Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2023

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

April 30

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Jock Zonfrillo

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Broderick Smith

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Ralph Boston

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) 2023 Paraguayan general election

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

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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

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

(Closed) Caliph of Islamic State killed

[edit]

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


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

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

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

(Posted) RD: Vyacheslav Zaitsev

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) World Chess Championship 2023

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

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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

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

April 29

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Larry "Gator" Rivers

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

RD: Ronnie Cummins

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

(Posted) RD: Mike Shannon

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: István Vágó

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Host of the Hungarian version of WWTBAM. Only one CN tag, rest of the article looks good. Curbon7 (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime


RD: Tim Bachman

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Taheri Noor

[edit]
Article: Taheri Noor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.suarapemredkalbar.com/read/ponticity/28042023/mayjen-tni-purn-taheri-noor-tutup-usia-di-jakarta
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former member of the People's Representative Council. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rosemary Cramp

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Ranajit Guha

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Taini Jamison

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

RD: David Jacobs

[edit]
Article: David Jacobs (table tennis) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

@Andrew Davidson: I have added the disability to the lead, in which case I support this article being on RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Harold Kushner

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

(Closed) First Republic Bank

[edit]

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


Articles: First Republic Bank (talk · history · tag) and 2023 banking crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the United States, First Republic Bank is taken into receivership by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, continuing a banking crisis. (Post)
Alternative blurb: First Republic Bank is taken into receivership by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history, continuing a banking crisis.
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Reuters is reporting that this will happen imminently. As measured by assets, First Republic ($212.6 billion) was slightly larger than Silicon Valley Bank ($209.0 billion) whose collapse we posted last month. Davey2116 (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support if it actually occurs - absolutely huge news and probably a harbinger for an upcoming economic collapse. However, it hasn't officially occurred yet, just merely being discussed by the FDIC. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 01:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait to see if this gets FDIC'd. I would support posting in the case that it does, but the article would need to be updated with precise details; it's not yet ready to post due to the event being a bit of WP:CRYSTAL. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. The hook should mention acquisition by J.P. Morgan. This is the second-biggest failure of a bank in U.S. history, so it's easily notable enough for ITN. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Kaur Singh

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

April 27

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Wee Willie Harris

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Francis Macnab

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

Add Timeline to Ongoing for Russian invasion of Ukraine

[edit]

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



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

Note - what he means is to modify Russian invasion of Ukraine's listing at ongoing to include a link to the timeline article by it. The end result would look like "Russian invasion of Ukraine (timeline)." - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 14:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

RD: Dick Groat

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted RD) RD/blurb: Jerry Springer

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American politician and talk show host, former mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio (1977–1978) and host of Jerry Springer (1991–2018), dies at age 79. Davey2116 (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Good reliable sources. Looks like the article was tagged as lacking information about his personal life. I don't think that's necessarily something that would hold up posting, but it is an orange tag and so it'd be a good idea to address that before posting. Only a couple sentences about the death currently as well, although I realize this news just now broke. --WaltClipper -(talk) 15:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to create a WP:FILMOGRAPHY to cover Mr. Springer's appearances outside of Judge Jerry or The Jerry Springer Show. Currently, the prose covering his other work is extremely top-heavy, and it might be better to condense it into a table. --WaltClipper -(talk) 16:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just removed the tag. "Personal life" is not a requirement for such an article (especially if the information isn't available in reliable sources), and there was no elaboration on the talk page anyways. --Jayron32 16:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds good. I'm a bit surprised about the lack of a personal life section nonetheless, compared to other talk show hosts like Johnny Carson, Jay Leno or Geraldo Rivera. Jerry must have been a very private man. --WaltClipper -(talk) 16:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mean, maybe the information isn't out there, maybe it is, but the burden for tagging an article with something like that is to explain what the problem is in sufficient detail for someone to be able to fix it, for example, if someone had left a list of sources on the talk page showing that the Wikipedia article was missing key information that was available elsewhere. No one did that. Tags left without explanation can be removed without one as well. --Jayron32 16:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good enough for RD. --WaltClipper -(talk) 16:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There are usually more (or at least different) issues with RD articles than the few here. Good to see and feel it's sufficient for RD. CoatCheck (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Notable enough and a good article! EytanMelech 21:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There's still some unsourced statements that I'm not comfortable to approve yet. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - I'm not sure why people are saying that this is sufficient; while not littered with issues, there are still four CN tags. Considering how high-profile Springer was (I mean, I was like 15% in the process of skipping a heartbeat), I'm guessing that there's been a surge in addition of unsourced statements? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 17:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also oppose blurb - his death was not notable in of itself, meaning that under ITN law, he ought to be banished to the RD section. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 03:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see how anyone argues about him being transformative) Kirill C1 (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said any such thing. --WaltClipper -(talk) 17:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, shit. I stand corrected now. This is going to be interesting. --WaltClipper -(talk) 19:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb? A number of obits refer to the transformative nature of his work. Even The Guardian (UK, not US) article starts with "The talkshow host Jerry Springer, a former mayor of Cincinnati whose work was vastly influential in daytime TV worldwide, has died." Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll second this. This was the one show that truly rivaled and even exceeded Oprah (certainly blurb worthy when she passes, knock on wood not anytime soon) in terms of ratings during the 90s. Perhaps it’s appropriate? DrewieStewie (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure for the moment on my actual vote on a blurb, but I certainly endorse having the debate; he was quite a lot more high-profile than most other RDs. The Kip (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for RD and blurb - Jerry Springer was an icon in American media. Article is decent and gives enough history and background about Springer to any curious reader. That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD - but not a blurb. Work on the article fixed nearly all the issues. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose' Still one unresolved cn tag in the "acting" section. Normally one tag wouldn't be a hold up, but the unreferenced paragraph is about 30-40% of that whole section's text. I'm afraid that probably needs to be fixed before this is ready for prime time. --Jayron32 18:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD and blurb Article looks in better shape. Several obits are noting his impact on television such as being a pioneer to present-day "trash TV", plus we did blurb Betty White (rightfully so). His show had also international spin-offs ranging in languages which shows his international impact. *Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!*. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD or blurb. Article is in better shape and he was a definitely notable television personality with his last name being synonymous with 'trash TV'. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Not a significant or transformative figure, nor any sign in the ar/icle discussion his legacy or the like on television. We are being swayed by the "household name" factor here like the situation around Betty White, when we need to look to see if he had a serious impact on the world. --Masem (t) 19:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Masem: Pretty sure your mind is set, but I added a legacy section.
    TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb, subject pioneered an entire genre of television. That he was competitive with Oprah understates that he was doing something completely different and much more controversial, which has since been widely replicated. BD2412 T 19:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This ^^ without Jerry Springer, there's no reality television as we know it today. Also, as a formality, Support Blurb. DrewieStewie (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel strongly about Harry Belafonte not having a blurb, but... if Belafonte doesn't get one, and Jerry Springer does, that's prima facie evidence that our blurb criteria are broken. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I 100% concur with Floquenbeam. Mr. Belafonte had a short legacy section which informed my oppose. Mr. Springer has no legacy section. --WaltClipper -(talk) 20:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a legacy section on the article now, albeit a short one. You could always feel free to be bold and expand on it, too. 😉 Ah, the beauty of being an editor! That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't actually have to do so. Ah, the joys of being a volunteer. --WaltClipper -(talk) 20:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently working on a legacy section. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have supported a blurb for Harry Belafonte, but when I last checked that discussion, there was fairly overwhelming support for a blurb, so I didn't weigh in before more mixed reactions developed. Now I wish I had. BD2412 T 15:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about this as blurb criteria: does the death itself have its own page? Was this person at any point a head of state? If the answer to either question is "no", do not blurb it. Otherwise, we're wasting energy on whether to blurb than on improving the article to get it on the main page to begin with. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thriley: Not only did Regis not get a blurb, he didn't even get posted on RD. No one bothered to improve his article in time to meet the minimum quality standard. Go figure. --WaltClipper -(talk) 20:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I did try. [7][8][9] Kurtis (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regis didn't even make it to RD as the article was largely filled with unreferenced claims at the time. Surprisingly not many votes on that proposal back then either. I would argue, though, that Springer is just as notable if not more notable than Philbin. That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, support RD - As others have pointed out, blurbing a death isn't meant to be some award for an extra notable person. There's a reason why we have RD. Notable people die all the time, entropy marches on. (though I hope Springer can rest in peace now) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only deaths we should blurb should be incredibly notable figures like Elizabeth II, who's death has a profound impact on global or even national affairs. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lol profound impact. nableezy - 15:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted RD. I spotted one or two cn tags, but with an article of this length, this is still acceptable. I do not think we will get a consensus for a blurb here. --Tone 09:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Tone PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stats As usual, our readership decides for itself and the number of views was 1,857,733. That seems significantly more than most other recent deaths and so it doesn't appear that readers are having any trouble finding the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't care about reader stats at all. Masem (t) 12:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed and Andrew did the same thing for Harry Belafonte. Has no relevance to RD at all.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And our readers don't much care for RD entries. One can see this by considering a more routine death such as Richard Riordan, former mayor of LA. He died on April 19 and so the immediate peak in views was 11,139. That then subsided to 540 per day until his entry was posted at RD yesterday. The views then increased to 2,442 so we see that RD attracted about an extra 2000 views – about the same as a mediocre DYK. See also Wikipedia is for readers. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you as always for contributing all of your useful ideas on how to improve this section. WaltClipper -(talk) 17:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Genuine question @WaltCip, is this you being serious or sarcastic? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 17:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew critiques ITN a lot, mostly to point out how out of touch it is with the rest of the Wikipedia when it comes to readership or timeliness. However, I find that at times the criticism tends not to be coupled with any substantive ideas on how to actually improve ITN. It would be more welcomed if he would suggest an RfC or a proposal of some kind. WaltClipper -(talk) 17:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty such discussions on the talk page where I have suggested once again that we treat all RDs alike as other languages do. Per the adage that "you can't manage what you can't measure", such discussions are best informed by data and facts such as the extent to which our readership is clicking through on these entries. See Evidence-based practice... Andrew🐉(talk) 11:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb for the record, doesn't meet the very high bar needed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb—I've been mulling it over pretty heavily over the past day (yeah, really), and although I'm sympathetic to the points made about not blurbing celebrities unless there is something significant about their death, established convention is that we do blurb celebrities who were particularly iconic and transformative; if we wish to discontinue this practice, we should probably start a discussion about it, assuming one hasn't already happened. As for Jerry Springer, I believe that the cultural impact of his talk show has been profound on a global scale. He opened the flood gates for both "trash TV" (as it's called) and for that brand of off-color entertainment as a whole, which has left an indelible mark on society that goes beyond its original medium. In short, I do consider him a transformative figure, and I think he is significant enough for a blurb based on our long-established standards. Kurtis (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Global scale? Sorry, but it's that kind of silly hype that instantly triggers my opposition. Got a source for that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Springer's initial impact on popular culture is that he popularized trashy, lowbrow entertainment for North Americans. This had a domino effect that impacted other genres of TV, namely the comedy and reality genres—and because America is a cultural superpower, its fads and phenomena tend to spread into other countries around the world. If you want references, this writer certainly agrees with me, and I could link many more.

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

I try very hard to avoid posting silly, hyped up opinions here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. Pay me no heed as I continue to flaunt my hyperbolic silliness at ITN. Kurtis (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb His show was so fake that Wayans Bros. parodied it while being on it. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) World's Strongest Man

[edit]

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


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

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Like boxing, strongman events seem neglected but so it goes. It's interesting to see a fresh new face win the event... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Four sentences PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all this talk about lacking any sort of encyclopedic significance for this event, when we frequently post and the like dart championships that barely receive any major coverage. The whole "but those are WP:ITNR" argument doesn't cut it because you're basically saying that since the nombox is green instead of blue, its somehow more worthy of being posted to ITN. By the way, I'm not opposed to dart championships and the like being posted, but at least have some consistency. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 17:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty funny support, in that you provide zero reasons for supporting besides "we post darts". It obviously doesn't matter, since this will never be posted, but I did get a chuckle out of it. -- Kicking222 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am open to posting non-ITNR sport events. However, I agree with the notion by TheBlueSkyClub that this is more akin to a beauty pageant, just with a lot more testosterone. Curbon7 (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article is a disaster. 95% of the article is just tables sourced to a single source, which itself has very little prose. Absolutely none of the actual prose in the body of the article (outside the lede) has any references, and the article as a whole could use with some more prose synopses of the individual events and of the championship as a whole. No way this is main page ready. --Jayron32 18:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 26

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Finbar Cafferkey

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

2023 Dantewada bombing

[edit]
Article: 2023 Dantewada bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In India, ten security personnel and a civilian are killed in an attack by Maoists. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters CNN The Hindu
Credits:

Article updated

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

RD: Billy "The Kid" Emerson

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Closed) Aperiodic set from a single prototile

[edit]

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


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

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

RD: Tangaraju Suppiah

[edit]
Article: Tangaraju Suppiah (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian CNN
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

April 25

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(New) RD: Catherine Morris

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Manfred Weiss (composer)

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

RD: Winfried Bischoff

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

2023 Kabal explosions

[edit]
Article: 2023 Kabal explosions (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 17 people were killed and more than 50 injured as a result of explosions in the building of the Counter-Terrorism Department in the Swat, Pakistan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At least 17 people were killed and more than 50 injured as a result of explosions in the Swat, Pakistan.
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, NY Times, DW
Credits:

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

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

(Posted) RD: Parkash Singh Badal

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

[edit]

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


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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Missing a lot of citations. Mooonswimmer 13:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, with regret I would've thought that Belafonte's article would be in a much better state than it is, but how it is now is a real shame for someone so important. It's missing a ton of citations and there's several orange section tags. I do hope work can be done on it so he can get on the Main Page. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb once fixed He had two distinguished careers, one in entertainment and one in politics at a critical moment for the civil rights movement. His work and death have made waves far outside the US. cart-Talk 16:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Before the discussion RD/blurb continues, the article has so many issues (sourcing, mainly) that it is not ready for any of the two. Fix the article first, then the discussion can continue in a meaningful way. --Tone 16:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think everyone agrees that the article is in need of additional citations before it is added to the main page, which means that the focus of the conversation has naturally diverted towards the element that isn't so clear-cut—whether it should receive a full blurb once ready, or just an RD mention. Kurtis (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Article is in really bad quality. Will support when fixed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb when fixed, also think its not that far off rn either. nableezy - 18:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Idk if its the impossibly high standard that Americans have to be considered significant here or what but Belafonte is significantly more than a transformative musician, and he was that, he was also a significant, maybe even instrumental, figure in the civil rights movement in the US. Bill Russell déjà vu tbh, but maybe its just that era of American history doesnt really register with international or younger audiences, but the I dont know who he is argument is a reason to click the link and try to find that out more than a reason to oppose here. nableezy - 09:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, needs fixes to sourcing. When that is fixed, I would support RD only; blurbs are not rewards we grant extra important people, they are a means of conveying information. Merely noting that a person has died, without any elaboration on it, is what the RD link was created for. If we need to explain the manner of his death as unusual or bearing special explanation, then that is what a blurb is for. --Jayron32 18:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Originally I was going to jump on board the bandwagon and support a blurb based on the feedback given above, but as I think about it, I'm finding that Jayron32's argument is also persuasive. The "transformative" criteria on WP:ITNRD is just as subjective as any of our other significance criteria. He's tops in his field, but we've turned down plenty of people who are tops in their field. (If InedibleHulk were here, he'd be crowing "old man dies" just as he always had before.) But I can be swayed, and as one not familiar with his work, I'd sure like to know what makes him "greatest of the great" besides just "great". --WaltClipper -(talk) 19:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. Never heard of him, which is my personal minimal requirement for a blurb. Sandstein 20:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also am also opposed to a a blurb, but "I personally never heard of him, so fuck him" is an excessively parochial and self-aggrandizing metric for blurb RDs. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 21:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a fair interpretation of Sandstein's rationale. What he said was not intended to denigrate Belafonte or the impact that he has had within his field and beyond—he just opposes a blurb for someone who he hasn't heard of because, from his perspective, lack of familiarity means that the person being discussed can't be that famous. I disagree with his rationale, but I wouldn't classify it as "parochial and self-aggrandizing". Kurtis (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is absolutely valid. Sandstein doesn't present it as a universal criterion that all editors, who haven't heard of him, should oppose a blurb but rather uses it as own indicator to support the vote. If someone else, who hasn't heard of someone, didn't oppose a blurb in the past is completely irrelevant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb - thanks Jayron32 (talk · contribs) for saying what I was thinking. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 20:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://variety.com/2023/music/news/harry-belafonte-best-songs-1235594095/ Kirill C1 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, support RD When weighted against the points per Kiril. CoatCheck (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD article needs work, but pretty notable person who excelled in 2 fields. not sure if it belongs as a blurb, but definitely a important figure for RD. - Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Article looks in way better shape than it was when his death was first reported. Belafonte was top of his field and was the oldest inductee to the Rock and Roll hall of fame with a distinguished career. Nearly an EGOT winner too and an influencial civil rights activist with close connections with MLK. Blurb worthy in my opinion. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Great man in many ways, but it would be totally inconsistent to blurb him after all the other people of equal or greater merit we have ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD–finally, after ~8 hours of work, we finally managed to fix all the issues in the article! I might've caused a few errors; feel free to ping me if there's any! Tails Wx 01:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Support blurb with further improvements This is a bio that clearly demonstrates a legacy beyond just being a notable singer. This type of quality bio is what we want to feature. --Masem (t) 01:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in general, preference for blurb Article looks good for posting. I would agree that the distinguished legacy with regards to calypso and thus its influences makes this a clear candidate for a death blurb. Curbon7 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - Internationally notable and transformative figure through his music and activism. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Colin Powell, the first black Secretary of State and major figure in both Gulf Wars didn’t get a blurb. Belafonte lived an amazing and noble life, but I don’t think he meets the high bar of a blurb. Thriley (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stats Our readership is already reading the article regardless and there were 677,886 views yesterday. That seems typical for such stars who usually get about half a million views on the news of their death. For example, Barry Humphries peaked at 379,924 and Len Goodman at 491,046. To stand out, a superstar needs to go up an order of magnitude and get millions of views. See Famous deaths in 2022 for some comparative stats. Note that the similar case of Sidney Poitier was first run at RD and then got a blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. Blurbs are reserved for only a handful of highly important individuals. While Belafonte has no doubt achieved fame, he doesn't rise to that level when compared against similar figures that we haven't blurbed in the past.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, now that the article is improved, and soon please: people have read that he died and will wonder what Wikpedia is doing when coming with that "news" late. I'm neutral on a blurb that doesn't say much more than that he died. How about - for a compromise - have his picture, and not the face but the iconic lead image of him singing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD posted as quality improved. Discussion on blurb can continue.—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, support RD - Per @Knightoftheswords281 and @Jayron32 PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb as it currently is "Singer, actor and activist". That encapsulates him perfectly and explains his historical significance to the "I've never heard of him" crowd and the "He's only a singer" crowd. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb He helped organize the March on Washington, was the 1st solo singer to make an album that sold 1,000,000 copies, was the black man to win an Emmy & the 1st black man to win a Tony. That seems notable enough for a blurb to me. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jayron32's consistency in applying a standard (albeit a personal one) for death blurbs needs to be appreciated and raises a question whether death blurbs (beyond unusual death ones) need to be done away with altogether due to a significantly higher back and forth and opposition and subjectivity than usual ITN noms. A clearer picture might emerge with an official RfC/consensus on this subject. Gotitbro (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the vote of confidence, but the standard I apply is absolutely not a personal one. It's the standard I read at WP:ITNRD, which states, as part of a longer elaboration on what standards to apply, "if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." I merely was paraphrasing those instructions. I was not applying my own standard. I would never do that, at least, not where there are such well written standards already in place, which have been so for years. --Jayron32 12:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We blurbed Kumar, Shane Warne, Betty White, former Portugal,Philippine presidents Kirill C1 (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Random thought, and I know it hasn't happened in awhile, but it doesn't seen likely, but maybe a Photo RD? The RD is already accepted, and could be middle ground for those that don't support a blurb. TheCorriynial (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no procedure for photo RD, and so it's even less likely you'll get an agreement for one of those. --WaltClipper -(talk) 12:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd expect a longer 'Legacy' section for someone who would be considered transformative enough to merit a blurb. --WaltClipper -(talk) 12:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose largely per Walt. I won't act like I'm an expert on Belafonte, having not actually heard of him before now, but just gleaning what I can about him, we're talking about someone who was fairly notable for multiple things, but not largely notable for any of them. Ultimately, the civil rights accomplishments of Belafonte are his most notable, but the reality is we've passed over several more notable civil rights icons in the past. That's nothing against Belafonte - it's just a matter of the standards we have for ITN deaths. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the reality is we've passed over several more notable civil rights icons in the past, well, possibly, but maybe we should change that? nableezy - 16:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but I'm generally opposed to death blurbs for achievement in general, as evidenced by the discussion related to this topic some time back. Ergo, I'm certainly not starting this trend. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/apr/26/calypso-jazz-orchestral-ballads-the-astonishing-range-of-harry-belafonte
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/25/belafonte-is-gone-poitier-went-before-him-they-were-the-titans-who-uplifted-our-world
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/apr/26/harry-belafonte-activism-civil-rights-movement Kirill C1 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD (obviously). I'm really not opposed to blurb, an EGOT winner and influential civil rights persona should satisfy blurb requirements. Estar8806 (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb for the record. I had withheld judgment before actually !voting. For all the remarking about how excellent his legacy is, that section of his article is lacking, which tells me that his legacy is overstated and not transformative. I suggest people who are involved in the blurb discussion should not be trying to mark it as ready when the consensus is not unanimous. WaltClipper -(talk) 23:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Black Kite did not include a rationale at all in their vote. WaltClipper -(talk) 23:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe read more of the article, like Harry Belafonte § Political and humanitarian activism. nableezy - 23:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, of course. But oppose blurb as he’s not notable for his death, and thus belongs at RD. BhamBoi (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment His death is documented in only one sentene, which is the minimum update for the death of any ordinary person. Looking back at recently posted death blurbs, there seems to be plenty of content (see Pelé for example). Is it really that no more content can be added regarding his death? Isn’t it possible to, at least, mention the commemorations around the world or provide some information on the funeral? I’m afraid that the quality of the blurb isn’t sufficient for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) India officially surpasses China population wise

[edit]

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


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

(Attention needed) 2023 Asia heat wave

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

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

  • Oppose Not very significant for a heatwave. We saw hundreds of deaths across Canada and the US last year from a heatwave.
NoahTalk 01:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I stated in my previous nom, its happening, its receiving WP:RS coverage, and is notable for inclusion as an article. Its record breaking, and has already started to kill dozens of people. Although I'd get putting this in ongoing since it has started before the oldest event on ITN rn (the Finnish reactor), I would prefer putting it as a blurb since it has only started getting mainstream coverage in the past few days. WP:MINIMUIMDEATHS is and shall remain a non-existent policy. Plus, this affects a lot more countries than the American-Canadian one (not to say that shouldn't have been posted). - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 01:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The target article does not present this as a coherent single phenomenon – just as a series of incidents. The blurb is improper synthesis with its vague talk of a heat wave. Insofar as there's a proximate cause, it seems to be a developing El Niño but the article says nothing about that. Watch this space... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support altblurb II mainly because of the quality. Meets the bare minimum but I do think this could still be expanded further, as this is already a major heat wave event in this part of Asia. Vida0007 (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Altblurb II as extent of heatwave is shown to be significant and, like the American heatwaves they are record-breaking events. Whilst list could be expanded more, it meets the requirement for ITN. Happily888 (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


RD: Nikolay Bortsov

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

RD: Casper R. Taylor Jr.

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Closed) Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon depart their shows

[edit]

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


Proposed image
Articles: Tucker Carlson (talk · history · tag) and Don Lemon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In US news media, Tucker Carlson (pictured), host of Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox news, and Don Lemon, co-host of CNN This Morning on CNN, depart their respective networks. (Post)
News source(s): Carlson: NYT - CNN - WSJ - NPR - AP - BI - MSNBC - BBC - France24 - DW, Lemon: USA Today - ABC - CNN - NYT - LA Times
Credits:
Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: That's all folks! Two great American news media giants have been unexpectedly banished from their networks in a single day. This can have enormous effects in regards to US news media, especially considering that Dominion lawsuit that Fox had to endure the other day. It is receiving sustained WP:RS coverage and is In The News, in fact being probably the biggest story in the US and one of the biggest stories of the day globally. (NOTE: CNN 5 (talk · contribs) created the Don Lemon article, but due to parameter limitations in {{ITN candidate}}, he wasn't listed in the above nomination box. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 04:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: José Aníbal Díaz

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Tarek Fatah

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

TheAafi, all referencing issues have been fixed! Tails Wx 04:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Posted. El_C 07:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since all six RD entries, somehow, had been posted less than 24 hours ago, gonna wait a day before posting. El_C 07:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re- Posted. Sorry Gerda, there's no point in me waiting if no one else is. El_C 20:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted): Len Goodman

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

April 23

[edit]

Armed attacks and conflicts

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


RD: Randor Guy

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

RD: Dzhasharbek Uzdenov

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Ready) RD: Nikolay Bortsov

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

RD: Dale Meeks

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Closed) Bed Bath & Beyond

[edit]

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


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

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

(Posted) London Marathon

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

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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

(Closed) UK Emergency Alert System

[edit]

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


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

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Most of the mobile phones in the UK blared out this alarm just now. As ITN is especially interested in disasters, it's interesting to note this counter-measure. I'm not sure what happens elsewhere...? Andrew🐉(talk) 14:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the stuff we report has happened before somewhere else. ITN/R exists purely to list items which keep recurring. Novelty or uniqueness is therefore not a requirement. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Zahoor Hussain Khoso

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Closed) Amritpal Singh

[edit]

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


Article: Amritpal Singh (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In India, Amritpal Singh, Sikh-separatist chief of Waris Punjab De, is arrested following a manhunt despite global protests. (Post)
News source(s): CNN BBC The Hindu Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is a culmination of a massive manhunt which left over 27 million people without internet, over 200 people arrested and carried out across several Indian states for over a month. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Malindi cult

[edit]
Article: Malindi cult (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Kenya, 34 members of a cult in Malindi are rescued after its leaders allegedly instructed their followers to starve themselves, resulting in at least 103 deaths. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A mass grave is discovered in Malindi, Kenya, containing the bodies of at least 103 members of a religious cult who starved themselves to death
Alternative blurb II: ​ In Kenya, 34 members of a cult in Malindi are rescued and at least 103 die, after its leaders allegedly instructed its followers to starve themselves.
Alternative blurb III: ​ In Kenya, 34 members of a cult in Malindi are rescued, at least 103 die, and at least 200 go missing after its leaders allegedly instructed its followers to starve themselves.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ In Kenya, over 200 people go missing and at least 103 are found in mass graves near the village of Shakahola after the leader of a cult allegedly instructed members to starve themselves.
Alternative blurb V: ​ In Kenya, at least 103 members of a cult in Malindi are found in mass graves near the village of Shakahola after their leader allegedly instructed members to starve themselves.
News source(s): Reuters - BBC - ABC AU - DW - Al Jazeera - The Guardian - SCMP - WaPo - Citizen Digital - AP - Tuko - Reuters2
Credits:

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

We do not use IAR to deal with stale moving news. We can't force news to happen. Also, the article needs a lot of serious work to get anywhere close to posting. Masem (t) 03:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IAR was used when the East Palestine train derailment was posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No reference to any specific individual as perpetrator appears in the proposed blurb. The victims are dead whether or not some of the specifics of their deaths are sub judice. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've just significantly expanded the article. I still need to expand the section regarding the actual newsworthy incident; the mass starvations, but I'll get them done tonight. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 18:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Modest Genius, @Jayron32, @GenevieveDEon, @WaltCip, @Amakuru. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 01:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what happens when we allow consensus and development to actually play out rather than closing things super-fast like. --WaltClipper -(talk) 19:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

[edit]

Armed attacks and conflicts

Disasters and accidents

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

International relations


(Attention needed) RD: Frank Shu

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

RD: Mudar Badran

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

(Posted) Discovery of the Montevideo Maru

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Montevideo Maru (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Pacific, the wreckage of the Japanese Montevideo Maru (pictured c. 1941), sunk by the US during World War II, killing over a thousand Australian POWs, is discovered. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Pacific, the wreckage of the Japanese Montevideo Maru (pictured c. 1941), sunk by the US during World War II while possibly carrying over a thousand Australian POWs, is discovered.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the Pacific, the wreckage of the Japanese Montevideo Maru (pictured c. 1941), sunk during World War II while carrying over 1000 Australian civilians and POWs, is discovered.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The wreckage of the Montevideo Maru (pictured c. 1941), a Japanese vessel sunk by the US during World War II with over 1000 captive Australian nationals onboard, is discovered in the South China Sea.
News source(s): CNN - Reuters - BBC - France24 - DW - NPR - Sky News AU - Al Jazeera - ABC AU - The Telegraph - The Independent - SMH - The Daily Telegraph - VOA
Credits:
Article updated

Nominator's comments: This sunk Japanese ship was carrying over a thousand Australian POWs, and is considered one of the darkest and most controversial moments in Australian history. Its discovery has received a lot of coverage from mainstream WP:RS sources and will hopefully lead to many answers within Australia. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because despite Hawkeye7's comment, what level is that? For example, to get to this story at the Sydney Morning Herald requires me to go from the front page -> Politics (?) -> Federal. And from there it is the 8th highest story. Behind 4 cartoons stories. It simply is not something that has attracted much attention. And thats even in Australia, for whom it is their worst maritime disaster. A text search for ship on the CNN homepage takes me to this story and this story. The news was when it sunk. This is trivia now. nableezy - 00:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't get this argument. This is one of the most simultaneously restrictive and loose blurb-criteria I've ever seen. By this logic, should ITN feature the marriage between Jonathan Owens and Simone Biles, or how the Whopper is Burger King's advantage over McDonalds since those are at the top of CNN's website? Or some Sydney mom buying her son a house since that's on the front page of the SMH? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, my view is that something being in the news means it is front page news at least somewhere. In the internet age everything is covered internationally. What matters to me is depth and prominence of that coverage. No, I would not cover those stories here either, but they are treated as bigger stories than this in each of those sources. I dont think ITN should feature minor things on the front page of Wikipedia that even news sources dont consider important enough to feature on the front pages of their websites. nableezy - 03:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That may be your view, but it is not the consensus position of ITN (broad international coverage is not explicitly required), and so I do not believe it is your position to hint that someone stop nominating stories just because they don't fit your view of notability. --WaltClipper -(talk) 13:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about broad international coverage Sherlock. I do not believe it to be your position to be the police officer of ITN, a position you seem to have appointed yourself to. Yall can vote for this, i legit do not care, but you make a mockery of every other story you reject while doing so (eg this is ITN worthy but Ralph Yarl is not lulz). What you are showing is how personal bias runs this place, not any objective criteria. And you can do that, again I dont care, but I choose not to. nableezy - 14:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've appointed myself to nothing, other than pointing out your viewpoint doesn't reflect the current consensus and pointing out you're unfairly pillorying a good-faith nom. But you are of course entitled to your opinion. WaltClipper -(talk) 15:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you did that by misreading my position. I dont expect worldwide coverage. I expect it to be front page news somewhere. See here for my general thoughts on what ITNCRIT calls the highly subjective significance criteria. My subjective criteria is is the story front page news at least somewhere. And here it is not. Most days I read pretty deep in to the NYT, and I dont even live in NY, but even sometimes going in to the local coverage sections. But I would only suggest things here that grace their front page, because if it isnt significant enough to be on the front page of whatever news sources Im bringing here then it isnt significant enough to be on the in the news on the front page of Wikipedia. In my opinion obviously. nableezy - 16:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is why the news requirement is that the topic be in the news - not where it is on a news' overall coverage that day, nor how many news sites cover it. Perhaps the only thing is to make sure that there's sufficient topic independence in the news site - eg if this was only being reported by Japanese or Australian sources, that might be too close, but with CNN and The Telegraph covering it, that is not a problem here. Masem (t) 03:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zagalejo: Unfortunately, it seems to have less to do with the suitability of the topic and more to do with the perceived track record of who nominated it—an editor who has recently taken an interest in ITN, has made several submissions over the past month or so (many of which were unsuccessful for one reason or another), and is making a clear effort to learn from his mistakes while still being willing to take risks. That should be applauded, not chastised. Kurtis (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assure you that I applaud the enthusiasm. nableezy - 17:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment due to the lack of unclear nature of the true number of those on board, I would state that instead of "killing over one thousand Australian POWs", it would be better to say "believed to have been carrying over one thousand Australian POWs" before the line about being sunk. That number is still why this wreck and discovery are key, but it does seem the exact numbers have been lost to time. --Masem (t) 00:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also you don't need to spam the source list; that can bog down this page if every ITNC has that many. You just need two or three sources, but you can use all those other sources in the article itself. Masem (t) 00:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The sources demonstrate widespread international coverage and the update seems adequate. As this is lasting and sustained coverage of a controversial and substantial loss of life, this is quite encyclopedic. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The discovery is unique, the closing of an event of close to eighty years. Covered internationally as shown by the nominator. --Ouro (blah blah) 02:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The discovery of such a ship is quite important, and this is the end of an over 80-years old mystery. we're 82 years behind on posting this news, but I still think it belongs on ITN just based on merit. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Per Nableezy. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I am sure that if the wreck of Amelia Earhart's plane were found in the Pacific, some people here would still object to an ITN posting on the grounds that the plane actually crashed in 1937, over 85 years ago. To the rest of the world it should be obvious that the event being nominated is the finding of the wreck. The same applies to finding the wreck of Montevideo Maru. The find will go into the history books and will impact several countries, including Japan, Australia, and the U.S. Nsk92 (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Nsk92. BilledMammal (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I'm usually across the aisle (as it were) from many others voicing support here, I think there is merit in posting. It's an interesting historical event getting a sizable amount of international news coverage (and it's not as if there's just one AP article getting spread around, i.e. the NY Times, CNN, and Al Jazeera all have unique articles). I don't love the blurb ideas and would just say "sunk by the US" instead of mentioning a possible death toll. -- Kicking222 (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An interesting historical event belongs at DYK, not ITN. nableezy - 14:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which does not apply here, as the discovery of the wreckage is a current event. Kurtis (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is a current event, but not significant news. nableezy - 17:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—And I'll actually propose a new alternate blurb for consideration: The wreckage of the SS Montevideo Maru (pictured c. 1941), a Japanese vessel sunk by the US during World War II with over 1000 captive Australian nationals onboard, is discovered in the South China Sea. Kurtis (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numbers It's puzzling that the blurbs and the comments above keep talking about the number of Australians being over 1000 when the sources seem to consistently say that it was just less than a thousand, with the rest being from numerous other countries. If the exact numbers are debatable or disputed then we should avoid being specific in the blurb and leave the detail to the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support despite some of the opposition verging on personal attack, yes, this is actually notable based on the amount of news coverage. WaltClipper -(talk) 13:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this discovery is significant, considering the degree of loss of allied civilian life in an allied attack. Still not happy with any of the blurb options, but I won't let that be a roadblock. Curbon7 (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Titanic this is not. A footnote of WWII history except, I assume, to Australians. The article is not in great shape, it rambles on about supposed errors and contradictions in its sources, and it does not tell us, e.g., how the survivors of the sinking were rescued and what reaction, if any, the US Navy had to one of its subs killing 1,000 allied personnel. Sandstein 19:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sinking of Montevideo Maru was the worst-ever maritime disaster in Australia's history.[13] That's way more than a historical footnote. Nsk92 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the 'except to Australians' part. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was important news in 1942. Less so now. Sandstein 22:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, we’re not supposed to oppose an item b/c it may only be of interest to a single country. Also, as a non-Australian who has a history degree, this is interesting to me. I’m guessing it’d interest many others who are interested in history. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose more or less per Nableezy but without the snark. Interesting that the ship was found, but what exactly is the impact of this event? Perhaps the sinking was notable at the time, but what does the finding actually mean other than that we know where the ship us now? DarkSide830 (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination is about the discovery of the wreck, not the sinking. It was not news in 1942, because although USS Sturgeon reported sinking a ship at that location, none of the prisoners were rescued and the extent of the disaster was not revealed until after the war. It was not the last time that US submarines sank ships containing large numbers of Allied prisoners of war. On 7 September 1944 the USS Paddle sank the SS Shinyō Maru with 750 Allied prisoners of war on board. Then, on 11-12 September, a wolf pack attacked a convoy and sank the SS Rakuyō Maru with 1,159 Allied prisoners on board, and the SS Kachidoki Maru with 950 Allied prisoners on board. On 23-26 October two wolf packs attacked a convoy and sank ten ships, one carrying 1,800 American prisoners of war. Thus, US submarines killed over 4,000 Allied prisoners of war in just six weeks. Looking at the opposes above, I don't think this is widely known, and in my view provides a compelling reason for running this item. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Nsk92. Any blub aside from altblurb II is ok - since the fact that it was sunk by a US submarine is significant enough to be necessary in the blurb. Flyingfishee (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bit too niche for ITN. If it was a new article it would have been a good fit for DYK. As Sandstein mentioned, the article quality isn't that great, and it has only a minimal update. Sometimes a great article can make up for a relative lack of news coverage - this is not one of those times. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For those unfamiliar with DYK: If the article was new it would be eligible for DYK. But it still has two possible paths. The article could be expanded fivefold. It is currently 6,490 bytes (1,065 words) "readable prose size", so this would involve expanding it to 32,450 byes (~5,000 words). Or it could be fixed up and nominated for GA, which would also make it eligible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Nsk92. Jusdafax (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rambahadur Limbu

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

RD: Noor Jehan (elephant)

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Barry Humphries

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

Support - I see no reason to hold off posting this. Estar8806 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Let's go. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WTF. 86.187.175.83 (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what are you talking about. Ollieisanerd (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been five days since he died. The article is fine. It's been marked Ready for days. Still not posted. Shameful. 81.154.245.183 (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is, it's just that the admins seem to be more focused on other things, and are completely forgetting about this. We now have two days until the cut-off point for posting, and it would be a shame that all the hard effort put into getting this page ready would go to waste. Ollieisanerd (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alas this is a very common story at ITN noms. No wonder people don't bother. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need to post this quickly. T. E. A. Mackie (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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


Article: 2023 Asia heat wave (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The heat wave has been ongoing for about a week as of today. Isi96 (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Target article seems well-sourced and contains enough prose that I'd rate it at least start class. The sources mention that the heat wave is breaking records in multiple countries and that the heat is so excessive that it caused road surfaces to melt in Dhaka, which sounds extreme enough to be notable. Story is still developing. The article doesn't mention high numbers of reported casualties, but this is an ongoing nom, not a standalone blurb nom.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In a scenario of global warming, heat waves are common. In the event that this particular one causes a notorious number of casualties, we may decide to include it as an ITN. But not in ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose - blurb maybe if/when it merits it, but as far as I recall past weather events were blurbed when it merited it, not put in ongoing. nableezy - 17:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Articles needs significant improvement to justify this as a single and notable event. That high temperatures were broken across multiple countries doesn't necessarily equate to a solitary event driving it. --Masem (t) 18:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, weak support ongoing - its happening, its receiving WP:RS coverage, and is notable for inclusion as an article. Its record breaking, and has already started to kill dozens of people. Although I'd get putting this in ongoing since it has started before the oldest event on ITN rn (the Finnish reactor), I would prefer putting it as a blurb since it has only started getting mainstream coverage in the past few days. The article does need some expansion though. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 19:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we don't usually post about heat waves, and, as much as I hate to be the one to say it, Heat waves are becoming more and more common due to global warming, so, if we post this one, we're gonna potentially post about stuff such as "North American Heat wave" "African Heat wave" and "European Heat wave", and by summertime, Ongoing is going to have like 4 heat wave-related articles. If this cause any major destruction to infrastructure, or harm many people, then I can see where this nomination is coming from. but so far, none of that has occured. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We most certainly do post about heat waves if they're severe enough: North America 2021, Pakistan 2015, just to name a couple. Kurtis (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If this gets severe enough Id support it, just dont think it is there yet. nableezy - 21:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose for Ongoing, Weak support for blurb. I think Knightsoftheswords218 captures my feelings pretty well, though I think this feels like it needs to be a blurb first. If it is still happening when it rolls off of the blurbs, we can consider moving it to ongoing. --Jayron32 16:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 21

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

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

Disasters and accidents

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

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Emily Meggett

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Sergio Rendine

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Enver Baig

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

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

  • Not yet ready Prose is not yet updated with his death. Prose could also use some expansion, particularly with regards to his Senate tenure, as the article currently read like a resume of positions he's held. Curbon7 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7: I have added the death update to the prose, as well as fixed up some ref issues alongside. Article should not be that bad, but the prose could use expansion, therefore I give it a weak support. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jeremy Nobis

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Russian invasion of Ukraine

[edit]

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


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

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: Israel Judicial Reform unrest

[edit]

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


Article: 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: Article is no longer being updated frequently, protests have seemed to die down. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - still receiving daily updates, including major entries every couple of days, as evidenced in the history. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 16:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support That history shows only a single substantive edit since April 15, which was also when the last major event occurred. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - still in the news. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: 2023 French pension reform unrest

[edit]
Article: 2023 French pension reform unrest (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: So here's the problem. While this is still in the news and is talked about a lot on it, the article is NOT getting updates. The most recent update was from April 14, a whole week ago. Per the guidelines specified on WP:ONGOING,

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

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

April 20

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Richard Riordan

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

(Posted) RD: Kenji Yonekura

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

RD: Salma Khadra Jayyusi

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

Fakescientist, it should be sourced now! Tails Wx 00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Buzzfeed News shuts down

[edit]

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


Article: BuzzFeed News (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American digital media conglomerate BuzzFeed shuts down its news website, causing the company's stock to collapse by 16%. (Post)
News source(s): The Independent - NYT - Variety - NPR - WSJ - NBC - CNN
Credits:
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Buzzfeed News just shut down, with its parent company's stock value collapsing by 15%. It's the end of an era, eh? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 20:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Solar eclipse 2023

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Solar eclipse of April 20, 2023 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A hybrid solar eclipse occurs across the South Pacific in Australia, East Timor, and Indonesia. (Post)
News source(s): (New York Times) (People.com)
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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

Support - passes WP:N. I'm American, and I still heard a lot of huff puff about this online. Also, it was pretty big in Oceania, where it was visible, with it becoming a big moment for astrotourism and costing governments tens of millions of dollars (Australian). Additionally, it was a hyrbid solar eclipse, which are exceptionally rare, only accounting for 3% of eclipses in the 21st century. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 18:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on Quality - Article is a stub with. Also, I can't tell but are the three "series" sections unsourced? Because they look like it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Harold Riley

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) Starship maiden launch

[edit]

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


Proposed image
Article: SpaceX Starship orbital test flight (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: SpaceX Starship, the most powerful rocket in history, launches from Starbase, Texas, before exploding in the upper atmosphere (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ SpaceX Starship, the most powerful rocket in history, makes its maiden flight
Alternative blurb II: ​ SpaceX launches Starship, the most powerful rocket ever launched
Alternative blurb III: SpaceX Starship, the most powerful rocket in history, launches from Starbase, Texas, before exploding three minutes into the flight
Alternative blurb IV: ​ SpaceX Starship, the most powerful rocket in history, successfully launches from Starbase, Texas, before exploding three minutes into the flight
Alternative blurb V: ​ SpaceX's Starship, the most powerful rocket ever built, explodes in midair on its first launch attempt
Alternative blurb VI: ​ SpaceX conducts an orbital launch test of Starship, which ends in an explosion three minutes into the flight.
News source(s): BBC CNN
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The most powerful rocket ever launched. The beginning of humanity's journey into the Solar System. Incredibly notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mars journey-sized support. Just watched it with my daughters. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, good way of putting it! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm... I'm really put off by the fact that I have to consider ITN-worthy as (yet another) millionaire's whim. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POV. This is way more than just a millionaire's whim, this is a hugely significant event in the history of spaceflight! All over the news, has broken many records. Would we have posted Apollo 4? (Since this was basically on the same scale, if not more significant.) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a good question. I have the suspicion that if ITN were around back then, that only Apollo 8, 11, and 13 (and yes, probably 4) would have been posted due to their overwhelming significance as compared to other launches in the series (despite them all being landmark events in their own right). But we'll never know the answer to that interesting hypothetical. I still contend, of course, the Watergate burglary would never have made ITN back then. --WaltClipper -(talk) 13:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important discussion to have as humanity returns to the Moon in the next few years. Personally, I believe all the Apollo missions would've been notable for posting. In regards to the Artemis program, I think we should definitely post the first missions back, until a point where they come routine enough. The event is hugely notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added NYT ref should take care of the tags. 194.102.58.8 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to go! --Jayron32 14:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all over the news, and a significant milestone in man's journey to the Solar System. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - the blurbs only link the actual rocket however, and not the article about the actual launch. Considering how symbiotic the two are, I'd suggest bold linking both articles in the blurb. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unsuccessful test that didn't reach space, let alone orbit. I'll be happy for us to post a blurb if/when this rocket successfully reaches orbit. Modest Genius talk 15:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except it was successful? The principal objective was to test the new rocket and get it off the ground, which it did. Sure, it exploded, but it had already accomplished the former. Like @PrecariousWorlds stated, explosion =/= failure. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 16:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only because SpaceX set very limited criteria, deliberately designed to cover themselves in case the mission wasn't completed. They want to claim some good PR whatever happened. The launch was intended to reach space on a suborbital trajectory and re-enter near Hawaii. That wasn't achieved. The rocket got off the ground, yes, but exploded shortly thereafter. Even if this flight had achieved its full goals, it still wouldn't have entered orbit, so I'm not convinced it would be suitable for ITN. Not even managing stage separation is a major failure for a rocket. Modest Genius talk 16:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you understand the history of SpaceX, you'll know that they take an incredibly iterative testing process, unlike others in the space industry who prefer to get things right on the first go (usually because they are dependent on public funding, rather than SpaceX which has a large pool of private funds). Just look at the early Falcon 9 launches, nearly all of them would be deemed by most as a "failure", yet the immense amount of data gathered from it allowed the Falcon 9 to become the most successful rocket program...ever, now launching twice a week, with no "failures" in over 100 launches. They weren't trying to cover themselves for PR in this launch by saying a RUD was likely, rather making an accurate assessment that this is completely uncharted territory, and following their previous design policy. To say this is a failure implies that it's some devastating loss to SpaceX, when in reality they were completely planning for this outcome. It just isn't accurate. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of the history. I'm also aware that SpaceX has vast legions of fans, who cheer everything they do regardless of how impressive it actually is, and very slick PR to generate positive news coverage. IMO the correct time for ITN to post this rocket is when it successfully reaches orbit, not before. We can't have a blurb for every incremental step towards that goal. Modest Genius talk 16:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I'll bring up previous points:
    This is literally In The News, with significant coverage from just about everywhere, and marks the most powerful rocket launch in history, with twice the thrust of the Saturn V. It is the first flight of Super Heavy, and the integrated stack of Starship. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And it blew up before stage separation. It was a test flight that failed to reach its objectives, didn't get to space, and didn't enter orbit. We have fundamentally different views of whether that is sufficient to justify a blurb in ITN - which is OK - and simply restating them isn't going to change either opinion. Let the discussion play out and see how everyone else !votes. Modest Genius talk 17:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you're right, this discussion isn't getting to anywhere. I can see your point, but I do believe this is notable enough for posting. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way SpaceX laid it out, nearly any outcome would be classified as a success. But they had a planned mission for it (perform a stage separation, reach space, make a suborbital flight that impacted into the Pacific Ocean) that was not completed. Spinning everything into a positive doesn't actually change the definition of spaceflight. Do remember as well: SpaceX calling it a success is a primary source, not secondary. And the news articles aren't specifically calling it a "success," they're talking about how it exploded.
    I'd also mention that we had a clearer example a last month with the Terran 1 launch: it actually did pass the Kármán Line, and its launchers said that "anything past Max Q made it a huge success," that didn't stop it from being considered a failed launch. And ultimately kept it from being posted to ITN as well. Nottheking (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The rocket failed, full stop. Even SpaceX acknowledged this. What makes this ITN worthy is that its the largest rocket to fly in 50+ years and the largest rocket to go kaboom in 50+ years. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweet never said a failure, only that Starship had an RUD, which as stated above was expected. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just stop denying the facts. If you are into Starship, you would know that "rapid unscheduled disassembly" = rocket go kaboom = failed launch. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we define a launch to a vessel taking off from its original location, then strictly speaking the launch was a success (as the commentators during the live cast said). I had to have my spherical cow moment. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. RUD that was expected to happen is not the same as a complete failure. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of outlets are labeling it as a success. On Wikipedia, we rely on secondary sources to interpret primary ones for us. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 17:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to see these secondary sources; though keep in mind that the talk headers for numerous relevant pages do warn that a lot of ostensibly second sources (such as space.com or Teslerati) are not considered neutral enough for use in sourcing.
    So far what I've seen is that they've been qualifying it, noting that it lifted off, but all noting that it exploded and/or failed to achieve its objectives. That sounds less like "calling it a success" and more "labeling it at least a partial failure." Nottheking (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Partial failure maybe, we could keep arguing semantics all day about this really, but my point is that simply labeling it a failure is misleading. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Reliable source coverage is stating the following regarding this launch in headlines:
    New York Times: "The most powerful rocket ever built got off the launchpad in South Texas but did not achieve its most ambitious goals on Thursday."
    The Verge: "SpaceX’s integrated Starship spacecraft successfully took off from its launchpad in Boca Chica, Texas, on Thursday but didn’t manage to fully complete its test flight."
    CNN: "SpaceX’s Starship, the most powerful rocket ever built, took off from a launch pad on the coast of South Texas on Thursday at 9:28 a.m. ET, but exploded midair before stage separation."
    CBS: "SpaceX launched its 500-foot-tall Starship, by far the world's most powerful rocket, on an uncrewed test flight Thursday morning, but a few minutes after clearing the launch pad it failed in a midair explosion."
  • So it seems not even the media can really decide whether it was technically a success or a failure. This is going to make the conversation here difficult. --WaltClipper -(talk) 16:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately a lot of people just see an explosion and assume "Wow, what a failure!", when in reality they were not even expecting Starship to make it that far, and the valuable data they got out of the launch made it well worth the loss. In this case, I think we should go with what industry experts think rather than sensationalist headlines. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it is confirmed to have failed according to most reputable news sources. Flyingfishee (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't yet a consensus, and a majority of sources actually within the space industry are not deeming it a failure ([16][17][18][19][20] and more) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even the BBC says that it isn't considered a failure PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly I don't think we should take Twitter posts as valid evidence of the success, and secondly even if this launch did succeed it's dubious whether we should post it. The "largest spacecraft" is a record that will certainly be beaten in the next few years so there's no reason for us to jump the gun and post it now, especially when one can (and should) argue that this wasn't even a successful launch in the first place. Flyingfishee (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That twitter post was by an incredibly credible and reliable industry expert who has been covering space for years and writes for Ars Technica, and while I agree we shouldn't use Twitter posts as reliable sources for posting, it's just one example of many that this launch has not been deemed a failure.
    As for the last point, please tell me what spacecraft is launching in the near future that will surpass the power and capacity of Starship. No one in the industry is attempting something of this scale, and even if they were as you say, it is still years away. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The main objective of this test was to clear the launch tower. 2A02:2F0B:B500:5A00:CCF7:1410:791:32C0 (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to put this rudely but frankly most people will view it as failure, and rightly so, if it didn't make it into space. It didn't make it into space and therefore the common opinion is that the launch was a failure. To argue otherwise is like saying chatGPT will cause singularity because it's the closest we've gotten so far. Flyingfishee (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That has no relation to what I'm arguing for here. A majority of reliable sources within the space industry say the opposite, it doesn't really matter what people who don't know the actual objectives of the launch think it is. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is just sugarcoating. Of course all companies/orgs will learn from their failures, and "gather the data" as SpaceX might said. But it's disingenuous to say that a rocket that do somersaults and then exploded a success. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    after considering the arguments of @PrecariousWorlds and @CactiStaccingCrane I think I am able to Support altblurb V or VI. While it was unsuccessful in the common view that doesn't make it non-notable, a failure of something notable can be notable. Therefore it is ITN worthy - we just have to specify that this rocket exploded mid-flight. Flyingfishee (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I think that sounds like a good plan, with my own preference for altblurb III PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb IV—The fact that it successfully cleared the tower is an important element of the story that should be mentioned on the main page. Kurtis (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per Modest Genius' rationale. It did not make it to space.Found5dollar (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: While there's a lot being said by its operators to say "well, the real success was the lessons we learned along the way," it remains that this did not achieve the definition of spaceflight: the stack achieved a maximum altitude of 39 km, well below the 100 km of the Kármán Line. And it did not even achieve its own planned objectives. A successful flight would've resulted in it entering space on a suborbital trajectory, with Starship impacting into the Pacific Ocean.
It's also worth noting that we seemed to decline posting the Terran 1 launch back in March, as that rocket failed to achieve orbit. (though it did reach space, achieving a maximum altitude of nearly 120 km if memory serves) The discussion mostly focused on the fact that it did not achieve its full mission or orbit, and ultimately it went un-posted. By contrast, this was a mission with a lower threshold (suborbital spaceflight, not orbit) and it failed to even achieve spaceflight.
In the grand scheme of things, this wasn't the "first" flight of this program, unless we qualify it rather heavily. It was the first liftoff of a booster designed to go to orbit, except that the mission (even if nominally completed) wasn't orbital. It was preceded by numerous prototypes before it, and (at the risk of trending into WP:CRYSTAL) will likely be succeeded by further flights. Out of all of them, is this one we can confidently say is of the most encyclopedic significance? I'm pretty confident on a "no" as the answer to that question: the most significant "first" for the program will either be its first flight into space or into orbit. While I'd be open to a debate on which one when the time comes, for now that distinction is purely academic. Nottheking (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to crystalball what is gonna happen next launch, SpaceX will try 5 more times until it reentries the atmosphere near Hawaii, and then ITN will decide the incremental rate of success is not worth posting at any of the 6 launch attempts, because incremental. It's a different success path to what ITN has seen in the field, so of course it's gonna stick to the oldschool thinking. 2A02:2F0B:B500:5A00:CCF7:1410:791:32C0 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should have posted Terran 1, and this rocket was much more complex and powerful than Terran 1, so that automatically gives it more weight.
At the end of the day, this is a major milestone in spaceflight history, and is literally In The News PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we've seen, time and again, that simply being "in the news" is not sufficient, hence why ITN doesn't cover all the random celebrity drama that drowns much of it. It needs to both be in the news and have encyclopedic significance. (after all, SpaceX has conducted 12 highly successful launches of StarLink this year alone, and every one of them wound up in the news... And none of them were even nominated here)
And the complexity & power isn't something that we measure here; Wikipedia isn't in the business of making arbitrary numerical cutoff lines, (to borrow from another subject often appearing here, we don't have a WP:MINIMUMDEATHS) but deal in terms of encyclopedic subjects. In this case, it's spaceflight & orbital spaceflight, neither of which this met the conditions for.
It's also worth noting that we didn't even get a nomination for SN8 back in December 2020, which in many ways could be counted as the same category: SpaceX labeled it a success, while it was clear it didn't complete its objectives and exploded as a result.
So it's pretty clear that the milestone we're waiting for isn't here: at minimum, it'll need to reach space, not just 39 km up into the stratosphere. Had this succeeded, it'd have made that mark, but just because it was planned isn't sufficient alone. Nottheking (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me where in the ITN guidelines is encylopedic significance mentioned and more over what that even means. Are you stating that the event is unencyclopedic and that it should go to WP:AFD? Also, just because we didn't post SN8 doesn't mean that we can't post this story, per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, especially with how fluid consensus can be on ITN. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 17:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between saying "X wasn't posted so therefore Y shouldn't either" (which wasn't my statement) but rather, "X didn't meet criteria, and there's a large body of X that occurred, and thus it stands there's a logic to it, that when applied to Y, indicates that Y doesn't merit posting either."
Atmospheric rocket-powered flights are fairly commonplace. Mentioning SN8, SN15, and others shows that these are comparatively common events, and not unusual. Had it actually made it to space at minimum, it'd be a different discussion; but for now, it's just another atmospheric test flight. It'd be akin to calling it ITN-worthy that a political candidate of X demographic had been nominated for an election for a country's Prime Minister: while their election might be newsworthy on grounds of them being the first of their kind elected as head of government, if they don't win the election it isn't.
It's the same thing here: it might've been the first liftoff of Super Heavy (but not of Starship) but again, it didn't make it to space, much less orbit. Nottheking (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" It'd be akin to calling it ITN-worthy that a political candidate of X demographic had been nominated for an election for a country's Prime Minister: while their election might be newsworthy on grounds of them being the first of their kind elected as head of government, if they don't win the election it isn't." Flawed analogy, considering there wasn't a winner in this circumstance. And "X didn't meet criteria, and there's a large body of X that occurred, and thus it stands there's a logic to it, that when applied to Y, indicates that Y doesn't merit posting either." is just a more wordy rephrasing of "X wasn't posted so therefore Y shouldn't either". PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it is the biggest rocket to ever flown since the Saturn V and caused the biggest rocket explosion since the N1 (rocket), both are last flown over 50 years ago. Records were made, even if it doesn't reach orbit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter what SpaceX or a random person define the launch either as a success or failure (it failed). But a rocket that broke many spaceflight records should be listed as ITNs. Even more so if it caused a failure as this would made appearance all over international news. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I support blurb V and VI because it is short and sweet. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that also creates notability. This is one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guess that Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions need an update... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have enough data to update it at the present moment. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It did not explode; it was destroyed by its own on-board self-destruct. The Superheavy Booster was already effectively depleted, leaving just the propellant load aboard Starship itself (~1200t vs. 3400t on Superheavy) to be scattered. Since we saw it as a big white cloud, that means it did not ignite; there was no combustion, and no explosion beyond the power of the pyrotechnics fired that ripped the vessel open. Had a detonation of the propellant actually occurred, we'd have seen a brilliant reddish-to-purplish fireball. (and again, even if it had detonated, most of its propellant had been consumed by that point: it'd have been a smaller explosion than destroyed N1 L5, as well as numerous other disasters like at Halifax or Beirut)
Likewise, size doesn't matter in terms of notability, it's what it actually does that matters. There weren't that many records made, and those it did required heavy qualification. As more engines failed (at least 6) it's possible it didn't even break its own prior record for greatest thrust generated. (from its own static fire last month) The only actual record I can think of was "greatest rocket thrust to lift off of the ground," a record it'd have taken from the N1 rocket. But that's not a very significant record or first.
Overall, it seems like it's trying to pre-emptively ride on the coattails of far more significant records & that SpaceX hopes to achieve down the line here, such as "first 100% reusable spacecraft to orbit," "first methane-burning rocket to orbit" and "first full-flow staged combustion rocket to space or orbit." It could have started chipping away at those had it succeeded at its flight plan, but alas, it did not. Nottheking (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. Suppose if the Sea Dragon launches today then you wouldn't call its failed flight ITN worthy, but you absolutely would if it goes to orbit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. If it made it to orbit I'd consider that very ITN-worthy; the first orbital flight of any orbital-class vehicle should be ITN. A failed attempt less so... Unless the failure was unusual enough to merit consideration on other criteria. (i.e, a bad enough disaster that results in people dying would almost certainly be ITN, given that's a very unusual form of deadly disaster)
So far Starship prototypes have taken to the sky at least 10 times so far. I am patiently waiting for the one that finally makes it into orbit. (or at least space) The news isn't about that something exists, but rather what it does. Nottheking (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well the news certainly is about something that exists, as this is all over the front page of just about every major outlet PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative blurb VI.
I don't think that we should mention "the most powerful rocket ever built" when descring failure that resulted in failure.
Otherwise, support, main story. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Pamela Chopra

[edit]
Article: Pamela Chopra (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

April 19

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

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

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Bob Berry

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

@Muboshgu, @PFHLai, @Curbon7, article has been referenced. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 13:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Larry LeGrande

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Martin Petzold

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

RD: Dave Wilcox

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Ready) RD: Richard Riordan

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) Sanaa stampede

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

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

Andrew Davidson, RE: and there seems to be no lasting impact — don't go out of your way to provoke and be offensive. ITNC is not a free-for-all. El_C 13:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not agreeing with @Andrew Davidson, but how exactly is it offensive? Do you mean he's being offensive towards the people affected? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 13:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly insensitive at best and a dog whistle at worse, Knightoftheswords281. I can't force humanity or compassion on your or Andrew Davidson's part, but I will enforce minimal decorum. El_C 13:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@El C and @Kurtis, oh I'm not saying that @Andrew Davidson was incorrect in his assertion that this has no lasting impact, I was just asking for clarification since for whatever reason, I interpreted El C's remarks about Andrew Davidson being offensive as being directed towards members of ITN and not the victims. I would like to ask El C, how could his statements be a dogwhistle? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 16:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Referring to the deaths of so many people as having "no lasting impact" will be offensive to the moral sensibilities of most readers because they can envision themselves losing a loved one in such a tragic event. When someone says (even inadvertently) that other people's losses will have no lasting impact, it almost feels like they're saying that my losses will have no lasting impact. It is as though I am vicariously experiencing the death of a relative or close friend in the stampede, and am reading that comment as I grieve for my deceased loved one. That is what makes it offensive to people other than those affected by this tragedy—we feel their feelings as if they were our own. Kurtis (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Knightoftheswords281 and Andrew Davidson: The many hundreds (probably thousands) of people who've lost loved ones in this horrific tragedy will most assuredly experience a "lasting impact" from this event. Kurtis (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as I will always say, if you think it fails WP:NEVENTS, you know where to go. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 13:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the deaths of 85 people and the injuries of 322 have "no lasting impact". Sure. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of callous bullshit that got LaserLegs banned, Andrew. Cut it out. --WaltClipper -(talk) 17:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Suggest changing blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Unusual event, high number of casualties, article meets our minimum posting standards but is unfortunately quite short. The reports linked above have further details that could be added to the article, but that shouldn't hold up posting. Modest Genius talk 19:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No evidence that this meets WP:NEVENTS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Shots fired by the Houthi de facto administration, ostensibly for crowd control, caused an accidental explosion and panic. At least 90 people were killed and 322 people injured in the ensuing crush."
    It meets WP:NEVENTS. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which provision of NEVENTS does it meet? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources." --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This affects a few hundred people, maybe a few thousand if we're counting everyone that knew the deceased. Obviously I wish it affected zero people, but this falls far below the threshold of "national or international". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thebiguglyalien: This affects a few hundred people, maybe a few thousand if we're counting everyone that knew the deceased. You don't think the deaths of nearly a hundred people in a single event is noteworthy enough to be on the main page???

    I'm sorry, but just... how? Kurtis (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I repeat my earlier question. Which provision of WP:NEVENTS does it meet? I'm arguing that the deaths of nearly a hundred people is not "national or international" in scope. Are you disputing that? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I'll break it down, underlining the relevant bits for emphasis:
    Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. The stampede in Sanaa is not a "routine" event; human stampedes resulting in around 100 deaths is something that rarely happens. Routine in the context of deaths would be things like car accidents, school shootings in the U.S. with less than 10 casualties, terrorist attacks in Somalia with less than 10 casualties, etc. Things that happen all the time and are unexceptional in terms of death toll. 100 people is an exceptionally high number of people to die in a human stampede, which itself is not an everyday event.
    It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Self-explanatory.
    WP:GEOSCOPEAn event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article. It is too early to say exactly how this stampede will impact Yemen in the years to come, but losing nearly 100 people in a single incident will absolutely resonate in some form or fashion for a very long time.
    WP:INDEPTHThe general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines Also WP:DIVERSESignificant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. Reuters, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera—need I go on? Also note that none of them are mirrors of one another; they are all original articles written by each outlet.
    So yes, I think notability is pretty clearly established here. Even by the strictest standards for ITN, this tragedy is noteworthy and significant. Kurtis (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Routine events are usually not notable, but it does not follow that non-routine events are usually notable. There's no WP:DEATHCOUNT policy because that's not how we measure notability (try as ITN regulars might).
    • Recent events aren't automatically non-notable, but they're not automatically notable either. And notability requires verifiable evidence. If that verifiable evidence does not exist, then we assume that it is not notable.
    • This has not had "demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group". As I said above, it had such an impact on a few hundred/thousand people. Sure, it's possible that this will cause some major social or legal change in Yemen, but we're getting deep into WP:CRYSTAL at that point.
    • I think the part of INDEPTH that should be highlighted is "must be significant and not in passing". As in, we need to see that it's not just a news story but an actual encyclopedic subject.
    This is just another article that was made because someone saw it in the news, with no regard for whether it has lasting encyclopedic significance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious question If an American mass shooting isn't notable enough to post in part because "nothing changes", then why is a stampede notable enough to post? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, this question inherently implies that stampedes resulting in multiple deaths are common in Yemen. Second of all, 90 people are dead. As much as this community dislikes blurbing American mass shootings, if an American mass shooting reached 90 deaths it would've most certainly been posted. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, WP:MINIMUMDEATHS then? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To some degree I suppose, but general significance comes into effect too.
    As @Kurtis states above, mass shootings, terrorist attacks, etc with less than 10 casualties are unfortunately commonplace; ones with 100+ are not. Add in the fact it was a human stampede, which doesn't exactly happen too often, and you've got a fairly notable event. The Kip (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm looking around, and I don't see any indication that this article has been nominated for AfD. I thought surely if this article failed WP:NEVENTS that it'd be slated for deletion. What's the waiting around for? WaltClipper -(talk) 11:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there is the WP:RAPID issue. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but that then makes opposing on the basis of failing WP:NEVENT inapplicable, as we're still in that stage of the article being a developing story - which is that very stage that makes it an ITN candidate since we only have up to 7 days to post a story anyway. --WaltClipper -(talk) 15:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe that Thebiguglyalien's view that a stampede that causes 100 deaths fails NEVENT is in line with community consensus, and nominating such articles at AfD would quickly bear that out. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I believe there is a good reason to post and the article seems of good quality. CaptainGalaxy 11:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - and I find the fails NEVENT vote to be completely specious. Yes, English language sources are hard to find that cover poor people in Yemen in much depth, but this is widely covered in the Arabic press, see for example Al Jazeera, al Arabiya, al-Quds al-Arabi. nableezy - 15:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Sandstein 16:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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


Proposed image
Article: Miguel Díaz-Canel (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Cuba's National Assembly re-elects Miguel Diaz-Canel as president for a second term despite the country's economic challenges. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Prensa Latina
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Article needs to be updated, could use some expansion and better sectioning Mooonswimmer 21:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Bud Shuster

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Moonbin

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

(Withdrawn) Torkham landslide

[edit]

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


Article: 2023 Torkham landslide (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Pakistan, a landslide caused by a thunderstorm buries dozens of people and trucks, resulting in the closure of a a major border crossing with Afghanistan. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters - Al Jazeera - VOA - AP - ABC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: A major landslide that in addition to causing three fatalities, has buried dozens of people and twenty trucks, leading to the closure of a notable border with Afghanistan - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 14:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is not in a state worth posting on the main page. It's basically a stub, with the information basically being a restatement of the blurb (that there had been such a landslide) or banal and uninteresting information about the number of emergency vehicles responding to the event; which is probably so trivial that it doesn't belong and feels like padding the total text. The article needs a considerable expansion before this is main page ready. --Jayron32 16:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

[edit]

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


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

(Posted) Ongoing: 2023 Sudan clashes

[edit]
Article: 2023 Sudan clashes (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

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

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

(Posted) RD: Bob Maguire

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

I repeat - Several Admin actions have occurred since the most recent comment above. You might know, but it's not obvious to me who the posting Admins are. It's 28 hours since I suggested the article was ready. In a time critical environment, ignoring it for that long simply isn't good enough. You want the glory of being an Admin? Do your job!!!! If you can't do it, something really needs to change. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone (like you) mark it ready in the header line so that it would stand out to help the admins identify it? Masem (t) 03:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where? I am but a humble editor, who can never remember all the arcane rules and policies of this place. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A job is something you are paid to do. Admins are volunteers like everybody else here, and if you think youre entitled to somebody's time and attention for free then let me introduce you to a place called Wikipedia. Anyway, given there was one oppose when you proclaimed "ready" and now one support, it doesnt seem readily apparent that there was consensus for the posting. Youd have been better off pinging Fakescientist8000 and asking them to look again then demanding some action taken. And for the record support - looks fine for RD. nableezy - 05:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One rule here that I do remember is that we don't vote. Admins are supposed assess the quality of contributions. And the sequence of comments, including mine, obviously addressed that Oppose. I know we're all volunteers, but Admins are very powerful volunteers who have sought a special status. If they cannot cope with the role, sack 'em! Or change the system. HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: please consider this a formal warning for civility. Carry on with language like that and you will end up with a block. Admins are no more required to give their time to any particular job than you are, or indeed required to give their time at all. The best way to encourage us to do what you want is to ask politely, the worst way is to demand and insult. Thryduulf (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's exactly the kind of behaviour from Admins that has led to my general lack of respect for them. Threatening me won't change my opinion. Acknowledging that I might be just a little bit right would help a lot. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you were a little bit right I would have acknowledged that. You were not. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you not say this three days ago? we are now almost halfway through the period a nomination will sit here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because when I left the comment above was the first time I've seen the article. I don't look at ITN every day, and don't look at every nomination when I do. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Todd Haimes

[edit]
Article: Todd Haimes (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

April 18

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

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

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime


(Attention needed) RD: April Stevens

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

(Attention needed) RD: Charles Stanley

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Prominent Baptist televangelist. Needs some source work. Curbon7 (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Closed) Supriyo v. Union of India

[edit]

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


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

(Posted) Dominion v. Fox

[edit]

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


Article: Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Dominion Voting Systems agrees to a $787 million settlement in their lawsuit against Fox News over defamation claims from the 2020 United States presidential election. (Post)
News source(s): CNBC
Credits:
 Masem (t) 20:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Big news in Australia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about the world? Murdoch's circle of lies spans three countries, but not much more. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no requirements for posting a blurb in ITN that the news it covers relates to "the world". --Jayron32 12:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. The Dadeville shooting, the Supreme Court case on the Sabbath, and the shooting of Ralph Yarl are all notable because they were top headlines in the U.S. Conversely, local news in Tanzania or Cambodia is also notable because it's in the news there.elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally no one, in this discussion, argued for any of that. In this current conversation, you were the only person to mention any of that. Also, zero of those stories are posted in ITN right now. If you're going to invent things that no one said or did, and then object to that, well, that's just silly. You need to focus on the words that are being said, and talk with people about what they are saying, not invent things never said, and then pretend like that's a reasonable objection. --Jayron32 17:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how you're getting from point A to B. I'm saying that the logic that something somewhere in the world is notable is unreasonable, and it applies the same here. ITN implicitly has that in order to prevent it from getting stories that have zero impact. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - quality is fine for posting to ITN. Passes WP:NEVENTS. To @ElijahPepe, I would like to ask, especially with how fluid consensus on ITN can be, I would like to state that just because we haven't posted these types of stories before doesn't mean that we should never. Consensus (again, especially on ITN) can change. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, a meaningful, notable case with long-term repercussions. The enormous sum of money lost by Fox suggests that they expected to lose even more if they went to trial. Abductive (reasoning) 04:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a staggering amount of money to lose in a defamation suit—or really in anything—and it comes as part of a chain of events that's been national and international news for years now. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 09:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not an oppose nor a support, as I think it might be notable enough for ITN, but I seriously wish people would let discussions run for a reasonable amount of time. This ran for around 12 hours, and for much of that time Europe and Asia would have been asleep. Where I am it was posted at 20:46 and the last comment was at 07:53 - so I've only just seen it myself. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Not really rising to the significance bar for which we usually post stories, and we are not a news ticker. Why was this posted? I don't think there's consensus above.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A settlement, not a juried verdict. I doubt this would even be a blip here if it involved CNN, for some reason. CoatCheck (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose. Not meeting the global significance bar for ITN. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no bar for global significance. That phrase (or any reasonable synonym of it) appears nowhere in the documentation at WP:ITN or any other guidance on Wikipedia. --Jayron32 12:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support News source coverage is evidence this is a significant story, and the article is of sufficient quality. --Jayron32 12:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I'm awake and able to weigh in, post-posting support. It's plenty significant enough, it's in the news, the article is up to par. What more is needed? --WaltClipper -(talk) 12:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting Support Widely covered by reliable sources and good quality article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as one of the largest defamation settlements in US history (and given the total, I imagine it's one of the largest in recent world history). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The motion to post was made far too early for any consensus to develop. Regardless, ITN is not the place for high scores or monetary achievements, especially when the "achievement" is arbitrary. A settlement is not even an admission of guilt. The world will, and has, moved on. If ITN is to be treated as In the U.S. news, then I suppose I should start reviewing accordingly. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is literally one story about the United States on ITN right now. The other stories are Sudan, Ghana, and Europe. Try again. nableezy - 17:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, if you look at all of the recommended articles we've got in ITN (highlights in blurbs, ongoing, and RDs), you can add to the list ongoing links about France, Israel, and Ukraine, and recent deaths of a resident of India, Northern Ireland, India, Germany/U.S., Ireland, and Switzerland. We have quite a good balance of stories, and the U.S. is certainly not over-represented. Indeed, India, with two RD stories, has the most representation. Isn't it great to actually look at what is written, rather than inventing things to be upset about, and then complaining about the stuff you invented? --Jayron32 17:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's one story because it's the only one nominated. We don't need an article for the United States for representation. If we do something truly notable, then we can have an ITN entry. The U.S. hasn't done anything exceptional, and that's fine. This is the mentality that I'm used to and sensibly guided this part of the main page. This nomination seems to have subverted that for no reason .elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a ton of nominations for US stories that have been rejected. Just currently on this page there are nominations for Shooting of Ralph Yarl, Dadeville shooting, for the Phantom of the Opera ending on Broadway, for 2023 Rutgers University strike, and that isnt counting the aborted SpaceX launch. Can try again if you like. nableezy - 21:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Before you go whirling off saying that "ITN is just US-pedia" I would encourage you to run your own some statistics about how much the U.S. is actually represented on ITN so as to back up your assertion, and furthermore, note also there is nothing precluding you from nominating equivalent stories of this sort across the pond or in other nations as well, so long as reliable sources exist and the coverage is there. As it is, your comment just says "I don't like this" which isn't really the best vehicle to induce systematic change. --WaltClipper -(talk) 18:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote the initial article on the lawsuit before it was turned into a redirect and then recreated. If you believe my comment is IDONTLIKEIT, you've skimmed it over. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm pretty sure I'm comfortable with my reasoning. I don't care whether or not you created the article, because that fact is not relevant to this discussion. You believe the article shouldn't have been posted to begin with, because by your own words, you feel it's not notable worldwide -- which is not how items should be judged here. If you want a criteria for global significance, get it created. --WaltClipper -(talk) 18:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Zambia's mining sector has a female executive for the first time. According to the mentality global significance doesn't matter, that's ITN-worthy. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please disassemble your straw man argument and do not put words in my mouth. I specifically said there is no criteria for global significance and that is all that I meant, without casting any prejudgments on the newsworthiness or notability of any other stories. If you want to nominate them on the basis of their significance, go right ahead. If not, then there is no relevance. --WaltClipper -(talk) 18:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You approved this nomination purely on the basis of the lack of consensus, when it clearly exists. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support - meets threshold. Neutralitytalk 19:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose - civil claim between two companies over defamation, and it was settled, not decided. Not a precedent that "fake news is bad". Juxlos (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Vladimir Kara-Murza

[edit]

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


Article: Vladimir Kara-Murza (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Russian opposition politician Vladimir Kara-Murza is convicted in a Moscow court on charges of treason and violating Russia's war censorship laws, and sentenced to 25 years in prison. (Post)
News source(s): (AP)
Credits:
 СтасС (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Attention needed) RD: Chris Smith

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

(Posted) RD: Albert del Rosario

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Closed) Beijing hospital fire

[edit]

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


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

(Closed) Ralph Yarl shooting

[edit]

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


Article: Shooting of Ralph Yarl (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the United States, Ralph Yarl, an adolescent African American boy, is shot for accidentally ringing the doorbell to the wrong house while picking up his siblings, leading to protests and charges. (Post)
News source(s): NYT - NPR - NBC - CNN - - CBS - BBC - ABC - Axios - AP - MSNBC - Rolling Stone - Time - Vox - The Independent - USA Today - PBS - NYP - Huff Post - ABC (Australia) - South China Morning Post
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is a crazy story; a boy was shot and wounded allegedly just for knocking on the wrong door while picking up his younger siblings. It's led to plenty of protests, $1.5 million USD being raised, and charges. Has widespread, sustained WP:RS coverage, even amongst foreign outlets, has its own article, and passes WP:NEVENTS. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 17

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

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

International relations

Law and crime

Sports


(Posted) RD: Paul Hinrichs

[edit]
Article: Paul Hinrichs (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://ky-leadernews.com/paul-herky-hinrichs/
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention needed) RD: April Stevens

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

(Posted) RD: Oleh Barna

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Closed) Syria truffle hunter attack

[edit]

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


Article: 2023 Hama attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Syria, 36 truffle hunters are killed by the Islamic State in the deserts near Hama. (Post)
News source(s): WaPo - VOA - The National
Credits:
Nominator's comments: A high casualty event with an unusual twist: 36 truffle hunters were killed by ISIL, as well as five shepherds in another part of Syria. The article is in need of serious expansion, however. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list of ongoing armed conflicts. Syria is categorised as a war but not a major one.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) SpaceX Starship

[edit]

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



Proposed image
Articles: SpaceX Starship (talk · history · tag) and SpaceX Starship orbital test flight (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The SpaceX rocket Starship makes its maiden flight. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The SpaceX rocket Starship makes its maiden flight, making it the most powerful rocket ever built.
Alternative blurb II: SpaceX Starship makes its maiden flight.
News source(s): CNN, Reuters, BBC
Credits:

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

(Posted) RD: Faith Thomas

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant

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

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

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

April 16

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Admin decision needed) The Phantom of the Opera

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

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

Oppose: This probably is more suited for DYK. 167.91.2.226 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to see how it would be eligible, unless it becomes a GA very quickly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - I was actually just about to nominate this myself. Per my "subject article = newsworthy" clause, I think it should be posted. This is a major drama-related news (I know a lot of y'all like that) that had already been receiving sustained, international, WP:RS coverage before, all of which has been accentuated since its last showing. I'm not to invested in theater myself, and even I was getting bombarded with stories from even non-American outlets regarding this story. Unfortunately, the Phantom article itself is littered with various {{CN}} tags. On a similar note, I would also support including the Majestic theater as a bolded article, as it would be a great way to feature a GA on the main page. By the way, for the folks that always oppose ITN noms with "this is more suited to DYK," are y'all actually aware of the criteria for posting to DYK? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 16:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date and final cast were set some time ago. The only updates I see in the last week are a performance-by-performance log of the actor performing the phantom. So it's already undue, and I can't imagine what else there is to say. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The end of an era as they say. NoahTalk 14:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The show started in London years ahead of Broadway. It's still running there but there's talk of it ending later this year and, if that happens, there would be an encore as the primary and longest run is the one that matters most. Note also that we had this nominated last September. It's effectively like sports retirements as you can expect that there will be yet more productions and revivals in due course. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Unabashed Phantom fan here, I think it can barely meet notability requirements but not by much. Fine if it doesn't get posted, although we do have very little theatre coverage and some change might be nice. The Kip (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Yeah, tricky one. Whilst "Longest Broadway Show" is a thing, as Andrew says, it's been running since 1986 in London (apart from a Covid break) with over twice as many performances than the Boradway version. However, even that is not going to break any West End show records either because of The Mousetrap, and at least two other West End shows have more performances than the target article. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mostly per Andrew. This is like sports retirements. As people sometimes go out of retirement, it’s not unlikely that the musical will be staged again.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril Simeonovski: Once a Broadway production closes, it's done for good and it won't have another "run". There are revival performances but they usually happen in single years and not for prolonged periods of time. --WaltClipper -(talk) 12:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when an “original run” ends, any future revival won’t be “original” any more. However, Broadway theatre doesn’t really indicate that revivals are rare and short-lived (Chicago is a proof for that). So, if the musical with the second-longest original run in history had a long revival, it’s normal to expect the one with the longest run to get it as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for asking, but what exactly is the problem with posting pop culture on ITN? --WaltClipper -(talk) 14:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ahmad Jamal

[edit]
Article: Ahmad Jamal (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, Pitchfork
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Closed) Saikazaki bombing

[edit]

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


Proposed image
Article: Saikazaki bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Japan, prime minister Fumio Kishida (pictured a day later) evades injury when a pipe bomb is thrown towards him in Saikazaki, Wakayama. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Japan, prime minister Fumio Kishida (pictured) avoids an attack in Saikazaki, Wakayama.
News source(s): BBC - The Telegraph - France 24 - The Hindustan Times - CNN - Reuters - Politico - Al Jazeera - Bloomberg
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The attempted assassination of Japanese PM Fumio Kishida. It has widespread WP:RS coverage and passes WP:NEVENTS. I'm surprised that this hasn't been nominated yet. By the way, for the people who will oppose because he didn't die, bear in mind that we posted the stabbing of Salman Rushdie in August. I don't know about you, but the Prime Minister of Japan is more important than some author that most folks my age don't know (especially considering what happened to Abe in July). Unfortunately, the subject article looks like the lungs of a chain smoker. It needs some serious rehab before posting. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that would go against precedent though. If ITN was only going to accept “crazy” style assassination attempts, then what would be classified crazy? A drone strike isn’t “crazy” enough to be a significant assassination attempt, so why would a pipe bomb? Elijahandskip (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "precedent" at ITN. The closest thing to that is ITNR, which is not precedent but the result of consensus from rigorous discussion. Every non-ITNR candidate is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Curbon7 (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems counter-productive though. ITN for attempted assassination of the Iraqi Prime Minister had four comments (only) and all directly about failed assassination attempts not being posted on ITN before it was SNOW closed. If precedent doesn’t matter, then that discussion (as well as the linked above discussion for former Brazil president attempted assassination ITN) mean nothing and are basically defunct. Obviously neither would be posted since they aren’t news anymore, but precedent basically closed them, so saying ITN doesn’t have precedent is false. Maybe an RfC discussion for ITNR might be best for this type of situation since there are two previous attempted assassinations that were not posted to ITN (one directly closed on grounds that it failed). Elijahandskip (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Dadeville shooting

[edit]

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


Proposed image
The site of the shooting, pictured before its renovation from a bank.
Article: Dadeville shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the United States, twenty-eight people are injured and four killed in a mass shooting at a 16th birthday celebration in a Dadeville, Alabama, Alabama dance studio (pictured) (Post)
News source(s): NYT - AP - USA Today - CNN - NPR
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Twenty casualties, including a beloved high school athlete. All I'm going to say is that it passed WP:NEVENTS, it's notable enough to have its own article, and it's literally in the news. The article does need some quality-related fixes, however. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) 2023 Dubai apartment fire

[edit]

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


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

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Atique Ahmed

[edit]
Article: Atique Ahmed (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former member of the parliament Atique Ahmed and his brother was shot dead live on TV in Prayagraj, India. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Guardian
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

Support, article quality has sufficiently expanded since. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 06:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports


(Posted) RD: Irma Blank

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

RD: Mufti Abdul Shakoor

[edit]
Article: Mufti Abdul Shakoor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DAWN, Geo
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

Corach Rambler wins Grand National

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

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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

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

(Posted) Sudan clashes

[edit]
Article: 2023 Sudanese Armed Forces-Rapid Support Forces confrontation (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Clashes erupt after fighters from the Rapid Support Forces attacked several army camps in Sudan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
  • Support - even if the coup fails, its still pretty notable. Also, the article is in surprisingly good shape for such a recent article (though as @Masem pointed out, the events section probably needs to be modified for greater readability.
- Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
War in Sudan – ongoing since 2008
  • Looking at the bold linked article now that this has been posted, the first thing I read is that this is "Part of the Sudanese transition to democracy". That's such obvious BS that one doesn't need go any further. Essentially, mayhem in Sudan is like shootings in the US and we already have it listed as a war in the list of ongoing armed conflicts. That entry has about 400,000 deaths since 2008 and so these latest skirmishes are just a drop in the ocean. They just seem to be attracting attention because they are happening in the capital. No doubt someone will claim that this "democracy" has resulted in an "election" and we'll be forced to run that too. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow I'm not remotely surprised that you can't see how this represents a significant uptick in the conflict. The Kip (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - notable enough, has extensive media cover with information becoming more reliable by the hour. The article is well written and sources
FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Filelakeshoe: article has been moved to 2023 Sudan clashes, could you (or anyone else) fix the link? Thanks, ansh.666 21:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done - it's been moved again since this comment, to 2023 Sudanese clashes, so that's the current link target. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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


Article: Self-driving car (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Kingdom's Department for Transport approves Ford Motor Company's on 2,300 miles (3,700 km) of motorways in England, Scotland and Wales. The UK becomes the first European country to approve hands-free driving technology on public roads. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC News)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Good day. New technology--СтасС (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - not a very riveting story, but its in the news. Target article has not been updated however.
- Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 23:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't see any noteworthy advancement in self-driving technology here. This is just approving another safety system Ford has implemented that makes sure the driver's eyes are on the road, in contrast to the traditional method of checking if the driver is attentative by keeping their hands on the wheel. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

[edit]
Article: Malaria vaccine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Ghana becomes the first country to approve the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ R21/Matrix-M, a proven-effective malaria vaccine, is first approved for use by regulators in Ghana.
News source(s): (Pharmaceutical Technology), AP, The Guardian, BBC
Credits:
  • Oppose One nation approving a vaccine is not really ITN worthy. --Masem (t) 13:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am going to change my !vote on this, though I have added an altblurb that is towards my reasoning. That is, when I look back at the news about this, I don't see a really good point where the vaccine clearly became *the* candidate for use; it was shown to meet WHO's requirement in 2021, and had successful human testing in 2022, but never a point that marked it as ready to be used to the public. Its clear from other articles that Ghana must have seen the last phase 3 tests (yet to be publicly published) and opted to go with it; WHO is also looking into it but how soon that is, is not clear. So this seems like a key point. We're clearly not going to post when other countries approve it for use (though maybe consider the WHO's approval). --Masem (t) 14:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • One could argue that a malaria vaccine in itself is newsworthy. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      the vaccine yes (although Masem has not questioned this), its approval by a specific country no. It is purely a bureaucratic formality. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I ain't questionin' that anybody was questionin' anything, just pointin' out. Cheers, --Ouro (blah blah) 17:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mid Support - sure you can dismiss this as "just one nation," but I don't think folks in the first-world are aware of how crippling malaria is in the tropics. We're talking about what is the sixth most fatal cause of death in most low-income countries, a scourge that exterminates half a million people annually, many of whom (80%) are children, one that devastates these countries financially. This vaccine developed by Oxford is the most efficient malaria vaccine to be developed, primarily in that is able to combat the disease well before its destructive symptoms raise their ugly heads. Even if it's just "one country," this is still likely the start of a major medical miracle. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The development of the vaccine would have been the ITN item, not approval by one country, on that same reasoning - its what the vaccine means to the part of the world suffering from malaria. Masem (t) 15:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it has to start somewhere. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "has to start somewhere" was the successful creation and human trials of the vaccine. Masem (t) 23:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No question there. But if nobody chose to actually use the vaccine then we would have probably never known much about it. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 14

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Science and technology


RD: Mark Sheehan

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

[Posted] RD: Ed Koren

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

  • Still think the depth could use work (no mention of children's books in the body of the article, which is also mentioned in the lede). Strike weak oppose but don't think this is quite ready for posting. SpencerT•C 03:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Koren is known as a cartoonist first and foremost. I don’t think minor work he did should hold up this nomination. He literally made tens of thousands of illustrations in his lifetime. Thriley (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spencer It appears that the children's books part of the lead has been removed, so I don't think that there needs to be a whole lot in there, but I can try. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Elisabeth Kopp

[edit]
Article: Elisabeth Kopp (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SRF St.Galler Tagblatt Handelsblatt
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) JUICE mission launch

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

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

(Closed) 2023 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan

[edit]

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


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

Support (edit: pending article expansion since at this stage, its mostly just background) - I was actually considering making an article about this. Appears to pass WP:NEVENTS with wide-spread news coverage. In other words, it has its own article, so it should be good (edit, adding blurb). - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 11:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per DecafPotato Hungry403 (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 13

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Thubten Zopa Rinpoche

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

RD: Judith Miller (antiques expert)

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

[edit]

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


Article: Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Prime Minister of Kuwait Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah died at the age of 81. (Post)
News source(s): APP, Al Arabiya, Wam
Credits:
 Ainty Painty (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Mary Quant

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Fashion designer icon of the 1960s and 1970s, often associated with the Mod Culture and Swinging London, popularized the miniskirt and hot pants as well, and even briefly got into making dolls (Mentioned in articles See also). Article May need some work, however. TheCorriynial (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support: Having taken a quick look at the article, I would say the "Fashion career" section could be written in an even more neutral way, while the "Bibliography" needs some more links. Plus, should we turn the "Trivia" section into a "Legacy and impact" one? But apart from these notes, she definitely deserves a spot. Oltrepier (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems adequately sourced and neutral. I've removed the trivia section as unneeded, added citations to the biblio, and toned down the career section. Valereee (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good prose, well sourced. Thanks for sparing me trivia, Valereee. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rabey Hasani Nadwi

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

(Closed) Cyclone Ilsa

[edit]

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


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

(Posted) RD: Craig Breen

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

April 12

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

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

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime


RD: Tamilla Nasirova

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Ready) RD: Tibisay Lucena

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

While I see the issue with referencing and could be solved, I don't understand how at its current size the article can be considered a stub. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article was (at the time of my !vote) marked as a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it was not. Curbon7 (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PFHLai: I have expanded content regarding the 2006, 2013 and 2018 elections. Is the section better? --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the section further, adding information about the 2017 Constituent Assembly election. I'm tagging the headline as ready, per the other comments. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I wasn't able to help much here. I was doing spot checks and fixes and suddenly had to go offline. There is a {failed verification} tag that still needs to be fixed. PFHLai (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Louis Gaskin

[edit]
Article: Louis Gaskin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP News, New4Jax
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The State of Florida has killed yet another person today. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 22:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Killing is an accurate description of the State's actions. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're against the death penalty? CR-1-AB (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but even if I weren't, "killing" is an accurate description. I'd call it state sanctioned murder, but that is inflammatory. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time I said my brutally honest opinion, I was reported to admins, so I'm not gonna say anything. CR-1-AB (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because killing is very clearly a WP:NPOV violation. Executed is a perfectly fine legal and neutral term. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not violate neutral point of view at all. A killing is exactly what the state did. A killing is defined as causing the death of something. That's what happened here. The state's actions caused the death of another person. Killing is appropriate language. Calling it a murder (which I believe it was) would violate NPOV, because by definition, a murder must be unjust and unlawful. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 02:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be willing to label it killing if this were yet another instance of Florida and/or certain other states sending yet another innocent man to his death, but in this instance it's a bit too strong for what seems like an open and shut case. The Kip (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A killing isn't the same as a murder (and although I think it is murder, that's not relevant for Wikipedia's purposes). It is, however, a fact that the state killed someone, by forcing them onto a gurney and injecting poison into their veins. Whether it was a justified killing or not, it still was a killing. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 02:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Killing" is a rather generic term, and can be applied to a wide range of situations. In order to differentiate the different type of killings, there are different words - from felling (in the case of killing trees for their wood) to manslaughter (in the case of accidental killings). This specific killing is, in your own words, a "state-sanctioned murder". However, saying all of that every time we talk about it is inefficient, and simply calling it a killing is too generic. Luckily, there just so happens to be a perfect word to cover the "sanctioned murder" type of killing - that word is "execution". Ocean1cbanana (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet ready The article is not nearly ready. For these kinds of articles, we don't need his biography to be super in-depth, as that isn't really the focus, but there isn't anything at all about his biography. The description of the murders is also light, as the article doesn't even state where they occurred, and the article is unclear about whether he burgled the first house or not (the article states towards the end that stolen property was retrieved, but the description of the crime itself makes it seem like he remained outside the entire time). Curbon7 (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Raymond Sawada

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Keshub Mahindra

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) Pazigyi massacre

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support per above
Aure entuluva (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alttext for the more relevant links. However, the alt text should still mention the village- i.e. killed in airstrikes on Pazigyi village- so that it's about this specific massacre as opposed to the other recent ones targetting other villages. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked altblurb. Modest Genius talk 15:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Kourakou and Tondobi attacks

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

Comment - WP:NEWSEVENT. Unless death toll is abnormally high, we shouldn't post based on how many lost their lives. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was this village last May attacked three times. The first time, eleven soldiers, no article. Then 17 civilians, no article, but after about 50 civilians, bam, current event. So no, divided by two villages, this "isn't that bad" for Burkina Faso. Still very bad there, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

(Closed) 2023 Rutgers University strike

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

Amending my response: "not even a significant [university]" was incorrect. However, I maintain that that a strike contained to a single university is not ITN-worthy. DecafPotato (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

April 11

[edit]

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


(Posted) RD: Anne Perry

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Maya Wildevuur

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Freddie Scappaticci

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) 2023 Pentagon document leaks

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

Template:Abot

RD: Fernando Sánchez Dragó

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

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

(Closed) Good Friday Agreement

[edit]

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

Template:Abot

April 10

[edit]

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


(Posted) RD: Karl Berger

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) Texas dairy farm explosion

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

Template:Abot

(Posted) RD: Al Jaffee

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

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

(Posted) RD: Pierre Lacotte

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

April 9

[edit]

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


(Posted) RD: Huub Oosterhuis

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Muhammad Rapsel Ali

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) 2023 Pentagon document leaks

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

I believe this is a first in my experience, that an article creator opposed their article be blurbed at ITN. Jusdafax (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Listen man, maybe he just doesn't want to deal with the talk page stuff. :P Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per above.
- Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 05:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

(Posted) 2023 Masters Tournament

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Looks fine, plenty of text summary, which is welcome. Looks sourced. Support. Tone 16:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 8

[edit]

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


(Posted) RD: Andreas K. W. Meyer

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: James Timlin

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Michael Lerner

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

April 7

[edit]

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


RD: Elisabeth Kopp

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Ian Bairnson

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Ben Ferencz

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Rachel Pollack

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Paul Cattermole

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

April 6

[edit]

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


RD: Mimi Sheraton

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Jane LaTour

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Hobie Landrith

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Ingvar Hirdwall

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Template:U - I have expanded the article further per your request. Cheers.BabbaQ (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Thank you! Article is good, so I've decided to reinvent the weal. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Women's Finalissima

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

Template:Abot

(Posted) RD: Nora Forster

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Bruce Petty

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Josep Piqué

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

April 5

[edit]

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


(Closed) Ongoing removal: 2023 French pension reform strikes

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

Post-nom comment, at the time of nomination there had been only one article update in the preceding ~week (adding a quote from the US White House) + gnoming edits. Since then, these article additions have been made and more protests have occurred. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - looks to still be in the news and still in heavy action. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abottom

(Closed) 2023 Visit of Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Poland

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose I think this should be covered by ongoing (similar to the other trips to and from Ukraine that were not posted). The award is interesting but do not see its notability beyond the current context; the grant of such national honours is also common practice to maintain friendly relations and we do not usually post them. Gotitbro (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Gotitbro PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - we didn't post the visits to the UK or the US so I doubt we'll be posting this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

April 4

[edit]

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


The upcoming Artemis 2 Moon mission

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

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

(Posted) RD: Ada Bello

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Craig Breedlove

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Bob Lee (businessman)

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

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

(Posted) RD: Tea Petrin

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) Donald Trump arraigned

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

* Oppose: He was not arrested. He was arraigned after being indicted by a grand jury. I support the arraignment being featured in the news, but this is not factual. Ppt91talk 19:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it will get to trial, User talk:ElijahPepe? Given the talk about the defence trying to change the jurisdiction and the judge, I'd think their strategy would be be to tie it up in court for years until it is moot. Nfitz (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The defense will find it difficult to delay the inevitable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the question is what is fast. He dragged the 1973 racism case against him for 2 years, including a $100 million defamation counter-suit against the US Justice Department, before finally coming to an agreement to settle; and had he continued to fight that in court, it could have gone for years. The 2013 State of New York case against him got dragged on for almost 4 years before Trump settled and paid out $25 million. I don't see why this wouldn't be dragged out in court for many years - presumably trying to outwait the current (elected) District Attorney, Trump's death, or a change of government. I think this is a significant story. I can see holding it off a few weeks, or even months, if there's bigger aspects coming. But I don't see that happening; however what else will he be charged over in the next few months ... perhaps that's something we don't need to consider at this time. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this case drags on, and continues to have massive developments and stay in the news, perhaps we should consider for ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed target article to Indictment of Donald Trump, because I would hate having an orange tag on the Main Page. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MANDY? Because of course Trump would plead not guilty? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Hulk experience. The Kip (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if theres a conviction and something comes out of it lets talk, but until them its all theatre and I don't think we need to be a part of it. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  21:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with or without conviction, the fact that the former U.S. President was not only indicted but pleaded not guilty in court is blurbworthy. Making massive global coverage as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the same reason I opposed last time. Don't see anything that has changed since. We have not and should not post indictments/charges, the Putin posting being a grave error and should remain at that. Gotitbro (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support whether there's a conviction or not Per TDKR Chicago 101 and Rockstone's reasoning, as this does not concern just any businessman in New York or the leader of any country—we are talking about a former leader of a country with massive influence upon the global stage. The U.S.'s superpower status is also naturally driving news agencies in other countries to pin it to the top: see NHK WORLD-JAPAN, the BBC, and News24, which are all foreign news sites that have put this story up on the front page. In light of this continued coverage, I fail to see how Wikipedia being a global encyclopedia could be an argument against posting this to ITN. Aeromachinator (talk to me here) 22:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the trial, plus, we don't usually post about simple arrests, or arraignment. - User:Editor 5426387 (talk), 22:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for years? And then it will be the trial will only last a few months, we should wait for a decision. Then wait for the appeal. And the next appeal. We'd be doing a RD on him first ... This is major, significant, international, news. I was wait for the charges on the nomination last week. Now we've got the charges - and they are more significiant than may expected. Even earlier today, I heard media comments that there may be some felonies in there as well. But 34 felonies? Nfitz (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - First US president to be arraigned. We were told to wait until he was arraigned, stop moving the goalpost. City1661 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's called "In the News" not "fair trial completed". This is a very significant story. Looking on TV, I haven't seen so many TV networks go live since 9/11 - many were foreign. Just because it happened in New York City or the USA, doesn't mean it isn't important. I've vehemently opposed the frequent posting of typical crimes in the USA, even if they'd be shockingly unique in normal advanced democracies - but this is exceptional. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add to ongoing, and fold into the general topic of legal investigations involving the subject. BD2412 T 23:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ongoing doesn't make sense. The only next actions before December (the next in-person date) is the raft of motions that Trump's lawyers will try to use to clear all the charges before trial, which will still take months to process.
    Mind you, I've seen rumors that Trump may also be arraigned from the other criminal cases pending against him, but that's nothing we can assert right now. Masem (t) 00:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There will be constant commentary on it, though, emanating from all sides. We have all seen how the media will jump to make any scrap of news on this case their top headline. BD2412 T 01:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Constant commentary is not something that makes a topic newsworthy. Its ongoing events that do that. We shouldn't even be trying to seek out that much commentary at this time, per WP:RECENTISM, and wait until the matter has been well laid to rest to figure out how to right on commentary. That's what separates us as being an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper. Masem (t) 03:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Pleads not guilty" should not be the focus of the blurb. Nobody pleads guilty at arraignment. Simplest blurb would be "Former U.S. President Donald Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records".hako9 (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"charged with" would be simpler than "faces". He was facing the charges before he was charged! It's the charges being laid that is significant, and historical, here. Nfitz (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just another example of WP:MANDY. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also just Reuters, beyond the headline. Cool Canadian company. But no CBC. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - normally I would go on a lengthy rant about why this should be posted, but everything's already been said so Imma pull an @Editor 5426387 and say per above.
- Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Jusdafax (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Number one news item around the world, and for Wikipedia users. WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply in this case and we are under no obligation to not post this, given how the subject is arguably at the apex of public figurehood. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted – This is the type of story that seems to divide ITN/C, an extremely high-profile event that borders on the typical "we don't post these" cases. Arguments over the past several days (inclusive of the initial no-consensus nomination on March 30) have shifted in favor of posting as of the official arraignment. Those in support are weighting the notability of Trump and importance of the United States on the global stage as well as it being in headlines in many nations. Those in opposition focus on this not being the conviction/acquittal and on WP:NOTNEWS. Regarding "we don't post [event]", the sentiments of WP:OTHERSTUFF apply as we should adapt to circumstances and should not, for the most part, have blanket statements. While we cannot make assumptions on the long-term importance (or lack thereof) of this, it remains a major event in U.S. politics that certainly warrants the thorough encyclopedic article it has. Part of our purpose at ITN is to guide readers to top news with high-quality articles and that is the case here. This discussion remains open for continued comments if views change on how this should be handled. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support: this is something "in the news". Current blurb is good. Keep it pithy. Omit needless words. Given that it's not outside the realm of possibility the guy could wind up being charged with more criming, might not be bad to open up a discussion about how to respond. --47.155.46.15 (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, who needs to read "not guilty", mere formality. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I don't understand your reply. 47.155.46.15 (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Two-thirds of the true blurbs mentioned "not guilty", the one that won "omits them", it's all good. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He has not entered any pleas yet. In U.S. judicial practice that doesn't happen at the time of arraignment. Saying he did is therefore stating a falsehood to readers. If someone doesn't understand how the U.S. legal system works and concepts like presumption of innocence, a blurb in ITN is not where they are going to get well-educated. 47.155.46.15 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, I was misinformed on that. I maintain my broader point however. ITN is not going to be the place where we dispell every reader's possible misconceptions about the world, and shouldn't attempt to be. 47.155.46.15 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how you spell "dispel", but whatever, as long as we all remember Template:Tq InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do tend to agree with IP, that we shouldn't try to stuff as much information into a blurb as possible in an effort to inform readers, much like the guy who frequently haunts this place and asks that any blurb involving an American city needs to include "United States" in it to let readers know that New York City isn't in Belgium or Tonga or wherever. In The News's job has always been to guide readers to topics they may have heard about, and then it's up to them to decide how many rabbit holes they want to travel down vis-a-vis the American judicial system or Donald Trump's legal history. I had honestly thought it was odd that the judge would tell him to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. Trump's no spring chicken to legal machinations. He's likely not going to rant and rave in court; he's going to shut up and let the lawyers do the work for him. --WaltClipper -(talk) 13:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m honored that you remembered me, WaltClipper. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe it or not, I wasn't referring to you, but I'm honored that you feel honored. --WaltClipper -(talk) 17:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]
    Wait, you're telling me New York isn't in Belgium?! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (post-posting) For now. Post conviction. Pavlor (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support - everything that needs to be said has already been said and I'd rather not beat a dead horse, so I'll just mention that I agree with and appreciate Cyclonebiskit's explanation of why this was posted.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 08:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support: This is a major news that cannot be ignored on ITN. This story is covered by every single news outlet worldwide. In certain circumtances like this one, flexibility should supersede rigid rules.^^Maxxies (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trivial comment Putting extra modifiers "first former" (supposedly to differentiate from "first serving"?) is stretching this a bit as far as arrests of presidents go, Arrest of Ulysses S. Grant was much earlier. (Charges were dropped, so this would really only be an oppose about calling out the 'arrest' part as being unique). — xaosflux Talk 10:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • PP Strong Oppose We post convictions, not unproven allegations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We post what we choose to post. Arguments like this seem an attempt at a supervote. It is true that, historically, we have shied away from posting arrests. But we should inquire as to why that is the case. I would suggest it is because we do not wish to imply guilt that has not been proven. That is not the case here. Trump's guilt in this case is immaterial to the very impactful event of the indictment/arraignment. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My opposition to posting allegations is based on BLP. You are free to disagree with that interpretation of one of our more important policies, but it has been widely cited in past discussions as the main reason for sticking to convictions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like the sheer impact of this arraignment makes it one of the few legitimate examples where WP:IAR applies. We're not not going to post such a notable event because of internal policy. The Kip (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just of note, Ad, if we're going to be Wikilawyers today, I see your WP:BLPCRIME and raise you a WP:BLPPUBLIC, which states, and I quote, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs..." Trump passes the "public figure" test in spades, so arguments against posting allegations rather than convictions are nullified by the notion that, as a public figure, well documented allegations may be covered; insofar as reliable sources have covered the arraignment, it seems like a valid argument to post on those grounds. You can say we should ignore that. I mean, you can say anything. It's still been posted, and it probably isn't going to be taken down. If it makes your ego feel better to make your objection public, well, have fun! --Jayron32 16:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish people would read WP:BLPCRIME before linking it, which does not a. prohibit the inclusion of any material anywhere, and b. explicitly disclaims its applicability to a public figure. nableezy - 17:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe GreatCaesarsGhost implicitly alluded to BLP (specifically BLPCRIME) when he said that he believes we generally avoid posting convictions because "we do not wish to imply guilt that has not been proven." I am generally in favor of this mindset, as people too often equate an arrest with proven guilt. However, I am convinced that this is an exceptional circumstance in which BLPCRIME doesn't apply, for the reasons outlined by Jayron32 and GCG. Kurtis (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Ping "It is true that, historically, we have shied away from posting arrests. But we should inquire as to why that is the case. I would suggest it is because we do not wish to imply guilt that has not been proven." Correct. Unfortunately, for many people, the simple fact that someone has been arrested is reason enough by itself to assume that they are guilty. BLPCRIME is intended to prevent the laypeople's presumption of guilt from being amplified to such an extent that it has unintended consequences for them offline (e.g. influencing public opinion to the extent that it undermines the individual's ability to have a fair trial). The circumstances surrounding Trump's arraignment—a former president with such a high profile as to render our acknowledgement of his arrest inconsequential—are unique enough by themselves to merit making an exception in this case. Kurtis (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While this may be unproven, and I think we should all work on the assumption that Trump is innocent until proven guilty, this story is still In The News, and this marks the first time in US history that a former president has been arrested. It's big news. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the first time. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PrecariousWorlds's wording of Template:Tq is correct (Grant was an incumbent). This is also the first time any US president, former or not, has been indicted. Grant was given a fine for speeding, but he ultimately never had to pay anything. This story, on the other hand, has a lot of remarkable firsts for the United States.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think there's a meaningful difference between being metaphorically "on trial" and being actually on trial...  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tq The reliable sources that published the information about the event. It's apparent from your commentary that you don't care, but here at Wikipedia, personal feelings don't matter in decision making. Reliable sources do. --Jayron32 12:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel that this discussion should be closed. The other comments that have been posted are post-posting opposes for reasons either already proven, or coming mostly from personal thoughts. I'm not sure how to close discussions (or if only admins can do so), but that's my thoughts on further discussion of this. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

(Posted) RD: Klaus Teuber

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) 2023 Voorschoten train crash

[edit]

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

Template:Archive bottom

April 3

[edit]

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


(Posted) RD: Roy McGrath

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) WWE sold to UFC parent Endeavor

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

Template:Abot

RD: Greg Francis

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

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

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

RD: Enrique Mendoza

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Nigel Lawson

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) Finland Joins NATO

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • Per the article in question "Currently, Finland is scheduled to become an official member of the alliance on 4 April 2023" Why jump the gun? --Jayron32 17:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the explanation, I don't recommend we post it early, I just started the discussion early so we can have a blurb ready on time, as it is a scheduled event that we know will take place in a matter of hours. Theres precedent for this too as was done when Croatia Joined the EU. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  17:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until 1:35 UTC Tuesday, then post immediately - I think new members of NATO should be in ITN/R, this is definitely notable enough. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a race. Nothing particularly harmful happens if the posting occurs some time after that. --Jayron32 17:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also as @Blaylockjam10 pointed out, we did post North Macedonia joining NATO in March 2020, and especially given what else was happening in that month, I think that sets a good precedent. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like keeping Finland-NATO relations as a target article because it contains most of the information related to Finland's accession (I think keying something along the lines of "finland accession to NATO" will redirect there), but if there's a way to fit in a link to Enlargement of NATO then that could make sense, too.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When N. Macedonia (the last country to join NATO before Finland) joined NATO, the blurb linked to the North Macedonia–NATO relations article. Also, that blurb used NATO instead of North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like NATO is more recognisable at this point than typing out the 'North Atlantic Treaty Organisation'. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It’s why I suggested alt blurb 2. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main page image/ITN

at right is a photo of klaus korhonen, finnish ambassador to nato, shaking hands with nato secretary general jens stoltenberg, when finland submitted its official application to join nato back in may. this seems like a decent image to feature until someone uploads a picture of today's ceremony to commons. dying (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as a young geopolitical geek myself, this is a historic moment; I get to see NATO expand in my lifetime and actually be able to remember it. Agree with wait until actually in effect and also @PrecariousWorlds's assertion that new NATO members should be WP:ITN/R. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 18:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well Sweden should be joining next, and many others have applied, so there will be no shortage of new members entering NATO. Still, this is rather historic. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, once the timing is correct tomorrow per nom. Estar8806 (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major event, it is obvious. Once the timing is right this should be posted quickly as possible. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Galarrwuy Yunupingu

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

April 2

[edit]

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


(Needs attention) 2023 Bulgarian parliamentary election

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose for now. A quick check reveals major problems with the article, for example the expanded results table in the "Results" section doesn't match the abbreviated table in the Infobox. I haven't looked much further than that, but with such a glaring inconsistency in that case, I worry about the accuracy and stability of the rest of the article. Get it together first before we even consider posting this on the main page. --Jayron32 17:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jayron32 If I'm correct, the vote discrepancy was due to differing interpretations of the NOTA vote, and its been fixed. There is however an issue of posting it now, with the final seats not released regionally, but after a few days, this news is less relevant. Quinby (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Full of polls and projections, saying "According to parallel counts of sample polling stations by several polling agencies, the final result was a close race ..." We should wait for the actual official result. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Only estimated results are available, and they show <2% between the top two parties - within the margin of error and too close to call. We should wait for the full official results, and use the date they become available for determining the blurb order. Modest Genius talk 10:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This looks detailed & well-sourced. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • I'm sure an admin that doesn't think that posting amateur sports to ITN is somewhat daft will be along at some point. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I could do it, I don't think it's daft. But I'm hesitant to post quite yet, because - although I think there's a clear enough consensus that the women's blurb is ready - I don't think there has been sufficient support that the men's blurb is ready. If no one object strenuously enough in the next hour or so, I'll post the women's and wait for the men's. But I'd like to see a clear consensus the men's blurb is ready, if people could continue to comment on that below. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The men's article looks ready to me. I have not edited these articles but won't post the blurb because I voted above. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2023 Andorran parliamentary election

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

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

(Posted) 2023 Montenegrin presidential election

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Support - I think heads of state generally are considered ITN/R, but I'm not certain. Anyway, article looks good and the significance is there. However, the phrasing of the blurb feels a little weird, something along the lines of "Jakov Milatović is elected President of Montenegro, defeating incumbent Milo Đukanović" might be better, particularly to emphasize the fact that the incumbent was defeated. Estar8806 (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb I - looks good, is mostly prose and not a table wall. Agree with @Estar8806 that we should emphasize that his opponent was incumbent. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Major event, support. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Bombing in Saint Petersburg

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

Comment - Would this be covered by the ongoing? Obviously there is notable death mentioned in the nom's comments, but he's already been nominated for RD, which I presume will be posted. I think that the ongoing + that RD would sufficiently cover this. Estar8806 (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no definitive evidence that this was related to the war, and considering that we posted the Kyivan helicopter crash in January, I would say no. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sure, terrorist attacks in Russia are rare, but this only killed one person. The person himself being a simple Russian propagandist. So I personally oppose. Besides, we blurbed the helicopter crash because it killed 3 high-ranking Ukrainian politicians. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom. Considering it's not necessarily related to the ongoing war, seems good for posting. Estar8806 (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is only one confirmed death (Tatarsky). Mellk (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Many people were injured from this bombing as well. From the article 30 people were injured, 24 were hospitalized, 6 were seriously injured. 2607:FEA8:E300:B8C:90C3:9BA8:BC6D:EB69 (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Article is still in rough shape, includes mentions and inclusions of loosely or completely unrelated events. Open to changing my vote if there are improvements or further evidence supporting the articles assertions. (eg, Why is the October 5th incident mentioned?) Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle as an unusual and major event for Russia. Haven't actually looked at the article yet, so I can't speak to its quality. Kurtis (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good. About half a dozen never will be. Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder to everyone (including you), that Ohio train derailment we posted still hasn't killed or sickened anyone more than countless thousands of fish, insects and birds (maybe a fox). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The train derailment was the top story in most news outlets though PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

(Posted) 2023 Finnish parliamentary election

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Vladlen Tatarsky

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Pulled then Reposted) RD: Ryuichi Sakamoto

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Oppose Awards and discography sections need a bit more citations before I approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Missing sources have been added to the Awards and Nominations and the Discography sections. Is it to your satisfaction? Maxxies (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Salim Durani

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Haziqul Khairi

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

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

Ramadan stampedes in Pakistan

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Seymour Stein

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

April 1

[edit]

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

(Closed) 2023 Aston by-election

[edit]

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

Oppose A simple by-election. Sure, it's an over a century achievement but it's still just for a single seat. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is one seat out of 151 in one legislature of one country. While it might have been an upset, this still has no real significance except for this very small area of Australia.
I'd suggest proposing this for DYK. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ab

(Posted) Tornado outbreak of March 31, 2023

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • still opposed, you have this youre going to be the weather channel the rest of the spring/summer. Yes, its sad, no it isnt anything out of the ordinary or so widely covered it should be on the main page as something people have seen in the news and want more information on. nableezy - 05:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was considering nominating this, but decided to wait until more damage occurs to get a better chance of pushing this true. Now its at six deaths, and has also affected 165 K customers. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 07:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to wait, per others. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Vanilla Wizard's blurb. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Per the above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Support combined blurb as per @Vanilla Wizard PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While now 11 have been confirmed dead, this is typical damage of a tornado outbreak for this time of year, and given that it was broad across multiple states, it is nowhere near the density that the previous outbreak that we covered had. --Masem (t) 16:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. Tragic to be sure, but this is just not that far out of the ordinary for these sorts of events. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll is now at 21 and likely to climb. The number of injuries and extent of damage has sadly moved this into the realm of a fairly major disaster. Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nom says 600 injuries, article says ">70". That's a massive gap that fundamentally changes the importance of this event. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Standalone Blurb While numbers like these would crush the InedibleHulk MCE Bar of Approval, they still fall way short on my Biologically Induced, Growingly Recurrent, Horribly Ordinary Natural Disaster Assessment (BIG RHONDA). Is there a twist? I think not. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Tornado outbreak of March 24–27, 2023, which is still on ITN right now, resulted in 22 fatalities +2 non-tornadic fatalities (total of 24 confirmed deaths) and >31 injuries. The nominated article states that the Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023 resulted in >17 fatalities +3 non-tornadic fatalities (total of 20 confirme deaths) and >87 injuries. I think it would be difficult to argue at this time that the March 31 to April 1 outbreak was less notable on the grounds that it was less destructive, as the two seemed more or less equally devastating. Would it be possible to consolidate the two tornado-related blurbs?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like:
A bit wordy, but more concise than having two separate blurbs.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. It also Template:S gave us a chance to picture the Turing Award winner, who Template:S got shafted. "Kill" is shorter than "leave dead", I find. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also like combining the two tornado events. Jusdafax (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also support combined blurb. Another outbreak is currently in the forecast for Tuesday, and if that turns out to also be major then it might complicate things slightly, but for now this seems like the most elegant solution. Ionmars10 (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb as the death tolls for both is significant. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb per above. Should there be an image for this one, like tornado damage or something? I'm heading to Sullivan, Indiana, a town that was hit by an EF3 tornado during the outbreak, so if I manage to take photos of the damage there, it could be used! Tails Wx 01:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]