Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS. Archives of past nominations can be found here.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

A blurb is a one sentence summary of the news story. An alternate suggestion for the blurb is called an altblurb, and any more suggestions get labelled alt1, alt2, etc. A blurb needs at least one target article, highlighted in bold; reviewers check the quality of that article and whether it is updated, and whether reliable sources demonstrate the significance of the event. Other articles can also be linked. The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time. RD stands for the "recent deaths" line, and can include any living thing whose death was recently announced. In some cases, recent deaths may need additional explanation as provided by a blurb; this is decided by consensus.

Tornado damage in Rolling Fork, Mississippi
Tornado damage in Rolling Fork, Mississippi

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.


  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...[edit]

  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. Maybe the previous reviewer has missed a problem, or an identified problem has now been fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes may also help administrators identify items that are ready for promotion to the ITN template on MainPage.
  3. Point out problematic areas in the nominated article and, if appropriate, suggest how to fix them. If you know exactly what to do, by all means, go ahead and fix it as you see fit.

Please do not...[edit]

  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. 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.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page.
  6. Use the discussion section of an item as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome of a nomination and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates[edit]

A posted ITNC item that needs correcting can be addressed in two ways:

  • For simple updates, such as updated death tolls in a disaster, linking issues, spelling or grammar corrections, or otherwise anything that does not change the intent of the blurb should be discussed at WP:ERRORS in the ITN section.
  • For more complex updates that involve a major change in the blurb's intent, that should be discussed as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


March 29[edit]

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Paul O'Grady[edit]

Article: Paul O'Grady (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
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.

 2A02:C7C:9238:D400:39E8:F434:CE99:3E68 (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 28[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

International relations

Politics and elections

2023 Saudi Arabia bus crash[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 Saudi Arabia bus crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In a bus crash carrying Umrah pilgrims killing at least 20 and 29 injured in Asir province in southwestern Saudi Arabia. (Post)
News source(s): Gulf News, BBC, AL Jazeera
 Ainty Painty (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Per @Sandstein, and, while this is a tragedy, death tolls do not automatically mean notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think this policy should come up way more often on ITN. It feels like every single disaster over 15 or so deaths gets posted regardless of actual significance (though not to downplay these tragedies). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Its not just ITN, but NOTNEWS overall that needs to be more strictly enforced. We shouldn't have articles on things like bus accidents like this in the first place, though a list of traffic accidents in (country) would be appropriate. Masem (t) 12:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment We recently posted a bus plunge in Panama. I don't see what makes this any different in terms of postability. Regardless, the article is at AfD, so that precludes this discussion until that is resolved. Curbon7 (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - while I generally revile arguments such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEWSEVENT being used in a section dedicated to covering the news, I think instances like this where there really shouldn't be an article at all are acceptable cases for those points to be invoked.
  • Additional comment Article is now at AfD, thus automatically rendering it ineligible for posting unless the AfD closes as a keep (which given how its currently going, seems incredibly unlikely). As such, I'm requesting this be closed.
- Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 12:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

Lisbon mass stabbing[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2023 Lisbon Ismaili Centre stabbing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Portugal, two women are killed and multiple people are injured in a mass stabbing (aftermath pictured) at the Ismaili Centre in Lisbon. (Post)
News source(s): BBC - Sky News - Al Jazeera - Times of Israel - PBS

Nominator's comments: Possible high casualty stabbing in Lisbon. Article needs work regarding prose however. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 22:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose - Personally my bar is at 15 dead minimum. So this will be an oppose from me. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It feels weird to have a "minimum death toll" for notability. As Andrew pointed out above, WP:NEWSEVENT says "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scratched out what I wrote. Though, i've noticed that the article itself doesn't even really talk about the stabbing. Rather it just mentions the perpetrator, victims, and aftermath. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is not a thing and should not be a thing. Candidates should be assessed on significance, not an arbitrary number. Curbon7 (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Regardless, I don't really see this event as being that notable for ITN. It killed two people, which is sad, but that doesn't really make it notable from any other stabbing in europe or probably even portugal. That's why i'm voting oppose. Onegreatjoke (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Per @Curbon7 and WP:NEWSEVENT PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose because although this is rare for Portugal, its death toll is low & we know very little about the motive. This should be on DYK instead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Article is in good shape, and reliable sources are giving this the attention to indicate it is significant. --Jayron32 13:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Absent a very unusual scenario or context (which there doesn't appear to be here), I don't see how an event with such a low death toll reaches the bar for ITN, regardless of whether it's in the USA, Portugal or anywhere else. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on notability 2 deaths, multiple injuries, a shooting in Tennessee had more deaths and got shot down, and so will this. Cheers. WimePocy 16:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose trivial crime despite how tragic it was for those involved. In no way encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Personally, I feel a mass killing, gun or stabbing, should only make ITN if there's a major conversation occurring because of it. I would oppose most mass shootings in America in general, except things such as Uvalde and Buffalo, because conversations for gun restrictions were the result of that. Nashville, nor Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay had that, IMO. Then again, I'm not sure I have much of a say when it comes to how significant this event is, because, well, I'm not Portuguese. Though, I feel my point remains. If no major action/large conversation is taken because of this, then this should not be blurbed. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Jacob Ziv[edit]

Article: Jacob Ziv (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)

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 sourcing work needed. Mooonswimmer 14:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support, Wikipedia wouldn't function without his work (; Synotia (moan) 16:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Notable enough, article looks good. Ollieisanerd (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The biography section is almost entirely unsourced. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, Article looks OK.Alex-h (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support article is fine and ITNRD ready. Cheers. WimePocy 16:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not yet ready As Nythar states above, the Biography section is still mostly unsourced, and the article is made up almost entirely of one or two sentence paragraphs. Curbon7 (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Muhammad Idrees (politician)[edit]

Article: Muhammad Idrees (politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)

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.

 Fahads1982 (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) Ciudad Juárez fire[edit]

Article: Ciudad Juárez migrant center fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Mexico, 40 men are killed and 29 are injured in a fire at a migrant detention facility in the border town of Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Detainees in an immigration detention center in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico deliberately start a fire, killing 39 men.
News source(s): CNN AP ABC NBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: High casualty disaster along the US-Mexico border involving migrants. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 12:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose on quality, support in principle. NoahTalk 12:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality per Hurricane Noah. Will flip vote when expanded. The Kip (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Count me as a Support now. Article's been suitably expanded. The Kip (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support From what I can see right now, the article is short, but definitely well more developed than a stub, and well-referenced. There's enough information here as of now for posting on the main page. Additionally, news sources appear to be covering the story in a way that indicates that it is significant enough for the main page. --Jayron32 17:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support looks more expanded since it was nominated. It's well-sourced, and I would go with the original blurb! Tails Wx 17:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support It’s an important story & the quality seems just barely good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Notable event by its rarity and death toll Sheila1988 (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Hurricane Noah and @The Kip given the recent article's expansion. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 22:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're sure that an arson attack killing 40 people from several countries is a routine event?! Had this happened in the developed world (even if only a couple of miles away in El Paso, Texas), it'd have been posted within a few hours of being created. The article would be much longer & have been edited by several times as many people. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...such as the deaths of 38 people at a deportation center. Curbon7 (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Humza Yousaf[edit]

Article: Humza Yousaf (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Humza Yousaf elected as the first minority ethnic leader of the Scottish National Party and set to become Scotland's first minister (Post)
Alternative blurb: Humza Yousaf is elected as the leader of the Scottish National Party and Scotland's First Minister
News source(s): The Guardian, The National

Article needs updating
  • Support. The proper target article is in good shape. For the blurb, I recommend the concise altblurb. We can understand the practical effect that he will become First Minister, though some further formalities are required. To my mind this is like the US presidential election where we announce the vote results, not the meeting of the Electoral College. Jehochman Talk 11:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Firstly, this is not on ITNR so I've removed that flag. Scotland is not a sovereign country (it is part of the United Kingdom) so its first minister is only the leader of a regional government. It's equivalent to the leader of an Indian state, Belgian community or US state - none of which we post in ITN. Secondly, I don't see how his ethnicity is relevant to the position. Thirdly, it's an internal party succession with no associated popular election. There's no reason to treat this differently from any other local government succession. Modest Genius talk 11:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS. see the ITN/C discussion when Sturgeon resigned last month. Modest Genius talk 11:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That was a close discussion, and the result was wrong. Scotland is a country, not a state. Not ITNR does not mean it has to be rejected. This is a significant event that is widely in the news. Jehochman Talk 11:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I said in that discussion, "when comparing different sovereign states it's mostly just semantics whether they refer to their largest sub-national entities as states, provinces, regions, cantons, communities, nations or countries". The fact that the major subdivisions of the UK are called countries is historical and doesn't make them sovereign. I'm British, I know how the UK works. Modest Genius talk 12:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I trust you do. California would be the ~7th largest country in the world by GDP, and has the same population as Canada, but we post elections in Monaco, which have much, much less significance and zero global news coverage. Our criteria is borken. Jehochman Talk 12:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per MG. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Topic has been covered sufficiently by news sources, article is in sufficiently good shape. The lack of ITNR is a non-issue as many stories are posted in the ITN box that are not in ITNR. --Jayron32 12:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose not ITNR and Scotland is mot a sovereign nation, so it’s more close to be a sub-national political event than an statal one. There’s no way this should be posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support - I think there's a difference between the UK's subnational governments and those of countries like America. The fact that I and many other foreigners know about Sturgeon but not say Heather Stefanson or Tim Walz is demonstrative of this.
- Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 12:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the same can be said for famous US Governors, like Ron DeSantis or Gavin Newsom, who are recognisable names overseas like Sturgeon. I don't think many people would be able to name the First Ministers of Wales or Northern Ireland (I even live in the UK and I don't know them).
While the UK and the USA have very different political systems, I feel like you can draw an equivalence between the constituent countries of the UK to US states. Both have an elected legislature in the style of the overall federal legislature, both have significant regional autonomy and control over many of their own affairs, etc. The only meaningful difference here is that the USA has 50 while the UK has 4, which if you adjust for population is roughly like 8-9 states to 4 UK countries. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well to be honest, although that is true, I think another difference lies in the timing. You cited how we didn't post the 2022 Cali elections, which ignore that they were apart of the wider midterm elections that year and were thus already technically covered. This, as far as I know, is an independent election time-wise. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 13:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was no popular election here - voters didn't get a say. Only party members were involved. Modest Genius talk 13:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still an election, as the article title and prose states, as well as governmental processes and news media. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 15:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, that's actually a good point, I forgot that the California elections were part of the midterms, but then I'll bring up that we did not post the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election, where Gavin Newsom was re-elected (Discussion for that here). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
America is a continent, btw. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
America primarily refers to the United States (see that that redirects to "United States", not "The Americas". Actually, America, by itself, is not a continent. There's North America, and South America, but there's no continent referred to "America". --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know many in South America prefer to use "America" to refer to the two landmasses as a whole. If I'm perfectly honest the whole idea of a continent is stupid, there are incredibly arbitrary borders (Europe ends at the Ural Mountains and Black Sea. Why? Don't ask questions. North America and Africa both end at man-made canals, why? Who knows? And there's some mysterious sea border between Oceania and Asia that no one can quite define. Also, why are we even grouping these places together? The Middle East is insanely different from the Central Turkic states, which are different from Eastern Russia, which is different from China, which is different from Thailand, which is different from India, which is different from the Philippines, and etc. etc. Why are all of these places grouped together into "Asia"? Asia was literally just a Roman Province, same for Africa. Well I have no clue how I got from the Scottish First Minister to ranting about geographical divisions but I'm getting off topic so I better stop.). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Scotland is merely a region within a nation. We didn't post the 2022 California election result, and even if we were to include regional subdivisions for ITN, we would have to wait for his approval from the Scottish parliament. He has only been elected party leader, not First Minister yet. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Subnational + he hasn't even been formally elected as First Minister. The Kip (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Does this not count as formal election? [2]
    No comment on the overall proposal. Couruu (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - It's explicitly not ITNR. But it is making the headlines. And for the record, I would also support a sufficiently prominent sub-national election elsewhere in the world. I am interested to see what becomes of the NSW proposal further down, once it is a done deal and not ongoing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I support in principle the idea of posting election results in large sub-national regions, but Scotland is nowhere near the largest and most influential sub-national regions, so until such a practice becomes much more common I will oppose. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong Support (altblurb)- Simply because it's an election not listed on ITNR doesn't make it ineligible for ITN, which is what most of the opposition I've seen so far has been based on. Without regard to the fact that Yousaf is the first muslim leader of a major political party in the UK (I think in the whole of the West, if I'm not mistaken) but it is a major moment for the Scottish independence movement. For example, The Independent reports that Labour and the Conservatives are calling Scottish independence "dead"[3]. Not only is his election being reported covered by major UK news outlets (such as the Guardian[4]). , but also by primarily U.S. sources like CNN[5] and global sources like Al Jazeera.[6]Estar8806 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose -- We do not post the elections of subnational entities. We wouldn't post this same story if it happened in a US state or Canadian Province, even though US states and Canadian Provinces are more independent than Scotland is. To post this story would smack of UK-centrism, already a huge problem here. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Objection! Scotland has Scots law. You don't see that kind of self-rule in Nova Scotia or Manitoba. If Ontario wants to reject the monarchy, it needs permission from the nine other provincial legislatures, the federal government and the monarchy. Scotland just fights (historically). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ... Good point. I have a feeling that I don't understand Canadian federalism very well. Here in the US though, Louisiana has its own legal system that's a hybrid of civil and common-law, and here in Florida, juries consist of only 6 people (except for capital felonies). -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, all fifty states are absolutely positively 100% sovereign. Florida Man is popular for a reason that just wouldn't fly in one of the hippy or yippie states. Here, we can't publish (decent) crime comics, anywhere, despite that panic having died out with the MPs who thought it made sense at the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also, Cajuns are arguably more Canadian than hippy, yippie or Floridian, by virtue of their Acadian "bloodline". And those poor historical souls were arguably more French than anything. And as any Gallic historian can tell you, France probably had something to do with Gaelic diverging from Celtic and Welsh back in the foggy days when unicorns represented more than a district, ward, factory, metropolitan statistical area or fen. Maybe I'm just rambling. Support Photo Blurb because this formerly magic kingdom and its promising new ruler are still In The News today. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The election of a leader of a subnational govt. shouldn’t be posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support this is good news (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - for the same reason as opposing the Sturgeon announcement, we dont post sub-national office changes. We would never post the election of the governor of California, which remains a much more consequential position in nearly every regard. nableezy - 23:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Subnational entity, and conceptually the position is no more powerful or constitutionally significant than the governor of California, which we wouldn't generally post... And that's before we even consider that California has a population more than seven times that of Scotland.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per my prior rationale for supporting changes in the holder of First Minister of Scotland. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment There is a reason changes to heads of state/government of non-sovereign entities are not included in ITNR and why such noms have not received support here. A case can be made that this election is significant, with the choosen head being the first from an ethnic minority background, but this stemming from a mere party election and not a popular vote is not fully convincing as to the latter's notability. Gotitbro (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think he's more notable for trying to call an independence referendum on his first day in attempted service than for being...whatever one calls a native Glaswegian ethnic minority or minority ethnic leader in Scotland. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. what about the first Zhuang governor of Guangxi province while we're at it? Sheila1988 (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – Yes, Scotland has less autonomy than some other subnational entities. But 1), the countries of the UK get significantly more worldwide media coverage than things like the governor of California (which, like I said when Sturgeon resigned, has a higher population and GDP and msot other metrics than some sovereign states, proving that "a bunch more people live there" isn't a valid reason to oppose), and 2) the campaign for Scottish independence remains significant and ITN-worthy in my opinion. DecafPotato (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • comment from nominator. I'll remember all this 'we don't do regions' during the US primaries then. but no doubt the US bias will rule differently at that point and we'll have a whole bunch of stuff about Super Tuesday and guff that only affects 'regions' of the US. (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As far as I am aware, we have never posted Super Tuesday in ITN. Modest Genius talk 11:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Even so, and this may be controversial, but I think a major US party nomination (especially for a contentious race like what's going on in the Republican party) could be argued for notability in ITN. I live in the UK, so it's not out of some American bias, but because American politics naturally has more weight as a. It is predominantly the focus of most major, reliable news outlets, and b. The US heavily influences the entire world. That being said, I'm sure there's plenty of good counter-arguments. Just my take. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, If it is not ITNR it does not mean it is not suitable for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Support, a major event. Khan, Sunak, now Yousaf Kirill C1 (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose We wouldn't post if AOC became Governor of New York, or Omar the Governor of Minnesota, or Haaland the Leader of the Democratic party. Not ITNR, and not very notable. Sunak was an exception as it is somewhat the British equivalent of the US president, but this is a subnational election being held in a country-that-really-isn't. Cheers. WimePocy 16:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose minor local politics. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 27[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Cuban parliamentary election[edit]

Article: 2023 Cuban parliamentary election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Communist Party of Cuba wins the parliamentary elections. They were the first elections since 1976 in which neither Fidel nor Raúl Castro are involved. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Parliamentary elections are held in Cuba, the first since 1976 without either Fidel or Raúl Castro.
News source(s): Al Jazeera

Article needs updating
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: Cuba holds election. Needs updates. Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose on quality Article needs considerable updates/expansion. The Kip (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Nothing of value has changed in a single-party country. And the article, as pointed out above, is far from perfect. --Bedivere (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment I searched WP:ITNR and there is nothing saying that single-party countries are to be excluded. Is your rationale based on ITNR or personal opinion? Tube·of·Light 02:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Single-party state, elections effectively mean nothing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Oppose - Just another sham election. TomcatEnthusiast1986 (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

: Oppose - WP:GOODFAITH nomination, however, it's an election in a single party state. Big deal. Crusader1096 (message) 01:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak support - since its the first election in Cuba not under the Castros, I reckon that this is fine for posting since it's WP:ITNR. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Rights ) 03:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Might I add that this is under the condition that the primary article is expanded and improved upon. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Rights ) 03:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment We do post the results of sham elections, such as Kazakhstan which is currently posted, but there is a distinction between the circumstances there and here. Curbon7 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Not to defend Kazakhstan's government, but Kazakhstan is more akin to a competitive-authoritarian or illiberal democratic system, not a true one-party state. Besides, Kazakhstan's was notable in that it was the most competitive in their history, in relative terms. AFAIK not so in CubaThis post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Hence there is a distinction between the circumstances there and here. Curbon7 (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality (note: there is nothing in ITNR saying single-party elections are not ITNR) Tube·of·Light 02:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The blurb is not accurate. The CPC did not win the election because the candidates do not represent that party and are not necessarily members. Instead, the candidates represent local assemblies and other bodies such as women's organisations. And there's no "winning" because it's not a competitive process. The voters just get to approve the single choice for each constituency. Most voters just tick a box saying that they approve all 470 candidates. So, what matters is who was selected as candidates by the National Candidature Commission. But the article doesn't list them – there's no list of names, who they represent and which constituency they were elected to. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Conditional support if and only if the blurb can be written in a concise way that explains the actual result without implying that this was in any sense a competitive election for the Communist Party as an organisation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wrote altblutb to account for the single-party nature of Cuba. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom per above. Article is completely inadequate for one covering national "elections" and the elections were just a rubber stamp affair in a Communist police state. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb is 100% false, with claim that neither Castro were involved in the 1976 "election". The Communist Part of Cuba won all the seats in 1976, and Fidel Castro was both the leader of the party and of the country before and after the 1976 election. Perhaps User:Rushtheeditor can explain this Stalin-like historical revision? Nfitz (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Excuse me? I saw that ON the page, and I DID NOT write that on there. I assumed (my fault) that it was true and posted it. Do not accuse me of such ‘historical revision’. Rushtheeditor (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Uncalled for. Mistakes happen; stating that an editor's honest mistake is a Stalin-like historical revision is absolutely a personal attack. Curbon7 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support altblurb - oppose the tut-tutting of the anti-countering systemic bias in favor of entrenching it fuller crowd. People want to talk about elections but had no problem posting this "election" in which 140k people decided the UK PM, or this one in which not even that level of "election" took place. nableezy - 20:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is ITN/R and all the arguments about Cuba's elections dont count because I dont believe in Cuban elections should be ignored and tossed aside. The only objection that has merit here is quality, and of the people discussing it that does not seem to be a stopping point here. This should be posted, and the people advocating for keeping ITN a bastion of Western superiority should be rebuked. nableezy - 16:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I apologize for the original blurb. I see how it is wrong and I will learn from this and be more careful when proposing blurbs. Again, I am sorry for this. Rushtheeditor (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Feels like SNOW is in the offing here, but I still passionately believe that we should post these sorts of elections. No one's refuting that Cuba's a one-party system, and I can understand a lack of belief that anything will change with this election. However, I believe this is an ITN/R election and thus merits posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The reason I, and I suspect some others are opposing this, is because this was not in fact an election in any generally accepted sense of the term. The labels of the Communist Party notwithstanding. You can call a turd a strawberry, but that doesn't make it so and I don't think we should be promoting that kind of blatant fantasy to our readers. The subject is certainly notable enough for coverage in the encyclopedia. But presenting this farce on the main page as an election would be gravely misleading. Wikipedia should not be serving turds and labeling them strawberries. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So you sit in judgment of another country's system of governance and deny it the legitimacy of Wikipedia's front page? And that is not systemic bias? nableezy - 22:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't consider the Communist Party or any official organ of the Cuban Government as a reliable source. I am unaware of any reliable source that treats this as in any way, an election in the generally accepted sense of the term. If you want to call that systemic bias, then I plead guilty. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Besides the al-Jazeera source cited, there is Reuters, NBC News, hell even Fox calls them elections. Uncontested ones of course, but they are elections according to reliable sources. nableezy - 23:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They are all reporting the claims of the Cuban government, which is entirely proper. We should likewise report the claims, and we do in the article. But none of them have in any way suggested that what the Cubans are labeling elections, are in fact such. No reliable source has called these true elections, and many have made it fairly clear that they are not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What exactly is the "blatant fantasy" here? We know this election happened. You can debate the actual impact, but there was indeed a parliamentary election just held in Cuba, legitimate or not. Call it a semantic argument, but the phrase "sham election" contains the word "election" in it. The phrase simply means the election was not legitimate. The only way for you to believe this "turd" is a "strawberry" is if. quite frankly, you can't read or you didn't actually click on the article. It's not our job to cater to those who have no interest in actually reading what Wikipedia has to tell them. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn". DarkSide830 (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – There is no clause that excludes one-party or unfair elections from being posted to ITN. DecafPotato (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait We have no idea how any potential discussion on the removal of Cuban parliamentary elections from R might go, best to let that play out first, like with the despised and printed rocket failure. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question do we post Chinese parliamentary (not merely Xi) elections? Because I feel that's the most appropriate comparison/precedent here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It depends. Do RS come out and confirm politics (not merely government) as a significant motive and do we feel that an election winner of that motive is sufficiently interesting to post? If so, sure, sounds like news. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hmmm, I don't see either of those things here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Precisely. So we Oppose. We may still disagree on whether a political motive is more crucial to promoting potentially developing election coverage than in the retelling of a relatively popular modern horror story as it unfolds. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per comrade InedibleHulk. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Yes elections are ITNR, but that is not the sole criteria. Firstly we have to look at the article quality (per ITNR itself) which is completely absent here, a few barebones paras mostly about the results without any contextual information on the history, conduct, impact and analysis. Secondly, we have to look at the precedent for such noms here on ITN; we have not posted elections or other leadership changes in similar one-party communist states beyond the general secretary positions, i.e., who actually holds power. The recent examples being China and Vietnam. This fails on both criterias, and I see no reason to deviate. Gotitbro (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good points. Looking at the detail, there's some mysteries which the article doesn't explain. The number of seats was reduced by over a hundred but it's not clear what the practical effect of this has been. And exactly how many are there? There's a couple of numbers floating around – 470 and 474 – but which is it? I get the impression that the detail is fuzzy because it doesn't much matter. The actual headline figure seems to be the turnout as the closest thing the system gives to a verdict on the government (which doesn't change). Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Elections are ITNR because the assumption is that they are of political significance and therefore in the news. This assumption does not apply in the case of sham elections of rubberstamp parliaments in autocracies, because such "elections" have no political impact. Sandstein 09:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Covenant School 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: 2023 Covenant School shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Seven people including the shooter are killed in a mass shooting at the Covenant school in Nashville USA (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the United States, seven people are killed, including the perpetrator, in a mass shooting at the Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the United States, a transgender person kills six people in a mass shooting at the Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee, before being killed by police. (NOTE: Only include this if allegations of this being a hate crime or relating to the perpretrator's transgender identity are true)
News source(s): BBC, CNN Al Jazeera
Nominator's comments: I'm not going to convince anyone with this so instead I will plead with you to be civil. If we cannot than I think we should consider asking the arbitration committee to lay down some sort of law. Aure entuluva (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Mass shootings such as this are commonplace in the United States.
NoahTalk 02:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait @Hurricane Noah, although shootings are common in the US, we usually tend to post those with a peculiar motive. From what it seems there's a decent chance that this may have been a politically motivated shooting, with the perpetrator being transgender and possibly being motivated by transphobia and the like. However, since WP:RSes are slow to progress and all of these claims are still in dispute and unverified, it's best to wait. If these accusations are authenticated, I will support.
Crusader1096 (message) 02:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just concerned with the fact there have been 9 shootings with more victims than this one thus far this year and that there has been a mass shooting five of the past seven days. NoahTalk 02:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Major news story, #1 story in the U.S. today, high quality article to post. For the purposes of ITN, the number that happen per year is irrelevant. Motive is irrelevant. The other mass shootings don't get this kind of news coverage. The ones that rise to "No Way to Prevent This" mockery are the almost 1:1 the ones that we should be posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The other mass shootings don't get this kind of news coverage; I would disagree with this statement at the moment to be honest. With most mass shootings of this scale, there's a lot of instant coverage which tapers off in the following days. Curbon7 (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Many mass shootings don't have Wikipedia articles because they don't get this kind of news coverage. And "instant coverage which tapers off in the following days" refers to a lot of what ITN posts, or should be posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Tragic, but as is the case with many of these shootings, not notable to ITN levels. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - an absurd nomination. Six deaths in a US shooting - that must make it Tuesday. We've had this discussion before. Reading the nomination statement, User:Hurricane Noah nominated this fully knowing it wouldn't go through. Isn't that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Nfitz (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    However, it isn't Hurricane Noah–I don't see their green glow with a splotch of red at the end of the nominator statement! Tails Wx 04:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Wx ... I completely misread the first three posts! Nfitz (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment by the nominator The notability isn't from the death count as much as it is from where the shooting happened. People care about children and school shootings are rare even in the US. By my count there have been 14 school shootings with more deaths in US history. Source: US school shooting before 2000, US school shootings since 2000 Aure entuluva (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

March 26[edit]

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

(Closed) The Boat Race[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: The Boat Race 2023 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Cambridge University win the men's and women's events of The Boat Race. (Post)
News source(s): The Times, The Guardian
 Whizz40 (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm unsurprised that the article is of far lesser quality than previous years, since it's since been removed from ITN/R. Well done, everyone. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair, it's not just that, it's the relentless hatred that's stopped me bothering. Fuck it, why bother? The ex-colonials win and the encyclopedia loses. Standard stuff these days. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this article was of the quality of previous years, I would have supported, not that it would help with the below. I do think the arguments of ITN being only suitable for surprising things that aren't scheduled events to be reasonably blind that almost everything outside of an act of God is scheduled, and something being "amateur" or "niche" isn't of itself not culturally relevant. If you do want to fix it up, or just want someone to update the item, drop me a line. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on significance. A minor event with limited international coverage. nableezy - 19:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Amateur competition with only two entrants, little public interest, and all the other significance issues that were raised in the recent discussion on WT:ITN. Modest Genius talk 19:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not being on ITBR does not exclude a topic from being discussed as its ITNC entry. Masem (t) 19:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am well aware of that. I specifically referred to the significance concerns that were discussed there, not the outcome (delisting). Many of those arguments also apply to an individual nomination. Modest Genius talk 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Very true, albeit I believe he meant that his oppose is based off the same significance reasons given to remove it from ITNR (as opposed to arguing it shouldn’t be posted because it was removed). The Kip (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose MVP Jasper Parish doesn't have an article, much less a suitable picture, and Jasper Parrish is awful. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Have you tried writing relevant comments with your !votes? GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is relevant. When we post a sport, we usually post someone's picture and both sources agree he's the hero here (though not "MVP", exactly). He's also not mentioned at the target article. If that's not reason enough, its latest source is from 2016. Retrieved then, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Nableezy. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Nableezy. The Kip (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Are we happy now? Did we somehow improve the English-language Wikipedia by doing this? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be frank, it seems like the entire reason this was on ITN/R at all was to appease some disgruntled old hand. The main page should not be held hostage by vested contributors, and yes I think not featuring unimportant crap like a rowing race between two and only two universities on the main page is improving Wikipedia. nableezy - 19:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be frank, seems like you're full of hatred against a 200-year institution which is broadcast around the globe. The main page was never "held hostage" (emotive language, typical of people like you), I always produced top quality material for ITN. You fucked it all up for a large number of people, so well done you. Applause. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wee bit childish, innit. But hatred would imply I give a shit. Hint, I dont. nableezy - 19:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Despite what you may believe about its significance, it still receives absolutely minimal media coverage; having googled it, literally the only non-UK-based source reporting on the race or its results is the Olympics/IOC. Arguing for it to be kept, as a limited-coverage event between two and only two colleges, is effectively akin to arguing for us to post the result of Michigan versus Ohio State every year, which obviously should not be posted (and British editors would certainly be opposed to). The wider, not-just-British consensus was that it doesn’t meet ITNR’s standards for inclusion, and the consensus here seems to be that it doesn’t meet ITNC’s either; you can either accept the consensus of the English-language (not just English!) Wikipedia, or continue to be a sore loser of sorts as your comments are indicating. The Kip (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Article is far too brief at this stage. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The way this process has played out is sad. Just very, very sad. An ugly vendetta has spilled out into open view on ITN/C and completely poisoned the well. I think there is plenty of shame to go around for all of us. Can we just close this before it gets worse. WaltClipper -(talk) 20:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Theres only one person showing any type of vendetta here, but apparently its just the ex-colonists (imagine thinking being a colonizer is a good thing lol) lashing out. There is exactly one person acting like a child here. Guess who it is. nableezy - 20:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nobody appears rosy here, and I certainly find it depressing that you indirectly referred to an editor's long-time work as unimportant crap. I ask again the same question posed by Muboshgu: How have we improved the encyclopedia through this rabid and toxic bickering? WaltClipper -(talk) 20:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Boat Race is unimportant crap. The articles are lovely. They can still be on the main page as DYK and FA when they make GA and FA. They just dont belong "In The News" because the news (worldwide) largely ignores it as unimportant. Asked and answered on the question. But the only toxicity is coming from one person here. One person you seem disinclined to say anything about. nableezy - 20:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you show a little sensitivity and civility here? 331dot (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure if Im not called an ex-colonial who fucked it all up for a large number of people. Strange sliding scale you have for civility. And why does this need sensitivity? Compared to things like this I think Im a paragon of sensitivity and civility. But theres that sliding scale I guess. nableezy - 20:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That this was removed from ITNR kinda shows ITN has lost its way and purpose. The vitriol here doesn't help. The article involved might have gotten more work and attention had there been a willingness to post it, as it has previously. Does that help the encyclopedia? If you want Michigan v Ohio State posted, nominate it and tell us why. Neither Michigan or Ohio State is as old as Cambridge and Oxford, but maybe we've missed something. This longtime race watched live by hundreds of thousands and on TV by millions between two ancient universities is important to some, even if others don't think so. We should be thinking about readers here and we're not. Sorry to digress but, that's my two cents. And I do support this on the merits. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If I can pay attention and update the article, having no interest in the race and taking vitriol, anyone can. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. NoahTalk 20:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I recommend removing this nomination until the article has been improved further. When it is more complete it could be renominated. Please do not be deterred by the negativism in this thread, of which there is sadly too much. Last year's Boat Race article became featured. This one could be featured too, and appear on the home page through that alternative, if not through the News. Jehochman Talk 20:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per all of the above - User:Editor 5426387 (talk) 20;50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
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: María Kodama[edit]

Article: María Kodama (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Buenos Aires Herald

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: Jorge Luis Borges' widow and the sole owner of the rights to his work. Needs more update. BorgQueen (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Oladipo Diya[edit]

Article: Oladipo Diya (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Premium Times

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: Nigerian military officer; article needs some more update – Ammarpad (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Innocent (actor)[edit]

Article: Innocent (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India
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: Innocent Vareed Thekkethala an actor and Indian MP . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 25[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Nick Lloyd Webber[edit]

Article: Nick Lloyd Webber (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7], [8], [9]

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: Son of Andrew Lloyd Webber, followed his father's footsteps and became a composer. Article looks good, well cited. Ollieisanerd (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Frank LeMaster[edit]

Article: Frank LeMaster (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Philadelphia Eagles

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 reported by the Eagles on March 25, although he died on March 23. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: 2023 New South Wales state election[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 New South Wales state election (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Nominator's comments: Still being counted, but it the winner has been declared.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • A small but I think reasonable request: Can we please wait for more than a bloody hour before SNOW closing a nomination, especially if it has only garnered three !votes? --WaltClipper -(talk) 14:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I suppose so, but considering it was three quick opposes on an item that would already be highly unlikely to post considering precedence, in my opinion it was justified. The Kip (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think that's a reasonable request at all. WP:SNOW is dominating. We've had a long-standing rule not to post the elections of individual states within a federation unless there's a very good reason. Now, I'd like to see that rule loosened somewhat, but if we started posting every subnational election, that's all ITN would ever be. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • God damnit, I didn't say post every bloody subnational election (and no, we don't have a "long-standing rule"), please do not insinuate that was what I meant. I said can we not SNOW close good-faith nominations within an hour. I thought we were collectively going to try and steer away from making ITN/C a walled garden culture. WaltClipper -(talk) 13:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) Ongoing: Protests in Israel[edit]

Article: 2023 Israeli anti-judicial reform protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)

Nominator's comments: This has been going on for a while now, and just now Netenyahu's defence minister publicaly called on him to freeze the legislation. It's a big deal and there have been threats of civil war. Son OThe Desert (Talk) 18:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Compared to the current French ones, where the number of protestors have been near a million, the numbers here are far less significant. I realize recent changes may cause these to grow. However, I would point out the same issue that most of our protest articles start as: a pure timeline without a significant background section and larger narrative section is not very helpful to readers. Masem (t) 19:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a proportion of the population I wouldnt say that this is less significant. nableezy - 19:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A bit late, but with ~700,000 Israeli protesters (7-8% of the population) it’s hard to say so. Juxlos (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support This is a huge deal with serious implications for Israel's long term politics and constitutional order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - this was nominated before last month, but it was dismissed as "politics as usual." This is anything but: this can have immense ramifications for Israeli politics and can change the very structure of the country's government. Additionally, @Masem's point regarding the French protests is misleading; 1.5% of France is protesting, and with these protests, as many as nearly 3% have been protesting in Israel. The comparison is not apt. However, I will agree with you @Masem in that it should be expanded into more of an article of proper prose. Crusader1096 (message) 23:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support once expanded per Knightoftheswords281. DecafPotato (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per above. They've been going long enough at a large enough scale to merit an ongoing event. The Kip (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support agreed with all above. It also seems these protests won't be ending any time in the near future, or at least the month. Daneellis114 03:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, especially with news of Netanyahu firing Israel's defense minister. This will only escalate from here. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 18:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting comment Given what has happened over the weekend in Israel, I really think that 1) this needs to be a blurb along the style of "Mass protest arise in Israel after Netanyahu fires its defense minister." and 2) the article needs to be more in depth about what is happening in the govt instead of just covering the protests. eg 2023 Israeli judicial reform and these protests should be in the same article since their timelines go hand in hand. --Masem (t) 03:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: Concur with Masem, I think this could have made a lot of sense as a blurb with consideration for subsequent Ongoing after time as a blurb. SpencerT•C 04:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agree blurb over ongoing, something like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu postpones consideration of judicial overhaul in the wake of mass protests, nableezy - 05:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support blurb. In light of recent developments, I would also support a blurb with a subsequent drop-off to ongoing. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Asteroid 2023 DZ2[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: 2023 DZ2 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Asteroid 2023 DZ2 (pictured) makes a close pass between the Earth and the Moon. (Post)
News source(s): BBC; NPR

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A near miss this time, it seems, but it will return so it's a reminder of the importance of rocketry and space development. Relevant agencies will be using this as a drill/exercise for planetary defense. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose no significant impact, not visible without good telescopes, etc. Yes, we do need to be aware of the importance of tracking objects that may hit earth, but close misses are not really good ITN stories, since we generally do not post on "what ifs" --Masem (t) 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is a once a decade close approach by an object this large and (other than Apophis in 2029) these things are never visible without a telescope. -- Kheider (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Apophis will be visible without a telescope IIRC. I think when it does pass by Earth we should post it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Suppose near-misses happen frequently. Fdfexoex (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • AFD. Article seems to fail WP:NASTRO. (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Google 2023 DZ2 and look at the news tab instead of assuming. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No you. Reaffirming my suggestion to send to AFD. Close passes like this aren't all that infrequent, and a flurry of sensationalist headlines every time there's one doesn't really add up to GNG for the object in question. (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How exactly does this fail WP:NASTRO? Seems to fulfil clause IV. Crusader1096 (message) 23:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are we looking at the same #4: "The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the use of astrophotography or automated technology.[note 2]", because that's definitely not fulfilled. The NASTRO fail seems pretty clear...the place where there's some room for disagreement is GNG, but I still feel that it's not satisfied. (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Three not smaller* objects got this close or closer since the start of a campaign 25 years ago, to stop missing ones from systemic bias (looking where it's easier to discover an asteroid). *size is how big it'd be if it was the most likely shade of gray cause its light reflection efficiency isn't known beyond "most asteroids are between 5 and 25%". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you think it should be AfD'd, feel free to bring it there. DecafPotato (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be fair, an IP technically can’t create an AFD without an (autoconfirmed?) editor to finish the process. Courcelles (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - per @Masem. Crusader1096 (message) 23:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. The Kip (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - NEO passes happen a lot, obviously didn't hit anything, no real reason why we should post it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Einstein problem[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: Aperiodic tiling (talk · history · tag) and Einstein problem (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The einstein problem is solved by a single shape that tiles a plane without repeating (pictured). (Post)
News source(s): Science News; New Scientist

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Thanks to GenevieveDEon for suggesting this. The maths requires care to define exactly but its visual nature makes it more accessible than most maths breakthroughs and so we should take this opportunity to show our readers the remarkable new hat shape. There are at least two possible target articles and so I've highlighted them both. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Done, thanks. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - As I mentioned on the main ITN talk page, the discovery is currently only in pre-print, so I don't know that it's been appropriately reviewed. And neither of the two proposed target articles is in good shape. Aperiodic tiling doesn't even link to Einstein problem, even though the latter is clearly about the former. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Science News reports that "While the paper has yet to be peer-reviewed, the experts interviewed for this article agree that the result seems likely to hold up to detailed scrutiny." Formal publication might take months or years and, by then, the result will be well known and the news will be stale. This therefore seems the best window for us to share this development. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's helpful, thank you. If the articles can be improved, I would be inclined to reverse my position. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We always wait on the publication of a peer-reviewed paper for ITN. Masem (t) 15:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, we don't. Just about nothing that appears at ITN is based on a peer-reviewed paper that has been through the ponderous process of academic publishing. Instead, most stories are based on news reports and press releases. For example, see the Afghan earthquake which has just been posted. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For all scientific and medical-based stories (this is one), we expect a peer-reviewed source per SCIRS and MEDRS. Newspapers and the general media are not experts to be able to judge if the results are valid. Masem (t) 18:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the details of a recent earthquake, such as its magnitude, are a scientific matter – that science is seismology. The same applies to other occurrences such as weather (meteorology), space (astronomy and astrophysics), &c. Just about everything is covered in some way by academia but we do not require peer-reviewed papers. What we require is that it's in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a bit of a difference between the occurrence of a massive natural disaster (reported by mainstream news, with immediate and up-to-date facts) and the solving of a long-standing math problem (which still requires peer-review to confirm). The Kip (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The key difference is that insisting on a different level of sourcing for mathematics introduces an arbitrary and systemic bias. It accentuates ITN's tendency to run topics which are recurring, repetitive and routine while shutting out those which are actually new. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, given how math proofs can generally be easily verified by other skilled mathematicians, compared to other scientific fields where the peer-review has to be based on an assessment of the data quality and methods used rather than recreation, expecting a peer-reviewed source for a mathematics proof is absolutely reasonable and within expectations.
Now, in a case like this, where the result is an interesting result but one with little practical application, as opposed to demonstrating, hypothetically, that NP-hard problems can be solved in P-time which would have massive impacts on computing technology, that the news is reporting it prior to a peer-review shows that its more a curiosity than a groundbreaking discovery. So we're not creating a bias here. Masem (t) 13:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's look at the evidence and do the math. There's 10 nominations at WP:ITN/C currently which are STEM in some way. The only ones which have been posted are those which feature some deaths - the earthquake and tornado. So, that's all that matters in practise. But the trouble is that "if it bleeds, it leads" is a journalistic, tabloid sensibility. ITN is posting sensational stories and snubbing science. That's systemic bias. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - It may take a while, but peer review exists for a reason. --WaltClipper -(talk) 14:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question Is this actually... important? I've read the target articles and sources, and while the problem has existed for a long time and might have applications in material sciences, I'm not convinced (but could be!) this really matters all that much. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Was the proof that pi has infinite digits important? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose This is material suitable to DYK, not ITN as its not a major scientific breakthrough. --Masem (t) 15:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Per @Masem. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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: Gordon Moore[edit]

Article: Gordon Moore (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times

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.

 [email protected] (he/him) 02:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support, article is relatively short but very well sourced. DFlhb (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I see just a couple statements that could use citations but this is well sourced for a bio. --Masem (t) 02:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Moore is a very influential person in the field of computer science, and in fact has a whole "law" of Computer Science named after him (Moore's law). RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • support blurb obviously. Household name due to the law (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I definitely wouldn't consider this to be an obvious blurb. Gordon Moore is not a name that everyone would know (i.e. not really a household name), and I doubt the average person has heard of Moore's law either. A highly influential businessman and engineer, who co-founded and oversaw a company that could stake a legitimate claim to having changed the world, but I feel like blurbs are generally reserved for individuals who are known to pretty near everyone. Kurtis (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd support a blurb; Steve Jobs had one when he died, and I'd say Moore was just as significant if not more. DFlhb (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The difference is that Steve Jobs was a household name—everyone knew who he was. Gordon Moore is certainly a major figure in electronics engineering (indeed, I argue above that Moore flat-out changed the world) but he doesn't have the same name recognition. Kurtis (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose blurb - Sadly, Moore was definitely not a household name. There's an issue of small sample sizes here - Wikipedia editors are vastly disproportionately likely to have heard of him. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Lead is sparse.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posting. The lead the is sparse but still works. --Tone 09:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, it was borderline of when I'd apply the orange {{Lead too short}}.—Bagumba (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support RD, Oppose blurb - Notable figure, but not enough to warrant a blurb.
I feel like we need an ITN/R for recent deaths, so we can figure out who is notable enough for a blurb and who isn't. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Call it ITN/BD for blurbable deaths and put Gene Hackman and William Shatner on the list. Fdfexoex (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a bit of a morbid subject, but yes I think we should probably post them when they die (hopefully later rather than sooner). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Creating such a list would be impossible. When examining those recent deaths that do occur and determining whether they are eligible for a blurb, one of the factors that comes into play is the suddenness or unexpectedness of the death. For example, if the currently-serving head of state of a country dropped dead tomorrow, this would or should prompt a blurb (notwithstanding those editors who have their own personal criteria that exclude all but the most transcendent people from receiving blurbs). As a famous figure becomes older and gains distance from the apex of their career, it becomes more difficult to justify them having a blurb. The list would need to be changing constantly in order to reflect the reality of the current consensus. I don't think anyone would be up to the task. --WaltClipper -(talk) 14:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll also note that whether to blurb a recent death depends, for some of us, on the extent to which their article is updated, following their death. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Seems to have posted with missing citations. Premature post. Would not recommend a pull though. Instead someone knowledgeable and who has the ability to, should go in and fix the article. I am out today. Ktin (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't see where citations are missing from the time of your commentBagumba (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have added [citation needed] tags for your benefit. Please see. Also, if you are helping edit the article, please see if you can fix some of the WP:PROSELINE issues. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Still seems to meet WP:ITNQUALITY: Articles should be well referenced; one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, but any contentious statements must have a source, and having entire sections without any sources is unacceptable.Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have resolved the tags now. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 24[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Pennsylvania chocolate factory explosion[edit]

Article: 2023 Pennsylvania chocolate factory explosion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the United States, seven people die and ten people are injured following an explosion at an R.M Palmer Company chocolate factory in West Reading, Pennsylvania. (Post)
News source(s): NYT (paywalled) - CNN - CBS

Nominator's comments: High casualty event that surprisingly went under my radar (did anyone else hear about this? I legit just learned about this today). Unusual in its area. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 22:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose for different reasons. I honestly don't think that this is "in the news". As you yourself mentioned "High casualty event that surprisingly went under my radar (did anyone else hear about this? I legit just learned about this today)." so this really isn't in the news. Heck, even I rarely heard anything about it. It is definitely unusual though so my mind could change. Though I will say, the I don't like the comment "A mass casualty explosion at a factory in a first world country is 'not notable?'" kind of implies that if it happened in a third world country the overall impact would be "lesser". Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the impact is more pronounced given that that industrial catastrophes of this scale typically occur in third world countries with more lax building regulations, etc. Not saying its inherently less important, but to be honest, if someone stated that a factory blew up, resulting in seven dead and ten injuries, without prior context, I personally would assume it to be a third world country.

Also, although media coverage seems to have been limited, mainstream sources like CNN, NYT, and CBS are still covering it (see listed sources above). - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 14:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honeslty, i do think the article is too stubby though. The timeline (why is the section called timeline?) and the background sections could use a bit more expansion. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) Tornado outbreak of March 24–25, 2023[edit]

Article: Tornado outbreak of March 24–25, 2023 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 26 are killed in a tornado outbreak in Mississippi and Alabama, United States (Post)
News source(s): BBC ABC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Tornado outbreak with an unusually large death count (it struck at night) that is expected to rise. Better image likely to come. Teemu08 (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Article seems to be of good quality. Highly visible and "in the news" tragedy. Kafoxe (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - per above. RIP. Also, support @RandomInfinity17's calls for the other image to be used, with the blurb acknowledging that the picture shows the wider tornado system. Crusader1096 (message) 16:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. There appears to be a dissonance between the fatality number reported in multiple sections of the article. The Rolling Fork-Silver City tornado section mentions the fatality number as both 19 and 23, while two more are added for Amory. I believe we should rectify this before ITN posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support As per above. The article is in good shape. --Maxxies (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong Support

Deeply saddening event with extreme damage and a high death toll, so I strongly support this being posted onto ITN User:Idontknowlol7

  • Support, notable tornado outbreak, and as per above. That was a really catastrophic tornado hitting Rolling Fork, Silver City and Amory, worst I've seen ever. Tails Wx 17:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Clearly an extreme and deadly weather event with major media coverage. Article appears to be in decent shape. Jusdafax (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support—It’s not like highly destructive tornado outbreaks in the American South and Midwest are uncommon, but a death toll of 23 people does seem exceptional to me. Kurtis (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Article looks ready to be posted; I saw no {cn} tags in it. This is also an exceptionally catastrophic tornado outbreak which is receiving national and international news coverage. And as reflected in the article's title now, I fear that we have not yet seen the end of this particular tornado outbreak. Vida0007 (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment The casualties now include at least two dead from Alabama. Perhaps the blurb could be changed to something like "in the Southern United States, including the states of Mississippi and Alabama."? Kafoxe (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: unfortunate but important. Article seems ready –lomrjyotalk 01:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: The image associated with this nomination does not have copyright information associated with it, and it is NOT free for use. This needs to be changed before publishing. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would do Late March 2023 Tornado Outbreak 2023-03-25 1406Z.jpg, satellite imagery of the outbreak on March 25. Infinity (talk - contributions) 02:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We really need to fix this immediately. That image absolutely should not be used, it's not free. Planet specifically says on their website

    Planet’s imagery that is posted online via our owned media channels (i.e.,, social media and in the press) is done so under creative common CC-BY-NC-SA. Under this license, you are free to share and adapt our imagery as long as you correctly attribute it to Planet (e.g. ©Planet Labs PBC, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0), and properly indicate any change that is made to the imagery. The imagery may not be sold or commercialized under this creative commons license, but interested parties can reach out to [email protected] to discuss licensing our imagery data for commercial purposes.

    I'm not sure if the press piece applies, I saw it widely shared on social media but not by anyone associated with Planet. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I support using this image as a replacement for the Planet imagery now that it's been removed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can this be posted? It's been up for nearly 24 hours with unanimous support. --RockstoneSend me a message! 06:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posting. I'll write 25 as per article. --Tone 08:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment at a glance, the vast majority of fatalities were caused by a single tornado. Should that one specifically get its own? Juxlos (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Epeli Ganilau[edit]

Article: Epeli Ganilau (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [10]
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: Notable Fijian political figure. Article is lengthy and extensive, but is unfortunately basically unsourced. I'll try my best to remedy it. Crusader1096 (message) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Jean-Jacques Favier[edit]

Article: Jean-Jacques Favier (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [11]
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: German-French astronaut who flew for NASA. Article needs work however. Crusader1096 (message) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 23[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Science and technology

  • The world's first rocket made by extensive 3D printing, Terran 1, makes its first launch but fails to reach orbit. (NYT)


RD: Jerry Green (writer)[edit]

Article: Jerry Green (writer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [12]

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) 03:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: Article could use a little more prose for depth, ISBNs or refs for his works, and some trimming of the selected works which is on the lengthy side. SpencerT•C 04:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IAAF bans trans athletes[edit]

Article: Transgender people in sports (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: World Athletics bans transgender women from competing in female world ranking events (Post)
News source(s): BBC; CNN Guadrian SkyNews Reuters ESPN
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Seems to be of worldwide notability, zeitgeist; article editing is semi-locked. 2A02:2F0B:B604:E100:E022:4DF3:6412:3E6F (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except that it is considered a temporary measure until they debate how to handle trans athletes further, and currently has zero effects on competing athletes. Masem (t) 00:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Temporary decision, article isn't of sufficient quality. I can see the notability, but how does this actually affect most sports in the world? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Good faith nom, but its temporary for now, so its significance is still up in the air. Crusader1096 (message) 06:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Needs work The article needs updating to reflect the latest rule changes. And it's rather ongoing as there were previous rules and there will be a working party on more. Getting the technicalities about testosterone right seems complex. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm afraid we would never be able to feature something without an updated article, so I would recommend getting active in editing in the field (perhaps starting with non-locked articles initially, to learn the ropes). ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – the target article hasn't even been edited at all in over ten days. DecafPotato (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Terran 1 launch[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Terran 1 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A rocket made by extensive 3D printingTerran 1 – makes its first launch but fails to reach orbit. (Post)
News source(s): NYT; BBC;

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: WP:ITN/R includes "The first and last launches of any type of rocket". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'll reiterate my frequent refrain that space exploration is poorly suited to ITN/R, as we will inevitably find ourselves parsing whether what the thing did matches the wording of the guideline. That said, I cannot even tell what the thing did at this stage, so Wait for article to be fleshed out. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am open to an article like this for ITN, and this could be the humble start of quite cheaply produced rocketry! But it's not a particularly big-impact mission as it stands, nor is it particularly promising just yet. If the article were a solid B-class with a lot of detail, I would be happy to see it featured, but right now it doesn't feel ready for the front page. Waiting until a rocket by this team reaches orbit might be more helpful for our project, but I can already see that being mass-opposed when the time comes... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The article hasn't been expanded since the nomination, so I feel like Oppose, as the article doesn't feel particularly ready for a prominent feature on the front page. I'd rather wait for a successful launch, with the hope that the article will be more impressive at that time. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Definitely a first for a printjob, maybe the last of the Terrans, update reasonably complete. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support Sure...article does need expansion, but this is ITN/R. I don't know, honestly. Cheers. WimePocy 13:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support for ITN/R reasons. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Comment While this is a very interesting news, I don't think it is ITN-worthy at this time. I would prefer to wait until they have a successful launch. Otherwise, this could be perceived as promoting indirectly someone's business.--Maxxies (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current ITN/R guidelines state that the first launch of any rocket, whether successful or unsuccessful, automatically satisfies the notability requirement for an item. If you would like to propose a change in those guidelines, you are invited to do so at WT:ITN.--WaltClipper -(talk) 17:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noted. Thanks. Maxxies (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have (very rarely) IAR'd to not post something ITNR in the past, including one instance a few months ago. Curbon7 (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which was? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sagittarian Milky Way, I think it was another rocket launch, if I recall correctly. I don't remember which or exactly when. Curbon7 (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reluctant Support. Article is fine. No way notable enough in general, but ITN/R wins again. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've occasionally wondered if an engineering student firing a sounding rocket made of polydiketoenamine past the Karman Line would count as an ITN/R launch. --WaltClipper -(talk) 17:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest, if this thought can to mind, perhaps we should consider going to try for a discussion at WT:ITN? TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would strongly encourage it, I'd open it myself except I'm not confident in my argumentative ability. The Kip (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry, I opened it up. WT:ITN. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support - the fact that its 3D printed makes it somewhat notable in that regard IMO. Crusader1096 (message) 18:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • IAR Oppose – Yes, it's ITN/R, but it feels like only by a technicality, and doesn't have the significance to actually be on ITN. DecafPotato (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Not notable enough. NoahTalk 20:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment IAR opposes really need to be an overwhelming consensus (somewhere in the range of 95%) in order to be considered sufficient to bar an ITN/R item from posting. In other words, it has to be something that contravenes the spirit of the ITN/R criterion if not the letter. In addition, straight-up vote-votes like "not notable" are about as helpful to a posting admin as no rationale at all. Really, the best place to make a case is on WT:ITN, where this is already being discussed. --WaltClipper -(talk) 20:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A support !vote specifically saying that they disagree that it should be posted but reluctantly support because of its ITN/R status are a very strong case for how this shouldn't be posted. And like I said, I feel as though this is only ITN/R by a technicality without any established significance, which, in my opinion, contravenes the spirit of the ITN/R criterion if not the letter. DecafPotato (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strongly support the story, but wait until orbit - ITN/R, my guys. And as for the legitimacy of this being ITN/R, I think it's
a. Good to have positive, diverse stories to post
b. This is the first flight of a new orbital rocket by a new company, which alone is quite notable, especially considering the massively growing significance of the space industry on our every day lives
c. 3D printing technology pushed to a new extreme, which only adds to the notability.
Unfortunately, I don't think it should be posted until a successful orbital launch, which will probably be soon. I feel like ITN/R should be updated to say that only successful orbital launches be notable (though one near-future exception to this could be the maiden launch of SpaceX Starship, if it ends in failure). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support since this is in ITNR. Also, I watched it from my university's parking garage last night, and witnessed the 2nd stage fail to ignite, so that was interesting. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Despite the second-stage failure, this first-ever of its kind 3-D printed launch is notable and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • IAR Oppose - The use of 3D printing as a novel fabrication technique seems to be popular as way of trying to boost the significance of otherwise small-scale developments, and this is a striking example of that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Umm... to 3D-print almost an entire fracking rocket is no small-scale development, hence support. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - I am quite surprised an administrator has not posted this yet. I know I'm echoing LaserLegs from long ago who got similarly angry about a nomination for Blue Origin, but that nomination was even more clear-cut that the event was not to be posted. Are admins waiting for the resolution of the discussion on WT:ITN? --WaltClipper -(talk) 14:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Given that the WT:ITN discussion seems to be leaning towards 'remove from ITN/R', the "support since this is ITN/R" !votes likely won't have much weight. DecafPotato (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If true, this should be a damn effective tactic going forward. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't see why the manufacturing technique is important here. Otherwise it's an entirely unremarkable launch, by one of dozens of commercial providers who have entered the field in the last decade. Modest Genius talk 19:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Previously, such aerospace vehicles were hand-crafted which is quite labour-intensive. The 3D printing process makes manufacture more automated and mechanical, lowering costs significantly. It enables construction of complex geometries such as cooling arrays for nozzles and these can be redesigned and iterated much more easily. It also simplifies the supply chain by bringing more of the construction in house. As it's quite a radical change in the way such vehicles are built, passing the stress test of max q was an important validation of it. To characterise this as just another launch is to completely miss the point. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 22[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

  • One person is killed after a four-storey building collapses in Doha, Qatar. (AP)

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Lucy Salani[edit]

Article: Lucy Salani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [13]
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: She was the only Italian transgender person that survived Nazi concentration camps. I should note that she actually passed away on 22 March. Also, I would like to thank everyone who helped clean this article up, and especially KamillaŚ, who translated it from in the first place. --Oltrepier (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Kéné Ndoye[edit]

Article: Kéné Ndoye (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [14]

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 was reported recently in some english-language reports. Rushtheeditor (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support, although I'm concerned about the "stub" status of the article... Oltrepier (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Turing Award[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Robert Metcalfe (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Robert Metcalfe (pictured) wins the Turing Award for the invention of the Ethernet. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters

Article needs updating
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: Just announced, so articles are still being updated. Joofjoof (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment That should be just Ethernet not "the Ethernet" as it's a family of protocols, not a particular network. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Metcalfe's article needs a lot of sourcing work. --Masem (t) 12:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Striking out the second 'the' in the blurb per Andrew's comment. Cheers. WimePocy 11:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Metcalfe's article still needs a good amount of work, but the Ethernet article looks good so I'm excited to see this featured once BLP guidelines are met. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not ready. Unfortunately there's an orange tag on the article, which seems to be justified. It's mostly stuff that should be easy enough to source though, just needs a bit more work. Modest Genius talk 19:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 01:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2023 Abel prize[edit]

Article: Luis Caffarelli (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Luis Caffarelli was awarded the Abel Prize for contributions to regularity theory for nonlinear partial differential equations (Post)
News source(s):
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.

 Fdfexoex (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Needs work The red link for his main work is embarrassing. I'll try to get a stub started but lack the time and expertise to expand it. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Needs a lot of work. regularity theory is just a definition and partial differential equation is largely uncited. Might have been acceptable if Caffarelli's article was particularly good, but it's not up-to-snuff yet either. I hope people will be able to bring these articles to a higher level. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: