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.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights documents four additional sectarian reprisal massacres of mainly-Alawite minority communities that killed 93 civilians, increasing the death toll of the series of massacres in western Syria to 1,476 civilian deaths since March 6. (SOHR)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Closing good faith nom. There is a strong and longstanding consensus that we do not post internal political developments other than national elections and changes of government. Consensus to post this is not going to develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article:National Health Service (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Keir Starmer, PM of the United Kingdom declares that the England sector of the NHS is going to be discontinued. (Post) News source(s):[1][2][3][4] Credits:
"Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive."
Strong oppose The blurb is a bit misleading. NHS England, the entity that oversees the NHS, is being discontinued, and its operations shifted to the Department of Health and Social Care. The NHS is the system of public health care in the UK. The NHS itself in England isn't going anywhere. It's a typical reorganization that doesn't put anything particularly new on the table. Departure– (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this is UK only, and is just about the abolition of a a quango. We don't even know what will replace it yet. Hardly world news. Secretlondon (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Subnational reorganization. We have not posted large restructurings in the USA under DOGE, so I don't believe we should here.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Legendary classical composer Sofia Gubaidulina has passed away at the age of 93. A leading voice in modern classical music, and one of the most important female composers in history, she is probably worth a blurb discussion. That said, Kaija Saariaho was the obvious female classical music death blurb from this generation. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(non-admin closure) Consensus to post will not develop (at least not now). Commenters mention this being an event only relevant to a certain portion of the world, and not an uncommon event (happens multiple times a year around the world). RachelTensions (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment Can we use UTC rather than EST? It's mostly north and South America according to our article. I think the picture caption reads as though it is a picture of tomorrow's eclipse. Secretlondon (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to show an image before the event, use a simulated view of tomorrow's eclipse, like the one used in the article. Renerpho (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When was the last time we've featured a lunar eclipse in ITN? The last total eclipses occurred in May 2022 and November 2022; I can't find any mention of either in ITN, even though the latter was particularly notable. This isn't an argument against it (maybe the opposite), it just makes me wonder why we should do this one. Renerpho (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is not a news reel of the happenings in the United States; it's about stories with a global significance. It being the last for a while in the United States isn't enough to bring it to ITN if it's going to happen somewhere else in the world less than a year later. Departure– (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Americas or US makes no difference in this context. A lunar eclipse that's visible from South America will automatically be visible from parts of the US as well. The last (more significant) lunar eclipse in the Americas was in November 2022, and the next one will come in March 2026. There is nothing unusual about this eclipse, or its coverage in the news. Renerpho (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not ITN/R and I don't see that this eclipse is particularly notable; we've posted three out of the last 10 total eclipses and they were all particularly notable for one reason or another (six out of the remaining seven weren't even nominated). I could be cynical and say "because America" but the January 2019 one was also visible there and was one of those not nominated too. Black Kite (talk)11:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As far as it being "regional", the article says The eclipse will be completely visible over North and South America. But there's insufficient importance to post it *after* it happens; unfortunately ITN isn't equipped to make a short-term posting before the event. 217.180.228.171 (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights documents three further reprisal massacres of Alawite minority communities on 12 March in which 158 civilians were killed, totaling 1,383 civilian deaths as a result of fifty separate massacres conducted in western Syria since March 6. (Barron's)(SOHR)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article:2025 Beledweyne hotel attack (talk·history·tag) Blurb: A 24-hour siege at a hotel in Beledweyne, Hiran, Somalia, results in more than 15 civilians and 6 attackers being killed and over 100 Somali Parliament members urging presidentHassan Sheikh Mohamud(pictured) to resign. (Post) Alternative blurb: A deadly 24-hour siege at a hotel in Beledweyne, Somalia, leaves more than 15 civilians and 6 attackers dead, later 100 Somali Parliament members call for President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud's resignation. Alternative blurb II: More than 15 civilians and 6 attackers are killed in a 24-hour hotel siege in Beledweyne, Somalia, and 100 Somali MPs asked President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud step down. Alternative blurb III: A hotel siege in Beledweyne, Somalia, claims 21 lives, hundred Somali lawmakers urge President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud to resign. Alternative blurb IV: At least 15 civilians are killed in an Al-Shabaabattack and siege on a hotel in Beledweyne, Hiran, Somalia. Alternative blurb V: A 24-hour siege-attack at a hotel in Beledweyne, Hiran, Somalia, results in at least fifteen civilians and all six Al-Shabaab attackers killed. News source(s):APIdil News Credits:
Support per above, an already high and still rising death toll with the possibility of causing world leader change. I am also going to pre-emptively support a merge blurb with this blurb if Mohamud resigns. --SpectralIon03:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - significant casualties, large political implication in Somalia. Article looks good enough.
Support ALT4 only owing to several issues with the other blurbs:
The overall death toll of 21+ includes the six Al-Shabaab attackers themselves - we shouldn't count them in the blurb, only the victims of the attack.
The MPs simply asking for Mohamud's resignation is not notable by itself, and that aspect is WP:CRYSTAL anyways, considering we don't know if he actually will resign or not. If he does, then we can add it to this blurb as something like "At least 15 civilians are killed in an Al-Shabaabattack and siege on a hotel in Beledweyne, Somalia, later prompting PresidentHassan Sheikh Mohamud's resignation.," though it would almost certainly be worthy of a separate blurb on its own (as ITN/R).
Oppose The Somali Civil War has been going on for over 30 years and, per the list of ongoing armed conflicts, generates thousands of deaths annually. This just seems to be more of the same as the AP source says nothing at all about the President. Instead it says "Al-Shabab, which opposes Somalia’s federal government, frequently carries out bombings and assaults targeting government officials and military personnel in the Horn of Africa nation." Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support the arrest and conviction of Saakashvili is notably one of Russia's demands (listed by Sergei Prikhodko) to Georgia for the return of its own territories and the privilege of becoming a Russian client state.[1] Bummer to see Georgian Dream are just openly sabotaging their own nations sovereignty to make Putin feel happy. Scuba03:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose This seems to mainly only affect Georgia and somewhat affect Russia and pretty much nowhere else. Even with a pro-western government, it is unlikely that Georgia would ever join on Ukraine's side. Also, these are obviously made-up charges for the purpose of power consolidation, and while some might find that more notable, I personally think it makes it less notable as the former world leader did not commit an actual crime. --SpectralIon03:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose unless I'm reading the article wrongly, he has been imprisoned since 2021 serving a 6-year sentence originally imposed in absentia in 2018. Given that, I'm not sure this is as notable as it might otherwise have been. Black Kite (talk)12:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conviction of former head of state is already significant in itself, but this has wider significance within the overarching story of Russia-Georgia relations under Georgian Dream, as per Scu ba. FlipandFlopped ツ13:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
I'm not sure if I can leave a support on my own nomination, but in case it helps, all three articles should meet the ITN criteria, especially with regard to being sufficiently-cited. Toadspike[Talk]08:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This doesn't seem to be in the news outside of Switzerland and so the readership for all three articles is tiny. If we give every member of the council WP:ITN/R status, then Switzerland is given seven times the representation of other countries. But it does seem a sensible stable system compared to the risks of having a single supreme leader. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ITNELECTIONS subsection of ITN/R specifically outlines that elections of new members into the Swiss Federal Council meet the requirements. The 2022 elections, for example, also got posted. If you wish to discuss a change for this guideline, this nomination is not the place. YuniToumei (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:ITNELECTIONS. The Swiss system is peculiar: the seven-member Federal Council is the collective head of state and government. By convention, members are reelected until they choose to resign. Therefore, the only election of political significance is the initial election of a new member. The general (re-)elections every four years are pro forma and not newsworthy, and neither is election to the rotating and purely ceremonial presidency. Sandstein 16:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking at the articles right now, they are already pretty decent (Pfister is a little short and the election article has 3 CN tags), I think they will be completely fine by the time a consensus emerges. --SpectralIon03:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ontario PremierDoug Ford suspends planned surcharges on electricity in the US. Trump backs off afterwards, though his original plan to impose 25% tariffs will go as planned. (AP)
The military chiefs of all European NATO countries meet in Paris, France, to discuss a potential European peacekeeping force in Ukraine, alongside Ukrainian representatives. The U.S. was not involved in the meeting. (RFE/RL)
I'm not sure this qualifies for ITN/R as Greenland isnt a soverign state, so this is technically a sub-national election. However I still think its notable as it is a significant change for Greenland in an Election that has greater significance given todays geopolitics. ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING14:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, if it wasn't clear; I do support the blurb as I think it is notable regardless of it not being ITN/R, both because the election result itself represents a significant upset to the makeup of Greenlandic politics, and because of all the foreign attention on the territory generating a lot of news over this election. ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING05:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support; I wouldn't usually support a sub-national election (as Greenland is not a sovereign state but part of the Danish Realm), however given the circumstances surrounding the election and Donald Trump's threats to Greenland I think we should still post this. I could be convinced otherwise but I think that the context around this particular election makes it ITN-worthy. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 14:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Democrats are against the US annexation. The election wouldn't be some magical "elect us to be American" deal either way. Departure– (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, I mean the Democrats that won a plurality in this election, not the US Democratic party. I feel this is being partially nominated on the edge of "pro-annexation party won". Regardless, I don't think this is going to cause a major status quo change in the Greenland situation. Departure– (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comment. I'm afraid what the Greenlanders want and decide may be of little significance given Ukraine, a country with almost 1000x bigger population and a vastly bigger economy is being often sidelined by the US and is struggling to repel an invasion. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're all against it. Nevertheless, the election on a hot-topic issue is notable of itself. As would be essequibo voting against or for venezuela.49.206.4.204 (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the Somaliland and Taiwan precedents. Granted, not comparable situation as the aforementioned countries, but still exercises a high degree of autonomy and is a country in every aspect even if not fully sovereign. Furthermore probably the most pivotal election in its history, with unprecedented worldwide attention far surpassing that of other elections of even fully sovereign democratic nations at the moment. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite not being ITNR, this election is garnering a higher level of coverage in the RS than most states' national elections which we would otherwise post. The increased interest is certainly due to Trump's proposed annexation, but it is clearly "in the news" nonetheless. It would be overly bureaucratic and strange to reject posting this, when this is clearly is a more newsworthy election than most others we post as ITNR. FlipandFlopped ツ18:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Meets notability due to the amount of coverage (despite not being ITN/R), and the article has a lot more cited prose than a lot of elections do this early after results. We have the background, platforms, results analysis, in addition to the usual quality tables. ~Malvoliox(talk | contribs)19:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Somewhat of a subnational election, but also not really given Greenland is mostly autonomous, and it's been receiving a high level of attention given the current circumstances. TheKip(contribs)19:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support' - doesn't qualify automatically as ITN/R, but it's certainly very much significant and in the news, with the USA's threats of invading Denmark. Nfitz (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Normally not a fan of blurbing subnational elections. However, this one has an unusual level of significance given the ongoing threats by President Trump to annex the island. The "weak" is due to a few tables being somewhat unclear on the sourcing. I am going to assume that is an easy fix. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft support although not an independent country, Greenland is so autonomous I feel like they should be an exception for ITN. Scuba03:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vastly more significant than most sub-national elections as an area with self-government and because of the whole Trump fiasco. It also helps that this is a gigantic upset. --SpectralIon03:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trump shenanigans should not let us get carried away. We do not post elections of the Scottish Parliament despite the independence movement there, similarly for Catalonia, Puerto Rico etc. The politics of Greenland itself appears to be dominated by the Greenlandic independence movement and this isn't as big a sea change as one would make it out to be. There would be definite notability if this was a referendum or similar. Gotitbro (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro I think the argument here as for the blurring of lines with subnationality is that Greenland exercises quite a lot more autonomy that Scotland or Catalonia do, subjective as that may be. It seems more akin to the Netherlands' semi-union of equals with Curaçao and Sint Maarten, rather than being a true territory. TheKip(contribs)05:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ITN criteria doesn't prevent the blurbing of subnational elections, if found notable based on their merits; just most often they are not. Greenland, while not a sovereign nation does have a lot more autonomy from Denmark than Puerto Rico, Scotland and especially Catalonia have from their national governments. ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING05:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would also support posting a subnational election in Scotland or Catalonia, if that particular election was garnering widespread, substantive, and/or "unusual" levels of coverage in the global RS. It isn't unique to Trump's influence or to Greenland. FlipandFlopped ツ05:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support although sub-national (and not ITNR), it is notable in recent context. As an aside the sub-national, defeat of the communist party in west bengal was also posted.49.206.4.204 (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sub-national elections. The influence of Trump's crazy and unworkable proposals are circumstantial, stop giving prominence to everything he does and says. There are more important things at stake in this election. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's borderline, but I'm leaning support because of the combination of 1) Greenland already being one of the "most country-like" subnational regions and 2) the fact that this story is very much In The News™. As others have pointed out, just because it's not ITN/R (as in, not automatically eligible) doesn't mean it's therefore automatically ineligible for ITN. We just have to evaluate elections like these on a case-by-case basis, and I think in this case, there's a good enough reason to post. It helps that Greenland is still much more than just a territory or province, and even more autonomous than other subnational entities referred to as "countries" like Scotland, so this doesn't set a precedent that we should be posting subnational elections more often. But I also agree with Flipandflopped that we certainly could post subnational elections in other areas with a significant amount of autonomy and/or notable movements seeking to gain further autonomy or independence, just as long as those elections are very much in the news and more notable than typical subnational elections for one reason or another. I don't find the Trump fiasco on its own to be a very compelling reason to post; obviously Trump will not annex Greenland, there is absolutely no mechanism on the table for him to actually do that. It's not for sale, and no one seriously believes an American invasion of Denmark is imminent. But this election was a major upset whose results differed greatly from the polls, and it's receiving considerable coverage in international media. Vanilla Wizard 💙11:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trump did however alledgedly (not a lot of sources reporting this) order the military "to plan options to expand the presence of American troops in Panama and potentially try to reclaim the Panama Canal." (nbc) so i suppose if he really is going to go through with panama greenland might unfortunately be on the table. not saying this has any relevance to the greenland nom just throwing this out there bc i saw you mentioned greenland and the potential of a us invasion Ion.want.uu (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support yes, it is a local election; however the results are clearly a response to Trump declarations, becoming a subject of international coverage. ArionStar (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Toss out the Trump angle for a second, as it was almost certainly never happening anyway. The real background here is an almost 180 degree reversal in the composition of the Inatsisartut. Siumut had their worst result ever, and even combined with Inuit Ataqatigiit, the two parties COMBINED have never performed so poorly. Naleraq controls 8 of 31 seats, which could potentially cause an even greater independence push. This is purely conjectural, but these results show a real shift in Greenland politics (I suggest anyone editing here to look through the "Analysis" section of the article). DarkSide830 (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The vote tally stands at 15 in favour, 4 opposed (including softs). The rationales have been clearly fleshed out. That's enough for a consensus decision, and nobody has objected on quality, so I am tagging ready. FlipandFlopped ツ22:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article is currently a stub, but a hijacking/mass hostage incident of this scale seems more than notable enough for the FP. TheKip(contribs)17:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative blurb as there is an active hostage situation and the incident was a major terrorist attack. I oppose the article's quality though, as it is a stub. Once it has more information I think it should be posted. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait on article quality per above, and Strong Support on notability once it is improved as there are hundreds hostage and at least dozens if not also hundreds dead. --SpectralIon18:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the article is expanded and updated but after that is fixed I strong support the altblurb (although the other one would be fine as well. This is a really major event with most likely over 50 people killed and at least a hundred taken hostage. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 21:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support 30-200 deaths is obviously significant. I'm concerned both that the article seems pretty light content-wise, and that details on the event seem unclear even in the mainstream media. –DMartin03:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The hostage crisis is now over, and the article has been mostly updated and expanded. Over 340 hostages who were eventually rescued and over 100 deaths is certainly nothing to scoff at, and the hijacking is a relatively unusual event by Pakistani terrorist attack standards. The total death count is still unclear, but I believe that the real numbers will come soon. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on significance, but the article still is unclear to the number of casualties. The infobox states "59 [deaths] (including 33 militants)" but the prose mentions 100 dead. Natg 19 (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for actual conviction by ICC (which seems most likely to happen). Since he was not a sitting leader at the time, this is not really the best point to post this, based on several more recent stories around world leaders and crimes they may have committed. Masem (t) 04:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Respectfully disagree with Masem. Being arrested and detained on an ICC warrant is already quite rare, but on top of that it's an arrest of a former world leader, who was until 2022 the head of state for a country of over 100,000,000+ people? That is a once in a lifetime event. Both the arrest and the future hypothetical conviction (if it happens) probably clear the barrier for notability, independently of one another. FlipandFlopped ツ04:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with focusing on the arrest of a former leader (not sitting leader) is that it somewhat of a POV throw of guilty-before-proven innocent BLP violation, given that the usual metric for the inclusion of any criminal trial is the conviction or sentencing. If it were a world leader, like in the case of South Korea's president, that's more a factor related to the change of power in that country. Also, given this list of ICC indictments, "once in a lifetime event" is an extreme stretch. Masem (t) 04:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Laurent Gbagbo is the only other former head of state who was arrested by the ICC, in 2011. While the argument that being "arrested and detained on an ICC warrant is already quite rare" (there were 22 instances), and this being a "once in a lifetime event" (the last being 14 years ago), a former head of state being arrested is indeed very rare, this being second in history. I don't think we'll see an arrest of a sitting head of state no matter how atrocious the charges are. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - slanting oppose per Masem, wait for conviction.
Weak oppose - Masem provides a good point. If a sitting world leader was arrested, it merits inclusion in the bulletin, but considering Duterte is a former chief executive that has so far only been accused of committing crimes (even if he already admitted responsibility elsewhere), it would set the wrong precedent in Wikipedia's news coverage. On the other hand, Duterte is the first Philippine chief executive (sitting or otherwise) to be arrested based on a warrant issued by an international court. LionFosset (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support given he was in office fairly recently, combined with the infamy of his "war on drugs," but I won't fight to have it posted. TheKip(contribs)05:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERP doesn't preclude the high-profile arrest of an already notable figure from being included on the Wikipedia, as evidenced by an article like "Arrest of Rodrigo Duterte" existing at all. If the fact and circumstances of an arrest are so unique or newsworthy as to be independently notable (e.g. a rare ICC warrant arrest of a prominent head of state), then nothing in WP:PERP precludes a blurb, so long as the wording of the blurb does not incorrectly connote guilt. This was the precedent we set with Netanyahu, for example. Everything currently in the blurb is factual, no? FlipandFlopped ツ17:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the primary blurb is not factual as Duterte was arrested by the Philippines police not by the ICC as the latter doesn't have a police force. This is a bit weird because the Philippines no longer accepts the jurisdiction of the ICC. It appears that the arrest is political in nature and some kind of power play by the Marcos faction. The alt blurb only presents one side of the story and so is prejudicial. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is the alt blurb prejudicial? It is plainly factional and neutral without having prejudice about whatever underlying politics are going on. The ICC warrant is a real warrant (no comment whether the ICC is a legitimate institution or not). Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's plainly factional because it uses legal language which legitimises the matter. The ICC is not respected in much of the world -- China, Russia and the US all oppose it in various ways. If it's not legitimate then this might be considered extraordinary rendition. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be more fitting if this gets posted to ITN once he is already convicted, though I personally would not mind that this gets posted now. After all, while it is not the first time that a former state leader was arrested by the ICC for crimes against humanity (or any other similar cases), this is the first instance that a former Filipino president was arrested by the aforementioned court. Vida0007 (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support per the points stated below by Patar knight, not to mention that there has been a precedent for this (Gbagbo in 2011). The arrest itself is a rare instance, and the case against Duterte is considered to be special and complex, so much so that it is different from the usual court cases which usually fall under WP:BLPCRIME. Vida0007 (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support With ICC arrests and warrants for them, the notability is such that we have to move beyond the absolutism of BLP crime. They are clearly high profile, uncommon and definitely in line with the recent precedents we seem to have set up with the Putin, Netanyahu etc. postings. Further, this comes with the recent expansion of ICC's actions beyond smaller states. That Duterte might be convicted is inherently WP:CRYSTALBALL and does not affect this notable news now. Gotitbro (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think we should wait for a conviction, which will be years away. We previously ran Netanyahu receiving an arrest warrant. Secretlondon (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if he is acquitted years from now this is big news. An ICC arrest warrant actually being carried out is nearly unprecedented. Bremps...16:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a notable event and is in the news around the world. The fact that he hasn't been convicted is secondary - the news of his arrest is what's newsworthy at this very moment, and running this blurb does not imply he is guilty. RachelTensions (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as I am sure has been pointed out, ITN only posts convictions. In this case, there is a good chance that somehow strings will be pulled and he will be set free in a few hours or days. Also, the support notvotes seem to be engaging in a little bit of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Abductive (reasoning)17:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this event is the result of a power struggle within the Philippines, and this method was chosen to shaft him. So, not as interesting. I am still opposed. Abductive (reasoning)23:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per all above. We don't post indictments but this is a proper arrest, and one of the most prolific events done by the ICC recently. We did post warrants being issued for Netanyahu and other figures due to the Israel-Hamas war so I don't see why seeing an arrest would be less notable. Departure– (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any RGW banditry here (what am I missing though?!), most supports seem to be based on the notability of an CC arrest warrant being carried out per se. As is mine. WP:PERP's primary concern is "not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured". We are not creating an article, we are mentioning a notable historic, globally-recognised fact. Cheers, Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi17:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. This will certainly cause political and domestic drama with Duterte's popularity and the Marcos-Duterte feud. --SpectralIon18:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ICC arrests of former heads of state are extremely rare, with the only previous example since the court's creation in 2002 being former Ivorian president Laurent Gbagbo in 2011, which we posted (and sitting heads of state have never been arrested). This is massive news both in the Philippines and around the world. The privacy interest that underpins WP:BLPCRIME (a subsection of WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy) is almost entirely mitigated by the fact that this a former head of state who was in power until very recently (2022), the charges are not something minor, and the charges are not obviously frivolous (we have an extensive parent article at Philippine drug war). What BLPCRIME does bind us to do is to avoid imputing guilt before a conviction, which is done by making sure that it is made clear that these are just charges. I've proposed an altblurb that clarifies that the ICC did not arrest him, but it was pursuant to an ICC warrant, as well as the context of the charges, which we included in previous ICC head of state blurbs. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions20:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the arrest itself, regardless of any future outcome, is highly unusual. It was some kind of secret operation, in a country that is no longer even an ICC member! In fact, I would argue that it is much more surprising (and thus notable) than any possible future trial or conviction. Toadspike[Talk]20:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support first blurb, the "first planet" part of the second blurb seems unnecessary with only 8 main planets we can readily observe. I will add the IAU recognizes these as well. There are a couple of unsourced Para eay in the article that should be fixed. Masem (t) 23:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary oppose - The article has not been sufficiently updated to include all 128 new moons, and discussion of the new moon discoveries isn't fully fleshed out yet. To be blunt, I dislike the generic moons of Saturn image here as it does not depict the outer irregular moons at all. I'll be uploading an image showing all of Saturn's irregular moons, including the 128 new ones, shortly after I make this comment. Nrco0e(talk • contribs)23:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this article does get updated in time, then sure I'd go for the firstsupport the 3rd blurb. The number "200" is rather arbitrary in my opinion. Nrco0e(talk • contribs)23:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GN22: I've updated the orbit diagrams of Saturn's irregular moons. I suggest replacing the ITN image with this one, which actually shows the orbits of the new irregular moons (alongside the previously known ones mixed in there). The news media is severely lacking on relevant and accurate illustrations of irregular moons. Nrco0e(talk • contribs)01:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]Nrco0e(talk • contribs)01:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While "the news is severely lacking X" is rarely a reason to use X in WP:ITN, this one has actually been used in the news (example 1, example 2), just less often than one might hope. The originally proposed image -- a generic image of some of Saturn's regular moons -- is not representative of the discovery. Renerpho (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much like either blurb. Mention of a "record" is weird and out of place, and the 200 cutoff arbitrary; and both have the jarring connotation of these moons being new, not merely newly-discovered. Besides, Saturn already had more confirmed moons than any other planet. —Cryptic00:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting and generally good material for ITN, but I've got to oppose until the article is updated accordingly. As long as it needs that hat note, it's not ready. Renerpho (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is currently in the process of being updated. The list of moons is currently being expanded. Should be fully updated in short order. GN22 (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Renerpho and GN22: I've filled out the list with all 128 new moons now, with the help of a Python script I wrote to convert MPC orbital elements into the Wikipedia table format for this list. I'm quite glad this method has saved a lot of time and potential wrist pain, though I hope other editors find out before they end up wasting time manually filling out the table. @FilipinoGuy0995: I saw you working on the list. You can stop and rest now :) Nrco0e(talk • contribs)22:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I don't see the impact of a bunch of new moonlets just a "few miles wide".
Wait for the article to update, then Support Altblurb 3. Even if they're pretty small, 128 new moons is quite a lot and this is a major astronomical discovery. --SpectralIon04:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three people, including two hospital workers, are killed when a medical transport helicopter crashes in a forested area near Tupelo, Mississippi, United States. (Irish Star)
32 people are killed and at least 12 others are injured in two bus crashes in Mexico. (The Daily Observer)
A court charges the dismissed Valencian regional minister Salomé Pradas [es] and the former regional secretary of Emergencies for the management of emergency warnings during the floods that caused 228 deaths in October 2024 in the Valencian Community. (El País)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Member of the British dance group Five Star (called the "British Jackson 5"). News broke March 13, death occurred March 10. Article is slim but no glaring issues. FlipandFlopped ツ13:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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.
Also, for the record, I disagree with where that discussion is heading and have added my opinion to that merge discussion (in support of your preferred choice). As of right now, I don't think Khalil even passes WP:GNG on his own. The target article should be the detention article, if we are going to post this at all (which per below I also disagree with). FlipandFlopped ツ03:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The arrest of a University student who attends an Ivy league university, spurring local protests in an American city, is not news of a sufficiently global character so as to merit inclusion on ITN, which generally features globally reported news with a significant impact. We would not even be debating posting this if the Indian, South African, Chinese, French, Russian, Brazilian, literally any other government started proceedings against a University student protestor, causing local backlash. If or when this causes a more systemic impact with large-scale protests, along the lines of the Mahsa Amini protests or the George Floyd protests, then I think we could reconsider. FlipandFlopped ツ02:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The most probable consequences of this I can see (court cases, deportations ...) are both internal to the US and relatively minor compared to things like the US-Mexico-China-Canada trade war. If something more dramatic happens (such as auxiliary effects in Israel, although I'm hard-pressed to see any realistic possibility), reconsider then. Banedon (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nom. In the grand scheme of things this is pretty pedestrian news. Although arguably a legal abuse, I could throw darts while blindfolded at a list of recent actions by DJT with a very high probability of hitting one with greater legal and constitutional significance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both stories are part of the larger picture around the Trump administration and civil rights, including the arrest itself (which is one of a long list of these), and protests (which there have been numerous and not just to any single event). Focusing on any one that doesn't have any immediate international effects (like the tariffs and trade war) is just not going to work for ITN. (obviously, this is based on the fact the protests remain non-violent and lack any type of inappropriate response at this point). Masem (t) 04:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - just one in a series of actions by the government of the US. No particular notability.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Bakhos2010: When you nominated this, the article was just one sentence. That is impossible to assess. Write the article first; nominate it once it has been updated, to at least close to postable quality. ITN is not a breaking news service. This was clearly a premature nomination - even hours later, the article doesn't clarify the impact of this event, presumably because it's still unknown. Modest Geniustalk16:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I thought some wikipedians could nominate the event quickly after the article was created, so i had to nominate it quickly. I know ITN is not a breaking news service. BakhosLet's talk!04:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. The article doesn't give enough information currently, and looking at news reports they don't have much more information either so there isn't (yet) anything that it can be expanded with. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's now clear that this is a significant enough incident and the article is in good shape, no need to wait any longer. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Only makes sense to post if there is a significant oil leakage or a large number of deaths (which this doesn't seem likely to be the case). The collision and fire itself is not a significant enough story for ITN. Masem (t) 14:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait too much is in the air to post. I suppose that goes without saying. No reporting on injuries or deaths in the article, nor threats of an oil spill, both of which may occur in the coming hours or days. Departure– (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not a routine accident given the size of the ships involved but definitively not a major event. Impact appears to be limited to only one non-fatal casualty, potentially an oil spilll, and one big headache for the ship owners and insurers. 2607:FA49:553D:1900:6456:4768:7E7C:1845 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This doesn't seem to be of international importance. We are absolutely not a rolling news source. Articles on the main page should be really high quality. Secretlondon (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant (and rare) major maritime accident. Unknown number of persons missing + jet fuel + sodium cyanide + both ships on fire close to shore... yeah this is a blurb worthy event. Obviously there is also the potential for serious environmental impacts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was the subject of an absolutely huge controversy at WP:SHIPS back in 2014. There were multiple discussions that eventually resolved to deprecate the use of that term because it was deemed too niche. FWIW I was strongly opposed to that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's arrant pedantry of a most unhelpful kind - most people just don't know the word 'allision' and no clarity would be gained by using it. It's also untrue: a ship riding at anchor is not a fixed object in the sense that a pier is. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, less significant than other oil spills that weren’t posted. If this happened elsewhere, it would not have a snowball's chance at getting posted
Support alt unusual incident which is making global headlines, so support. And while I sympathize with Andrew's insistence on using the proper terminology, I think we should go with how the most prominent reliable sources are describing it. Unfortunately, the New York Times and BBC are using "collision", while only minor more niche maritime news sources are using "allision". FlipandFlopped ツ23:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Two total confirmed/possible casualties, neither ship is notable on their own. An unusual incident, sure, but shipwrecks aren't uncommon, and this doesn't seem to have a special/lasting notability beyond the novelty of a collision. TheKip(contribs)05:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impossible to know in advance whether something will have lasting significance, but at the moment we are looking at an international investigation and multiple sources suggesting the likelihood of a environmental crisis. That suffices. Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi11:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We don't usually post things because sources think something will happen. Two casualties and no significant impacts. EF512:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst "off Withernsea" is cited as the location in the article, and both alternative blurbs, a wider audience might find that reference too parochial. Associated Press and the BBC identify the location simply as in the North Sea and 20km off the East Yorkshire coast. AP goes further and talks in terms of 240 km north of London. The mjor ports of Hull and Grimsby are detailed on maps, whilst Withernsea (population 6,159) doesn't get a mention.
Support One person has died and another has been arrested on manslaughter charges. Also, the environmental effects are looking worse by the minute. Black Kite (talk)18:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strike my earlier wait vote, and strong oppose, this isn't seeming notable. One alleged death wouldn't be much of a reason to post, and I'm not convinced about the ecological effects being any worse than numerous other oil spills that haven't been posted. Departure– (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Oppose - this is premature. This is not a change in PM, it's the change in the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Wait to see if Trudeau resigns (which is almost inevitable), and renominate if Carney becomes Prime Minister. I'm not sure why people keep nominating things prematurely. It's not a contest. Also, it was a leadership vote. It was not an election. Nfitz (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not premature. The party members elected him; if it shouldn't be called an election, then you need to get the article title changed. Trudeau had already announced he will resign(that triggered the election), they will decide the exact moment soon, but no one thinks this isn't going to happen. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Putin announced he wasn't going to invade Ukraine. Either way, renominate when that happens - which normally take one to two fortnights. Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz is correct. Trudeau is still the PM until he steps down, which should happen in the next day or two. Carney right now is the PM-elect / PM-designate. Natg 19 (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but we posted Trudeau's announcement of resignation before his actual resignation, and Trump's victory in the U.S. election before he was inaugurated, then I don't see why we can't post this prematurely. Hungry403 (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We posted those events because it'd be months before the followup events actually happened. Carney will be PM in a matter of days, if not hours. Just wait until he actually is. RachelTensions (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Leadership of a nation changed. We posted Trudeau's announcement of resignation, so we can post the results of it too. Hungry403 (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trudeau hasn't resigned @Hungry403. He announced his intent to resign. The leadership of Canada has not changed. The leadership of a political party has changed. Historically under these circumstances, the transfer of power to a new PM takes about 2 to 4 weeks. Though with the threats by Canada's enemies to take over the country, these are not normal times. Nfitz (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article says "Earlier this week, outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he expects the transition to happen "in the coming days or week." So I expect it to happen very soon. Natg 19 (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Mark Carney has been voted as leader of LPC and is now legally the prime minister elect (or next prime minister/prime minister in waiting). To become acting prime minister, he first needs to be sworn in by the Governor General (a representative in Canada of Britain's King Charles III) - this swearing in is an inauguration. Montezuma69 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting here is the equivalent of not posting the result of the 2024 U.S. presidential election because there is a chance that maybe Trump wouldn't end up be inaugurated; i.e., WP:CRYSTALBALL. DecafPotato (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that equivalent as his (Carney’s) inauguration is almost imminent, likely on 10 March by or before noon. Normally in the morning of the next day the outgoing PM will tend his resignation to the Governor General and then in less than one hour or so the new PM will be appointed. Starting from the same day the new Cabinet will be named and most of them will get appointed, too, with some junior roles being appointed in the following days. — Boreas.04:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is purely my deduction but I reckon everyone can see this time is different, since Carney is not an MP and surely he will not choose to be filled in by a by-election and as he has already expressed his intention to call an election immediately, the delay in the name of transition will be unfounded this time. They will finish the transition immediately and Carney will immediately go to the Governor General to ask for the Parliament to be dissolved and a GE to be called, if I may take a guess here, on 21 April. This time it is the precedent of John Turner to refer to, not anything else. He became the leader of the LDP on 16 June and PM by the end of the month, 9 days later he dissolved the Parliament and a GE is called in September. But back then, the LDP used just one day to elect a new leader, not over two months, with the Parliament being prorogued for an unusually long period (in many other Westminster systems this might even be considered unlawful). The Parliament is to be resumed this week and you surely cannot imagine Trudeau continuing to take two weeks in the Parliament as the PM ;) Currently it’s the best time for the LDP to call an election and they will call it as soon as possible. — Boreas.06:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it is purely my deduction, many a press did use the word ‘immediately’ this time, for instance, FT claimed ‘Carney is expected immediately to replace Trudeau’ in their article.
But I would like to correct the record that I just read in The Globe and Mail that the Parliament is to be prorogued until 24 March (Wow! Canadian Parliament can be prorogued for so long?! Three whole months?!), so I was wrong (I remembered having read somewhere that the Parliament will resume this week, mea culpa). If so, then I stand corrected on my statement of an immediate PM change. I reckon it will not happen until the Parliament resumes. And the expected GE will also be delayed into May I think. Thank you for letting me correct myself ;) — Boreas.06:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct @Chu Tse-tien he'll be sworn in Friday. 3 months isn't particularly long, given it included the extended Christmas break. They didn't prorogue until after the Christmas break started, so all they've really done is delay the next sitting by 8 weeks, and with other breaks, they've only lost 20 days of sitting. The Christmas break for Ontario is still longer, as they don't resume until April (without proroguation!) Though I guess they'll now lose another 4 weeks or so with an election. Nfitz (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support and support to post now. Article quality requirements are met. Now is when this is news, not when Carney technically assumes the executive tomorrow or the day after. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but suggest a little delay until the midday of 10 March by when he sure will be appointed as the new PM and all the confusions above shall then be cleared. (Besides, by the time he becomes the new PM, there shall be a honorific prefix of ‘The Right Honourable’ added on the top of the infobox of him, since in Canada this life-long prefix is conferred to every new PM, not necessarily requires them to be an MP.) — Boreas.04:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting ASAP. The leadership election win is the news, the swearing in is a formality and can be updated if the blurb is still in the box at that time, which seems likely per the Globe and Mail [17] saying that this time it will be days instead of the usual weeks (e.g. Campbell in '93, Martin in '03) Other Commonwealth countries typically do the leadership switch the day of or the day after, so the closest parallel was Chris Hipkins being posted to ITN succeeding Ardern as NZPM upon being the only candidate in the race upon close of nominations on Jan. 20, 2023 [18], and only being officially sworn in on Jan. 25. Most of the blurbs did mention the party, with the bolding of the new PM/leadership election seems split, possibly dependent on page quality, which shouldn't be an issue here (e.g. Australia: Gillard, Rudd, Turnbull,Morrison; NZ: Hipkins; UK: May, Johnson,Truss, Sunak.) The two in Wikipedia's lifetime that did not mention the party were UK: Brown and NZ: English. I've suggested ALT2 based on the Hipkins post. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions05:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very clear he will be Prime Minister, those saying "There's nothing saying the leader is the PM" have zero argument, they are technically correct and if those circumstances applied here they would have merit, but it has been said by the leadership candidates, by Trudeau, the media, and the Party leadership that yes, the newly elected leader will be Prime Minister. He will likely be sworn in tomorrow if not the day after. TheFellaVB (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. The election is likely to be far more "in the news" than his swearing-in will, whether two days or two weeks away. TheKip(contribs)06:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until Carney becomes PM. We did not post Shigeru Ishiba becoming the new LDP leader and only posted him when he assumed office as Japan's Prime Minister. Not sure what's different in Canada's case. Tofusaurus (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Trudeau is still PM and seems quite active in the role currently. As Canada's international relations are quite volatile currently, events might affect the succession and so we should wait on the formal transfer. ITN will look contradictory if it posts the succession ahead of it actually happening and then has to post a blurb such as the current tariff one in which Trudeau is still acting as PM. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is patently in the news now, and similarly to election blurbs, the time the result is known is the correct time to post it. The Mark Carney article needs some work so in wouldn't bold that, but the election article itself is good to go. Given the large volume of support already, marking as Ready. — Amakuru (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as ready is improper as the discussion has not been open for a full day yet. It's not appropriate to rush this as we already posted Trudeau's intention to resign and his article is a controversial topic which requires special care. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement that a topic can't be marked as ready before a certain period AFAIK, especially with 1) a clear consensus as to posting and 2) this is ITNR. What controversial topic does this fall under? BLP? We're posting the election, not the person. Canadian politics is not a CTOP. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a common complaint when nominations are posted before all time zones have had a chance to comment. WP:ITN/A says "If the consensus is not entirely clear, consider letting the nomination run for more time, especially if the nomination is less than 24 hours old."
Talk:Justin Trudeau says emphatically at the top that "The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic." I'm not sure of the details but suppose that there's a history of disputes.
Wait, then support Let's wait for when Carney actually becomes Prime Minister of Canada, either immediately or in a few weeks' time. What is truly ITNR and ITN-worthy is the change in the head of Canada's government, not the Liberal Party's internal elections. His previous position at the Bank of Canada is totally irrelevant. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it is apparently wikia policy not to post subnational elections/leadership changes, so the change of the Governor of Canadia should not be posted any more than the Governor of New York or California would be. This also means it was WP:UNDUE to post the initial announcement Governor Trudeau made if it was indeed posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1C20:8C00:391A:3B70:2716:467F (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prime minister is the national leader of Canada. I don't know where you got the idea that this is a subnational 'governor'. I'll assume good faith, but this could also be read as trolling. Modest Geniustalk11:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's embarrassing that so many are chiming in without knowing what they're talking about. A hint: if you're an American with no background in Canadian politics having made no attempts to educate yourself, maybe sit this one out. He hasn't become PM yet and there's no reason to post this until he has. JDiala (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait then Support as per above. The Westminister system of handling this is wonky, and although I don't expect surprises, the possibility exists that the Governor General invites someone other than Mark Carney to form a government. --NaturalRX16:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The possibility of that is less than say a US presedent trying to perpetuate an overthrough of the governement and convince the vice president not to approve the president elect. So you would support on waiting to announce a new US president until after inaugeration just in case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, him winning the leadership election is much more notable than him taking office, as I doubt the latter will make headline/leading news due to it being an expected consequence of the former. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He's been elected and is now the Prime Minister-designate. Holding off until he's officially appointed would be like holding off announcing a US presidential election victory until the president-elect was inaugurated. Azixw (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until Trudeau resigns. Change in head of state is ITN/R, not party elections. I think when Carney takes over is the best time to post. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting now I've said in the past that I support posting when the leadership election is won, as opposed to when the ceremonial transfer of power takes place - it is quite literally more "in the news" + widely covered upon revelation of who the next leader is. The official swearing in ceremony, by contrast, is a mere formality which garners relative less coverage. FlipandFlopped ツ23:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there's indications in the leading media the transition may be much quicker than usual. And now it's not 5 minutes after the announcement, the article has been improved. The suggestion by an IP that the Governor of Canada shouldn't be posted, is more vile American warmongering in support of fascism. Perhaps the entire IP rangeblock should be banned. Nfitz (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Posting Now. I've seen some arguments demanding it wait until the formality of the Governor-General appointing him to actually post this, but that would be incongruent with how Wikipedia handles Constitutional Monarchies: when the Brits change their PM, we post it as ITN/R when it's clear who the next PM will be. We didn't wait for the queen to formally appoint the PM. And for those unfamiliar, the Governor-General in this role simply serves as the stand-in for the British monarch. Nottheking (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Starmer was appointed PM the day after the general election. Even the surprise of Sunak becoming PM was only 3 days after Truss announced her intention to resign. Nfitz (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until he takes office. Please be patient, and consider that the coverage of that moment will be bigger news than this internal party election. Abductive (reasoning)17:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it is an intra-party affair after Her Excellency the Right Honourable Mary Simon announced that she was swearing in Prime Minister Carney on Friday. Nfitz (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on quality, not sure about notability. I'm not in the loop about cricket (or sports generally). It does look like a different ICC tournament is on WP:ITN/R (the Men's T20 World Cup), and I'm not sure about the difference in notability for Champions. However, the article has a good amount of sufficient quality prose, both about the content and context of the game, and it's fully cited. ~Malvoliox(talk | contribs)01:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose a sideshow of a never ending demand for live content to broadcast, not ITNR and only 8 eight teams (a sideshow for live content). It is neither the world cup nor the t20 world cup, nor the ipl (which is someone ITNR). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsnut24 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability. This is very much the second tier contest in men's one day cricket, behind the World Cup. Given we already blurb the World Cup, the 20/20 World Cup and the test World championship, not to mention women's events and the Ashes, it would be excessive to also blurb this. — Amakuru (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For anyone opposing — while, I respect your opinion — the question to ask is — what changed since 2017 for the notability of this event to change? If there has been no change to this event’s notability since the last time we posted, I do not think that argument holds. Ktin (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What changed is the introduction of so many other cricket "championships". There seems to be one every six months. And we won't/cannot post them all. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the 2017 criteria were, as wasn't active at ITNC then. But I under the current WP:ITNSIGNIF criteria, I would not have supported posting 2017 final, even though it had more coverage than 2025 (as was India/Pakistan match, which generally increases coverage). Champions Trophy is about the 5th biggest competition in cricket, possibly lower, which isn't high enough to post (T20 and 50 over World Cups, World Test Championship, IPL, Ashes are all way more significant and we'll covered). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this doesn't meet WP:ITNSIGNIF. It probably isn't in the top 5 most notable cricket events, and isn't even the premier 50 over competition (the Cricket World Cup is). Posting in 2017 when criteria was different to now does not mean it has to be posted in 2025 using our current criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I am also currently opposing on quality. The sections on each innings are too short, and there is way too much meaningless trivia in e.g. the match details notes using every stat they can find. Fails WP:ITNQUALITY. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Cricket is an extremely popular sport in large parts of the world; if anything we under-represent it on ITNR. This is a second-level tournament, a smaller version of the World Cup held in the gaps between those events. If we were to post another 50-over format competition, this would be the one to go with. I'm not entirely convinced it's significant enough, but what tips my !vote is the article quality - there are good prose summaries of the group stages and final, which has often been the problem with sports nominations and I would like to reward. I think we can post this, but explicitly without it setting a precedent or being considered for ITNR. Modest Geniustalk11:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not in ITNR. The only international cricket results we post are The Ashes, The Cricket World Cup and the T20 World Cup (male and female). The Champions Trophy is really minor in comparison. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)17:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something not being on ITNR is not a reason to either post or not post something. It must be judged on it's notability and article quality. Comments whose only rationale for (not) posting is related to ITNR should be disregarded. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disagree that a national championship in a given sport inherently makes it notable enough, especially when we already post a lot about other more prominent cricket tournaments to begin with. Not seeing enough global impact or widespread coverage in the RS to justify posting this. FlipandFlopped ツ23:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is historically the second most important cricket tournament internationally (after the World Cup). It's absence on ITNR is not on account of importance but that no one nominated it for approval, the tournament being in abeyance for almost a decade. Its return further adds to the notability, this edition also marked the full return of international cricket to Pakistan after 15 years (2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team). We have similarly posted the World Test Championship even though it is much more novel simply on account of its notability. To put Ashes and IPL above this (if we are talking about international coverage) in terms of importance, simply due to their presence on ITNR, does not really hold weight. Gotitbro (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support: Well-known playwright from South Africa. More people have heard of him than some of the other people we have posted on RD. Djprasadian (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - Most important playwright to ever come out of South Africa. Extremely significant during the years of apartheid when the far-right was in power. Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Soft oppose--The article is in mostly great shape, but there's one uncited sentence around his death claiming two factoids (that might not need to be there): a) he was the last surviving person who played with Joe Dimaggio and b) he was the last surviving member of the 1953 World Series winning Yankees. If those details are either removed or reliably cited, we'll be good to go. ~Malvoliox(talk | contribs)08:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This news is headlining multiple organizations
Oppose, if the 300 death toll were a single massacre then that would be notable, but this has been across multiple massacres since January. People dying is nothing really unusual in a war. 675930s (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to verify whether the death toll cited in the blurb is accurate, so I did a little bit more research. That figure comes from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, and has now been re-reported by the New York Times. However, the NYT article is clear that "the allegations could not be independently verified [...] another monitoring group, the Syrian Network for Human Rights, reported that government security forces had only killed some 125 civilians. It said that men of all ages were among the casualties and that the forces did not distinguish between civilians and combatants". The 340+ claim does not seem sufficiently independently verified among the RS to make the main page.
Although Djodjor is correct that this is a horrific death count for only two days of conflict, the current blurb makes it seem like 340+ people were executed and massacred in a singular mass killing, such as what occurred with the Flour massacre, for example. Per the NYT, this is not what happened: the NYT article linked above discusses reports of indiscriminately dropping crude bombs from helicopters and aggressive guerrilla tactics throughout Tartus and Latakia, which has resulted in dramatically rising civilian casualties. Heavy civilian casualties due to indiscriminate tactics is distinct from a singular massacre of hundreds of civilians, which is what the blurb implies. That might still be sufficiently notable for ITN, but we need to make sure the blurb is accurate.
In addition, the blurb claims the massacre was committed by Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham. However, the target article for that organization refers to it in the past tense in its first sentence and claims it was disbanded in January 2025. Either the blurb or the lede of the article it links to is therefore incorrect.
Wait per Flipandflopped's first point — independent confirmation is needed. SOHR has also updated its death toll to 745 civilians. Another issue is that the target page appears to be about a broader range of attacks starting in December, not this specific clash on March 6–8 (which might merit its own article). I would support posting this to ITN on notability. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 22:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With the amount of coverage this massacre has received, I strongly support posting it; *not* posting this high-profile story would be a failure on our part. This massacre did occur, it is only the death toll that hasn't been independently confirmed (Reuters and BBC have still been unable to confirm the death toll). Altblurb1 without an exact death toll seems sufficient. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 16:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While a counterinsurgency campaign typically has civilian casualties, the events unfolding in Latakia are being characterized as deliberate massacres by multiple sources, including the BBC and CNN. It seems a bit flippant to dismiss the events as simply side effects of an insurgency when there is ample evidence that this is a pogrom and should be treated as such. FossilDS (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is the latest phase of the continuing Syrian Civil war which is no doubt generating much conflict and misery. But the article Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present) has quality issues with multiple orange tags. And it says that misinformation is rife and so we should be wary about selective reporting of inflammatory claims. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights seems respectable but is based in the UK and mostly a one-man operation so we shouldn't just repeat their output.
More generally, the Syrian conflict seems like the Somali civil war which is nominated below. They are both classified as minor wars as they generate 1-10,000 deaths annually. There are 6 major wars listed which are worse and so we should keep our coverage in proportion. The entire region of the Middle East seems to have endemic conflict just about everywhere -- only Jordan and the Gulf States are shown as peaceful.
Neutral—In principle, I would support a blurb on the notability of these massacres as a major (and deeply unfortunate) development in this new phase of the Syrian Civil War, What gives me pause is the attribution of the massacres to the Syrian Armed Forces, without any further context or elaboration, when the question of culpability remains up in the air. As the two proposed blurbs are currently worded, the underlying message being conveyed is that the current Syrian government, under Ahmed al-Sharaa, ordered these killings. In reality, we don't actually know whether they were perpetrated as part of a systematic and centrally-organized campaign of persecution against the Alawites, or if they were spontaneous acts of mass murder committed by rogue combatants within the SAF. In his response to the violence, al-Sharaa explicitly pinned the blame on pro-Assad elements attempting to discredit the new government; for all we know at this time, he may be right. In short, I do think this is a significant enough development to merit a blurb, but I want us to be very careful about how we phrase it to avoid inadvertently giving any particular narrative undue weight. Kurtis(talk)12:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Specific targetting of civilians from a minority ethnic group is clearly significant, being a part of a larger ongoing conflict does not downplay it. Labelling these as counterinsurgency operations is abhorent. A blurb along the lines of "A massacre of Alawite civilians has been conducted in western Syria" would be better. Gotitbro (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This happened. There are dozens of videos of people being shot. The whole "independent confirmation" thing just strikes me as lowkey racism, where you need some organization ran by white people to verify the atrocity before it is deemed truth, and the Syrian human rights groups are inadequate. But such verification may never come because the West supports these jihadists. JDiala (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When there are major human rights violations, there are usually non involved human rights orgs that get in on foot to provide independent confirmation (eg as in the recent evrnts in Gaza). The assertions of a closely involved org are something to be suspect of in terms of the appropriate quality of the article.
That said we have confirmation there has been a major violent escalation over there last several days, and asserting that in the urn as the factual statement along with the assertion on >1000 killed, is a far more neutral way to do this without waiting for the additional verification on the exact number. Masem (t) 18:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the worst atrocities of the modern era. It's basically a Yazidi-tier genocide. Calls for independent confirmation are, in my view, textbook systemic racism in action (see comment above). In any case, we have multiple WP:RS stating as a matter of fact that the events occurred, including the US State Department and AP headlines, so it is suitable to include at this point. JDiala (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A possible compromise position which may please everyone is simply including the word "reportedly" in the blurb. I should clarify that I'm not super keen on this, but it could be a way to streamline the consensus process here. JDiala (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major and tragic event that is escalating as we speak. Media is conflicted on exactly what branch of government-affiliated fighters are committing these atrocities so leave that out for now and add it in when that's stable. Bremps...19:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This news is headlining multiple organizations including the BBC, and the scope and scale of the massacres have provoked widespread international reactions. This clearly goes beyond the causalities one would expect from a war, and and Wikipedia should recognize at such.FossilDS (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This NEEDS to be added. This is not just some clash in the ongoing civil war, but a notable series of events including the worst violence over a few days since the days when ISIS still held considerable territory in Syria. As someone who was cautiously optimistic about the developments since December, I had to face reality after seeing how awful these events are-they are notable of their own accord, and even if one still hopes the government brings accountability for this, to just pretend it's not a major event disturbs my conscience. And just because some of the facts around them are still ambiguous doesn't make them not worthy of the newsbox. There have been many attacks/massacres/other similar events that have made the news box even if casualties/perpatrators were unclear or being debated.
Strongly oppose the blurbs as a WP:V, and WP:NPOV violation. The CTV News article is a RS, but it clearly attributes the death toll to the SOHR, not its own voice. It also blames the killings on "Sunni Muslim gunmen loyal to the government", not the Syrian Armed Forces. Al-Jazeera adds that "Al Jazeera was unable to independently verify the death toll."[21] The other issue is that sources are reporting that 125 government security force members and 148 militants were also killed in the violence[22]. We need a better blurb.VR(Please ping on reply)19:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated vote I agree in spirit with Nice4What and others that atrocious massacres have certainly happened, but strongly caution any posting admin to post altblurb 3 only. The original nomination of this blurb confidently, and yet objectively incorrectly, attributed the massacres to Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham. This has since been modified to accuse the Syrian Armed Forces (an arm of the the new Syrian government). There is an understandable rush to support posting on notability, fuelled by the moral outrage, but this initial inaccuracy underscores that who exactly committed this massacre is still being investigated. We have to be very careful that what we are blurbing is accurate and independently verified. Among the RS, there seems to be a general agreement that many of the massacres were committed by anti-Assad groups. Howwever, there is a major difference between Sunni Muslim militant groups who are allied with the government committing the massacres, and the military directly committing the massacres on order of the new Syrian government. Wikipedia should not be the first to break a story and confidently accuse a state of war crimes, when the NYT BBC CTV etc are not yet willing to do so and are only relaying the Syrian Human Rights Monitor's accusations in passive voice. FlipandFlopped ツ19:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support only ALT3 per Flipandflopped. These are the largest clashes since the fall of the government and the civilian deaths only add to to why it should be posted, but assignment of blame is still unclear and we should post a safer blurb. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions20:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ALT3 is the best option here, but there are two problems:
The article still attributes the killings to the Syrian government, which is false.
The article correctly says that some of the civilian killings were perpetrated by the Assad loyalists, but ALT3 only refers to the revenge killings, which implies that only the government allies were responsible, which is false. MT(710)10:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb 3 Massive number of deaths per above. I'm fine with all blurbs but I find Altblurb 3 the best as others also have. --SpectralIon03:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Russia launches an overnight missile and drone attack across Ukraine, damaging energy and gas infrastructure. Ukraine says that it shot down 34 of 67 missiles and 100 of 194 drones. (Reuters)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Death published on 7 March. Date of passing not apparent in the source, however, unsourced additions by an anonymous editor, presumably a family member or a close one from the more intimate details added, put her death sometime at the end of February. – robertsky (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For your information, I have never had any close relationship, friendship or local knowledge of Gabrielle Davis. I created the article about her (and other related articles) because of her notable local political work regarding the 2010 threatened closure of local museums by Canterbury City Council. I took the article's photo of her, and it was kind of her to permit that. All my own edits on the article had to be separately referenced by my own efforts, so as to provide citations (so no OR by me). I have not spotted unsourced edits in the article (which is on my watchlist), but if you are aware of any, please let me know so that I can search for citations. If she made a will, then the exact date of death will be announced when the probate is published, but that process can take months. I could apply for and pay for her death certificate now, to get an exact date, but if you want me to do that, please tell me now, as the process can take more than a week, via the GRO. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC) (Update: The full birth and death dates have now been supplied. Storye book (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]
The notability of the article is not that she had a particular job (of councillor and sheriff). It's about what she achieved, in spite of council policy. If it were not for her work, Herne Bay would have lost its museum, which represents the town's identity and heritage. If she had just done her job as local councillor, i.e. done what she was told to do in the council chamber, there would be no Herne Bay Museum. Storye book (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Article has plentiful references, especially on the firing squad execution. Only slight quirk is that they are mostly at the end of paragraphs, but that's ok — WikiContributor0830 (t) 02:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A couple of CN tags (not many) but the following sentence definitely needs one as negative unsourced BLP: "At age 18, Sigmon's string of criminal activity began in Greer with an armed robbery charge on May 29, 1976". SpencerT•C03:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Appears to be cited and somewhat whole. Last section should be renamed "Legal issues" but that's a small thing. Bremps...02:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order creating a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve funded exclusively with bitcoin seized in criminal and civil forfeiture cases. (CNBC)
According to a report in the academic journalScience, the population of the 554 recorded species of butterflies in the U.S. have declined by 22% since 2000. (NPR)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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.
Could you please help ITN voters out by specifying a blurb and adding a nomination editor? Just because something in the news a lot, doesn't mean it merits a blurb. ❤HistoryTheorist❤20:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the articles get updated enough for ongoing, there are other conflicts such as Myanmar civil war (2021-present) which also unfortunately don't meet the criteria (WP:ONGOING)
Generally, these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article. In general, articles are not posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status.Natg 19 (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ongoing are meant for stories that would have near daily coverage and updates to their articles (in addition to quality issue), not simply because the event is ongoing. This gets some coverage from time to time but given how prolonged it is, most of the media seem to give little coverage of it. Masem (t) 23:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article:IM-2 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Athena loses contact with NASA and Nova-C controllers. (Post) Alternative blurb: Athena touches down on the surface, communicating to earth, but might be on its side. Alternative blurb II: Intuitive Machines's Athena soft-lands on the Moon as part of NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services program. Alternative blurb III: Intuitive Machines's Athena soft-lands on the Moon on its side and is unable to complete its mission. News source(s):CNN Credits:
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Oppose due to it being too soon. Likely that Athena toppled over just like Odysseus, but all we know now is that Athena is sending some data as far as I can see in this CNN live update, that's limited to just reporting that the Athena is generating power. Scuba17:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt2 landing was actually a success, ITN/R
Oppose Watching the feed, I didn't see any indication that they lost contact. Though it does seem that it is again on it's side. WAY too soon. Nfitz (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking increasingly likely that it landed too close to a boulder that is blocking the sun, and radio signals, on one side of the lander resulting in a loss of power... or it tipped over. But it never went out of contact unexpectedly. Scuba19:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the landing was a disaster, and they've now permanently lost contact with it, I don't know why there's any support. These attempts are frequent enough these days, I don't think we need to post the crashes. Nfitz (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically all of these supports are correct on this, although it did get to Mons Mouton it was 250 miles away from its designated landing spot, but it still landed on the moon. So based on ITN/R, the moon was a technical landing designation, but it stil dident get to its destination, and its based on my specific ides and thoughts along with the other supporters, Chorchapu is supporting the alt blurbs not the og blurb. Shaneapickle (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until more information is known. We're not a breaking news service. ITN shouldn't put a blurb on the Main Page until the outcome of the landing is clear - and the article has been updated accordingly. Did it crash, land safely, or something in between?Modest Geniustalk19:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still wait. The press conference last night has provided some information, but it remains unclear what the status of the spacecraft is. It seems to have landed but either been damaged or fell over, and isn't generating enough power to operate the science experiments. Maybe this is recoverable or maybe it's terminal; we don't know yet.Modest Geniustalk12:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I now oppose. It is now clear that the spacecraft landed in the wrong place, fell over, couldn't generate power from its solar panels, and was unable to complete its mission. I don't think ITN should be posting unsuccessful attempts, regardless of the positive spin that the company is attempting to put on it. Modest Geniustalk11:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It still falls under ITN/R due to the fact it reached an area that was part of its mission was to go to the SOUTH POLAR REGIONS OF THE MOON. Shaneapickle (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know the updates say there is some communication and experiments on board are running, but if it did land or topple on its side, like IM1, I don't know if we'd call that a successful landing for ITNR. Masem (t) 23:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, it hasn't toppled over, it's just angled away from the sun so it isn't getting a full charge. Scuba00:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They don't know how it's oriented outside of the poor solar charging, and it will be a few days before any craft will be ae to sight it and conform. — Masem (t) 00:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, "destination" is the key word for the ITN/R criteria, not status. So in this case, the fact that it accomplished "A soft landing on the Moon" (even if it tipped over) means that it did manage to arrive at its destination. Whether it could accomplish its mission at its destination is another matter entirely, and not covered by the ITN/R criteria. (and would be impractical to cover, given that the at-destination durations of these missions readily exceed the lifetime of any ITN item on the FP) Nottheking (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait as per others. As the ITN/R criteria specifies, "destination" is critical. This both means that the blurb needs to mention its destination, and likewise, a final statement on its condition (whether it was a success, partial success, etc.) should be known. (on an aside, this does mean that had it failed to land at all the argument could've been well-made that it failed to meet the ITN/R criteria) Nottheking (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support and has added an alt. It's now been confirmed it's on its side and the company has declared its mission cannot be completed given its orientation. -- KTC (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose According to the Guardian (see link) it didn't even land where it was supposed to, but 250 miles away. That doesn't sound like "reaching its destination" per ITNR, at least in my book. Khuft (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spacecraft never bullseye their landing. There's a reason "Astronomical distances" is a term. The overall target was... To land in the polar regions of the Moon, which it definitely made it to. Nottheking (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral on this, but doesn't "destination" for ITN/R in a more general sense mean the Moon? I assume this is distinguishing between successfully landings (or entries into orbit) and failures. Natg 19 (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in spaceflight this is the general sense. So the broad category here that makes it "to Lunar orbit and beyond" is that it reached "soft landed on the Moon." The arguments that it somehow isn't on the Moon because it deviated a distance from where they aimed it would be like claiming that the Mars Perseverance Rover failed to reach its destination because it didn't bullseye its target either. Nottheking (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support AltBlurb 3. We now have confirmation from RS that the mission is "dead," though it did achieve its destination of a "soft landing on the Moon." The exact landing location isn't as critical here: when it comes to landing on other bodies, successful missions still tend to land many km away from the targeted spot. Nottheking (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the "destination" was the targeted destination, not in a crater hundreds of kilometres away. Is the "soft" landing on the Moon the first time it hit, or the second time when it impacted on it's side? Nfitz (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, we had no problem with all the "2020" sporting events (such as the Tokyo Olympics) being held in the wrong year. And to answer your question, we have an article that defines "soft landing." The lander was undamaged, just that its position was incorrect for the function of some key components. (namely its solar panels, needed to keep power) Nottheking (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Just wanted to note here that I've updated the proposed blurbs to reflect the fact that "Athena" is actually the name of the lander. "IM-2" is the name of the mission that flew the lander. — AFC Vixen 🦊 01:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb 3 as ITNR It reached its destination, which was the moon. Like it or not, the current ITNR criteria does not include additional conditions about how scientifically impactful the subsequent mission must be, nor about the relative accuracy of the landing. If folks disagree with this, we should take this as a sign that we need to narrow our space exploration criteria (something I might actually agree with, because I think we verge on being a space news ticker). However, this clearly meets the ITNR requirements as written. FlipandFlopped ツ23:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Oppose. Understanding the ITN/R principle at play, this is very much a dead-end story. The mission accomplished nothing past landing (not even doing that properly). There will be no scientific findings from the rover in the end. Not even the only Commercial Lunar Payload Services mission this month. What exactly is the value in running this story, independent of INT/R guidelines saying we do so? DarkSide830 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax[http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Thank you mate 
QalasQalas (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)