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.
Article:Ekrem İmamoğlu (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Turkish Police arrest the Mayor of Istanbul, , on allegation of corruption and terrorism, sparking protests in Istanbul and in other places in Turkey (Post) Alternative blurb: Ekrem İmamoğlu, the Mayor of Istanbul, is arrested by the Turkish Police, sparking protests in Turkey News source(s):[1][2] Credits:
Blurb should probably mention 100s of others that supported Imamoglu were also arrested and have taken steps to block social media and other routes of freedom of expression. Also should add that Imamoglu was to be the candidate against Erdogan in the election (eg this is all politically motivated) Masem (t) 12:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the current target article I feel there should be a target article on the arrest of him and the others along with the related protests that occurred as a result of this. Nonetheless I have added an altblurb for better phrasing TNM101 (chat) 14:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support notability but oppose on current quality This is the strongest politician in opposition to Erdoğan, and favourite to win the next Istanbul election which is widely seen as the last step before running the country (Istanbul is one of the world's largest cities and still is and has been of significant global importance for centuries, so this should be unsurprising). However this should have a Arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu article explaining in detail the quasi-legal justification and the ramifications of such a move, including the political science behind the democratic erosion. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability Sure, an arrest of a mayor is not sufficiently notable in and of itself, but if it is generating mass protests and wide-scale coverage in global sources, then it can fit the bill. Just as equally, the death of a woman in police custody or a man being murdered on the street by police, in and of itself, would not not be featured on ITN. However, those kind of events can become eligible once it generates both (a) global reaction in the RS and (b) mass protest. Newspapers across all seven continents are covering these protests in depth, just as they did in those examples, so both those criteria are made out here. FlipandFlopped ツ17:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability per Abcmaxx and Flipandflopped - this represents a massive crackdown on the remaining opposition to Erdogan, which IMO is notable. However, oppose on quality given there's no standalone article and the update to İmamoğlu's own article is brief. TheKip(contribs)17:47, 19 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 on notability but oppose on quality - the article is mostly background at the moment, with little on the attack itself or aftermath. TheKip(contribs)18:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Al-Shabaab has been making attempts and attacks for years but they don't amount to much when they fail like this. Somalia has been a failed state for even longer due its civil war and so its pirates and warlords naturally generate lots of violence and chaos. It's yet another ongoing armed conflict which we should link generically in Ongoing rather than trying to cover every incident. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Shabaab have tried to assassinate him several times before. If they succeed then maybe it's significant but yet another failure is not. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source?
Also, If they succeed then maybe it's significant - you’ve absolutely got to be kidding me. In what world is the assassination of a sitting, internationally-recognized President not significant? I’ve had my disagreements with your logic before but this is on a wholly different level. TheKip(contribs)23:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, our article lists 2012, 2013, and 2014 attempts, with the only apparent fatalities being 8 in 2012. Technically several times, but this is the most deadly and after a 10-year gap. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions00:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight I'm clarifying successful assassinations - Andrew seemed to imply that Mohamud actually getting killed by Al-Shabaab would only "maybe" be notable, which is an utterly absurd premise. TheKip(contribs)02:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By logic, If leader al-Burhan, prime minister Netanyahu or president Zelenskyy survives an assassination attempt, the attacks would already being covered by its respective ongoing wars. ArionStar (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing special for Somalia. The number of deaths in such incidents in Somalia last year was 6,206 which is 17 per day. We just posted another such Somali incident briefly and it got next to no readers. We could fill ITN with nothing but Somali violence but that's what Ongoing is for. And this has been ongoing for decades. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What’s notable here was that the president was nearly assassinated. The United States had 19,000 murders in 2023, and a higher murder rate per 100,000 people than Somalia in 2015 (when we last had data), yet I assume we still posted Trump’s assassination attempt. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability – assassination attempt on a head of state, the fact that it happened in Sub-Saharan Africa doesn't make it any less notable, and we shouldn't cave in to systemic bias. Also, I'm strongly doubting the claim that these happen "daily". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still not ready. There are three sentences specifically related to the event, the rest is background and the reactions section kudzu that doesn't help explain the event further. Way too little practical content here. Masem (t) 12:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, but support on notability. The article is still quite murky and short on details. Attempted assassination of a head of state, especially with double digit fatalities should be posted. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions00:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are only three sentences on the actual event, the rest a massive background and excessive reaction section. This does not exemplify the quality we look for in new news articles. Masem (t) 16:37, 19 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.
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.
Weak oppose Article seems solid enough, and it's fully sourced, but some of the sources seem not the most reliable at first glance. TheKip(contribs)03:04, 19 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.
Nominator's comments: While Gaza war should probably be placed in ongoing, a single event that kills 300400 people is notable in its own right. This should be evaluated independently of the ongoing nom below. VR(Please ping on reply)06:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blurb and article take the position that this was a "surprise attack" and blame Israel for breaking the ceasefire. My impression is that there is fault on both sides and the resumption of fighting is not surprising. As this is a contentious topic, we must be quite rigorous in establishing an even-handed, NPOV statement. As the conflict has been ongoing for some time, putting the entry back in Ongoing would be the easiest way of doing that. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: - you cited this Associated Press report in your 11:59, 18 March comment below. The AP report you cited says in its first paragraph: The surprise bombardment, the deadliest in Gaza since the start of the 17-month war, shattered a ceasefire in place since January.starship.paint (talk / cont)14:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that the AP report has now been rephrased, rendering that quote obsolete. But, another AP report says: The surprise wave of airstrikes plunged Palestinians back into a nightmare they had hoped might be behind them.starship.paint (talk / cont)15:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Saying that Israel launched a surprise attack does not violate NPOV because, regardless of one's opinion on who's at fault, Israel did launch a surprise attack. MT(710)09:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC's extensive live coverage doe not use the word "surprise" or characterise it in this way. The attacks seem very similar to many previous attacks and, as the ceasefire talks had stalled and the parties are intransigent, seem quite unsurprising. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refusal to accept a respectable source such as the BBC demonstrates why this topic is so toxic and intractable. Consider this AP report. This states that "Many Palestinians said they had expected a return to war when talks over the second phase of the ceasefire did not begin as scheduled in early February. ... But since that ceasefire ended two weeks ago, the sides have not been able to agree on a way forward with a second phase aimed at releasing the 59 remaining hostages" So, the first phase of the ceasefire expired weeks ago and, as the second phase has not been agreed, hostilities have resumed as expected. How is this surprising? Andrew🐉(talk) 11:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The umbrage was with you saying "well this source that has come under increasing scrutiny for violating its own neutrality rules says" to make your point, not the statement that the attack in hindsight was unsurprising. Had you started out with the AP source and the body of text cited, there would not be any issue. Anyway Support blurbMount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 12:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A general sense of depair for a complete breakdown of ceasefire does not really speak about the unexpected nature of this attack.
And sources can be reliable while still being biased. The war has been going for more than a year now and the divergence of coverage between media sources and scholarly literature would be apparent to anyone who has followed these sources. BBC's bias does not mean that it is to be rejected outright but its neutrality or lack thereof should be questioned especially in such contexts. Gotitbro (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the divergence of coverage between media sources and scholarly literature
Not to fully dispute your point, but what this tells me is that media and scholars have different biases, not simply that the media is biased. It’d be wise to treat no sources around such a contentious conflict, even scholars, as truly unbiased, or at least those with any degree of subjectivity in conclusions - some things with hard numbers are straightforward. TheKip(contribs)05:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sources can be biased but there is a reason secondary [scholarly] sources are preferred to primary news reports on enwiki wherever possible. Reliability and bias different things, and we are as biased as our sources secondary sources are. No one is disputing the reliability of the BBC here but the siginificant criticism it has received for its coverage of this conflict (including internal dissension) is something that indeed needs to be given due consideration if undue weightage is being assigned to it to argue contentious points. Gotitbro (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The death toll is a number attributed to the Gaza Health org (as I am seeing worded in the news reports), so like with the Sudanese massacre a few days ago, the blurb should at least have some type of clarification that the death toll is a claim. Masem (t) 12:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus for the reliability of the Gaza Health Ministry's figures and they have been treated as such. The "claim" terminology should only become operative if they are substantially disputed in this instance, which doesn't appear to be the case as of now. Gotitbro (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I agree that the GHM is reliable enough that we don't need to attribute it in the blurb, but I do agree with questions about whether this is a "surprise attack", because as far as I can tell, the actual cease-fire ended on March 1, and this strike came after negotiations to extend it repeatedly went nowhere. But regardless, our article does not call it a surprise attack — it says only that it was described as a "surprise attack", which I don't think is strong enough for us to put that claim in WP:WIKIVOICE on the Main Page. DecafPotato (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others, with either "surprise" or "unexpected" being fine, IMO. Per starship.paint, multiple RS describe the event as being a "surprise attack", but on the other hand, per Andrew, AP reports on a general resumption of hostilities as having been expected by Palestinians. Regardless, this is a significant and tragic development in the Gaza War. ArkHyena (it/its) 17:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT1 More precise and also includes relevant context about the end of the ceasefire agreement, which I think is a big part of the story. I'm also fine if "surprise" is used instead of "unexpected", but I think the blurb should include that this effectively ends the ceasefire agreement as ALT1 does. FlipandFlopped ツ18:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - surprise in blurb is simplest. I'd be tempted to note ceasefire violation, given the very unexpected and particular brutal attack. Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support A blurb is preferable to simply putting the war back in ongoing, based on the 'renewal' of hostilities marked by this event. It is also a single incident of large-scale warfare, in comparison to the large-overall but smaller day-by-day nature of the war itself. As for the wording, "surprise" per RS - and because we could probably all say we expected hostilities to resume, but perhaps not in this surprising way. Kingsif (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I used a modified version of ALT1, since most commenters noted the end of the ceasefire as a key element. I avoided using "surprise" or "unexpected" since our article and the sources here largely referred to "surprise" in the context of operational secrecy rather than this particular outcome being unexpected or particularly deceitful. Usage generally by RS while common was also not so high that it would be an essential descriptor. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions23:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I think the current blurb works fine, would like to note that sources noting military secrecy also allude/refer to how unexpected this attack was. Ceasefire talks still being seriously considered (at least in the media) till this point. Gotitbro (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And this is what the lead of our article says at this time: "On 18 March 2025, Israel launched a surprise attack on the Gaza Strip effectively ending the 2025 Gaza war ceasefire. Israel's attack killed more than 400 Palestinians, including 263 women and children, making it the deadliest day for Palestinians in the Gaza war, according to the Gaza Health Ministry." Gotitbro (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse Patar knight's perceptive posting as I was thinking myself that the surprise was tactical/operational rather than political/strategic. Isarel's focus seems to be eliminating the remaining Hamas leadership and it seems that about 5 of them were killed in those strikes. The BBC reports that "Netanyahu calls strikes on Gaza 'only the beginning'" and so the war is ongoing again. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It should be added to the blurb that this attack from Israel is due to Hamas breaking their side of the ceasefire agreement after not releasing the hostages as promised. viridianwindow (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The ceasefire is clearly over and Israel's bombardment of the Gaza strip has resumed. We can wait for another day if we want, to see if there is a sudden reversal and somehow Hamas and Israel agree to enter Phase 2. But that strikes me as unlikely to happen anytime soon, given the sheer death toll of Israel's strikes (200+). FlipandFlopped ツ05:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but wait: If the blurb nom above gets posted, I think it's best to wait for that to roll off before re-adding this entry to ongoing. MT(710)09:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't know how to feel learning about this major news update via Wikipedia ping. But, considering RS like The Guardian are saying "Israel shatters Gaza ceasefire", seems enough to bring it to this section of Wikipedia. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak oppose. I'd wait until there is a renewed campaign for a few more days, since stuff like this always happens during ceasefires. 675930s (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait — Since the blurb for the recent Israeli attack is almost certain to be posted, we should wait until it rolls off to add the war to ongoing. DecafPotato (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The attack blurb will be posted, but we have no idea if this was a one time thing or if hostilities will continue. If the former, reading this to ongoing makes no sense. Masem (t) 18:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per DecafPotato and Masem. The blurb above will cover it for at least a few days, during which we’ll likely get an answer whether this was a one-off attack or a full resumption of the war. TheKip(contribs)19:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article does have impressive and detailed day-to-day coverage, which many articles fail to achieve under WP:ONGOING. However, almost all of the coverage is from local or relatively obscure sources. To merit an ongoing placement on the Main page, we'd need to see consistent coverage from a global array of prominent reliable sources. There are a few sources of this type cited in the target article, but these are mostly about tangential issues and not the offensive itself (e.g. BBC articles about Trump's foreign policy in Somalia, or the Somali President meeting with a foreign leader). FlipandFlopped ツ19:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The European Union pledges €2.5 billion ($2.7 billion) to Syria for aid, while the United Kingdom pledges an additional £160 million (€190.3 million). (DW)
Nominator's comments: Similar situation to the Serbian anti-corruption protests after the Novi Sad railway station canopy collapse. Protest have turned violent, and no they haven't resulted in a change of government but several local officials have been arrested. Obviously this if posted should replace the current post regarding the tragedy. The 4 sources in this nomination can be used to expand the article as slightly short at the moment. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait to see if the protests are enduringly notable and have continued coverage, or if this was just a one-off rally in protest of the incompetence surrounding the fire. Lots of accidents and natural disasters will attract criticism and backlash against those responsible, but for something like a fire or rooftop collapse, we'd want to see it transforming into an enduring protest movement for it to meet the ITN threshold. FlipandFlopped ツ17:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted to RD; blurb discussion ongoing) RD/Blurb: John Hemingway (RAF officer)
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.
Support- I expanded this a good bit a few years so it would be ready for ITNRD when the time came. Glad he ended up living a good bit longer :). -Eddie891TalkWork02:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb A blurb is a good idea as just posting his name without any context at RD would be literally meaningless. The article could use some expansion but I'll help out with that. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb this is a very anglo-centric view to make this into a news story; he was not the last WW2 veteran, and was one of many who took part in one of many WW2's notable battles. Crudely put, this is essentially WP:OLDMANDIES and is not a remarkable story; all of RD nominations are of notable persons since they have articles. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Anglo-Centric" is a strange criticism to make on what's deemed newsworthy for an English-language website, never mind that he was Irish. Also, the Few are world-renowned for defeating the Germans in one of the biggest air campaigns in history, which is considered a turning point in the war. You can't call this an unremarkable story in any good faith. 675930s (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abcmaxx: "Anglo-centric"? People of many nations were members of The Few. Hemingway himself was Irish. No claim that he was the last WWII veteran has been made. The passing of the last of The Few, as well as the last D-Day veteran, should be properly honoured, as should the passing of the last WWII veteran. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of The Few were from anglophone countries, i.e. former British Empire. I stand by my comment, and blurbing this will would be to pander to anglophone patriotic sentiments, not because this gentleman's death is encyclopedicly more notable than the many other RD nominations. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - At this point, the "western bias" is just being used to oppose anything related to the west. EF512:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD No one would suggest we post every pilot of this group who died, so the exception here is solely due to him outliving the others. This is not typically a valid reason to blurb. Maybe we would post the last known WWII vet as an exception, but the last vet of a subset of a subset of a subset is an unusual suggestion. GreatCaesarsGhost14:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support for blurb (I'm the OP) It is true we do not typically post last survivors of individual battles, but this is a bit different. The battle of Britain was not so much a battle as a prolonged campaign of both military and terror bombing. One where not just the war, but the survival of civilization itself hung in the balance. This was the only point where Hitler really was on the cusp of winning the war. If not for this man and the other "Few" I do not care to think about what the world would look like today. Yeah, I think that warrants notice at ITN. That aside, I believe consensus exists that this is at least ready for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support blurb I think this just about rises to the levels needed for ITN. And whilst it's a sad story, it is at least not a disaster, weather issue, space probe, mass killing or an election. Black Kite (talk)15:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb neither meets death as the news topic, nor as a major figure. This is literally old man (who happened to outlast thousands of others that fought in WW2) dies". Masem (t) 15:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a reasonable argument for answering "yes" to this if you consider his "field" to be World War Two veterans. He was a transformative person in his field insofar as he outlived his peers for so long, which caused him to become a sort of ambassador and symbolic figurehead of WW2 veterans for many years. His transformative nature is intertwined with the fact that he lived for so long. FlipandFlopped ツ01:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Quality looks fine for RD standards. Oppose blurb on quality and significance He's not actually a major figure nor did his death itself have any notable qualities. Regardless, the update on the article is too brief and doesn't meet our requirements for blurbs. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 08:22, 19 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.
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: Looks like a major, life-changing disaster for the country, with local residents and ecologists saying things like "The river died in a single day." The article may need more details and pictures. Trepang2 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it seems that the event happened on Feb 18, about 1 month ago. Unsure why AP is reporting on this so late. Natg 19 (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Al Jazeera had a good on-the-spot report six days ago. The area has a long history of such pollution from the mining industry [4], [5]. So it goes... As the story seems too stale for ITN, DYK should be considered while the article is still new. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I consider this very significant but unfortunately it is just far too stale to be posted now. Not sure why western news sources have taken a whole month to catch on to this. --SpectralIon03:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current story appears to be more about the coverup by the Chinese corporation rather than the disaster itself. Gotitbro (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The dam collapse by itself might be stale, but disaster is ongoing and worsens with time, thus not stale, especially given that it's only just being properly reported by media. As for article quality, I believe it's adequate for ITN already. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing requires consistent updates. Generally, these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which 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) 00:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no real information on what long-term impacts would be. It's not a particularly large volume of liquid - 50,000 m³. Compare to the 35,200,000,000 m³ in Lake Mead (Hoover dam). Stating the number in Litres just makes it sound very big. And what's the waste - the article is very unclear. Acidic water? It will flush through - presumably quickly the local rainfall. How acidic? It could buffer quickly. Definitely not ongoing. I don't know it's even notable enough, given the lack of human deaths. Seems pretty minor compared to say the (equally underdiscussed) ecological disaster in the Hudson River. Nfitz (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The collapse itself happened a month ago, making it stale, and the ongoing aftereffects aren't really a "ITN blurb" thing unless there's a singular moment of elevated importance. TheKip(contribs)03:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least 59 people are killed and more than 152 others are injured after a fire breaks out in a nightclub during a concert in Kočani, North Macedonia. (Al Jazeera)
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. Article is substantial and looks in pretty good shape, apart from a few unsourced sentences and the usual unsourced albums. An often overlooked and underrated musician. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Article:Kočani nightclub fire (talk·history·tag) Blurb: At least 59 people are killed and more than 155 injured in a nightclub fire (remains of the nightclub pictured) during a concert in Kočani, North Macedonia. (Post) Alternative blurb: At least 59 people are killed and more than 155 injured in a nightclub fire (remains of the nightclub pictured) in Kočani, North Macedonia. News source(s):BBC, CNN Credits:
North Macedonia If I ever see someone starting some indoor pyrotechnics, I'll be running for the exit as they often end badly. Anyway, the detail that catches my eye is describing the country as Macedonia rather than North Macedonia, which is controversial – see Macedonia naming dispute. And we don't usually link country names, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality While what's there is sufficient there are several unsourced paragraphs. Likely with more sourcing the article can be fleshed out more. Masem (t) 12:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its still a bit thin (under 10k prose), and I would expect more coverage of what aftermath events there, particularly with the arrest warrants being issued. Masem (t) 14:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Investigation" section has been added with relevant information available in reliable sources. I'm struggling to find free pictures, but the article should now be ready for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We pipe Macedonia to North Macedonia throughout the article. The name of the country was contested with the Greek province of Macedonia so I think we need to be more careful. Secretlondon (talk) 13:50, 17 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.
Indonesian lawmakers meet at a Central Jakarta luxury hotel instead of the legislature amidst budget cuts, allegedly to secretly discuss on military law revisions that would bring back dwifungsi, a doctrine allowing military personnel to hold civilian positions. Civil activists try to stop the meeting but are hindered by hotel security. (Kompas)(TEMPO)
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, noting that Bichsel was not merely a short story writer, but probably Switzerland's most prominent and influential contemporary writer. Article is in an OK state, but could be much expanded. Sandstein 15:31, 17 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.
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: This is the most significant US military operation in the Middle East since Donald Trump took office, according to Reuters 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)11:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality This is an example of a poor quality news event article that is all too often the case with new event articles on WP - there's maybe three short paragraphs about the actual event, the meat of the story, that perhaps is only 10% of the prose of the article, the rest weighed by the background section. It doesn't need that much background, there's a reasons we have main/seealso templates. If anything, the background should be focused on why the Trump administration focused on the Houthi (which is tied to the admin's attitude towards Iran). I also note that the blurb here doesn't even mentiont the Houthi, which seems to be the specific target of the attacks (being military facilities held by the Houthi, there's no discussion of any Yemen civilans lost in the attack). Masem (t) 12:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the victims are women and children which seemed to have not been there in this article (and I've added that now) but it is mentioned in the Reuters report 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)12:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support article's OK, although why the cites in the lead? See WP:CITELEAD. I imagine the main sections of the article will expand as further info comes to light. Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi13:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per cyfraw, article seems ready and airstrike attacks on another country which are widely covered by RS seems pretty clearly notable. FlipandFlopped ツ19:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The article definitely needs a WP:SIZESPLIT into a protest article given the complexity of this unfolding political drama; two impeachments, one arrest, multiple protests, constitutional and political and perhaps even societal crisis. Protests unusually large in scale although aware this has been an ongoing crisis as well. The article is still titled 2024 however there is no consensus how to split or incorporate the current events (from 2025) into the article. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the AP, these appear to be mostly peaceful protests, and thus just one of many protests that are happening due to various reasons across the globe. If anything, the story about Yoon Suk Yeol's release and re-arrest is really the headline here but that's relatively old news itself. also consider that there appears to be major overlap between the crisis and the impeachment article that is causing some of the size issues, it doesn't make sense to try to split off these protests (particularly since they aren't generated major conflict themselves) before the duplicated material is removed and some attemtp to eliminate the proseline is handled. Masem (t) 12:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Protests don't have to violent to be posted. I would argue that the size and scale of the protests is the significant part here. As for the reorganisation of the article; many different options can be debated but in its current form it's just too long and convoluted and would ideally be resolved with wider consensus regardless of ITN. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, but given how long these have been going for, without neither any real change at the gov't level nor any type of violent action means this is just mostly noise at the larger scale. Comparitively, something like the 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest which did have a direct impact (in terms of blocking roads and other similar non-violent acts) would be the type of protests that I think we should focus on for ITN, in addition to those that turn violent. — Masem (t) 20:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this is just a foreshock of incoming decision about Yoon's impeachment by Constitutional Court of Korea. We can post the decision then. Didgogns (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Doesn't seem to hold special notability compared to the other aftershocks of the martial law declaration we've posted. TheKip(contribs)02:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Looks to be the climax of this ongoing protest, reported worldwide. Very large in scale, especially factoring the size of the population; estimated 100,000 people at the protest. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I suppose "cumulates" should be "culminates" but such language claiming that this particular event is a decisive climax seem too WP:CRYSTAL. My impression is that the existing regime is unmoved and so it will take more to shift it. As this has been ongoing for months, we should consider an Ongoing entry. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected to "culminates". Protests don't have to be successful nor finite for us to be able to post them. I would argue that 100,000 people out of a population of 6½ million is quite a feat given it's ~1.5% of the entire population. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also support ongoing instead. The article is documenting the chronology very well and is being constantly updated. Yesterday's protests were the biggest but they will keep going. --Tone10:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality issues Overall these have been maybe large but seem to be mostly non-violent, but the biggest thing that stands out to me is the quality of the page. First, treating the protests using the infobox that is usually used for wars or armed conflict seems excessive and inappropriate, its framing the protests as a battle rather than being a mostly non-violent protest. Second, the bulk of the article is just proseline which is not at all helpful to try to understand the scale and scope of the event, and none which further supports some of the information in that infobox such as explaining the types of protests used or the police response. I know writing proseline as a start of an event may seem helpful to document it, but we should be able to do far better by this point with a narrative style to explain more how and why the protests developed and what reaction the Serbian govt has had to them in summary rather than day by day. Same applies to the list of people and countries/ctieis at the bottom, with that many people and names, its a sea of blue problem, and we should be trying to summarize these better. Masem (t) 12:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support an Ongoing as these protests seem to be getting larger and larger as time goes on, with new news coming out of Serbia very often. Yesterday an estimated 20% of Serbia's population went out to Belgrade to protest, so this seems very notable. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 14:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – as these are really the largest (so far) in a series of ongoing mass demonstrations, it may be better to nominate this article for Ongoing. ArkHyena (it/its) 22:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't find any proof that the protestors planned a culmination on that day, and thus this really shouldn't be a blurb. They could very well keep getting larger. I will of course support posting if Vucic resigns, and I'm neutral towards making this ongoing. --SpectralIon03:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three-part vote:
Oppose on quality per Masem. I respect the detail, but the page is a wall of text right now and not easy to get a simple summation out of.
Weak oppose on notability given some of the arguments above regarding "culmination" being informal.
Support ongoing as that seems like a much more apt place for it to go right now.
Nominator's comments: Might be a little early to nominate this and the article does need some heavy work which I'm willing to do over the coming hours. The storm is only halfway done, and later today into tomorrow it's expected to produce an even larger tornado outbreak than it already has. Departure– (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the potentially historic storm later today over AL and MS. Multiple fatalities and heavy damage are confirmed across several towns, but it’d be better to include the entire event. EF513:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I’d hardly call one of the largest moderate risks ever issued and the third-ever day 2 high risk “extremely common”. EF514:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tylertown, Mississippi has been hit by at least two significant tornadoes and nineteen deaths have been confirmed; the event isn’t even at its peak yet. This is now the deadliest meteorological event in 2025; we posted the LA fires. EF520:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Welcome to spring in the Midwest. This type of system is extremely common at this time of year in that region and is definitely not unusual. If the results of the front that is supposed to hit later today in the southern states has a much more devasting impact, maybe there's a reason to reconsider, but not with what has happened so far. Masem (t) 13:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment Not mentioned in the blurb, but the Windmill and 840 Road fire systems were spawned by this, each of which has reached >20,000 acres by now in the <24 hours they've existed. Three deaths were confirmed from blowing dust causing a car crash in Amarillo, Texas. That isn't counting the as-of-yet unknown death toll from last night's tornadoes, let alone those that might happen in the South this morning. Departure– (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No prejudice against a nom on just the tornado outbreak alone, as it's shaping up to be a big one. But that would be the story itself. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The specific problem with that is that this specific low pressure system was the cause or contributing factors to all of the aspects of the blurb. The tornado outbreak is likely to be the most impactful, however. Departure– (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support based on latest damage data. I'd like us to wait some on more accurate fatality and damage information, but this really is looking quite nasty. Rolling Fork, MS looks like it just got hammered again. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until today's system ends. Changing to Support - pretty large death toll, major outbreak (although not a super outbreak). 3/31 was posted so I don't see how this is much different with multiple intense tors. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? It affected places from California, Texas, Minnesota, and is in the process of hitting areas of Alabama in the Deep South. Departure– (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? Many states are affected, including Alabama, Arkansas, California, Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, New Mexico. (dust clouds). I could continue, but thats “much” of the US. EF520:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would change the blurb to "Midwest and southern United States", as "much of the United States" is imprecise and the winter storms in the West are not directly related to tornadoes. Natg 19 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The winter storms are related to the storm system, though. Tornado outbreaks usually aren’t just tornadoes. EF521:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe the article title needs to be changed. It is currently focused on the tornadoes, with some information about other effects. Natg 19 (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Change my support to a proposal of Altblurb I think altblurb should be changed to "Midwest and southern United States" As Natg 19 proposed. Shaneapickle (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article doesn't provide a clear historical narrative. I especially don't like its heavy use of alerts, forecasts and models rather than reports after the event. It describes the event as ongoing and so I suppose it's a compilation of such forward-looking as the stormy weather developed. There are also scope issues as this doesn't seem to be a named weather system like a cyclone. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does it look better now? I’ve removed (should be all) of the unreliable Twitter references (not including the NWS and SPC ones, those are considered reliable) and have removed most, if not all, of the uncited and quite CRUFTy material. I’m on mobile so I probably screwed something up. EF512:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That actually looks better now. Based on the fact that: the entire storm system has caused widespread damage; that there's still ongoing coverage of the system; and that the quality concerns have been addressed (+ this fact also), I'm striking my oppose and now [Support] this nomination. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The altblurb is inaccurate, as while the total death toll is 34, 12 of those were not as a direct result of a tornado and were caused by other aspects of the event. Departure– (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve boldly changed it to “storms and tornadoes”; there is zero reason to discount over half of the deaths from the event. EF515:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Counting all non-tornadic fatalities, this is now the deadliest tornado outbreak in the United States since the December 10, 2021 outbreak, at 34, now beyond the tolls of the March 24 (Rolling Fork) outbreak and the March 31 (Little Rock) outbreaks of 2023, as well as any outbreak of 2022 or 2024. Departure– (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We posted December 10, right? I am on mobile and for some reason it mashes together talk page banners to the point where they’re unreadable. EF517:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I think I’ll go write a “weather as usual” essay on weather at ITN/C. This is definitely historic and by no means “ordinary”. I mean, this is deadlier than every event in 2024 and deadlier than the March 24 storm that was posted. EF519:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Per Departure, this is the deadliest tornadic event in the US in three years. Coverage of the system in media is still recent or ongoing (e.g. at ABC: [10] CBS: [11]). This is a historic event. ArkHyena (it/its) 20:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First EF4 tornado since May 2024 was confirmed just a few minutes ago. This is the first time since May 20, 2013 that a tornado had a 190 mph preliminary wind speed; the 2013 one is currently recognized as (controversially) the most recent EF5 in history. EF520:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my humble opinion, I do believe that this event is notable and deserving of being featured due to the total destruction caused overall as well as the historic nature of this storm. CaptainGalaxy22:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I am usually skeptical towards our imbalanced focus on American weather events relative to the rest of the world, but I acknowledge this is a recordbreaking (and thus unusual) event that has a fairly high death toll. 40+ people killed is quite high. FlipandFlopped ツ04:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment before posting: in the article, the death toll is 42, not 47. It could rise back to that toll but I believe the 47 toll was a misinterpretation by an RS. Departure– (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I’d post from oldest “readies” to newest to avoid old ones going stale, but the admins know what they’re doing. EF518:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I shall note that it's not clear at all what to replace on the main page. If others would prefer for it to be done differently, please go ahead. I can't contribute to any discussion as I'll be offline for the next 8 hours. Schwede6619:04, 18 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.
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.
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.
Strong oppose, no significance outside of the US, no precedent for posting, and "Second presidency of Donald Trump" as a target article is way too general. --SpectralIon23:42, 14 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.
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.
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.
Nominator's comments: Nominating this again since the previous nomination happened before the eclipse. Since the eclipse has happened, I feel it is time to nominate it again considering we usually post total solar eclipses. Interstellarity (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have nothing against it. It's a nice event, it's getting some news coverage, and it's been a while since we've covered one of these. Blurp is fine, no need to do anything fancy here. Maybe make it a full sentence (ending with a full stop). Renerpho (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Close The last nom was not closed for being posted too early, it was closed on account of non-notablity. If editors oppose the close, they should open it rather than making new noms. Gotitbro (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close No, there's still nothing majorly notable about this eclipse that has changed in two days. And really, that's just WP:POINT and disruptive - the previous nomination was closed because it was deemed not notable enough for ITN, not because "it hadn't happened yet". Black Kite (talk)12:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to assume bad faith. The timing was one reason why it was opposed in the first nomination (including by myself; and I've now voted support). Renerpho (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One reason why I've changed my mind which I haven't mentioned yet is the large amount of news coverage I see from Europe and elsewhere. Renerpho (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on the talk page after the previous comment, but before the discussion was reopened. Since I provided some arguments for support that have not yet been given here, and there has been a relevant reply, I am copying those parts of the discussion here. Renerpho (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pity that we can't discuss this eclipse again. There are quite a few interesting aspects of it emerging in the news today. Like, that it's the first since 1967 to be imaged as a solar eclipse from the lunar surface (by Blue Ghost).[12][13][14] I opposed it yesterday because I didn't see anything unusual about this eclipse (which may not have been an accurate assessment), and because of the timing -- it's not been properly in the news before it happened. Compare this 2014 APOD (and no, as far as I can tell, Chang'e 3 didn't image the 2014 eclipse). Renerpho (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
This would of course have to be added to the article before that fact could be featured in ITN. Renerpho (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
We can and are discussing the eclipse again but the discussion is not very edifying. The point you make about the eclipse being viewed from the moon too is a good one but the nay-sayers are not providing or engaging with such evidence and are making ad hominem arguments instead. This ought to have been a straightforward posting of an uncontroversial scientific event which has attracted much interest but, instead, ITN is gridlocked once again. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Support This was the top read article yesterday beating Mark Carney by a significant margin. This demonstrates that there was lots of interest and coverage of this and mainstream coverage has continued: BBC, NYT, NPR, The Times. There was a lot of showcasing of pictures of the event, showing the "blood moon" and we have plenty too. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its been repeatedly said that we do not consider page views in ITNC significance. Some topics will be popular compared to others which is a significance bias that we dont want to reflect at ITNC. — Masem (t) 12:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it backwards. WP:ITNPURPOSE starts by saying that we should consider what our readers are looking for. WP:ITNSIGNIF and WP:ITNATA indicate that proof of coverage is required and that our personal interests are not adequate evidence. It therefore follows that evidence of coverage and public attention is not just valid but is expected.
In this case, the evidence is that this story about the moon is getting much more attention and coverage than the other story about the moon which we are currently blurbing -- the Athena landing. The latter is over a week old and so is now getting just a small fraction of the attention. The stories are otherwise similar in being related to astronomy and space and so are both quite respectable and encyclopedic in nature. Per WP:ITNPURPOSE, we should now switch from one story to the other to assist our readership and demonstrate Wikipedia's dynamic nature. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also point out that "we usually post total lunar eclipses" is not true - we have posted 3 out of the last 10, and they all had extra notability factors which this one doesn't appear to have. Black Kite (talk)10:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This had had the most news coverage for the past few weeks, leading up to it happened, and it is really notable for the fact that ALOT of pictures has been taken, and is also getting news about it even after it happened.
Strong Oppose Not what we usually blurb on ITN and questionable notability, lunar eclipses are not solar eclipses and happen quite regularily. In fact theres 2 more total eclipses coming in the next year alone.... ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING17:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again as it's easy to find further coverage such as the reports that one of the recent landers captured the eclipse as seen from the moon to provide an unusual perspective. This nicely ties these moon stories together. CNN, Scientific American, Sky News, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Short of a lunar eclipse suddenly cause dogs to start mooing or birds to fly backwards (which would presumably also be the actual ITN-worthy story), each one is the same and they occur regularly enough. It's not quite "the sun rises", but it's not far off. Kingsif (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being covered in news media is not the only criteria. Given there’s also a decent WP:N bar for article creation in general, coming to ITN and expecting lower standards is what actually makes no sense. Kingsif (talk) 17:31, 18 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.
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 His works don't each have a linked footnote-style citation, but they have links to ISBN numbers and all of the citation information you'd expect to find in a footnote if it were linked. Good enough for me and well-cited otherwise. FlipandFlopped ツ19:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former leader of Right Sector in Odesa was assassinated in broad daylight. Somewhat big story in Ukraine at the moment, didn't have a page before I made it a few minutes ago. Scuba16:01, 14 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.
Comment Looks like the page has been improved substantially these last few days, but I still wouldn't say it's ready yet. 5 sentences have a CN tag, and most of the political campaigns section is unsourced. I'll see if I can find some citations for the last remaining unsourced statements. Vanilla Wizard 💙15:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished citing whatever I could find sources for & removing anything that either could not be verified or seemed out of place in the article. I've also boldly added myself as one of the updaters. @Ad Orientem: when you have time, could you look through the page again to reassess if it's good to go now? Thank you, Vanilla Wizard 💙17:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
"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]
Wait - will support once the citations are fixed. Piano section and works section are unsourced. I added what I could find but needs more work.
As an update, piano section now largely deleted as was seemingly uncited OR /an essay on a single work. Leaning towards supporting but needs a bit more attention on the lead and ref formatting and have spun out the necessarily long but hard to fully cite "works section"; hold on :) Ceoil (talk) 03:00, 14 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)
The Houthi movement in Yemen announces it will resume targeting Israeli ships because its deadline for Israel to resume aid deliveries to the Gaza Strip has passed. (Al Jazeera)
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.
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.
Nominator's comments: The launch of a new space observatory seems to be major science news, comparable to the likes of Hubble and James Webb telescopes. Brandmeistertalk08:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The launch doesn't seem especially interesting and the article only has a brief sentence about it. As the instrument is designed for a specific survey, rather than being a general purpose instrument like Hubble, it seems better to wait on some results. Also the launch put up a new constellation called PUNCH (Polarimeter to Unify the Corona and Heliosphere) which also has a specific mission. But again there's nothing much to say about this launch phase. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:42, 14 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.
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.
Thank you for posting. The article does not appear on the front page at the moment. I assume there was some kind of error? Thriley (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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). TheKip(contribs)04:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Comment The ALT4 blurb talks about "civilians" but it appears that they were targeted specifically because they were military and political leaders and so were part of the federal government rather than being uninvolved bystanders. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big event in Somali politics and potentially destabilizing, Blurb 1 is good but perhaps too long if the resignation dosen't pan out Normalman101 (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any evidence in mainstream news coverage that this is a big deal. It just seems to be a routine insurgency attack which has been crushed by the government. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New low This article only had 147 readers yesterday and barely got over 1,000 at best. It hasn't been in the news since the blip six days ago and the president seems to have other problems to worry about now. Just about any current news is more significant than this. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As has been stated many many times, ITN is not about featuring articles with high pageviews, but about featuring quality articles that have been in the news, even if those do not draw many views. Masem (t) 23:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of readership shows that the topic is not in the news. It doesn't seem to have had any continuing coverage since the blip six days ago. And so nobody is looking for the topic. It's stale; a waste of space. And its quality is nothing to boast about either. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really much enduring, "non-blip" coverage of elections in places like Liechtenstein and Belize, either, and yet we still blurb those events under ITNR, in order to have equitable and consistent coverage across continents. Similarly to how we apply that principle for elections, it applies for mass shootings and disasters. I sympathize with your approach to assessing notability and generally agree we should blurb things which are attracting public interest, but the longstanding tradition of ITN seemingly does not bar "low-interest" articles from being posted; in fact, it's a procedural rule that we will post certain categories of articles no matter how little interest they tend to attract. FlipandFlopped ツ18:05, 19 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.
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]
Theoretically support due to the geopolitical context & since Saakashvili is a former President of Georgia. However, I oppose on quality since the article needs more references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:55, 15 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.
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]
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
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Thank you mate 
QalasQalas (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}