the only Robert Blake I recognize (not that my limited awareness weighs more than yours). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not alone as it was the top read article yesterday with about half a million views. For comparison, there was a DYK that i worked on the main page yesterday and that just got 1,678 views. So, being in the news is more important than being on the main page. I did a bit of clean-up work on his name and family history and see that there's more to do. Strike while the iron is hot... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No! It doesn't have any useless howevers or ampersands that suck, so it's not my problem. If half a million other people see something so wrong with it, they can just stop reading in disgust or fix what's more themselves. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I request that we not make this nom a mile long by everyone registering their oppose blurb votes just because someone mentioned it? This is a long shot for an RD right now. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now; the article contains simply too many missing citations for a BLP. Even beyond the CN tags already in the article, there's also significant portions of the narrative that are still unverifiable, but which just haven't been tagged yet. Fix that to get it posted. --Jayron32 13:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet ready Still missing several citations. Curbon7 (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Nominating this article as a standard blurb instead of ongoing since this will likely die down in a few days. Crusader1096 (message) 02:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality at least. The entire protests are written in just four sentences and honestly feels stubby in a way. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, once quality issues gets resolved. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose People protest against different things in different places all the time. So, unless the protests are violent enough to cause casualties and prompt any abrupt changes in opinion, there isn't really a strong argument for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the exact same reason I opposed the last time this was nominated, a few hours ago. The article updates are not up to the quality expected, all of the recent events consist of a few
WP:PROSELINE sentences. This should be written as a proper narrative and significantly expanded if it is going to be up to the quality to link on the main page. It doesn't really matter where on the main page the link appears, whether in the blurb section or the ongoing section, the article is not good enough. Make it better. --Jayron32 13:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
Oppose on Quality (again). Once again, the target article lacks much discussion of the actual protests. If we are going to blurb protests we need the article targeting the protests to actually talk about the protests. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this point, at least. Right now, the French protests are drawing far more people and incidents with events still drawing 1M+ people to protests. This is ~10k people at best and while there is protestors-vs-police incidents, there's nothing yet significant at the larger level. In addition to article quality problems. --Masem (t) 21:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unless there's more details pointing to why I should go for the contrary. Most of the US mass shootings don't get blurbed, so why should a German one be blurbed? I don't like the idea of supporting it just because of the amount of deaths, unless the death toll is in the double digits. Not to mention, article is a little lacking in general. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are dozens of mass shootings in the US every year, so they are considered routine. Unlike Germany (or, frankly, any other country). Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Including Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico? Crusader1096 (message) 01:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 'any other country' is hyperbole. But the USA is a massive outlier compared to the rest of the industrialised world; Germany is much more typical, and this even is exceptional. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Barring the possibility that the shooting was a terrorist attack or religiously motivated. As it stands, we would not post this if this happened in the US, so there is no reason to treat shootings elsewhere any different; hence I agree with TheBlueSkyClub. (But I also realize that the anti-American bias in ITN probably means that my oppose won't matter) --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is actually no problem treating events outside the US differently; mass shootings are rare in every other country except the US. Black Kite (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is shooting up a church not terrorism? GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an accepted definition of terrorism. In this case, it appears the attacker was a member of the same church and knew many of the targets. That's not terrorism, and even if it was that wouldn't make the event more substantial. Modest Geniustalk 13:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Several people have commented equating this event to mass shootings in the United States. We don't post mass shootings in the United States unless they happen to be exceptionally notable because they happen every day. A mass shooting at a church in Germany is practically unheard of, coupled with an abnormal death count and dozens of injuries. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nipping this in the bud before it gets out of hand. --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 13:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mass shootings that kill 6+ people in the US are still uncommon. Also, we're clumping all the states in the US together and then claiming that makes them common, while the individual nations of the EU are treated separately. How often do mass shootings occur in the EU as a whole? (Seriously, I'm asking because I'm curious now) -- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously trying to argue that US states should be treated on the same level as independent nations? --1.157.30.241 (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat. The individual nations of the EU are comparable to US states in many ways, although since the nations of the EU retain control over their foreign affairs and have seats in the UN, I can see why someone might disagree, especially from the outside looking in. --RockstoneSend me a message! 06:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the kind of comment I would expect from an American-centric American. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The states of the USA are not politically comparable to independent nations, and the member states of the EU are independent nations. This isn't the first time that someone has proposed a novel political theory to justify a skewed view of the USA at ITN (I recall 'the Leader of the House is a head of government' not that long ago), and it probably won't be the last. But the USA is one nation, with a long-standing problem of firearms violence. Please don't judge the rest of the world by US political structures, or US death rates. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can get a feel for the overall numbers by looking at categories such as 2022 mass shootings. In that year, it appears that there were 75 notable mass shootings globally of which 10 were in Europe and 25 in the USA. What seems to skew the argument is that there are lots of lesser mass shootings in the USA which don't get articles. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support unusual event in Germany, as Johndavies837 pointed out, though it could use some expansion as news updates roll in. The article is also a stub! I've just noticed this while watching ABC7... TailsWx 00:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Presuming guilt, this would seem to be the first notable shooting to result in murder in Hamburg. The article probably won't be great. But it can get good enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support - mass shootings aren't that common in Deutschland, however the article is a stub and needs expansion. Crusader1096 (message) 01:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is very unusual, extraordinary event that may well be the very first mass shooting to ever happened on Jehovah's Witnesses events around the world. The article needs work, however. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ready Eight sentences of prose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Three of which are duplicated information, natch. Kingsif (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. The article is a stub. Once it is ready I would change to a support. I know we wouldn't post it if it happened in the US but location is a key part in notability. We might not like that but it is the truth. Aure entuluva (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now The article is not yet ready. Shootings in Europe are not common, let alone when they result in almost 10 fatalities. The key is, above all, that the attack is committed against a minority religious denomination (and historically repressed in Europe, especially in Germany), which suggests (pending official confirmation) that it is an attack with a discriminatory motive. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such incidents are rare in Germany and, given the context and the target, it really seems significant. I think the comments opposing this because we would haven't posted it had it happened in the US can be safely disregarded per
Oppose on quality as the article is a stub, though I am currently ambivalent when it comes to importance. DecafPotato (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support when ready. Major news story, making headlines internationally and with a signficant impact. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality this is a stub in length, probably because of the lack of information. Ambivalent on importance. This doesn't happen very often in Germany, which is a point in favour. It's an attack on a house of worship, though by an ex-member. For reference, Wikipedia posted the 2016 Munich shooting, a massacre with a still disputed motive. [34]Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If this does go to ITN, I'd suggest a phrasing change. Centre is not the terminology that Jehovah's Witnesses use, they refer to their place of worship as a Kingdom Hall. If the term must be more generic, I'd suggest place of worship and not church. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 12:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is far too light on content to be posted to the main page, as of right now. Willing to reconsider once significant expansion has been done. --Jayron32 13:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Support Article is still a bit short, but it has developed to have enough information to be worth posting on the main page. --Jayron32 17:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I understand the argument that shootings are much rarer in Germany than in the US or Brazil, that doesn't give them a free pass. This is tragic for those affected, but we wouldn't post a traffic accident with 7 deaths, or a stabbing. The fact that a gun was used doesn't change the underlying outcome. There's no indication that this was part of a wider campaign or will have major implications, and the article is barely more than a stub. If it gets to sufficient length, take it to DYK instead. Modest Geniustalk 13:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSOLELY on the basis of article quality. Willing to switch to support once this is improved.--⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 14:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: While the article needs a bit more information, this is a very rare event in Germany. It should be posted on ITN. --Maxxies (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Basically a stub, gives no indication as to motive or wider significance (if there is any). Until more details emerge and the article is improved, this should not be posted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We categorically should not be posting ITN items simply on "rarity". Would this event be more or less impactful in any other country? Probably not. People do bad things sometimes. This is another tragic event that likely won't stand the test of time. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. Countries are different, so you cannot equate them. If an event is significant in one country, an event of the same type doesn’t necessarily need to be significant in other countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To each their own. Rare does not directly equate to significant and rarity is more DYK's area of expertise. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Whatever the cause, it is a notable news. Alex-h (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it's not important enough. It appears to have been motivated by a personal dispute. Being unusual isn't a good reason to include it. Had an international
terrorist group such as IS done it it'd be important enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose The investigation has shown this is likely a frustrated ex-employee taking his anger out. That's a simple domestic-level crime, the type of stuff we shouldn't be covering in the first place on WP, much less ITN. --Masem (t) 21:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like mass shootings that kill people are inherently notable no matter where they occur. I just don't think it's notable enough for ITN. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly a different between newsworthy events (of which I would classify every shooting into) and notable events, ones that actually have long-term, lingering effects. This event is clearly newsworthy but given that it appears to be domestic (not international or hate-driven) violence, I can't see what long-term effects could come from it. --Masem (t) 22:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
International hate is maybe the most everyday and longterm ineffective thing there is. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, international hate crimes are pretty uncommon. Masem (t) 03:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said international or hate-driven violence, not international hate crime. Four Syrians and three Iranian-backed Afghans were blown up by (probably) Israel the other day, while at least 35 Congolese were killed by (probably) Islamists, wasn't even nominated. If an international hate crime ever was, I don't remember it. That's not to say it never happened. But most posted mass shootings have been domestic affairs since I've been around. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: this isn't in the news to the extent of other shootings that have occurred in the recent past. No mention of it on the front page of RTE, The New York Times, The Times, BBC, or France 24. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 01:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now: The content in the article still feels quite bare. Other mass shootings like in the US have considerably more content than this. I am very well aware of the anti-US slant when it comes to such events. Nevertheless, the information is still not sufficient enough even if such events are rare in this particular nation. --Birdienest81talk 04:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes American mass shooting articles immediately fatter than those in more polite and structured societies is that police who are not authorized to speak on ongoing investigations routinely do anyway, anonymously, for money. It seems unwise to expect the whole German system to adapt such killer filler methods just to get a story on the global front page. I'd rather think of it as a
Hamburg shooting and just accept it on its own merits, as a different kind of article about a whole new thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Eh, I think when there have been mass shootings in anglophone countries other than the US, the articles tend to be decent. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 08:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Head count Considering only "in principle" and not accounting for article quality, I count 15 supports, 6 opposes, and 2 neutral/ambivalent. I'm discounting two opposes of "we wouldn't post this in the US" since ITN custom is indeed that the US is exceptional in this field. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, the amount of coverage of this event has waned significantly (no stories I see today, and only a couple yesterday). This is the burst of coverage that under WP;N and NEVENT would not warrant an article. Masem (t) 14:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot discount opposes that rightly point out that we wouldn't post this in the US and treat Germany as a different case. So, there's actually 9 opposes. This should probably closed under "no consensus". --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can, and have; the US has factors that make it unique in shooting frequencies and irrelevant in comparison to other industrialized countries, so ITN has recognized that opposing shootings by argumentum ad Americam are bunk. Indeed,
it's part of my job to separate the wheat from the chaff rather than rely on a pure count that anyone could do. (In any event, you are correct that this will probably eventually be closed given its staleness notwithstanding this point of order.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Personally, I close based off of
WP:ITN: It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting. For better or for worse, ITN has no guidelines or even widely cited essays on preferred outcomes.—Bagumba (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
oppose - seems like the case of a rare but not necessarily an all that important event --TorsodogTalk 17:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eight people were killed in a church in a country where American-scale mass shootings rarely happen. Curbon7 (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks fine – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support no major issues, only one citation needed tag. Mooonswimmer 18:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've commented out the sentence that had the cn tag as I wasn't able to find any sources besides the Sun that backed up that claim. Otherwise, the article looks alright for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: Ongoing recent protests in the country of Georgia. Kafoxe (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as of now. The article is fairly light on material that talks particularly about the protests. Until more information about the protests themselves can be provided, this article is not sufficient for ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now the law has been withdrawn by the ruling party, so it can be expected that the protests will not continue for the time being. It's clear that these are important protests because they go beyond a popular rejection of a law. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait It looks like things will probably quiet down (as mentioned above) in which case there's no need to post now and have it turn out to be very minor. Flyingfishee (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Slowly growing in size and notability, let’s see if they get up to Euromaidan levels or not before we unceremoniously toss the nom. The Kip (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Per others. You could also argue this is covered already in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine ongoing, but that's a little dubious. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be helpful to post a blurb about this before moving it into Ongoing? It's impossible right now to estimate whether this will be suitable for Ongoing. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Portal There are several protests in the news currently. Off the top of my head, these include protests about pensions in France, women's rights in Iran and elswehere, the supreme court in Israel and more. We have a long list of protests in the 21st century but that's not suitable for ITN as it's not organised by year. I reckon that the best solution is to surface ITN's link to the Current events portal so it's clearer to readers where to go to find the most comprehensive list of current events. As well as blurbs, the portal has a sidebar which currently lists 7 protest articles in its politics section. And it lists a lot more besides and so seems a good summary of everything that's in the news. It seems so good because editors can just add entries without all the drama, discussion and delay which stops ITN getting much done. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current article is actually fairly dreadful for an ongoing post. The "Ongoing" nature of the updates has been three
WP:PROSELINE sentences. Ugh. Not something we should be putting on the main page as an example of quality work. If someone were to expand and flesh this out into proper, well written narrative, I could easily support this, but not in the current state. --Jayron32 13:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
Oppose ongoing for now, support blurb This has potential to become the biggest protests since Color Revolution, but we had to wait for it before that happens. Also, the law has been discarded by the ruling party, so it is possible the escalation won't ever happen anyway. But this is notable enough that a blurb is possible. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ongoing,
WP:SNOW close, but support blurb - will probably quiet down in the coming days or weeks, but noteworthy enough to receive blurb status. Crusader1096 (message) 01:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Wait, to see how it goes. Alex-h (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for further developments. This looks poised to be one of the biggest protests in that country but we shall see if the protests intensify further. Vida0007 (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - article notes that the protests have ended so putting it in ongoing is impossible. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:33, 15 March 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.
Support I agree with the nominator, I haven't heard any news about in weeks, and it isn't a major news item anymore, as Masem has said. TomMasterRealTALK 02:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Obviously, the lives of those affected will never be the same, and recovery will be a long and winding road. But as far as the rest of the world is concerned, this news story has come and gone. Kurtis(talk) 14:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: Notable B-film movie producer, including about 1/3rd of the movies on MST3K. The article's filmgraphy needs sourcing. Masem (t) 01:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support A spot-check on the filmography source checks out. The article is a little short, but seems ok for holisticity, and is well-cited. Curbon7 (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The filmography is source almost solely to AllMovie, which is
listed at WP:RSP with a status of "unclear".—Bagumba (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
Comment I've removed Discogs and FilmReference.com as these sources are not reliable. There is now one cn tag. Once this is fixed, I'll change my vote to Support. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: Creator of the "Olivia" piglet character. Relatively short article, "Awards" section is completely unsourced. Mooonswimmer 17:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Not yet ready Still significantly undersourced. Curbon7 (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: Canadian ballet dancer, one of the most influential dancers of the Royal Ballet. Note that most of the images are tagged for missing evidence of permission, and will be deleted on the 16 March if nothing is done. Some paragraphs do not have a source at the moment, those will be addressed. Corachow (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: 1 CN tag remaining, otherwise pretty close. SpencerT•C 22:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've fixed the last CN tag and added sources for other sections that lacked them. Should be good to go now. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Referencing looks good. I'd like more lead, and more links to companies and ballets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I expanded the lead a bit, with the Royal Ballet, two choreographers she was most associated with, and some famous ballets she created roles in. One day I will expand the article further, but at least the article is at a respectable shape. Corachow (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recurring item. --ELEKHHT 00:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose on quality Chipperfield article is very nearly there, but two CN tags and a few paragraphs/claims that seem unsourced. Will flip to support when addressed. Pritzker article is a FA and therefore fine. The Kip (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know exactly where to go if you want it to be removed. ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 03:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's on ITNR because it's the top prize in architecture, roughly equivalent to the Noble Prize in Literature. We've posted the winners almost every year. Modest Geniustalk 11:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? "We've posted the winners almost every year" ? In 2022 Kere wasn't posted, the 2020-2021 winners weren't even nominated, the 2019 winner was posted then pulled, 2018 wasn't posted... the latest I can find as 'posted' is 2016 Aravena. -ELEKHHT 13:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A brief search shows it was posted in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2020 and 2021. In 2018 and 2022 it was nominated but went stale before the article was brought up to standard. 2019 was posted but then pulled due to article quality issues. I couldn't find anything for 2017, but we don't have articles on each of those winners so it probably wasn't nominated. That's a pretty strong track record. Significance of the award was never doubted, only article quality ever prevented us posting. Modest Geniustalk 13:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient update per
WP:ITNCRIT: ... a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. The bio shouldn't require link chasing to figure out what the award is for—other than being "prestigious"—and why he was selected.—Bagumba (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikilinks are at the basis of Wikipedia and "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective" per
WP:ITN. Is the article supposed to repeat what the Pritzker Prize is - and is each Nobel Prize winner's article re-describing the Nobel Prize? --ELEKHHT
MOS:LINK is clear: Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links.—Bagumba (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: I agree with Bagumba, the article needs more than a one sentence update. Needs at least a few sentences of referenced prose. Modest Geniustalk 11:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just taken a closer look at the article. There are a lot of missing or incomplete citations and an indiscriminate list, which I've tagged. Also the one-paragraph descriptions of his buildings in the 'major works' sections read very strangely - I wonder if they're close paraphrasing or translation of the references, which are mostly pages in a French-language coffee table book. Needs work. Modest Geniustalk 18:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality - Per above. Also, I know we aren't meant to share POV, but I personally think his architecture looks terrible. Despite this, it may be good to actually include a picture of a building he's designed, as that may be more relevant PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you know you're not meant to share it, why did you share it? --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 12:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WaltClipper is right. Also, the award is not for a building, hence is problematic choosing one building. A mozaic of all buildings named in the award would be too small for the ITN format. I agree that the image of the architect is not key, and this could be posted without an image. --ELEKHHT 13:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Completed Works" section does need to be sourced for any building that is not a blue link already, though I suspect there's a single RS that covers all his works. --Masem (t) 13:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modern architecture is a lot like modern life, where risk is rewarded and the places we know we should go rarely line up with where we really want to be. You were right to rock the boat, PW, but the Pritzker gods have spoken and Chipperfield did win their favour, so who are you to say what we mere mortals are already thinking, eh? Anyway, it's all good, but these ugly buildings aren't the real heroes here, no matter how much those in the know like them, it's this larger-than-life historical figure who's destined to take the living person spotlight from Estonia's latest civil servant (meaning no disrespect). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The prize seems to be awarded for the subject's lifetime portfolio rather than for a specific recent project. The article seems quite substantial, providing illustrations of a good variety of buildings. The reader will not be disappointed. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Chipperfield article is fine for ITN. One or two CN tags is not enough to halt this being added. Crusader1096 (message) 15:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Article seems to be of sufficient quality for main page. --Jayron32 19:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jayron's pretty reliable. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Now that maintenance tags have been added, those will have to be resolved. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article looks good and adequately cited. Crusader1096 (message) 15:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close, but not yet ready Need some more details (like only a couple sentences) on the 1990 election to be considered holistic. Also, is there content that can be added about his tenure in any of the positions that he held before his election as president, as that paragraph is simply a resume of his positions. Curbon7 (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 metallurgist. Padma Shri awardee. Article requires some work and should be good for homepage / RD. Did not require much by way of edits. Good C-class biography. Meets homepage hygiene requirements. Ktin (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
Oppose While the article is well-written, there are insufficient or unreliable sources concerning his research work. It would have been better to have an expanded section of his research.Maxxies (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article was featured on main page in the past, its quality hasn't worsened. 51.154.145.205 (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There are very few details on his career and his achievements throughout his life in the article. Maxxies (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet ready Article is quite bare, and cannot be considered to pass the threshold for holisticity. Curbon7 (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Closed) Ongoing: COVID-19
Consensus is against re-posting.—Bagumba (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose and SNOW close We already debated and ultimately decided against posting the lab-leak hypothesis story; additionally, ITN is also based on whether articles have received consistent updates, while most COVID articles have slowed to a crawl update-wise as the worst has passed and the world has moved on. The Kip (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't decide against the lab leak hypothesis, we decided against posting it until claims are made with higher confidence. But yeah, the article doesn't have enough frequent updates to warrant Ongoing imo. DecafPotato (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose The media are blowing this one out of the water from a MEDRD stance. The DOE and FBI may have reason to suspect the lab leak theory, but neither put it as a high likelihood, and given the stance of other branches of the US govt, there's no reason to suspect the lab leak theory to be correct, much to the chagrin of the right that desperately want it to legit. This is definitely not the story to elevate COVID back to ongoing. --Masem (t) 01:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editor 5426387, I will donate $5 to the WMF if you for once give a rationale that isn't either "per above" or a complete logical fallacy. Curbon7 (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I offer to take the $5 if Editor rejects it, just saying..._-_Alsor (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. plus you don't hear any news about COVID19 anymore.TomMasterRealTALK 02:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Oppose Aside from lab-leak theory whose belief is mostly widespread, and always has been, in the U.S. (never heard of it outside U.S. IIRC, including my country, Indonesia, and there's nothing about my country's stance on COVID-19 origins), COVID-19 is not something we see on the news anymore. Most people moved on to bigger things that is nowhere related to COVID. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, we've already went against the fact to post the lab-leak story, and the last signifcant updates to the article was in early February. Additionally, I would SNOW close this as well. And I do wish one scientific event is posted to ITN this year! :) TailsWx 02:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's 71 degrees here in Texas, how is there snow in the air?Crusader1096 (message) 03:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lessons learnt? Now's the time to count the cost and review the effectiveness of policies. For example, how is the dropping of zero COVID in China working out? We read in The Economist that China has declared a "decisive victory" regardless. But the relevant WHO emergency committee reckons that it's still a
Oppose - We've had extensive discussions over this. Like it or not, COVID-19 is simply a part of life now. It's endemic. Keeping it as ongoing is like having Climate Change as ongoing
As for the lab leak story, if there's any major developments we can post, but I don't think it needs ongoing status PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A snow close has been called for hours. Time to do it. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Per all replies, this has been removed, if it was then that usually means that we shouldn’t post it again unless there’s an actual very important thing. Vriend1917 (talk) 11:42, 7 March 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.
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: Although Lafrenz died on 6 March, this has only just been reported in the press. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support, substantial and well referenced. I'd even give her a blurb, 103, last surviving member of
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: German politician, with positions from local mayor to member of national parliament Bundestag, friend of Helmut Kohl and serving as minister of the interior in the Rhineland-Palatinate state when Kohl was minister-president. He was one of two people who attended all party conventions from inauguration in 1950 to 2020, imagine. The article is a rather faithful translation of the German, with sources (which the German had not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
adding: news of his death came 6 March. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added cn tags to places where content is unsourced. Once this gets fixed, I'll change my vote to Support. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried. Google gives me two articles for the higher class of the order of merit, - I'm sure he got it but can't see the full articles. Any help? - commented out for the moment --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the rest of the sources, while Grimes2 had found the one for Mérite Européen. Looks good now. Vacant0 (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The German Wikipedia list sources the claim about the Großes Bundesverdienstkreuz to the August 1986 Bundesanzeiger.
I could verify this claim on Monday, if deemed necessary, by checking the
microfiche copies at our university library. Felix QW (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you, late but better than nothing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done! (I haven't used those microfiche readers in ages...) Felix QW (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Death confirmed by several sources, article ok now. Should we keep self published publication? Grimes2 (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article still with an orange tag. Pretty thin when it comes to what he achieved in his various political positions. SpencerT•C 22:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The German (translated) article had no more. I'll check tomorrow if the sources provide any more than general praise, - too tired now, - and even tomorrow: a composer is waiting for update, and that's more my field. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked, and added a bit about the monument he donated. No specific details about actions in positions, sorry. Der Einflussreiche (The influential one] - this describes how he influenced the republic by gathering the influential (Helmut Kohl and such) people at his fish pond, - I don't know if and how that could help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Closed) RD: Tymofiy Shadura
Non-admin closure Consensus to post will not develop. Cheers. WimePocy 13:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
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.
Support there is an article dedicated to his death. Yug(talk) 🐲 20:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the article we are talking about is actually
Killing of Brianna Ghey was pulled shortly after posting recently. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Pawnkingthree, Killing of Brianna Ghey was re-posted not long after it was pulled ([39]), and stayed until it rolled-off. Curbon7 (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Killing of Brianna Ghey was re-posted not long after its pulling, so I don't see why this article is not eligible for RD either. That said, the article is in very poor shape, with very few biographical details and core NPOV concerns. I also have to question the notability of the article; a lot of prisoners of war have been extralegally executed in this war, not seeing what pushes this one above the rest besides that he said the thing. Curbon7 (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose - Sorry, no, per the above concerns about lacking an individual article. Also, this is just an incremental event in the ongoing war, so it's not even eligible for posting as a standalone event on those grounds. --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 14:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Death/killing/execution of..." articles are eligible and I'll go to my grave thinking that. But when the story is rife with doubt about whether the named person is the dead person, that's not good. If we'll possibly know later, as the lead contends, it will be too late. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the article and talk page, it's now disputed whether the soldier killed even is Shadura or another individual entirely.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per most of the above. We don't even know who this is. Subtract the reactions and the article is a glorified stub. There's just no way this can be posted at the present time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 10 March 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.
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: Recent death of a notable New Zealander (world's first openly transgender mayor, world's first openly transgender MP). Article looks in reasonably good shape but there could be some tidy-ups; I'm going to start looking at it now. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support - Article looks good enough for RD. Estar8806 (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While this will go up in 'recent deaths' so long as the article is deemed to be good enough, I wonder if this should go as a full ITN entry, as a world-leading figure in transgender visibility.-gadfium 06:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Local Woman Dies MPs and mayors are by definition not world-leading figures, whether trans or cis. Not blurbworthy, but a Photo RD could get across her visibility. Support Text RD, regardless. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are operating under a different definition of world-leading. --Pokelova (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the only one I know, but I'm willing to learn more. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is seen in the nominator's comment, world-leading in this sense means world-first. --Pokelova (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In that case, I'm still not feeling it. Other trans figures earlier attained positions of higher global visibility, thereby leading her in time and power. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added one cn tag, otherwise, the article looks good. Support once the citation gets added. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD I cited everything in the sentence that Vacant0 noted; everything looks good now. --Jayron32 16:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD with photo The article is ready to be posted. If a photo is possible for RD (have never seen that before), then I support that, too (the lead photo, which is quite charismatic, has already been protected). Like Gadfium, I can see justification for a blurb (just). I won't post this item myself as I've done way too much editing of this bio over the years. Schwede66 01:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD for obvious reasons. Don't see any reason for it being an ITN. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orange tag There is an existing orange tag at Georgina Beyer § Early life for "relies excessively on references to primary sources", presumably because it's largely sourced to Change for the Better: The Story of Georgina Beyer As Told to Cathy Casey. This needs to be either resolved or determined it the tag is appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Early life section is orange-tagged and there are still many different tags on the article to be fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba:@Alsoriano97: and anyone else. I've resolved all of the tags; cited some stuff, removed some text, got rid of tags that were inaccurately applied. It looks fine now. --Jayron32 17:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support No more referencing issues; looks good to go. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks Jayron32. Looks more than ready to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Regarding a picture,
WP:IAR applies to this nom.—Bagumba (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
IAR doesn't apply to ITNPICT, nevermind this nom. It's not a policy, not a guideline and says "should", not "must". That said, "should" is a stronger suggestion than "could" and way less iffy than "if a photo is possible", so you made the right call, this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a de facto guideline. If I made the wrong call some other time, please let me know.—Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's better than nothing, at least. Your past calls are fine with me. It's the ones you will make that I'm not quite sure about yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: Founding member of Lynyrd Skynyrd. Needs a few more bits of sourcing to get ready for RD. Masem (t) 02:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support I've added the missing citations, though I'm still unsure whether the "If I Leave Here Tomorrow: A Film About Lynyrd Skynyrd, Passion Pictures, Directed by Stephen Kijak, 2018" citation should be kept. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shape. --Jayron32 16:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but how does Rossigton, who is somewhat notable but truly contributed very little of any import to popular music, get such a quick posting on the recent deaths list, where the recent passings of David Crosby, Burt Bacharach, and Wayne Shorter were not mentioned at all? They are giants compared to Rossington. What kind of criteria are being used here? PJtP (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITNQUALITY is typically the barrier. Note that any bio is eligible to be posted, irrespective of their perceived significance.—Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Additionally, quality of the article is required, and no one seemed to improve those examples sufficiently for posting. Gary's was short a few sources but that seemed to be fixed quickly. Masem (t) 04:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Shorter, his nomination is still open, if anyone wants to make a last-ditch effort. —Bagumba (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: ITN/R, article is up-to-date, and the results of the election have been fully announced --Vacant0 (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment @Vacant0 Could you provide a source for the results with your nomination? Estar8806 (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I've forgot to add one. I've added it now. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Page looks ITN ready. However, I would suggest "amount of" be dropped as it is redundant "most seats" is fine by itself. Estar8806 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ITNR and article is ready to go. The Kip (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks so good. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work I just read through the lead and found it quite poor. It rambles about previous governments without explaining why this election was held. Its presentation of the issues seemed ungrammatical. And its account of technicalities like foreign embassies seems weak/confusing. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the important thing is to read the article in its entirety... _-_Alsor (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at it. For example, the election was a result of a presidential decree but the lead says nothing of this. Per
MOS:LEAD, "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style..." ITN typically obsesses about references but that's the last part of the article, not the first, and few readers get to it. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Uhm... well, in any case, the fact that this information is not in the lead does not disqualify the article from being posted. It's not that important and, in practically all republics and paramilitary monarchies, elections are called by decree of the head of state. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure you meant "parliamentary". The⬡Bestagon 12:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every parliamentary election is always called by the head of state, so including it in the lede would not be that relevant. If this was a snap election though, then that would be featured in the lede.Vacant0 (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, the timing of elections used to be decided by the PM. Then this was recently changed to a fixed schedule but there's an intention to revert that by repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. I have some understanding of that as I'm in the UK but I have no idea how the Estonian system works and what part their President plays in it. The article ought to explain the basics of this rather than assuming that the reader knows. It doesn't. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not all parliamentary systems operate on the British model. Perhaps fortunately... or unfortunately. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. All looks fine. --Tone 12:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: Long-serving provincial cabinet minister. Died this morning. Lefcentreright Discuss 18:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support Looks good, everything seems to be sourced. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could use an additional 2-4 sentences in the political career section regarding what he accomplished in his various positions. At present, it is almost entirely a list of committees and dates with limited depth. SpencerT•C
Weak support While there is still some expansion to be desired, I think the article is sufficient in holisticity for our purposes, as provides some coverage of his tenure in the legislature. Curbon7 (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Closed) Liverpool 7-0 Man Utd
(
NON-ADMIN CLOSURE
)
Assuming good faith. Not seeing a trajectory for consensus. Marking closed. Ktin (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose we do not post individual, non-championship games. --Masem (t) 19:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Not gonna happen, nor should it. -- Kicking222 (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and SNOW close We've had this debate before iirc and the consensus was firmly against posting. The Kip (talk) 03:00, 6 March 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.
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: Most prolific serial killer in Brazil's history. Silent-Rains (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Not yet ready No explanation as to why he was arrested the second time, and the article does not sufficiently cover his brief but eventful criminal career to be considered holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UN treaty to protect ocean life
Marine protected areas in 2020. The new treaty would enable these to be established in international waters.
Nominator's comments: This is being described in mainstream media as a "historic treaty", as it will provide some protection for the ocean life in international waters which is already quite endangered by the current free-for-all. The process of ratification and implementation will no doubt be protracted and imperfect, but it has taken ten years to get to this point, so to reach agreement seems a significant achievement. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support, this is in the news and is a big story. I'd prefer somewhat a longer update but clearly this is the culmination of the long process to get it agreed on. --Tone 10:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWait This is mostly overlooked, but has major implications over biodiversity in the world's seas. Once this is ratified this is an obvious support. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Important step and we could use some positive news in ITN. cart-Talk 11:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don’t believe that "Agreement is reached on the text" is ITN-worthy until the actual formalization of the treaty is reached. What’s the next step? _-_Alsor (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The next steps are formalities, "Following two weeks of intense talks, including a marathon overnight session Friday into Saturday, delegates finalized a text that now cannot be significantly altered. "There will be no reopening or discussions of substance," Lee told negotiators. The agreement will be formally adopted at a later date once it has been vetted by lawyers and translated into the United Nations' six official languages, she announced." [44]. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, passing of the treaty by individual states, too. That's not trivial Masem (t) 13:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alsor/Masem, plus more importantly, it’s a two-sentence update to the target article. The Kip (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeper The Kip. Barely any update to the page. Beyond that, I question the statement that this is a really landmark decision. This treaty does not have universal (or really close to universal) membership with countries such as the US as non-members. Feels like another one of those treaties where the countries that care about protecting biodiversity still will and ones that don't will continue to not give a you-know-what because ultimately the repercussions rarely ever come. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The US is unique in having
UNCLOS agreement but then failing to ratify it. Another list explains that "the ratification of a significant number of treaties signed after 1990 has been blocked by senators of the Republican Party for various ideological reasons". Andrew🐉(talk) 17:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Strong support - Positive news for once! Diversity in the stories we post! In The News! Save our fishes! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't that it's positive but that it's a two-sentence update in the target article. That's not exactly at front-page significance yet. The Kip (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article as a whole, sure, but there’s still a grand total of two sentences addressing this development. The Kip (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, support once ratified if the article’s quality is good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UNCLOS article is better as it gives the overall framework and has a section detailing the negotiations for this addition to it. Note that ratification is not a simple matter as each party will ratify in their own time and the process is drawn out over years -- over 10 years for the original UNCLOS. We should therefore focus on what's in the news right now which is the milestone of this agreement. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose per Alsor. As we have done previously with Finland's attempt to join NATO, we generally do not post "we intend to do the thing". We post "we did the thing". --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 14:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the finalization of this document is doing a thing. Ratification would be another thing, but that is likely relatively routine compared to the sheer work it took to get to this stage. (If this is delayed, support then too of course.) CMD (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Small update, incremental on-paper step, no indication any animals have actually been further protected. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, though the target article should be High Seas Treaty not a section in the UNCLOS article. Altblurb added. Unfortunate that isn't ready to be posted in ITN - it's a one-paragraph stub. I would be happy posting this now if it was ready - the remaining steps are pro forma and won't change the outcome (maybe which countries will actually abide by the treaty, but that will take a decade to shake out). We could wait for the treaty to enter into force when enough ratifications come in (could be months or years) and use that time to improve the article. Still, it's in the news now, so better to post now if the article can be brought up to scratch. Modest Geniustalk 14:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle on the notability of the story, but it makes sense to wait until the treaty enters into force per Modest Genius. If this isn't news material that should appear on the main page of an encyclopedia, then I really don't know what is. I also don't agree with the comments above that this is just a marginal change because this round of talks concludes the six-year process of reaching an agreement that should be further ratified.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said this was a marginal change. A few suggested it was "just" another step in a somewhat important and partially binding textual change. If the whole agreement (yet to be "formally adopted") should be further ratified, that just goes to show the entire process hasn't concluded in this round of talk. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No-one said it with those words but with that meaning. This round of talks is surely more notable than the previous five because now we know an agreement has been reached. I don’t think its ratification is a big deal, so the next major step is its entrance into force. That being said, the choice is literally between posting it now or waiting until it enters into force.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can be tricky to guess what people mean with their words, especially in writing. As I can't recall ever hearing or reading about the five first rounds, I'll agree this seems like the biggest one so far. At which point would you say this text "enters into force"? By "per Modest Genius", I figured it'd be when enough members ratify it, but per "I don't think its ratification is a big deal", I may have figured wrong. Me, I'd like to see the establishment of a marine protected area in international waters before I know it's working. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s another tricky thing. The treaty will enter into force at some point, and it’ll make sense to post it then (as we posted Croatia’s accession to the eurozone and Schengen Area). However, it’s possible that people will view it as a pure formality and point out to when an agreement was reached.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky indeed. As the BBC notes, Despite the breakthrough in agreeing the treaty there is still a long way to go before it is legally agreed. Those involved have apparently agreed on the proposed text, which many still disagree should be enforced in some practical way. If that agreement is reached, I'll point to it. Other people can point to this "breakthrough" phase, I suppose, but it won't make the later outcome(s) any more or less newsworthy. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled why you say 'wait per Modest Genius', when I said 'better to post now'. Modest Geniustalk 20:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could wait was catchier, on account of its capital letter, three-word punch and following assurance of more time to do a better job. That's my guess, anyway. Could be more! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Modest Genius: I also think it's better to post it now (otherwise, I'd have changed the order of 'support' and 'wait'), but waiting until it enters into force is a reasonable alternative.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait This seems like one step along the path towards ratification. I agree that this is a story that would likely merit posting on ITN, but at this stage, it seems like it would be more appropriate to post the final ratification. --Jayron32 15:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question to the waiters, what exactly does ratification mean here to you? That each member state has ratified it? A majority? That the p5 have ratified it? nableezy - 20:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot of commenters seem to be misunderstanding what 'ratification' means. Each country will ratify in its own way and on its own timetable - there won't be one date when suddenly everyone accedes. Is there a threshold for entering into force, or is it binding on each country as soon as they ratify? If there's no threshold, it's going to be difficult to decide when to post... Modest Geniustalk 20:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article High Seas Treaty indicates it doesn't go into effect until it's adopted formally by a UN resolution and then ratified by at least 60 member states, so there's the threshhold. The Kip (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And certainly, the formal UN resolution would be a better point to call it news, knowing that getting the member states to ratify will take a couple of years. Masem (t) 00:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article on the Treaty itself, it needs to be formally adopted via a UN resolution and ratified by at least 60 parties to the treaty in order to go into effect, so that's what ratification would mean here. The Kip (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if there's a 60 ratification threshold, that would work. Modest Geniustalk 20:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose How exactly do they plan to enforce this? Though it hasn't been ratified only an agreement Koltinn(talk) 15:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That explains who "they" might be, but not how they plan to enforce this (the protection of ocean life). In the linked case, "they" didn't even handle it, they just told Italy and India they needed to drop their investigations before anything could proceed. The Permanent Court of Arbitration actually settled that entirely dissimilar matter (marines getting away with murder). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marine protected areas (MPAs) already exist, as shown in the nomination. One measure will be to enable their creation in international waters. Enforcement will then be similar, I suppose. The details are in the draft agreement and that's over 50 pages long. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
Heavy street fighting takes place between Russian and Ukrainian troops in Bakhmut, Donetsk Oblast. The city's deputy mayor Oleksandr Marchenko says that "not a single building" has remained untouched by fighting, and that the city is "almost destroyed". (BBC News)
derailment of a Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous materials in East Palestine, Ohio. However, no hazardous materials are known to be involved in the Clark County derailment. (WDTN-TV)
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 some sourcing, significant disability rights activist. cart-Talk 10:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support as nominator. cart-Talk 10:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not ready for now. There are 7 cn tags. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0 I've just looked, no tags now. However I agree not quite yet, more solid news coverage of her death as well as reactions might appear in the next day or two. Give it at least until Tuesday for the initial news (and social media) wave to settle down. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems to have been fixed, no cn tags are in the article as of now. Though some sections seem to be too short, eg. "Clinton Administration", this could be expanded imo. Vacant0 (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support all sourcing issues addressed and removed! I've also gone ahead and added some sources to paragraphs which were not sourced nor tagged! TailsWx 13:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a little ref improvement, Twitter is not generally considered a reliable source. - Indefensible (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter is accepted per ABOUTSELF, such as when it is cited to say what Obama said on his own tweet. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good, though there's [when?] tag on Department on Disability Services section. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not Quite Ready The table under Election History needs a source. Otherwise looks adequate if a bit short. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs Expansion The assassination of a provincial governor is pretty significant. But that section is relatively bare bones right now. On the upside, the referencing looks decent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His birthplace and birth date are only unsourced. Support when this gets fixed. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good to go; both the birthplace and birth date have already been cited (and it looks like it has been in his "personal life" section all along). Vida0007 (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not push that much here but I believe that this should have already been posted on RD. Attention is needed. Vida0007 (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not great quality, but it is sufficient. Article is well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 session and touring musician, associated with The Section (band) and Jackson Browne. Article is 90% of the way there; though discography needs sourcing to be all the way ready for the main page. Jayron32 16:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Not yet ready A couple of CN tags in the prose (including one on a huge paragraph), and the entire discography section is unreferenced. Curbon7 (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not ready for now as it contains IMDb, FilmReference.com, and Daily Express citations. Some paragraphs are also not referenced including the huge filmography section. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Over 1.7 million views in the past week! I'll try to add some sources by the end of the day. Vacant0 (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the filmography remains unsourced, the rest of the article now contains sources. Vacant0 (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. I've sourced everything in the article and commented out films/television/awards that is unsourced. I think that the article is ready now. Vacant0 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added one cn tag. The filmography section is also partially unsourced, only three films are backed up by sources in the article. The rest of the article looks fine for RD though. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All
Template:Tl tags resolved and removed, the filmography section is now sourced! TailsWx 13:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
Needs work In particular, it badly needs an example of the artist's work. I'll see what I can do. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that you've now added an image, thank you very much. Ollieisanerd (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Two CN tags but not for claims of a highly controversial nature. I think it is adequate for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support All
Template:Tl tags addressed and removed! TailsWx 02:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support Per user above. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks good now, thanks for the work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Relatively routine crime story elevated to something more than it is by the media. Not ITN level content. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A conviction with very little impact to the overall world. Basically, its being in the news due to being a wealthy white person at the center of the case. --Masem (t) 01:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't do run of the mill crime stories. It's 85 degrees here in south Florida. But I see SNOW in the forecast. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination It appears this was hasty. I figured since it had hit even outlets outside the US it was okay to post here. Will note this for next time. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Impact is much clearer now than when Freddy was last nominated. Somewhat low-end impacts for a tropical cyclone article posted to ITN but the impacts are great enough in my mind. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support As with many tropical storm articles, this one is in fantastic shape. Would have no problem highlighting this on the main page. --Jayron32 13:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the impact becomes clearer and clearer. HurricaneEdgar 13:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Is this really in the news? Not top news in most mainstream media, or are they not yet aware?. I am only seeing some few hits (in msm) about its projection stories from early/mid February. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few older stories from the Guardian and BBC amongst others. This cyclone was nominated a bit over a week back but the full impacts are only how becoming clear. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment seems to confirm what I said. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the WPWX/WPTC editors who commented wait in the original nomination, I feel that
Template:Ping hits the nail on the head when they state that the impacts are somewhat low end for TC's & ITN.Jason Rees (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Weak support This just barely seems significant to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, although this is case of news sources simply not giving a shit rather than nothing newsworthy happening. 20 inches of rain fell in Mozambique and new similar totals are expected in Madagascar since the storm is restrengthening. Quite sad actually... news sources would dedicate tons of coverage to a non-impactful storm in the Atlantic but nothing to one that is causing severe flooding in Africa simply because there isn't a high death toll or the impact period is too long. NoahTalk 12:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per my previous rationale and let's get this in already. We did this story a disservice by insisting on waiting for it to drop out of the news. ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 15:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely more notable then ITN items that have been given blurbs in the past. 47.21.27.34 (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, would we be posting this if it was about a hurricane that struck Florida and killed 16 people? Probably not. --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we would likely post this if it were the same death toll in Florida along with flooding and other damage. Masem (t) 02:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
100% we would. The IP editor and Noah above are right. This event would get covered to death if it were in the Atlantic and would have sailed through by now. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This cyclone isn't done yet, but the impacts seem to be significant for a cyclone and expected to get more impactful at some point. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Freddy hasn't dissipated yet, but its long lifespan is notable.
Ah, thanks for the update Edgar. Didn't think that record was in play, particularly outside of the Pacific. Might be worth us waiting to see if it takes sole possession of that record. That would be a meaningful note to put in the blurb as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Notable for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the death toll rises, it may be necessary to post to ITN. HurricaneEdgar 10:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted modified altblurb, as the WP page's listed toll includes Zimbabwe. Using the nom's 2 March date for blurb ordering, although deaths have occured since, and the cyclone made first landfall 2 weeks ago.—Bagumba (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Everything seems to be referenced and the lead has been expanded (there was a tag saying it was too short). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I was just about to nominate this! Well, anyway, I do think that this should go on, but I'm still a little iffy on the article quality of Thoung's page. Correct me if this does fit the requirements to go on the main page, but there's really not much meat on the article's bones, I feel. Maybe the article should be split up a little into separate chunks? I'm not sure, but the article isn't the greatest. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, if this article get on the main page, I think more people will be interested in this subject and edit to make the page better, no? The current article is an almost verbatim translation from the Vietnamese page, which has a weird structure when it comes to Vietnamese political leaders (just listing all the positions without any narrative). Consultant Wiki (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's typically not how we do things. The article needs to be at front-page quality to get posted, we don't post it in order to bring it to front-page quality. We didn't post the resignation of his predecessor primarily due to article quality issues. The Kip (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks a lot better now, so swapping to Support.TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support We usually post on ITN when a new president is voted into a country, so why not post Võ Văn Thưởng's? Vriend1917 (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We usually post whoever is the head of government or who administers the executive. The president of Vietnam does not administer the executive, and he's only the head of state. He has no real power in the country.--RockstoneSend me a message! 03:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article calls him 53, and ours says 52, which suggests trouble. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The president of Vietnam is not considered the major political leader of the the country (thats the communist party leader). This is not ITNR for that reason, and as such not an election we cover. --Masem (t) 18:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The President is the second highest official aftef the General Secretary and is considered one of the Four Pillars of leadership. Additionally, Thuong is also the Standing Secretary of the Party (de facto 5th most powerful position after the Four Pillars). He's also the country's youngest president ever. This is very newsworthy, no? Consultant Wiki (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can be left up for debate, but we typically don't post leadership changes that wield little power; the General Secretary holds nearly all power in Vietnam, despite the formal structure of the government. The Kip (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Masem. The Kip (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nguyen Phu Trong the Gen. Sec. holds actual power, he was even briefly president for some time further highlighting the transience of this position. Only a change to the secretaryship would find relevance for ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Just to note that many things we post on the main page are not in ITNR, the fact that something is missing from the list should not be used as valid rationale for excluding it. --Jayron32 13:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but this case is about routine leadership change most of which are covered by ITNR; so non-inclusion in ITNR would be a factor here and that is only part of my argument to weaken the case for its posting, the rest of the comment explains the rationale further. Gotitbro (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Probably not getting a consensus here, but the president of Vietnam, while not the highest ranking government official, is still the country's head of state and appoints several key lower individuals such as the PM. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is that the Communist Party is the key body of power in Vietnam still. The president and those he may appoint are for the most part figureheads. Masem (t) 03:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do tend to post ceremonial monarchs, though. DecafPotato (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is in good enough shape for the main page, topic is being covered by reliable news sources at a level that indicates this is significant enough for the main page. --Jayron32 13:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We can't post every leadership change, and this is not a significant enough appointment.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As stated above, this is not a major event, especially considering the powers of the president.--Maxxies (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further adding that Britannica does not include a single mention of President/Prime Minister etc. in contemporary Vietnamese history, only changes to the highest Communist Party of Vietnam office are included. Gotitbro (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While the President of Vietnam is the country's head of state technically speaking, in practice, it is the General Secretary of the Communist Party who administers the country.
WP:ITN/R states that Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government should be included, and this is not that. It is also not receiving widespread coverage to warrant an exception. Estar8806 (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
These are not technicalities. Vietnam explicitly has a collective leadership to avoid autocracy and the cult of personality which has bedevilled other communist states. The opposers here seem to be suggesting that every country must follow the same model; that there is just one supreme leader at the top and everyone else must be subordinate. That one-size-fits-all model only seems a good fit for crude dictatorships. Anyway, it's interesting to compare this with what's happening in China now – see Xi Jinping's power grab - and why it matters. Xi is known as a paramount leader and so it's not quite the same. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose President of Vietnam is more like President of Pakistan in terms of power as a comparison, which is very far from actually governing presidents like President of Indonesia. As far as my experience goes, this is something that we post on YEARS articles but not the ITN. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Template:Replyto
There seems to be a significant misunderstanding of the power of the Presidency in Vietnamese politics and the state in general. The most powerful position is, indeed, the General Secretary of the Communist Party. However, I've seen In the News update on cabinet appointments in the US and the election of presidents who have only ceremonial powers (many of them in liberal democracies). The office of the Presidency is not ceremonial in Vietnam and has a lot of power. There is a reason why Vietnam has not instituted the China model in which the Party head and the Presidency are the same because the last office comes with duties and responsibilities that limit the power of the sitting party head institutionally. The case is also noteworthy for being the first case in Vietnam's communist history that a sitting head of state, Nguyễn Xuân Phúc, was removed from office due to not working hard enough to curb government corruption while in office.
Everyone who understands Vietnamese politics understands that something that has never occurred before has just happened. The lack of understanding of communist political systems or inherent bias against them should not stop WP sharing a notable story. I've changed the text as well. --TheUzbek (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Communist governments always have leaders that have "Elections", which are always rigged. Such as that North Korea has a election every five years, but just because they do have a election, doesn't mean they are ITN-Worthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except we have posted rigged elections that had a change in the head of state, as was the case with Turkmenistan. Just because the election is rigged does not mean it is not ITNR; opposers above are saying it is not ITNR for a completely different reason. Curbon7 (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tq. I don't ever recall seeing a cabinet appointment in the US posted to ITN; I'm sure any nomination these days would be shot down very quickly. Similarly presidents with ceremonial powers are not ITN/R and are usually opposed when they are nominated, liberal democracy or not. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It's true, I haven't seen a cabinet appointment, but we did nominate Petr Pavel when he won the presidency of the Czech Republic, which, is a mostly ceremonial position. I also did some digging, and we also put on Xi Jinping when he became President of China, even after he became General Secretary, though, to be fair that was 10 years ago, so I don't think that holds up, but the relationship between President and Prime Minister, and President and General Secretary is very similar in all three countries, I believe, with the President having less power compared to either the Prime Minister or General Secretary.. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your perspective. I am not sure that the election of this president is a clear indication of a dramatic change of policy. It's much more a "management" decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party to replace one of theirs with someone more aligned with the current party's priorities. As you highlighted, while the president of Vietnam is considered to be the second-highest position, the major decisions are made collectively by the Central Committee led by the General Secretary of the Communist Party. A change of the General Secretary will be much more consequential and newsworthy for ITN. Even though people with ceremonial positions from other countries have been In the News before, I think that only well-known people should be considered. For example, I do not think that the election of the president of Germany or Ireland should be posted in this section. Maxxies (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Replyto
In communist systems its easy to get elected but difficult to become a candidate. In a liberal system its easy to stand for election as a candidate but difficult to be elected. The same goes for all election down to the village committee. These systems use way more time on choosing candidates than electing them. In other words, the Central Committee plenary session that nominated Vo Van Thuong is way more interesting than the Emergency Session of the National Assembly that elected him.
As for North Korea, elections are usually way less interesting since a) we know barely anything of whats happening, b) the powers of the Supreme People's Assembly are way weaker than the National Assembly (forty percent of National Assembly deputies in Vietnam voted against the government proposal to stop illegalising homosexuality, that could never have happened in the Eastern Bloc, China or North Korea for that matter) and c) since it has more power, more leeway, has an institutional function to be transmission belt of sorts and is, in the main, responsible for that legislation and laws are adopted correctly the election to play a vital role. These election are of course not as important as those found in liberal democracies, but that's not the point either, and no one is saying that they are as important either.
Template:Reply I feel, and you can disagree with me, that there is an inherent bias on WP against non-Western topics and, of course, non-liberal systems. This hurts our coverage of Vietnam.--TheUzbek (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
Oppose. The prose is good, but the statistics and honours need more references. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. The prose is good ,and he was one of the great stuff of French football.The Premier League is mourning for him today.Also holds the record for most goals in a single WC.JohnWalker — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWalker31 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now One statement in the biography and a few of the individual honours need references. Once that's done, the article should be ready for go. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb, conditional oppose due to the article's condition. He's one of the best player in the world's most popular sport. The fact that his notability as the "greatest football player" is endorsed my Pele should speak by itself. Personally, in my domicile here in Indonesia he had become some sort of a household name in relations to the World Cup. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 19:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD/blurb Looks like the article's issues have been addressed as I no longer see any {cn} tags. If his article would not be blurbed, I support the RD inclusion. Vida0007 (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD No significant issues in the article, but I have some doubts about blurb because he doesn't seem to have enough significant fame that people outside of football would know about him. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Club stats table and some honors remain unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WaitThe race hasn't formally been called, and considering both major opposition parties are calling for a rerun due to irregularities, it may be a little while before this is sorted out. The Kip (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip How exactly do you figure it hasn't been called yet? Almost every major news organization has already called the election. This article [49] from CNN even mentions that the source of the reports is the chair of Nigeria's electoral commission. Estar8806 (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, the BBC News piece I'd read used the phrasing "taken a commanding lead" vs elected. I'll strike that part, but I still advocate waiting. The Kip (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip It was a very recent development, so I'm unsurprised that articles from earlier might say commanding lead rather than declared victory. Estar8806 (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A rerun is very unlikely to happen, due to APC control of all branches of the gvmt. Also, as sad as it is to say, I would be shocked if an election in Nigeria didn't have irregularities at this point, considering the country is coming apart at the seams. Curbon7 (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no one gets this technical when news outlets calls an election for a candidate in the U.S, despite the fact that the electoral votes aren't certified by the states and Congress until December and January respectively. The ageless man is now P-elect of Nigeria. Crusader1096 (message) 06:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be less concerned if it was solely the PDP or LP calling for a revote, but that the opposition as a whole is calling for one is what's giving me pause. The Kip (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Results are final and article is comprehensive. -- Jiaminglimjm (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work It's one of those election pages that is started well in advance of the event and so is full of opinion polls, speculation and future tense. As it's quite large already, it needs going over carefully to bring it up to date with the actual outcome. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Kip - This is an election that has the potential of causing high tensions in Nigeria. Voter turnout at a mere 25%, major irregularities, the whole opposition not recognizing those results, and, as Curbon7 said, the APC basically executing an illiberal, borderline authoritarian government; all this could lead to massive protests. We definitely need to keep an eye on this, but I only give my support for altBlurb once we know more about the aftermath. CDE34RFV (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article does not, anywhere in the prose, say anything about a winner. There's a little bit in the infobox, but that's it. If the article has not been properly updated with a full prose summary of the results of the election, we can't post it. When and if that is done, I will re-assess the quality, but there is no way this article is ready for the main page right now. --Jayron32 14:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that article has been properly updated. I ONLY support the original blurb. I oppose the altblurb and any blurbs that editorialize. Reporting the results of the election is sufficient; problems with the election are in the article and people who click it will learn more there. --Jayron32 12:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seventeen consecutive citations is the worst case of citation overkill I've ever seen. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Walt per Kip. This could be a big story unto itself, and I think striking when the iron is hot would be a better idea rather than rushing out a premature blurb and then continuously updating it.--⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 15:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post now if there are no quality concerns. Voter turnout being low and/or opposition parties disputing the result are not going to lead to a recount or a repeat of the election. The⬡Bestagon 15:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I didn't scroll all the way down but when you do, you find it's huge and has 822 citations. This indicates that there may have been lots of partisan input during the campaign and so that would need checking too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. There are also two more cn tags (the results table is not even backed up by a reference, which is of course important) and many excessive citations. This should be fixed before being posted to main page. Vacant0 (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This still stands. Also, the aftermath section only contains one sentence. Vacant0 (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References have been added to the result figures. The Aftermath section is fully sourced. Preferably it should be longer, but short sourced content is more important than unsourced wall of text. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so this seems to have been fixed though there are still 13 cn tags and many excessive citations. This should be addressed before being posted to main page. Vacant0 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle Let's not fool ourselves. Like I said above, with total APC control of the government, it is extremely unlikely this result will change. We're no strangers to posting less-than-legitimate elections (Turkmenistan most notably), so I don't see why we should renege this one. However, the issues Andrew and Jayron point out above need to be fixed before this is mainpage-ready. Curbon7 (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support No issues with the article. This is a major event in the most populous country on the continent. -- Maxxies (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if the issues within the article are fixed. MarioJump83 (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Photo The man looks high, which in conjunction with his article's prominent heroin trafficking "ties" section, is not a good look. To be clear, I'm not saying he was high in 2011, but he probably has changed. Maybe go with the party's logo, as it was a big win for everyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This oppose completely makes no sense. No, party logo will not be used since the more important image for the topic is readily available . Everyone can ascribe whatever they want for any image. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article has been updated reasonably and is now good enough. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support original blurb. The 'aftermath' section is disappointingly short, just a single sentence, but the article is otherwise extremely comprehensive, which is enough to outweigh that concern. The article should discuss the dispute by opposing parties; the blurb doesn't need to mention it. Modest Geniustalk 13:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There are some issues with excessive citations and a very lackluster aftermath section. But, I think it's good enough for the main page.
Oppose The “Aftermath” section needs more details. The claims by the opposition & the assessment of the EU should be added. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added the necessary details to the “Aftermath” section, so I now support the alt blurb. The dispute is noted in reliable sources, so omitting that feels like it’d be making an editorial decision & omitting notable info. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do not editorialise in an ITN blurb. Most elections in Africa are disputed at one level or another, but our longstanding convention is not to get into such detail in a one line blurb. — Amakuru (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Failing to note disputes seems like editorializing to me. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They have been added. And I'd say the article is very much ready for ITN. -Jiaminglimjm (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality for now - I've identified quite a number of uncited statements in the article which need fixing up first. After that, good to go. I don't know why "wait" has become such a popular ITN vote lately, it's totally unclear what we're waiting for and we don't have a
WP:CRYSTAL ball. This is in the news and ITN/R, so of course it must be posted once the quality is sorted. — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
Posted - I have fixed up the citations that I'd identified earlier, and there was more than enough support other than that for this to go live. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
Article: 2023 DZ2 (talk · history · tag)
Articles: Aperiodic tiling (talk · history · tag) and Einstein problem (talk · history · tag)
Article: Terran 1 (talk · history · tag)
Article: Robert Metcalfe (talk · history · tag)
Article: 2023 World Baseball Classic championship (talk · history · tag)
Article: Sargassum (talk · history · tag)
Article: 
Article: Cyclone Yaku (talk · history · tag)
Oppose - while I generally revile arguments such as WP:NEWSEVENTbeing used in a section dedicated to covering the news, I think instances like this where there really shouldn't be an article at all are acceptable cases for those points to be invoked.
Weak support - I think there's a difference between the UK's subnational governments and those of countries like America. The fact that I and many other foreigners know about Sturgeon but not say Heather Stefanson or Tim Walz is demonstrative of this.
Oppose - 
Wait @WP:RSesare slow to progress and all of these claims are still in dispute and unverified, it's best to wait. If these accusations are authenticated, I will
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
OK. Grimes2 (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Articles: 
Article: Mikaela Shiffrin (talk · history · tag)
Article: 
Article: 2023 Georgian protests (talk · history · tag)
Article: David Chipperfield (talk · history · tag)
_reporters_swarming.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Article: 2023 Estonian parliamentary election (talk · history · tag)
Articles: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (talk · history · tag) and High Seas Treaty (talk · history · tag)_(cropped).jpg)
