Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/April 2023

Portal:Current events/2023 April 18

WP:SNOW, consensus to post unlikely to develop. The Kip (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Miguel Díaz-Canel (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:  Cuba's National Assembly re-elects Miguel Diaz-Canel as president for a second term despite the country's economic challenges. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Prensa Latina
Credits:

Nominated by Mooonswimmer (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article needs to be updated, could use some expansion and better sectioning Mooonswimmer 21:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The president of Cuba is not recognized as having significant power (hence why this is not ITNR), instead that being the first leader if the communist party, whichDiaz-Canal also holds. So there is no real change here. --Masem (t) 21:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The president of Cuba has no real power on his own. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 17:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

RD: Bud Shuster[edit]

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

Updated and nominated by Curbon7 (talk · give credit)
Updated by Normantas Bataitis (talk · give credit)

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

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

Oppose Article is currently orange tagged for the aforementioned source work. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 22:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Moonbin[edit]

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

Nominated by Vida0007 (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: K-pop idol best known for being a member of the boyband Astro and its sub-unit Moonbin & Sanha. Vida0007 (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Filmography still needs quite a bit of work to be worthy of ITNRD ready, and there are a couple of uncited statements in the article otherwise. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 18:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the article is quite okay now. Deep sorrow for Arohas. Htanaungg (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps consider for blurb? - Based on the fact that it was one of the first items on the BBC newsreel just now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by our article he does not seem to have been a massive figure in any of the fields, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give a no on that, but when I first heard about his death, I did think the idea does have some weight. He doesn't seem like that major a figure in K-pop from my (limited) understanding of the genre going off what I know, but also going off what I know, he is a pretty well-known person within K-pop circles. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the BBC rn, its seems that his death, like many other Kpop-artists deaths, are receiving a lot of coverage in relation to the slave-esque working conditions within the industry (see for example, Sulli#Death and impact, which also received a lot of international attetion). My understanding is that blurbs for deaths are posted if a) the individual was GOATed, or b) their death was extremely unusual or otherwise notable in of itself, none of which is really applicable to our boy here. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think it warrants a blurb either, though a tragic death. Still, it was worth bringing up IMO PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD contingent on the missing citations in the filmography section being fixed. I do not see anything unsourced that needs one in the article body. Oppose blurb. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks good now. Ollieisanerd (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks good. greyzxq ^talk 15:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak conditional support - there are still some uncited sentences. Also, I'm concerned about the section on his career, where the latter two subsections are in list format instead of prose. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've since tagged the sections in question. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two yellow tags and two CN tags still left. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 17:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The citation needed are for cameo roles that I feel are unimportant and may even warrant removal. Lightoil (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Update Looks like the cn tags have been addressed now. Vida0007 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Step hen 05:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Withdrawn) Torkham landslide[edit]

WITHDRAWN

Stale news item, older than all concurrent blurbs. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 15:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2023 Torkham landslide (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:  In Pakistan, a landslide caused by a thunderstorm buries dozens of people and trucks, resulting in the closure of a a major border crossing with Afghanistan. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters - Al Jazeera - VOA - AP - ABC
Credits:

Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
Created by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: A major landslide that in addition to causing three fatalities, has buried dozens of people and twenty trucks, leading to the closure of a notable border with Afghanistan - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 14:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article is not in a state worth posting on the main page. It's basically a stub, with the information basically being a restatement of the blurb (that there had been such a landslide) or banal and uninteresting information about the number of emergency vehicles responding to the event; which is probably so trivial that it doesn't belong and feels like padding the total text. The article needs a considerable expansion before this is main page ready. --Jayron 32 16:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Jayron and quality issues with the article. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 16:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality for now. Article isn't much longer than a stub. The Kip (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. There's too little information available to make an informed decision or write a minimum-length article. If/when more details emerge (e.g. casualty numbers), and the article is updated, I'll be willing to reconsider. Modest Genius ^talk 19:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet ready Still very short. Curbon7 (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Consensus to wait until it actually occurs, not just a projection. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:  India overtakes China as the world's most populous country as per United Nations. (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg Economic Times Financial Times
Credits:

Nominated by theTigerKing (talk · give credit)

Regards, theTigerKing 11:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support post pending updates in the article Significant and expected milestone that is expected to be remain unchanged for most part of this century. India's population surpassed 1.428 billion, slightly higher than China’s 1.425 billion people, according to the UN’s World Population dashboard.Regards, theTigerKing 12:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Article currently does not match this news. Is it a projection for later this year? Possibly not a particularly helpful thing for us to feature, as the list won't get a significant update in prose. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to Reuters, this is happening "later this month". So it seems we're not there yet, but on the brink. Curbon7 (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discrepancy comes from India not having accurate census data and resistance from the PRC, who want their number to include Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. Curbon7 (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Wikipedia article we're supposed to highlight says "China: 1,411,750,000" and "India: 1,392,329,000". Math is not my strong suit, so someone is going to need to double check my calculations, but I believe that 1,392,329,000 is not more than 1,411,750,000. --Jayron32 12:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it necessary to be so snarky? You can communicate your concern in a more courteous manner. Zagalejo (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but snark has the advantage of drawing attention to it. Your response is evidence that it works as intended. --Jayron 32 13:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 3 + 3 = 7. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 14:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support but wait for India to actually overtake China - As per @Maplestrip. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support when India actually supersedes China per above. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 12:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - also the bolded article is orange-tagged. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 18:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The UN projection is that it'll overtake China by mid-2023, not that it has already happened.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article does not reflect this information, and the UN report says that this isn't estimated to happen until mid-2023. ARandomName123 (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article still says that China is the most populated, so Article Should be updated. and I'm pretty sure 1,411,750,000 is larger than 1,392,329,000. even if that was the case where it is larger, this would naturally still not be ITN-worthy, for that a country surpassing another in population is not really that ITN-worthy. basically, article should be updated. Editor 5426387 (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7 it's happened again! The Kip (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by virtue of the fact that this is an estimate. I think it's irresponsible to run a ITN story on something that may not have happened yet. DarkSide830 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose now because it hasn't even happened yet, but Support for when it does happy. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 14:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- India is projected to have 3 million more people by the middle of the 2023. We may not have definite date and time on when it will happen this year. Different statistics and population measuring websites have their timers running at different rate and scales. And most importantly, they are just the projections and estimates. Exact figures at a given point may be hard to extrapolate, given different countries have their own way and timelines of determining the population of its people within its national borders. Thought was good to have it nominated considering it is trending everywhere today. Will nevertheless, it will become a fact this year that the country has actually over taken China as the worlds most populous nation on the planet. Regards, theTigerKing 14:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, at least, since everyone else has brought up that it hasn't actually happened yet. But since India is on track to become the most populous country sometime this year, I'll support when it makes it. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per above. DecafPotato (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per above. It hasn't actually happened yet. The Kip (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:CRYSTALBALL, there is a reason we rely on recent censuses or relaible ("current") population estimates; both haven't happened yet. Gotitbro (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the official censuses of China and India have been released. We cannot rely on projections alone, not to mention that the target article still states that China is more populous than India (as of this writing, at least). Vida0007 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2021 census of India has been delayed multiple times by the authorities. There is no clear indication when the census will be conducted. It could be after the next general election planned in May 2024. Maxxies (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as premature at this point. The sources quoted say that India is projected to become the most populous country some time in mid-2023, not that it has already happened. Nsk92 (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. At this time, it is only a projection. It would be preferable to wait until it is actually happened. However, the population estimate would not be able to be verified as the estimate and projection are based on the 2011 Indian Census. The 2021 Indian census has been delayed several times and no timeline has been provided by the Indian authorities for this census.^^Maxxies (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) Ongoing: 2023 Sudan clashes[edit]

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

Nominated by Curbon7 (talk · give credit)
Updated by Borgenland (talk · give credit) and Ecrusized (talk · give credit)

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

This article looks appropriate for ongoing when the blurb rolls off. We shouldn't move to ongoing before then, but starting the discussion is helpful. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pull The number of casualties is sourced to The Meghalayan. Checking that out, I find that it's a news site based in NE India. I doubt that they have any reporters anywhere near the scene and so are just compiling rumours from the Internet as clickbait. The article contains a map which shows areas supposedly controlled by each side. So far as I can tell, that's OR / speculation.

Essentially, this is a chaotic civil war and the sides are naturally making wild claims and accusations of atrocities, false flag operations and any other propaganda which occurs to them. Russian mercenaries are involved in this as there's gold to be gained and so you can expect dirty tricks and misinformation from them too.

We're an encyclopedia, not a news source, and so we're supposed to work from reliable sources to provide settled facts. This conflict is an uncertain work-in-progress and so we should await the verdict of history rather than joining the fray too.

Andrew🐉(talk) 12:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the appropriate place to soapbox about your opinions on the war. It's clearly a topic which is well covered in the news. --Jayron 32 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is of the quality of our article, which is poor. For example, the NYT reports that, "In the turmoil, it was unclear who controlled various parts of the capital. Each day, one side or the other has claimed control of key installations, including airports and the state broadcaster, only to have the claims quickly disputed." But our article leads with a precise and detailed map showing the supposed control of each side. A footnote explains that this is "Based upon Timeline section" and that's tagged as "improper synthesis". Another section has an orange cleanup tag which has been there for over two days. The general situation seems quite chaotic due to the fog of war and so we can't expect quick fixes for such issues. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you had meant, you should have said that instead of what you said the first time. --Jayron 32 15:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the opportunity to dig deeper into this subject right now, but I'm uncomfortable that no one below has responded to these concerns either. Death toll is now cited to Al Jazeera at least, but beyond that, do you still feel like written coverage of these clashes is improving yet? Is our own article on the subject at a high enough quality right now? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support when it would roll off, the article is receiving appropriate, continuous updates and that qualifies it for ongoing. It's fine leaving it as a blurb for now, but it also seems to qualify for Ongoing when and if it would roll off. --Jayron 32 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support if still ongoing when its blurb rolls off per @Jayron32. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 12:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above, if the situation is still ongoing Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support once blurb rolls off, assuming the conflict is still active. The Kip (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite an alarming situation. From what experts predict, this is likely the start of a years long conflict and likely to become a proxy war between regional powers. Citing: [23] Ecrusized (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
. . . likely to become a proxy war between regional powers. Oh no, not another one of those. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—A significant and ongoing development. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing when the blurb rolls off, not before. The situation continues to be very fluid and zones of control are changing rapidly. Teh article is getting substantial updates every day. Modest Genius ^talk 19:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the reason behind waiting for the blurb rolling off? Is there a consensus for not double posting? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support One of the most significant political events happening at this moment Synotia (moan) 10:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Blurb rolled off. Curbon7 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Sandstein 16:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bob Maguire[edit]

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

Nominated by HiLo48 (talk · give credit)

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

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

Weak oppose Media work and Retirement still have some clean up/uncited areas that need to be fixed, but it won't be hard. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 03:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

READY The article has attracted a large amount of editing since the death. Looks good to me. HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is adequate enough for RD. Ollieisanerd (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WHY ARE THE ADMINS IGNORING THIS??? Several Admin actions have occurred since the most recent comment above. My question is a serious one. HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In part, the new vector skin makes it hard to see all the noms on a page. Masem (t) 02:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are people too, you can't just snap your fingers and summon one like royalty. There are only around three admins who actively post RDs, and they have lives too. I also have some noms that have been tagged as ready for a couple days, and I'm not complaining, because I know it'll get done eventually. Or if a nom is about to roll-off this page, just leave a message on the talk page and that usually does the trick. Curbon7 (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat - Several Admin actions have occurred since the most recent comment above. You might know, but it's not obvious to me who the posting Admins are. It's 28 hours since I suggested the article was ready. In a time critical environment, ignoring it for that long simply isn't good enough. You want the glory of being an Admin? Do your job!!!! If you can't do it, something really needs to change. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone (like you) mark it ready in the header line so that it would stand out to help the admins identify it? Masem (t) 03:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I am but a humble editor, who can never remember all the arcane rules and policies of this place. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A job is something you are paid to do. Admins are volunteers like everybody else here, and if you think youre entitled to somebody's time and attention for free then let me introduce you to a place called Wikipedia. Anyway, given there was one oppose when you proclaimed "ready" and now one support, it doesnt seem readily apparent that there was consensus for the posting. Youd have been better off pinging Fakescientist8000 and asking them to look again then demanding some action taken. And for the record support - looks fine for RD. nableezy - 05:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One rule here that I do remember is that we don't vote. Admins are supposed assess the quality of contributions. And the sequence of comments, including mine, obviously addressed that Oppose. I know we're all volunteers, but Admins are very powerful volunteers who have sought a special status. If they cannot cope with the role, sack 'em! Or change the system. HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: please consider this a formal warning for civility. Carry on with language like that and you will end up with a block. Admins are no more required to give their time to any particular job than you are, or indeed required to give their time at all. The best way to encourage us to do what you want is to ask politely, the worst way is to demand and insult. Thryduulf (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's exactly the kind of behaviour from Admins that has led to my general lack of respect for them. Threatening me won't change my opinion. Acknowledging that I might be just a little bit right would help a lot. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you were a little bit right I would have acknowledged that. You were not. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready. There are multiple citation needed tags and a tag for vague time. I do not have time at the moment to attempt to resolve the tags. Thryduulf (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you not say this three days ago? we are now almost halfway through the period a nomination will sit here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because when I left the comment above was the first time I've seen the article. I don't look at ITN every day, and don't look at every nomination when I do. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo's little temper tantrum about admins aside, this article still has a few CN tags left in it before it can be put onto the Main Page. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 15:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 05:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Todd Haimes[edit]

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

Nominated by Star Mississippi (talk · give credit)
Updated by Mooonswimmer (talk · give credit) and Star Mississippi (talk · give credit)

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

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

Oppose Article is a stub. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 17:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article seems worse than it actually is because it doesn't have sections. It's actually not too bad for holisticity, I think the only thing is some expansion of his later career, which only has a brief mention. Curbon7 (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Curbon7. Trying to find more that isn't just the rehashed obituaries. There's a fair amount in context of Roundabout's 50th. Star Mississippi 13:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Expanded enough to become start-class, and no longer a stub! Well-sourced! Tails Wx 03:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you @Stephen @Tails Wx. Team work makes it all work. Star Mississippi 01:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Star Mississippi, no problem! And isn't it also "Team work makes the dream work"? ;) Tails Wx 01:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 18[edit]

April 18, 2023 (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

War in Sudan (2023)
- Battle of Khartoum
  - A U.S. embassy convoy is attacked in Khartoum, amid U.S. efforts to mediate a ceasefire. (AP)
  - India tells its citizens to find shelter or stay indoors. (Dev Discourse)
  - Canada closes its embassy in Sudan and advises its citizens against travelling to the country. (Global News)
Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts
  - Russian president Vladimir Putin makes a rare visit to Russian-occupied Kherson and Luhansk oblasts and meets with military commanders in charge of military operations. (Reuters)
- Former People's Deputy of Ukraine Oleh Barna is killed in combat. (UNIAN)
Six Fulani herders are killed by Kodo armed men during an attack on two villages in Logone Oriental, Chad. Fourteen attackers are killed by soldiers in the ensuing gunfight, while two others are killed in the initial clashes with the Fulanis. (Barron's)

Business and economy

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

Disasters and accidents

2023 Beijing hospital fire
- Twenty-nine people are killed in a fire at a hospital in Beijing, China. (Xinhua) (Al Jazeera)
2023 Torkham landslide
- Two people are killed and dozens of others are feared missing after a landslide occurs in the Khyber Pass in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. (Reuters)
2023 New York City parking garage collapse
- One person is killed and five others are injured by the partial collapse of a parking garage in Manhattan, New York City, United States. Nearby buildings of Pace University are evacuated due to the instability of the garage's remaining structure. (WCBS-TV)

International relations

Brazil–Ukraine relations
- The Ukrainian government invites Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to visit Ukraine and criticizes Lula for his approach to the conflict. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov welcomes Lula's position on peace efforts. (Reuters)
Mexico–United States relations
- Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador accuses the United States Department of Defense of spying and says that he will classify information from the Mexican Armed Forces. (Reuters)
Palestine–Saudi Arabia relations
- Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas chairman Ismail Haniyeh meet in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to discuss the increase in violence in the West Bank, the detainment of Hamas-affiliated Palestinians in Saudi Arabia, and about improving relations between Hamas and Saudi Arabia. This is the first meeting between Hamas and the Saudi royal family since 2015. (Al Jazeera)
Accession of Kosovo to the European Union
- The European Parliament votes to grant visa-free travel for Kosovo citizens to any country that is part of the Schengen Area. The policy will be in effect no later than January 2024. (RFE/RL)

Law and crime

Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network
- Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems reach a US$787.5 million settlement in the defamation lawsuit, which was initially filed against the network in March 2021 for spreading false claims about the company regarding the 2020 United States presidential election. (Forbes)
At least four people are severely injured in a stabbing attack at a gym in Duisburg, Germany. (Evening Standard)

(Attention needed) RD: April Stevens[edit]

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

Nominated by Curbon7 (talk · give credit)
Updated by That Article Editing Guy (talk · give credit)

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

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

Oppose Needs work. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job, Knightoftheswords281, but please take the reference out of the section header per MOS:SECTIONHEAD. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Fixed. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discography section has no references. Prose has at least 7 {cn} tags. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PFHLai, @Muboshgu, @Curbon7, I've since sourced the article. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sadly, discogs is not a reliable source, and one reference is a "bare url". - I'd normally fix it, but have no access to the site. - Can you please provide better references for the recordings than discogs? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced discogs with better sources. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks good! Tails Wx 23:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support with thanks for your tireless efforts --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This looks good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention needed) RD: Charles Stanley[edit]

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

Nominated by Curbon7 (talk · give credit)
Updated by Sunshineisles2 (talk · give credit)

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

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

Oppose article is orange tagged, and with good reason. Many CN tags are in both the 'Influences and theology' and 'Personal life' sections of the article. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 14:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Closed) Supriyo v. Union of India[edit]

Consensus is to wait until the final verdict. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 22:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Supriyo v. Union of India (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:  The Supreme Court of India begins its consideration of landmark cases petitioning for the legalization of same-sex marriage in India. (Post)
News source(s): BBC - TheIndianExpress
Credits:

Nominated by OutwardSpiral (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: A significant development in a country ruled by a right-wing Hindu nationalist party, an arguably healthy expression of judiciary-state separation. Previously in 2018, the Supreme Court also decriminalized homosexuality in India. OutwardSpiral (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really what ongoing is for, consider nominating when a decision is announced? Courcelles (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OutwardSpiral you have proposed a blurb but also marked it as "Ongoing"; you can't do both as there are no blurbs in the Ongoing section.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated! Thank you for pointing it out -- indeed, the article was nominated as a blurb, and I misinterpreted the ongoing tag. OutwardSpiral (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAP

I hope you do realise that Narendra Modi never once said anything unfavourable against homosexuals while Manmohan Singh, the so-called progressive left wing prime minister called it contrary to India's values. When Shashi Tharoor proposed to legalise same sex marriage, his own party didn't support him in the lok sabha while the head of the RSS publicly called for the respect of sexual minorities with hindu based arguments Varoon2542 (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose but A blurb on the verdict (if in favour of same-sex marriage) would be more sensible. DogeChungus (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose trials don't typically go in ongoing, if that's the objective here. Neutral on a blurb of the verdict. The Kip (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the Supreme Court indeed legalizes same-sex marriage in India, this should be posted. It would be historic and notable from multiple angles. It would be the largest country to have same-sex marriage. It would literally double the number of people on earth in a same-sex marriage country b/c of India’s large population. It would also be notable as a post-colonial non-Western country legalizing. With this said, I’m not sure if this should be in ongoing; granted the trial is two weeks long if I remember correctly, which may be an argument for doing so. -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if it results in legalization I think there's a solid argument for a blurb, for the reasons listed. I just personally don't think it should be in ongoing, nor blurbed until a verdict is reached. The Kip (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merely 'begins consideration'. If the court makes a landmark ruling, we can consider it then. Simply starting their work is not significant enough to post. Modest Genius ^talk 11:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing finalized, neither definitive nor firm. Not noticeable yet. What is clear is that it's a case that indeed has an important impact on society, more than any other in which one has to pay millions to others for defamations. Let's discuss this when we have a firm sentence. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) Dominion v. Fox[edit]

It's already been posted, and there is no chance that consensus to pull it will develop. Closing to prevent further unnecessary arguing. (non-admin closure) -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:  Dominion Voting Systems agrees to a $787 million settlement in their lawsuit against Fox News over defamation claims from the 2020 United States presidential election. (Post)
News source(s): CNBC
Credits:

Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)

Masem (t) 20:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Significant settlement in a highly watched case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Considering this is one of the biggest impacts from Trump's attempts to steal the 2020 election, this would make sense for the notability guidelines. No issues on quality, either. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 20:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above, Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. The Kip (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don’t see any notable consequences from this. Neither is Dominion Voting Systems a global brand so that its defamation can be considered a big deal, nor is Fox News banned from broadcasting as a result, nor does this ruling prevent Trump from running for president. This would’ve been a scandal had Trump been an incumbent president, but it’s just a minor fallout with a long delay.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is easily one of the largest settlements for a defamation suit in legal history. Dominion is not a global brand, but Fox is. This is being widely described as a de-facto admission of guilt on the part of Fox. It may have a significant impact on the networks reputation and may also be a harbinger for the remaining legal cases Fox is facing. Trump was not a party to the case, so it's impact, or lack thereof on him is irrelevant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, Fox isn’t banned from broadcasting as a result. However this will affect its reputation is too early to say, and it’d be challenging to measure it in foreseeable future (probably by number of viewers). I tried to compare this to Volkswagen emissions scandal, but it appears to be a minor thing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, a discussion to revisit its reliability at WP:RSPSS will also take place.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support I added a single cn tag and I'd like to see some expansion of the section on the settlement. But the article is good enough to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - quality and significance both good enough. nableezy - 22:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is not a particularly serious crime (worse is an electoral crime or a call to uprising), nor has it had an important international follow-up, nor is it going to change anything. Fights between two big companies. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was an electoral "crime", Fox lied about Dominion's voting machines to influence the election and sow doubt about the results. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a criminal case but a civil one, but I question how one thinks that three quarters of a billion dollars is somehow not "serious". nableezy - 22:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - quality check, significance check, this is quite historic that one of the major news channels in America admits lying about news concerning the US election. And then also paying out a major sum of money for it.BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is in good quality, {{citation needed}} tag resolved! Tails Wx 23:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — The traditionally hesitant ITN is eager to support a settlement in a meaningless case. In the United States, this will receive a few days attention at most. ITN has very rarely, if ever, covered a lawsuit between two companies. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality article (although could use a little more information regarding the settlement), historically significant settlement amount. Spencer^T•C 00:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ultimately, most cases are settled out of court. Sure this one is notable, but what are the impacts of such a settlement? DarkSide830 (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ElijahPepe, and the fact that this is a side-story in the general election. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ElijahPepe. DecafPotato (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Big news in Australia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about the world? Murdoch's circle of lies spans three countries, but not much more. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no requirements for posting a blurb in ITN that the news it covers relates to "the world". --Jayron 32 12:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. The Dadeville shooting, the Supreme Court case on the Sabbath, and the shooting of Ralph Yarl are all notable because they were top headlines in the U.S. Conversely, local news in Tanzania or Cambodia is also notable because it's in the news there.elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Literally no one, in this discussion, argued for any of that. In this current conversation, you were the only person to mention any of that. Also, zero of those stories are posted in ITN right now. If you're going to invent things that no one said or did, and then object to that, well, that's just silly. You need to focus on the words that are being said, and talk with people about what they are saying, not invent things never said, and then pretend like that's a reasonable objection. --Jayron 32 17:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you're getting from point A to B. I'm saying that the logic that something somewhere in the world is notable is unreasonable, and it applies the same here. ITN implicitly has that in order to prevent it from getting stories that have zero impact. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - quality is fine for posting to ITN. Passes WP:NEVENTS. To @ElijahPepe, I would like to ask, especially with how fluid consensus on ITN can be, I would like to state that just because we haven't posted these types of stories before doesn't mean that we should never. Consensus (again, especially on ITN) can change. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a meaningful, notable case with long-term repercussions. The enormous sum of money lost by Fox suggests that they expected to lose even more if they went to trial. Abductive (reasoning) 04:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a staggering amount of money to lose in a defamation suit—or really in anything—and it comes as part of a chain of events that's been national and international news for years now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 09:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not an oppose nor a support, as I think it might be notable enough for ITN, but I seriously wish people would let discussions run for a reasonable amount of time. This ran for around 12 hours, and for much of that time Europe and Asia would have been asleep. Where I am it was posted at 20:46 and the last comment was at 07:53 - so I've only just seen it myself. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Not really rising to the significance bar for which we usually post stories, and we are not a news ticker. Why was this posted? I don't think there's consensus above. — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A settlement, not a juried verdict. I doubt this would even be a blip here if it involved CNN, for some reason. CoatCheck (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose. Not meeting the global significance bar for ITN. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no bar for global significance. That phrase (or any reasonable synonym of it) appears nowhere in the documentation at WP:ITN or any other guidance on Wikipedia. --Jayron 32 12:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support News source coverage is evidence this is a significant story, and the article is of sufficient quality. --Jayron 32 12:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I'm awake and able to weigh in, post-posting support. It's plenty significant enough, it's in the news, the article is up to par. What more is needed? --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support Widely covered by reliable sources and good quality article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as one of the largest defamation settlements in US history (and given the total, I imagine it's one of the largest in recent world history). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The motion to post was made far too early for any consensus to develop. Regardless, ITN is not the place for high scores or monetary achievements, especially when the "achievement" is arbitrary. A settlement is not even an admission of guilt. The world will, and has, moved on. If ITN is to be treated as In the U.S. news, then I suppose I should start reviewing accordingly. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is literally one story about the United States on ITN right now. The other stories are Sudan, Ghana, and Europe. Try again. nableezy - 17:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you look at all of the recommended articles we've got in ITN (highlights in blurbs, ongoing, and RDs), you can add to the list ongoing links about France, Israel, and Ukraine, and recent deaths of a resident of India, Northern Ireland, India, Germany/U.S., Ireland, and Switzerland. We have quite a good balance of stories, and the U.S. is certainly not over-represented. Indeed, India, with two RD stories, has the most representation. Isn't it great to actually look at what is written, rather than inventing things to be upset about, and then complaining about the stuff you invented? --Jayron 32 17:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's one story because it's the only one nominated. We don't need an article for the United States for representation. If we do something truly notable, then we can have an ITN entry. The U.S. hasn't done anything exceptional, and that's fine. This is the mentality that I'm used to and sensibly guided this part of the main page. This nomination seems to have subverted that for no reason .elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a ton of nominations for US stories that have been rejected. Just currently on this page there are nominations for Shooting of Ralph Yarl, Dadeville shooting, for the Phantom of the Opera ending on Broadway, for 2023 Rutgers University strike, and that isnt counting the aborted SpaceX launch. Can try again if you like. nableezy - 21:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go whirling off saying that "ITN is just US-pedia" I would encourage you to run your own some statistics about how much the U.S. is actually represented on ITN so as to back up your assertion, and furthermore, note also there is nothing precluding you from nominating equivalent stories of this sort across the pond or in other nations as well, so long as reliable sources exist and the coverage is there. As it is, your comment just says "I don't like this" which isn't really the best vehicle to induce systematic change. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the initial article on the lawsuit before it was turned into a redirect and then recreated. If you believe my comment is IDONTLIKEIT, you've skimmed it over. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm pretty sure I'm comfortable with my reasoning. I don't care whether or not you created the article, because that fact is not relevant to this discussion. You believe the article shouldn't have been posted to begin with, because by your own words, you feel it's not notable worldwide -- which is not how items should be judged here. If you want a criteria for global significance, get it created. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zambia's mining sector has a female executive for the first time. According to the mentality global significance doesn't matter, that's ITN-worthy. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please disassemble your straw man argument and do not put words in my mouth. I specifically said there is no criteria for global significance and that is all that I meant, without casting any prejudgments on the newsworthiness or notability of any other stories. If you want to nominate them on the basis of their significance, go right ahead. If not, then there is no relevance. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You approved this nomination purely on the basis of the lack of consensus, when it clearly exists. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - meets threshold. Neutrality^talk 19:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose - civil claim between two companies over defamation, and it was settled, not decided. Not a precedent that "fake news is bad". Juxlos (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Closed) Vladimir Kara-Murza[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post. Step hen 00:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Vladimir Kara-Murza (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:  Russian opposition politician Vladimir Kara-Murza is convicted in a Moscow court on charges of treason and violating Russia's war censorship laws, and sentenced to 25 years in prison. (Post)
News source(s): (AP)
Credits:

Nominated by СтасС (talk · give credit)

СтасС (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Somewhat covered by ongoing, and otherwise, not sure if notable enough for blurbing; I don't remember if we blurbed Navalny's arrest. The Kip (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- - Do you understand me?--СтасС (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not quite sure if I do. The Kip (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - Another wiki has in headlines news. (in templates, for example: ru-wiki СтасС (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose covered by ongoing. --Masem (t) 20:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. Already covered by ongoing, and will continue to be covered by ongoing until it is removed. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 20:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above - Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This case has had much greater international coverage than the one above. But it is covered in ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this is covered by the ongoing item. However, if notable related events continue to happen (e.g. arrests, information leaks, changes in economic sanctions etc.) while the invasion is in a slow mode, with the Battle of Bakhmut being the main military engagement, there are growing arguments that the ongoing item should be removed so that space for new blurbs is freed (anyway, we won’t keep it in ongoing for good).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Attention needed) RD: Chris Smith[edit]

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

Nominated by The Kip (talk · give credit)

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

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

Oppose on article quality. Way too many unsourced statements in the article to pass through onto ITNRD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 17:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still sourcing and holisticity issues. Curbon7 (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) RD: Albert del Rosario[edit]

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

Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)

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

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

Support Article is good enough for ITNRD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 17:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks good. --38.106.246.207 (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is 100% ready to be posted. Vida0007 (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to go. Ollieisanerd (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 03:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Beijing hospital fire[edit]

Event is now older than all concurrent blurbs, item is soon to be automatically stale via the seven-day archival rule - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 22:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2023 Beijing hospital fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:  Twenty-nine people are killed during a fire at a hospital in Beijing, China. (Post)
News source(s): Xinhua (Al Jazeera)
Credits:

Nominated by СтасС (talk · give credit)
Created by Tails Wx (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Good day. Need update news. СтасС (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No article. Noah^Talk 15:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening now that an article has emerged. Oppose on quality, as it's a stub. The Kip (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator of the article, I'm currently in the process of expanding it, and will vote once I am done doing so! Tails Wx 16:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, an article creator voting on their own work. I wonder how that'll go. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 17:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, instead of needless sarcasm, we should praise article writers for their hard work, and for their transparency when commenting on an ITN nomination of said work. -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done long ago: curprev 16:36, 18 April 2023‎ Tails Wx talk contribs‎ 111 bytes +111‎ Start thanked Tag: Visual edit--СтасС (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that writing articles is bad, nor is being transparent about writing those articles. What I do have an issue with is with the article creator voting on his/her/their own article on ITN/C, because voting is more for third parties to look at its notability/quality/"does this belong on ITN" from a neutral POV, and I don't think that the article creator (and I'm not trying to single anybody out! This goes for anyone) would ever 'Oppose' their own work. Just my 2 cents on it. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 18:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't remember the exact nom, but there was one within the last week or so in which the article creator voted against posting. The Kip (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Kicking that we should be applauding people who create articles and then bringing them forward for an ITN nomination. Cheers to you too! --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that is, where am I in the credits section? ;) Tails Wx 18:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done--СтасС (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Tails Wx 19:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per above, Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- When do you put in our template this news?--СтасС (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pending expansion. The article has two small paragraphs, and not much else. Is this really all the information we have? --Jayron 32 16:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. Article is still marked as a stub. Vida0007 (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Closed) Ralph Yarl shooting[edit]

Portal:Current events/2023 April 17

non-admin close: consensus to post very unlikely to develop Abcmaxx (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Shooting of Ralph Yarl (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In the United States, Ralph Yarl, an adolescent African American boy, is shot for accidentally ringing the doorbell to the wrong house while picking up his siblings, leading to protests and charges. (Post)
News source(s): NYT - NPR - NBC - CNN - - CBS - BBC - ABC - Axios - AP - MSNBC - Rolling Stone - Time - Vox - The Independent - USA Today - PBS - NYP - Huff Post - ABC (Australia) - South China Morning Post
Credits:

Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
Created by Leaky.Solar (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is a crazy story; a boy was shot and wounded allegedly just for knocking on the wrong door while picking up his younger siblings. It's led to plenty of protests, $1.5 million USD being raised, and charges. Has widespread, sustained WP:RS coverage, even amongst foreign outlets, has its own article, and passes WP:NEVENTS. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose People (especially in the US) are shot everyday, there are protests everyday, politicians give their sympathies, articles are made, and then someone else is shot. Had this happened in a country where guns are much stricter, it would easily pass, but I can't support this on these notability issues and also the quality of the article, as it appears to be quickly made and is essentially a stub at this point in time. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 02:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fakescientist. Unfortunately all too commonplace. The Kip (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the same reasons other such shootings have not been posted; unless notable protests emerge. The noms by Knight are fast appearing to be WP:POINTY. Gotitbro (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly? There is nothing in ITN criteria that prohibits these nominations. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 03:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly seeing what you're accusing here. Sure, most of their noms haven't quite met the ITNR notability bar, but in my opinion they've been good-faith noms. The Kip (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that coming up with arbitrary non-policy standards (like protests) is closer to WP:POINTY. Either it meets policy requirements or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then the recourse is WP:AfD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support For all the same reasons I've given before, reasons that make this different than shootings we shouldn't post, like the Dadeville shooting. I won't debate it further because I know this nomination isn't going anywhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Did someone change WP:Notability (events) so that everything in the daily newspaper's crime section can get an article? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The enthusiasm in bringing stories to ITN/C is appreciated but this story falls far short of ITN/C levels of notability. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support the event is unique, and has received broad coverage. --Ouro (blah blah) 04:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - at this time. Not unique case for the US unfortunately. I would change my mind if in the coming days protests etc would start happening in connection to this. BabbaQ (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deaths from gun violence are commonplace in the US. And it appears that deaths from people shooting visitors to their house are also commonplace: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/17/nyregion/man-charged-kaylin-gillis-driveway-shooting.html Chrisclear (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 17[edit]

April 17, 2023 (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

War in Sudan (2023)
- Battle of Khartoum
  - European Union ambassador Aidan O'Hara is assaulted at his home in Khartoum. EU Foreign Affairs High Representative Josep Borrell calls the assault a "gross violation of the Vienna Convention". (BBC News)
- Sudan closes its airspace, cancelling all flights in and out of the country. Kenya likewise suspends all flights to and from Sudan. (Flight Global) (Kenyans.co.ke)
- China, Malaysia, and the United States urge their citizens in Sudan to hide, find shelter, or evacuate the country. (SCMP) (FMT) (CBS News)
- De facto leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan declares the Rapid Support Forces to be a rebel group, and orders the group dissolved. (Al Jazeera)
Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War
  - Slovakia transfers 13 MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine, according to the Slovak Defence Ministry. (Reuters)

Health and environment

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

International relations

Slovakia–Ukraine relations
- Slovakia bans the import of food from Ukraine, following similar decisions made by Poland and Hungary last week. (The Guardian)

Law and crime

Myanmar's junta leader Min Aung Hlaing pardons 3,015 prisoners on the occasion of the Buddhist New Year. (AFP via France 24)
Russian opposition politician Vladimir Kara-Murza is convicted in a Moscow court on charges of treason and violating Russia's war censorship laws, and sentenced to 25 years in prison. (AP)
The Evide data breach is made public. Ransomware results in data being stolen from a company in Northern Ireland which provides computer services to charities, including a charity that supports adult survivors of child abuse. (The Journal)

Sports

2023 FIFA U-20 World Cup
- Argentina is confirmed as the host of the FIFA U-20 World Cup by FIFA, following the suspension of the tournament in Indonesia, which refused to host the Israeli team. (Reuters)
2023 World Snooker Championship
- A World Snooker Championship match between Robert Milkins and Joe Perry is abandoned, while another match between Mark Allen and Fan Zhengyi is delayed after Just Stop Oil activists storm The Crucible in Sheffield. Two people are later arrested by South Yorkshire Police. (BBC Sport)

(Posted) RD: Paul Hinrichs[edit]

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

Updated and nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
Updated by Sunshineisles2 (talk · give credit)

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

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

Long enough (404 words of prose). No formatting issues. Footnotes can be found where they are expected and spot-checks found no problems with referencing. Earwig has complaints, either. This nom is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and marking as ready per @PFHLai:. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 22:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 05:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention needed) RD: April Stevens[edit]

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

Nominated by Curbon7 (talk · give credit)
Updated by That Article Editing Guy (talk · give credit)

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

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

Oppose Needs work. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job, Knightoftheswords281, but please take the reference out of the section header per MOS:SECTIONHEAD. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Fixed. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discography section has no references. Prose has at least 7 {cn} tags. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PFHLai, @Muboshgu, @Curbon7, I've since sourced the article. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sadly, discogs is not a reliable source, and one reference is a "bare url". - I'd normally fix it, but have no access to the site. - Can you please provide better references for the recordings than discogs? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced discogs with better sources. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks good! We've got 27 minutes for this to be posted to the main page, so, uh... Tails Wx 23:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Oleh Barna[edit]

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

Nominated by Curbon7 (talk · give credit)
Updated by Yulia Romero (talk · give credit)

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

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

Support - wanted to nominate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Agf the sources. Slava Ukraini. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Syria truffle hunter attack[edit]

Consensus to post will not develop. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 02:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2023 Hama attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:  In Syria, 36 truffle hunters are killed by the Islamic State in the deserts near Hama. (Post)
News source(s): WaPo - VOA - The National
Credits:

Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
Created by Nythar (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: A high casualty event with an unusual twist: 36 truffle hunters were killed by ISIL, as well as five shepherds in another part of Syria. The article is in need of serious expansion, however. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now for multiple issues, sadly. 1, the article's a stub and needs expansion, and 2, there's a tag, though it can be fixed! Tails Wx 21:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on significance (and the EUAA link doesnt say anything about this). nableezy - 22:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on significance/notability, article quality, and the fact that that the article is tagged. Sure, the article can be fixed, but it's gonna take a lot of effort and sources to do so. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 01:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, Editor 5426387 (Talk) 01:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, article's a stub. The Kip (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. Could be convinced that this is notable if there's a government response. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing Note that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights maintains a "daily death toll" for incidents like this and they list several incidents every day. Some parts of the world like Syria and Sudan have endemic conflict and violence and so it goes. See the map for the hotspots which typically last for years. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose But maybe find hook for DYK around the truffs? For me it was interesting to learn that in Syria it also has truffs.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Article needs work. Alex-h (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seemingly a common event in that part of the world, as noted in that article's bg section and above. --Masem (t) 20:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality; article has little information about the event itself; it is mostly background information currently. Would need some expansion to be main-page ready. --Jayron 32 12:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to article quality, although the attack is important enough to be posted. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Closed) SpaceX Starship[edit]

Procedural closure: The launch has been cancelled. In the future, please make nominations only after the event has happened and the article has been updated accordingly. Sandstein 13:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nominated by CactiStaccingCrane (talk · give credit)
Created by N2e (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Launch in around 2-3 hours since nomination (12:00-13:00 GMT), so add the nomination here as a prep. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely support, but add to the blurb that it's the largest rocket created up to date. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this is WP:ITN/R. Article is of sufficient quality to be posted (though there is one CN tag in the Mission profile section). - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 12:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore btw... it was removed from ITN/R. Noah^Talk 12:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Both largest and most powerful rocket built ever. Noah^Talk 12:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Assuming the launch isn't delayed or scrubbed. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Close - Launch scrubbed. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) RD: Faith Thomas[edit]

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

Nominated by Hamza Ali Shah (talk · give credit)
Created by Hack (talk · give credit)

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

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

Support Article is good, well cited and long enough for ITNRD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 14:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Prose and sourcing both look good. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was on my way to nominate this article, glad to see someone took up the initiative! Notable individual and the article checks out! Ornithoptera (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 03:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant[edit]

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

Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
Created by 194.211.124.99 (talk · give credit)
Updated by Missigno99 (talk · give credit), Mithridates (talk · give credit) and Kizor (talk · give credit)

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

Support. Major national event involving a notable facility in Finland receiving international coverage. Article is sufficient for the main page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is like on page 12 below the fold of even European papers. nableezy - 04:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive. - ITN criteria. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 04:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I do that? nableezy - 04:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You just insinuated that it shouldn't be posted since even most Europeans would care. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 05:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, thats not what I did. If you dont understand my comment maybe dont badger me about it? nableezy - 19:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's... not really what they did.

They're using the example of most Europeans not caring about an event in Europe to illustrate the idea that this isn't particularly significant. That criteria would be moreso if they insinuated it shouldn't be posted because it's only about Finland. The Kip (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In light of Germany shutting down their last nuclear power plants this weekend this is interesting. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting =/= notable. The Kip (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, right. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of ITN's stated purposes is to point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. Interesting might not be equal to notable, but interesting should nonetheless play a major role in determining which articles to post. Despite your oppose rationale of "more suited to DYK" (which is inapplicable DYK only applies to a new article or a five-fold expansion of an existing article), this is actually making news and we should be serving Wikipedia's readers by providing information from a well-written article, not withholding it on account of a draconian standard of significance established by a handful of users. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the clarification that this is not Europe's largest nuclear plant but rather an expansion of the existing power plant with what is now the largest single reactor in Europe, I see even less significance here. Beyond that, its not on the front page of the just the world section of WSJ, NYT, Washington Post, Times of London, Le Monde. Hell, it isnt even the top Finland story in Le Monde's international section, that would be this story on Finland erecting a barrier with Russia. Seems like there is consensus to post, but I dont really get why, this is barely news. nableezy - 22:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice to see there's at least one country in the world that knows the right way to generate energy. Still, "largest in Europe" isn't ITN material. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"largest in Europe" isn't ITN material That about sums up WP:ITN's bewildering idiosyncrasies in a nutshell. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TIL what 'idiosyncrasies' means. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 14:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what is an idiosyncrasy here. I think it's darn clear by now that I have a high bar when it comes to ITN. In fact, I could probably be swayed to at least strike my vote here. However, I'm not seeing that bar met at the moment. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've created your own standard that's not based in any policy or guideline. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As compared to the rigid standards that accompany most other nominations? The standard is "significance". The significance billing here is "largest in Europe", which is an arbitrary distinction. It is the same reason I opposed the self-driving cars nom, which I would have supported if it were a "world first", such as was the case with the Ghana and the malaria vaccine. Don't get me wrong, I find this quite interesting, but a lot of the other arguments regarding the merits of posting seem a little sensationalist. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

significance of which nowhere in ITN is a clearly defined variable for it is defined. Under these rules, sure, you maybe able to have exceptionally high standards for ITN, but @WaltCip for example has a low bar for ITN stories (this is why I think the significance criterion should be deprecated or majorly reformed). - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 17:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And why am I being called out for this? I said my bar was higher, and I acknowledge that others may not have said bar. It's that simple. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Knightoftheswords281 You want it to be deprecated/reformed? Take it to Wikipedia talk:ITN/C, please, and don't take it out on DarkSide. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 01:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per nableezy and DarkSide. Perhaps more suited to DYK, but probably not ITN material. The Kip (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my oppose as I've been convinced by later arguments. Support. The Kip (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Beautiful-looking article, well-cited and even some lovely pictures of inside and out. Seems like a perfect article and subject to feature. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work This will make a good twofer with the German phase-out. But there's some stuff about the mafia which needs clarifying. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A long-anticipated power plant that has been under construction for decades, and the largest of its kind in Europe. It broke news on my NYTimes email updates, which only send out for major events. I certainly think it's newsworthy. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I stumbled upon the article after reading the news and ended up making a quick edit. Would like to see it get more views and thereby accrue some more information which would be fitting for a plant of this size. Mithridates (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This event has significant economic and geopolitical implications for Europe, particularly in regards to relations with Russia, as well as implications for the rest of the world regarding climate change energy alternatives. Nsk92 (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above - Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant geopolitical implication given the past two decades of climate emergency. Article is in good shape. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not a significant development and not as widely covered in the international media to merit inclusion on ITN. More people live in China, India or in Africa alone than they do in Europe. I suggest nominating this at DYK instead. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that we shouldn't feature stories from Europe on ITN? That might be the most egregious and absurd violation of the fourth clause of the "Please do not" section on ITN voting conduct. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support this us like the malaria vaccine story.. we're not going to post every nuclear power plant opening, but this the largest one planned for a long while. Article is good shape. --Masem (t) 17:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If posted, the blurb needs to be adjusted. The nuclear power plant has been running since the 1980s, but the newsworthy thing is that they completed/opened a new nuclear reactor in the power plant on April 16. Natg 19 (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Updated. Natg 19 (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't see how this reaches the bar for ITN. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rockstone and DarkSide. This is just.......an update on a building being built? That happens in literally every country, all the time. That's not ITN worthy, see WP:FASTCYCLE. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 01:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Large infrastructure does get built in most countries, yet few have such detailed articles written on them. We also sometimes feature the opening of bridges, tunnels, or railways. Other constructions tend to have less distinct start-dates of operations, so it can be harder to feature (for example) large towers or road networks in ITNs. However, these are all great subjects for a well-updated encyclopedia to feature. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Important both energy and international policy related.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. It's nice to see that at least some European nations are taking positive steps for renewable energy. On a more serious note the expansion of this nuclear power plant has been a somewhat major issue within Finland for a long time due to the massive delays, which makes its eventual opening even more significant. Flyingfishee (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's a pretty solid article, though the update (a single sentence in the lead) is a bit thin. --Jayron 32 11:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WaltCip and Flyingfishee. Shanes (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Spencer^T•C 03:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 16[edit]

Portal:Current events/2023 April 16

April 16, 2023 (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

War in Sudan (2023)
- Battle of Khartoum
  - The Sudanese military is said to have retaken control of the presidential palace and other key government installations in Khartoum. The military says Khartoum International Airport remains under the control of Rapid Support Forces, but that it was holding back from launching airstrikes to avoid destroying the airport. (Reuters)
Syrian civil war
- 2023 Hama attack
  - Thirty-six people are killed when Islamic State gunmen ambush a group of truffle hunters in Hama Governorate. Five shepherds are also killed near Deir ez-Zor. (France 24)
Jihadist insurgency in Burkina Faso
- Thirty-four VDP and six soldiers are killed during an ambush in the village of Aorema, Ouahigouya, Nord, Burkina Faso. Thirty-three other people are injured. (Al Jazeera)
Nigerian bandit conflict
- At least 33 people are killed when armed bandits storm a village in Runji, Kaduna. (AP)
Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Ukraine and Russia conduct a prisoner swap for soldiers who fought in Bakhmut, with 130 Ukrainian soldiers returning and an unknown amount of Russian soldiers returning. (PBS)

International relations

China–Russia relations
- Chinese Minister of Defense Li Shangfu meets President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu in Moscow, as part of his four-day visit to Russia. (CBS News)

Politics and elections

2021–2023 inflation surge
- Thousands of people protest against rising inflation at Wenceslas Square in Prague, Czech Republic, demanding the government's resignation. (VOA)

Science and technology

Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant
- After 18 years under construction, the Olkiluoto 3 reactor in Finland, Europe's most powerful nuclear power plant unit at 1.6 GW, begins delivering regular electrical output. (Reuters) (Bloomberg)

(Admin decision needed) The Phantom of the Opera[edit]

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

Nominated by Found5dollar (talk · give credit)

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

Oppose: This probably is more suited for DYK. 167.91.2.226 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to see how it would be eligible, unless it becomes a GA very quickly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support - I was actually just about to nominate this myself. Per my "subject article = newsworthy" clause, I think it should be posted. This is a major drama-related news (I know a lot of y'all like that) that had already been receiving sustained, international, WP:RS coverage before, all of which has been accentuated since its last showing. I'm not to invested in theater myself, and even I was getting bombarded with stories from even non-American outlets regarding this story. Unfortunately, the Phantom article itself is littered with various {{CN}} tags. On a similar note, I would also support including the Majestic theater as a bolded article, as it would be a great way to feature a GA on the main page. By the way, for the folks that always oppose ITN noms with "this is more suited to DYK," are y'all actually aware of the criteria for posting to DYK? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 16:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Even if the recent event is deemed newsworthy, the target article cannot sustain a "quality update" without giving the closure WP:UNDUE weight. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how; the few sentences necessary to note the final performance would not overwhelm the rest of the text in the article. --Jayron 32 18:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The date and final cast were set some time ago. The only updates I see in the last week are a performance-by-performance log of the actor performing the phantom. So it's already undue, and I can't imagine what else there is to say. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not really ITNR-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean ITN? Because this wasn't nominated for WP:ITN/R. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 18:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trivial trivia is WP:DYK's cup of tea, not ours. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 19:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should clarify its the longest ever running show, as the blurb could be read as longest running at the time of its last performance. But oppose on significance. nableezy - 22:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly I'm very uninformed about opera, but what's stopping them from just performing again in 1-2 years? We've had issues in ITN in the past where "best of their generation" athletes announced their retirements, only to come out of retirement. YD407OTZ (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a revival production which isn't counted as adding to the original production run, so the numbering would restart. So a 2025 revival would break the run record in 2061. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support if article sourced. Huge milestone in English-language musical theatre and impossible to surpass for at least a decade and likely even longer. However, the article has several sourcing deficiencies at the moment. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always a bit unconvinced with the ending of theatre runs, as a new Phantom of the Opera will surely go in production in a few years. That being said, this is indeed a record. If the article is updated sufficiently and well-cited, I'd enjoy seeing it on ITN. I think this is a great subject for us to feature, a fine moment to celebrate the longevity of this play. Right now, I feel like the article isn't quite there yet. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Professional theater almost never makes it to ITN; the Tony Awards are ITN/R but no one ever bothers to nominate them nor bring them up to quality. This is an opportunity to post a story in an area that has almost zero representation. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can wait to see your nomination this June. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put it on my radar. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support The end of an era as they say. Noah^Talk 14:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The show started in London years ahead of Broadway. It's still running there but there's talk of it ending later this year and, if that happens, there would be an encore as the primary and longest run is the one that matters most. Note also that we had this nominated last September. It's effectively like sports retirements as you can expect that there will be yet more productions and revivals in due course. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Unabashed Phantom fan here, I think it can barely meet notability requirements but not by much. Fine if it doesn't get posted, although we do have very little theatre coverage and some change might be nice. The Kip (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Yeah, tricky one. Whilst "Longest Broadway Show" is a thing, as Andrew says, it's been running since 1986 in London (apart from a Covid break) with over twice as many performances than the Boradway version. However, even that is not going to break any West End show records either because of The Mousetrap, and at least two other West End shows have more performances than the target article. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly per Andrew. This is like sports retirements. As people sometimes go out of retirement, it’s not unlikely that the musical will be staged again.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiril Simeonovski: Once a Broadway production closes, it's done for good and it won't have another "run". There are revival performances but they usually happen in single years and not for prolonged periods of time. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when an “original run” ends, any future revival won’t be “original” any more. However, Broadway theatre doesn’t really indicate that revivals are rare and short-lived (Chicago is a proof for that). So, if the musical with the second-longest original run in history had a long revival, it’s normal to expect the one with the longest run to get it as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this pop culture trivia. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for asking, but what exactly is the problem with posting pop culture on ITN? --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support important, well-known record; per ITN guidelines, a story in the news deemed significant by ITN users. One orange tag, but otherwise article appears in reasonable condition. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top theatre news along with a record for a classic, good to cover news beyond the usual drab. Should post this before it becomes stale. Gotitbro (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting record, but more trivia than anything else. And we will assuredly see performances of this musical in the future, "revivals" or not. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ahmad Jamal[edit]

Article: Ahmad Jamal (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, Pitchfork
Credits:

Nominated by Mooonswimmer (talk · give credit)
Updated by Cielquiparle (talk · give credit), Paradise Chronicle (talk · give credit), EddieHugh (talk · give credit), Derek R Bullamore (talk · give credit) and Ayyydoc (talk · give credit)

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

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

Oppose. As said in nom comment, this article is not ready for the main page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. sourced everything in awards and compilations to the best of my abilities. i assessed everything in discography and it looks good to me. should be good to go. Ayyydoc (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ayyydoc. Jusdafax (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many {{cn}} tags. And an undersourced discography section. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article has enough information for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Supportthanks for the expansion of Cielquiparle Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much expansion, but all the citation needed tags have been resolved now. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Including the discography section. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - in admiration for the added sources --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 03:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Saikazaki bombing[edit]

(Non admin closure) Consensus to post will not develop. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 02:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Saikazaki bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:  In Japan, prime minister Fumio Kishida (pictured a day later) evades injury when a pipe bomb is thrown towards him in Saikazaki, Wakayama. (Post)
Alternative blurb:  In Japan, prime minister Fumio Kishida (pictured) avoids an attack in Saikazaki, Wakayama.
News source(s): BBC - The Telegraph - France 24 - The Hindustan Times - CNN - Reuters - Politico - Al Jazeera - Bloomberg
Credits:

Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
Created by JosephLincoln081072 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: The attempted assassination of Japanese PM Fumio Kishida. It has widespread WP:RS coverage and passes WP:NEVENTS. I'm surprised that this hasn't been nominated yet. By the way, for the people who will oppose because he didn't die, bear in mind that we posted the stabbing of Salman Rushdie in August. I don't know about you, but the Prime Minister of Japan is more important than some author that most folks my age don't know (especially considering what happened to Abe in July). Unfortunately, the subject article looks like the lungs of a chain smoker. It needs some serious rehab before posting. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on article quality. The main article needs expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support when article is improved. Flyingfishee (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, especially considering what happened with Abe last year. Proposed altblurb. The Kip (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the article at "bombing" given that it was only a smoke bomb? There are sources calling it an assassination attempt, but I'm not seeing "bombing" being used in the same manner. --Masem (t) 00:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Thwarted plot. Ultimately impacts are limited here. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Past precedent dictates failed assassinations attempts aren’t for ITN. (Iraq PM failed attempt ITN nomination…closed directly on the grounds that it was a failed attempt & Former Brazilian President failed attempt ITN nomination. with were both closed and not posted. Absolutely no reason to post this to ITN based on those previous discussions.) Elijahandskip (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality The article is bare bones at the moment, so we're waiting on expansion. As far as significance, if it was a real bomb, then I think it meets our criteria of significance considering the country and weapon of choice; but if it was a fake bomb, then oppose altogether. Curbon7 (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that would go against precedent though. If ITN was only going to accept “crazy” style assassination attempts, then what would be classified crazy? A drone strike isn’t “crazy” enough to be a significant assassination attempt, so why would a pipe bomb? Elijahandskip (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "precedent" at ITN. The closest thing to that is ITNR, which is not precedent but the result of consensus from rigorous discussion. Every non-ITNR candidate is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Curbon7 (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems counter-productive though. ITN for attempted assassination of the Iraqi Prime Minister had four comments (only) and all directly about failed assassination attempts not being posted on ITN before it was SNOW closed. If precedent doesn’t matter, then that discussion (as well as the linked above discussion for former Brazil president attempted assassination ITN) mean nothing and are basically defunct. Obviously neither would be posted since they aren’t news anymore, but precedent basically closed them, so saying ITN doesn’t have precedent is false. Maybe an RfC discussion for ITNR might be best for this type of situation since there are two previous attempted assassinations that were not posted to ITN (one directly closed on grounds that it failed). Elijahandskip (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comparision with the Rushdie stabbing is unjustified, he was seriously injured and the incident was the culmination of a long running, high profile controversy.
I do not have a strong opinion on this incident, but no one appears to have been seriously injured including the PM, so the significance of this is questionable. Gotitbro (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – Article is a bit short for my tastes. Not quite there for this type of topic. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to a lack of importance. No-one was seriously injured & there's very little info about the suspect & the possible motives. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. Article is a little short, and lacks information on things such as details on the would-be killer. An attempt on the life of any world leader, IMO, is notable, successful or not. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Failed attempt, just one bystander with minor injuries - lacks significance.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the story here is that there is no story here. nableezy - 22:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ‘Twas a smoke bomb. The bodyguard did a great job blocking, kicking it away, shielding and evacuating his protected. Jehochman ^Talk 22:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Closed) Dadeville shooting[edit]

WP:SNOW close. WP:NEVENT is in question and falls short of the very rough ITN/C threshold for US mass shootings ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The site of the shooting, pictured before its renovation from a bank.

Article: Dadeville shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:  In the United States, twenty-eight people are injured and four killed in a mass shooting at a 16th birthday celebration in a Dadeville, Alabama, Alabama dance studio (pictured) (Post)
News source(s): NYT - AP - USA Today - CNN - NPR
Credits:

Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
Created by Mvqr (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Twenty casualties, including a beloved high school athlete. All I'm going to say is that it passed WP:NEVENTS, it's notable enough to have its own article, and it's literally in the news. The article does need some quality-related fixes, however. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I'll say off the bat is that it needs considerable expansion. It's too short at present to be posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability and quality yet another routine shooting in the United States. And it is (very) well known what the majority opinion of the editors is on this type of nominations. Again: just because it is in the news, does not mean that it has to be in "In the news". _-_Alsor (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, we should rename Wikipedia:In The News to Wikipedia:The list of abritraily selected news events that we feature on the main page based on the whims of 20 to 30 Wikipedia editors who vote emotionally and dramawhore themselves out to each other like the world's biggest orgy. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it is what it is. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A twenty– to thirty-participant orgy cannot fairly be characterised as the world's biggest, fyi. I feel like there's a discussion elsewhere on this page where most editors agree with your perspective on the subjectivity of the ITN criteria. Folly Mox (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
discussion promoted, mainly, by U.S. editors when they see that Americancentrism is endangered. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
^{[citation needed]} - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 03:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support once improved - A shooting that causes 16 deaths is far from routine, even in the U.S. Son Of The Desert (T • C) 22:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a shooting is far from routine, but this isn't a shooting that caused 16 deaths. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:FDC4:8D69:16EF:5484 (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read the blurb. Curbon7 (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Consensus is that US mass shootings are provincial unless otherwise notable This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Common crime in the US, does not appear to have to do with terrorism or the like. Also, given that there have been >150 mass shootings (more than 4 people wounded) in the US, this is just another example of why gun control is needed in the US. --Masem (t) 23:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mass shootings are far too common in the US. If we are going to start posting these w/o setting a high bar, ITN will quickly become just a catalogue of the ongoing firearms related mayhem in the US. Will generally support if there are circumstances which make the event stand out from most of the other mass shootings. Examples, double digit fatalities, terrorism etc. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A stub with little hope of expansion right now as the police are yet to say anything about suspects or motivation for the attack. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stub + not particularly notable as unfortunately, these shootings are common nowadays. The Kip (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. About a thousand murders happen every day. They are generally not notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably doesnt even pass NEVENT. nableezy - 04:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Closed) 2023 Dubai apartment fire[edit]

Non admin closure No consensus to post. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2023 Dubai apartment fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:  An apartment fire kills 16 and injures 9 in Al-Ras, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, Gulf News, ABC News
Credits:

Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)

Ainty Painty (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support pending improvements - there's very little actual information on the fire. Also, the response section needs greater clarity and sourcing, and the aftermath section should paradoxically probably be integrated into the background section, since all info contained in there are about prior events. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 20:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually in the process of rewriting and expanding the aftermath section. I will move it up to the background section shortly. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support after improvement, if this can make it past the Council of No. Fires in the UAE are not typical, and this is the latest of four such articles in that category.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, fires in the UAE are actually quite common. Check out this list of fires involving high-rise building façades and pay particularly close attention to their prevalence in Emirati cities like Dubai or Sharjah. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A tragic event but far below the level of notability needed for ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Per above - Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, Per above, fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Atique Ahmed[edit]

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

Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)

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

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

Oppose A number of uncited statements, some of which may have BLP issues (about still living people, not just the subject). Not suitable for the Main Page at this point. Black Kite (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - given the circumstances of his death, I think this should maybe be blurbed (especially considering this is receiving international coverage). - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 00:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality per Black Kite. Oppose blurb on notability, it's an interesting story but he wasn't the sort of figure that would merit a blurb. The Kip (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RD Oppose until quality issues are fixed per Black Kite and The Kip, though Strong Oppose any sort of blurb for both the previously noted quality issues and notability issues. I only learned of this man through his death, which kind of slices any blurb argument in half, imo. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 12:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've read the requirements for a death blurb backwards. They say, and I quote, "if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb. An assassination is generally considered the kind of death that merits additional commentary as being notable on its own, as opposed to dying from natural causes. --Jayron 32 12:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Before voting on whether or not to blurb, please take heed of Jayron32's comment above, copied from ITNRD; assassinations and public shootings, particularly those of public figures, almost certainly rise to the standard of being a blurbworthy event. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb He was really a strictly local politician, turned into a strictly local gangster. And in the world of criminality death is not something exceptional. Lack of general notiblity. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Local politician from one part of the country. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is already strong consensus against blurbing. Focus on the RD criteria instead. Curbon7 (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Posted RD. As per Knightofthewords, quality seems ok now. — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we make the link to the page be Atiq Ahmed instead of the now-redirect page, Atique Ahmed? Rushtheeditor (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's fixed! Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 15[edit]

Portal:Current events/2023 April 15

April 15, 2023 (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

2019–2026 Sudanese transition to democracy
- War in Sudan (2023)
  - Battle of Khartoum
    - RSF occupation of the Khartoum International Airport
      - Fighting occurs across Sudan three days after the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) mobilized. The RSF claims to have captured Khartoum International Airport and the presidential palace in Khartoum. At least 56 civilians are killed and 595 others are injured, with several military personnel and rebel forces also being killed. Several Egyptian troops are also taken prisoner by the RSF. (BBC News) (Al Jazeera) (Al Jazeera 2)
      - Chad closes its border with Sudan as heavy fighting continues between the Sudanese military and rebel forces. (Anadolu Agency)
      - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Libya and Qatar suspend all planes from inside and outside of Sudan due to the ongoing conflicts and closure of several airports; airlines also fear attacks on their planes mainly in Khartoum. (Menafn) (Al Arabiya) (Libya Observer)
Papua conflict
- Rebels of the West Papua National Liberation Army kill nine Indonesian military personnel as the group accuses Jakarta of refusing to hold negotiations. (Reuters)
Saikazaki bombing
- Prime Minister of Japan Fumio Kishida is evacuated during a speech in Saikazaki, Wakayama, Kansai, Japan, after an "explosion-like sound" is heard. A suspect, believed to have thrown a smoke bomb, is arrested. (CNN)
Mexican drug war
- At least seven people are killed and another is injured during a mass shooting in La Palma resort in Cortazar, Guanajuato, Mexico. (Xinhua)
Encounter killing
- Former Indian Parliament member Atique Ahmed, and his brother Ashraf Ahmed, are assassinated on live television while giving an interview to reporters in Allahabad, while in the custody of police, Uttar Pradesh, India. In response to the murders, the Uttar Pradesh government bars gatherings of more than four people across the entire state. His son had already been killed in an encounter a month earlier. The government shuts down the Internet access in the Allahabad district. (CNN) (Reuters) (BBC News) (Al Jazeera) (Hindustan Times) (The Indian Express) (The Economic Times)

Business and economy

2023 Rutgers University strike
- The strike ends as an agreement is reached between faculty and the administration, returning 9,000 staff to work. (CNN)

Disasters and accidents

2023 Dubai apartment fire
- Sixteen people are killed and nine others are injured by a fire in a residential building in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. (Al Jazeera)
Twelve people are killed and 28 others are injured when a bus falls into a gorge in Raigad, Maharashtra, India. (Daily Excelsior)

Health and environment

Germany shuts down its last three nuclear plants, after the deadline to phase out nuclear energy was delayed by three months due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (DW)
Equatorial Guinea confirms six more cases of Marburg virus, bringing the total number of cases in the country to fifteen. (Reuters)

International relations

Hungary–Ukraine relations, Poland–Ukraine relations
- Poland and Hungary ban imports of grain and other food from Ukraine "to protect the local agricultural sector", due to Ukrainian supplies lowering the price of food. (Reuters)

Law and crime

2023 French pension reform unrest
- President Emmanuel Macron signs the pension reform bill into law as protests intensify in the country. (The Guardian)
LGBT rights in the Cook Islands
- The Parliament of the Cook Islands decriminalizes gay sexual practices between men. (RNZ)
2023 Dadeville shooting
- Four people are killed and 28 others are injured by a mass shooting at a birthday party in Dadeville, Alabama, United States. (AL.com)

Science and technology

SpaceX launches Earth observation satellite TAIFA-1, Kenya's first operational satellite, from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California on a Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket. The satellite will collect environmental data, including data on floods, droughts and wildfires. (Reuters)
Twitter begins limiting the number of automated messages being able to be sent by the National Weather Service, including emergency alerts, before walking back the changes. (CNN)

Sports

2023 Grand National
- Corach Rambler, ridden by Irish jockey Derek Fox, wins the 175th Grand National horse race at Aintree Racecourse. The start of the race was delayed due to animal rights activists storming the track, with at least 118 people being arrested. (BBC Sport) (ITV News)

(Posted) RD: Irma Blank[edit]

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

Created and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)

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

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

Support Article is good enough for RD, with enough citations and a long enough article. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 17:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is well-cited and holistic enough. Curbon7 (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mufti Abdul Shakoor[edit]

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

Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)

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

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

Oppose. Currently a stub. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is a stub and needs expansion to go onto ITN/RD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 01:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only 132 words of prose. --PFHLai (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corach Rambler wins Grand National[edit]

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

Nominated by XxLuckyCxX (talk · give credit)

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

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

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

Oppose on Quality. Article lacks thorough description of race. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--СтасС (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. Curbon7 (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality due to lack of prose. Will flip vote when addressed. The Kip (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above - Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sufficient prose to post this now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Sudan clashes[edit]

Article: 2023 Sudanese Armed Forces-Rapid Support Forces confrontation (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:  Clashes erupt after fighters from the Rapid Support Forces attacked several army camps in Sudan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominated by Prodrummer619 (talk · give credit)

support rsf have at least one airport under control, possibly the capital. Rsf is more popular against the junta.49.205.151.137 (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
extreme support - it is probably even more than a coup attempt at this point Braganza (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article is sufficiently referenced and the even is important inasmuch as this looks like a civil war/coup attempt. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 13:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support though recommend trying to improve the reading flow on the events, and nixxing the flags in the reactions section. --Masem (t) 13:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sourced. Length is ok.BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme wait seems to be an ongoing situation. We have to wait and see how it turns out, and if it is a simple confrontations or something worse (like a possible failed or successful coup d'état). _-_Alsor (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - even if the coup fails, its still pretty notable. Also, the article is in surprisingly good shape for such a recent article (though as @Masem pointed out, the events section probably needs to be modified for greater readability.

- Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait per Alsor. Situation is still developing. I think waiting to assess the situation would be prudent. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait seems more appropriate. There is a pending move discussion ongoing as well. - Indefensible (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It happened. It's notable. The article is ready. If it ends up becoming something more than a single confrontation, then we can move it to ongoing after it falls off ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The blurb is not really descriptive. Both sides seem to claim a lot according to BBC, so I'd prefer to wait to be able to have a more descriptive blurb.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support important event with the article in pretty good shape for an ongoing conflict. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support even if it failed an attempted coup would still be significant. Flyingfishee (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Confused and competing claims so it's not reliable. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get you. Is the article not reliable or what? There is a full on war right now. Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Information is still coming in and much of it disputed. We know there is conflict, but many of the details are still murky. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would ongoing fit better then, in your opinion? DecafPotato (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the bold linked article now that this has been posted, the first thing I read is that this is "Part of the Sudanese transition to democracy". That's such obvious BS that one doesn't need go any further. Essentially, mayhem in Sudan is like shootings in the US and we already have it listed as a war in the list of ongoing armed conflicts. That entry has about 400,000 deaths since 2008 and so these latest skirmishes are just a drop in the ocean. They just seem to be attracting attention because they are happening in the capital. No doubt someone will claim that this "democracy" has resulted in an "election" and we'll be forced to run that too. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I'm not remotely surprised that you can't see how this represents a significant uptick in the conflict. The Kip (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The situation has escalated and clashes have spread throughout the country [26]. No reason to wait with posting at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support considerable escalation in the last 24h; article is acceptable enough and can only improve w additional exposure Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on significance. Article looks decent, but I have not examined it in great detail. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to significance and likelihood to stay in the news. -- Mebigrouxboy (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not sure what's murky about this - military units attacking the government with fighter jets is absolutely ITN. Nfitz (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - notable enough, has extensive media cover with information becoming more reliable by the hour. The article is well written and sources

FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Filelakeshoe: article has been moved to 2023 Sudan clashes, could you (or anyone else) fix the link? Thanks, ansh.666 21:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done - it's been moved again since this comment, to 2023 Sudanese clashes, so that's the current link target. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I're updated the blurb with the death toll and made it less about the blow-by-blow details of the fighting: "In Sudan, at least 97 people die in clashes between rival factions of the military regime." Sandstein 08:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Non admin closure) WP:SNOW closing, as consensus to post will not appear to develop. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 12:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Self-driving car (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The United Kingdom's Department for Transport approves Ford Motor Company's on 2,300 miles (3,700 km) of motorways in England, Scotland and Wales. The UK becomes the first European country to approve hands-free driving technology on public roads. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC News)
Credits:

Nominated by СтасС (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Good day. New technology--СтасС (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Like the malaria vaccine below, approval of an established technology by one country (and here, specifically only on some parts of that country) is not really an ITN featured item. --Masem (t) 15:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Blurb lacks car. RAN1 (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, hands-free driving vehicles is missing, and the bolded article is History of self-driving cars. RAN1 (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose fairly trivial. The Kip (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I see.--СтасС (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work It's in the news but the target article hasn't been updated. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - not a very riveting story, but its in the news. Target article has not been updated however.

- Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 23:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not really relevant. There are many issues that are "in the news", but we cannot include all "In the news" per se. Good faith nomination, of course _-_Alsor (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either we start adding more items to ITN or we stagnate. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
but not with the first news that comes before our eyes. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "First European country" is an arbitrary distinction and not ITN worthy. Additionally, the page itself does not appear to mention this new legislation. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trivial trivia. Curbon7 (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not ITN worthy. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't see any noteworthy advancement in self-driving technology here. This is just approving another safety system Ford has implemented that makes sure the driver's eyes are on the road, in contrast to the traditional method of checking if the driver is attentative by keeping their hands on the wheel. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article: Malaria vaccine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:  Ghana becomes the first country to approve the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine. (Post)
Alternative blurb:  R21/Matrix-M, a proven-effective malaria vaccine, is first approved for use by regulators in Ghana.
News source(s): (Pharmaceutical Technology), AP, The Guardian, BBC
Credits:

Nominated by СтасС (talk · give credit)

Oppose One nation approving a vaccine is not really ITN worthy. --Masem (t) 13:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to change my !vote on this, though I have added an altblurb that is towards my reasoning. That is, when I look back at the news about this, I don't see a really good point where the vaccine clearly became *the* candidate for use; it was shown to meet WHO's requirement in 2021, and had successful human testing in 2022, but never a point that marked it as ready to be used to the public. Its clear from other articles that Ghana must have seen the last phase 3 tests (yet to be publicly published) and opted to go with it; WHO is also looking into it but how soon that is, is not clear. So this seems like a key point. We're clearly not going to post when other countries approve it for use (though maybe consider the WHO's approval). --Masem (t) 14:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- One could argue that a malaria vaccine in itself is newsworthy. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  the vaccine yes (although Masem has not questioned this), its approval by a specific country no. It is purely a bureaucratic formality. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I ain't questionin' that anybody was questionin' anything, just pointin' out. Cheers, --Ouro (blah blah) 17:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Support - sure you can dismiss this as "just one nation," but I don't think folks in the first-world are aware of how crippling malaria is in the tropics. We're talking about what is the sixth most fatal cause of death in most low-income countries, a scourge that exterminates half a million people annually, many of whom (80%) are children, one that devastates these countries financially. This vaccine developed by Oxford is the most efficient malaria vaccine to be developed, primarily in that is able to combat the disease well before its destructive symptoms raise their ugly heads. Even if it's just "one country," this is still likely the start of a major medical miracle. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The development of the vaccine would have been the ITN item, not approval by one country, on that same reasoning - its what the vaccine means to the part of the world suffering from malaria. Masem (t) 15:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it has to start somewhere. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "has to start somewhere" was the successful creation and human trials of the vaccine. Masem (t) 23:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No question there. But if nobody chose to actually use the vaccine then we would have probably never known much about it. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and speedy close. If Ghana is Malaria free, we can talk about it, but that doesn't seem possible with this vaccine according to the articleParadise Chronicle (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. The Kip (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the article's improved per Knightoftheswords. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work The topic is more significant than most of the stuff posted at ITN but the target article is quite broad and has some issues including orange cleanup tags. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support an effective malaria vaccine has been a major international goal for a long time and it's great to see progress on it. Also the vaccine being approved for use is probably the most significant stage of it's development so it's not like there will be a better time than now. Flyingfishee (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either we start adding more items to ITN or we stagnate. Pluswhich, a working malaria vaccine should be major medical news. What more is it going to take? --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Masem. In fact, I felt quite compelled to oppose per their original comment as well, but have also felt swayed by the amendment. This vaccine is quite significant, so I think it deserves a little extra ITN recognition at checkpoints that we would not post for other vaccines. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support A malaria vaccine with 77% efficacy (WHO goal was 75%) being approved for use by a national regulator for the first time is absolutely significant for posting. Curbon7 (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 20:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 14[edit]

Portal:Current events/2023 April 14

April 14, 2023 (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine
  - A Russian missile strike on Sloviansk, Donetsk Oblast, kills at least eight civilians and injures 21 others. (The New York Times)
Yemeni civil war
- A major prisoner swap of nearly 900 prisoners begins between rival factions in Yemen. (AFP via France 24)
Mali War
- The Islamic State in the Greater Sahara encircles the strategic town of Ménaka in Ménaka Region, Mali. (The Africa Report)
Ituri conflict
- At least 42 people are killed by suspected CODECO militants during a raid at a village in Ituri Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo. (Associated Press)

Disasters and accidents

2023 Tunisia migrant boat disasters
- The death toll from a boat that sank off the coast of Tunisia increases to 33 after eight more bodies are found. (Reuters)
One person is killed and 70 others are injured after a bridge collapses in Udhampur District, Jammu and Kashmir, India. (AP)
At least four people are killed and thirteen others are injured after a fire breaks out in a shelter in Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil. (Reuters)

Health and environment

Ghana becomes the first country to approve Oxford's malaria vaccine R21/Matrix-M. (Pharmaceutical Technology)

Law and crime

LGBT rights in Tanzania, Capital punishment in Tanzania
- Tanzanian members of parliament call on the government to tighten laws against homosexual sex with the death penalty. (The Citizen)
Cannabis in Quebec
- The Supreme Court of Canada upholds Quebec's provincial ban on homegrown cannabis despite a 2018 federal ruling which allowed small quantities of cannabis to be grown at home. (Reuters)
Twelve people are killed after riots break out in a prison in Guayaquil, Guayas, Ecuador. (Reuters)

Science and technology

The United Kingdom's Department for Transport approves Ford Motor Company's hands-free driving vehicles on 2,300 miles (3,700 km) of motorways in England, Scotland and Wales. The UK becomes the first European country to approve hands-free driving technology on public roads. (BBC News)
Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer (JUICE) is launched by the European Space Agency (ESA) to search for life in the Jovian system, with an expected arrival date of 2031. (BBC News)

RD: Mark Sheehan[edit]

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

Nominated by Vida0007 (talk · give credit)

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

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

Oppose as it is "painfully short". At only 157 words, I think this can be considered a stub. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article is a stub. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 20:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Ed Koren[edit]

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

Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
Updated by Fakescientist8000 (talk · give credit)

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

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

Oppose. Woefully unsourced. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Now support due to improved sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve cited the body of the article. The books just have to be cited now. Thriley (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have finished up the sourcing of the books, so this article should be good to go. Marking as ready. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 20:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ Article lead states that his work included "children's books and political cartoons" but this is not described further in the article body. What types of political cartoons or views did Koren espouse? Spencer^T•C 17:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Spencer I've clarified this further in the article. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 19:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still think the depth could use work (no mention of children's books in the body of the article, which is also mentioned in the lede). Strike weak oppose but don't think this is quite ready for posting. Spencer^T•C 03:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Koren is known as a cartoonist first and foremost. I don’t think minor work he did should hold up this nomination. He literally made tens of thousands of illustrations in his lifetime. Thriley (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spencer It appears that the children's books part of the lead has been removed, so I don't think that there needs to be a whole lot in there, but I can try. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 17:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --Jayron 32 18:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Elisabeth Kopp[edit]

Article: Elisabeth Kopp (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SRF St.Galler Tagblatt Handelsblatt
Credits:

Nominated by Paradise Chronicle (talk · give credit)
Updated by Theanonymoustypist (talk · give credit) and Paradise Chronicle (talk · give credit)

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

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

Support Article is now well-sourced, addressing Vacant0‘s concern, and it has sufficient content. 24.105.189.251 (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks fine and is well-cited. Ollieisanerd (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support article looks good. But I would like to see more about her political work, as much of the section on her career talks about the investigation of her husband and her resignation. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks RD ready. Good work.
Support I'm convinced. Grimes2 (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Sandstein 12:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) JUICE mission launch[edit]

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

Nominated by Kenmelken (talk · give credit)
Updated by Artem.G (talk · give credit), AstroVictoria (talk · give credit) and Fm3dici97 (talk · give credit)

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

Support, important mission with a mediocre article. Artem.G (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a fan of space-related things, major research mission to an interesting region of the Solar System that launched in the early afternoon (CEST) :) --Ouro (blah blah) 17:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ITN/R. Article is of decent quality. Space is indeed fucking juicy. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 17:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under which qualification is this ITN/R? GreatCaesarsGhost 17:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. I had to go back and read and stand corrected. For missions like this, they are ITN/R when they arrive, not launch, apparently. That said, it won't arrive at Jupiter for 8 years, and won't attain orbit at Ganymede until 3 after that, so I think it is also okay to post the launch as a regular nomination. I've fixed the nomination. Thanks for pointing that out! Kenmelken (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is decent. --Jayron 32 18:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notability and quality is here. I will say though, it would be nice if the blurb noted the goal/significance of the mission though. No ideas come to mind at the moment, but just my two cents. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The significance lies in the studying of astral bodies that most likely hold some kinds of bodies of water beneath their surfaces, and could potentially harbour life. Umm, right, ahem, The European Space Agency launches the Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer, to study bodies of water on three Galilean moons. --Ouro (blah blah) 19:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks decent enough for posting now.BabbaQ (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I'd also support a slightly-expanded blurb. The article is in good shape, and it's a particularly notable launch. Plus, I can't wait to see what JUICE has to say in 15753 years. -- Kicking222 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Sandstein 22:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work The history section is orange-tagged and talks about the probe's construction being in the future. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2023 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan[edit]

Portal:Current events/2023 April 13

Consensus to post unlikely to emerge. The Kip (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2023 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:  In cross-strait relations, China organizes a series of military exercises around Taiwan, after Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen visits U.S House speaker Kevin McCarthy. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-10/china-declares-military-exercises-round-taiwan-a-success/102206606 (primary source).
Credits:

Nominated by СтасС (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Good day. Noise events. This is news has like in fr-wiki and in zh-wiki (Chinese wiki).-СтасС (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Fellas, it's In The News. This is tensions rising in a geopolitical hotspot. @Knightoftheswords281 makes good points, this should be posted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment We did not post the noise around Pelosi's visit. This does not seem to be any different. Gotitbro (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason why WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. I also disagree with that not being posted. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 14:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was a point of observation not argument (with the latter being that it is mere noise). And precedents exist, when similar things are up for nom again and again we need to fall back on past consensus unless something substantially different is shown or a new point is put forward (OTHERSTUFF does not really apply here). Gotitbro (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First, these have been going on several days before this, and it has only generated noise and concern on international conflict levels. Second, the blurb goes into OR trying to connect the exercise with the visit to the US (even if Occum's Razor applies) --Masem (t) 13:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia relies primarily on what secondary sources state. It's not original research if we have multiple WP:RS sources that interpret such a connection between the two. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 14:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noise, as always. So it's not noticeable enough, whether it's due to the visit of a politician from the United States or from France. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just military exercises and nothing more for now. I’d re-consider my vote in case this turns into invasion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Masem, Alsoriano97: If it's "just noise", then shouldn't it be nominated for deletion as non-notable? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The info likely fits under an existing article on China-Taiwan relations, but as a standalone article, I agree that NEVENT is not met yet. Masem (t) 15:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a discussion for merger at Talk:Cross-Strait relations. This discussion seems to indicate that there's not much confidence in the event's notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - an obvious escalation of tensions that has been bubbling for several months. If there was an invasion, it would be straight into ongoing. I don't think it's necessary nor (and this is what ITN is for) informative to remain quiet on that front until some hypothetical war. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not out of the ordinary, same thing when Pelosi visited (our article here). nableezy - 15:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. More sabre rattling. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the same reasons that I opposed the Pelosi one. Tough-guy posturing by China, nothing substantial. Curbon7 (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - escalation of tensions. Article looks good enough for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Predictable sabre rattling. No different than when Pelosi visited. Teemu08 (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – "China's final warning" strikes once again, not to mention the drills are basically over now. DecafPotato (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Conventional dick rattling. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Above, plus, we don't post about such exercises, so come back when World War 3 starts. Editor 5426387 (Talk) 23:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7, does this count?! - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 03:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god, it happened! The Kip (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This certainly deserves a nomination here. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7 ahem! You have a deal to follow through on. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 02:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an issue for the fine print. "Per above" is there, but there's more to it as well. DecafPotato (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In response, Taiwan also held some drills to prepare for any kind of disaster.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was just thinking back to when we were all calling Russia's massing of troops on the Ukrainian border "saber-rattling" and "dick-rattling" and all that stuff. I think it was one or two days before the invasion. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And we rightfully chose to not post, deferring until said invasion. The Russian force elevation to where it became for the invasion ultimately stands a small footnote in the conflict. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also a bit different - in the days before the Ukraine invasion, the US President was literally announcing that Russia would invade, with details about the timeframe, and troop movements. This isn't at all similar.
Probably should be closed, does not have support for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per DecafPotato Hungry403 (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - routine escalation - we are likely still years away from the Chinese invasion. Nfitz (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 13[edit]

April 13, 2023 (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Foreign involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine
  - The European Council agrees to donate a billion euros worth of ammunition to Ukraine through an EU financing instrument. (Tagesschau)
  - The German government approves a request by Poland for the export of former GDR MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine. (Tagesschau)
- Battle of Bakhmut
  - In the battle of Bakhmut, Russian forces are able to reach the centre of the city, according to Ukrainian and Russian sources. (Spiegel)
Myanmar civil war
- Four people are killed and 12 others are injured by a series of car bombings during a Thingyan festival in Lashio, Shan State, Myanmar. (WION)
The Sudanese government warns of a possible conflict after the Rapid Support Forces paramilitary group mobilizes in several Sudanese cities. (Al Jazeera)

Disasters and accidents

2022–23 Australian region cyclone season
- Cyclone Ilsa
  - Cyclone Ilsa makes landfall between De Grey and Pardoo Roadhouse in Western Australia, Australia, as a category five cyclone. (ABC News Australia)
One person is killed and 34 others are injured after a tour bus crashes in Chungju, South Korea. (AP)
Two people are killed after heavy rain causes flash flooding across Iran. (AP)

International relations

Japan–North Korea relations
- 2021–2023 North Korean missile tests
  - North Korea launches a ballistic missile towards northern Japan, prompting evacuation orders in Hokkaido, before the missile falls into the sea. (Al Jazeera)

Law and crime

2023 Pentagon document leaks
- The U.S. FBI arrests 21-year-old Massachusetts Air National Guardsman Jack Teixeira for allegedly leaking government documents to a Discord gaming group. (NBC News)
The Ugandan military kills notorious criminal Tom Lopusi, who led a massive jailbreak in Moroto District in September 2020. (Xinhua)
A 38-year-old tech consultant from Emeryville, California, United States, is arrested for killing Cash App founder Bob Lee earlier this month. (BBC News)
The Court of Appeal of the Republic of Moldova sentences the pro-Russian oligarch Ilan Shor to 15 years in prison in absentia. (Reuters)

Politics and elections

The parliament of Malawi approves a new defence act, expanding its Defence Force with the creation of a fourth service. (Nyasa Times)
The government of Bolivia calls on the armed forces to tighten border controls in order to prevent the smuggling of state-subsidized fuel. (Reuters)

(Posted) RD: Thubten Zopa Rinpoche[edit]

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

Nominated by Curbon7 (talk · give credit)
Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit)

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

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

Posted Step hen 03:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Judith Miller (antiques expert)[edit]

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

Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
Updated by Songofachilles (talk · give credit)

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

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

Oppose. Large portions are unsourced. The death was cited to an unreliable tabloid, but I've replaced it with the BBC source listed above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is small and there are many CN tags still left. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 17:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Portal:Current events/2023 April 12

Bro's not even dead, it's his son who perished. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 03:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)

Ainty Painty (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article has not been properly updated (still in present tense, no mention of death). Furthermore, even if that were done, there's several cn tags that need resolving. It's also fantastically incomplete. For someone who served as a major political leader of his country, there are entire years of his premiership with no coverage at all. The article needs a LOT of work to be main-page ready. --Jayron 32 15:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose blurb Article would barely be acceptable for RD at the current state. Way too short, not notable, and horrible quality for a blurb mention. Weak weak support RD. Cheers. Wime Pocy 17:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Not notable" is a clearly not true. I can't imagine that a head-of-government of a sovereign state would not have been written about extensively by reliable sources, at least in the country he led. I would imagine that Kuwaiti newspapers probably wrote something substantial about him nearly every day of his premiership. So yes, he's clearly notable. The article doesn't really cite any of those sources as yet, but notability has nothing to do with the writing in the article. It only attaches to the subject of the article, and the prime minister of a sovereign state will easily have been written about extensively, if nothing else, by writers based in that country. That doesn't mean his death qualifies for a blurb; blurbs are only necessary if the death needs further explanation. In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb. --Jayron 32 17:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD on quality, blurb on notability Article's in a dreadful state and in my opinion he doesn't meet the notability bar for a blurb anyways. The Kip (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The monarch still retains significant power in Kuwait, to blurb a PM we would need to show an outsized impact of the position here. Gotitbro (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb - think its good enough for RD already though. But yes, the PM in Kuwait is not in charge of much, so this wouldnt come close to blurb-worthy on the "this person is very important" scale, even if that were the scale we consistently used. nableezy - 20:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Article is well-sourced. -- Fahads1982^Talk - 22:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb The PM of Kuwait is a figure with little real executive power, so I don't think he is ITNR-worthy. The current content seems totally sourced, but holding office for eight years I think is insufficient. It needs to be expanded. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mishary94 states that the former prime minister's son, Mubarak Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah, died, not the prime minister. I've opened a discussion on their talk page for clarification, but in the meantime, I'm not quite sure if Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah or his son died. Tails Wx 01:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) RD: Mary Quant[edit]

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

Nominated by TheCorriynial (talk · give credit)

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

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

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

Support. No problems with this article. Bibliography cleaned up. SethWhales^talk 07:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 17:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rabey Hasani Nadwi[edit]

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

Nominated by Fahads1982 (talk · give credit)
Updated by TheAafi (talk · give credit)

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

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

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

Support, all sourcing issues are now resolved; though expansion work may be helpful as well! Tails Wx 13:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have tried to update the article but a lot still remains that I might do later in the night. As the article stands now, it is ready to be posted imo. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Needs additional depth regarding his scholarly contributions: all that is specified in the article is that he had some kind of contributions to "Arabic language and literature" and that he "guided the Muslim community towards using the media in a better way". Spencer^T•C 17:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Spencer, I have made some addition subject to this. I agree this is not everything but it suffices for an average reader. Thanks. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support Improved and although the article would benefit from additional detail, it meets minimum standards for ITN. Spencer^T•C 03:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks fine for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - RD ready now, indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can some admin post this? Last RD was updated on 15. This one should get its due now. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 17:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Cyclone Ilsa[edit]

(Non admin closure) Discussion is stale, cyclone is dispursed, and consensus to post does not appear to develop. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 17:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Cyclone Ilsa (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:  Tropical Cyclone Ilsa approaches the coast of Western Australia and will intensify into a category five storm, making it the state's most powerful cyclone to make landfall in 14 years. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-13/wa-cyclone-ilsa-upgraded-category-5-pilbara-kimberley-/102219020
Credits:

Nominated by Thiscouldbeauser (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Cyclone Ilsa will hit the Kimberley and Pilbara regions, with extreme weather such as flooding already occurring. Residents living in areas between Broome and Whim Creek (which are 700km apart) have already been issued warnings (precisely yellow alerts), while Port Hedland is preparing to go into lockdown.

Wait This could turn out to be a very violent storm, but for now we haven't seen any of that yet. Ping me when this changes. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, ping me too as well when it gets stronger. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Per above - Editor 5426387 (Talk) 05:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sparsely populated area around landfall site where impact is likely to be minimal as a result of said lack of population. Noah^Talk 10:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you're ignoring regional, rural and remote areas? Well, A: it will be violent and have a lot of impact, B: it will be the most powerful in 14 years and C: yes even if most of the towns it will hit are small and in the outback (except some larger ones like Broome and Port Hedland), it will. Still affect a lot of people because it's spanning at least 700km across the northwestern coast and will have an impact on weather elsewhere in Australia as well as in Indonesia and East Timor, plus maybe other countries (I'm not saying it will be a cyclone in all these regions, but it will cause wind and rain even where I am in New South Wales, on the east coast). Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A. It was violent but has weakened now, and the impact part is WP:CRYSTAL. Wait for reliable sources to demonstrate that there is a widespread severe impact warranting posting.

B. ITN doesn't look at the power of a storm, we are focused solely on impact; the standard is to send things like that over to DYK. It also isn't powerful anymore. Speaking from experience, there is a strong inclinicity to not post things like weather records and storm power here on the grounds of climate change.

C. We don't focus on how many people are "affected". Anyone getting rainfall or slightly increased winds is "affected". We focus on damage and deaths here because those can easily display how severe a storm was. Sadly many weather events affect a lot of people, but we can't post them all or else there would be hundreds of blurb a year. That's why we settle on things like damage and deaths. Noah^Talk 01:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We focus on damage and deaths here – Is there a policy or guideline that supports this? If not, then it's just something that a few editors made up and are attempting to enforce on others. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has been practiced at ITN for years and is the reason most experienced weather editors will not nominate anything without significant damage or deaths. Anyone who has been here remembers how storms used to get opposed for higher and higher death tolls simply due to the frequency that was experienced. The compromise was essentially to quit nominating or supporting run of the mill storms at ITN (ie anything that doesn't satisfy WP:MINIMUMDEATHS). While Cat 5s are more rare, there haven't been any reported fatalities and the damage is normal for a tropical cyclone. ITN regulars have also made it very clear in the past that weather records are a no go topic and that's why I won't bring one here no matter what it is. The issue with affected is the vagueness of the term and that's pretty much why it isn't blurbable; millions could be affected simply by getting 1 inch of rain while overall it's not very impactful while others could be drenched by multiple feet of rain. Noah^Talk 02:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS is clear on this. "Regulars" of a certain area don't have any additional authority over it, and discussions should be based on policy. There is no WP:DEATHTOLL because that metric has nothing to do with policy or determining whether something is notable/encyclopedic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This nomination is premature. Cyclone hasn't even made landfall, and there will likely be low or no deaths. In the unlikely event there are a significant amount of deaths or it breaks some sort of windspeed record or other type of record, I will support. Steelkamp (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon landfall, there is no WP:MINIMUIMDEATHS and my doctrine is that if it can get its own article, its notable enough to be posted to ITN. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 12:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many storms get their own articles but shouldn't be posted here, otherwise we would be flooding ITN with cyclone stories. Some years have like 60-80 articles for storms. Noah^Talk 12:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah, @Onegreatjoke, well frankly I believe that we really ought to be lessening the "standards" for what gets posted to ITN since said "standards" are barely defined and just lead to a lot of excess bickering and nonsensical drama and debate. I believe that if an article is notable enough to warrant an article, it should be featured in ITN, and if you disagree if an item on ITN is notable enough to be included, then you know where to go. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 13:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean yeah, I do agree that ITN should lessen its standards a bit (especially for sports records there's no need for ITN to have their standards so ridiculously high for it) but, just because a cyclone gets its own article doesn't automatically mean it should be on ITN imo. Also, just because I don't believe an article should be on ITN does not mean I believe that the article should be deleted outright. Article creation and ITN nominations have different standards so even though i'm opposing the nom i'm not "going to go where I know to go". Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The issue here isn't that our standards for ITN are too high. It's that they're artificial and have no basis in P&G, meanwhile WP:NEVENTS remains obscenely unenforced. Compare recent deaths; thousands of deaths happen every day, but recent deaths gets along just fine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue arises on the criterion for inclusion on ITN. What would make, this cyclone, apt for being posted? As we all know, that question is the principal reason for ITN's issues regarding posting, civility, etc. At this point, I think (and this is something that @GreatCaesarsGhost called for before) it would frankly be best remove all discussion of "significance" on ITN and endorse a posting philosophy of just assessing a story's merit based of quality. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was also called for at the village pump recently, where there was a fairly strong consensus that the current haphazardly applied standards are not acceptable, but the discussion went stale before any alternative could be implemented. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, you're right. When we decide to nominate and post something, everything comes down to opinion. When knights said "my doctrine is that if it can get its own article, its notable enough to be posted to ITN." that's his opinion and when I say "I know that there's no minimum deaths requirement but this is just a cyclone" that's my opinion. When I thought about that for a minute I came to realize just how pretty much EVERYTHING with ITN nominations is strictly opinion based. There is practically not a SINGLE guideline followed ever. Even some of the """principles""" mentioned on the general criteria are literally never used and if they are, they're not defined ever.
"The length and depth of coverage itself (are the articles long and go into great detail, or are the articles short and cursory?)" Completely subjective. How do we define whether an article is short or not?

"The number of unique articles about the topic (does each major news source dedicate its own reporting staff to covering the story, or are they all simply reposting the same article?)" Tell me a single instance when someone bases an argument around this.

"The frequency of updates about the topic (is the article posted once and forgotten about, or is it continuously updated, and are new articles related to the topic appearing all the time?)" Aside from never seeing this used as argument, how do we define?? What is considered frequent enough?? If only one news source is updating it frequently is that good enough??

"The types of news sources reporting the story (is the topic being covered by major, national news organizations with a reputation for high-quality journalism?)" Also have never seen this used.

And then I consider some of the "frowned upon" reasons
"Arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful.","arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community." Is listed as unhelpful yet i'd argue is ignored often. As much as some American-centric nominations can be annoying, just look at the amount of people in the indictment of trump nomination going "This is just American-centric so i'm opposing on that" littered throughout when that's supposedly considered "frowned upon".

"Arguments addressing how many international newspapers/news channels are or are not covering the story on their front page or main webpage. A story highlighted in many newspapers or news channels has a good chance of being significant for ITN, but we do not base the posting primarily on how many such sites have covered it or consider it important." Yes, that can be true. BUT, didn't the guidelines literally list THREE """principles""" directly related to this?!?!?

Then I com back to this nomination and I have to wonder, what truly makes a cyclone good to post on the main page? Do we strictly follow deaths and damages to see if this cyclone can be posted or do we follow the fact that this cyclone is not only a category 5 (in Australian scale) but the strongest cyclone to strike landfall in Australia in 14 years as good enough? When you think about it, whether we consider ITN nominations fit for the main page or not comes SOLELY to opinion. Even the guidelines understand this stating "It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits." and "Whether a topic is significant enough for inclusion in ITN is often contentious, and ultimately, there are no rules or guidance". Yet, is that a good thing or should there be actual set in stone minimums that determine if a nomination is good enough? @Thebiguglyalien: You used WP:NEVENT as a justification for your support. Yet, that isn't even mentioned in the guidelines. I have seen multiple people use NEVENT to determine their support or oppose. Yet, that isn't even a ITN guideline and is technically nothing but opinion.

Sorry for the long rant, I just had a random epiphany and just wanted to ramble. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically the thought process that I went through while reading discussions about ITN over the last few months. The conclusion I've come to is that if "significance" is arbitrary (and if counting significance !votes when closing is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS), then the decision rests entirely on quality. So it basically comes down to this: if it has an article, then it presumably meets WP:NEVENTS and therefore is "notable", which is the policy-based standard against which we measure articles. If it doesn't meet WP:NEVENTS, then it should be nominated for deletion, which naturally disqualifies it from ITN in the process.
We know that such a system works, because recent deaths—which is handled on this exact same page—has been doing it for years. I'd argue that whoever closes this discussion should disregard (or at least give lower weight to) any !vote that's based solely on an editor's personal opinion about significance unless there's a policy-based objection. This is the standard that's used everywhere else on Wikipedia. Just not on ITN blurbs for some reason, even though we have policies and guidelines like WP:CONLEVEL and WP:PROJPAGE that explicitly discourage different corners of Wikipedia from coming up with their own processes that diverge from or contradict sitewide processes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think what matters is that we REALLY need some solid guidelines. I've seen votes based off of personal opinion be disregarded in a system which is ENTIRELY based off of personal opinion. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and another thing. The guidelines states that
"There is consensus to post the event."

is a solid guideline. Yet, what defines consensus? I've seen consensuses either being written off as a no consensus or the vote is given to the complete opposite of the consensus. So what's the definition of consensus here? Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is defined at WP:CONSENSUS. Applying any other definition is inappropriate and becomes a conduct issue when done repeatedly. I agree that the solution is revisiting ITN guidelines, which it's worth noting are not actually WP:Guidelines as Wikipedia defines them, giving further evidence of the fact that they haven't been given proper scrutiny. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The length and depth of coverage itself (are the articles long and go into great detail, or are the articles short and cursory?)" Completely subjective. How do we define whether an article is short or not? – The same way we define the length and quality of any article: weighing it against some requirements like containing all due and encyclopedic published information, having references, not being a stub, etc. DecafPotato (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I know that there's no minimum deaths requirement but this is just a cyclone. Sure, the strongest cyclone in 14 years but it's still a cyclone that's hitting a rural area. Plus, saying "if it can get its own article, its notable enough to be posted to ITN" as that would mean that every single cyclone with an article would get posted to ITN and we'd be having like 60 storms in the main page every year.Onegreatjoke (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my oppose because I had a random-a** epiphany. Am currently neutral at the moment. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the cyclone's impacts become clearer. Right now, the models point more to a sparsely populated area like Noah stated, but the cyclone has yet to make landfall and hasn't made much impact as of now, so wait until it makes landfall. If it doesn't do much, I'll oppose, but for now, wait! Tails Wx 13:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until we have reports on the impacts of the storm to assess. --Jayron 32 14:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support assuming it meets WP:NEVENTS. Length and sourcing are sufficient. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Waiting to see what the real effect of the storm is and if it causes a considerable number of casualties. Something "worst in a decade" should not have a direct ticket in ITN per se. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We had the worst ever (in terms of intensity and $ of damage), in Canada last year (Hurricane Fiona), and it still couldn't get through ITN for near a week after it made it's 3rd landfall (perhaps if it had hit Maine rather than Puerto Rico ...). So the standard seems to be no rush. Nfitz (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This Australian person says no. The storm had limited impact as it hit the coastline, and quickly degraded after doing so. It did apparently create some sort of wind speed record, of 288 km/h, but this hasn't been well reported, as what kind of a record it is. (Region? Country? World?) If something special comes of that, maybe we can report it another way. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the cyclone has made landfall. It will also reach the Northern Territory as a category three (my guess is that in a matter of days it will also hit Far North Queensland). Pinging users: @Nythar:, @TheBlueSkyClub:, @Editor 5426387:, @Knightoftheswords281:, @Onegreatjoke:, @Tails Wx:, @Thebiguglyalien:, @Jayron32:, @Alsoriano97:. See here: https://www.9news.com.au/national/tropical-cyclone-ilsa-western-australia-map-storm-weather-news-in-pictures/4a0b40bf-4303-4054-b9be-2ffccb3a6daf Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second part isn't accurate. It's forecast to be a tropical low before it even crosses the border into the NT. Noah^Talk 01:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See [28] from the BOM which depicts it being a tropical low well before the northern territory. Noah^Talk 01:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. But it "still incredibly dangerous" according to the BOM. Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-14/still-incredibly-dangerous:-tropical-cyclone-ilsa/102221816 Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately danger is inherent with tropical cyclones and other weather events. That isn't really something we can post here. Noah^Talk 01:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Steelkamp:, it has broken a speed record: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-14/live-updates-tropical-cyclone-ilsa-hits-western-australia/102217818 Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Said record was just for that station at Bedout Island. Not very significant in the long run. It would be different if it was the strongest winds recorded in Australia or something of that nature. Noah^Talk 01:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the same. For now. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait leaning oppose – DYK material for sure, but in terms of what ITN looks for this isn't there as things stand. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose for the same reason I opposed the NZ one. This is DYK caliber material. ITN generally is (rightfully so) focused on impact. Perhaps this cyclone makes a large impact, but we don't know this yet. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. The impacts are not yet fully known – Ilsa is still churning over Western Australia as of this writing. And to be honest, I am still unsure if Ilsa's impacts would be ITN-worthy (especially because it impacted a sparsely populated area), though it was a a notable and violent tropical cyclone (that's for sure). Vida0007 (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cyclone is basically dispersed, no deaths and while a few mill AU$ in damage, its the same as a tree falling in the woods with no one around to hear it. --Masem (t) 14:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) RD: Craig Breen[edit]

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

Nominated by Filip Cro (talk · give credit)

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

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

Comment there's a lot of sourcing work to contend with! Tails Wx 14:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems most if not all sourcing issues have been addressed, no remaining CN tags. The Kip (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Added a bunch of sources, which seems the unsourced issues have been addressed. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good to go now. A huge loss to motorsport, especially to rallying. Vida0007 (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good to go. Improved and sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted—Bagumba (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 12[edit]

April 12, 2023 (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Mali war
- The village of Tidermène is captured by the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara. (Defense Post)

Business and economy

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

Disasters and accidents

Twenty-five people are killed and others are missing after a boat carrying migrants sinks off the coast of Tunisia. (Al Jazeera)

International relations

Saudi Arabia–Syria relations
- Syrian foreign minister Faisal Mekdad meets with Saudi foreign minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in the first such visit between the two countries since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011 in order to discuss the security situation in Syria and the return of Syrian refugees. (Al Jazeera)

Law and crime

Drug liberalization
- The Federal Ministers Karl Lauterbach and Cem Özdemir present key points on the partial legalisation of cannabis in Germany. (Taz)
Bathinda military station firing
- Four soldiers are killed in a mass shooting at a military base in Bathinda, Punjab, India. Authorities say that the shooting is not terror-related. (Al Jazeera)

RD: Tamilla Nasirova[edit]

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

Nominated by Thebiguglyalien (talk · give credit)

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

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

Support Article is short, but I think meets the bare minimum of holisticity with the second paragraph. Curbon7 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I disagree. This article is just a bit too short for my liking, it's two paragraphs! This needs to be cleaned up before we can continue with it. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 17:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fakescientist8000, what major details do you think are missing? What part needs clean up? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps 'short' was the wrong word. I feel it's too condensed, though. On my computer, I can see the top of the page, and at the bottom are the references, which just screams 'STUB!' to me, even though I know it isn't. Maybe an infobox would be nice, and we could split some of the sections up. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 20:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Tibisay Lucena[edit]

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

Nominated by NoonIcarus (talk · give credit)

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

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

Oppose Early life and education/Career sections are both entirely unsourced, and the article itself is a stub. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 22:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I see the issue with referencing and could be solved, I don't understand how at its current size the article can be considered a stub. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was (at the time of my !vote) marked as a stub. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 00:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it was not. Curbon7 (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 17:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added references, as well as translated the Career section from Spanish. The article now includes content regarding her position as minister. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks alright. No referencing issues. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks RD ready now.BabbaQ (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The intro states that "She was first elected to this post (president of the National Electoral Council) in 2006, and was reelected in 2009 for the 2009-2013 period." but the career section lacks info on her work during these years in such a high-profile position. Please expand. --PFHLai (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PFHLai: I have expanded content regarding the 2006, 2013 and 2018 elections. Is the section better? --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the section further, adding information about the 2017 Constituent Assembly election. I'm tagging the headline as ready, per the other comments. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I wasn't able to help much here. I was doing spot checks and fixes and suddenly had to go offline. There is a {failed verification} tag that still needs to be fixed. PFHLai (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Louis Gaskin[edit]

Support I've fixed up some of the tensing issues as well as some minor MOS corrections, but this article should be good to go. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 22:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article seems well cited for its size. Rockstone, you should've used the word "executed" instead of "killed". CR-1-AB (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM

Killing is an accurate description of the State's actions. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're against the death penalty? CR-1-AB (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but even if I weren't, "killing" is an accurate description. I'd call it state sanctioned murder, but that is inflammatory. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I said my brutally honest opinion, I was reported to admins, so I'm not gonna say anything. CR-1-AB (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, because killing is very clearly a WP:NPOV violation. Executed is a perfectly fine legal and neutral term. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not violate neutral point of view at all. A killing is exactly what the state did. A killing is defined as causing the death of something. That's what happened here. The state's actions caused the death of another person. Killing is appropriate language. Calling it a murder (which I believe it was) would violate NPOV, because by definition, a murder must be unjust and unlawful. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to label it killing if this were yet another instance of Florida and/or certain other states sending yet another innocent man to his death, but in this instance it's a bit too strong for what seems like an open and shut case. The Kip (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A killing isn't the same as a murder (and although I think it is murder, that's not relevant for Wikipedia's purposes). It is, however, a fact that the state killed someone, by forcing them onto a gurney and injecting poison into their veins. Whether it was a justified killing or not, it still was a killing. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Killing" is a rather generic term, and can be applied to a wide range of situations. In order to differentiate the different type of killings, there are different words - from felling (in the case of killing trees for their wood) to manslaughter (in the case of accidental killings). This specific killing is, in your own words, a "state-sanctioned murder". However, saying all of that every time we talk about it is inefficient, and simply calling it a killing is too generic. Luckily, there just so happens to be a perfect word to cover the "sanctioned murder" type of killing - that word is "execution". Ocean1cbanana (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) RD: Raymond Sawada[edit]

Support Article is fine, and good enough for ITNRD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 21:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Career statistic box is uncited. Curbon7 (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a source, but I will admit I'm not sure why one would be needed considering the External links section contains links to five different sources for career statistics. Something I will bring up with the WikiProject. — Ghost River 23:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 17:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Keshub Mahindra[edit]

Support- Article is well-sourced. -- Fahads1982^Talk 09:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is in good shape for ITN/RD. Cheers. Wime Pocy 15:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Article lacks information about the subject's business career. It is unclear what industries Mahindra Group is even involved in based on the article. Spencer^T•C 17:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Thanks for highlighting. Edits are done. Article has shaped into a decent C-class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Please have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved. Spencer^T•C 17:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as ready. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 19:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 17:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Pazigyi massacre[edit]

Support pending article improvements, as there isn't enough about the actual contents of the massacre in my opinion (most of the article is just background information). However, an event with this many casualties caused by the country's own military is certainly notable. DecafPotato (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Appears to be notable and sourcing is sufficient. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article needs work but is ok for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. The article looks minimally sufficient for posting but would benefit from further improvements as the story unfolds and more information becomes available.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support At the point I am reading it now, it looks sufficient (though improvement and expansion, as always is quite invited), but I think it is main-page ready. Of note, the blurb above doesn't reflect what is written in the article, though. The article only says "at least 100" not 120. --Jayron 32 11:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article might need some expansion, but this is also shocking - this attack has a abnormally very high death toll and also the deadliest since the coup. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shocking. Needs further expansion but is sufficient. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The article is underwhelming - mostly background and reactions - but does meet our minimum requirements. The incident is getting media attention and the death toll is unusually high, though I question why we're highlighting one air raid over the wider Myanmar civil war, which has killed thousands. Modest Genius ^talk 13:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed an altblurb, which I think provides a better explanation of the situation and has more relevant links. Modest Genius ^talk 13:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because the civil war was never blurbed nor put on ongoing and I doubt it could realistically be placed there now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above

Aure entuluva (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tweaked altblurb. Modest Genius ^talk 15:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Horrifying development, with over 100 people murdered. I'm undecided on which blurb I prefer. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support because its death toll makes it easily important enough & the article is good enough. Alt2 because it's shorter & contains enough info. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not sure I support the alt though, I get it but also this is more firmly in the massacre of civilians/terrorism than battle in civil war territory. nableezy - 17:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted with a blurb largely based on alt 2, which can be discussed for possible improvement here: "In the Myanmar civil war, the military junta's air force kills over 100 civilians in Pazigyi." Sandstein 17:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note CNN is reporting the death toll as at least 165. [30] CJ-Moki (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Kourakou and Tondobi attacks[edit]

Wait pending merge, leaning support if it's at an acceptable quality after the merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is @Thebiguglyalien is that there literally is no discussion (if you click the discuss link in the merge notice, it takes you to an otherwise blank talk page with only talk headers). - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 12:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well as it stands, the article isn't quite at sufficient quality. I don't think this merge would be terrible controversial, and I think it could be done as a WP:BOLD merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As this is the third double-digit attack that has happened in the past year, I would like our article to be of excellent quality before featuring it. The current state certainly won't do. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NEWSEVENT. Unless death toll is abnormally high, we shouldn't post based on how many lost their lives. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was this village last May attacked three times. The first time, eleven soldiers, no article. Then 17 civilians, no article, but after about 50 civilians, bam, current event. So no, divided by two villages, this "isn't that bad" for Burkina Faso. Still very bad there, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose Death tolls are high, but not abnormally high as in Solhan and Tadaryat massacres. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now based on quality. Article is a bit too light on information right now, it's barely passed the stub phase. Needs more information to be worth posting, IMHO. Fix that and I'll change my vote to support. --Jayron 32 13:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality As stated above, article is pretty bare. No opinion on significance yet. Curbon7 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality per above. Not a stub, but still far too barebones for ITN. The Kip (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above - Editor 5426387 (Talk) 21:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 2023 Burkina Faso attacks needs to be merged into this. This pair of jihadist massacres are important enough to be posted, so it should be if the article is good enough after the merge. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2023 Rutgers University strike[edit]

Oppose – Seems to only affect a single university, and not even a significant one at that. And while WP:SNOW isn't an official guideline, WP:POINT is. DecafPotato (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose. Appears to fail WP:Notability (events). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless it evolves into nationwide strikes. For now, it's only happening in one out of over 5,000 higher education institutions in the country, so it's extremely unlikely to cause any disruptions in the US higher education.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – It's a nice looking article, and the event is of surprising scale and significance. I think either the article is a bit too short, or the event a bit too localized, for our purposes. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 11[edit]

(Posted) RD: Anne Perry[edit]

Weak support Some minor missed citations, especially in the Bibliography section, but those are probably covered by previous cited statements. Fine for ITNRD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 21:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Think the article has been improved enough to meet ITN standards. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Improved enough to appear on the main page. MurielMary (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Improved and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 17:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Maya Wildevuur[edit]

Support Article is well cited for ITNRD and short but good enough. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 21:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per user above. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Short, interesting article and well cited.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Freddie Scappaticci[edit]

Weak support Article's sourcing seems to be alright, but just barely good enough for ITN/RD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 21:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support, Good enough for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Multiple paragraphs lacking references. Spencer^T•C 17:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If sources are added, ok, ~~but like this I oppose as well.~~Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrew my oppose.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping and Template:Ping, I have added references to multiple unreferenced paragraphs. It should be better now. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 19:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sourcing is now sufficient. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two cn tags to fix and there is nothing included about his death. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alsoriano97 Fixed. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 16:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Support. Good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 17:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2023 Pentagon document leaks[edit]

Oppose, Politico says there's a crisis but immediately says it's only ruffled feathers. Abductive (reasoning) 19:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose already covered by ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per abductive , this crisis is just ruffled feathers, and this is well cover by the ongoing. --Masem (t) 20:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above, and the fact that this is already covered. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 20:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above - Editor 5426387 (Talk) 20:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
10 dollars, anyone? Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 21:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The documents, despite the name, are not entirely about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

RD: Fernando Sánchez Dragó[edit]

Oppose for now for two reasons 1) Article could use some expansion, there's very little on his work history, seems like a scattershot listing of random events from his life rather than a cohesive narrative. More prose could really help fill in the gaps. 2) There's some unreferenced statements in the biography, and that needs to be fixed. If both of those problems are remedied, this would be ready for the main page. --Jayron 32 11:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is very short, is a WP:SANDWICH, and has some statements missing citations. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 13:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Good Friday Agreement[edit]

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

Comment - Do we usually post anniversaries of this nature? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not comply with the rules, which state: Template:Tq There's been hardly any content added in the last few days, hence this proposal is not acceptable. Schwede 66 08:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not even memorable enough for April 11#Events...yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On this Day is the place for anniversaries. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe at OTD, not here. 09:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)
Oppose OTD, yes, but not ITN worthy at all. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 10[edit]

(Posted) RD: Karl Berger[edit]

Support. Updated, long enough, and well referenced. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The prose seems fine for RD purposes, but the Discography could benefit from more referencing. I had a quick look at the current source (https://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/artist/karl-berger, and I've only checked the first and last few entries, but failed to match those item listed on our wikipage.) --PFHLai (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added some, but am too tired for more today - moved him one day up - when the news was announced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now all items are referenced (which means some are missing until a reference is found), as it's his last chance --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support All items have been referenced, article is good. Marking as ready. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 15:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @PFHLai to double check on the status of the article. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 18:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It passes my random spot-checks. -- PFHLai (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Texas dairy farm explosion[edit]

Oppose Sadly, the death of cattle in such an incident without significant human deaths really doesn't gain significance. It may be possible to DYK this ("DYK that the explosion killed 3% of the state's cattle?" but it doesn't feel right for ITN. --Masem (t) 21:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deaths of cattle wouldn’t normally be ITN-worthy, but 18,000 dead cows may make it ITN-worthy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does this qualify for an article? A death count, whether it be human or cattle, 18 or 18,000, has zero bearing on notability in and of itself. For what it's worth, way more than 18,000 cattle are killed every day. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose because I haven't seen any evidence of notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the largest losses of cattle in quite some time. Noah^Talk 03:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sadly, people are more worried about the economic effects of these deaths rather than the actual effects. I understand that humans are quite human-centric, so if you need evidence that this is notable, take a look at Texas' cow population before and after the explosion. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. There have been no human casualties, it's an event with an impact in a very specific area of the world, so the impact and international interest is minimal. It's not clear to me that, if it had happened in another part of the world, it would even have its own article in Wikipedia. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think a catastrophic incident needs to have human casualties to be considered significant for ITN. That said, 3% of one US state's cattle population is frankly just not comparable to, for example, the 2020 Danish mink cull. Curbon7 (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Al Jaffee[edit]

Was just about to nominate this ;) There are some unsourced paragraphs, let me see if I can reference them! Tails Wx 23:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Wow, you do it the hard way, eh? I normally just remove the unsourced material. /s Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 23:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? Scientists (like us two) don't just dissect (on Wikipedia, removing unsourced material) all the time, we collect data, and research (like researching the sources to add on unsourced sentences!) Anyway, there are sources out there, so I'll "data-collect", "research", and go the hard way! ;) Tails Wx 23:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tails Wx You're missing the first four letters! :) Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 23:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whaa? For clarity, what are they? Tails Wx 00:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

F, a, k, and e. :) Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 00:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, haha! :D Anyway, back to work. I'll update you (or whenever someone else is) when the sourcing work is done! Tails Wx 00:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted Fakescientist8000's removals. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support There are a few (two or three) that may need sourcing but the information they have is not controversial and may be due to where the citations are placed. --Masem (t) 00:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The source work is much appreciated. Tisnec (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent and entertaining article which is more worthy of a blurb and/or picture than the current entries. It badly needs some examples of his work but has some nice quotes such as, "This is the core of Jaffee's work: the idea that to be alive is to be constantly beleaguered by annoying idiots, poorly designed products and the unapologetic ferocity of fate. Competence and intelligence are not rewarded in life but punished. ... He's uncommonly interested in figuring out how things work, and exasperated because things NEVER work." Sounds just like Wikipedia, eh? Andrew🐉(talk) 06:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, one fold-in image (as non-free) would be reasonable, but that's not holding up an RD. It would be one thing if we knew plenty of free images were available but none were used on an RD article, non-free images on a page already filed with free images is less obvious of being "wrong" and would take some more careful debate to include. Masem (t) 12:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I see just now that a smart non-free choice has been made that shows a cover of MAD that incldes his own self-portrait AND the concept of a fold-in. That's perfect. Masem (t) 12:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, self-portraits which include the artist's work are especially good for this. See David Sutherland and Wally Fawkes for other recent examples. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the all-time greats. (Still some unreferenced bits.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted—Bagumba (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Pierre Lacotte[edit]

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

Support Triggered by all of the red links, but since those are just interwiki redirects it's ok. Article is big enough and well cited. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 23:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well cited now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 9[edit]

(Posted) RD: Huub Oosterhuis[edit]

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

(Posted) RD: Muhammad Rapsel Ali[edit]

Support - Article is well-sourced. -- Fahads1982 (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is too short. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Article is just a tad bit short, sadly. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 23:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC) Support Article is fine. Cheers. Wime Pocy 14:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article is good enough for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2023 Pentagon document leaks[edit]

Wait until there is a clearer picture of the degree to which this is just a misdirect. BD2412 T 02:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — "Apparent" tells all. I believe the documents are real, but this is an event that will linger in the news cycle and assessing its impact (for ITN purposes) is difficult. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a first in my experience, that an article creator opposed their article be blurbed at ITN. Jusdafax (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listen man, maybe he just doesn't want to deal with the talk page stuff. :P Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 00:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait The article describes something so vague and uncertain, it's not ready to nominate. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to wait on this, but if this just ends up being a Russian spin-job (which is what it looks like) then I see no real reason to post this item. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why they would publish certain documents online if that was the case.[31]. Mellk (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait per above.

- Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 05:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now at least, and this isnt just a US story, see for example A senior intelligence official called the leak “a nightmare for the Five Eyes,” in a reference to the United States, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the so-called Five Eyes nations that broadly share intelligence. But still no real word on how significant the fall out from this may be. So not enough to blurb imo. nableezy - 06:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Truth is the first casualty in war". We're supposed to work from reliable sources and this material seems otherwise. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above and already covered by ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most of what's described in Contents has nothing to do with the title or the war. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I don't think this rises to a level worthy of ITN. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is the type of news event that is not clear if it will meet NEVENT and thus even a standalone article is appropriate. --Masem (t) 03:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2023 Masters Tournament[edit]

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

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

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

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

April 8[edit]

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

April 7[edit]

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

RD: Elisabeth Kopp[edit]

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

RD: Ian Bairnson[edit]

Oppose Article has been orange tagged, as well as a few unsourced statements across this short article means that it is currently not ready for ITNRD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 03:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose could pepper with cn tags. not ready yet. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ben Ferencz[edit]

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

RD: Rachel Pollack[edit]

Support per rules Mostly a list but no tags This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose some content is unsourced. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Besides the lede being too short, there are no problems with the article as of now. Everything seems to be sourced properly. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lead too short (orange tag).—Bagumba (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is orange tagged. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 22:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Paul Cattermole[edit]

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

Support - sourced and in good shape article.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is in good shape, good for ITNRD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 15:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is well-sourced. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks ready to go. Ollieisanerd (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discography section is unsourced. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. The discography is sourced in the sub-article, it appears. Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But not in the main article. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 6[edit]

RD: Mimi Sheraton[edit]

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

(Posted) RD: Jane LaTour[edit]

Support Article easily passes all checkmarks for ITNRD readiness. Good to go! Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 00:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per user above. Looks ready. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well expanded article. Good to go.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted'. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Hobie Landrith[edit]

Support - Article is well-sourced. Ollieisanerd (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fully sourced. And ready.BabbaQ (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted—Bagumba (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ingvar Hirdwall[edit]

Support Article in good shape and well referenced. Ollieisanerd (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weal~~ support article is well cited and in good shape per Ollie, but its size worries me. Should be good, but expansion would be heavily appreciated. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 00:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U - I have expanded the article further per your request. Cheers.BabbaQ (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Thank you! Article is good, so I've decided to reinvent the weal. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 23:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Women's Finalissima[edit]

Comment This is a minor trophy, while notable for the England women's team I would say this match is relatively insignificant and not ITN-worthy. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not a significant international honor in women's soccer and is basically equivalent to a supercup rather than a full-fledged tournament final. Besides that, the article has not been properly developed with a match summary or most of the necessary buildup. Sounder Bruce 05:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's at least as ITN-worthy as darts championships. 51.154.145.205 (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Facetious comparisons with other ITNR items can rest. Gotitbro (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Football is already the most well-represented sport on ITNR, to feature events beyond that they need to have stand out notability and this is not it. Gotitbro (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - minor event. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per all above. Minor event in soccer, the most represented sport on ITN by far ~~save for darts~~. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 15:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose - This is not a premium event, and as noted above, football is already well supplied with high profile international events. This is nothing like the recent case of the World Baseball Classic, where it was a genuinely worldwide event in a sport that's otherwise desperately short of them. This is an inter-regional playoff in a sport where both regional and global events are already very high profile and well reported. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Nora Forster[edit]

Support Article looks fine, well sourced. Ollieisanerd (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks in good shape and sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bruce Petty[edit]

Oppose Article is a bit short, but mainly the lack of citations throws me off. This needs more citations in order to be ITNRD ready. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 19:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per user above. Ollieisanerd (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a name... Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 00:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Josep Piqué[edit]

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

Support Article is in good shape for what it's worth. Ollieisanerd (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is not in good shape: some sources needed and should be extended. I'm working on it. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is a stub. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 00:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC) Support Article is no longer a stub, and is sourced. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 01:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a stub anymore, everything is sourced now. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article expanded. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to expand it. I guess I'll have it finished by today. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good now.BabbaQ (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted—Bagumba (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 5[edit]

(Closed) Ongoing removal: 2023 French pension reform strikes[edit]

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

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

Oppose - looks to still be in the news and still in heavy action. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Seems like this will be getting regular updates again. It's as if they sprung back to life the instant this was nominated for ongoing removal. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 11:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abottom

(Closed) 2023 Visit of Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Poland[edit]

Oppose I think this should be covered by ongoing (similar to the other trips to and from Ukraine that were not posted). The award is interesting but do not see its notability beyond the current context; the grant of such national honours is also common practice to maintain friendly relations and we do not usually post them. Gotitbro (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per Gotitbro PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - we didn't post the visits to the UK or the US so I doubt we'll be posting this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Obviously. He literally visited Poland 2 months ago, and has made 6 total visits to the country. This is not historic. Curbon7 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We can't blurb every leader's visit to or from Ukraine. I doubt this even merits its own article. Modest Genius ^talk 15:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would lay out my reasons why, but everyone above have essentially brought up the points I would've said. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 4[edit]

The upcoming Artemis 2 Moon mission[edit]

Oppose Post when the mission actually happens. The Kip (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) RD: Ada Bello[edit]

Oppose lots of statements w/out citations. Many CN tags, and this article is not yet ready for ITNRD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 15:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC) Support Article has been fixed following improvements, thank you all! Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 20:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - for now. Ping if improved.BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Support Template:U, Template:U, all issues have been resolved! Tails Wx 20:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Improved and ready. Thank you.BabbaQ (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Craig Breedlove[edit]

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

(Posted) RD: Bob Lee (businessman)[edit]

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

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

(Posted) RD: Tea Petrin[edit]

Teeny tiny oppose Article is barely not a stub, but it still needs expansion before I can comfortably agree to having this on the Main Page. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 02:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute weakest of weak supports - An instance in which an article was created at around the time this person died, so it hasn't quite been around long enough to fully determine whether it meets WP:GNG. But it seems good to me, in my unprofessional opinion. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by your comment? Plenty of articles that go through here are created following the person's death. This particular subject meets WP:NPOL as a cabinet minister. Curbon7 (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support - Start class. Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. New article but well written in a short time. --Tone 16:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Donald Trump arraigned[edit]

* Oppose: He was not arrested. He was arraigned after being indicted by a grand jury. I support the arraignment being featured in the news, but this is not factual. Ppt91 ^talk 19:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the blurb to say arraigned rather than arrested. Interstellarity (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since this was already nominated earlier under indictment, and to avoid further confusion with yet another nomination, here's my suggestion for a more accurate summary: "Former president Donald Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 charges of falsifying business records, becoming the first president in U.S. history to face criminal prosecution." Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-pleads-not-guilty-34-counts-indictment-arraignment-manhattan-court/ Ppt91 ^talk 19:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It was a consensus that we should wait until he was actually arraigned. Well now he has been. Stop moving the goalpost. The first former US President to be arraigned on charges is historical City1661 (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
he was arrested right before the arraignment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think precision really matters here. He surrendered himself to authorities to avoid arrest and was released after being arraigned. Ppt91 ^talk 22:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People who surrender simply aren't resisting arrest, not avoiding it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Ppt91 ^talk 01:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: changing my vote to support following blurb edits Ppt91 ^talk 22:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — Wait for the trial. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it will get to trial, User talk:ElijahPepe? Given the talk about the defence trying to change the jurisdiction and the judge, I'd think their strategy would be be to tie it up in court for years until it is moot. Nfitz (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The defense will find it difficult to delay the inevitable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is what is fast. He dragged the 1973 racism case against him for 2 years, including a $100 million defamation counter-suit against the US Justice Department, before finally coming to an agreement to settle; and had he continued to fight that in court, it could have gone for years. The 2013 State of New York case against him got dragged on for almost 4 years before Trump settled and paid out $25 million. I don't see why this wouldn't be dragged out in court for many years - presumably trying to outwait the current (elected) District Attorney, Trump's death, or a change of government. I think this is a significant story. I can see holding it off a few weeks, or even months, if there's bigger aspects coming. But I don't see that happening; however what else will he be charged over in the next few months ... perhaps that's something we don't need to consider at this time. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this case drags on, and continues to have massive developments and stay in the news, perhaps we should consider for ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S Meh per WP:BLPCRIME/WP:MANDY and the target should be New York v. Trump. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed target article to Indictment of Donald Trump, because I would hate having an orange tag on the Main Page. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 20:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MANDY? Because of course Trump would plead not guilty? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Hulk experience. The Kip (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - first of all, he was arrested. The BBC and CNN both refer to this process as his "arrest and arraignment". Second of all, this is the biggest news story in the world at the moment. I maintain that Wikipedia looks incredibly silly to not have the most In The News story posted on ITN. I'm beginning to think we wouldn't have posted OJ Simpson's Bronco chase in ITN if Wikipedia were around at the time, which is, quite frankly, ridiculous. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support' as it's a big story as per Rockstone's comment that I won't repeat. The trial won't be until 2024, if it happens at all. Seriously what are we doing here? Only natural disasters, elections, and sporting events that survive the ITNR purge can get posted? Indictment of Donald Trump should be the target, it is a high quality article and we should be showcasing it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and suggest a blurb along the lines of: "Former U.S. President Donald Trump (pictured) pleads not guilty to 34 charges after becoming the first American president to be indicted. There's a lot that I don't know about this story, but I think this blurb summarizes the main points well. Son Of The Desert (T • C) 20:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an appropriate (not smiling) photo? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just use any photo of him that we have. If we can get one of him in court, great, otherwise a normal photo (like the one we posted of Putin) would suffice. Son Of The Desert (T • C) 21:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suffice to make him more popular ahead of the 2024 election, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic, posting the picture of the new Finnish PM made him popular ahead of the next election... Son Of The Desert (T • C) 21:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike him, Template:Tq InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America (37521073921).jpg is the photo the Trump campaign is using to sell a "mug shot T shirt". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would File:Donald Trump official portrait (cropped).jpg not work? DecafPotato (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it depends what you're going for. If you think this attention makes him happy, yes. Sad, no. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great sourcing, great article. Good to go,BabbaQ (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems to be similar to the time when we blurbed Qatargate. I think the target article should be Indictment of Donald Trump. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support with alternative blurb and target article Indictment of Donald Trump. Historically significant event. Funcrunch (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been posted when the news broke on being indicted, the arraignment is just a predictable consequence of that. So meh. But also, WP:BLPCRIME definitely does not apply here. nableezy - 20:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "public figure" sentence doesn't, but the rest applies to everyone (and in conjunction with MANDY, he's presumed guilty). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So then what part of BLPCRIME applies here? The MANDY wikilink is one of the things that people bandy about but forget that WP:BLPPUBLIC (which definitely does apply), says Template:Xt nableezy - 21:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only other part, about the presumption of innocence. Thought that was pretty clear. Anyway, you see a denial how you want, but his enemies made that essay for a reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously we should not blurb guilty Donald Trump pleads not guilty even though he's a guilty McGuilt face. I agree with you there. nableezy - 21:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not convicted. Blurbing for "riding the crest of the wave" and WP:RGW is not how it's done. Wait for the trial. CoatCheck (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does RGW have to do with this? We're just saying what happened as RS are putting it. Like we should be doing. (It's in the news recieving significant coverage all over the world.) Son Of The Desert (T • C) 21:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We're really going to have a nom for every checkpoint in this process, huh? Nah, this isn't as notable as the arrest and certainly not as much as an actual indictment (which will then be followed assuredly by appeals). DarkSide830 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um this is the arrest? And you voted oppose on the indictment? nableezy - 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, I was about to correct myself and you beat me to the punch (edit conflict moment). I meant the charges being levied. When the charged were levied this was fait accompli. And yes, I voted oppose before. I'm saying if we didn't post before we CERTAINLY shouldn't now. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused DarkSide830, - he was charged today at the arraignment. We didn't even know what he was going to be charged with - there was speculation that it was all misdemeanours relating to business reporting - rather than 34 felonies involving conspiracy.
Fair to say it changes things, but to be fair we, generally speaking, don't post arrests, and I'd argue the bigger news was the charges in general than the particular ones. And I think I wouldn't go as far as to say "conspiracy" was the charge here. The charges were about falsifying documents with such intent. The article itself makes no mention of a particular conspiracy charge. Look, I get the supports here, I'm just not too big on arrests in a general sense as ITN items. I understand the Trump aspect of things and how that impacts Support/Oppose votes, but I believe we should maintain a more solid position on arrests in general. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would recommend noting these are 34 felony counts, as opposed to misdemeanors. --Masem (t) 21:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose is not the place to include every phase of Trump's judicial process. I don't understand what part of the consensus reached a few days ago about his imputation was not understood. Nothing has changed and nothing will change until there is a formal and firm conviction. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus reached a few days ago. The indictment nom was closed as Template:Tq. This is news. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a non-consensus is a tacit consensus. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? No consensus is literally the absence of consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
or that it's simply a communion of opinions contrary to a nomination. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the majority view being in favor of posting then, sure maybe there was a consensus against it? nableezy - 22:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, discounting the arguments that are explicitly disallowed under "Please do not...", there was consensus to post. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This truly is In The News all around the world right now. In my country, Australia, it's getting more coverage than anything else has for some time. Procedural arguments become irrelevant with unprecedented events such as this. HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's not USA centric. When was the last G7 member arraigned? This is unprecedented and very much newsworthy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the curious, the last ex-head of government of a G7 member to be charged with a crime is Nicholas Sarkozy. Then Silvio Berlusconi, then Jacques Chirac, then Kakuei Tanaka over the Lockheed bribery scandals. 47.155.46.15 (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As far as I can tell, the person involved in this news item has only been charged and has not yet been found guilty by a court. Regarding the "it's in the news" argument, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Regarding the "it's a former US President" argument, Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia. Chrisclear (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that non-U.S. nations are following this story quite closely as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As with Depp v. Heard. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a difference in defendants, implications, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but not in audience, as you mentioned (and both pale next to UFC or WWE's appeal). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but ITN is designed to provide links to stories that people want to read. This is one of them. If this story doesn't rise to the level of ITN, then ITN's purpose is useless.--Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose if theres a conviction and something comes out of it lets talk, but until them its all theatre and I don't think we need to be a part of it. ✨ 4 🧚‍♂am KING 21:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support with or without conviction, the fact that the former U.S. President was not only indicted but pleaded not guilty in court is blurbworthy. Making massive global coverage as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the same reason I opposed last time. Don't see anything that has changed since. We have not and should not post indictments/charges, the Putin posting being a grave error and should remain at that. Gotitbro (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support whether there's a conviction or not Per TDKR Chicago 101 and Rockstone's reasoning, as this does not concern just any businessman in New York or the leader of any country—we are talking about a former leader of a country with massive influence upon the global stage. The U.S.'s superpower status is also naturally driving news agencies in other countries to pin it to the top: see NHK WORLD-JAPAN, the BBC, and News24, which are all foreign news sites that have put this story up on the front page. In light of this continued coverage, I fail to see how Wikipedia being a global encyclopedia could be an argument against posting this to ITN. Aeromachinator (talk to me here) 22:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the trial, plus, we don't usually post about simple arrests, or arraignment. - User:Editor 5426387 (talk), 22:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for years? And then it will be the trial will only last a few months, we should wait for a decision. Then wait for the appeal. And the next appeal. We'd be doing a RD on him first ... This is major, significant, international, news. I was wait for the charges on the nomination last week. Now we've got the charges - and they are more significiant than may expected. Even earlier today, I heard media comments that there may be some felonies in there as well. But 34 felonies? Nfitz (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - First US president to be arraigned. We were told to wait until he was arraigned, stop moving the goalpost. City1661 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's called "In the News" not "fair trial completed". This is a very significant story. Looking on TV, I haven't seen so many TV networks go live since 9/11 - many were foreign. Just because it happened in New York City or the USA, doesn't mean it isn't important. I've vehemently opposed the frequent posting of typical crimes in the USA, even if they'd be shockingly unique in normal advanced democracies - but this is exceptional. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add to ongoing, and fold into the general topic of legal investigations involving the subject. BD2412 T 23:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing doesn't make sense. The only next actions before December (the next in-person date) is the raft of motions that Trump's lawyers will try to use to clear all the charges before trial, which will still take months to process.

Mind you, I've seen rumors that Trump may also be arraigned from the other criminal cases pending against him, but that's nothing we can assert right now. Masem (t) 00:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There will be constant commentary on it, though, emanating from all sides. We have all seen how the media will jump to make any scrap of news on this case their top headline. BD2412 T 01:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Constant commentary is not something that makes a topic newsworthy. Its ongoing events that do that. We shouldn't even be trying to seek out that much commentary at this time, per WP:RECENTISM, and wait until the matter has been well laid to rest to figure out how to right on commentary. That's what separates us as being an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper. Masem (t) 03:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Pleads not guilty" should not be the focus of the blurb. Nobody pleads guilty at arraignment. Simplest blurb would be "Former U.S. President Donald Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records". — hako9 (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"charged with" would be simpler than "faces". He was facing the charges before he was charged! It's the charges being laid that is significant, and historical, here. Nfitz (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for same reasons as last time. Former leader of the world’s most powerful country being indicted/arrested/arraigned/entering a plea/etc is a massive story, not just here but globally. The Kip (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support after previously wavering on posting his indictment. The arrest of Donald Trump on multiple felony counts is a major news event, BLPCRIME be damned. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arrest is true but kinda sensationalist. He was technically in a police custody before arraignment. — hako9 (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I agree with using the word "arraigned" rather than "arrested". I use the latter phrase colloquially in this discussion to highlight the significance of what took place. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The first former U.S. President to ever be arrested. Even HiLo48 is supporting this, for God's sakes. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviosuly. This is the arrest of a former American president, formerly the most powerful person on the planet. This far and away meets the threshold of significance. Curbon7 (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. It's the first time a former U.S. president has been criminally indicted, plus there are major implications for the 2024 U.S. presidential elections. Nsk92 (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since when did we start posting arrests instead of convictions? (And please don't say "since we posted the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for Putin"). Banedon (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...Since we posted the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for Putin. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You just pointed out yourself that we don't have a prohibition on posting arrests. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Putin wasn't arrested. And this court is recognized. Whole other ballgame. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, prefer altblurb 1. Indictment's unsealed, Trump's pled not guilty, and the article's good enough to post. RAN1 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - first arraignment of a former US president in history. This is not comparable to any other arrest, and it likely won't ever get to trial, and if it does, we should post it again, probably to ongoing. And if there's a verdict, post that, too. Levivich (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the same reasons I supported the indictment last week, just stronger. Davey2116 (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to be front page news on CBC in Canada, not just US 2607:9880:2D28:16:D27:F7D9:BD6D:6D08 (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The headline "screams" election interference, which the proposed blurbs don't even mention, it seems. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's just another example of WP:MANDY. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also just Reuters, beyond the headline. Cool Canadian company. But no CBC. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - normally I would go on a lengthy rant about why this should be posted, but everything's already been said so Imma pull an @Editor 5426387 and say per above.

- Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Jusdafax (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Number one news item around the world, and for Wikipedia users. WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply in this case and we are under no obligation to not post this, given how the subject is arguably at the apex of public figurehood. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted – This is the type of story that seems to divide ITN/C, an extremely high-profile event that borders on the typical "we don't post these" cases. Arguments over the past several days (inclusive of the initial no-consensus nomination on March 30) have shifted in favor of posting as of the official arraignment. Those in support are weighting the notability of Trump and importance of the United States on the global stage as well as it being in headlines in many nations. Those in opposition focus on this not being the conviction/acquittal and on WP:NOTNEWS. Regarding "we don't post [event]", the sentiments of WP:OTHERSTUFF apply as we should adapt to circumstances and should not, for the most part, have blanket statements. While we cannot make assumptions on the long-term importance (or lack thereof) of this, it remains a major event in U.S. politics that certainly warrants the thorough encyclopedic article it has. Part of our purpose at ITN is to guide readers to top news with high-quality articles and that is the case here. This discussion remains open for continued comments if views change on how this should be handled. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support: this is something "in the news". Current blurb is good. Keep it pithy. Omit needless words. Given that it's not outside the realm of possibility the guy could wind up being charged with more criming, might not be bad to open up a discussion about how to respond. --47.155.46.15 (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, who needs to read "not guilty", mere formality. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I don't understand your reply. 47.155.46.15 (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two-thirds of the true blurbs mentioned "not guilty", the one that won "omits them", it's all good. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~He has not entered any pleas yet. In U.S. judicial practice that doesn't happen at the time of arraignment. Saying he did is therefore stating a falsehood to readers.~~ If someone doesn't understand how the U.S. legal system works and concepts like presumption of innocence, a blurb in ITN is not where they are going to get well-educated. 47.155.46.15 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I was misinformed on that. I maintain my broader point however. ITN is not going to be the place where we dispell every reader's possible misconceptions about the world, and shouldn't attempt to be. 47.155.46.15 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how you spell "dispel", but whatever, as long as we all remember Template:Tq InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do tend to agree with IP, that we shouldn't try to stuff as much information into a blurb as possible in an effort to inform readers, much like the guy who frequently haunts this place and asks that any blurb involving an American city needs to include "United States" in it to let readers know that New York City isn't in Belgium or Tonga or wherever. In The News's job has always been to guide readers to topics they may have heard about, and then it's up to them to decide how many rabbit holes they want to travel down vis-a-vis the American judicial system or Donald Trump's legal history. I had honestly thought it was odd that the judge would tell him to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. Trump's no spring chicken to legal machinations. He's likely not going to rant and rave in court; he's going to shut up and let the lawyers do the work for him. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m honored that you remembered me, WaltClipper. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I wasn't referring to you, but I'm honored that you feel honored. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Wait, you're telling me New York isn't in Belgium?! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (post-posting) For now. Post conviction. Pavlor (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - everything that needs to be said has already been said and I'd rather not beat a dead horse, so I'll just mention that I agree with and appreciate Cyclonebiskit's explanation of why this was posted. Vanilla Wizard 💙 08:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support: This is a major news that cannot be ignored on ITN. This story is covered by every single news outlet worldwide. In certain circumtances like this one, flexibility should supersede rigid rules.^^Maxxies (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial comment Putting extra modifiers "first former" (supposedly to differentiate from "first serving"?) is stretching this a bit as far as arrests of presidents go, Arrest of Ulysses S. Grant was much earlier. (Charges were dropped, so this would really only be an oppose about calling out the 'arrest' part as being unique). — xaosflux ^Talk 10:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PP Strong Oppose We post convictions, not unproven allegations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We post what we choose to post. Arguments like this seem an attempt at a supervote. It is true that, historically, we have shied away from posting arrests. But we should inquire as to why that is the case. I would suggest it is because we do not wish to imply guilt that has not been proven. That is not the case here. Trump's guilt in this case is immaterial to the very impactful event of the indictment/arraignment. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My opposition to posting allegations is based on BLP. You are free to disagree with that interpretation of one of our more important policies, but it has been widely cited in past discussions as the main reason for sticking to convictions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the sheer impact of this arraignment makes it one of the few legitimate examples where WP:IAR applies. We're not not going to post such a notable event because of internal policy. The Kip (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just of note, Ad, if we're going to be Wikilawyers today, I see your WP:BLPCRIME and raise you a WP:BLPPUBLIC, which states, and I quote, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs..." Trump passes the "public figure" test in spades, so arguments against posting allegations rather than convictions are nullified by the notion that, as a public figure, well documented allegations may be covered; insofar as reliable sources have covered the arraignment, it seems like a valid argument to post on those grounds. You can say we should ignore that. I mean, you can say anything. It's still been posted, and it probably isn't going to be taken down. If it makes your ego feel better to make your objection public, well, have fun! --Jayron 32 16:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish people would read WP:BLPCRIME before linking it, which does not a. prohibit the inclusion of any material anywhere, and b. explicitly disclaims its applicability to a public figure. nableezy - 17:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe GreatCaesarsGhost implicitly alluded to BLP (specifically BLPCRIME) when he said that he believes we generally avoid posting convictions because "we do not wish to imply guilt that has not been proven." I am generally in favor of this mindset, as people too often equate an arrest with proven guilt. However, I am convinced that this is an exceptional circumstance in which BLPCRIME doesn't apply, for the reasons outlined by Jayron32 and GCG. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping "It is true that, historically, we have shied away from posting arrests. But we should inquire as to why that is the case. I would suggest it is because we do not wish to imply guilt that has not been proven." Correct. Unfortunately, for many people, the simple fact that someone has been arrested is reason enough by itself to assume that they are guilty. BLPCRIME is intended to prevent the laypeople's presumption of guilt from being amplified to such an extent that it has unintended consequences for them offline (e.g. influencing public opinion to the extent that it undermines the individual's ability to have a fair trial). The circumstances surrounding Trump's arraignment—a former president with such a high profile as to render our acknowledgement of his arrest inconsequential—are unique enough by themselves to merit making an exception in this case. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While this may be unproven, and I think we should all work on the assumption that Trump is innocent until proven guilty, this story is still In The News, and this marks the first time in US history that a former president has been arrested. It's big news. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not the first time. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PrecariousWorlds's wording of Template:Tq is correct (Grant was an incumbent). This is also the first time any US president, former or not, has been indicted. Grant was given a fine for speeding, but he ultimately never had to pay anything. This story, on the other hand, has a lot of remarkable firsts for the United States. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think there's a meaningful difference between being metaphorically "on trial" and being actually on trial... Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tq The reliable sources that published the information about the event. It's apparent from your commentary that you don't care, but here at Wikipedia, personal feelings don't matter in decision making. Reliable sources do. --Jayron 32 12:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel that this discussion should be closed. The other comments that have been posted are post-posting opposes for reasons either already proven, or coming mostly from personal thoughts. I'm not sure how to close discussions (or if only admins can do so), but that's my thoughts on further discussion of this. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Klaus Teuber[edit]

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

Oppose for now "Top in [his/her] field" is no longer a criteria. This is a stub, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose blurb (not changing), oppose RD for now Article is a stub for now, needs expansion in order to qualify for ITNRD. Not nearly notable enough (or have that good of an article) for a blurb. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 21:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The German and Russian WP articles are much longer, fwiw. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose , Article needs expansion. Alex-h (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support with thanks to the editors who have greatly expanded this article in the last two days. Connor Behan (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping there are still many CN tags. This is not ready for ITNRD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 22:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article has been expanded a little bit, not a stub anymore. I don't see any issues with sourcing now, this seems to have been addressed. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article looks good now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted—Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2023 Voorschoten train crash[edit]

Comment I know a lot of people don't like the unwritten WP:MINIMUMDEATHS criterion, but with only one fatality, and probably no wider significance, I'd be inclined not to post this one... — Amakuru (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there's no minimum deaths requirement to post something on ITN, but there's also no compelling argument to post this. I'm open to changing my mind, but I have a feeling this will be snow closed. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Archive bottom

April 3[edit]

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

(Posted) RD: Roy McGrath[edit]

Support Quite the story, and quite the article! Passes the citation and the heftiness of the article test. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 21:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are enough sources & details. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 06:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) WWE sold to UFC parent Endeavor[edit]

Oppose — Not notable for ITN. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ElijahPepe. Notability isn't there for me. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Pretty underwhelming news. Modest Genius ^talk 15:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose companies doing company stuff. Irrelevant. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ITN ignored them individually, why stop now? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Routine business transaction creating a monopoly on TV violence. BusterD (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Greg Francis[edit]

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

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

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

RD: Enrique Mendoza[edit]

Oppose for now Clearly very notable, however, the article is currently a stub. Lefcentreright Discuss 21:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is currently a stub. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 22:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Nigel Lawson[edit]

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

(Posted) Finland Joins NATO[edit]

Template:Main page image/ITN

Per the article in question "Currently, Finland is scheduled to become an official member of the alliance on 4 April 2023" Why jump the gun? --Jayron 32 17:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the explanation, I don't recommend we post it early, I just started the discussion early so we can have a blurb ready on time, as it is a scheduled event that we know will take place in a matter of hours. Theres precedent for this too as was done when Croatia Joined the EU. ✨ 4 🧚‍♂am KING 17:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until 1:35 UTC Tuesday, then post immediately - I think new members of NATO should be in ITN/R, this is definitely notable enough. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a race. Nothing particularly harmful happens if the posting occurs some time after that. --Jayron 32 17:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is definitely ITN-worthy, and I second trying to get it in ASAP. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also as @Blaylockjam10 pointed out, we did post North Macedonia joining NATO in March 2020, and especially given what else was happening in that month, I think that sets a good precedent. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would the article Enlargement of NATO be a better target? The article as a whole is a GA. Just an idea. Maybe bold both? --Jayron 32 17:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like keeping Finland-NATO relations as a target article because it contains most of the information related to Finland's accession (I think keying something along the lines of "finland accession to NATO" will redirect there), but if there's a way to fit in a link to Enlargement of NATO then that could make sense, too. Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the words 31st member could direct there? I made that an altblurb just in case it might work. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When N. Macedonia (the last country to join NATO before Finland) joined NATO, the blurb linked to the North Macedonia–NATO relations article. Also, that blurb used NATO instead of North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like NATO is more recognisable at this point than typing out the 'North Atlantic Treaty Organisation'. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It’s why I suggested alt blurb 2. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait per above - User:Editor 5426387 (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until effective, then consider this a Support per above. Agree that new members of NATO would make sense for ITN/R. Also, I'd recommend changing the target photo if we use one at all. As much as I like the Finnish flag, it would feel a little odd just using the svg of it. Maybe a photo of leaders from Finland and NATO shaking hands would be more appropriate? Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

at right is a photo of klaus korhonen, finnish ambassador to nato, shaking hands with nato secretary general jens stoltenberg, when finland submitted its official application to join nato back in may. this seems like a decent image to feature until someone uploads a picture of today's ceremony to commons. dying (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait It hasn't happened yet, when it does happen, then this will be a Support. TomMasterReal^TALK 17:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait then Support per above. The Kip (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as a young geopolitical geek myself, this is a historic moment; I get to see NATO expand in my lifetime and actually be able to remember it. Agree with wait until actually in effect and also @PrecariousWorlds's assertion that new NATO members should be WP:ITN/R. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 18:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well Sweden should be joining next, and many others have applied, so there will be no shortage of new members entering NATO. Still, this is rather historic. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support when it actually happens. Big geopolitical shift. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but wait to post per nominator Plenty of huge military implications, especially as Finland and Russia are border neighbors. Aside from a huge block of text in the application section of the target article, it looks well-sourced and good to go. Aeromachinator (talk to me here) 19:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several paragraph breaks. It's still a massive chunk, though. Someone might want to remove the extraneous "2022"s and "2023"s and limit the citations to three, per WP:OVERCITE. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per nomination, but otherwise looks good to go. DecafPotato (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, then support per above. I’d prefer alt blurb 2 or alt blurb 3. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Odota, sitten Tuki per above and Google Translate. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, once the timing is correct tomorrow per nom. Estar8806 (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support ALTBLURB III at 13:25 UTC per all above, also a nice way for the Finnish to stick it to Ol' Vladdy. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 00:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why ten minutes early? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Major event, it is obvious. Once the timing is right this should be posted quickly as possible. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per everything above. Major news and today's the day! Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 09:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted [33] -- KTC (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 hours and 45 minutes early. Finland isn't yet part of NATO I believe. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finland is now officially a member, membership becomes effective once the applicant country deposits their instrument of accession to the depository (the U.S. State Department). In this case it happened at 12:46 UTC when Anthony Blinken received the document. The final formality (the flag raising ceremony) takes place in a few minutes. ✨ 4 🧚‍♂am KING 13:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Still, four minutes late. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good thing that we're not a news ticker where this sort of thing would be problematic. Right? --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a very good thing indeed, I concur PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Finland–NATO relations, which is bolded in the blurb, is orange-tagged and contains swathes of unreferenced text (the "History" section and the "European Union membership" sub-section are fully unreferenced). While it's true that this is major news and should be posted, the article is not of sufficient quality to appear on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The unreferenced sections are a problem, but the article seems to be updated, so I’m not worried about that. However, I’m not sure what Template:Ping (who put the update tag in the article) thinks. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Historic. Davey2116 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can we change the bolded article to NATO, at least until the Finland-NATO relations article is fixed? NATO is a GA, it has been updated, and it should be fine for the front page. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finland joining Nato is now appearing at the bottom of the itn list even though it is newer news than other items. I've started a discussion of this on the talk page. Fdfexoex (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Galarrwuy Yunupingu[edit]

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

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

April 2[edit]

(Needs attention) 2023 Bulgarian parliamentary election[edit]

Support Potentially worth waiting a few hours to post due to the results not fully being in, but otherwise I don't think there are any issues with the article. Regarding the blurb, how about an altblurb of 'In the Bulgarian parliamentary election, the GERB—SDS coalition, led by Boyko Borisov (pictured), narrowly beat the PP–DB alliance, winning the most seats in the Assembly.'? Quinby (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting though that using terms like coalition could be misleading, and may suggest more of a bloc politics in the country, so more neutral words like 'alliance', 'grouping' or 'list' may be better. Quinby (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Quinnnnnby Added the altblurb PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. A quick check reveals major problems with the article, for example the expanded results table in the "Results" section doesn't match the abbreviated table in the Infobox. I haven't looked much further than that, but with such a glaring inconsistency in that case, I worry about the accuracy and stability of the rest of the article. Get it together first before we even consider posting this on the main page. --Jayron 32 17:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32 If I'm correct, the vote discrepancy was due to differing interpretations of the NOTA vote, and its been fixed. There is however an issue of posting it now, with the final seats not released regionally, but after a few days, this news is less relevant. Quinby (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Full of polls and projections, saying "According to parallel counts of sample polling stations by several polling agencies, the final result was a close race ..." We should wait for the actual official result. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Only estimated results are available, and they show <2% between the top two parties - within the margin of error and too close to call. We should wait for the full official results, and use the date they become available for determining the blurb order. Modest Genius ^talk 10:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This looks detailed & well-sourced. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Should also have a short summary of the teams at Template:Section link—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Future tense, unexplained acronyms, routine sport. Me, I watched the Australian GP while there were big crowds around here for the EFL. So it goes... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Routine sport"

...As you've been told dozens of times, if you have an issue with its inclusion you know exactly where to take it. Would be great if the constant stream of complaints would be put to something more productive. The Kip (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know what kind of annual sports tournament isn't routine. Still, another example to use in the inevitable ITN topic ban proposal. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "Participants" section is void and would benefit from adding prose on how the season went for the finalists. Also, per ITN/R, we have to post a combined blurb of the men's and women's finals, but the men's hasn't taken place yet and that article has long way to go. Furthermore, the article is full of red links probably because the players lack notability. Do we really want to feature one such article on the main page?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until men's game is finished and that article is updated as well. Events are ITNR, so significance is not an issue, but we need two quality articles, and as yet, we only have the one. Tomorrow we should be able to post this once both articles are up-to-snuff. --Jayron 32 12:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Both bolded articles are of sufficient quality. --Jayron 32 10:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the quality is there, we don't need to have women wait for men e.g. the 2021 US Open.—Bagumba (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Post the women's tourney now, update with the men's once complete. ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. More gun jumping we don't need at ITN. Close and re-nom when the men's tournament is over. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, same as Muboshgu, post now, update tonight. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 16:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - post the women's result now and update with the men's later. Not rocket science. nableezy - 16:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be tempted to unlink 2023 NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament, because it's vastly unsourced ... but as long as the final has sources, eh? (even if most of the players are redlinks). Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, we only scrutinize bolded links.—Bagumba (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a real need for that article for the reader to understand the posting, yes ... there's no need for this link though as the tournament is obviously linked in the first sentence of that article. Really no need to have subpar stuff like that linked on the Main Page. You could simply boldlink "win the Women's Championship" to the final article. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus that this was an issue at Template:Section link —Bagumba (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Sigh* whatever. But I don't see any reason to do so if there's no real need for it. It actually makes the blurb more readable as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of agree, and there's a chain link in the blurb too. Dont need that much blue in the blurb. nableezy - 23:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's an argument for too many links, but it's on par with others like the Austalian Open. Perhaps we need blurb guidelines on link density and what's reasonable to find in bolded page. —Bagumba (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with *sigh*, weak support whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Sufficient breadth and sourcing. No modern reason to make women wait for men, for blurbs or otherwise. Update for men later, if and when ready.—Bagumba (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Combined support below.—Bagumba (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bagumba. The Kip (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment background for both teams have been completed, thanks Template:U for your help with that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and add men later (assuming that article is also up to snuff). I don't see a reason to wait when the women's target article is already well-written and well-sourced. -- Kicking222 (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aftermath section and broadcast section are both now done as well. This should be ready to go up. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hold for men's tourney to end, then support per all others. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 00:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marked ready.—Bagumba (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and update with the men's result later, per above. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blurb updated with men's result. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt I've restored the previously ready women's result, now to the alt blurb. The women's is ready, and there's no timetable if or when the men's portion will be deemed ready.—Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yeah, this is ITN/R, but everyone knows that's absurd, so I can't in good faith support this. If the college football final isn't posted, then neither should the college basketball be. Simple as that. This isn't bigger than that. — Amakuru (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote in January: Template:Tq [34] What changed to make you adamant that you are right now?—Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale of "We screwed up something once in the past, so we're now forced to continue to screw things up" seems like a highly illogical rationale, and thus can be easily ignored. --Jayron 32 10:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it absurd? We just had a nomination to remove (which I supported) where the majority favored keeping it. You have to respect consensus if you want to be a valuable contributor here. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I also think that posting lower-tier sport in ITN is ridiculous. You have to follow consensus; you don't necessarily have to agree with it. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support combined Men's page is also sufficiently covered and sourced now.—Bagumba (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There a reason this isnt being posted? Besides sour grapes of course. nableezy - 18:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wonder where we might find one? nableezy - 18:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's fine; feel free to post it. Hopefully this is the last year we'll have to go through this nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Template:Ping all of you supported posting women's final - your feedback and evaluation on the men's final would be much appreciated. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks ready to me; don't see a reason for any more delay.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pawnkingthree; article is ready to go. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 20:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted women's blurb. As mentioned above, waiting a little longer to confirm consensus for combined blurb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined. Both articles look good. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted combined. No one has said it's not ready, a couple more people have said it is, and I imagine the Donald Trump discussion has sucked (and will continue to suck) all the available oxygen out of this room, so I've gone ahead and posted the combined blurb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2023 Andorran parliamentary election[edit]

Support conditional on article being expanded. We posted Monaco and this is much more of a real country than that This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support regarding quality - damn, everyone in Europe having an election today? - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria is having one aswell! ITN is gonna be so much fun in the coming days... Rushtheeditor (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's about 200 sovereign states and so this might as well be a permanent feature like RD. It would look like this:

Elections: Andorra, Bulgaria, Finland, Montenegro, Turkmenistan...

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but all RD's if transformed into blurbs are essentially the same, "X died at y age." Elections tell us who won, if power shifted or stayed the same, etc. Deaths lend themselves to a rotating list, elections can be summarized in a sentence the way we do it. Courcelles (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And that the same could be done with "Deadly natural disasters: Tornadoes in the United States...". And that's not ITN's goal. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's backwards. RD should be expanded to explain who the person was and how they died because their name is not enough. Elections seem more samey per the adage that "no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah what on Earth is going on, there's like five different elections today lol PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going to be a blurb avalanche PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, with how stale ITN can be at times, I'm all for it. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 14:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article is a table farm with very little prose. Has absolutely no meaningful lead section, very little prose is provided explaining the election process, campaigns, results themselves and their implications, etc. etc. Not something we should be posting on the main page. Write the article first before asking it to be posted! --Jayron 32 18:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per recent improvements. --Jayron 32 10:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Run-of-the-mill table article. More prose needed, asap. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 00:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Post posting support Article was fixed, thank you to Alsonario to cleaning the article up. Cheers. Wime Pocy 14:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nobody cares. Andorra is the size of a small town, 0.00099% of the world population. It's merely a place where French people go buy dishwashers and TVs with no VAT tax. That's it. It's not because you can post something that you should. And even within this, it's no turning point like for Montenegro, who by the way is 1000% more populated although still widely considered tiny. Synotia (moan) 08:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it's better to keep quiet and let people think you are not ignorant, than to speak up and confirm that you are. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this insightful counter-argument! I am now convinced Andorran elections are front-page news. Synotia (moan) 09:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you that same guy who was opposed to posting about 2023 global banking crisis because it's irrelevant and Americocentric? Yet you think Andorran elections are relevant? Interesting perspective I must admit Synotia (moan) 09:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's as easy as reading the easily understandable ITNR election rules. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a guideline. The word "rule" is not used once. Synotia (moan) 09:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is so pedantic that I can't even fathom how to properly respond. All I will say is that the ITNR page is basically our curated book of standards for recurring items. The consensus to list an item on it is achieved only through rigorous discussion. Your sarcasm is also not appreciated, as it comes across as very mocking. Curbon7 (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being pedantic. I've always been baffled by how Wikipedians take guidelines for the word of God himself. Synotia (moan) 20:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you choose to participate at ITN if you refuse to do so productively by actually learning how the space operates. Dare I bring up this farce. Or this one. Or this one. Curbon7 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nom. comment Template:U Template:U Template:U Template:U I've been working on this article and I think it meets the requirements already, at least the minimum requirements. Can you take a look at it now, please? _-_Alsor (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. This qualifies as ITNR and the article meets our minimum standards for posting. But only 20,000 votes were cast - less than most local elections in other countries. The population of Andorra is smaller than many sports stadiums. While I applaud the article author(s) for producing a comprehensive coverage of such an obscure topic, I just can't get behind posting it in ITN. I suppose I'm gradually coming around to thinking the ITNR criteria need to change, though I couldn't say what they should be replaced with... Modest Genius ^talk 10:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, this argument again. Curbon7 (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article's prose is much more fleshed out. This item is ITNR and we post all elections of this sort, no matter if the country is the United States or tiny Nauru. This is so as to avoid constantly legislating which countries are and are not worthy of posting. This was most recently upheld with the posting of Monaco, but also Nauru a few months back. Curbon7 (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It’s ITNR & the quality’s good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have copyedited a bit, the article seems good enough and is ITNR. Let the world know about a tiny country called Andorra.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyediting! _-_Alsor (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Spencer^T•C 02:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2023 Montenegrin presidential election[edit]

Support - I think heads of state generally are considered ITN/R, but I'm not certain. Anyway, article looks good and the significance is there. However, the phrasing of the blurb feels a little weird, something along the lines of "Jakov Milatović is elected President of Montenegro, defeating incumbent Milo Đukanović" might be better, particularly to emphasize the fact that the incumbent was defeated. Estar8806 (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt blurb I - looks good, is mostly prose and not a table wall. Agree with @Estar8806 that we should emphasize that his opponent was incumbent. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support AB1 Change of head of state is ITN/RThis post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no !vote on blurb choice. But definitely ready for ITN. Significant and sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - dont think this is ITN/R, that says Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, which in Montenegro (if our article is to be believed) is the Government of Montenegro headed by the Prime Minister of Montenegro, not the President. nableezy - 01:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination does state that this is not ITN/R. The nominator rather does make a compelling argument that this is a major turning point for this country. Curbon7 (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The box says yes and so do a couple of votes though. nableezy - 01:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major event, support. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Article seems solid, and the nominator's rationale is persuasive. Agree with Estar and others that the blurb should mention that Đukanović was the incumbent. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article quality looks to be sufficient. --Jayron 32 18:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support very, very good election article. Lots of prose to accompany the tables. Side note, do we typically bold the election winner too? Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 00:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted the alt blurb that mentions the incumbent. Schwede 66 21:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment Have we formally stopped asking for prose in the results and reactions sections of the election articles? _-_Alsor (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Bombing in Saint Petersburg[edit]

Comment - Would this be covered by the ongoing? Obviously there is notable death mentioned in the nom's comments, but he's already been nominated for RD, which I presume will be posted. I think that the ongoing + that RD would sufficiently cover this. Estar8806 (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no definitive evidence that this was related to the war, and considering that we posted the Kyivan helicopter crash in January, I would say no. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sure, terrorist attacks in Russia are rare, but this only killed one person. The person himself being a simple Russian propagandist. So I personally oppose. Besides, we blurbed the helicopter crash because it killed 3 high-ranking Ukrainian politicians. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per nom. Considering it's not necessarily related to the ongoing war, seems good for posting. Estar8806 (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is only one confirmed death (Tatarsky). Mellk (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Many people were injured from this bombing as well. From the article 30 people were injured, 24 were hospitalized, 6 were seriously injured. 2607:FEA8:E300:B8C:90C3:9BA8:BC6D:EB69 (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Article is still in rough shape, includes mentions and inclusions of loosely or completely unrelated events. Open to changing my vote if there are improvements or further evidence supporting the articles assertions. (eg, Why is the October 5th incident mentioned?) Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle as an unusual and major event for Russia. Haven't actually looked at the article yet, so I can't speak to its quality. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Well I've looked at the article and this appears to have been a targeted assassination of a particular person, who has been separately nominated for RD. Such events are not rare – they are quite common in Russia, especially lately – see Suspicious deaths of Russian businesspeople (2022–2023), Russian military commissariats attacks, 2022–2023 Russian mystery fires, &c. The main problem is that the claims and sources are not reliable. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but I feel like the fact that this has killed or injured 37 other people prevents it from being another assassination. Checking those articles, this is the only event in months that has this high of a death toll. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only one person killed, according to the article. BorgQueen (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'm normally an inclusionist on ITN but Andrew has made a persuasive argument above. Plus the article quality isn't that great at the moment. RD for Vladlen Tatarsky should suffice. BorgQueen (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nom. The targeted murder of a war propagandist in a totalitarian police state is not ITN material. The war is being covered in ongoing. If the incident rates little or no coverage there, that kinda says a lot in itself. Beyond which, Andrew has raised a very legitimate point about sources and their reliability. A lot of what is being reported is coming from the Russian government and the Russian press/media. Excuse me for repeating myself. Clearly something happened. The event is undoubtedly WP:notable. But it's not enough for ITN and we really don't know much beyond what the Russians are saying. I'm fine with RD conditional on article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt Blurb Notable figure and a rare thing to happen to 30 other Russians. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insignificant incident in country in which many suspicious deaths happen kills one and hurts a ~~couple~~ couple dozen other people. Yeah, no, not blurb-worthy. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 00:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thirty is not a couple (a couple dozen were hospitalized). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 01:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good. About half a dozen never will be. Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder to everyone (including you), that Ohio train derailment we posted still hasn't killed or sickened anyone more than countless thousands of fish, insects and birds (maybe a fox). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The train derailment was the top story in most news outlets though PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The assassination should be an RD entry. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That way, it doesn't look like an assassination. If that's the point, it makes sense. If not, though... InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think Tatarsky is sufficiently notable to justify blurbing his murder, which is what this amounts to. He didn't even have an article until his death was reported, so can't have had that big an impact on the war. Does that also disqualify him from RD? If not, the biographical article could be posted there instead. Modest Genius ^talk 16:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ITN, and RD by extension, is designed to feature newly created (or expanded) articles. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2023 Finnish parliamentary election[edit]

Support - looks good, has some real prose and is not just a table-wall. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per above basically. Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Quality looks good. DecafPotato (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finland is going to join NATO tomorrow, perhaps this blurb could be merged into it. 2A02:2F0B:B500:5A00:540B:5D9:43C5:2117 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whole other story (perfectly reasonable photo). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Vladlen Tatarsky[edit]

Support - Sourced. Prose looks ok. Length as well. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lot of what we are getting is coming from Russian sources, but that's probably unavoidable. I think the article is OK for RD. Opposing the proposed blurb though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb As seen above, death is a story. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD article is good enough for RD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 00:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marking this as Ready for RD. Discussion regarding a possible blurb is ongoing above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - Article is in good shape for posting. Jusdafax (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 05:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Pulled then Reposted) RD: Ryuichi Sakamoto[edit]

Support - Legendary musician Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tqq; focus on the quality of the article, not the importance of the person. Curbon7 (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, and for what it's worth, the quality of their article is solid too. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is in great shape, no objections to posting. PolarManne (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Awards and discography sections need a bit more citations before I approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing sources have been added to the Awards and Nominations and the Discography sections. Is it to your satisfaction? Maxxies (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Article looks good. Ollieisanerd (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Anarchyte (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a bunch of paragraphs with no citations. I don’t think this was acceptable to post. Thriley (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, my tools count 8 Template:Tl tags! Tails Wx 22:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is now up to ten, so definitely needs more work! Octopusplushie (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh...see, this is why we shouldn't have jumped the gun and posted it when it had so many tags and issues! Tails Wx 03:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled We can reinstate the article once it's up to scratch. Schwede 66 00:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been significantly improved with citation links thanks to the combined effort of several editors. At this time, there are no missing citations. Maxxies (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support A major figure with about half a million readers so far. The Template:Tl seem quite petty and not significant as the article has over 100 citations and there are many eyes on the topic. I checked out one of the tags and addressed it; it wasn't difficult. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not have been posted. The whole of the 1990s and 2000s paragraphs have large unsourced sections. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reposted All sourcing is up to scratch now. Black Kite (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post reposting support Article is up to ITNRD standards. Cheers. Wime Pocy 14:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Salim Durani[edit]

Oppose Article is a stub, and expansion is needed in order for this to qualify for ITNRD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 00:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Haziqul Khairi[edit]

Support The article looks good enough to post.Fahads1982 (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Fahads1982. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 01:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good. And ready.BabbaQ (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support still waiting for this article to post.

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

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

Ramadan stampedes in Pakistan[edit]

Support Tragic symptom of economic collapse This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:S Oppose Acceptable death toll, terrible article. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Acceptable death toll" - I know what you mean, but there are so many other, much better ways to express it... 51.154.145.205 (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I disagree with the notion that we should have an "Acceptable death toll", as per WP:NEWSEVENT PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, unremarkable death toll, and the article is shit. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping I'll do you one better: absolutely tragic and depressing loss of life, and the article is a shame to our standards. Cheers. Wime Pocy 14:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this discussion, my one thought is... what the hell? I feel Hulk missed Precarious's point with that comment (a point which, by the way I agree with), in which news events with a death toll should be decided by the notability of the subject, not the death toll itself. If it is notable for the death toll alone, it should not be posted. Just my two cents. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I may have. I might be missing yours, too, because all event articles are presumed to have met the general notability guideline. Athlete and politician bios are different, the subject just has to play or win once, respectively. Call it shit, just not great or a shame to our standards, but not non-notable. That said, I disagree that notability is enough, and am changing my vote to plain oppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This may be notable enough to post, but I’m currently opposed on quality. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT. The scope of the topic is unclear as there's several incidents and issues being collected together in a rather synthetic way. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article is too short, lacking details. Needs expansion. Fahads1982 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. Cheers. Wime Pocy 12:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose , On quality, issues are not in order. Alex-h (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Quality is just not great. If it were to be brought up to standard, I'd support, since this shines a light on the Pakistani economic crisis, but quality is just not there. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Seymour Stein[edit]

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

Comment Expanded it and added some references. Think it's more or less ready.yorkshiresky (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is fine for RD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 22:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good now. BabbaQ (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 03:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 1[edit]

(Closed) 2023 Aston by-election[edit]

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

Oppose and defer to DYK. It's an absolute fantastic DYK hook, but still just a routine by-election for one legislative seat for ITN purposes. Courcelles (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A simple by-election. Sure, it's an over a century achievement but it's still just for a single seat. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is one seat out of 151 in one legislature of one country. While it might have been an upset, this still has no real significance except for this very small area of Australia.

I'd suggest proposing this for DYK. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - while I am in favour of posting some sub-national elections, individual constituency by-elections are still well below the radar. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but definitely submit to DYK! --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trivial trivia. Curbon7 (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ab

(Posted) Tornado outbreak of March 31, 2023[edit]