Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:22, 29 March 2023

Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here.

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

• WP:ITN/C

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Wildfire in Pacific Palisades A series of wildfires (pictured) in Southern California, United States, leaves 5 people dead and forces more than 100,000 others to evacuate. A 7.1-magnitude earthquake hits Tingri County in the Tibet Autonomous Region, China, leaving at least 126 people dead. Indonesia becomes a full member of BRICS. Justin Trudeau announces his intention to resign as prime minister of Canada. Luke Littler wins the PDC World Darts Championship. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Jean-Michel Defaye Ágnes Keleti Ripken Wayne Osmond The Vivienne Tariana Turia Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

Archives

March 29

(Posted) RD: Paul O'Grady

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

• Support Clearly notable, very comprehensive article. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support, his article is good and he's definitely notable enough. Suonii180 (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Definitely notable enough. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Conditional support provided the four tags in the article are resolved. Ritchie333 12:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support all tags resolved! Tails Wx 15:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support No issues, very notable UK TV personality. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Very notable, article has good quality. Ollieisanerd (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Article well written. Undoubtedly "a national treasure" in the UK.SethWhales 17:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Posted. Ks0stm 18:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - No objections to the posting, but why do people fail to notice the instruction that significance is a non-factor in posting to RD? Any person, or even animal, is eligible if they have an article that is good enough. Son Of The Desert (Talk) 18:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

March 28

2023 Saudi Arabia bus crash

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.

• Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)

• Oppose, bus crashes are routine events, the article fails WP:NOTNEWS. Sandstein 08:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Per @Sandstein, and, while this is a tragedy, death tolls do not automatically mean notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think this policy should come up way more often on ITN. It feels like every single disaster over 15 or so deaths gets posted regardless of actual significance (though not to downplay these tragedies). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Its not just ITN, but NOTNEWS overall that needs to be more strictly enforced. We shouldn't have articles on things like bus accidents like this in the first place, though a list of traffic accidents in (country) would be appropriate. Masem (t) 12:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment We recently posted a bus plunge in Panama. I don't see what makes this any different in terms of postability. Regardless, the article is at AfD, so that precludes this discussion until that is resolved. Curbon7 (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - while I generally revile arguments such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEWSEVENT being used in a section dedicated to covering the news, I think instances like this where there really shouldn't be an article at all are acceptable cases for those points to be invoked.
• Additional comment Article is now at AfD, thus automatically rendering it ineligible for posting unless the AfD closes as a keep (which given how its currently going, seems incredibly unlikely). As such, I'm requesting this be closed.

- Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 12:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Lisbon mass stabbing

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Aarfrunzindin (talk · give credit)

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

• Oppose good faith nomination. I fail to see how this reaches the bar for ITN. -- Rockstone 22:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Care to explain how or define said bar? - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 22:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, I'd like to know what the bar is myself. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Id say yall set the bar when you reflexively oppose any shooting with more casualties and substantially more coverage because it "Amurica doing Amurican things". nableezy - 23:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hey, I voted wait on the Nashville shooting story, so I'm not "yall." - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 01:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose My bar for mass casualty events is at twelve, either dead or seriously injured. Still bad news when lower, never good. But not "major", absent some extraordinary twist. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Personally my bar is at 15 dead minimum. So this will be an oppose from me. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It feels weird to have a "minimum death toll" for notability. As Andrew pointed out above, WP:NEWSEVENT says "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Scratched out what I wrote. Though, i've noticed that the article itself doesn't even really talk about the stabbing. Rather it just mentions the perpetrator, victims, and aftermath. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is not a thing and should not be a thing. Candidates should be assessed on significance, not an arbitrary number. Curbon7 (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Regardless, I don't really see this event as being that notable for ITN. It killed two people, which is sad, but that doesn't really make it notable from any other stabbing in europe or probably even portugal. That's why i'm voting oppose. Onegreatjoke (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Per @Curbon7 and WP:NEWSEVENT PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose because although this is rare for Portugal, its death toll is low & we know very little about the motive. This should be on DYK instead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Article is in good shape, and reliable sources are giving this the attention to indicate it is significant. --Jayron32 13:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Absent a very unusual scenario or context (which there doesn't appear to be here), I don't see how an event with such a low death toll reaches the bar for ITN, regardless of whether it's in the USA, Portugal or anywhere else. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on notability 2 deaths, multiple injuries, a shooting in Tennessee had more deaths and got shot down, and so will this. Cheers. WimePocy 16:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose trivial crime despite how tragic it was for those involved. In no way encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jacob Ziv

• Nominated by Mooonswimmer (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Significant sourcing work needed. Mooonswimmer 14:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Support, Misplaced Pages wouldn't function without his work (; Synotia (moan) 16:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Support Notable enough, article looks good. Ollieisanerd (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment The biography section is almost entirely unsourced. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Support, Article looks OK.Alex-h (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support article is fine and ITNRD ready. Cheers. WimePocy 16:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Muhammad Idrees (politician)

• Nominated by Fahads1982 (talk · give credit)

 Fahads1982 (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Ciudad Juárez fire

• Nominated by Knightsoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Nythar (talk · give credit)

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

• Oppose on quality, support in principle. Noah 12:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality per Hurricane Noah. Will flip vote when expanded. The Kip (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Count me as a Support now. Article's been suitably expanded. The Kip (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support From what I can see right now, the article is short, but definitely well more developed than a stub, and well-referenced. There's enough information here as of now for posting on the main page. Additionally, news sources appear to be covering the story in a way that indicates that it is significant enough for the main page. --Jayron32 17:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support looks more expanded since it was nominated. It's well-sourced, and I would go with the original blurb! Tails Wx 17:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support It’s an important story & the quality seems just barely good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Notable event by its rarity and death toll Sheila1988 (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Hurricane Noah and @The Kip given the recent article's expansion. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 22:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You're sure that an arson attack killing 40 people from several countries is a routine event?! Had this happened in the developed world (even if only a couple of miles away in El Paso, Texas), it'd have been posted within a few hours of being created. The article would be much longer & have been edited by several times as many people. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

...such as the deaths of 38 people at a deportation center. Curbon7 (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, high death toll and the article looks ok. Such numbers of victims are usually postable. Brandmeister 12:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per all above, article is fine in both quality and notability. Cheers. WimePocy 13:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Marked "ready". I am ineligible to post, as I voted and am thus WP:INVOLVED. Any other admin who hasn't voted can post it, given the widespread support. --Jayron32 14:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Posted ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 14:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Humza Yousaf

• Nominated by 148.64.29.135 (talk · give credit)

• Support. The proper target article is in good shape. For the blurb, I recommend the concise altblurb. We can understand the practical effect that he will become First Minister, though some further formalities are required. To my mind this is like the US presidential election where we announce the vote results, not the meeting of the Electoral College. Jehochman 11:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Firstly, this is not on ITNR so I've removed that flag. Scotland is not a sovereign country (it is part of the United Kingdom) so its first minister is only the leader of a regional government. It's equivalent to the leader of an Indian state, Belgian community or US state - none of which we post in ITN. Secondly, I don't see how his ethnicity is relevant to the position. Thirdly, it's an internal party succession with no associated popular election. There's no reason to treat this differently from any other local government succession. Modest Genius 11:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  PS. see the ITN/C discussion when Sturgeon resigned last month. Modest Genius 11:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  That was a close discussion, and the result was wrong. Scotland is a country, not a state. Not ITNR does not mean it has to be rejected. This is a significant event that is widely in the news. Jehochman 11:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  As I said in that discussion, "when comparing different sovereign states it's mostly just semantics whether they refer to their largest sub-national entities as states, provinces, regions, cantons, communities, nations or countries". The fact that the major subdivisions of the UK are called countries is historical and doesn't make them sovereign. I'm British, I know how the UK works. Modest Genius 12:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I trust you do. California would be the ~7th largest country in the world by GDP, and has the same population as Canada, but we post elections in Monaco, which have much, much less significance and zero global news coverage. Our criteria is borken. Jehochman 12:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per MG. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Topic has been covered sufficiently by news sources, article is in sufficiently good shape. The lack of ITNR is a non-issue as many stories are posted in the ITN box that are not in ITNR. --Jayron32 12:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose not ITNR and Scotland is mot a sovereign nation, so it’s more close to be a sub-national political event than an statal one. There’s no way this should be posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support - I think there's a difference between the UK's subnational governments and those of countries like America. The fact that I and many other foreigners know about Sturgeon but not say Heather Stefanson or Tim Walz is demonstrative of this.

- Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 12:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, the same can be said for famous US Governors, like Ron DeSantis or Gavin Newsom, who are recognisable names overseas like Sturgeon. I don't think many people would be able to name the First Ministers of Wales or Northern Ireland (I even live in the UK and I don't know them).

While the UK and the USA have very different political systems, I feel like you can draw an equivalence between the constituent countries of the UK to US states. Both have an elected legislature in the style of the overall federal legislature, both have significant regional autonomy and control over many of their own affairs, etc. The only meaningful difference here is that the USA has 50 while the UK has 4, which if you adjust for population is roughly like 8-9 states to 4 UK countries. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Well to be honest, although that is true, I think another difference lies in the timing. You cited how we didn't post the 2022 Cali elections, which ignore that they were apart of the wider midterm elections that year and were thus already technically covered. This, as far as I know, is an independent election time-wise. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 13:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There was no popular election here - voters didn't get a say. Only party members were involved. Modest Genius 13:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Still an election, as the article title and prose states, as well as governmental processes and news media. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 15:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's actually a good point, I forgot that the California elections were part of the midterms, but then I'll bring up that we did not post the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election, where Gavin Newsom was re-elected (Discussion for that here). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

America is a continent, btw. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

America primarily refers to the United States (see that that redirects to "United States", not "The Americas". Actually, America, by itself, is not a continent. There's North America, and South America, but there's no continent referred to "America". --Rockstone 03:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I know many in South America prefer to use "America" to refer to the two landmasses as a whole. If I'm perfectly honest the whole idea of a continent is stupid, there are incredibly arbitrary borders (Europe ends at the Ural Mountains and Black Sea. Why? Don't ask questions. North America and Africa both end at man-made canals, why? Who knows? And there's some mysterious sea border between Oceania and Asia that no one can quite define. Also, why are we even grouping these places together? The Middle East is insanely different from the Central Turkic states, which are different from Eastern Russia, which is different from China, which is different from Thailand, which is different from India, which is different from the Philippines, and etc. etc. Why are all of these places grouped together into "Asia"? Asia was literally just a Roman Province, same for Africa. Well I have no clue how I got from the Scottish First Minister to ranting about geographical divisions but I'm getting off topic so I better stop.). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Scotland is merely a region within a nation. We didn't post the 2022 California election result, and even if we were to include regional subdivisions for ITN, we would have to wait for his approval from the Scottish parliament. He has only been elected party leader, not First Minister yet. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Subnational + he hasn't even been formally elected as First Minister. The Kip (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Does this not count as formal election?

  No comment on the overall proposal. Couruu (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Struck that bit of my oppose. The Kip (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support - It's explicitly not ITNR. But it is making the headlines. And for the record, I would also support a sufficiently prominent sub-national election elsewhere in the world. I am interested to see what becomes of the NSW proposal further down, once it is a done deal and not ongoing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I support in principle the idea of posting election results in large sub-national regions, but Scotland is nowhere near the largest and most influential sub-national regions, so until such a practice becomes much more common I will oppose. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Support (altblurb)- Simply because it's an election not listed on ITNR doesn't make it ineligible for ITN, which is what most of the opposition I've seen so far has been based on. Without regard to the fact that Yousaf is the first muslim leader of a major political party in the UK (I think in the whole of the West, if I'm not mistaken) but it is a major moment for the Scottish independence movement. For example, The Independent reports that Labour and the Conservatives are calling Scottish independence "dead". Not only is his election being reported covered by major UK news outlets (such as the Guardian). , but also by primarily U.S. sources like CNN and global sources like Al Jazeera.Estar8806 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose -- We do not post the elections of subnational entities. We wouldn't post this same story if it happened in a US state or Canadian Province, even though US states and Canadian Provinces are more independent than Scotland is. To post this story would smack of UK-centrism, already a huge problem here. --Rockstone 22:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Objection! Scotland has Scots law. You don't see that kind of self-rule in Nova Scotia or Manitoba. If Ontario wants to reject the monarchy, it needs permission from the nine other provincial legislatures, the federal government and the monarchy. Scotland just fights (historically). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  ... Good point. I have a feeling that I don't understand Canadian federalism very well. Here in the US though, Louisiana has its own legal system that's a hybrid of civil and common-law, and here in Florida, juries consist of only 6 people (except for capital felonies). -- Rockstone 23:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, all fifty states are absolutely positively 100% sovereign. Florida Man is popular for a reason that just wouldn't fly in one of the hippy or yippie states. Here, we can't publish (decent) crime comics, anywhere, despite that panic having died out with the MPs who thought it made sense at the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Also, Cajuns are arguably more Canadian than hippy, yippie or Floridian, by virtue of their Acadian "bloodline". And those poor historical souls were arguably more French than anything. And as any Gallic historian can tell you, France probably had something to do with Gaelic diverging from Celtic and Welsh back in the foggy days when unicorns represented more than a district, ward, factory, metropolitan statistical area or fen. Maybe I'm just rambling. Support Photo Blurb because this formerly magic kingdom and its promising new ruler are still In The News today. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The election of a leader of a subnational govt. shouldn’t be posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support this is good news 5.44.170.26 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the same reason as opposing the Sturgeon announcement, we dont post sub-national office changes. We would never post the election of the governor of California, which remains a much more consequential position in nearly every regard. nableezy - 23:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Subnational entity, and conceptually the position is no more powerful or constitutionally significant than the governor of California, which we wouldn't generally post... And that's before we even consider that California has a population more than seven times that of Scotland.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per my prior rationale for supporting changes in the holder of First Minister of Scotland. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment There is a reason changes to heads of state/government of non-sovereign entities are not included in ITNR and why such noms have not received support here. A case can be made that this election is significant, with the choosen head being the first from an ethnic minority background, but this stemming from a mere party election and not a popular vote is not fully convincing as to the latter's notability. Gotitbro (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think he's more notable for trying to call an independence referendum on his first day in attempted service than for being...whatever one calls a native Glaswegian ethnic minority or minority ethnic leader in Scotland. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. what about the first Zhuang governor of Guangxi province while we're at it? Sheila1988 (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support – Yes, Scotland has less autonomy than some other subnational entities. But 1), the countries of the UK get significantly more worldwide media coverage than things like the governor of California (which, like I said when Sturgeon resigned, has a higher population and GDP and msot other metrics than some sovereign states, proving that "a bunch more people live there" isn't a valid reason to oppose), and 2) the campaign for Scottish independence remains significant and ITN-worthy in my opinion. DecafPotato (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• comment from nominator. I'll remember all this 'we don't do regions' during the US primaries then. but no doubt the US bias will rule differently at that point and we'll have a whole bunch of stuff about Super Tuesday and guff that only affects 'regions' of the US. 148.64.29.90 (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  As far as I am aware, we have never posted Super Tuesday in ITN. Modest Genius 11:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Even so, and this may be controversial, but I think a major US party nomination (especially for a contentious race like what's going on in the Republican party) could be argued for notability in ITN. I live in the UK, so it's not out of some American bias, but because American politics naturally has more weight as a. It is predominantly the focus of most major, reliable news outlets, and b. The US heavily influences the entire world. That being said, I'm sure there's plenty of good counter-arguments. Just my take. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, If it is not ITNR it does not mean it is not suitable for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Strong Support, a major event. Khan, Sunak, now Yousaf Kirill C1 (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose We wouldn't post if AOC became Governor of New York, or Omar the Governor of Minnesota, or Haaland the Leader of the Democratic party. Not ITNR, and not very notable. Sunak was an exception as it is somewhat the British equivalent of the US president, but this is a subnational election being held in a country-that-really-isn't. Cheers. WimePocy 16:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

March 27

Cuban parliamentary election

• Nominated by Rushtheeditor (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Cuba holds election. Needs updates. Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Oppose - Single-party state, elections effectively mean nothing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - Just another sham election. TomcatEnthusiast1986 (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Weak support - since its the first election in Cuba not under the Castros, I reckon that this is fine for posting since it's WP:ITNR. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Rights ) 03:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Might I add that this is under the condition that the primary article is expanded and improved upon. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Rights ) 03:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment We do post the results of sham elections, such as Kazakhstan which is currently posted, but there is a distinction between the circumstances there and here. Curbon7 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Not to defend Kazakhstan's government, but Kazakhstan is more akin to a competitive-authoritarian or illiberal democratic system, not a true one-party state. Besides, Kazakhstan's was notable in that it was the most competitive in their history, in relative terms. AFAIK not so in CubaThis post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

    Hence there is a distinction between the circumstances there and here. Curbon7 (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality (note: there is nothing in ITNR saying single-party elections are not ITNR) Tube·of·Light 02:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The blurb is not accurate. The CPC did not win the election because the candidates do not represent that party and are not necessarily members. Instead, the candidates represent local assemblies and other bodies such as women's organisations. And there's no "winning" because it's not a competitive process. The voters just get to approve the single choice for each constituency. Most voters just tick a box saying that they approve all 470 candidates. So, what matters is who was selected as candidates by the National Candidature Commission. But the article doesn't list them – there's no list of names, who they represent and which constituency they were elected to. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Conditional support if and only if the blurb can be written in a concise way that explains the actual result without implying that this was in any sense a competitive election for the Communist Party as an organisation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Wrote altblutb to account for the single-party nature of Cuba. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose good faith nom per above. Article is completely inadequate for one covering national "elections" and the elections were just a rubber stamp affair in a Communist police state. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Blurb is 100% false, with claim that neither Castro were involved in the 1976 "election". The Communist Part of Cuba won all the seats in 1976, and Fidel Castro was both the leader of the party and of the country before and after the 1976 election. Perhaps User:Rushtheeditor can explain this Stalin-like historical revision? Nfitz (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Excuse me? I saw that ON the page, and I DID NOT write that on there. I assumed (my fault) that it was true and posted it. Do not accuse me of such ‘historical revision’. Rushtheeditor (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Uncalled for. Mistakes happen; stating that an editor's honest mistake is a Stalin-like historical revision is absolutely a personal attack. Curbon7 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support altblurb - oppose the tut-tutting of the anti-countering systemic bias in favor of entrenching it fuller crowd. People want to talk about elections but had no problem posting this "election" in which 140k people decided the UK PM, or this one in which not even that level of "election" took place. nableezy - 20:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is ITN/R and all the arguments about Cuba's elections dont count because I dont believe in Cuban elections should be ignored and tossed aside. The only objection that has merit here is quality, and of the people discussing it that does not seem to be a stopping point here. This should be posted, and the people advocating for keeping ITN a bastion of Western superiority should be rebuked. nableezy - 16:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I apologize for the original blurb. I see how it is wrong and I will learn from this and be more careful when proposing blurbs. Again, I am sorry for this. Rushtheeditor (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • No worries at all, we all make mistakes and people can sometimes be too harsh on here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Feels like SNOW is in the offing here, but I still passionately believe that we should post these sorts of elections. No one's refuting that Cuba's a one-party system, and I can understand a lack of belief that anything will change with this election. However, I believe this is an ITN/R election and thus merits posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The reason I, and I suspect some others are opposing this, is because this was not in fact an election in any generally accepted sense of the term. The labels of the Communist Party notwithstanding. You can call a turd a strawberry, but that doesn't make it so and I don't think we should be promoting that kind of blatant fantasy to our readers. The subject is certainly notable enough for coverage in the encyclopedia. But presenting this farce on the main page as an election would be gravely misleading. Misplaced Pages should not be serving turds and labeling them strawberries. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  So you sit in judgment of another country's system of governance and deny it the legitimacy of Misplaced Pages's front page? And that is not systemic bias? nableezy - 22:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't consider the Communist Party or any official organ of the Cuban Government as a reliable source. I am unaware of any reliable source that treats this as in any way, an election in the generally accepted sense of the term. If you want to call that systemic bias, then I plead guilty. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Besides the al-Jazeera source cited, there is Reuters, NBC News, hell even Fox calls them elections. Uncontested ones of course, but they are elections according to reliable sources. nableezy - 23:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  They are all reporting the claims of the Cuban government, which is entirely proper. We should likewise report the claims, and we do in the article. But none of them have in any way suggested that what the Cubans are labeling elections, are in fact such. No reliable source has called these true elections, and many have made it fairly clear that they are not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  What exactly is the "blatant fantasy" here? We know this election happened. You can debate the actual impact, but there was indeed a parliamentary election just held in Cuba, legitimate or not. Call it a semantic argument, but the phrase "sham election" contains the word "election" in it. The phrase simply means the election was not legitimate. The only way for you to believe this "turd" is a "strawberry" is if. quite frankly, you can't read or you didn't actually click on the article. It's not our job to cater to those who have no interest in actually reading what Misplaced Pages has to tell them. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn". DarkSide830 (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support – There is no clause that excludes one-party or unfair elections from being posted to ITN. DecafPotato (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Wait We have no idea how any potential discussion on the removal of Cuban parliamentary elections from R might go, best to let that play out first, like with the despised and printed rocket failure. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Question do we post Chinese parliamentary (not merely Xi) elections? Because I feel that's the most appropriate comparison/precedent here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  It depends. Do RS come out and confirm politics (not merely government) as a significant motive and do we feel that an election winner of that motive is sufficiently interesting to post? If so, sure, sounds like news. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hmmm, I don't see either of those things here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Precisely. So we Oppose. We may still disagree on whether a political motive is more crucial to promoting potentially developing election coverage than in the retelling of a relatively popular modern horror story as it unfolds. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per comrade InedibleHulk. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes elections are ITNR, but that is not the sole criteria. Firstly we have to look at the article quality (per ITNR itself) which is completely absent here, a few barebones paras mostly about the results without any contextual information on the history, conduct, impact and analysis. Secondly, we have to look at the precedent for such noms here on ITN; we have not posted elections or other leadership changes in similar one-party communist states beyond the general secretary positions, i.e., who actually holds power. The recent examples being China and Vietnam. This fails on both criterias, and I see no reason to deviate. Gotitbro (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Good points. Looking at the detail, there's some mysteries which the article doesn't explain. The number of seats was reduced by over a hundred but it's not clear what the practical effect of this has been. And exactly how many are there? There's a couple of numbers floating around – 470 and 474 – but which is it? I get the impression that the detail is fuzzy because it doesn't much matter. The actual headline figure seems to be the turnout as the closest thing the system gives to a verdict on the government (which doesn't change). Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Elections are ITNR because the assumption is that they are of political significance and therefore in the news. This assumption does not apply in the case of sham elections of rubberstamp parliaments in autocracies, because such "elections" have no political impact. Sandstein 09:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Covenant School shooting

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

• Nominated by Idislikenames (talk · give credit)

• Oppose Mass shootings such as this are commonplace in the United States.

Noah 02:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Wait @Hurricane Noah, although shootings are common in the US, we usually tend to post those with a peculiar motive. From what it seems there's a decent chance that this may have been a politically motivated shooting, with the perpetrator being transgender and possibly being motivated by transphobia and the like. However, since WP:RSes are slow to progress and all of these claims are still in dispute and unverified, it's best to wait. If these accusations are authenticated, I will support.

Crusader1096 (message) 02:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm just concerned with the fact there have been 9 shootings with more victims than this one thus far this year and that there has been a mass shooting five of the past seven days. Noah 02:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Major news story, #1 story in the U.S. today, high quality article to post. For the purposes of ITN, the number that happen per year is irrelevant. Motive is irrelevant. The other mass shootings don't get this kind of news coverage. The ones that rise to "No Way to Prevent This" mockery are the almost 1:1 the ones that we should be posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The other mass shootings don't get this kind of news coverage; I would disagree with this statement at the moment to be honest. With most mass shootings of this scale, there's a lot of instant coverage which tapers off in the following days. Curbon7 (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Many mass shootings don't have Misplaced Pages articles because they don't get this kind of news coverage. And "instant coverage which tapers off in the following days" refers to a lot of what ITN posts, or should be posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Tragic, but as is the case with many of these shootings, not notable to ITN levels. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - an absurd nomination. Six deaths in a US shooting - that must make it Tuesday. We've had this discussion before. Reading the nomination statement, User:Hurricane Noah nominated this fully knowing it wouldn't go through. Isn't that disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point? Nfitz (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  However, it isn't Hurricane Noah–I don't see their green glow with a splotch of red at the end of the nominator statement! Tails Wx 04:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Wx ... I completely misread the first three posts! Nfitz (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - tragic but predictable in a country awash with guns. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support any alternate blurb: "Nashville USA" isn't the best, but the event's made it onto French and German front pages and the article's good enough. RAN1 (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose fourth deadliest mass shooting in the first three months of 2023, fifth at a school since the last couple years. Kind of like posting a bombing in Kabul pre-2019. Juxlos (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• comment: the onion has republished its 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens article, suggesting that this may not be a run-of-the-mill event. dying (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTUSA. But I appreciate the effort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Tragic but not notable. Commonplace and predictable in the US. Ericoides (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment by the nominator The notability isn't from the death count as much as it is from where the shooting happened. People care about children and school shootings are rare even in the US. By my count there have been 14 school shootings with more deaths in US history. Source: US school shooting before 2000, US school shootings since 2000 Aure entuluva (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note I support the close for the moment but am prepared to re-open the discussion if strong evidence emerges that this was some sort of terrorist/anti-religiously motivated incident. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Question why is this closed with a yellow box? Banedon (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note Regardless of motive, I think RS have made it pretty clear that a woman who is also a man and shoots up a school that is also a church is a "sufficiently interesting" type of shooter, at least compared to a simple terrorist who shoots women anywhere mostly because he's a man with a political preference for men. Even if you just think of her as a woman who shot someone else's children, that's pretty unusual. But yeah, viewed purely in terms of an American with a gun and inclusive death toll, he or she doesn't stand out. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

March 26

(Closed) The Boat Race

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.

• Nominated by Whizz40 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by InedibleHulk (talk · give credit)

• Oppose on quality. The Boat Race 2023 is the appropriate article - needs fixing up like in prior years. Lee Vilenski 18:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsurprised that the article is of far lesser quality than previous years, since it's since been removed from ITN/R. Well done, everyone. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, it's not just that, it's the relentless hatred that's stopped me bothering. Fuck it, why bother? The ex-colonials win and the encyclopedia loses. Standard stuff these days. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If this article was of the quality of previous years, I would have supported, not that it would help with the below. I do think the arguments of ITN being only suitable for surprising things that aren't scheduled events to be reasonably blind that almost everything outside of an act of God is scheduled, and something being "amateur" or "niche" isn't of itself not culturally relevant. If you do want to fix it up, or just want someone to update the item, drop me a line. Lee Vilenski 19:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on significance. A minor event with limited international coverage. nableezy - 19:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Amateur competition with only two entrants, little public interest, and all the other significance issues that were raised in the recent discussion on WT:ITN. Modest Genius 19:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not being on ITBR does not exclude a topic from being discussed as its ITNC entry. Masem (t) 19:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am well aware of that. I specifically referred to the significance concerns that were discussed there, not the outcome (delisting). Many of those arguments also apply to an individual nomination. Modest Genius 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Very true, albeit I believe he meant that his oppose is based off the same significance reasons given to remove it from ITNR (as opposed to arguing it shouldn’t be posted because it was removed). The Kip (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose MVP Jasper Parish doesn't have an article, much less a suitable picture, and Jasper Parrish is awful. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Have you tried writing relevant comments with your !votes? GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  It is relevant. When we post a sport, we usually post someone's picture and both sources agree he's the hero here (though not "MVP", exactly). He's also not mentioned at the target article. If that's not reason enough, its latest source is from 2016. Retrieved then, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nableezy. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nableezy. The Kip (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Are we happy now? Did we somehow improve the English-language Misplaced Pages by doing this? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  To be frank, it seems like the entire reason this was on ITN/R at all was to appease some disgruntled old hand. The main page should not be held hostage by vested contributors, and yes I think not featuring unimportant crap like a rowing race between two and only two universities on the main page is improving Misplaced Pages. nableezy - 19:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  To be frank, seems like you're full of hatred against a 200-year institution which is broadcast around the globe. The main page was never "held hostage" (emotive language, typical of people like you), I always produced top quality material for ITN. You fucked it all up for a large number of people, so well done you. Applause. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wee bit childish, innit. But hatred would imply I give a shit. Hint, I dont. nableezy - 19:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Despite what you may believe about its significance, it still receives absolutely minimal media coverage; having googled it, literally the only non-UK-based source reporting on the race or its results is the Olympics/IOC. Arguing for it to be kept, as a limited-coverage event between two and only two colleges, is effectively akin to arguing for us to post the result of Michigan versus Ohio State every year, which obviously should not be posted (and British editors would certainly be opposed to). The wider, not-just-British consensus was that it doesn’t meet ITNR’s standards for inclusion, and the consensus here seems to be that it doesn’t meet ITNC’s either; you can either accept the consensus of the English-language (not just English!) Misplaced Pages, or continue to be a sore loser of sorts as your comments are indicating. The Kip (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Article is far too brief at this stage. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• The way this process has played out is sad. Just very, very sad. An ugly vendetta has spilled out into open view on ITN/C and completely poisoned the well. I think there is plenty of shame to go around for all of us. Can we just close this before it gets worse. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Theres only one person showing any type of vendetta here, but apparently its just the ex-colonists (imagine thinking being a colonizer is a good thing lol) lashing out. There is exactly one person acting like a child here. Guess who it is. nableezy - 20:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody appears rosy here, and I certainly find it depressing that you indirectly referred to an editor's long-time work as unimportant crap. I ask again the same question posed by Muboshgu: How have we improved the encyclopedia through this rabid and toxic bickering? ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  The Boat Race is unimportant crap. The articles are lovely. They can still be on the main page as DYK and FA when they make GA and FA. They just dont belong "In The News" because the news (worldwide) largely ignores it as unimportant. Asked and answered on the question. But the only toxicity is coming from one person here. One person you seem disinclined to say anything about. nableezy - 20:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you show a little sensitivity and civility here? 331dot (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure if Im not called an ex-colonial who fucked it all up for a large number of people. Strange sliding scale you have for civility. And why does this need sensitivity? Compared to things like this I think Im a paragon of sensitivity and civility. But theres that sliding scale I guess. nableezy - 20:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• That this was removed from ITNR kinda shows ITN has lost its way and purpose. The vitriol here doesn't help. The article involved might have gotten more work and attention had there been a willingness to post it, as it has previously. Does that help the encyclopedia? If you want Michigan v Ohio State posted, nominate it and tell us why. Neither Michigan or Ohio State is as old as Cambridge and Oxford, but maybe we've missed something. This longtime race watched live by hundreds of thousands and on TV by millions between two ancient universities is important to some, even if others don't think so. We should be thinking about readers here and we're not. Sorry to digress but, that's my two cents. And I do support this on the merits. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  If I can pay attention and update the article, having no interest in the race and taking vitriol, anyone can. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality. Noah 20:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I recommend removing this nomination until the article has been improved further. When it is more complete it could be renominated. Please do not be deterred by the negativism in this thread, of which there is sadly too much. Last year's Boat Race article became featured. This one could be featured too, and appear on the home page through that alternative, if not through the News. Jehochman 20:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the above - User:Editor 5426387 (talk) 20;50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: María Kodama

• Nominated by BorgQueen (talk · give credit)

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

RD: Oladipo Diya

• Nominated by Ammarpad (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Nigerian military officer; article needs some more update – Ammarpad (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Innocent (actor)

• Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Innocent Vareed Thekkethala an actor and Indian MP . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

March 25

RD: Nick Lloyd Webber

• Nominated by Ollieisanerd (talk · give credit)
• Created by Howard352 (talk · give credit)

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

(Posted) RD: Frank LeMaster

• Updated and nominated by BeanieFan11 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: First reported by the Eagles on March 25, although he died on March 23. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Article seems OK. Alex-h (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer 04:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2023 New South Wales state election

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.

• Nominated by Thiscouldbeauser (talk · give credit)

• Oppose We don't post subnational elections, and don't post elections to Ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Mub XxLuckyCxX (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Good faith nom but we don't typically post sub-national elections This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• A small but I think reasonable request: Can we please wait for more than a bloody hour before SNOW closing a nomination, especially if it has only garnered three !votes? --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• I suppose so, but considering it was three quick opposes on an item that would already be highly unlikely to post considering precedence, in my opinion it was justified. The Kip (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think that's a reasonable request at all. WP:SNOW is dominating. We've had a long-standing rule not to post the elections of individual states within a federation unless there's a very good reason. Now, I'd like to see that rule loosened somewhat, but if we started posting every subnational election, that's all ITN would ever be. --Rockstone 22:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• God damnit, I didn't say post every bloody subnational election (and no, we don't have a "long-standing rule"), please do not insinuate that was what I meant. I said can we not SNOW close good-faith nominations within an hour. I thought we were collectively going to try and steer away from making ITN/C a walled garden culture. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: Protests in Israel

• Nominated by Son Of The Desert (talk · give credit)

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

Compared to the current French ones, where the number of protestors have been near a million, the numbers here are far less significant. I realize recent changes may cause these to grow. However, I would point out the same issue that most of our protest articles start as: a pure timeline without a significant background section and larger narrative section is not very helpful to readers. Masem (t) 19:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

As a proportion of the population I wouldnt say that this is less significant. nableezy - 19:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

A bit late, but with ~700,000 Israeli protesters (7-8% of the population) it’s hard to say so. Juxlos (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support This is a huge deal with serious implications for Israel's long term politics and constitutional order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - this was nominated before last month, but it was dismissed as "politics as usual." This is anything but: this can have immense ramifications for Israeli politics and can change the very structure of the country's government. Additionally, @Masem's point regarding the French protests is misleading; 1.5% of France is protesting, and with these protests, as many as nearly 3% have been protesting in Israel. The comparison is not apt. However, I will agree with you @Masem in that it should be expanded into more of an article of proper prose. Crusader1096 (message) 23:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support once expanded per Knightoftheswords281. DecafPotato (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. They've been going long enough at a large enough scale to merit an ongoing event. The Kip (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support agreed with all above. It also seems these protests won't be ending any time in the near future, or at least the month. Daneellis114 03:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - Per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, especially with news of Netanyahu firing Israel's defense minister. This will only escalate from here. Blade Jogger 2049 18:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Post-posting comment Given what has happened over the weekend in Israel, I really think that 1) this needs to be a blurb along the style of "Mass protest arise in Israel after Netanyahu fires its defense minister." and 2) the article needs to be more in depth about what is happening in the govt instead of just covering the protests. eg 2023 Israeli judicial reform and these protests should be in the same article since their timelines go hand in hand. --Masem (t) 03:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Concur with Masem, I think this could have made a lot of sense as a blurb with consideration for subsequent Ongoing after time as a blurb. Spencer 04:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Agree blurb over ongoing, something like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu postpones consideration of judicial overhaul in the wake of mass protests, nableezy - 05:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support blurb. In light of recent developments, I would also support a blurb with a subsequent drop-off to ongoing. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 21:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Asteroid 2023 DZ2

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.

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Created by Starcluster (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Kheider (talk · give credit)

• Oppose no significant impact, not visible without good telescopes, etc. Yes, we do need to be aware of the importance of tracking objects that may hit earth, but close misses are not really good ITN stories, since we generally do not post on "what ifs" --Masem (t) 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  It is a once a decade close approach by an object this large and (other than Apophis in 2029) these things are never visible without a telescope. -- Kheider (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Apophis will be visible without a telescope IIRC. I think when it does pass by Earth we should post it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Suppose near-misses happen frequently. Fdfexoex (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• AFD. Article seems to fail WP:NASTRO. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Google 2023 DZ2 and look at the news tab instead of assuming. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  No you. Reaffirming my suggestion to send to AFD. Close passes like this aren't all that infrequent, and a flurry of sensationalist headlines every time there's one doesn't really add up to GNG for the object in question. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  How exactly does this fail WP:NASTRO? Seems to fulfil clause IV. Crusader1096 (message) 23:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Are we looking at the same #4: "The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the use of astrophotography or automated technology.", because that's definitely not fulfilled. The NASTRO fail seems pretty clear...the place where there's some room for disagreement is GNG, but I still feel that it's not satisfied. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Three not smaller* objects got this close or closer since the start of a campaign 25 years ago, to stop missing ones from systemic bias (looking where it's easier to discover an asteroid). *size is how big it'd be if it was the most likely shade of gray cause its light reflection efficiency isn't known beyond "most asteroids are between 5 and 25%". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  If you think it should be AfD'd, feel free to bring it there. DecafPotato (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair, an IP technically can’t create an AFD without an (autoconfirmed?) editor to finish the process. Courcelles (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - per @Masem. Crusader1096 (message) 23:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem. The Kip (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - NEO passes happen a lot, obviously didn't hit anything, no real reason why we should post it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Masem. Alex-h (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Einstein problem

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.

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Updated by David Eppstein (talk · give credit) and Tompw (talk · give credit)

• Comment Shouldn't "Einstein" be lowercase? DFlhb (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done, thanks. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - As I mentioned on the main ITN talk page, the discovery is currently only in pre-print, so I don't know that it's been appropriately reviewed. And neither of the two proposed target articles is in good shape. Aperiodic tiling doesn't even link to Einstein problem, even though the latter is clearly about the former. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Science News reports that "While the paper has yet to be peer-reviewed, the experts interviewed for this article agree that the result seems likely to hold up to detailed scrutiny." Formal publication might take months or years and, by then, the result will be well known and the news will be stale. This therefore seems the best window for us to share this development. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

That's helpful, thank you. If the articles can be improved, I would be inclined to reverse my position. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

We always wait on the publication of a peer-reviewed paper for ITN. Masem (t) 15:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No, we don't. Just about nothing that appears at ITN is based on a peer-reviewed paper that has been through the ponderous process of academic publishing. Instead, most stories are based on news reports and press releases. For example, see the Afghan earthquake which has just been posted. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

For all scientific and medical-based stories (this is one), we expect a peer-reviewed source per SCIRS and MEDRS. Newspapers and the general media are not experts to be able to judge if the results are valid. Masem (t) 18:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the details of a recent earthquake, such as its magnitude, are a scientific matter – that science is seismology. The same applies to other occurrences such as weather (meteorology), space (astronomy and astrophysics), &c. Just about everything is covered in some way by academia but we do not require peer-reviewed papers. What we require is that it's in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a bit of a difference between the occurrence of a massive natural disaster (reported by mainstream news, with immediate and up-to-date facts) and the solving of a long-standing math problem (which still requires peer-review to confirm). The Kip (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The key difference is that insisting on a different level of sourcing for mathematics introduces an arbitrary and systemic bias. It accentuates ITN's tendency to run topics which are recurring, repetitive and routine while shutting out those which are actually new. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope, given how math proofs can generally be easily verified by other skilled mathematicians, compared to other scientific fields where the peer-review has to be based on an assessment of the data quality and methods used rather than recreation, expecting a peer-reviewed source for a mathematics proof is absolutely reasonable and within expectations.

Now, in a case like this, where the result is an interesting result but one with little practical application, as opposed to demonstrating, hypothetically, that NP-hard problems can be solved in P-time which would have massive impacts on computing technology, that the news is reporting it prior to a peer-review shows that its more a curiosity than a groundbreaking discovery. So we're not creating a bias here. Masem (t) 13:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's look at the evidence and do the math. There's 10 nominations at WP:ITN/C currently which are STEM in some way. The only ones which have been posted are those which feature some deaths - the earthquake and tornado. So, that's all that matters in practise. But the trouble is that "if it bleeds, it leads" is a journalistic, tabloid sensibility. ITN is posting sensational stories and snubbing science. That's systemic bias. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - It may take a while, but peer review exists for a reason. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Question Is this actually... important? I've read the target articles and sources, and while the problem has existed for a long time and might have applications in material sciences, I'm not convinced (but could be!) this really matters all that much. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Was the proof that pi has infinite digits important? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This is material suitable to DYK, not ITN as its not a major scientific breakthrough. --Masem (t) 15:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Per @Masem. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Masem. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Infinite support outweighs any finite number of opposes.Fdfexoex (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  An editor can still express uncountably infinite opposition below, which would outweigh your relatively small support :) Son Of The Desert (Talk) 19:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, maybe not as important as a darts tournament or a storm, but I think that a solution to a half century problem deserves to be posted. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem and Genevieve. The Kip (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

(posted) RD: Gordon Moore

• Nominated by ElijahPepe (talk · give credit)

 elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, article is relatively short but very well sourced. DFlhb (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support I see just a couple statements that could use citations but this is well sourced for a bio. --Masem (t) 02:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Moore is a very influential person in the field of computer science, and in fact has a whole "law" of Computer Science named after him (Moore's law). RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• support blurb obviously. Household name due to the law 5.44.170.26 (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• I definitely wouldn't consider this to be an obvious blurb. Gordon Moore is not a name that everyone would know (i.e. not really a household name), and I doubt the average person has heard of Moore's law either. A highly influential businessman and engineer, who co-founded and oversaw a company that could stake a legitimate claim to having changed the world, but I feel like blurbs are generally reserved for individuals who are known to pretty near everyone. Kurtis 10:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• I'd support a blurb; Steve Jobs had one when he died, and I'd say Moore was just as significant if not more. DFlhb (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• The difference is that Steve Jobs was a household name—everyone knew who he was. Gordon Moore is certainly a major figure in electronics engineering (indeed, I argue above that Moore flat-out changed the world) but he doesn't have the same name recognition. Kurtis 18:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb - Sadly, Moore was definitely not a household name. There's an issue of small sample sizes here - Misplaced Pages editors are vastly disproportionately likely to have heard of him. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Lead is sparse.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Posting. The lead the is sparse but still works. --Tone 09:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, it was borderline of when I'd apply the orange {{Lead too short}}.—Bagumba (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Support RD, Oppose blurb - Notable figure, but not enough to warrant a blurb.

I feel like we need an ITN/R for recent deaths, so we can figure out who is notable enough for a blurb and who isn't. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Call it ITN/BD for blurbable deaths and put Gene Hackman and William Shatner on the list. Fdfexoex (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit of a morbid subject, but yes I think we should probably post them when they die (hopefully later rather than sooner). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Creating such a list would be impossible. When examining those recent deaths that do occur and determining whether they are eligible for a blurb, one of the factors that comes into play is the suddenness or unexpectedness of the death. For example, if the currently-serving head of state of a country dropped dead tomorrow, this would or should prompt a blurb (notwithstanding those editors who have their own personal criteria that exclude all but the most transcendent people from receiving blurbs). As a famous figure becomes older and gains distance from the apex of their career, it becomes more difficult to justify them having a blurb. The list would need to be changing constantly in order to reflect the reality of the current consensus. I don't think anyone would be up to the task. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll also note that whether to blurb a recent death depends, for some of us, on the extent to which their article is updated, following their death. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Seems to have posted with missing citations. Premature post. Would not recommend a pull though. Instead someone knowledgeable and who has the ability to, should go in and fix the article. I am out today. Ktin (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see where citations are missing from the time of your comment —Bagumba (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have added tags for your benefit. Please see. Also, if you are helping edit the article, please see if you can fix some of the WP:PROSELINE issues. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Still seems to meet WP:ITNQUALITY: Articles should be well referenced; one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, but any contentious statements must have a source, and having entire sections without any sources is unacceptable. —Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have resolved the tags now. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

March 24

Pennsylvania chocolate factory explosion

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Jennytacular (talk · give credit)

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

• Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  A mass casualty explosion at a factory in a first world country is "not notable?" - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 13:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose for different reasons. I honestly don't think that this is "in the news". As you yourself mentioned "High casualty event that surprisingly went under my radar (did anyone else hear about this? I legit just learned about this today)." so this really isn't in the news. Heck, even I rarely heard anything about it. It is definitely unusual though so my mind could change. Though I will say, the I don't like the comment "A mass casualty explosion at a factory in a first world country is 'not notable?'" kind of implies that if it happened in a third world country the overall impact would be "lesser". Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the impact is more pronounced given that that industrial catastrophes of this scale typically occur in third world countries with more lax building regulations, etc. Not saying its inherently less important, but to be honest, if someone stated that a factory blew up, resulting in seven dead and ten injuries, without prior context, I personally would assume it to be a third world country.

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

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

• Nominated by Teemu08 (talk · give credit)

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

• Support - Currently the top headline on the BBC (as seen from the UK). GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support given the scale of the devastation. Rest in Peace to the victims. --Rockstone 14:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - WP:MINIMUMDEATHS does not exist, but we historically have tended to post disasters of this magnitude, with this high of a death toll being a major contributing factor.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support with different image This is a very notable and tragic tornado outbreak notable enough for ITN. However, I feel like the image may not make sense to people not into meteorology. Maybe an image like Late March 2023 Tornado Outbreak 2023-03-25 1406Z.jpg (showing satellite imagery of the outbreak) or Rolling Fork, Mississippi tornado.jpg (showing the 19 deaths tornado) would be better. Infinity (talk - contributions) 15:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Crossed out the latter image (one currently used) as it is being marked for deletion. Infinity (talk - contributions) 23:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Article seems to be of good quality. Highly visible and "in the news" tragedy. Kafoxe (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - per above. RIP. Also, support @RandomInfinity17's calls for the other image to be used, with the blurb acknowledging that the picture shows the wider tornado system. Crusader1096 (message) 16:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. There appears to be a dissonance between the fatality number reported in multiple sections of the article. The Rolling Fork-Silver City tornado section mentions the fatality number as both 19 and 23, while two more are added for Amory. I believe we should rectify this before ITN posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support As per above. The article is in good shape. --Maxxies (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support

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

• Support, notable tornado outbreak, and as per above. That was a really catastrophic tornado hitting Rolling Fork, Silver City and Amory, worst I've seen ever. Tails Wx 17:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly an extreme and deadly weather event with major media coverage. Article appears to be in decent shape. Jusdafax (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support—It’s not like highly destructive tornado outbreaks in the American South and Midwest are uncommon, but a death toll of 23 people does seem exceptional to me. Kurtis 18:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Article looks ready to be posted; I saw no {cn} tags in it. This is also an exceptionally catastrophic tornado outbreak which is receiving national and international news coverage. And as reflected in the article's title now, I fear that we have not yet seen the end of this particular tornado outbreak. Vida0007 (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The casualties now include at least two dead from Alabama. Perhaps the blurb could be changed to something like "in the Southern United States, including the states of Mississippi and Alabama."? Kafoxe (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Done. Heythereimaguy (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

    I would be fine with just "in the Southern United States", because that's what the article says. DecafPotato (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Support: unfortunate but important. Article seems ready –lomrjyo 01:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: The image associated with this nomination does not have copyright information associated with it, and it is NOT free for use. This needs to be changed before publishing. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would do Late March 2023 Tornado Outbreak 2023-03-25 1406Z.jpg, satellite imagery of the outbreak on March 25. Infinity (talk - contributions) 02:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  We really need to fix this immediately. That image absolutely should not be used, it's not free. Planet specifically says on their website

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

  I'm not sure if the press piece applies, I saw it widely shared on social media but not by anyone associated with Planet. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I support using this image as a replacement for the Planet imagery now that it's been removed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Can this be posted? It's been up for nearly 24 hours with unanimous support. --Rockstone 06:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Posting. I'll write 25 as per article. --Tone 08:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment at a glance, the vast majority of fatalities were caused by a single tornado. Should that one specifically get its own? Juxlos (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Epeli Ganilau

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Notable Fijian political figure. Article is lengthy and extensive, but is unfortunately basically unsourced. I'll try my best to remedy it. Crusader1096 (message) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jean-Jacques Favier

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: German-French astronaut who flew for NASA. Article needs work however. Crusader1096 (message) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

March 23

RD: Jerry Green (writer)

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

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

IAAF bans trans athletes

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

Except that it is considered a temporary measure until they debate how to handle trans athletes further, and currently has zero effects on competing athletes. Masem (t) 00:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see any update to the bolded article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Temporary decision, article isn't of sufficient quality. I can see the notability, but how does this actually affect most sports in the world? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Terran 1 launch

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Chlod (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: WP:ITN/R includes "The first and last launches of any type of rocket". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'll reiterate my frequent refrain that space exploration is poorly suited to ITN/R, as we will inevitably find ourselves parsing whether what the thing did matches the wording of the guideline. That said, I cannot even tell what the thing did at this stage, so Wait for article to be fleshed out. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• I am open to an article like this for ITN, and this could be the humble start of quite cheaply produced rocketry! But it's not a particularly big-impact mission as it stands, nor is it particularly promising just yet. If the article were a solid B-class with a lot of detail, I would be happy to see it featured, but right now it doesn't feel ready for the front page. Waiting until a rocket by this team reaches orbit might be more helpful for our project, but I can already see that being mass-opposed when the time comes... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  The article hasn't been expanded since the nomination, so I feel like Oppose, as the article doesn't feel particularly ready for a prominent feature on the front page. I'd rather wait for a successful launch, with the hope that the article will be more impressive at that time. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Definitely a first for a printjob, maybe the last of the Terrans, update reasonably complete. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support Sure...article does need expansion, but this is ITN/R. I don't know, honestly. Cheers. WimePocy 13:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support for ITN/R reasons. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Comment While this is a very interesting news, I don't think it is ITN-worthy at this time. I would prefer to wait until they have a successful launch. Otherwise, this could be perceived as promoting indirectly someone's business.--Maxxies (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The current ITN/R guidelines state that the first launch of any rocket, whether successful or unsuccessful, automatically satisfies the notability requirement for an item. If you would like to propose a change in those guidelines, you are invited to do so at WT:ITN.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. Maxxies (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

We have (very rarely) IAR'd to not post something ITNR in the past, including one instance a few months ago. Curbon7 (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Which was? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sagittarian Milky Way, I think it was another rocket launch, if I recall correctly. I don't remember which or exactly when. Curbon7 (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Reluctant Support. Article is fine. No way notable enough in general, but ITN/R wins again. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I've occasionally wondered if an engineering student firing a sounding rocket made of polydiketoenamine past the Karman Line would count as an ITN/R launch. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, if this thought can to mind, perhaps we should consider going to try for a discussion at WT:ITN? TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage it, I'd open it myself except I'm not confident in my argumentative ability. The Kip (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, I opened it up. WT:ITN. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Weak support - the fact that its 3D printed makes it somewhat notable in that regard IMO. Crusader1096 (message) 18:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• IAR Oppose – Yes, it's ITN/R, but it feels like only by a technicality, and doesn't have the significance to actually be on ITN. DecafPotato (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Not notable enough. Noah 20:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment IAR opposes really need to be an overwhelming consensus (somewhere in the range of 95%) in order to be considered sufficient to bar an ITN/R item from posting. In other words, it has to be something that contravenes the spirit of the ITN/R criterion if not the letter. In addition, straight-up vote-votes like "not notable" are about as helpful to a posting admin as no rationale at all. Really, the best place to make a case is on WT:ITN, where this is already being discussed. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  A support !vote specifically saying that they disagree that it should be posted but reluctantly support because of its ITN/R status are a very strong case for how this shouldn't be posted. And like I said, I feel as though this is only ITN/R by a technicality without any established significance, which, in my opinion, contravenes the spirit of the ITN/R criterion if not the letter. DecafPotato (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Strongly support the story, but wait until orbit - ITN/R, my guys. And as for the legitimacy of this being ITN/R, I think it's

a. Good to have positive, diverse stories to post

b. This is the first flight of a new orbital rocket by a new company, which alone is quite notable, especially considering the massively growing significance of the space industry on our every day lives

c. 3D printing technology pushed to a new extreme, which only adds to the notability.

Unfortunately, I don't think it should be posted until a successful orbital launch, which will probably be soon. I feel like ITN/R should be updated to say that only successful orbital launches be notable (though one near-future exception to this could be the maiden launch of SpaceX Starship, if it ends in failure). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support since this is in ITNR. Also, I watched it from my university's parking garage last night, and witnessed the 2nd stage fail to ignite, so that was interesting. --Rockstone 21:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Despite the second-stage failure, this first-ever of its kind 3-D printed launch is notable and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• IAR Oppose - The use of 3D printing as a novel fabrication technique seems to be popular as way of trying to boost the significance of otherwise small-scale developments, and this is a striking example of that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Umm... to 3D-print almost an entire fracking rocket is no small-scale development, hence support. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I am quite surprised an administrator has not posted this yet. I know I'm echoing LaserLegs from long ago who got similarly angry about a nomination for Blue Origin, but that nomination was even more clear-cut that the event was not to be posted. Are admins waiting for the resolution of the discussion on WT:ITN? --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Given that the WT:ITN discussion seems to be leaning towards 'remove from ITN/R', the "support since this is ITN/R" !votes likely won't have much weight. DecafPotato (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  If true, this should be a damn effective tactic going forward. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see why the manufacturing technique is important here. Otherwise it's an entirely unremarkable launch, by one of dozens of commercial providers who have entered the field in the last decade. Modest Genius 19:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Previously, such aerospace vehicles were hand-crafted which is quite labour-intensive. The 3D printing process makes manufacture more automated and mechanical, lowering costs significantly. It enables construction of complex geometries such as cooling arrays for nozzles and these can be redesigned and iterated much more easily. It also simplifies the supply chain by bringing more of the construction in house. As it's quite a radical change in the way such vehicles are built, passing the stress test of max q was an important validation of it. To characterise this as just another launch is to completely miss the point. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

March 22

(Posted) RD: Lucy Salani

• Nominated by Oltrepier (talk · give credit)
• Updated by KamillaŚ (talk · give credit), Oltrepier (talk · give credit), WanderingWanda (talk · give credit) and Robby.is.on (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: She was the only Italian transgender person that survived Nazi concentration camps. I should note that she actually passed away on 22 March. Also, I would like to thank everyone who helped clean this article up, and especially KamillaŚ, who translated it from it.wiki in the first place. --Oltrepier (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support: I was just nominating it myself! Looks to be in good shaped. Note: moved to the 22nd bc her death was announced hen as well. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - article appears to be in good order. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - article looks good. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer 04:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Kéné Ndoye

• Nominated by Rushtheeditor (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: death was reported recently in some english-language reports. Rushtheeditor (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

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

(Posted) 2022 Turing Award

• Nominated by Joofjoof (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Just announced, so articles are still being updated. Joofjoof (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment That should be just Ethernet not "the Ethernet" as it's a family of protocols, not a particular network. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Metcalfe's article needs a lot of sourcing work. --Masem (t) 12:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Striking out the second 'the' in the blurb per Andrew's comment. Cheers. WimePocy 11:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Metcalfe's article still needs a good amount of work, but the Ethernet article looks good so I'm excited to see this featured once BLP guidelines are met. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Not ready. Unfortunately there's an orange tag on the article, which seems to be justified. It's mostly stuff that should be easy enough to source though, just needs a bit more work. Modest Genius 19:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Joofjoof has fixed the citation issues and I've just done a light copyedit. Seems good enough to post now. Modest Genius 18:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 01:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 Abel prize

 Fdfexoex (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

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

References

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

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

• Misplaced Pages In the news
• Main Page discussions
• Current events