Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) at 09:26, 7 May 2023 (→2023 Allen Texas outlet mall shooting: agree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 180,000 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

May 7

2023 Allen Texas outlet mall shooting

• Nominated by Twistedaxe (talk · give credit)

 Twistedaxe (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose routine event, no expectations of long-term consequences. That time of the week again in the States, I suppose. Juxlos (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose routine event. Not even the first mass shooting in Texas this week. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - we'd post this if it happened elsewhere. --Rockstone 09:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, we'd post it if it didn't happen in a country which has had 196 mass shootings already in 2023. And it's only May. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

May 6

RD: Newton N. Minow

• Nominated by Sunshineisles2 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Nohomersryan (talk · give credit), Strattonsmith (talk · give credit) and Ldavid1985 (talk · give credit)

 Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

149th Kentucky Derby

• Nominated by PCN02WPS (talk · give credit)

 PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not ready Article needs major expansion. The Kip (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Changed to "not ready" as it's probably a better descriptor of my vote, considering it's an ITNR item. The Kip (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Unwilling support It's ITN/R, Lord only knows why This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Because it's the most famous animal race in America. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not Ready per The Kip. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support ITN/R means unquestionably notable. See no major issue with article quality. --Pithon314 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  There's no prose summary of the race itself and/or aftermath, just the lead-up and a table. The Kip (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Habib Chaab

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Vivina3290 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by 2600:8802:b0d:7700:6437:6a26:4791:e316 (talk · give credit), Sunfyre (talk · give credit) and Officialpayamfazli (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Iranian-Swedish man who was accused of orchestrating a deadly 2018 attack on a military parade in Ahvaz, Iran. He was executed today. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 19:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Article is currently a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Nabeesa Ummal

• Nominated by Fahads1982 (talk · give credit)

 Fahads1982 (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Article is well cited and of good enough quality for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support length and quality is sufficient. Juxlos (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

• Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
• Created by PogingJuan (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Happening later today. Will receive worldwide coverage. Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. We already posted Charles ascension as King, we shouldn't post his coronation as well - similar to how we posted Biden's election as President, but we didn't post his inauguration. BilledMammal (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Charles III already started serving as the De Facto King since September, we're just posting old news. Editor 5426387 (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I was wondering if someone was going to nominate this. We don't post inaugurations, and that's when the power actually is transferred. This is actually less than an inauguration, as the power transferred to him when he ascended to the throne. -- Rockstone 06:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• You say that "we don't post inaugurations", but there's no policy or guideline to support that. It sounds like a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that can be overruled at any time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support – This is in the news more than usual presidential inaugurations (because of its ceremonial and historic nature), and has been receiving wide coverage for weeks and will likely see constant coverage for this weekend. DecafPotato (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• ...The Presidential inauguration was also in the news everywhere. --Rockstone 06:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't see the whole weekend of constant coverage this is poised to get, nor the dedicated sections to news about the coronation on websites like Reuters and BBC – there's a difference between being in the international news (which for the inauguration, assuming you're talking about Biden's, was certainly helped by January 6 in terms of coverage, and is not representative of all inaugurations) and being stuck to the front page of international news for weeks. DecafPotato (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Once this is done, I highly doubt this will be in the international news at all. I've no idea what it's like elsewhere, but here in the US, it wasn't front page news at all (until now, but that's because it's actually happening). --Rockstone 06:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Of course it hasn't been in the news in the US. You've not had a monarch since 1776! Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral On one end, it is likely going to be (at least in the Anglosphere) one of the biggest events of the year. On the other hand, it is a relic of the past, the last hurrah of a dying (or dead) empire. Curbon7 (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  There is no indication that this is a "last hurrah" for the British monarchy...that seems like WP:CRYSTALBALL material. DecafPotato (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Respectfully, you missed my point. The monarchy is probably fine anyways. Curbon7 (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Based on what you've written here it sounds like a support would be in order. "One of the biggest events of the year for the entire anglosphere" demonstrates significance, "a last hurrah" (if it were true, which is impossible to say) demonstrates lasting impact. Flyingfishee (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm finding the oppose arguments much more convincing than the support arguments, particularly it's all pomp and no circumstance and that it's entertainment trivia with no manifested significance. Curbon7 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Weak support I've been mulling this over, and I suppose the article being high-quality is what pushes this over the edge for me. I think comparisons to presidential inaugurations are in-good-faith, but I think there is a difference in time-scale, and the "first in seventy years" schick works for me. I will be opposing William's whenever that comes, but that's beyond the point. Curbon7 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support as this is obviously very significant, and front page news around the world. Those opposing this should seriously considering whether any biases or pre-disposed opinions they might have are obscuring their view of what counts as ITN. That being said it doesn't happen for a few hours so I think it would be best to wait until the coronation actually happens before posting. Flyingfishee (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• We've already established that we don't post inaugurations, even though they also generate headline news. I don't see how a coronation that is nothing but a formality and actually has no effect in law (as he has been king since September!) is any different. -- Rockstone 07:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Why do we post sporting events then if they don't have any effect in law and instead are just spectacles watched by millions? Flyingfishee (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Article is in great shape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support This is obviously today's big story – it is, for example, already the lead article in the NYT, which has more articles about it too. The other sections of the main page are running relevant items and so, if ITN snubs the event, it will mainly make this section look incompetent and irrelevant. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Why is Misplaced Pages UKPedia? -- Rockstone 08:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Because it has the good taste not to feature yet another predictable spree killing? Ericoides (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  The NYT is an American newspaper, not a UK one. On a personal note, I walked around the scene yesterday and then wound up with beer in St Stephen's Tavern. We had a pleasant chat with some other patrons including a lady from the Philippines, who was pleased to have seen her President there, and a party of ladies from Long Island who had made a special trip. It generally seemed to be a good-natured international event. For contrast, see the recent elections which got plenty of news coverage but are more parochial. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  ITN is not a news ticker. We do not expect to mimic what newspapers may cover, we don't care if something is a front page story, or the like. Masem (t) 13:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Biden parallel is quite apt. Just like a US presidential inauguration, this is big headline news, but at present we are not regarded as a news ticker. We posted Charles's accession to the throne, and this event just follows on from that.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is not a "news ticker" type event, it has not been seen for 70 years. It's really not comparable to a US presidential inauguration, which happens on a routine cycle. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. In the news, article is of sufficient quality. Event is going to be watched around the world and the idea that it shouldn't be on the front page because US inaugurations are somehow comparable is asinine and just comes across as sour grapes. The coronation of the head of state for multiple countries internationally is obviously newsworthy and of interest to millions. Even if just purely a ceremonial event. (Hint, the entire monarchy is a ceremonial series of events. It's a ceremonial position.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• It's not an asinine argument. The coronation is not an important event, and this is not UKPedia. -- Rockstone 07:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  1) The Commonwealth realms go beyond just the UK, and 2) Arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful. Almost all news is of greater interest to a particular place and/or group of people than to the world at large, and arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community. DecafPotato (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, but comparing this to an inauguration seems appropriate. -- Rockstone 10:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support mostly because this hasn't happened for a very long period of time, and it's also widely covered in the news and broadcast everywhere. For those comparing it with presidential inaugurations, note that the last time this happened was 70 years ago (almost like the Halley's Comet), when many of us were not even born, whereas presidential inaugurations typically happen every 4-7 years. I'd perhaps oppose this in case monarchs changed fairly frequently and coronations were commonplace (for instance, comparable to the time span between two presidential inaugurations).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Charles is 74; there is a good chance there will be another coronation before we see two more presidential inaugurations. BilledMammal (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  We're discussing the first coronation in 70 years, not the next one that no-one knows when will happen (see WP:CRYSTALBALL).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support An event that is happening after a very long time and which is definitively in the news. And, as mentioned by Andrew, the rest of the Main Page is in on it as well - we should not rest behind. Gotitbro (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Once-in-generations event, attended by heads of states and government dignitaries from all over the world, and huge coverage by the media that have also been running ton of articles and op-eds about the monarchy since last month in anticipation of the main event. StellarHalo (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per BilledMammal. Banedon (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - this is an historic event whether we like it or not. Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - very similar to the inauguration of the US President. It's in the news, but it is merely a formal acknowledgement of a succession that we marked back when it happened. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Strong Support - definitely ITN. It's an important and historic event, first time in 70 years this has happened. It's not just a celebration in the United Kingdom, but throughout the Commonwealth. A comparison between this and a U.S. presidential inauguration just doesn't exist. Estar8806 (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - The UK is the only European country that still uses a coronation and a few in the whole world. The Coronation is probably the bigest event in this year in the Anglosphere. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - entertainment trivia that we already covered when he became king. This is theater not news. nableezy - 10:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - An occassion certainly worthy of note, the first coronation in the United Kindom since 1950s. roketjack (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Support First European (Christian) coronation of a monarch since 1963 and the main news story globally. Quite obviously on a different level than a presidential inauguration. I also note that we blurbed both Obama's election and his inauguration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  This isn’t European Christian pedia, and while itn was a different place 15 years ago, if the British get their first Black king I guess I could support that coronation as that would definitely actually be news. nableezy - 10:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a generally accepted argument at ITNC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Good thing I didnt make an argument like that, as opposed to say somebody saying I dont believe these were elections. Or the WP:ILIKEIT corollary, "it's important for European Christians". nableezy - 11:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think most reasonable people would regard referring to a rarely used thousand-year-old religious rite of investiture as "entertainment" and "theatre," as a specie of I DON'T LIKE IT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think most people say most people when they mean themselves and aim to distract from their own faults. nableezy - 11:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am content to let that comment stand on its own merits and the community can draw their own conclusions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Charles' ascension to the throne was already covered in ITN last year, the coronation is merely a formal ceremony. Redthreadhx (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support sure, the ITN/R part about succession was already covered, but this is certainly a newsworth event in itself. Juxlos (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support First coronation of a British monarch in 70 years, this is a unique event and very different from an American presidential inauguration, which I see other editors making comparisons to. This is a well known event of great religious, political, and historical significance to all the peoples of the Commonwealth and even farther beyond the Anglosphere. Definitely going to be one of the biggest events of the year, if not the biggest, and is clearly worthy of ITN. I need not explain how the event of a coronation obviously has more of an impact than an accession. To all those people who are still insisting that this well-publicised and the most widely anticipated event of the year has little to no significance, think again; Elizabeth's coronation was not only one the biggest events of 1953, it was also one of largest events of the entire 20th century. All the arguments against posting this ultimately sum to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ollieisanerd (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support I believe this to be unique enough compared to a presidential inauguration and as mentioned above, this is considered at the very least in the Anglo-Sphere, one of the biggest events of the year. CaptainGalaxy 11:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Per above. Rushtheeditor (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Accession was already posted. 5.151.106.0 (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose firstly, the amount of royal over-reporting on Misplaced Pages is already baffling and biased towards all things royal. Secondly, have we not learned anything since the mistakes when the previous monarch died? Thirdly, when democratically elected leaders are nominated at ITN for smaller states there's at least half a dozen people saying "this head of state is not important enough"; well certainly a completely ceremonial and an ultimately meaningless role is surely even less notable; the local elections results in England last night frankly have a much bigger impact on the country. Fourthly, no other monarch would have a chance of being nominated this often. Furthermore as per previous comments, we had, death of previous monarch, funeral of previous monarch (with a full reactions, ceremony, and other trivia separate pages as well), ascension of the new monarch, now coronation? It's far too much. Finally we are not a gossip page nor a tabloid, which is basically what the royals are: celebrities, and what they do is not much different to what Hollywood stars, sportspeople and politicians do in their spare time or during PR-stunts, with the exception that that is all they do. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  IIRC, the funeral wasn’t posted to ITN. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  It was added to the initial blurb once it happened as far as I remember, it was definitely nominated again at ITN, regardless though, we still have a whole separate article for it. Regardless of that I remember the entire Misplaced Pages front page being all about it with absolutely nothing else on it. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  it was added to ongoing after I think four support votes. nableezy - 12:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  None of these are valid objections. They're all WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments and don't count toward WP:CONSENSUS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's not like the local elections last night are going to be remembered for generations to come; the coronation definitely shall be. Ollieisanerd (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  You can't dismiss every argument against as "I don't like it" just to suit your own bias; I gave made very coherent arguments none of which are personal opinion. The coronation is actually already being widely ignored by most; so actually its not too different from local elections as "things that happened in England in May 2023". Abcmaxx (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  If it's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then you shouldn't have a problem identifying the policies and guidelines that you were referencing with these arguments. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sure: WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EXCESSDETAIL, WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:ITNSIGNIF re number of articles about said event, WP:SENSATIONAL, WP:BIAS Abcmaxx (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you're invoking WP:NOTNEWS or WP:SENSATIONAL, then you're saying that Coronation of Charles III and Camilla is a news story that lacks WP:NOTABILITY and should be deleted; if that's the case, nominate it at AfD. WP:EXCESSDETAIL is about article size and has nothing to do with this. Accusations of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:ADVOCACY are serious and I recommend you bring evidence before casting aspersions at the nominator. WP:BIAS and WP:ITNSIGNIF are not policies or guidelines and cannot be enforced as if they were. You have no policy basis for your arguments, they're just your personal opinions about why you don't want it posted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  To quote WP:ITNSIGNIF: "Arguments based on personal interest and knowledge are rarely sufficient to generate agreement among the community - interest in the royals is equivalent to fandom, the same reasons we don't post which celebrity attended which gala or which footballer moved to which club. Same applies to "Arguments addressing how many international newspapers/news channels are or are not covering the story on their front page or main webpage". Misplaced Pages isn't a British monarchist webpage, it's an encyclopedia, and shouldn't be turned into one. I don't see the whole page being dedicated to Leicester City when they won the Premier League for the first time in 133 years, and that was an ITN/R event. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  ITNSIGNIF is not a policy or guideline, it was not created through the WP:PROPOSAL process, and it has no authority over the main page. Even so, it's quite a stretch to say that we can't include certain types of historical events on ITN because they have a "fandom". You personally might consider it trivial or unimportant, but that means bugger all when considering Misplaced Pages policy. Again, if you think there's a policy-based reason why it's non-notable, then nominate it for deletion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I really hope I'm misunderstanding you, because it seems like you're saying to disregard WP:ITN because it isn't a formal P&G. Curbon7 (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and maybe WP:PROJPAGE. A group of editors in one corner of a project cannot come up with their own set of rules independent of P&G. The suggestions at ITN have no more weight than a user essay. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Obviously. Huge ceremonial event cared about by hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people. Head of state of multiple countries. One of the most 'obvious' nominations of the year. Of course there are small number of people who don't 'get it': that is their choice, but 'I don't like this' is not a valid reason here! 31.21.114.36 (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  The statistics routinely show that only around 15% of people in the UK are "excited about the coronation", so the "millions/billions" of people is simply not true. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Look here for one example . 'Most say they plan to participate in at least one activity surrounding the festivities this weekend ... Just over a third plan to opt out of coronation-related events entirely.'. So a majority in the UK alone. You've admitted elsehwere that you find this 'baffling' and you've compared the Head of State to a celebrity. It's okay that you don't understand it, but a shame you waste your time replying to others trying to spoil this event! 31.21.114.36 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  To emphasise further with foreign outlets. CNN: top story. Wall Street Journal: top story. NBC: top story. New York Times: top story. Le Monde: top story. Die Welt: top story. El Pais: top story. NOS (Netherlands): top story. I know you're out of touch here, so good if you can take a step back and see the bigger picture. It is the world's #1 focus, and that fact that you 'don't like it' changes nothing. :) 31.21.114.36 (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Disingenuous. The CNN title is "Britons’ support for the monarchy is in long-term decline". Head of state only in name, serves no real purpose in terms of executive. Johnny Depp's trial with Amber heard was also top news, as was Messi's transfer to PSG; it's celebrity trivia. Really, without the media circus around the event no-one would even know. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  You're making yourself look really silly now with these comparisons. It might be a good idea to go back to editing something you might know about. 31.21.114.36 (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  WP:CIVIL ah the old "I disagree but can't counter with a coherent argument so you must be stupid" point. I think you find I understand British constitutional matters very well and frequently edit political articles. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Strange then that you claim to understand British constitutional matters very well but then dismiss the head of state as being like Johnny Depp. Anyway, you got it wrong, people on Misplaced Pages (and the world) clearly care, and the article is top of the homepage where it belongs. 31.21.114.36 (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, article is not ready; lead is 100% adulatory. Article is an embarassment. Abductive (reasoning) 11:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm now genuinely curious if you've actually read the article. Flyingfishee (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality The article has a POV tag. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not anymore, so can we expect your "oppose" to change into a "support"? Flyingfishee (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose 1. we already posted succession, 2. it's largely a figurehead, 3. what little power he has already transferred with the succession, 4. we would never even consider this for any other monarchy. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The coronation is purely for ceremonial purposes, he truly ascented to the throne the moment the Queen died and we already posted it.Μιχαήλ Δεληγιάννης (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I have suggested the tag be pulled at the article Talk page. The article is neutral in my view, and the quality is good. Jusdafax (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Andrew and Gotitbro. This is a rare event. Not posting on a technicality (its similarity to a routine presidential inauguration) when its definitely 'in the news' and the rest of the main page has similar content feels inconsistent with ITN's objective. Schwinnspeed (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  That the rest of the main page is taking part in a celebration of something, anything, is the problem for a supposedly "neutral" and worldwide encyclopedia. At least its not the full on orgy of royalism that we saw when the last one died. nableezy - 13:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Not only have we covered the ascension, we have to recognize the royal family has no political power anymore. This is literally pomp and not appropriate for us to cover. --Masem (t) 13:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Also to add: DYK appears to have a number of coronation-related blurbs ready to go. Per Main Page policies, it is not appropriate to have the same topic covered in different sections of the Main Page; thus, we can let the coronation be covered over at DYK. --Masem (t) 13:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

    Huh? This isn't that uncommon for the main page. In fact, 3 sections are related to the monarchy today. We've never not run an ITN item for this reason in the past. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

    Indeed, there's no such policy as it's not just DYK. FA is leading with one of the greatest English kings – Edward I – while FP has the amusingly apposite entry of His Majesty. These sections have been carefully planned and prepared while ITN is otherwise. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

    Exactly, it's honestly embarrassing really. They've planned ahead and organised and we're being held back by the WP:IDONTLIKEIT crowd. Flyingfishee (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support This is the first coronation of a British monarch in almost 70 years, and Charles III is the oldest person to be crowned in British history at 73 years old. Furthermore, for anyone comparing this to a presidential inauguration it's not a good comparison as they happen every four years unless a president serves more than one term. This event is also being covered by news internationally. greyzxq 14:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support as the first English coronation to occur in 70 years, this is inherently notable and significant. The article has been updated and is of high quality, its significance is not that it is an inauguration but, more than that, it is a unique event, the first of its kind to be filmed and streamed live in this manner, to have a coronation concert celebration, to have women in significant roles and also is the oldest monarch to have been crowned. Happily888 (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - it is in the news globally. Shouldn't matter that we posted previous aspects of the same event if this event is equally important/symbolic. Anarchyte (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - The coronation is simply a formality for a ceremonious role. I highly doubt anyone would support a similar news item for ITN if it were say a Saudi or a Japanese King. Maharaja of India (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I think there would of been at the very least a lengthy nomination had there actually been coverage for the events or they had their own articles for such event. CaptainGalaxy 15:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I had a whole lengthy response typed up and then Misplaced Pages lost it. Long story short: Although there's depth of coverage from the celebrity angle, we hardly ever post inaugurations or coronations (we did once with Barack Obama, and people even then thought it was a mistake). WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues aside, the significance and impact of these types of events are relatively muted, because they represent the end-stage of a process which by then has become a fait accompli. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  • @WaltCip: this happens a lot at ITN. A good practice is to quickly copy the text before clicking publish, that was you can quickly paste it next time round if 1st try doesn't work. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

    Yeah, I've been around long enough to know better. I'll do that next time. As an addendum to my previous point, though: It might be easier to get behind the "head of state of multiple realms" argument if the British Empire still retained its former strength and reach, rather than existing as a toenail of what it once was. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support. While this may seem redundant, a British monarch hasn't been crowned in nearly 70 years. Ergo, impact may be little, but this is certainly a widely known and covered event. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Orange-tagged for NPOV issues. Noah 15:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Very much in the news; dedicated whole day coverage in the US for this event even though Charles isn't the monarch. Speaks volumes to how important the media perceives this event to be. Noah 22:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not anymore, so can we expect your "oppose" to change into a "support"? Flyingfishee (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Already to much Anglosphere bias--TheDutchViewer (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I still think this is a phony argument. ITN bends over backwards to ensure that it filters out stories that are amplified due to systemic bias, while also favoring ones from outside the Anglosphere whenever possible. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. Instead of trying to be equally biased towards both sides, it is naturally much better to simply remove the original bias whenever possible. A lesson society in general should learn. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. This meets all the criteria for ITN. The neutrality tag was a red herring and unwarranted. This event is in the news as the leading article in multiple countries worldwide. And it is a historic event that only occurs literally once in a generation (sometimes less with a particularly long-lived monarch) - the last coronation was 70 years ago. The next prominent events for UK royalty will be the next succession events, so it is hardly over-exposure. Death, funeral, coronation. Those are the three key events at every succession, and if they garner widespread news coverage (as all three events here did), and there are articles on them, then it is not unreasonable for them to feature on ITN (the strange thing is that this coronation will appear in all the history books, but some participants in ITN seem to want to put their own spin on history). Carcharoth (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  "some participants in ITN seem to want to put their own spin on history" That's an incredible lack of good faith. This is about mentioning something on the ITN section of Misplaced Pages's main page–nobody is changing history or even suggesting that. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Western bias aside, the event has little to no significance or impact. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Extremely reluctant oppose per the inauguration precedent. A shame, too; people might not know what the theme with TFA and DYK is all about then. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious world significance re Commonwealth participation, rare event, nice orb &c. Inauguration comparisons redundant as held every four years, relatively low-key. Ericoides (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support There is no precedent or correlation between this and a presidential inauguration: that happens every five years, while the last coronation was seventy years ago. It’s a huge story that will be on most front pages. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  You are right. This is more akin to the inaugural ball: pomp and circumstance, but no legal meaning. All of Charles's legal power (such as it is) became his when his mother's death was announced. Rockphed (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Significant event for the world, a coronation event for one of the world's oldest monarchies that made headlines in many countries. Yxuibs (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Very Strong Support. This is very newsworthy and the first coronation in 70 years. Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 16:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  The first coronation of a British Monarch in 70 years. There are other monarchies in the world who have had coronations. Rockphed (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, formality for an event that already happened and was covered in ITN. Morgan695 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Also, why is this marked as "ready"? Consensus seems pretty strongly divided. Morgan695 (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

    Per WP:DISCARD, any !vote based solely on personal opinion does not count when considering consensus. Determining consensus simply by counting the supports and opposes is not allowed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

    Plenty of editors here have opposed based on reasoning that is not solely their personal opinion. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not actually of wide interest in the Commonwealth, much less beyond it. RAN1 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Very strong support – How could this seriously not be newsworthy?--Hildeoc (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As I said above (without a not-vote), this isn't even akin to a presidential inauguration: this is the equivalent of the inaugural ball. An inauguration at least marks the legal change-over between presidents. I think the first 3 opposes speak to the points I want to make better than I can. Rockphed (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral tending to oppose No one doubts the global attention this event has received and that it is one of the most important events of this year. Nor do we doubt the global and historical importance of the English Crown. It’s a historic moment (more for the fact that it is the first coronation of an English monarch that has been seen by millions of people around the world. Including me and I have to say that was so beautiful), but despite the pomposity, it’s a purely symbolic act. We have already done well to add the succession of Charles as King after the death of his mother. I'm open to support this nomination if you achieve to convince me. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Newsworthy and significant, last happened in 1953. Bruxton (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support It's high up in the newspaper headlines and on TV in many countries apart from the UK, article is in good shape Josey Wales 18:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support It is front page news all over the world and meets the usual criteria. A lot of the opposition here seems to be ideological. Atchom (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Support - even using the long-standing consensus against posting inaugurations, this is still significant as being the first coronation within the Commonwealth since 1953. Its front page news across the world. Before you ask, I'm not necessarily opposed to (nor in support of) posting the inaugurations of US presidents either. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 18:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - TFA, DYK, and TFP all have content related to the monarchy. Not posting this blurb would be incongruous with the rest of the Main Page. Edge3 (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support (as a republican): this is the coronation of the monarch of 15 countries. The news story is not that Charles III is king, which was true from the moment Elizabeth II died, but that an inordinate number of people are watching or participating in inordinately expensive pomp and circumstance, similar to the recent Platinum Jubilee (posted) or 2018 Royal Wedding (posted). — Bilorv (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, but it's all pomp and no circumstance. 2.101.142.41 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Despite my personal (negative) feelings about this event and monarchy in general, this coronation is a major international news event. Yes, Charles III has been king since the moment Elizabeth II died, but her death was the major news story then. It's now eight months later, and this is the major news story now. Also, as this is the first UK coronation in 70 years, and Misplaced Pages has only been in existence for a fraction of that time, I'm not sure how much precedent should apply here. Funcrunch (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support: A notable event for its rarity, since it is a once in a generation (or even once in a lifetime) event. Presidential inaugurations occur every four years, whereas the last coronation occurred 70 years ago, and there were only four in the 20th century. It is also the first coronation to include contributions from representatives of multiple faiths, and to include content in the Welsh and Gaelic languages. This is Paul (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Official coronation of head of state in multiple countries. Once-in-70 years event in a 1,200-year tradition. Clearly of extraordinary levels of media coverage and attention of a global nature. Naturally of strong general interest to readers. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Major global news event with millions of views. A public celebration of a real transfer of power. Thriley (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comparison with US presidential inaugurations is fatuous. They occur every four years. This is the first coronation for the UK and thirteen other countries; and the head of the Church of England, in seventy years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, but the coronation is just performative. He was king the moment his mother passed on. -- Rockstone 20:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Striking my oppose !vote to support. I'm now convinced by the above arguments that the parallel to presidential inaugurations are inaccurate. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Would we post any other coronation? Serious question. --

Rockstone 20:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a chance, if the most recent nomination is anything to go by: 2022 Zulu coronation Abcmaxx (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Was that attended by 100 heads of state and watched by 300 million people? Ericoides (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a popularity contest though is it? "My king is better than your king" is the exact imperial mindset we are trying to avoid here. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No, but the simply fact is this got far more public/media attention. Same reason why we don’t post blurbs for comparatively minor deaths/terrorist attacks/sports events/etc, but I never see a “bias!!!” uproar over those. The Kip (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Is the Zulu king a head of state with a significant amount of legal reserve powers over an elected government? --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:805A:7DC0:127C:4AB5 (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Arguably more than the King of Britain has. -- Rockstone 00:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support, I fully share the arguments of user:Funcrunch above. Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, it meets notability requirements, is a recent event, it is largely cited, and it is not a stub. No valid policy-based argument has been presented to challenge its inclusion. The fact that this is controversial despite no policy argument against it shows just how out of touch ITN is with the rest of the project and its processes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. Renewal6 (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. For those comparing this event to a presidential inaugoration, this is something that only occurs once in a generation, and hasn't happened for almost 70 years. For the record, I wouldn't object to a presidential inaugoration either. — Voice of Clam (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment About time this was speedily posted now eh? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It’s time to speedily post.BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support This is a historic once in a lifetime event which has recieved global news coverage. The coronation deserves to be posted. Golem08 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's not once in a lifetime event is it though, plenty of people lived through the previous British coronation and given the king's age we are likely to see another too, not to mention all the other kings and queens all over the globe. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  For many people it will be, simple as that. Golem08 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support I'm surprised it hasn't already posted. What more do we need? Class envy doesn't count either. CoatCheck (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Even if the event is mostly ceremonial, it’s undeniably in world news and not just in English-speaking countries (e.g. it is placed prominently on the websites of Bild, Yomiuri Shimbun, and Folha de S.Paulo). The Commonwealth has a population of over 2 billion people, and even the Commonwealth realms (a narrower term, those with the British monarch as head of state) over 100 million. This is an uncommon event, as others have noted. I skimmed the article and didn’t see any glaring issues. The orange NPOV box is gone. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Before the unfortunate soul who gets to decide whether this gets posted or not, let's not forget the uproar after the last time Misplaced Pages turned into Royalopedia: Talk:Main Page/Archive 205#Extreme bias on the main page Abcmaxx (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Was it really an uproar, though? ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 22:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  DYK, FA and POTD are all coronation-related. This is some crazy imperial bootlicking. 5.151.106.0 (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Can't disagree with this interpretation. Misplaced Pages is UKPedia whenever it involves the British monarchy. -- Rockstone 23:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The comments saying there is too much bias to the UK or western countries are amusing to me. I mean, this is the english language wiki and most of the largest English speaking countries are closely aligned with the UK. Does the Japanese wiki have to deal with this "oh we focus too much on Japan" argument? -- 64.136.123.133 (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Japan is the only country where Japanese is the predominant language. In terms of population, I'm pretty sure India would be country with the most English speakers, followed by perhaps US and then Nigeria. Pretty sure those countries would definitely not have strong royalist sentiments would they. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yay, arguments over semantics. My comment was about the "western bias" argument in general. Regarding the last part of your argument, so? You could say that about anything. -- 64.136.123.133 (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  All of the five newspapers mentioned in the second paragraph of Newspapers published in Nigeria feature an article about the coronation on their front pages, although the level of prominence varies (probably least prominent on The Punch, while very noticeable in most of the others). Similar rule holds for The Times of India, Dainik Bhaskar, etc. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Funnily enough, this news item has already been posted on at least 5 of the top 10 language editions of Misplaced Pages on https://www.wikipedia.org/ (German, French, Russian, Spanish, Italian). Japanese Misplaced Pages doesn’t seem to have ITN (maybe I missed it). It has been nominated for inclusion on Chinese Misplaced Pages without any opposition so far. That leaves English, Persian, and Portuguese. I expect that Portuguese Misplaced Pages will post it eventually. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I wonder if anyone is accusing the Russian wiki of having a Western bias? -- 64.136.123.133 (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  The fact that other wikis are posting this item just shows how well our editorial significance standard works around here, in that we don't just post items that show up in the news willy-nilly. After all, we're not a news ticker. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's the takeaway here. Misplaced Pages has better editorial standards than all other wikis and most major news outlets. Nope, it's not that there are a lot of nitpicky users who oppose based on their own biases (and yes, I've read most of the comments and 90% boil down to "I don't like it" or "it's not a big deal where I am" arguments) and if someone posted it quickly a great many tears would be shed. It's that Misplaced Pages has better editorial standards than the New York Times. -- 64.136.123.133 (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think that's the biggest problem with ITN's significance standard is that it does allow editors to become armchair editors-in-chief, deciding what is and isn't important. It's one of the few areas on Misplaced Pages in which WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are treated as valid arguments since the standard is by definition subjective. I do wonder if a centralized discussion is in order to see if maybe that needs changing. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 00:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  We have a significance standard that differs from what the media reports on because WP is not a newspaper, nor is ITN a news ticker. ITN is here to feature high-quality articles that happen to have news coverage, not the reverse of providing links to articles that make up news coverage. To achieve that, we have to avoid the systematic bias of media reporting and instead use our own opinions and past decisions to guide our selection of articles better. Masem (t) 00:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Wrong way around: ITN is there to feature news articles about topics that blatantly feature highly prominently in the news cycle and which meet a better minimum standard of up-to-date content and coherence. This topic was obviously going to in the news a mile off, and the 5 other major wikis that have already got it right, as have the other main page sections here, which have rightly ascertained that it an opportune time to promote related content. ITN is just demonstrating that out is slow to react, taking a day to post obviously ITN material, and clearly hampered by a range of WP:BURO-type issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support as per the reasons given above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Front page news in a good chunk of the world. The inauguration argument is silly imo, inaugurations happen routinely every four years; this, meanwhile, is the first coronation since the last Churchill ministry. The Kip (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, and the average global lifespan is around 73, so the average person around the globe who was a young child at the time of the last coronation has not lived to see this one. There was plenty speculation that Charles wouldn't either, and at 74 years he's broken the record as the oldest British monarch to ever be crowned (I haven't yet been able to ascertain if there's a global record that's higher). Iskandar323 (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Contrary to the arguments above, U.S. presidential inaugurations are commonplace as they happen once every 4 or 8 years like clockwork. A coronation ceremony for England's monarch is not commonplace at all and this is indeed historical and deserves its place on ITN. Probably the first coronation many of us have seen, given that the last one happened 70 years ago. : — That Coptic Guy (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support: An event receiving extremely high levels of international coverage. --Inops (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't envy whomever is stuck deciding if there's consensus to post. I think there's clearly *not* consensus, though. -- Rockstone 23:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  One would have to determine however many supports/opposes are simply “I do/don’t like it” or other non-policy/quality stuff, but by my count there’s about 54 supports to 24 opposes now, so I’m not exactly sure I’d agree with your conclusion, unless the opposes have a far stronger argument. The Kip (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  And, to be frank, most of them don't, and are based upon either WP:RGW or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Make that 55. The Kip (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, consensus is not determined just by vote. --Rockstone 00:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any actual arguments besides pithy rejoinders? I've seen you offer plenty of those throughout this whole nomination process but no actual substantive arguments beyond just "we're not UKpedia". ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 00:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. We don't post inaugurations, we have never posted a coronation, and the entire process has no legal effect. We wouldn't post the coronation of any other monarch, the British are not an exception. Misplaced Pages is already way too pro-monarchy and biased towards the west. -- Rockstone 00:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

…you do realize you just completely proved his point, right? This entire comment reads like a combination of WP:RGW and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We’ve never posted a coronation because the British monarchy hasn’t had one since before the internet was even a mere concept (making your argument a degree of bad faith), and it’s been well-established by other editors that the comparison to a US inauguration is a poor one (to the point where WaltCip was convinced to flip his vote). The Kip (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a genuine question, has there been a coronation (I'm speaking strictly coronation, not inauguration) in recent history that we could have posted here? Someone earlier talked about Saudi Arabia's King and Japan's emperor who have ascended to their respective titles in recent years, but neither even have an article related to their coronation (and as far as I'm aware, Saudi don't even have an article related to their version of a coronation overall). I'm sorry if I am sounding ignorant and am completely misinformed. But I'm just a bit confused why people bring up about we won't post a coronation because we haven't in the past, but as far as I'm aware we've never had the chance to post a coronation in the past as there were no articles to go alongside them. CaptainGalaxy 01:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Today I learned that trying to avoid systemic UK bias means I'm making an "I don't like it" argument. Got it. --Rockstone 01:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Because posting one front-page news item =/= "systemic UK bias," unless your opinion is that it is, in which case it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

It's now been posted anyways because it has a clear consensus to post, so this is a moot argument. The Kip (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not just that. It's the constant bombardment of news from the UK for the past year that we would never do for any other country. That's what makes this a form of systemic bias, and you know it to be true. -- Rockstone 03:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Rockstone35: the way to counter the bias you seem to think there is is to find stories in the news elsewhere, write quality articles on them and nominate them at ITNC. Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Coronation is big news and the article seems to be in adequate shape. Mellk (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Posted This seems as close to consensus as we'll get here. While I understand there are a range of opinions about the true importance or meaning of the ceremony, it has been adequately demonstrated that this is in the news, of widespread interest, and supported by a quality article. -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Should it say United Kingdom or Commonwealth? - Floydian  _¢ 04:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's done that at all. But that's not what this posting is about. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Would someone like to do the paperwork please? Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Stats It's interesting to look through the Top read 100 articles from yesterday. Charles III heads the list, which is no surprise. But the first lady was not Camilla but rather Penny Mordaunt who impressed with her sword-wielding and cape. Overall, over 50 of those 100 articles were connected with the Coronation or the Royal family and so the event dominated readership yesterday. Note that none of the other topics which ITN was blurbing made it into the Top 100 – even the previous coronation did better. Finally, a special mention for Jeffrey Hudson who performed well at #11. I'm not sure how he got into the public eye but he adds a nice Game of Thrones element to the proceedings. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Reluctantly unPOINTy post-posting support. The failure to post Biden's inauguration was really the pinnacle of what's wrong with ITN/C and its chronic misunderstanding of what constitutes global significance. That said, hopefully posting this similar event for another great power—one that I do think is ITN-worthy, although far less so than a change in who commands the strongest military on Earth—will be seen, come January 2025, as an illustration of how consensus can change, and not as some special case for the UK. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 08:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think I share your opinion here. -- Rockstone 09:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

May 5

RD: Terry Lewis

• Nominated by Fakescientist8000 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Former police officer convicted of corruption, 95. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Padma Desai

• Updated and nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Thenightaway (talk · give credit) and Santhoshsum1spcl (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Indian-American economist and academic. Death announced in WP:RS on this date. Ktin (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Ktin, Thenightaway and Santhoshsum1spc1 edits have strengthened article quality and referencing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwinnspeed (talk • contribs) 01:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Arsenio Iglesias

• Nominated by Tails Wx (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Artegia (talk · give credit) and 193.137.135.5 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Spanish football forward and manager. Article looks in good shape! Tails Wx 21:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Article is in good shape for ITNRD. Well cited and long enough. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) COVID-19

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

Nominator's comments: While COVID hasn't been in the news recently, this is still quite monumental and worth considering for ITN. Anarchyte (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support in principle, but the update is insufficient. This is the closest we're ever going to get to an official end, and the article is of course excellent. However the update is just a single sentence in the body. There's needs to be more than that, explaining what the change in designation means. That should be easy to fix. Modest Genius 13:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• I would advocate that we link to PHEIC at least as a secondary target so it's clear what is happening here. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Meh. There's a single sentence update to the article. There only needs to be a single sentence update to said article, which means "don't go adding more sentences to beef this up so it qualifies for ITN". I see no need to post this. --Jayron32 14:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Change to Support Article is quality, update is large enough, story is being reported in reliable sources. Checks every box. --Jayron32 18:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support well, three years down the line, and here we are. Juxlos (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Sure enough, I checked and there haven't been any recent storied about COVID-19 lockdowns in China, which nearly everyone who opposed removing COVID-19 as ongoing from ITN cited as being the key reason that the pandemic was still active. Three years. I think a lot of people, including some scientists, thought the pandemic public health emergency of international concern would be active for much longer than that. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Support - we've repeatedly asserted in the past that we only declare the pandemic over on ITN when the WHO says so (example). While this is not exactly the "end" of the pandemic, it's signal that the pandemic has receded from its peak and is now largely subliminal at most. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 14:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Opppse The pandemic isn’t over. It’s no longer a public health emergency of international concern.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. A mere formality at this point. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - yes, the update to the article is brief. Yes, it's still a pandemic, and will likely be endemic and with us in some form forever. But this is still a major milestone in an event that has done more to change the world than any single event in the last 30 years (at least). ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 14:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support this signifies the end of Covid as a major disease, major milestone in world history, although it is just a single sentence, it still is important. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron - we need more than a one sentence update to the article, otherwise, this is just a mere formality. --Masem (t) 15:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support in principle but there does need to be more than a one line update before this can be posted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support after update: Fair enough. It's been three years since this was announced and it's a milestone. However, there should be an expansion instead of one sentence. Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 15:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support More can be added to the article than one sentence - and it will be, so the quality update concerns should be no more. COVID was also notable for quite a while, so no issues on that front. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kiril. This isn't the end of the pandemic designation. We should post when it is declared endemic. - Floydian  _¢ 15:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support The update has been expanded in COVID-19_pandemic#2023. Yes, it's still a pandemic, but officially no longer that severe in almost 4 years, so it's notable. Once its pandemic status is downgraded, we can post it too, I think. Brandmeister 15:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The update has been expanded. And while symbolic as a lagging indicator of sorts, it is still an important step in the story that is being widely covered. Would also support posting when it's declared endemic. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 16:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support that they said it's no longer a global health emergency, but they did not say the pandemic was over. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The significant update weve been waiting for. DrewieStewie (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 17:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. COVID-19 is still being treated as a pandemic by the WHO. However it’s an interesting discussion. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - Apart from COVID-19, there are two other pandemics currently active - monkeypox and HIV/AIDS. When monkeypox is no longer a pandemic, that likely will not be especially newsworthy; and when HIV/AIDS is no longer a pandemic, that will be extremely newsworthy. So I'm not sure it's worthwhile judging the newsworthiness of this event based on whether it's no longer a pandemic, since the news is reporting on its change of status now regardless of how we define it. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think it's particularly important that the COVID-19 pandemic is a "pandemic", and that's how almost every single person in the world refers to it (when someone says "the pandemic", it's apparent that they mean "the COVID-19 pandemic"). That's why we should post when the "pandemic" officially ends. On the contrary, very few people were aware that it was a public health emergency of international concern, which sounds too sophisticated to be used in the plain language.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• There's a simple solution to your dilemma: You judge the newsworthiness of something based on whether or not it is in the news. Remember, we aren't making the news here at Misplaced Pages's ITN section, we're highlighting quality content on items which were already in the news. News editors and journalists at reliable sources make the decisions about what to write about. We're only here to post the occasional high-quality article that aligns with the stories that already exist. Everything else is beyond the purpose of this section. --Jayron32 18:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  ... Yeah, that was my point, Jayron. That's what I was saying. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support—Kurtis 19:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support We could be years, if not decades, before the pandemic ends. But I don't see how that compares to the end of the unprecedented and longest global health emergency. Nfitz (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support but strong oppose to altblurb. WHO did not declare an end to the pandemic. Johndavies837 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Degradation in emergency status is newsworthy, when the pandemic is officially declared over (likely not anytime soon) we will post that as well. Gotitbro (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support This is notable and globally newsworthy. If or when the pandemic is declared over, we can blurb it again. Against the current alt-blurb b/c it is still considered a pandemic.-TenorTwelve (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above, though I strongly oppose the altburb because it is incorrect. DecafPotato (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. BilledMammal (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 23:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Post-posting support This is the most appropriate time we will have to declare the pandemic over on ITN. Flyingfishee (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

May 4

RD: Gabrielle Carey

• Nominated by Happily888 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Australian writer, best known for Puberty Blues. Happily888 (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Terry Vaughn

• Nominated by Curbon7 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Skullovitch (talk · give credit)
• Updated by SounderBruce (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: American soccer referee. Article needs work, but isn't too far off. Curbon7 (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Article is a stub and has multiple orange tags. Not ready for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not a stub, though indeed that is an orange tag. Curbon7 (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Rifat Rastoder

• Nominated by Curbon7 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit) and PLATEL (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Former president of Montenegro (for three days). MP for much longer. Needs considerable work. Curbon7 (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Support I've just fixed up the article a little bit and added some references. It's not perfect but it might be enough for RD. Flyingfishee (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

(Merged to existing blurb) 4 May Serbia shootings

• Nominated by Ionmars10 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Silent-Rains (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Vacant0 (talk · give credit), Sherenk1 (talk · give credit) and DragonFederal (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: The Mladenovac shooting is certainly notable in its own right in my opinion, but the question is whether the two blurbs should be combined. Ionmars10 (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Conditional support - article is currently stubby, but this is again a pretty uncommon event in Serbia. Hell, given the death count, this might have been posted even if it occurred in the United States. Also, I think some might complain of having two Serbian mass shooting blurbs on {{ITN}}, so I wonder about y'all's thoughts on combining the two into a single consolidated blurb (EDIT: I didn't read the last part of the nom comment. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 23:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support merge with present Serbian shooting (and possibly Pakistan shooting below) This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk)
• Oppose Article is two paragraphs long, and is a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Currently in stub. Fahads198202:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, article is of sufficient quality now. Extremely rare event for Serbia, and given the high death toll might even be warranted if it occurred in a country where such events are less rare. Oppose combining blurbs; significant story in its own right, and from the current reports unrelated to the previous attack. BilledMammal (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support and I would also support merge with the other shooting. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Support merge per nom // 💪BenzoAid💪 🖊️ 08:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Support merge per nom Xx78900 (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support merged blurb per nom. Article is in good shape; just a tweak, I would bold "another in" as well as the city name per WP:EGG. --Jayron32 11:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support alt, replacing the current one. The two Belgrade shootings should be merged. The Parachinar one should not because it's thousands of miles away & unrelated. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support alt - Good shape, but I'm not sure what problem we're aiming to solve by merging two blurbs for apparently unrelated shootings. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

To avoid two separate blurbs for shootings on consecutive days in the same city, which would take up more space on ITN. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Eh, doesn't matter very much to me. The shootings were unconnected with the exception of both having took place in Belgrade, Serbia. I would consider it if the perpetrator committed both acts, but this to me just looks like a solution that needs a problem to solve. The blurb that would most likely roll off with this (the World Chess Championship) happened back in April. Yes, we're just 5 days into May, but it's stale that there's no point in keeping it. Not to mention, I highly doubt we'll ever have a need to do this anyway. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose merged blurbs These are two very separate stories and merging the blurbs implies a connection that doesn't exist. --Masem (t) 18:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose merge for reasons I stated in the reply to Jim Michael. There's no connection between the two shootings, so they should not be merged. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose merge again, the stated significance in the last nom is that this sort of thing doesn't happen often here. Now it's happened twice in a few days. If you want to post it, fine. But there is not even a whiff of connection. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  It is true that these incidents are most likely unrelated beyond that they occurred in the same country. But both are ITN worthy events. The proposal to merge the blurbs is not intended to imply a connection. It's merely a convenient way to post both without taking up a second blurb slot. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose merge per Masem, undecided on a separate blurb. DecafPotato (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Serbia has a lot of these mass killings compared to most countries - there's already been two bigger ones this century! (which isn't surprising, given Serbia has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world). Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Mass shootings are rare in Serbia, as in most of Southeast Europe. There have been four earlier mass shootings in the 21st century. From the article itself. Curbon7 (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Your argument is that there's been twice as many mass shootings this century as I've mentioned? There can't be too many countries that have more than that - especially in Europe - outside of war! Gosh, it doesn't seem that long since the last one! Nfitz (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  The statements Serbia has a lot of these mass killings and Mass shootings are rare in Serbia are mutually exclusive. The latter statement is the correct one. Don't take my word for it, take it from NBC and USA Today and The Guardian and CBC. Curbon7 (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  You need to better elaborate that argument. A total of four mass shootings in the 21st century isn't really more frequent than in other European countries (for instance, there were four mass shootings in Finland this century for which we have articles even though it commonly ranks as one of the safest countries in the world). Of course, you'll always find countries with less or no mass shootings, but it'd be sheer cherry-picking.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support in principle. I don't think it'd be a mistake to merge with the blurb on the school shooting for conciseness. The fact that they happened in a single country makes them the state authorities treat them jointly. A mistake would be to merge two school shootings in two unrelated countries just because they're school shootings.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support merge we need to specify that while the two mass shootings might have occurred at the same time, they are unrelated. The proposed blurb does specify this. Readers should be smart enough to notice that we say "two separate shootings." Flyingfishee (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Support Merge - Personally, I support the arguments for merging more than not. The hook should display that these are separate incidents though. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge per above. Two similar incidents in the span of days, in a country/region where such incidents are rare. The Kip (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Blurbs merged together. Sandstein 09:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Pakistan school shooting

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Dubstar44 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Quake1234 (talk · give credit), Gurther (talk · give credit) and Quake1234 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: A school shooting at a Pakistani high school. The article needs serious cleanup and I will try my best to improve it if I have the time. The additional death in the second blurb was a teacher at the victim school who was killed earlier today in a separate attack. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 17:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose As of now, a two-sentence stub. Will need a massive expansion to be main page ready. --Jayron32 18:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment There are two articles about this which need to be merged. The other one is Parachinar school shooting. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I've merged them now. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:EVENTCRIT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Article is currently a stub and is not ready for ITN. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Article quality is quite poor. And is not ready for ITNRD. Fahads1982 01:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  • @Fahads1982: "ITNRD", or just "RD", refers to recent deaths—Misplaced Pages's approach to acknowledging the passing of singular individuals (usually celebrities, politicians, and other high-profile personalities) on the main page. This is a massacre of civilians. Apart from the tragic circumstance of their deaths, no one among them is well-known beyond their own community. This nomination is for a blurb, not an RD listing. Kurtis 05:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose for now. Article length is still an issue. It's getting close, but still needs some expansion, IMHO, to have enough information to be worth directing people to. --Jayron32 11:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Not Quite Ready per Jayron32. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Petr Klima

• Nominated by The Kip (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Former NHL player. Needs a massive amount of sourcing work. The Kip (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Almost entirely unreferenced. Will need to be cleaned up and fully sourced to be ready for the main page. --Jayron32 17:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Article quality is quite poor + orange tagged. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• I just added a few references to the "Early career and defection" section: two books, and one LA Times article from 1985. Each one is a named reference, so if I don't come back to finish adding the refs to every claim that they can verify, I encourage anyone here to check out each source and add them to the article in my stead. Kurtis 02:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Linda Lewis

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit), Egghead06 (talk · give credit) and GeorgeJack (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Popular singer Andrew🐉(talk) 07:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support I've patched up the one unsourced album in the discography section, so this article should be ready for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Article looks solid. --Jayron32 17:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 22:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

May 3

(Posted) 2023 Manipur violence

• Nominated by Maharaja of India (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: The ongoing violence has so far forced about 9,000 people to flee their homes and about 20,000 people have been evacuated to camps. Maharaja of India (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support The event is certainly a significant escalation in ethnic tensions in the northeast. Article appears to be well-cited and is of a sufficient length at the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - as per Curbon7 Nfitz (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Started a move discussion on the article title, and in the same vein added an altered altblurb that sounds a little better. "Ongoing" may not be necessary, but "unrest" is a better word to use than "violence" here. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support seems to be a significant event, at least in India. Re above, considering that it seems to be between two ethnic/tribal groups instead of between it and the government, "violence" seems appropriate. Indian media used it, too. Juxlos (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Curbon7. Schwinnspeed (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support, Topic is ITN worthy and the article seems to be well cited and is of a sufficient length. Prodrummer619 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Curbon7 and Juxlos. Flyingfishee (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support can we add what the cause of the violence is? Otherwise it just suggests an element of randomness. Added altblurb2. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Article is well cited. Fahads1982 02:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support ALT2 per above. Consensus seems overwhelming, so marking as Ready. The Kip (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Posted. Sandstein 09:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Dean Corren

• Nominated by Curbon7 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by 2601:249:8E00:420:F1A8:1277:E35C:C6C2 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Former Vermont state rep. Article looks quite good. Curbon7 (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support seems to be good enough for main page. Weird photo, but is what it is. Juxlos (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Article quality is of sufficiency for ITNRD. Oh, and by the way, I don't really think that that is a 'weird photo', but whatevs. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Nikica Valentić

• Nominated by Curbon7 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Dominus Moravian (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Croatian prime minister towards the end of the Croatian War of Independence. Needs significant expansion. Curbon7 (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Razie Jachya

• Updated and nominated by Jeromi Mikhael (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Former governor in Indonesia. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 07:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Lance Blanks

• Nominated by Tails Wx (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Schazjmd (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Former professional basketball player. Tails Wx 02:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not yet ready The "NBA career" section, which is the most important part of this article, is almost non-existant. Curbon7 (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Muhammad Taufik

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

Nominator's comments: Regional (Jakarta) legislator in Indonesia. Juxlos (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me. Fahads1982
• Support Article is well cited with good enough quality for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Needs work Reads like it was written by a non-English speaker and has some tense issues too. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support There was one "is" that needed to be changed to "was", and I took care of that. Otherwise, it reads like idiomatic English to me. Don't see any indication that there are any problems like those noted above. --Jayron32 17:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

2023 French pension reform unrest

• Nominated by Mucube (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Tails Wx (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Don't know if this is the right way to post this (NOTE - I've put Mucube (talk · contribs)'s nomination in the nomination template after they originally posted it without it - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 23:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)), but I think we should add back the 2023 French pension reform unrest back to the ongoing line, and, at least in my opinion, more important than the 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests. There are significantly more French protesters, with millions of French protesters, while the Israeli protesters only number in the hundreds of thousands. France is also a much larger country than Israel, and I'd argue, a more important one on the world stage. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

2023 French pension reform unrest hasn't received an update in nearly three weeks, so that precludes any sort of nomination. Curbon7 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely not over by any means though (see this, as an example). Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Great to see that the protests are not over, but the article still needs to be updated. Curbon7 (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Clearly this is continuing with the violence escalating. A group of hard-core leftists recently declared their intent to kill policemen and successfully managed to set several on fire with petrol bombs. Unfortunately, the lack of meaningful updates precludes this being posted for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Someone else has already added a paragraph about the May 1 protests. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally i'm definitely opposing for now since this article has not been updated accordingly. Even the new May 1 update is only an update from three days ago while the update before that was April 14, a whole 26 days ago. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose ongoing Lack of regular, considerable updates. Spencer 03:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Conditional support once updated with recent events, per previous comments. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support IIRC, this had been in the ongoing section, but was removed because the article text was not keeping up with events. It looks like that is starting to be remedied. If we want to keep this in ongoing, someone needs to take responsibility to make sure the article stays up to date. Things can only be added to ongoing if we have regularly updated articles about them. Demonstrate a commitment to doing that if you want the support to post this in ongoing. --Jayron32 12:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Change to full support. Article is much improved, and is being updated. --Jayron32 11:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Put me in, coach. I've added events on May 1, 2, and 3. I'll continue updating once the sources report new information! Tails Wx 14:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Add me too. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 23:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Support per @Jayron32 and @Abcmaxx. I plan o working with @Tails Wx and others to updating the article. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 23:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support given the updates. Don't think it ever needed to be removed on a factual basis, but had to be because of the lack of updates. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 18:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Protests in Paris - c’est toujours la même. There always seems to be something up on May Day - which was days ago now. I've seen barely a mention of this on the news in weeks. It needs to ramp up seriously, or have a wide-spread full strike I think, to be postable. Nfitz (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Remains notable and is being well updated again. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Kremlin drone strike

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 RockinJack18 (talk · give credit)

Wait - still a lot of unknowns. Definitely blurb if it was of Ukrainian extraction, but I kind of doubt it. Optically, looking at the CCTV video, it looks to staged for me. Seems a little convenient that they would be downed right over the damn Kremlin of all places instead of, I dunno, somewhere in the Russian countryside, or even elsewhere in the city. Seems way too optically convenient to have it be shot down over Putin's house of power. Additionally, assuming this is true, this would basically be Russia admitting that their air defense systems are so weak that a country like Ukraine could fly drones 300 miles (480 km) into their border unhindered. All this seems kind of staged, but who knows? We've seen that Russia's military capabilities in this conflict far underperform what everyone expected prior to February 24, 2022, and it would make sense that there would be top-notch air defense systems or protocol in and around the Kremlin of all places. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 16:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• covered by ongoing regardless. nableezy - 16:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  oppose as covered by ongoing in case that wasnt clear. nableezy - 17:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Wait - As the creator of the article, I'm questioning if this was real. The attack came on the news all of a sudden and Moscow at that time was still in the afternoon. Also, I agree with Knightoftheswords281 that if this was real, a Ukrainian drone actually made it all the way to Moscow without being shot down. This will expose the weakness of the Russian air defense. Sort of reminds me of Mathias Rust's flight to the Red Square in 1987. Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 17:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Wait for secondary confirmation, and it better be solid coverage if we're to believe Russia's claims of Ukrainian perfidy. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose article needs some expansion. There's not much there now besides a rudimentary statement saying that two drones were shot down, and then some quotes from the Russian government. We need more article to post. --Jayron32 17:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support, the blurb covers what is known, it's sufficient. Article is good, even if short. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  The article doesn't have much more information than the blurb. What's the point of directing people to read it? --Jayron32 17:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Because a little more is still more, and it's bound to get updated if/ when something develops. --Ouro (blah blah) 00:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The news here is there is no news. Even if not covered by ongoing, all that happened was two drones were shot down. Whether military or not, they did nothing but get shot down themselves. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose nobody got hurt, nothing major occured as a result, and I seriously doubt a Ukrainian Drone could fly for such long distance. oh, and they say two drones were shot down, so they are saying that two drones somehow managed to get through the Russian SAM Sites, go almost 500 kilometers uninterrupted, and, at complete random, explode just before it hits the Kremlin, and 6 days before the Victory Day Parade? Who would attack now of all the possible time? when the Kremlin is closed and Putin is in some bunker away from harm. seems suspicious. and even if it is real, so what? again, nobody was harmed, and nothing major came out of this. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing concrete to say at the moment. Nigej (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Covered by ongoing. If it struck the Kremlin, even if no one was hurt, then it would've been postable, but alas. Curbon7 (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  The one time where saying "alas" about an averted death (or near-death) is unlikely to raise any eyebrows, except maybe in amusement. 😏 Kurtis 21:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. No deaths or injuries. Not even clear what actually happened with lots of speculation out there but few hard facts. The only real sources are the Russian government and news outlets (apologies for repeating myself). Obviously, those are unreliable. Will reconsider if the Russians attempt to use this as a pretext for something extreme. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose pending significant updates as to what happened. If it turns out that this was a Ukrainian attempt at assassinating Vladimir Putin, or something of that magnitude, then I'd support a blurb. Kurtis 00:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tori Bowie

• Nominated by Fram (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Unexpected death, article looks to be in good shape Fram (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on Quality. Article is generally in good shape, but could use additional sources. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• I've been adding some references to the "Early life and college career" section. In particular, I'm using the Southern Miss athletics roster as a source to verify the athletic records attributed to her. Only problem is that they often use imperial measurements, whereas her article is predominantly metric. Is this discrepancy permissible, even if the distances recorded are almost exactly the same? Kurtis 21:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Kurtis: I’d recommend using Template:Convert. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've added citations to results for most of the performances in her high school and college career. There are a few remaining citation tags for claims about her college PRs, which may be verifiable but which I don't expect to get around to finding.--Opus 113 (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• I've removed one so far unverifiable claim, and now everything is sourced, so this should be good to go. Fram (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support thanks to some editors here, this article should be good to go for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Wait The article offers no explanation for her untimely death and so is lacking. Presumably more details will emerge when the death is certified. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  We don't require "cause of death", if it is unknown or unreported, to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  WP:ITNCRIT indicates that a substantial update is required and we're not there yet. When a death is controversial then we have a particular need for a good update. For example, I started an article about Asia Abdelmajid who died in Sudan recently. Sources seem to vary in describing the manner of her death – some talk of a bullet while others say it was shrapnel from a shell. As we're an encyclopedia, we should wait upon clear and reliable sources rather than rushing in haste. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  I see no comparison in this article and Asia Abdelmajid's, other than they recently died. Bowie's "substantial update" is the wellness check and being found dead. The cause is not necessary. I would post this RD now, but I think the oldest one needs a bit more time up first. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's not a substantial update by the standards of WP:ITNCRIT. Sources make it clear that there's more details to come, "The cause and manner of death are pending, Orange County Chief Medical Examiner Joshua Stephany said." We should therefore wait on them. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Fixed up the last two cn tags, everything else looks good to go. --Jayron32 17:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Article is well-cited and holistic. Not a fan of the one-sentence paragraphs in the "Professional career", but this isn't that big a deal. Curbon7 (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Manobala

• Nominated by jiaminglimjm (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Prominent Tamil director and actor Jiaminglimjm (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support One of the top read articles yesterday, getting even more views than Gordon Lightfoot. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose (1) Filmography is unsourced (2) All of leading para after first sentence is unsourced (3) As regards prose, once you ignore the massive unsourced table, the article is a stub. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Article is a stub w/ a massive unsourced table - and thus not of able quality for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Four complete sentences does not an article make. Needs a massive expansion to be main page ready. --Jayron32 17:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Guys updated it and I hope the article is now worth to post in the main front page. 2402:4000:2081:332A:D13F:BDE6:8E7F:8E4A (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The article is much better, but the filmography is still completely unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Belgrade school shooting

• Nominated by WaltCip (talk · give credit)
• Created by Elserbio00 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Vacant0 (talk · give credit), Family27390 (talk · give credit), Sherenk1 (talk · give credit) and Kiril Simeonovski (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: An unusual and violent school shooting in Serbia where multiple children were killed. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support in principle. The article is minimally sufficient for posting, but it would benefit from further expansion as the story unfolds.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Support - ah so you were the one who caused that edit conflict. Anyway, to copy from my nom comment when I was attempting to nominate this, It's received plenty of coverage and has a high casualty count. For those who will make comparisons to the US, yes I think we should have posted more of those as well, but you also ought to admit that this is a lot rarer in Serbia. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 13:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

ah so you were the one who caused that edit conflict Beg your pardon? I was just nominating this story and was unaware that you would also be doing so. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I was also attempting to nominate this story, but you beat me to it while I was editing, hence the edit conflict. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 13:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support per Kiril. Article could stand to be expanded. --Jayron32 13:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Slight modification. Article quality is much improved in the past several hours. Full support, no notes. --Jayron32 17:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Highly unusual mass shooting in Europe. Article quality is adequate, though as per above comments, I would like to see a little expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support on the basis of being both unusual and the article quality, though some expansion would be great. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree there is sometimes an argument for "significant when in happens here, insignificant when it happens there," but that largely is a matter of circumstance, not geograpy. A train derailment in the UK is different than one in Bangladesh. School shootings are not insignificant in the US just because they are common here, but because there is nothing really differentiating one from the next. The articles could be a form with blanks to fill in: weapon, body count, politician comments. You could have a drop-down box with one of the four motives. The argument for continuing to post under the exact same circumstances just because it happened somewhere else seems illogical to me. Are we going to institute quotas for each country? Differentiate for motive or weapon? I think if there is something different to say, then maybe we post. I don't see that here. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the primary reason for this being more significant than the school shootings in the US is not the rarity but rather the reactions from the state authorities. I can't remember when was the last school shooting in the US that resulted in a three-day national morning, a closure of all schools in a million city and extraordinary meetings of high-rank office-holders.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support — Unusual shooting. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Marking ready Thank you everyone for working on the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Woah woah woah, let's pump the breaks here. The nom hasn't even been up for 4 hours. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Despite having a recent discussion on this matter, we haven’t agreed on setting any minimum time before posting yet.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Right. If it's ready, it's ready. No need to enforce instruction creep. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hey, look, by all means post it, I just think there may be some post-posting pushback as may happen on topics such as this one. I have no stake in this save avoiding unneeded conflict. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• support - should be posted if it happened in the US too. nableezy - 17:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support—Serbia is not America. These kinds of mass shootings are not commonplace over there, especially not a young teenager shooting up an elementary school. Kurtis 17:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Posting. --Tone 18:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Post-posting support It's not everyday an education minister who is old enough to have seen war in their country describes something as one of the country's darkest days. Kingsif (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

African floods

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Dubstar44 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Jim Michael 2 (talk · give credit), Family27390 (talk · give credit), Tails Wx (talk · give credit) and Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: 109 people have been killed in Rwanda, and six in Uganda in a series of floods and landslides. Article needs some serious expansion however. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 12:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• The article is literally one sentence - there's no way we can assess that. Write at least a start-quality article then we can consider. This nomination is premature and a waste of our time without an article to consider. Modest Genius 12:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support The article has been improved enough to be posted and this event certainly seems notable enough.

Aure entuluva (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support. We now have an actual article, which is pretty basic but does reach our minimum requirements. While floods are common, >100 deaths is not. Modest Genius 17:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Needs work This needs to be expanded. And as of this writing, this topic has been moved to the draft space and is not even an article. Don't get me wrong though, I would have supported this nomination in principle because of the high death toll; however, the prose for this article/draft is still insufficient. Vida0007 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• The article has been deleted, and it doesn't appear to have been of enough quality when it was around. I suggest speedy close. Oppose Article quality is not up to par for ITN Main Page standards. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  It was deleted as it was moved to draft space to be expanded, and has since been expanded and moved back. Almost not a stub but still a stub though. nableezy - 13:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Still a bit short imo, wouldnt qualify for DYK for example at less than 3k readable prose and 365 words. With a bit more expansion support, but not quite yet imo. nableezy - 14:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support because the article is good enough & the death toll makes it important enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, based on state of article. Needs some more expansion to be ready for prime time, IMHO. Taking out text not related to the event itself (like background and reactions) we have very little information. We need more about the actual event we're reporting on. --Jayron32 17:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Support Article quality has improved, it's ready for the main page now. --Jayron32 11:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose on Quality. Article is short but I believe long enough and impactful enough to post. However, the article mostly is sources from a single single source and death totals are not synchronized. I would support if these things could be resolved. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The article is not a stub, it has 2292 bytes of text. That's well above DYK minimum. It's cited too, and the event is highly impactful.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Quality is now sufficient, and if this happened in the West would already have been posted. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Your open-ended accusations of bad faith are growing wearisome and needs to stop. Insinuating that people who don't do what you want are bigots is rude, incivil, and frankly needs to stop yesterday. Please don't do that again. --Jayron32 11:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Acknowledging the existence of systematic bias is necessary, and is not an accusation of bad faith or otherwise rude and uncivil. BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment article has been merged into the 2023 East Africa floods. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  And now the article is about the entirety of Africa. Which kind of gets rid of the ITN part. Wooooooops. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I understand the article wasn't very long, but why the hasty merge into an article which, in spite of covering more events, is also quite barren? Feels like a mistake. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This is nearing on a trainwreck. Too many pagemoves, and the scope of the article has changed three times. Curbon7 (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  lets not forget the merger between the original nomination's article and this new one. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2

(Closed) RD: Anousa Luangsuphom

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 Spencer (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Walrus World (talk · give credit)

• Support Article looks good to me. Fahads1982

RD: Bernard Lapasset

• Nominated by Rushtheeditor (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article needs expansion and sourcing work needs to get done. Rushtheeditor (talk) 21:46 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on article quality, which is not up to MP par. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Tony Staley

• Nominated by Curbon7 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Death Editor 2 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Prominent Australian politician. Needs expansion around his tenures, but otherwise looks good. Curbon7 (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Arun Manilal Gandhi

• Nominated by Curbon7 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Simonthings18 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Indian-American activist; grandson of Gandhi. Needs considerable source work. Curbon7 (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Article has a lot of sourcing work to be done - CN tags are everywhere to be found. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Achmad Sujudi

• Updated and nominated by Jeromi Mikhael (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Former Indonesian health minister. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me. Fahads1982
• Comment Is there anything that can be added regarding things he may have done during his ministerial tenure? Curbon7 (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Not much. All I could find was normative statements. 1999-2004 was a political turmoil era for Indonesia, so not much could be done. I'll try to do it later. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Charles Engola

• Nominated by Fahads1982 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by DreamRimmer (talk · give credit) and Kelisi (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: -- He was Ugandan minister and shot and killed by his bodyguard -- Fahads1982 (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Article is good enough for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Background section needs more citations. Career section could use more info on what he did while a cabinet minister (apart from holding the titles).--PFHLai (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Valentin Yudashkin

• Nominated by СтасС (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Russian fashion designer. СтасС (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Article is currently a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• A stub with only 144 words of prose is too short. Please expand it. --PFHLai (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Writers Guild of America strike

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 Vida0007 (talk · give credit)

• Support per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are lots of strikes going on around the world. I don't see any reason why this one should get a blurb when all the others didn't. Neither the nomination nor the article demonstrates any unusual significance. Modest Genius 11:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Article quality is currently not yet at the level where it's a good one to feature on the frontpage. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Compared to labor strikes in France and elsewhere, this is nowhere close to having any type of major impact outside the delay of some upcoming shows and films. --Masem (t) 12:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose for now on quality grounds. The article is light on prose, if it were expanded some more, I would fully support this. --Jayron32 12:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Depth: Decent coverage over multiple news sources, mostly U.S. based. ... Impact: May prevent current and future American television shows from airing such as the Jimmy Kimmel Show. ... Consequences: Certainly unpleasant for the writers, but likely temporary as a settlement will eventually be reached as with previous strikes. ... Encyclopedic: Appears to merit an individual article. ... With all that being said, the lack of long-term consequences for such an event, other than mildly inconveniencing television viewers, makes this an unlikely ITN candidate. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Strong Support per nomination.

Impact:significant.

"Decent coverage over multiple news sources, mostly U.S. based"

only some of sources outside of US

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/may/01/hollywood-writers-studios-hold-talks-strike-deadline-looms

https://news.sky.com/story/writers-guild-of-america-votes-to-strike-after-talks-with-hollywood-studios-fail-12871072

https://www.dw.com/en/hollywood-writers-to-go-on-strike-over-pay/a-65488752

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/united-states/article/2023/05/02/thousands-of-hollywood-writers-to-strike-over-pay-and-work-conditions_6025089_133.html

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/us-news/2023/05/02/64509e75268e3e7e4c8b458c.html Kirill C1 (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

more

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/2/hollywood-writers-go-on-strike-here-is-what-to-know

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-65447046

https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/hollywood/hollywood-writers-slamming-gig-economy-to-go-on-strike-8586645/ Kirill C1 (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Article quality is weak, and impact is limited to mainly talk shows at the moment. If this drags on, it may warrant inclusion. eg. Writers Guild strike enters nth week, causing major delays for scheduled productions. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Ignoring the article which is practically a stub. I'm not exactly seeing the major impact of this strike yet. Maybe if there's a major impact in american television then I might support. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per both Masem and WaltCip ✈ mike_gigs _contribs 15:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Modest Genius and Masem. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close so…? Second nomination about a strike in the USA. It seems that Americans have just discovered strikes, welcome! Read the news from other countries, please. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  America's no stranger to big strikes. The PATCO August 1981 strike was one of the most famous of its time. So was the 1952 steel strike which effectively saw the federal government use high-octane trust-busting tactics. Of course, this particular strike isn't anywhere close to the notability of those two major events, much less others in other countries. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  You can you make your point without being needlessly condensending to well-intentioned nominators, you know. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 18:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Alsor, you can express your thoughts, but can you please stop WP:BITING the newcomers? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 18:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  let's not be so quick to take offense or invoke rules so easily. And Vida0007 isn't such a new editor around here either. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Strong support per @Кирилл С1. I don't think people really understand the gravity of the situation. Remember how intrinsically linked the film/TV industry is with LA. The last time this strike occurred in 2007, it costed the city of LA several billion dollars. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 18:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

How many cities are there in the world? _-_Alsor (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

According to the article on cities most integrated with the global economy, nine of higher importance than LA. DecafPotato (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Does that mean a free bar for everything? Not sure this is how Misplaced Pages works. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It does not, and I did not claim it did. In fact, I probably oppose this getting posted. But I was pointing out the problems in the rebuttal of "there are a lot of cities", when, in fact, LA is one of the largest. DecafPotato (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose — I would suggest ongoing if this continues and has a real impact. Until then, not suitable for ITN. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now This hasn't had a big enough effect on Hollywood yet. If it lasts long enough, it could be posted to ongoing. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support but the blurb should be more clear. This strike will have a big impact on TV shows and movies. Late-night shows are already canceling new episodes until further notice. Johndavies837 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Wait I say wait to see if it goes a little longer. I wouldn't mind this going on Ongoing if it gets to that point, but if it's major to the point that several shows are delayed, let's say 2-3 episodes off schedule, then I think we can consider blurbing or slapping it on Ongoing. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Article quality is low as many have already mentioned. Kaushik C 20:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - For a single union in one country - that's not even essential? Given the number of big strikes that haven't ever been nominated, this is trivial. The article doesn't even indicate how many are on strike - but surely it pales to other North American strikes - such as the over 100,000 that were on strike until April 30th when the entire ! And that's a MUCH better article. I'm surprised the topic is even notable enough for it's own Wikedia Page! I'd be tempted to merge it to Writers Guild of America West#2023 Writers Guild of America Strike. Nfitz (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support I don't know if the 2007 strike was posted, but over a decade later I feel like it should have been. I don't think it's quite comparable yet, but otherwise the same. Kingsif (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Kirill C1. The strike is notable and in the news, and doesn't happen real often in the entertainment biz. Jusdafax (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Happens roughly every 5 years, and the last WGA strike was in 2008. Definitely not a rare event. Masem (t) 00:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't say "rare," that's your rewording of my "doesn't happen real often," as in this is the second time a WGA strike has been called since Misplaced Pages was founded. I stand by my assertion. Jusdafax (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - In terms of size, the Guild will be far from the largest strike even this month (the Canada Revenue Agency is still on strike, and another portion of the Public Service Alliance of Canada representing 120,000 people just ended its strike on Monday). There will likely be delays for films and television series, but delays are common with any labour action.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The impact of this strike is not clear as it has just begun. The prudent thing would be to wait for any sizable/significant event to occur from this than post it now. AFL-CIO has also posted a statement but reading that suggests it also is not strongly worded with the strike's notability being left unclear. Gotitbro (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose We rarely do labor actions. But if we are inclined to go down that road there are far more significant one's going on in Europe. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. The one strike that jumps out in my mind as being significant in the USA was in 1981 with the air traffic controllers (how does this not even have it's own article - Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968)#August 1981 strike. Maybe an extended automaker strike that breaks international supply chains - must have been one of those surely. But strikes are very common - and surely this one is pretty minor compared to many (if not most). If we start posting minor strikes in only one country (or part of one country - it's not clear to me if the East is on strike, or just the West) - we'll be posting several a day, with 200 countries having only 3 or 4 a year - let's be honest, France will get 100 themselves. Nfitz (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose without prejudice against nominating for ongoing again in the future should something sizable or significant happen. Per WaltCip. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"WGA Strike Explained: The Issues, The Stakes, Movies & TV Shows Affected — And How Long The 2023 Work Stoppage Might Last"

https://deadline.com/feature/hollywood-writers-strike-wga-explained-1235341146/

"It’s Not Just The WGA

A number of unions have contracts with the AMPTP expiring in the next few weeks. Generally, the guild that negotiates first sets the tone for the subsequent negotiations." Kirill C1 (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Khader Adnan

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.

• Updated and nominated by Innisfree987 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Nableezy (talk · give credit) and Iskandar323 (talk · give credit)

• Support Looks good to me. Fahads1982 05:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Support blurb as discussed below. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Blurb - very widely covered (NYTimes, Guardian, BBC, AP and so on, and leading front page news in Israel and the Arab world eg Haaretz, al-Jazeera), something like Palestinian Khader Adnan dies in an Israeli jail after an 86 day hunger strike. nableezy - 09:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• This nomination is covered under WP:A/I/PIA and requires extended-confirmed status to comment on. nableezy - 09:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Potentially escalate to main news, this is more than just a simple RD. Article looks nice. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment This can be considered for a blurb as the death is unusual and one of the main points of discussion surrounding this person. Gotitbro (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support RD, but oppose blurb per the orange tag in the article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Fakescientist8000, the tags have been resolved. nableezy - 15:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  So is there a reason to oppose the blurb then? Its already led to wider ramifications, with rockets launched from Gaza and Israeli rocket and tank fire on Gaza, and the countrys prison service put on high alert. nableezy - 17:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  I struggle to see how this guy is notable, or how his death is notable enough for a blurb. RD should be fine, although we don't do picture RD's here. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  I mean his death led to violent clashes in the West Bank (source), Gaza (sourced above), and has the United Nations calling for an investigation (source). Idk what youre looking for notability, but I could probably write an article on his death right now if he didnt already have a biography. nableezy - 17:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Nableezy: Then do it. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  No I meant if there wasnt already a biography (establishing the guy as being notable anyway), but as there is Im just editing that biography. nableezy - 17:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, this guy is only notable for his death, which is iffy because the UN states that 25,000 people die of starvation each day, but if we really want to blurb something, we should blurb the actual actions and not the guy who died. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, he was notable well before his death, and how many of those 25k a day do it voluntarily? Amnesty International has been talking about him for over a decade. That you dont know who he is does not mean the rest of the world does not. nableezy - 17:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  He has been hunger striking for a decade and was notable enough in 2012 for a famous political cartoonist to turn him into a cartoon for hunger striking in defiance of administrative detention. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Fakescientist8000, did you read the entry? There’s widespread coverage for many years, he’s very obviously notable. I am really confused by your comments. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Violent clashes frequently happen in Gaza & the West Bank. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Major Figure in the Israel-Palestinian Conflict, widely covered. Editor 5426387 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)non-ec editor comment struck

  "Major Figure in the Israel-Palestinian Conflict"

  It's a stretch. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support blurb. Given the circumstances of his death, this should be blurbed instead. Nevertheless, whether this would be blurbed or just be included in the RD section, the target article looks good, as the issues have been addressed now. Vida0007 (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support blurb. Appreciate all who have improved the entry. I just tweaked the proposed blurb to reflect sources that count the hunger strike as 87 days. It does seem to be a wider news item, so I support the blurb. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Genuine question,but why are you voting on your own nomination? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  I didn’t propose the blurb. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Seems like you did. Just as a general rule though, you are assumed to be a "Support" vote by virtue of being the nominator. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry are you saying I don’t know whether I was the blurb proposer? Innisfree987 (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, you're listed as having "Updated and nominated" the item. Whether or not you wrote a blurb really isn't relevant. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  This really isnt relevant to the discussion, but they nominated for RD, I nominated for blurb and added one. They are supporting a blurb that they did not nominate. nableezy - 21:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Thanks for pointing that out. In that case my bad. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

oppose blurb

We didn't blurb Angela Lanesbury, Harry Belafonte, Ray Liotta, author of Gaia Theory. Why should we blurb a guy whom no one knew about a year ago? Kirill C1 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention, we probably won't be blurbing Jerry Springer. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I think only a very specific age bracket of people know any of those people either, and for most people, there is nothing particularly notable about the nature of their deaths in of themselves. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

With that logic: I'm not sure any age bracket knows about this man, and there is nothing notable about this man's death either. Pass. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

There is very much something notable about a three-month hunger strike of someone detained without charge, just so long as you are a person with some sort of vested interest in human rights, the rule of law, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Several former MPs were killed.

Charles Engola,

Atiq Ahmed. Why they weren't blurbed? Kirill C1 (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

They probably should have been blurbed, but doing something wrong once doesn't mean continue to do it wrong forever and for everything. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, though I am still undecided on a blurb. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 18:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Quite simply put, because people have much stronger opinions/narratives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than they do on Ugandan or Indian poltics. The Kip (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Or because Engola wasnt nominated for a blurb and barely discussed, and neither of the deaths had the UN remarking on them or being covered as widely as this? nableezy - 19:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The UN argument, sure, but the Ahmed death received pretty decent coverage even outside of India; perhaps we should also consider the fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict is much more politically charged in western media than Indian politics in general, which reflects a degree of bias on our own part. The Kip (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

And also on Deadline, Hollywood website. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Engola's death is notable, but I'm not sure if he's notable enough for a blurb. However, I'm also not sure if Adnan's notable enough for a blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Atiq Ahmed was a gangster who was shot. While it received coverage in international press because it was filmed, it was in no way significant outside of a small part of India. Curbon7 (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Ray Liotta was in Wild Hogs. Give the man due respect. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support blurb: Strong international news story, strong human rights story, highly unusual death. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support blurb - A double whammy of an important figure combined with a death that, by virtue of being a hunger strike in a highly charged political conflict, is very much the main story. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  After reading his page, it does not seem that he was an important figure in the political conflict. Kaushik C 21:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaushikchemburkar (talk • contribs) This user is not extended-confirmed, !vote struck.

• Support blurb per above. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 18:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support RD, oppose blurb pretty horribly treated, but one of unfortunately too many victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Doesn't meet bar as a result, imo; if you want the "notable way of death" argument, not blurbing Atiq Ahmed doesn't help that case. The Kip (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb, support RD per The Kip. Part of a bigger conflict and I can’t see that he was one of the most notable Palestinian figures. Article looks great for RD and is ready to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  I dont get it tbh, somebody starving themselves to death in an act of nonviolent resistance is a notable act. It isnt that some person died that is being nominated here, it is how and why. And that is, from the extremely wide and extremely in-depth coverage across the globe, a highly notable act. You have full length, in depth stories about this, not just basic obituaries, not just reprints of wire services. Yes, this is part of a bigger conflict. Its also something that rarely happens across the world, conflict or no conflict. Would Bobby Sands dying been shot down as being part of a wider conflict? Really? nableezy - 22:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Most major deaths during the Russo-Ukrainian War (such as the bombings in Moscow and St. Petersburg, or the many dead in Dnipro) have been shot down here as being simply part of a wider conflict, even with the former two having weaker claims to such (albeit still justified ones). If those two, which are ambiguously related to the conflict as a whole, are considered too closely covered by ongoing items/wider actions to be included, why should we blurb a political prisoner who was blatantly locked away as the result of, y'know, his relation to an ongoing conflict?

  And yes, I'm not sure Bobby Sands would've been posted for the same reason, albeit he was a decent degree more notable than the subject here considering Sands was technically a sitting MP at the time of his death. The Kip (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'll also note that the userbox on your user page doesn't exactly make you a neutral observer here, so I stand to question whether you want this posted on actual notability or this is instead a grand WP:SOAP gesture. The Kip (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Note what you like, but you appear to have as much trouble comprehending the userbox as you do assuming good faith. The blurbing is about somebody dying from a hunger strike, something that news sources across the world are treating as a noteworthy act. The Russo-Ukrainian War events are shot down because, ahem, the Russo-Ukrainian War is listed in ongoing. I dont see a listing for any of the following: Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Palestinian prisoners in Israel, Hunger strikes among Palestinian prisoners in Israel. But I guess my userbox makes me as non-neutral as sources giving this attention like CNN, NYTimes (hey they ran a story about hunger strikes too), Washington Post, the Guardian, and on and on. Guess they all are non-neutral observers too? nableezy - 02:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Pardon me for not entirely believing the truthfulness of motivation on this extremely contentious topic for a user with an "unofficially" pro-Hezbollah userbox on their page, especially when that user doesn't appear to have supported similar non-topic cases in recent memory. Considering Alsor has a pro-Zionist infobox on his userpage, I'm not entirely convinced his oppose is based in neutrality either.

  I'll admit I myself didn't support the Ahmed nom until I read a bit more into the case, but by that point consensus had moved against blurbing. It probably should've. The Kip (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  If youd like to discuss anything besides whether or not Khader Adnan should be blurbed in ITN please do it somewhere else. My userbox you can discuss on my user talk. But you not understanding the userbox has nothing to do with this nomination. But we dont censor policy compliant arguments because we dislike somebody's politics. nableezy - 02:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Anyhow, the point is effectively that nothing in this conflict is truly unique, unprecedented, or notable enough for ITN anymore barring a truly massive flareup (i.e. a third intifada or a full-scale Israeli invasion), a truly major death (i.e. Abbas, Netanyahu, etc), or a peace deal that's actually agreeable to all involved. Another Israeli soldier gets a rock thrown at them, another Palestinian civilian is arrested and/or murdered as a result. The conflict goes on, the protests go on, the arrests go on, and in this respect I don't see anything excessively notable about Adnan besides the means of his death. It's not even the first time he conducted a hunger strike, this one just unfortunately resulted in his adding to the Israeli occupation's death toll. The Kip (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  No it wasnt his first hunger strike. It was however the first one he died from. Also the first one any Palestinian has died from in 31 years. This isnt a normal thing. It isnt about who died. It is about how and why, a how and why that is, again, treated as significant in the sources. Most things we post are not unprecedented. We have a whole list of them that are highly precedented. nableezy - 02:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Before gratuitously questioning my neutrality (I suppose that as non-mechanical rational beings we have an inevitably subjective and reflective side), please provide evidence and precedent for expressing a biased opinion on a nomination related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Judge what I said, not what I think. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose blurb the Israel-Palestine issue is always so volatile and extreme historically, we'd really need someone way more important to die (eg. government head etc.) to merit a blurb. Activists in this conflict die often, and protests / unrest on either side happens so often. This does not seem so incredible or unusual to me to deserve a whole blurb. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Support RD though - article looks good to me QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)non-ec editor comment struck

• Support blurb Strong international news story, and, AFAIK, it is more than 30 years since last time a Palestinian died from a hunger-strike in an Israeli prison, Huldra (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support blurb - Although he certainly qualifies for RD, the international coverage and response (as well as the implications for the region, as already made manifest through escalated violence) suggest that the manner of his death elevates it to blurb level. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support blurb What sets this apart from, say, Jerry Springer, is the fact that the death is the story and the death is significant, not just in coverage but in what this means for the region. Curbon7 (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  To echo my comments above and particularly regarding why I opposed blurbing Atiq Ahmed. Atiq Ahmed was quite simply a gangster who was shot. The only reason you know about it is because it was filmed and disseminated quickly via Twitter. However, besides a small region of a state of India, the death of Atiq Ahmed simply is not significant. On the other hand, death as a form of protest, killing yourself as an act of political liberation for an ethnic or religious group, in cases such as this one, is absolutely significant. Not every political suicide is significant, as they don't always have broader regional implications; this one does. Curbon7 (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb on notability. If he was so very famous that a blurb would be proper, I'd expect him to have Misplaced Pages articles about him in several dozens languages prior to his death. This guy just had one in Arabic in addition to English up until yesterday. This tels me that he was a rather obscure person and nowhere near the high standard we have for a blurb here. Shanes (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Stats FYI, the number of views yesterday was 21,449. For comparison, the top read article was another pending RD – Gordon Lightfoot – with 646,701. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Pageviews stats, as you'll know, typically aren't a good comparison. The Malindi cult article, for example, only received around 20,000 total pageviews before it was posted. Curbon7 (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  The Malindi cult didn't get many views overall and this one guy starving himself is doing even worse – the readership is down to 17,156 even with a blurb. The biggest RD is now Manobala with 293,056. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb. We only blurb the death of persons of the greatest worldwide prominence (popes, Thatcher, Mandela...), which is not the case here. As a news story, it's not headline news in leading media, at least not in those I regularly read (NYT, The Guardian...). Sandstein 07:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is frankly not correct. Please see WP:ITNRD and note the criteria regarding death as the main story, which is what is being cited to support posting this. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 11:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support blurb - His death is certainly newsworthy while the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is currently in the news. STSC (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support blurb given that clearly in the news, the article is of high quality (the key function of what ITN should be featuring) and the article goes at length to explain why he was seen as a major activist for Palestine and why he repeated imprisonments were considered a major problem by international organizations. If he was arrested once and died after 90 days due to a hunger strike, yes, I would less likely consider a blurb appropriate as that would not have drawn the attention. But 11 such imprisonments and fierce reaction by the international community seems to elevate to a key feature, someone comparable to Mandela before he was finally released. --Masem (t) 12:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Adnan may have been notable enough to post, but he wasn't nearly as notable as Mandela. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support blurb this is the exact kind of story the blurb is appropriate for per the guidance written at WP:ITNRD; the death is part of a greater context that benefits from additional explanation. Article is in very good shape. --Jayron32 13:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose we have a member of a terrorist organization, someone who recruited suicide bombers, and a NPOV article and this is who we want to be on the front page? Sir Joseph 13:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you search the page WP:ITN, you will not find the word 'want'. The news is the news, and the significance of news is determined by coverage, per WP:ITNSIGNIF, not the wants of editors. News outlets decide the news priorities. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, yeah, he died, and we're indiscriminate of what kind of person the deceased is as long as they have a decent article (not to mention his death has led to conflict in the area, which is why a blurb is being discussed). There's been several times negative figures have been featured on RD or even a blurb, and hey, some of those negative figures may have done good. It's not opinionated, it's just who's dead and what their death has led to. We blurbed the previous leader of Al-Qaeda on his death. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support blurb It's true that he was not a very big figure in the Israel-Palestine conflict. However the fallout as a result of his death is enough for me to think that this is blurb-worthy. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)non-ec editor comments struck
• Support RD, oppose blurb. The article is a bit WP:PROSELINE, but in decent enough shape to post. As far as I can tell, his primarily notability relates to his detention without trial and hunger strikes. While that's a tragic story, he doesn't rise to the Thatcher / Mandela threshold we use for blurbing the deaths of politicians. While there was some international coverage of his death, that story seems to have quickly disappeared in the 24 hour news cycle. The protests mentioned in the article all occurred in 2012, not 2023. Seems unlikely this is a major threshold in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Modest Genius 16:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Certainly has not disappeared in a 24 hour news cycle, front page of Haaretz shows "IDF, Gaza militants exchange fire after Palestinian hunger striker dies" and "Prison service bracing for escalation" in its top stories. nableezy - 16:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Posted There is a consensus to post (I make it 15-7 with a few variables, but it's close to that regardless). Black Kite (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Pull photo, at least. Deeply offensive, while also there is large opposition to blurb. Revert to Brecel photo which has only been.a day or so. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

By the way, what has 10-year old cartoon to do with blurb? Kirill C1 (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not see why that image should be posted on the main page either. No idea why there's an image with such a depiction of the flag of an entire country when that country isn't wholly responsible for the things described in the blurb. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

There was not large opposition to blurbing. I do agree with you regarding the cartoon, however; it doesn't really seem appropriate for the MP. Curbon7 (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Remove political cartoon. The cartoon is obvious advocacy, and not remotely neutral. Not to mention that it was drawn by a known vociferous antisemite. --Yair rand (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ahem, WP:BLP applies everywhere on Misplaced Pages. nableezy - 22:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Antisemite may be incorrect, but 'Holocaust-trivializer'—absolutely. I was rolling my eyes when I saw that the admins had posted a Carlos Latuff cartoon on the Main Page. What were you people thinking? -- Veggies (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Image removed. I agree that the image may not be suitable, so changing back whilst discussion continues. Courtesy pinging @Schwede66: as they changed the image over. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the general rule of thumb should be to not post political cartoons (unless the blurb is about the cartoon itself). Gotitbro (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the cartoon, it’s pretty blatantly POV-pushing especially considering the artist. If you’re going to post a photo, post one of Adnan himself. The Kip (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Hey, hey! Let's all settle down and stop accusing people of POV violations. As much as usage of the cartoon was a poor choice, assuming bad faith without serious merit is, in and of itself, in bad faith. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  I’m not accusing whoever posted it of POV-pushing, I’m just saying the cartoon itself is POV-pushing, considering it’s a political cartoon. The Kip (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV is a policy that applies to the Main Page as much as any other articlespace area on Misplaced Pages, and so I'd really like to know the thought process that went behind posting that image. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  +1. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  AGFing, the thought process appears to be new blurb see if there is a free image and then add it. Not everything has to have some underhanded motive. nableezy - 13:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Simply, there is no non-free photograph of the subject available. That cartoon was released into the public domain by the artist. That's it. The posting admin made an oopsie, the image is off the MP now, let's AGF and move on. Curbon7 (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  I second that motion: what was the admin who posted it (without prior discussion) thinking? It wasn't part of the original blurb nomination. Is it precedent/policy to slap any free image up on a blurb without a consensus (or even a discussion)? -- Veggies (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

May 1

(Posted) RD: John Dunmore

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

Nominator's comments: French-Kiwi historian. Curbon7 (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Article is long enough and well cited, and thus good enough for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. This article might just scrape over the threshold for RD but it is worth noting that much of the current content is padding - titles, medals, positions - without telling the reader much about what he actually did. Why were these books notable? What did they actually say/argue? Why did contemporaries praise them? What is considered to be his personal contribution to the field/wider public discourse etc? —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Support verifiable with a lot of sources. Also an interesting guy to read about - his work was clearly well received as he won honours in NZ and France. Flyingfishee (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Felipe Colares

• Nominated by Curbon7 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Death Editor 2 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: UFC fighter died tragically. Needs some work. Curbon7 (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support, unless the MMA record table needs to be sourced, in which case this is an oppose. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Gordon Lightfoot

• Nominated by Doc Strange (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Canadian singer-songwriter of "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" et. al. Article needs some work, not just with sourcing but with the general construction of it - Not sure why it's grouped by when he was on a certain record label. Hopefully, work can be done to spruce it up to get him on the main page.  Doc StrangeLogbook 01:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The split by label is because that's a natural split of his career - he spent X years at one, then Y years at another. Masem (t) 02:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Aside from that, the article does still need a lot of work. Doc Strange Logbook 03:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Support once fixed As long as it fixed, I can't see any reason why Gordon Lightfoot shouldn't be added to RD.TheCorriynial (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• So, it doesn't need your support for that reason. Every living thing with a Misplaced Pages article is eligible for RD (so long as it is in good condition). The analysis we need from you is what in the article needs fixing, or is it good enough already. Please make sure your commentary focuses on actionable quality issues with the article, because your support otherwise is not needed. --Jayron32 12:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Many CN tags left, and the United Artists/Warner Bros years sections need dire sourcing. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the minutes to hours? As a former mariner IMO no more haunting line has ever been put to music. Memory eternal. (Not ready but let's get this up.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Does anyone know where the love of Admins goes when RD Noms turn the minutes to hours? As a former editor, no more haunting line has ever been put at Main page ITN. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  support both, line and work --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 World Snooker Championship

• Nominated by Lee Vilenski (talk · give credit)
• Updated by HurricaneHiggins (talk · give credit)

 Lee Vilenski 15:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Support,in WP:ITN/R. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Will never get how snooker got into ITN, but these article are always quite well written. And boy is it a relief to see an article looking quite ready before even being nominated. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Big event in the UK (and Belgium), excellent article, wonderful stuff. Effy Midwinter (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Biggest snooker event. Fahads1982 00:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support it is great to see a qualifying article so well written right off the bat. --TheSandDoctor 02:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 02:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Can we mention he is Belgian, and the fourth non-British world champion to emphasise the significance of his win? Whizz40 (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

    Strictly speaking, he's the fifth, but, yes - it's a valid piece. Lee Vilenski 19:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:SOAP. Too much intrusive advertising of Cazoo. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• A single image and a mention? Hmm. But I don't see why we can't use File:WSC Chanpionship.jpg either, which is a free image instead of the non-free one there now. Black Kite (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• I had no particular expectations but the Cazoo logo really dominated my first impression when I browsed the topic in the mobile view. Compare with the World Chess Championship 2023 which has commercial sponsors too but doesn't give the impression that it's advertising them. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  We've been over this before with FIFA players having sponsorships on their jerseys, and the general consensus is that it's nearly completely unavoidable and not something we should bother ourselves with. Even so, I think you really have to crane your neck to notice the logo on a desktop PC. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I beg your pardon,vwhere is advertising? Certainly not in blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• He is Belgian. He is the first ever player born in Continental Europe to win the World Championship. He had never previously won a match in this tournament. All worth a mention? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)y

  All of those are good factoids to include in the article, or even a DYK if the articles about Luca Brecel or the 2023 championship have been significantly expanded recently, but generally we don't include those types of "firsts" in the blurb. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  The single word "Belgian" couldn't even be added? It is a first, but it's also basic bio. Brecel is an unusual surname. Oh well. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: G. R. Perera

• Nominated by Tails Wx (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit), Artegia (talk · give credit) and Fakescientist8000 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Sri Lankan actor. Tails Wx 15:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose one CN tag remaining as well as a few unsourced bullet points in the filmography section. I'll fix it, so this oppose !vote shouldn't remain for too long. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC) Support all sourcing issues have been fixed, article should be good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Still an outstanding CN tag. Article leans more like a resume in prose format with no additional information about the types of roles that he played, instead mostly is a list of roles and films. Spencer 03:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

2023 Uzbek constitutional referendum

• Nominated by СтасС (talk · give credit)
• Created by Moondragon21 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Of course, late, but imposible topic/a post and bad this article too. СтасС (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Confusion. The nomination title is about a referendum in Uzbekistan, but the sources talk about Paraguay's election. Son Of The Desert (T • C) 15:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC) Resolved. Son Of The Desert (T • C) 15:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose No proposed blurb, article is really below standard; orange tagged section, also mixes future and past tenses, not fully updated, etc. Needs a lot of work. --Jayron32 15:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Remove one objection that has been fixed. Still opposed, as major problems with the article text have not been remedied. --Jayron32 17:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• I am proposing the blurb. Feel free to suggest alternatives. I also changed photo for that of Shavkat Mirziyoyev. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks.--СтасС (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks Кирилл С1. Now, can you please fix all of the other problems? --Jayron32 17:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on Quality. Article quality is far from main-page ready. "Suggested Changes" section should probably be changed to simply include what was actually voted on in the end. The article does not make it clear who was voting and does not break down the results in any way, nor does it properly explain what exactly was being asked of voters (i.e. could use a translation in the "Question" section. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Also added another blurb in the proper tense and in a format mimicking past constitutional referendum blurbs. If anyone wants to take a stab at an expanded version feel free, but I believe it's worth not overemphasizing the powers given to Mirziyoyev, who may benefit the most from these changes. His increased powers are only a part of the changes present in these new amendments. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  It is obviously the reason why this was made, so I think it should be included in altblurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well feel free to mention it. But I can't support any blurb that suggests this was the only change made. There were several social changes made as well from what I read. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. According to The Economist (US, Apr 22-28). Mirziyoyev gets to retroactively change his current term from 5 years to 7 years, after which the two-term limit kicks in, so he could be in power until 2042. Any blurb should definitely emphasize Mirziyoyev, because that's what's ITN. 2607:F470:E:22:74DB:2534:8250:1ECB (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality, but support on notability once updates are made to the article. Roughly on par with Kazakhstan's referendum that we also posted. The Kip (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Calvin Davis

• Nominated by Blaylockjam10 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: American sprinter and hurdler. It looks the article needs work. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not yet ready Article is a stub. Please ping me once there is expansion so I can re-assess. Curbon7 (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Article is currently a stub, needs expansion in order to be put on ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Only 143 words of prose. Too stubby. --PFHLai (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

April 30

(Posted) RD: Jock Zonfrillo

• Nominated by Happily888 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Nxllson (talk · give credit), Canley (talk · give credit) and Electricmaster (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Scottish-Australian chef and television presenter. Known for MasterChef Australia. Happily888 (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Page seems adequate, well referenced. Ollieisanerd (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Article quality is good for ITN/RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support looks good enough to post. --TheSandDoctor 05:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, article is well sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 01:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Broderick Smith

• Nominated by Fakescientist8000 (talk · give credit)

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

• Comment The bullet points in the "1990–2023: Acting, workshops and duos" section should be converted into prose. Rest of the article appears to be good. AGF for the offline source in the discography. Curbon7 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Curbon7 I've converted the bullet points to prose, so this should be good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Posted to RD. Spencer 02:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ralph Boston

• Nominated by Fakescientist8000 (talk · give credit)

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

• Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Big gap between 1985 and 2010; do we not know what he did in the period? Rest of the article looks great. Curbon7 (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Curbon7 I've added some things from in between that time. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Article is well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer 02:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Paraguayan general election

• Nominated by Kacamata (talk · give credit)
• Created by BastianMAT (talk · give credit)
• Updated by PLATEL (talk · give credit), PizzaKing13 (talk · give credit) and Ornithoptera (talk · give credit)

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

• Oppose on Quality. Article is quite thin on content compared to 2018's edition. No information on the Chamber of Deputies elections such as listed in the 2018 article. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC) Support. Looks good now. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per article's quality and DarkSide. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support once improved it is obviously notable and the quality isn't far off the 2018 article. Flyingfishee (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

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

• Oppose Article has almost no useful prose. I count (on my monitor) six whole lines of text, it's basically a stub with a table farm slapped on the end. No way this is a main-page-ready article. Needs a massive expansion of quality, well-referenced writing. --Jayron32 17:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Support Sufficient now. --Jayron32 09:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not ready. The article is all tables, with only 6 sentences of prose. That is far from sufficient and requires major expansion before we could consider posting. Modest Genius 14:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, Article needs work, per above. Alex-h (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, just went ahead to be WP:BOLD and updated the article. Added aftermath and some details on the campaign. I am uncertain if there are results for the lower houses just yet, seems like Spanish wikipedia doesn't have any results either, that's my only concern. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Alex-h, Flyingfishee, Jayron32, Modest Genius, and DarkSide830: Hope this is a good enough quality! Apologies for the ping, just concerned if it winds up falling too far behind. Big thanks to @PizzaKing13: for his hard work in updating the tables. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's a big improvement, though I'd still like to see more than one sentence of prose in the 'results' section. It could describe where each candidate did well, who under- or over-performed their polls etc. Once that's expanded to a referenced paragraph I think this would be OK to post. Modest Genius 11:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support after recent expansions. DecafPotato (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Posting. --Tone 11:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Can someone "give me the credits", please? Thanks. Kacamata! 02:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Don't know if contributors get credited or not, but if so, I would like to, and I think it would be fair for PizzaKing13 to be as well! Ornithoptera (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Caliph of Islamic State killed

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 PrecariousWorlds (talk · give credit)

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

Wait @Curbon7. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 00:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose — Too many unknowns. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Until there is independent confirmation. The person making the claim is Erdogan. Y'know, the guy who is currently 2nd place in polls for next month's election. Also the guy who just a few months ago probably lied about the perpetrators of a bombing to push his own political interests. Yeah that guy. I also do recall false claims in 2017 that Russia killed Baghdadi. Curbon7 (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is also the third "caliph" killed in just over a year, only having been leader since late November. At some point, the significance of such a killing decreases. Curbon7 (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  I can't see anything within the article about the Turkish government being the perpetrators of the bombing. But I see your point, and I think it'd be best to wait on this story. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The BBC isn't reporting that he was killed, they are reporting that Turkey is claiming he was killed. Also, even if he has been killed, that is becoming a very common event and doesn't need a blurb - should be a recent death instead. BilledMammal (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose although this is an important event, given that ISIS changes Caliphs so often, this kinda loses the ITN-notability. such as, if Saif Al-Adel was killed, it would be a big deal, because Al-Qaeda changes leadership once every 10 years. but if a ISIS leader is killed, it would still be some news, but not as important because, Per Curbon7, it is the third one to be killed in the past years. Oh, and just because Turkey claims they killed him, doesn't mean that they did. there have been false confirmations for kills before. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Change in the head of IS rarely results in changes in IS strategy. Article does little establish said individual's particular significance. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Naming I find it difficult to follow the names of these various leaders as they are so similar: Abu al-Hussein al-Husseini al-Qurashi; Abu al-Hasan al-Hashimi al-Qurashi; Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, &c. It seems that these chaps also use noms-de-guerre of a similar sort which must add to the confusion. I'm not sure what we can do about that but the title of caliph should be used with care as this is implicitly a claim to be ruler of the entire Islamic world. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  While "Caliph" is the official title of the ruler of IS, it doesn't have recognisition. It's a bit similar to if an extremist Christian group claimed the title 'Pope', so I see your point and I think we should use something else if this was to be posted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vyacheslav Zaitsev

• Nominated by Curbon7 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Corlough (talk · give credit)

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

• Support. Resolved the tags (that section seemed to not be relevant anyway). Article looks good. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Article is well cited and good enough for ITN/RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Lead too short. Needs a few sentences to expand on his notability.—Bagumba (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Bagumba, How does the lede look now? I tried my best, but don't have experience with writing fashion designers. Curbon7 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Curbon7 Me neither. Meets my cursory check.—Bagumba (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) World Chess Championship 2023

• Nominated by Davey2116 (talk · give credit)

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

Support Skyshifter 13:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Support as ITN/R. It is not the fault of the two players that competed for this title that Carlsen vacated the title. Carcharoth (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Support original blurb The article is in fine shape. As far as blurb choice, much as I love Magnus, this was about the two players who showed up. -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Support blurb 1 Article is ready –lomrjyo 13:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Support Bread Enthusiast (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Support. Double sharp (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)