Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

↓↓Skip to suggestions

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

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

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

Keir Starmer The Labour Party (leader Keir Starmer pictured) wins the UK general election. Hurricane Beryl, the earliest-recorded Category 5 Atlantic hurricane, leaves at least 22 people dead in the Caribbean and Venezuela. In the Netherlands, a new cabinet is sworn in, with Dick Schoof serving as the prime minister. A stampede during a religious event in Uttar Pradesh, India, leaves at least 120 people dead. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war timeline Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Audrey Flack Ismail Kadare Hugh Aldons R. Sampanthan Lalla Latifa Amahzoune Lando Bartolini Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

Discussions of items older than seven days are automatically archived

February–March 2005 • April 2005 • May 2005 • June 2005 • July 2005 • August 2005 • September 2005 • October 2005 • November 2005 • December 2005 • January 2006 • February 2006 • March 2006 • April 2006 • May 2006 • June 2006 • July 2006 • August 2006 • September 2006 • October 2006 • November 2006 • December 2006 • January 2007 • February 2007 • March 2007 • April 2007 • May 2007 • June 2007 • July 2007 • August 2007 • September 2007 • October 2007 • November 2007 • December 2007 • January 2008 • February 2008 • March 2008 • April 2008 • May 2008 • June 2008 • July 2008 • August 2008 • September 2008 • October 2008 • November 2008 • December 2008 • January 2009 • February 2009 • March 2009 • April 2009 • May 2009 • June 2009 • July 2009 • August 2009 • September 2009 • October 2009 • November 2009 • December 2009 • January 2010 • February 2010 • March 2010 • April 2010 • May 2010 • June 2010 • July 2010 • August 2010 • September 2010 • October 2010 • November 2010 • December 2010 • January 2011 • February 2011 • March 2011 • April 2011 • May 2011 • June 2011 • July 2011 • August 2011 • September 2011 • October 2011 • November 2011 • December 2011 • January 2012 • February 2012 • March 2012 • April 2012 • May 2012 • June 2012 • July 2012 • August 2012 • September 2012 • October 2012 • November 2012 • December 2012 • January 2013 • February 2013 • March 2013 • April 2013 • May 2013 • June 2013 • July 2013 • August 2013 • September 2013 • October 2013 • November 2013 • December 2013 • January 2014 • February 2014 • March 2014 • April 2014 • May 2014 • June 2014 • July 2014 • August 2014 • September 2014 • October 2014 • November 2014 • December 2014 • January 2015 • February 2015 • March 2015 • April 2015 • May 2015 • June 2015 • July 2015 • August 2015 • September 2015 • October 2015 • November 2015 • December 2015 • January 2016 • February 2016 • March 2016 • April 2016 • May 2016 • June 2016 • July 2016 • August 2016 • September 2016 • October 2016 • November 2016 • December 2016 • January 2017 • February 2017 • March 2017 • April 2017 • May 2017 • June 2017 • July 2017 • August 2017 • September 2017 • October 2017 • November 2017 • December 2017 • January 2018 • February 2018 • March 2018 • April 2018 • May 2018 • June 2018 • July 2018 • August 2018 • September 2018 • October 2018 • November 2018 • December 2018 • January 2019 • February 2019 • March 2019 • April 2019 • May 2019 • June 2019 • July 2019 • August 2019 • September 2019 • October 2019 • November 2019 • December 2019 • January 2020 • February 2020 • March 2020 • April 2020 • May 2020 • June 2020 • July 2020 • August 2020 • September 2020 • October 2020 • November 2020 • December 2020 • January 2021 • February 2021 • March 2021 • April 2021 • May 2021 • June 2021 • July 2021 • August 2021 • September 2021 • October 2021 • November 2021 • December 2021 • January 2022 • February 2022 • March 2022 • April 2022 • May 2022 • June 2022 • July 2022 • August 2022 • September 2022 • October 2022 • November 2022 • December 2022 • January 2023 • February 2023 • March 2023 • April 2023 • May 2023 • June 2023 • July 2023 • August 2023 • September 2023 • October 2023 • November 2023 • December 2023 • January 2024 • February 2024 • March 2024 • April 2024 • May 2024 • June 2024

---

Terran 1 launch

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

• I'll reiterate my frequent refrain that space exploration is poorly suited to ITN/R, as we will inevitably find ourselves parsing whether what the thing did matches the wording of the guideline. That said, I cannot even tell what the thing did at this stage, so Wait for article to be fleshed out. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I am open to an article like this for ITN, and this could be the humble start of quite cheaply produced rocketry! But it's not a particularly big-impact mission as it stands, nor is it particularly promising just yet. If the article were a solid B-class with a lot of detail, I would be happy to see it featured, but right now it doesn't feel ready for the front page. Waiting until a rocket by this team reaches orbit might be more helpful for our project, but I can already see that being mass-opposed when the time comes... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Definitely a first for a printjob, maybe the last of the Terrans, update reasonably complete. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Sure...article does need expansion, but this is ITN/R. I don't know, honestly. Cheers. WimePocy 13:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for ITN/R reasons. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Comment While this is a very interesting news, I don't think it is ITN-worthy at this time. I would prefer to wait until they have a successful launch. Otherwise, this could be perceived as promoting indirectly someone's business.--Maxxies (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a. Good to have positive, diverse stories to post

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

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

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

• Support since this is in ITNR. Also, I watched it from my university's parking garage last night, and witnessed the 2nd stage fail to ignite, so that was interesting. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

RD: Kéné Ndoye

 Rushtheeditor (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Turing Award

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

• Comment That should be just Ethernet not "the Ethernet" as it's a family of protocols, not a particular network. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Metcalfe's article needs a lot of sourcing work. --Masem (t) 12:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Striking out the second 'the' in the blurb per Andrew's comment. Cheers. WimePocy 11:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Metcalfe's article still needs a good amount of work, but the Ethernet article looks good so I'm excited to see this featured once BLP guidelines are met. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Abel prize

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

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

---

2023 Badakhshan earthquake

 Ainty Painty (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article looks good! Fahads1982^Talk 11:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support definitely notable, and changed blurb into present tense. - azpineapple | ^T/_C 13:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Article feels a little sparse, but probably good enough for ITNR. The Kip (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Agree with The Kip on this one, but it meets the minimum requirement for ITNR (though there is now one {cn} tag, pertaining to the quake's impacts in Tajikistan). Also transferred this nom and the now-posted WBC 2023 nom to 21 March, as both happened on that date (and not 22 March). Vida0007 (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Reminder This is not an ITNR nomination, judge on significance and article quality. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - article is decent, I've seen shorter article be posted to ITN. Crusader1096 (message) 18:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) World Baseball Classic

 – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until it's updated. Noah^Talk 02:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Noah, it's updated. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support updated, article in good shape, notable, good image, no issues with blurb! Tails Wx 03:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't think we need "In baseball" because that's obvious from "World Baseball Classic." Jehochman ^Talk 03:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks good! Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 03:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks good. Amazing game --Torsodog^Talk 06:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Absolutely. This year's edition of WBC may have been a bigger baseball tournament than World Series ever was. MarioJump83 (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Tweaked because of "defeats" vs "defeat" MOS:ENGVAR debate. Also, the general WBC page should be included.—Bagumba (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand why this blurb with a quite thin article (limited text) was posted that fast after just a few hours, while other blurbs with many more supports are posted days later. I have serious questions on this process. Things need to be fair and consistent, otherwise the credibility is lost. Maxxies (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't post stubs or poorly sourced pages. It had a game summary of multiple paragraphs. The other subjective criteria, I leave to the participants (or I otherwise !vote), and there was unanimous support among a handful of participants after many hours. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I respectfully disagree strongly. This does not address the weaknesses of the article pointed out after it was posted and how the process is fair and consistent. While I certainly support the idea of having blurbs posted for current events as soon as possible, very few people had the opportunity to provide their comments, especially those who live in the Americas, in Europe and Africa. The blurb was proposed late in the evening/night and posted in the middle of the night/early morning. Does it mean that we should stay awake all night? My goal is here is to foster an inclusive environment and facilitate engagement of most for quality blurbs and articles. Otherwise, some people may feel that their commitment to ITN may not be worth their time and effort. Maxxies (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I posted based on the !votes at the time. No problem if consensus happens to change afterwards. There is no minimum wait time, and this is not close, timewise, to other posts that have been faster. We are all volunteers here, so nobody should expect anyone to "stay awake all night". However, we have historically posted once there is consensus among a sufficient number of participants. If the community wishes tighter guidelines than what has been done in the past, they are free form a consensus to amend WP:ITN/A, which reads: Editors at ITN/C declare their support or opposition and, after a few hours, it's usually fairly clear if enough people express reasonable arguments in favour of posting. 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. —Bagumba (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering a handful of supports before posting can only increase the risk of bias. At this time, I am not confident that the process is fair and consistent. I rest my case. Maxxies (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The article is still quite lacking in background and explanation. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where?--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous nomination for details. Generally, the article is quite sketchy. For a more developed example, see 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup which has about 5 times the prose and hasn't even started yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of an unequal comparison, considering one is solely the championship article and one is for an entire tournament. The Kip (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't understood that the article is just about a single game in this event. That seems odd as our articles usually cover all of a tournament. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament blurbs usually have a target article of the championship game/final rather than the tournament as a whole. The Kip (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the tournament is held over a couple of weeks as a concentrated event, as this was, then we'd usually report the entire tournament. For example, 2023 Men's FIH Hockey World Cup or 2023 Australian Open. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the posted blurb links to both the general tournament and the individual final, though the final itself is the only thing bolded. DecafPotato (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I'm obviously not voting to pull; I hate to agree with Andrew, but it's a worthwhile point that the article seems thin on prose. Not bad enough to pull, however. The Kip (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur. Curbon7 (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree as well. Hell, the road to the final section is pretty just a table and not a prose detailing how they got there. Also no aftermath section. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That prose is in the subarticles, and the table is sourced. What aftermath is missing? The players returned to spring training. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, the irony. Any sporting event that had as little prose as this one, but was one from outside the USAsphere, would immediately have been opposed by multiple people for exactly that reason. The article is crap; a five-line summary of the final and nothing else. Well done, everyone. Might be useful as a future "well this was posted, so ..." example, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't even on free TV or basic cable in the US (in Japan 97.3% of TVs that were on were tuned in by the time of the stunning last ball (17 inches of perfectly aimed swing in the air at 87 mph after 102 mph) but Japan has few English speakers (Japanese to or from English is hard to learn (Less related than English and Bengali, badly correlated English soundoletters vs stylized pictograms, different sounds, l and r no longer the same phoneme, sentences are almost completely backwards. Phoneme splitting is hard! In some languages dark l vs light l can change meaning and English-only people like me don't even notice. But ace and ass we notice right away but Japanese only has 1 kind of A and only 5 vowels instead of 12+ in English))) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Look at ITNR sports articles that are posted. How many of them are longer than 2023 World Baseball Classic, 2023 World Baseball Classic Pool A, 2023 World Baseball Classic Pool B, 2023 World Baseball Classic Pool C, 2023 World Baseball Classic Pool D, 2023 World Baseball Classic knockout stage, and 2023 World Baseball Classic championship? Maybe that many of them are one article is confusing? Even if you consider the blurb only has the final game and the main tournament article, this is on par or better than most of what gets posted here. And for TV, ratings are up in the US and I bet a lot of people watched around the world, I'd love to see those numbers. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah I didn't see the problem. And American interest in the WBC seems to be growing as you said which is pretty cool, baseball gets to have something kind of like the soccer World Cup. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2022 § (Posted) Argentina wins World Cup, the initial wait's and oppose's were because there was literally zero prose of the actual match at the time. It eventually got posted within 2 hours of the nomination with 5 support's and some unredacted wait's (presumably their concerns were resolved). —Bagumba (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Coverage To understand the event better, I just looked through the coverage in the NYT. I had to search for it because nothing is listed on its online front page, not even in the section at the bottom which summarises the sports section, The Athletic. That has six other stories such as "Can Princeton Crack the Elite Eight?" and "Fans Are Furious About the N.H.L.’s New Uniform Deal." But when you search, there are several articles about this event and, after reading them, two main points emerged. Firstly, that the MVP, Shohei Ohtani, is something special because he excels at both pitching and hitting and such all-round play is not usual in baseball at professional level. And, secondly, that the US has trouble fielding a team for this event because, somehow, it interferes with pre-season training for the regular season. The problem seems to be that the players don't actually get to play which I still don't fully understand. Anyway, our article doesn't seem to convey or explain these key points.

The general impression is what I gleaned from an earlier perusal – that the event is not well-established and supported like the World Series, say, but is still quite anomalous and shaky. And the issue for us here is that the nominated article does a poor job of explaining all this to the general reader. We are regularly told that ITN is not just for running headlines but is expected to highlight detailed, quality encyclopedic articles. Myself, I don't mind if articles aren't perfect because Wikipedia's focus is speed not perfection. But I do expect a level playing field in which all types of topic are held to the same standard.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair none of the Ivy League basketballers have reached the top 8 in 44 years even though at least 1 of 8 schools is in the tournament each year and they only need to win 3 games in a row. It'll be interesting to see if brains can still beat jocks in post-1970s college basketball (a series of rule changes and, ironically, nerdier statistics have made it much harder) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The US team has these problems for a number of reasons: players in the world's 2nd strongest club league (Japan) seem much more likely to find the change of schedule and small risk of injury worth it (most years don't have a preseason tournament, players usually train then play exhibition training games this time of year), the regular season+postseason already fill about all space that's available at the current level of global heating. The record low is 23F/-5C and if they played spring training at home instead of Florida or Arizona then more games would get snowed on. Snow games are accepted in American football but undesirable in baseball. If they made spring training start before the current mid-February the players bodies wouldn't be able to heal as much as they could. Pitchers' throwing side ulnar collateral ligament especially, they tear at least a little every x years or so and only post-1974 surgeons knew how to let them play again by sowing on a replacement tendon (after a long potentially never complete heal, even Ohtani did this). It is very hard on the elbow to throw 102.0 mph like him with an anti-runup rule (pivot foot naked eye not touching ground rectangle at any time between standing still and release is a foul, the rectangle is only 6 inches front-to-back 24 left-to-right)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support - While not as well-developed as other world championships in other sports, the WBC is clearly the premier international baseball tournament. The 'World' Series is a strictly North American event between regional teams; obviously we should post it, but it's on a par with the FA Cup, not the FIFA World Cup. The WBC, while it doesn't have the same high profile as the World Cup, is at least in the same tier as it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryugu asteroid samples

Nominator's comments: Per CNN, while "scientists have previously found nucleobases and vitamins in certain carbon-rich meteorites, [...] there was always the question of contamination by exposure to the Earth’s environment" and "since the Hayabusa2 spacecraft collected two samples directly from asteroid Ryugu and delivered them to Earth in sealed capsules, contamination can be ruled out". The findings are published in peer-reviewed Nature Communications. Brandmeister^talk 08:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As interesting as this story is, it's hardly new information, just a corroboration of previous theory. For example, the article notes "Unlike in previous instances when nucleobases and vitamins were also found in certain carbon-rich meteorites, the contamination by exposure to the Earth’s environment was ruled out as the samples were collected directly from asteroid and delivered to Earth in sealed capsules." So it's probable that we've found such a meteorite before and simply were unable to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt there was no contamination. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support: This is definitely interesting news, but it is buried pretty deep into the article. The article is of good quality though, so this is a support from me.--WMrapids (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per @WMrapids. Crusader1096 (message) 03:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This finding suggests that the RNA-World of which the relics exist in many important biomolecules, see .e.g. here that gave rise to modern life, may be a universal feature of life throughout the universe, rather than only here on Earth. Count Iblis (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support - Very interesting news, and I'd like to see it posted, but I'm not sure if it's really notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't like opposing but the story seems lacking. The molecules in question are fairly simple organic compounds and so it's not surprising to confirm their presence. The sampling mission was posted at ITN in 2018 and this item is just part of the long tail of results. Checking for space news, there seem to be bigger stories. I've just nominated Terran 1 while Hakuto-R has just achieved lunar orbit, prior to a landing for the Emirates Lunar Mission. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on the simple basis that the update to our article isn't significant enough. If, inspired by this news, someone wrote a whole major section or article about the molecular analysis of Ryugu, then that might have been a meaningful article to feature. Here we'd basically be featuring the same text as we did a few years ago. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Willis Reed

 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support An NBA legend and the article is in decent shape. Aure entuluva (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not yet ready Orange-tagged for citations; several inline CN tags present. Curbon7 (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for reasons outlined by Curbon. Orange-tagged article, for CN. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh legislative election

Nominator's comments: This election is part of Kazakhstan's attempt at democratization and saw more parties win seats for the first time in nearly 20 years. ShadZ01 (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Notable for the reasons Shad gave. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's ITN/R and therefore notable enough, and the article seems to be in good shape, but it lacks information about how many seats each party won. Once that is added, consider this a support vote. Son Of The Desert (Talk) 15:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm in the same boat. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait per Son of the Desert. Will switch to support when election results are fully detailed. The Kip (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support upon expansion as stated per above, article lacks clear information regarding the results. Crusader1096 (message) 16:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when expanded, as stated above by everyone else. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Could use a little expansion on the results, but seems ready enough for ITN. Estar8806 (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks perfectly fine, it just needs a bit more info about how many seats each party won. TomMasterReal^TALK 00:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all above. Article looks good!! Cheers. WimePocy 12:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

RD: Virginia Zeani

Nominator's comments: Romanian-born opera singer Cielquiparle (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Paul Grant

Nominator's comments: British actor, declared brain dead on March 16, died March 20. Tails Wx 23:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs work The article completely fails to explain the subject's key feature – that he was remarkably short (4' 4") and styled himself "king of the dwarfs". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Article goes as follows - short lead section, directly followed by the death section, with a singular note that repeats what is already said in the death section. Nothing on the subject, merely a stub. This needs fixing ASAP. Cheers. WimePocy 12:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Terry Norris

Nominator's comments: Australian actor and politician. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IPCC Sixth Assessment report

Nominator's comments: As suggested below. There's work to do on the update... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - as mentioned, not really updated. Additionally, the blurb above leaves out too much information for the reader. The IPCC's 6th assessment on what? What was the warning about? Finally, I question the long term applicability of this story given how prior UN predictions about climate change have aged wildly unwell and its pretty obvious that when it comes to climate change, everyone is naturally incentivized to exaggerate the severity to generate clicks and attention. Crusader1096 (message) 14:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support - Yes, yes, WP:RGW, but this is massive, massive news - a wake-up call to the world, in case all the previous evidence wasn't convincing enough. And it's made headlines across multiple reliable sources. I find Knightoftheswords's oppose rationale unconvincing; any perceived lack of accuracy regarding any prior assessments by the United Nations does not and will not diminish the significance of their office nor of this story. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very significant even if the report would not get countries like mine to change their practices. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I would be less opposed to this nom if the major components of this report had not already been published. As the article acknowledges, this report is composed of three main parts, the most recent having been published nearly a year ago. While the headlines are about the finished report at the moment, if any country is only now having a "wake-up call", they must have been asleep over the past two years. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support - @Knightoftheswords281 makes some good points, and the blurb isn't fit for posting, but at the end of the day I do think this is an event that should be ITN/R. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per all of the above, User:Editor 5426387 (talk), 13:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per DarkSide. I can certainly see its notability, but the most recent part of the report having been published a year ago raises questions as to whether this is even eligible for ITNR or not. The Kip (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The AR6 Synthesis Report, the final part of AR6, was published today. Masem (t) 20:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose today's publication of the report doesn't really change anything or tell us anything we didn't already know before (either from previous reports/news or from parts of this report that were already in the public domain). I don't think the publication itself is ITN-worthy 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:60F7:5482:A96:B5CC (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose per DarkSide. There's not much in here we didn't already know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article looks good. --Maxxies (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose on noteworthiness. Article seems sufficient quality, but it's not clear to me that the mere publication of a report saying what was already well-known is itself significant. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per other opposers There isn't much in this sixth and final report that we don't already know. Unfortunate, but stale. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support These reports are a very big deal. The previous one was published almost ten years ago and we posted it, so I don't see anything that could objectively prevent this from being posted (of course, if the article is sufficiently expanded).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We have not featured this before, and AFAIK the last nom was shut down due to a want of the full report. This is the highest level assesment we can have for climate change and only the sixth in line since the first in the 1990s. Gotitbro (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Good quality, and I would throw in support of the blurb! Tails Wx 12:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. We can't control how IPCC reports are published in parts. Is it the headline story of reputable news organizations globally? Yes. I think that demonstrates it's worthy to be on ITN. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - There's nothing in the report that we didn't know already. Son Of The Desert (Talk) 15:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Altblurb may be a little sensational. Not to understate the effects of climate change, but it sounds like we're directly commanding governments to change their policy in regards to the climate, by saying "actions humanity must take NOW to avoid global warming". Maybe I'm wrong though, what do you all think? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks like it has a tense error; surely "outline" is meant to be "outlining". — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I think you're right. Perhaps "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change completes its Sixth Assessment Report, outlining what can be done to prevent climate change by 2030."? Not too sure if this is the best we have, but it's not as sensational as the first altblurb and giving a little more information. Then again, I didn't read too much, so I can't say if the information I'm giving in this blurb is accurate. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV does not mean creating undue weight for opposing viewpoints. Since this is the consensus of climatology scientists across the world, it's not an overstatement to phrase it in terms of requiring imminent action. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The report is written as a strong warning that all governments need to take action "now", not "wait a few years and take action", if 1.5 in 2030 is to be avoided. It is a strongly worded warning, so Walt is correct that this blurb represents the direness of the situation from the IPCC's view. Masem (t) 12:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. Should've read up on the assessment beforehand, then before commenting. Thanks! TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is a specific news event and a significant report. -TenorTwelve (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per Knightoftheswords, this seems to be just more sensationalism. Its for sure notable and I agree with the sentiment of the report, but the UN has been warning about irreversible climate change for as long as Wikipedia has been around. Should we post every time the UN makes a report on the climate?

Rabawar (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support (with changes to blurb: ... a stark warning on the effects of 1.5 °C warming of the climate). Not mentioned elsewhere so far as I can see, but significant is the fact that this completes the IPCC's sixth assessment cycle, i.e., it will serve as the definitive piece of climate change reporting until the 2030s. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This was all pretty much explained in the last five. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

(Posted) RD: Earl of Crawford

Nominator's comments: British peer, former Minister of Defence and last living MP elected in 1955  The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ancestry needs a cite. Probably should have one for the arms too. Honours is missing two cites. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ad Orientem: All are cited now. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Agree. Jusdafax (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Article is ok . Alex-h (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good to me; this looks ready to post. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Sandstein 23:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Acquisition of Credit Suisse by UBS

Nominator's comments: This blurb should replace the existing bank collapse blurb. Major development in a developing global banking crisis. This is a breaking story, the Swiss government press conference announcing the acquisition is ongoing as I type this.  Sandstein 19:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on notability. I'm still working on getting the article in shape (and I can't speak Swiss German, so I'm relying heavily on U.S./U.K. financial media to expand this); it may be several hours before the quality is there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Red-tailed hawk, thanks for your work. Swiss media are published in Standard German and French, not Swiss German, which should help. Here are a few Swiss media live blogs which should be accessible with Google Translate if necessary: Swiss TV, Swiss Radio. There is also Swissinfo in English. Sandstein 19:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support alternative blurb 2 as an independent entry (i.e. at the top of ITN). I think it is the most precise; there is good sourcing for it, and the global significance is obvious. The page appears to be good to post at this point, though development will be needed to make the article more comprehensive. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also support alternative blurb 4. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on notability. This is a major development in the history of Switzerland, of its financial sector, and it is of great importance to the rest of the world.

XA1dUXvugi (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support something If there was an article covering the ongoing crisis in the banking sector, I think I'd support putting that in ongoing. But clearly this is a very significant move. On Friday people were openly warning that Credit Suisse was teetering on the brink and its collapse could set off a financial panic. Not sure how to frame this as a blurb that keeps everything in the context of a crisis in the global banking system. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If more banks fail, perhaps we should consider an ongoing nomination for this item? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, propose altblurb Significance is obvious, wrote altblurb for conciseness/clarity. The Kip (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, propose altblurb, can be linked to the article on Bank collapses. Technically this is the fourth and not the third bank to collapse in March. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is not a bank failure; UBS stepped to acquire the bank to ward off a future collapse. Only two banks so far have been tank over by a government as a result of a failure. --Masem (t) 20:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Masem, that is true, but my understanding is that the two US banks were also not actually insolvent yet, either, when they were taken over. Maybe a better alt blurb would be "After a series of bank failures in the United States, UBS acquires Credit Suisse to prevent its failure". The proposed altblurb makes it sound like a standard corporate merger, whereas this was more like a shotgun wedding pushed through by global financial regulators to prevent the collapse of a globally systemically relevant bank and thereby a major financial crisis. Sandstein 20:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is complicated because UBS had been looking to acquire Credit Suisse's stable operations for a long time. The controversy at the bank is more related to its investment banking subsidiary First Boston, which is primarily based in the US, so UBS wanted to acquire the Credit Suisse assets minus the First Boston stuff. The current situation is giving UBS a chance to acquire Credit Suisse at a steep discount and also get numerous guarantees from the government over the investment banking subsidiary. Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, but the article needs to be expanded before it gets posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kiril Simeonovski, I've expanded the article, although there is still much room for expansion; the global financial press will certainly provide ample coverage in the coming days. Sandstein 22:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the great work. Looks good to go now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with a new burb and an expanded article. The altburb implies that there is a direct link to the US bank collapses and this event, even though the root causes of these two events are different. Technically, Credit Suisse did not fail as the blurb said. This acquisition prevents its failure and possibly a major financial crisis. The term "fail" in the blurb does not seem to be exact.--Maxxies (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Altblurb 2 proposed. Sandstein 22:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Credit Suisse did not fail. A major reason for the acquisition was to prevent volatility in the global markets, and it is also important to note that UBS has been looking to acquire Credit Suisse for a long time. Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if this happened in a calm environment, two of the largest banks in the world merging would be major financial news. Juxlos (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alternate blurb Something like
• After a series of bank failures in the United States, the Swiss government arranges for the takeover of embattled bank Credit Suisse by its competitor UBS, to prevent further financial contagion. This wasn’t a normal M&A deal, but a government-backed private-sector bailout, and in my opinion should be noted as such. Credit Suisse’s AT1 bond holders are getting wiped out; shareholders are getting a 60-70% haircut; and the Swiss National Bank has stood behind all this guaranteeing $100 billion+ in backstops & extra liquidity. 2601:642:4C02:5D7E:5952:3E9E:551C:3E8A (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Credit Suisse did not fail, and acquisition's not nearly as noteworthy. Furthermore, it is irresponsible to conflate the US failures with this event. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb IV CS is a globally systemically important bank, and the acquisition is basically described as a "shotgun wedding" forced upon UBS. Just the merger by itself would have been ITN-worthy, the circumstances make it more so. However, conflating it witb SVB et al. would be somewhat of an OR violation. Juxlos (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altburb II per above. DecafPotato (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Changing my vote to supporting altburb IV per Chrisclear. DecafPotato (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The proposed blurb, oppose altblurb 1, oppose altblurb 2, oppose altblurb 3. This has no direct relation to Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, or US bank failures generally. I added altblurb 4, which I support, and I would support a similar blurb that does not try to draw a dubious line between this and American banks. I also support altblurb 5. Chrisclear (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any of the blurbs connecting this to the US banks, CS has had its own issues for months now. Dont think the acquisition is all that front-page worthy by itself either, but if there is any blurb worth posting it is only altblurb 4. nableezy - 04:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Added Alt V as basically every RS noted that the Swiss government was heavily involved in the deal. Juxlos (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Alt V also works for me. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support altburb V: Don't support burbs I to III. Readers must reach their own conclusions after reading the article, whether or not, or to what extent was the event related to US bank bailouts, and not CS's own making. — hako9 (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support altblurb V - Per all of the insightful comments above. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt V Lets not tie this to whatever happened in the USA at SVB / Signature bank, they are seperate events. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  12:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that they should not be tied, but we should be aware that the collapse of SVB did trigger a general panic around banking globally as a result. Panics are hard to document and , per RECENTISM, we should not rush to make a connection (the timing aspects can be discussed on the CS page) but we should be aware that most economic experts point to SVB as the first domino here. Masem (t) 12:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per all of the above, User:Editor 5426387 (talk), 13:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and any of these blurbs work for me. I find #3 to be brief and factual. Jusdafax (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Resigned support - I suppose given that we already posted the story about the Silicon Valley Bank's collapse, we sort of have to continue the story here on ITN, since this now has international impact. But for God's sake let's trim down the number of alt-blurbs. I support using either IV or V, none of the others, certainly not the ones referring to the U.S. bank collapses.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb IV or V This is a big deal, an economic disaster averted or stalled for now. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb V A major deal and the target articles look ready to be posted for ITN. Vida0007 (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

support Altblurb V seems like the best hook for this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Used Altblurb V. -- tariqabjotu 21:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Tariq PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting question. Has UBS "announced its intention to acquire" or actually "acquired"? If the former, then this violates the CRYSTALBALL principle and we should only post until after the acquisition is done, whatever that may mean. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Swiss government has changed the laws of the Swiss Confederation to enforce the merger between the two companies. This merger is not subject to a shareholder vote, and there is not a way for either party to pull out. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, wasn't sure at first, so it's final now. So how come the blurb reads "announces its intention to acquire" and not "acquires"? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL says: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. —Bagumba (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The acquisition has happened now, so why does our blurb read "announces its intent to acquire" and not "acquires"? We should change our blurb, since I now understand that the acquistion has actually happened now.QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Sargassum bloom

---

Leandro Requena scores the longest goal in soccer history

 Count Iblis (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose Complete trivia. Not to be overly insulting, but as per usual Count nominations. The Kip (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and WP:SNOW close - good faith nom, but trivial as @The Kip stated. Crusader1096 (message) 18:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Should it be moved to DYK because it's trivial? UltimateFantasyY (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gloria Dea

 Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Short but adequate and referencing is in good shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 00:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

(Posted) RD: Lance Reddick

Nominator's comments: Better sources on the way. The Kip (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All sources I see right now point back to TMZ, so this should be still dubious. Masem (t) 19:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have a non TMZ source (Deadline Hollywood) --Masem (t) 19:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AP now confirming as well. The Kip (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The body is well sourced, but the filmographies etc need sourcing. --Masem (t) 00:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Incredible career, very sad news. Support this nomination.--SitcomyFan (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support,Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Full citations are still needed on all filmography tables. They are partially done at this point. Masem (t) 17:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Films now fully sourced, some additional citations needed for TV and video game roles however. The Kip (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Looks good enough Ollieisanerd (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Filmography fully sourced. Should be good to go. The Kip (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – thank you everyone for the referencing work! ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 21:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) ICC arrest warrant for Putin

Nominator's comments: Not updated yet but surely will soon be. Appreciate we have the ongoing link but this seems a major development - Dumelow (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on the merits but I wonder if the "on war crimes charges" should be removed, given that it's only a charge. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, absent a revolution in Russia it is doubtful Putin (and the other person charged, the Children's rights official) will ever see the inside of an ICC courtroom or even be arrested. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, but not ready. Wow, that was unexpected. There's no chance of Putin being arrested any time soon, but this is still a big deal in international relations. We don't normally post mere arrest warrants, but for Putin I think we should make an WP:IAR exception. The problem is getting a suitable update somewhere - I don't think a couple of sentences in Putin's long biography article is particularly helpful to readers. Is there one of the Ukraine war articles that could be updated? Or a new article started? Modest Genius ^talk 15:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: the altblurb is good and the new target article has a small but sufficient update. Seems postable now. Modest Genius ^talk 16:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: would War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine be a possible link here? Masem (t) 15:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Child abductions in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is another possibility once it's updated. I've suggested an altblurb also naming the second suspect - Dumelow (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be a good option - it gives context on the specific crime, rather than a general biography (I think most readers will already know who Putin is). Modest Genius ^talk 15:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware that one existed but agreed that is more appropriate to the specific charge in place. Masem (t) 16:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Conditional & Reluctant Support Normally I would oppose a report of war crimes charges as I think they should be covered by ongoing and singling out an individual in a blurb based on a charge only, could raise BLP issues. However, this is Putin himself and that puts things on an entirely different level. The main problem at the moment is that this needs to be substantially expanded. Ideally it should be the subject of its own article. As of right now, this cannot be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Vladimir Putin arrest warrant is now an article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support - unprecedented act indeed, but let's be honest, the ICC knows that the chance of this warrant being carried out is extremely low, and will almost certainly come with major escalation. This is at least in part a virtue signal. Crusader1096 (message) 15:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support based on the importance, international coverage and quality of the articles. This is simply unprecedented. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• dont really know whats unprecedented about the ICC issuing an unenforceable warrant, but plenty of heads of state have been charged previously. This has next to no chance of doing anything, as the Russians would likely react similar to what the US would do. It is in the news though, but all the same, covered by ongoing and of little impact. nableezy - 16:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can somebody please tell me what is unprecedented about this? I guess a warrant against the head of state of a UNSC permanent member, but again several heads of state were indicted while they were heads of state for actions in an ongoing armed conflict. Off the top of my head Omar Bashir for crimes against humanity in Darfur. Gaddafi for the Libyan Civil War. Russia isnt a signatory to the Rome Statute, this is effectively a press release. nableezy - 16:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say that a warrant against the head of state of a UNSC permanent member is both entirely unprecedented and significant. I think that's where the minds of most people in support of posting this are. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I tend to think ICC issues unenforceable warrant against target that will never be brought to trial unless there is a regime change being a non-event and not at all unprecedented, but thats just me I guess. nableezy - 17:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the precedent cited below on Bashir and Gaddafi being posted when indicted then my objections are lessened, though this still is indeed covered by ongoing. nableezy - 20:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support significant development in the Ukraine war, and the ICC is the global body for prosecuting war crimes. While it may seem that the odds of carrying out the warrant are low right now, many former heads of state have been arrested and prosecuted years afterwards. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. Almost certain to amount to nothing seeing as there's basically no chance Putin ever shows up to face these charges. If Putin does eventually come before such a court and is found guilty however? Now that's ITN material. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The ICC issuing arrest warrants in general is uncommon, never mind against the leader of a major world power engaged in warfare against another country, for conduct in said war. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alternative blurb. This is unprecedented in the history of the ICC, and it is extremely significant in that the head of state of a P5 country is being charged. I like the focus on the article relating to the abductions, though both that article and Putin's biography are now updated to include this information, which was absent at the time of the nom. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb - there are two items which lack references, but this is not serious enough to prevent it being posted. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I've fixed the reference issues; please let me know if there is anything else that needs fixing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Red-tailed hawk: - last paragraph of "Reactions" needs a ref. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb - Unprecedented in ICC history, major development in the war.

The head of state of a nuclear power having an arrest warrant from the largest criminal court in the world is big news. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt blurb Major news, think its good to include Maria Lvova-Belova in the blurb and important to note that the charges relate to the alleged abduction of children. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  16:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb Major international event Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Unprecented and major enough to be posted regardless of the 'ongoing' (like we did for the annexations last year). DecafPotato (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted altblurb in a slightly more concise form. Image can be added once it is protected on Commons. Sandstein 17:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sandstein: Just as a quick WP:BLPCRIME note, I think we should probably use the less concise version; something like "alleged involvement in" or "suspected involvement in" seems more compliant with that policy than the thing that got posted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In my view, "arrest warrant" implies that they are accused, not yet convicted of crimes. If other admins disagree, feel free to adjust, but "involvement in" is euphemistic; they are accused of ordering these crimes. Sandstein 18:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Would "allegedly ordering" work better? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, one would need to look at the arrest warrants to determine what specifically their respective relation to the abductions is alleged to be. That would complicate the blurb and make it overlong. Sandstein 19:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sandstein: Could you link Vladimir Putin arrest warrant? Seems to be the root article for this topic. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Still a very new article that needs community examination before posting it to the front page. Sandstein 19:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That article is absolutely unnecessary, making too much fine grain on the level of detail we should cover. Put it with Child abductions in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine instead. Masem (t) 19:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting oppose per Nableezy. A nuclear power answers to no courthouse. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how that's relevant, and nuclear powers UK and France are members of the ICC 331dot (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting oppose. Not really relevant given that Russia (and even the US) don't recognise this court. Also no chance anything will come of it, and we already have a line item in Ongoing for everything related to the Ukraine war.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting oppose. This is not really ITN worthy as it has no real world significance. It is very unlikely this will result in any real world action in the next month. On the off chance something comes of it, it will come months or years down the line and we should post that if it ever happens. Aure entuluva (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC) (Striking in line with extended-confirmed restriction of WP:GS/RUSUKR.) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (edit conflict)

1. "First catch your bear"
2. Today there were lots of high profile news stories that "China's Xi to meet Putin in Moscow next week". Why are we not reporting that too as it seems more likely to actually happen?
3. And there were lots of news stories about Russia downing a US drone.
4. But we already have Russian invasion of Ukraine in Ongoing to cover the numerous and various news stories arising from this conflict. How is this different?
5. WP:PERP says "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law."

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents meeting each other is a routine activity. International courts issuing warrants for permanent members of the UN Security Council who are engaged in open warfare is not routine. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclones, floods and other disasters are routine. Elections of national leaders are routine. Sporting events are routine. And yet we post all these. What's supposed to matter is significance and Xi's meeting with Putin seems more significant than the ICC because China is a superpower and the ICC isn't. Neither China nor Russia nor the USA is a signatory to the ICC. Even the Ukraine hasn't ratified it. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to nominate Xi's visit and check out opinions. As for ICC's arrest warrants, regardless of enforceability and bureaucratic obstacles, this is a major public degradation of Putin's international standing that would enter history textbooks as a symbol of everyone's equality before the law, regardless of ranks, and determination to seek justice at the highest possible level. That alone is sufficient for a blurb. Brandmeister^talk 22:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a report which ties the two together: How a warrant for Putin puts new spin on Xi visit to Russia. There's lots of posturing and speculation so it's still a long way from the history books and still seems best at Ongoing. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support - it doesn't really matter whether or not something will come of it. What does matter is that it's making news around the world and is unprecedented to boot. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per above, still, WTF happened? - User:Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support. Obviously there will be little to no immediate practical effect barring a dramatic Russian collapse, but an ICC warrant is significant and news in and of itself. ITN has blurbed both previous ICC warrants of sitting world leaders: Omar al-Bashir [5] and Muammar Gaddaffi. [6] al-Bashir's trial still has not occured, though after the 2019 coup, he might be handed over to the ICC. Gaddaffi of course, was killed in the war, so never stood trial. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support ICC warrants for heads of state are highly uncommon, let alone the leader of a UNSC permanent member. The Kip (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support It doesn't matter that nothing will probably come of it. The ICC is widely recognised worldwide, even by those who don't recognise its jurisdiction over their own country. It's an arrest warrant for a major current world leader. It's clearly notable news. -- KTC (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Really??? As far as I can tell there are exactly two sentences in the bolded article about this, plus one in the lead. That is completely inadequate coverage for an ITN blurb and to the best of my recollection has never been considered acceptable in the past. We need to slow down and actually look at what we are linking. ITN is not a news ticker and we should not be lowering, or simply ignoring our standards just because something is grabbing headlines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ...or we can be responsive to what happens in the world and remain relevant. I would urge you to review the stated purpose of ITN for which this IMHO checks at least three of the boxes. Quality can always be improved, but perfect should not be the enemy of good. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In other words, we should become a news ticker? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, we should

  -help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.

  -showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.

  -point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.

  -emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.

  If you disagree with these things, I believe you know where the discussion page is. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support A significant action by a respected organization with great moral weight against Putin’s crimes.-TenorTwelve (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Untested allegations against two living people, tiny update and covered by Ongoing. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting support - The ICC has never made an arrest warrant against a (sitting) head of state. As others have said, it doesn't matter if a trial occurs (which it almost certainly will not), it's still important nonetheless. Estar8806 (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. Multiple times untrue. nableezy - 23:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every criminal suspect deserves a fair trial. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most annoying part of the BLP correction from every unsourced tidbit should be retained cus it may in fact be verifiable of yesteryear to today's unambiguous facts should be suppressed because other future things may not be true. It is unambiguously true that an arrest warrant was issued for Putin by the ICC on these charges, and no future trial, conviction, acquittal or anything else would change that from being true. nableezy - 23:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the for the abduction of children from Ukraine part I find prejudicial. That's the charge. The two never-to-be defendants weren't neccesssarily served the warrant for actually abducting children. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support. I am not really surprised but still disgusted by the number of Putin's defenders who came out of the woodwork here. Shameful. Nsk92 (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're referring to me, you've got it wrong, I did the same for Lvova-Belova and I'd do the same for you. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose since when did we start posting arrests instead of convictions? Banedon (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Since when did we consider an Event article that only has Background and Reactions "ready"? Since now, bud. This is yet another stupid fucking precedent to have to remember we threw on the pile, like the Mandela/Thatcher Standard, Lebrongate or WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sure I'll get killed for this but I actually think the LeBron record will go down as more significant. This is DYK material here. The fact that the arrests are likely getting merged into the abductions article substantiates the fact that in-actionable warrants such as these are footnotes in a much larger story. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If anyone wants to kill you, they'll have to get through me next! LeBron setting an all-time NBA scoring record is still a bigger deal than yet another Putin hater trying to hurt him with words. As are the facts that Nelson Mandela and Margaret Thatcher are dead (I don't think anyone here really still cares that 197 died in this suicide bombing or 306 in that flood, though). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction: The current event article was never even the target for this In The News fiasco. Just Putin and missing children. Two things that have already happened. At least it got his picture on the front page. That'll show him. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It's an entirely symbolic move, as acknowledged by all parties, and there's virtually no chance that an arrest will follow it. Not the sort of thing we should post at ITN – we shouldn't just consider whether an event is unprecedented, but whether it has real consequences or the potential to. — Goszei (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting oppose per @Goszei, @Banedon, @InedibleHulk Evan224 (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC) (Striking in line with extended-confirmed restriction of WP:GS/RUSUKR.) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull Firstly Ongoing exists for a reason. We should also not be throwing out BLP in any case, these are still just charges not a conviction (Bashir and Gaddafi might have been posted but those were a decade ago; regardless mistakes should not be repeated). Gotitbro (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no BLP involved here. Saying X has an arrest warrant for crime Y does not say X committed crime Y. And while this is just charges, this is for one of the top world leaders. Masem (t) 14:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  While formal indictments might be included in articles without BLP violations, it is something else to feature these on the main page through ITN. All the recent indictment noms for politicians et al have been shot down at ITN, with an ask for formal convictions. I don't see why we need to move away from precedent, opening a Pandora's box whenever some high profile person gets charged. Gotitbro (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Clearly this case with Putin falls into the IAR-type territory due to the ongoing war and Putin's and Russia's position. We also know any trial is unlikely to happen, so waiting until the results of that highly unlikely trial would be pointless. So this is an IAR-type area.

  We are going to have to think about this as next week, it is expected that NY State will arrest Trump on various charges. There may be other reasons to post (Trump is calling for his supporters to revolt, so we may have significant protests that would be appropriate), but there is something to be said about the arrest of a former President. Masem (t) 19:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Actual arrests and mere arrest warrants require different assessments (though I would not support either). Gotitbro (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support Posting the arrest warrants for Gaddafi & al-Bashir set a precedent for posting this & the arrest warrant for Putin is even more notable since he’s the leader of a UNSC permanent member state. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support - Historic decision. Clearly appropriate for ITN, even if there is not a huge amount of update about it.BabbaQ (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support - For a head of state to be wanted for war crimes is clearly a signficant development in international relations. I know it's not unique, but that's not a barrier here. And I support the detailed blurb used; there's no BLP violation in specifying the nature of the charges for which the accused are wanted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I brought this up on ERRORS, but the current blurb is absolutely a BLP violation. The arrest warrant is not for "abducting" children, it is, according to the ICC news release, for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation. The current blurb is both inaccurate and a BLP violation and needs to be corrected. nableezy - 15:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)][reply]

Unlawful deportation is abduction. This is 'you don't need to cite that the sky is blue. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. The crime here is the unlawful transfer of civilians in to or out of occupied territory. Abduction in the Rome Statute is about forced disappearances, not transferring civilians in to or out of occupied territory. And yes, this is definitely something that needs to be cited, and BLP applies to Vladimir Putin as well as every other living person. I dare say that our BLP policy's main purpose is to protect the people we dislike the most from our biases. nableezy - 19:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may not participate in this discussion due to the extended confirmed restriction applied to the topic area. nableezy - 19:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for multiple reasons. Firstly, the ICC isn't a global judicial authority as the ICJ, which is a UN organ, and this view has recently gained support with the numerous controversies surrounding its work. Note that Russia and the United States withdrew from the Rome Statute, whereas China, India, Indonesia and Turkey have never signed it. These countries make up almost a half of world's total population and include three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Secondly, it's been a long-standing practice that we post convictions, not arrest warrants or arrests, so this posting practically violates both WP:BLP and WP:PERP. Thirdly, the updates in both articles on the people involved are too short and don't indicate that they've committed the alleged crimes. A reader of Maria Lvova-Belova would guess that she rescued a 15-year-old boy given that she's a mother of 5 biological and 18 adopted children. There's absolutely nothing about why that adoption is considered abduction. How the boy's parents and relatives reacted? Did the they file a lawsuit? These are highly relevant questions that should be addressed in the article. Fourthly, this is covered by the ongoing item.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And this is the problem with using "abduction" when the charge is not that. It makes one think kidnapping. The charge is the unlawful transfer of civilians from occupied territory. nableezy - 16:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—The ICC issuing an arrest warrant for a current, former, and in one case future head of government and/or state is not unprecedented. In the past, they've indicted Omar al-Bashir (Sudan), Muammar Gaddafi (Libya), Laurent Gbagbo (Ivory Coast), and Uhuru Kenyatta (Kenya). Out of the four, the only one who ever spent any time behind bars in the Hague is Gbagbo, and he was ultimately acquitted of all charges in 2018. Gaddafi was killed before he could stand trial, the charges against Kenyatta were dropped due to alleged witness tampering in Kenya, and Bashir is supposed to be transferred into ICC custody from Sudan, but the status of his impending extradition is in limbo. So, suffice it to say, the ICC has had a... less-than-stellar record when it comes to prosecuting and convicting heads of state. Nevertheless, the symbolic significance of issuing an arrest warrant for the leader of Russia—either the second or third most powerful country in the world, depending on how you rank China—should not be understated. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose— More or less a symbolic move, the war is already featured in the ongoing section and int'l news outlets seem to have already moved on to other incidents of this war, mostly. DogeChungus (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Has anyone looked at the featured article lately? After a quick look there are multiple broken references, and some interesting sentences (the construct "sometimes maybe" looks especially strange in an article discussing war crimes). Since it's protected, there isn't much I can do about them. 51.154.145.205 (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC) (Striking in line with extended-confirmed restriction of WP:GS/RUSUKR.)[reply]

• In my movie script, Putin is arrested and taken to the Hague to be put on trial, where he reveals that Donald Trump granted him American citizenship. Whereupon American commandos launch a daring raid to rescue him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC) This is WP:NOTAFORUM DecafPotato (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting oppose 1.-Already in ongoing. 2.-Unfortunately, it's an order that cannot be fulfilled 3.-If we have hardly posted arrests or indictments, it makes no sense to post arrest warrant issues now. Only Putin's conviction for crimes against humanity would be ITN-worthy. . _-_Alsor (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. File:Встреча с Уполномоченным по правам ребёнка Марией Львовой-Беловой 03.jpg shows both Putin and Lvova-Belova. Might it be better to use this picture than one merely of Putin? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: Cyclone Freddy

Nominator's comments: The article is in past tense. Seems to be over. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think that's really all we need, so sure, I think we should remove it.

Palmtreegames, Looking for a better signature. (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As stated in the nom below, we were waiting for the death toll to stop increasing so rapidly before removing it. 111 more bodies were recovered just yesterday between Malawi and Mozambique. The storm is considered dissipated as soon as the low-level center can't be tracked or the agencies simply decide to stop tracking it and the article transitions to past tense. This is regardless of whether or not the remnants still exist and are still causing flooding. In this case, heavy rainfall is still occurring over the flooded areas and floods haven't begun to recede as of the latest reports. Noah^Talk 15:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Pull While heavy rain is still falling and floods are still killing people, the cyclone itself has "dissipated". This is part of the reason why ongoing is honestly inappropriate for tropical cyclones. They are "finished" as soon as they degrade enough that agencies don't bother tracking them anymore. We can't keep this here forever while the hunt for survivors and remains is conducted. As far as Meteo France and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center are concerned, the disaster ended on March 14–15 when they ceased tracking it. Noah^Talk 16:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. No longer ongoing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per above - User:Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Curbon7: keep your $5. :P MarioJump83 (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  C’mon, when will they give a good reason to their vote? Tails Wx 23:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed Stephen 22:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: World Baseball Classic

(Needs attention) Ongoing: 2023 French pension reform strikes

 ~ Rushtheeditor (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not enough substantial editing activity to be ongoing Noah^Talk 00:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy SNOW close Article is on the verge of being a stub, and also has 11 edits in the past week on it. This is not Ongoing worthy. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How does this meet the criteria for WP:SPEEDY and WP:SNOW? Just because an article is a stub doesn't mean that it can't be posted, and whose to say that there won't be an uptick in edit activity? Additionally, you can't invoke the snowball clause for only two opposes. Crusader1096 (message) 02:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We dont post things to ongoing on the chance that there will be an uptick in editing activity. That is getting into WP:CRYSTAL territory there. A blurb would be more appropriate as Masem has said below once the article is updated enough. Noah^Talk 02:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't WP:Crystal to wait until an article is expanded. WP:SNOW is becoming stupidly overused at this point. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Anybody who calls for WP:SNOW and is wrong/prematurely early should have any of their future calls for WP:SNOW struck through, in my opinion. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably this should be first improved but brought as a blurb - the decision by Macron to push through the retirement age bill today is causing a newfound round of protests, which have been covered by the news (they ahve been a million strong at times). --Masem (t) 01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait per @Masem. Crusader1096 (message) 02:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Blurb when ready - Generating a lot of media coverage and the scale of the protests is blurb-worthy, but the article needs improvement. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  07:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - expanded and regularly updated. Should be posted immediately. Crusader1096 (message) 18:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the article has an orange maintenance tag. Schwede66 09:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Article's expanding; I've dealt with the maintenance tag. RAN1 (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready: this might be significant enough to post, but the article is pure WP:PROSELINE. It doesn't even explain why the protests are happening - just one sentence saying it's related to pension age - or why the government is attempting to bring in these reforms. What's there is well-referenced, but it needs to explain the causes of the protests. Modest Genius ^talk 12:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when updated per above. The Kip (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as its definitely ongoing and the article looks very good and ready to post. Flyingfishee (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely not ongoing, maybe blurb - This is In The News, and is getting bigger and bigger (especially as it's about an issue that will only become more relevant as demographics in the western world age), so I could hear arguments for its notability, but we post a blurb first, and if by the time the blurb has rolled off the event is still ongoing, then we can post it to ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: the page quality is acceptable and it's receiving updates. The incident has been ongoing for at least two month and It had to be on the main page sooner than this. The incident is statewide, serious and ongoing. Still making news and further protests are announced [7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhhossein (talk • contribs) 06:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, The strike is ongoing and the article is OK. Alex-h (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Article is tagged for update and expansion Stephen 02:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Ongoing strikes are getting significant enough coverage for ITN for some time now, makes sense for ongoing. Estar8806 (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's a pretty major thing occurring over in France, and don't see it stopping anytime soon. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Laura Valenzuela

Nominator's comments: Very popular Spanish actress and presenter. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Fully sourced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support per above. Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 02:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

(Posted) RD: Jacqueline Gold

 – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support That's Jacqueline Summers Gold, by the way, once hailed as the 16th richest woman in Britain and former chair of three apparently leadworthy companies (two notable). The article needs more pronouns, or at least to refer to her by her cool and only slightly longer surname. I'd do it, but I don't want to. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• support - Sourced and ready. Looks ok.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - go for it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Meets the criteria for posting. Jusdafax (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2023 (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: