Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

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.

Richard Sutton in 2021
Richard Sutton

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

[edit]
  • 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.

Nomination steps

[edit]
  • 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.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

[edit]
  • 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).

Voicing an opinion on an item

[edit]

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.

Please do...

[edit]
Shortcut
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Please do not...

[edit]
Shortcut
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

[edit]

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives

[edit]

Archives of posted stories: Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/Archives

Sections

[edit]

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.

March 11

[edit]
March 11, 2025 (2025-03-11) (Tuesday)

March 10

[edit]
March 10, 2025 (2025-03-10) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Mahmoud Khalil arrest

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Mahmoud Khalil (activist) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Protests are held in New York (pictured) over the arrest of student activist Mahmoud Khalil. (Post)
News source(s): NBC News, BBC, Al Jazeera
Credits:

Chetsford (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have two articles on this at the moment. Secretlondon (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a rapidly evolving consensus to merge the two. Chetsford (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 North Sea ship collision

[edit]
Article: 2025 North Sea ship collision (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An oil tanker is on fire off the coast of Kingston upon Hull, England, in the North Sea after colliding with another vessel. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A collision between an oil tanker and a container ship in the North Sea off the coast of Withernsea, England, causes an extensive fire and leaves at least 32 people injured.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A container ship strikes an oil tanker in the North Sea off the coast of Withernsea, England, causing an extensive fire and injuring at least 32 people.
News source(s): BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera, NBC
Credits:

 Bakhos Let's talk! 12:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, as the article is a stub and has four references. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be expand soon Bakhos Let's talk! 13:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakhos2010: When you nominated this, the article was just one sentence. That is impossible to assess. Write the article first; nominate it once it has been updated, to at least close to postable quality. ITN is not a breaking news service. This was clearly a premature nomination - even hours later, the article doesn't clarify the impact of this event, presumably because it's still unknown. Modest Genius talk 16:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. If the article hasn’t been expanded yet, then the nomination should be closed quickly. Bakhos Let's talk! 17:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the article to be expanded, as it's quite short right now. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 13:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. The article doesn't give enough information currently, and looking at news reports they don't have much more information either so there isn't (yet) anything that it can be expanded with. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Only makes sense to post if there is a significant oil leakage or a large number of deaths (which this doesn't seem likely to be the case). The collision and fire itself is not a significant enough story for ITN. Masem (t) 14:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait too much is in the air to post. I suppose that goes without saying. No reporting on injuries or deaths in the article, nor threats of an oil spill, both of which may occur in the coming hours or days. Departure– (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - unknown environmental/human impacts. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not a routine accident given the size of the ships involved but definitively not a major event. Impact appears to be limited to only one non-fatal casualty, potentially an oil spilll, and one big headache for the ship owners and insurers. 2607:FA49:553D:1900:6456:4768:7E7C:1845 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This doesn't seem to be of international importance. We are absolutely not a rolling news source. Articles on the main page should be really high quality. Secretlondon (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, article looks good. Thankfully no fatalities. But jet fuel and sodium cyanide not a great mixture. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: BBC reports that one person is still missing. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's arrant pedantry of a most unhelpful kind - most people just don't know the word 'allision' and no clarity would be gained by using it. It's also untrue: a ship riding at anchor is not a fixed object in the sense that a pier is. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote altblurb II just to sidestep this issue. Bremps... 00:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, less significant than other oil spills that weren’t posted. If this happened elsewhere, it would not have a snowball's chance at getting posted
Kowal2701 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those: Yellowstone 2015, California 2015, Kerch 2024 lots more Kowal2701 (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

[edit]
March 9, 2025 (2025-03-9) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

Mark Carney elected

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the 2025 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney (pictured), wins the election to succeed Justin Trudeau and become the next prime minister of Canada. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, Mark Carney (pictured) is designated as the new prime minister of Canada.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Mark Carney (pictured) is chosen to succeed Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister of Canada and Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Credits:

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.

 Rushtheeditor (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz is correct. Trudeau is still the PM until he steps down, which should happen in the next day or two. Carney right now is the PM-elect / PM-designate. Natg 19 (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but we posted Trudeau's announcement of resignation before his actual resignation, and Trump's victory in the U.S. election before he was inaugurated, then I don't see why we can't post this prematurely. Hungry403 (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We posted those events because it'd be months before the followup events actually happened. Carney will be PM in a matter of days, if not hours. Just wait until he actually is. RachelTensions (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article says "Earlier this week, outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he expects the transition to happen "in the coming days or week." So I expect it to happen very soon. Natg 19 (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other reports I have read say "expected to be sworn in as PM in the coming days" and "sworn into office by Friday." Natg 19 (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Fox News a reliable source? They also said the Project 2025 plan wasn't real. Nfitz (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I showed 2 other sources that say it is within the week. Natg 19 (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Mark Carney has been voted as leader of LPC and is now legally the prime minister elect (or next prime minister/prime minister in waiting). To become acting prime minister, he first needs to be sworn in by the Governor General (a representative in Canada of Britain's King Charles III) - this swearing in is an inauguration. Montezuma69 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A leadership change in a G7 country. ArionStar (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That hasn't happened, and may still be weeks away. Nfitz (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer posting now instead of posting when he takes office. ArionStar (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with posting now. It is happening. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a major change that should be documented; even if Carney is just a "designate", this is still pretty notable... Stuffinwriting (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added altblurb and support. Carney is still designated at this point. Moraljaya67 (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. New PM, big change. Seems uncontroversial. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Once Prime Minister Trudeau resigns, and Carney becomes PM, it will be uncontroversial @Harizotoh9. Why not wait? Nfitz (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Waiting here is the equivalent of not posting the result of the 2024 U.S. presidential election because there is a chance that maybe Trump wouldn't end up be inaugurated; i.e., WP:CRYSTALBALL. DecafPotato (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that equivalent as his (Carney’s) inauguration is almost imminent, likely on 10 March by or before noon. Normally in the morning of the next day the outgoing PM will tend his resignation to the Governor General and then in less than one hour or so the new PM will be appointed. Starting from the same day the new Cabinet will be named and most of them will get appointed, too, with some junior roles being appointed in the following days. — Boreas. 04:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would it be on March 10 by or before noon? Normally it takes 2 to 4 weeks, @Chu Tse-tien? Do you have a reference for that? Nfitz (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it is purely my deduction but I reckon everyone can see this time is different, since Carney is not an MP and surely he will not choose to be filled in by a by-election and as he has already expressed his intention to call an election immediately, the delay in the name of transition will be unfounded this time. They will finish the transition immediately and Carney will immediately go to the Governor General to ask for the Parliament to be dissolved and a GE to be called, if I may take a guess here, on 21 April. This time it is the precedent of John Turner to refer to, not anything else. He became the leader of the LDP on 16 June and PM by the end of the month, 9 days later he dissolved the Parliament and a GE is called in September. But back then, the LDP used just one day to elect a new leader, not over two months, with the Parliament being prorogued for an unusually long period (in many other Westminster systems this might even be considered unlawful). The Parliament is to be resumed this week and you surely cannot imagine Trudeau continuing to take two weeks in the Parliament as the PM ;) Currently it’s the best time for the LDP to call an election and they will call it as soon as possible. — Boreas. 06:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While it is purely my deduction, many a press did use the word ‘immediately’ this time, for instance, FT claimed ‘Carney is expected immediately to replace Trudeau’ in their article.
    But I would like to correct the record that I just read in The Globe and Mail that the Parliament is to be prorogued until 24 March (Wow! Canadian Parliament can be prorogued for so long?! Three whole months?!), so I was wrong (I remembered having read somewhere that the Parliament will resume this week, mea culpa). If so, then I stand corrected on my statement of an immediate PM change. I reckon it will not happen until the Parliament resumes. And the expected GE will also be delayed into May I think. Thank you for letting me correct myself ;) — Boreas. 06:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and support to post now. Article quality requirements are met. Now is when this is news, not when Carney technically assumes the executive tomorrow or the day after. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but suggest a little delay until the midday of 10 March by when he sure will be appointed as the new PM and all the confusions above shall then be cleared. (Besides, by the time he becomes the new PM, there shall be a honorific prefix of ‘The Right Honourable’ added on the top of the infobox of him, since in Canada this life-long prefix is conferred to every new PM, not necessarily requires them to be an MP.) — Boreas. 04:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember: in general, elections are more important than sworn in/take office/inauguration events (ongoing political crises are exceptions). —A good comment for Wikipedia:How ITN works (and how it doesn't)— ArionStar (talk)
  • Support posting ASAP. The leadership election win is the news, the swearing in is a formality and can be updated if the blurb is still in the box at that time, which seems likely per the Globe and Mail [1] saying that this time it will be days instead of the usual weeks (e.g. Campbell in '93, Martin in '03) Other Commonwealth countries typically do the leadership switch the day of or the day after, so the closest parallel was Chris Hipkins being posted to ITN succeeding Ardern as NZPM upon being the only candidate in the race upon close of nominations on Jan. 20, 2023 [2], and only being officially sworn in on Jan. 25. Most of the blurbs did mention the party, with the bolding of the new PM/leadership election seems split, possibly dependent on page quality, which shouldn't be an issue here (e.g. Australia: Gillard, Rudd, Turnbull,Morrison; NZ: Hipkins; UK: May, Johnson,Truss, Sunak.) The two in Wikipedia's lifetime that did not mention the party were UK: Brown and NZ: English. I've suggested ALT2 based on the Hipkins post. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very clear he will be Prime Minister, those saying "There's nothing saying the leader is the PM" have zero argument, they are technically correct and if those circumstances applied here they would have merit, but it has been said by the leadership candidates, by Trudeau, the media, and the Party leadership that yes, the newly elected leader will be Prime Minister. He will likely be sworn in tomorrow if not the day after. TheFellaVB (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking as ready is improper as the discussion has not been open for a full day yet. It's not appropriate to rush this as we already posted Trudeau's intention to resign and his article is a controversial topic which requires special care. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no requirement that a topic can't be marked as ready before a certain period AFAIK, especially with 1) a clear consensus as to posting and 2) this is ITNR. What controversial topic does this fall under? BLP? We're posting the election, not the person. Canadian politics is not a CTOP. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a common complaint when nominations are posted before all time zones have had a chance to comment. WP:ITN/A says "If the consensus is not entirely clear, consider letting the nomination run for more time, especially if the nomination is less than 24 hours old."
Talk:Justin Trudeau says emphatically at the top that "The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic." I'm not sure of the details but suppose that there's a history of disputes.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, new world leaders are always posted after their election, not their swearing in.
Rahcmander (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until Trudeau resigns then Support. Could possibly put an article about LPC leader change though because that has happened 72.29.227.81 (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait then Support as per above. The Westminister system of handling this is wonky, and although I don't expect surprises, the possibility exists that the Governor General invites someone other than Mark Carney to form a government. --Natural RX 16:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The possibility of that is less than say a US presedent trying to perpetuate an overthrough of the governement and convince the vice president not to approve the president elect. So you would support on waiting to announce a new US president until after inaugeration just in case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, him winning the leadership election is much more notable than him taking office, as I doubt the latter will make headline/leading news due to it being an expected consequence of the former. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He's been elected and is now the Prime Minister-designate. Holding off until he's officially appointed would be like holding off announcing a US presidential election victory until the president-elect was inaugurated. Azixw (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 ICC Champions Trophy final

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 ICC Champions Trophy final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cricket, India defeat New Zealand by 4 wickets in the final to win the ICC Champions Trophy. (Player of the final Rohit Sharma pictured) (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: ICC Champions trophy. Link to 2017 nomination and discussion. Ktin (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - National championship. I'd say its notable enough. DotesConks (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
International, not national. Secretlondon (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Popular tournament and notable too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40e2:100b:c537:dc93:e76b:661a:d1ba (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on quality, not sure about notability. I'm not in the loop about cricket (or sports generally). It does look like a different ICC tournament is on WP:ITN/R (the Men's T20 World Cup), and I'm not sure about the difference in notability for Champions. However, the article has a good amount of sufficient quality prose, both about the content and context of the game, and it's fully cited. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 01:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose a sideshow of a never ending demand for live content to broadcast, not ITNR and only 8 eight teams (a sideshow for live content). It is neither the world cup nor the t20 world cup, nor the ipl (which is someone ITNR). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsnut24 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on notability. This is very much the second tier contest in men's one day cricket, behind the World Cup. Given we already blurb the World Cup, the 20/20 World Cup and the test World championship, not to mention women's events and the Ashes, it would be excessive to also blurb this.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For anyone opposing — while, I respect your opinion — the question to ask is — what changed since 2017 for the notability of this event to change? If there has been no change to this event’s notability since the last time we posted, I do not think that argument holds. Ktin (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What changed is the introduction of so many other cricket "championships". There seems to be one every six months. And we won't/cannot post them all. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • many of the WP:ITN criteria have changed since that time. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What change specifically would rule this nomination out? Ktin (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what the 2017 criteria were, as wasn't active at ITNC then. But I under the current WP:ITNSIGNIF criteria, I would not have supported posting 2017 final, even though it had more coverage than 2025 (as was India/Pakistan match, which generally increases coverage). Champions Trophy is about the 5th biggest competition in cricket, possibly lower, which isn't high enough to post (T20 and 50 over World Cups, World Test Championship, IPL, Ashes are all way more significant and we'll covered). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per @Joseph. In my opinion, it is the same significance as MLS, college football in the U.S., etc. Moraljaya67 (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose on notability it's not a top event as the Cricket World Cup is. ArionStar (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Doesn't seem to be as notable as the cricket tournaments we typically post. The Kip (contribs) 06:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Cricket is an extremely popular sport in large parts of the world; if anything we under-represent it on ITNR. This is a second-level tournament, a smaller version of the World Cup held in the gaps between those events. If we were to post another 50-over format competition, this would be the one to go with. I'm not entirely convinced it's significant enough, but what tips my !vote is the article quality - there are good prose summaries of the group stages and final, which has often been the problem with sports nominations and I would like to reward. I think we can post this, but explicitly without it setting a precedent or being considered for ITNR. Modest Genius talk 11:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not ITNR, not that notable. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not in ITNR. The only international cricket results we post are The Ashes, The Cricket World Cup and the T20 World Cup (male and female). The Champions Trophy is really minor in comparison. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Something not being on ITNR is not a reason to either post or not post something. It must be judged on it's notability and article quality. Comments whose only rationale for (not) posting is related to ITNR should be disregarded. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Disagree that a national championship in a given sport inherently makes it notable enough, especially when we already post a lot about other more prominent cricket tournaments to begin with. Not seeing enough global impact or widespread coverage in the RS to justify posting this. FlipandFlopped ツ 23:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

[edit]
March 8, 2025 (2025-03-8) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Sports

(Ready) RD: Athol Fugard

[edit]
Article: Athol Fugard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): News24
Credits:

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: South African playwright. 240F:7A:6253:1:607E:905:50A8:545B (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Art Schallock

[edit]
Article: Art Schallock (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4]
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft oppose--The article is in mostly great shape, but there's one uncited sentence around his death claiming two factoids (that might not need to be there): a) he was the last surviving person who played with Joe Dimaggio and b) he was the last surviving member of the 1953 World Series winning Yankees. If those details are either removed or reliably cited, we'll be good to go. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 08:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support now - these issues appear to be fixed. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 20:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites

[edit]
Article: 2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Over 750 Alawite civilians are massacred in western Syria by the Syrian Armed Forces. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Hundreds of Alawite civilians are massacred in western Syria by the Syrian Armed Forces.
Alternative blurb II: ​ As part of the Western Syria clashes, hundreds of Alawite civilians are reportedly massacred by the Armed Forces.
Alternative blurb III: ​ More than a thousand Syrians, mostly civilians, are reportedly killed during clashes in western Syria and subsequent revenge killings.
News source(s): (SOHR) CTV NewsAP News
Credits:
  • Support This news is headlining multiple organizations
  • Oppose, if the 300 death toll were a single massacre then that would be notable, but this has been across multiple massacres since January. People dying is nothing really unusual in a war. 675930s (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 300 death toll is only for march 7-8. Djodjor (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, then I change my stance to Support upon independent verification of the claim. 675930s (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Djodjor is that a support blurb from you? Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I Support. Djodjor (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I wanted to verify whether the death toll cited in the blurb is accurate, so I did a little bit more research. That figure comes from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, and has now been re-reported by the New York Times. However, the NYT article is clear that "the allegations could not be independently verified [...] another monitoring group, the Syrian Network for Human Rights, reported that government security forces had only killed some 125 civilians. It said that men of all ages were among the casualties and that the forces did not distinguish between civilians and combatants". The 340+ claim does not seem sufficiently independently verified among the RS to make the main page.
  2. Although Djodjor is correct that this is a horrific death count for only two days of conflict, the current blurb makes it seem like 340+ people were executed and massacred in a singular mass killing, such as what occurred with the Flour massacre, for example. Per the NYT, this is not what happened: the NYT article linked above discusses reports of indiscriminately dropping crude bombs from helicopters and aggressive guerrilla tactics throughout Tartus and Latakia, which has resulted in dramatically rising civilian casualties. Heavy civilian casualties due to indiscriminate tactics is distinct from a singular massacre of hundreds of civilians, which is what the blurb implies. That might still be sufficiently notable for ITN, but we need to make sure the blurb is accurate.
  3. In addition, the blurb claims the massacre was committed by Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham. However, the target article for that organization refers to it in the past tense in its first sentence and claims it was disbanded in January 2025. Either the blurb or the lede of the article it links to is therefore incorrect.

I'm open to changing my vote once these accuracy issues are addressed or once the RS become more clear. FlipandFlopped ツ 15:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, the Syrian conflict seems like the Somali civil war which is nominated below. They are both classified as minor wars as they generate 1-10,000 deaths annually. There are 6 major wars listed which are worse and so we should keep our coverage in proportion. The entire region of the Middle East seems to have endemic conflict just about everywhere -- only Jordan and the Gulf States are shown as peaceful.
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral—In principle, I would support a blurb on the notability of these massacres as a major (and deeply unfortunate) development in this new phase of the Syrian Civil War, What gives me pause is the attribution of the massacres to the Syrian Armed Forces, without any further context or elaboration, when the question of culpability remains up in the air. As the two proposed blurbs are currently worded, the underlying message being conveyed is that the current Syrian government, under Ahmed al-Sharaa, ordered these killings. In reality, we don't actually know whether they were perpetrated as part of a systematic and centrally-organized campaign of persecution against the Alawites, or if they were spontaneous acts of mass murder committed by rogue combatants within the SAF. In his response to the violence, al-Sharaa explicitly pinned the blame on pro-Assad elements attempting to discredit the new government; for all we know at this time, he may be right. In short, I do think this is a significant enough development to merit a blurb, but I want us to be very careful about how we phrase it to avoid inadvertently giving any particular narrative undue weight. Kurtis (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Specific targetting of civilians from a minority ethnic group is clearly significant, being a part of a larger ongoing conflict does not downplay it. Labelling these as counterinsurgency operations is abhorent. A blurb along the lines of "A massacre of Alawite civilians has been conducted in western Syria" would be better. Gotitbro (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support When it seems to end… ArionStar (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until independent confirmation. Even the most recent BBC article I see, 30 minutes prior to writing this comment, says there's no validation yet of any deaths. Masem (t) 13:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This happened. There are dozens of videos of people being shot. The whole "independent confirmation" thing just strikes me as lowkey racism, where you need some organization ran by white people to verify the atrocity before it is deemed truth, and the Syrian human rights groups are inadequate. But such verification may never come because the West supports these jihadists. JDiala (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When there are major human rights violations, there are usually non involved human rights orgs that get in on foot to provide independent confirmation (eg as in the recent evrnts in Gaza). The assertions of a closely involved org are something to be suspect of in terms of the appropriate quality of the article.
    That said we have confirmation there has been a major violent escalation over there last several days, and asserting that in the urn as the factual statement along with the assertion on >1000 killed, is a far more neutral way to do this without waiting for the additional verification on the exact number. Masem (t) 18:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One of the worst atrocities of the modern era. It's basically a Yazidi-tier genocide. Calls for independent confirmation are, in my view, textbook systemic racism in action (see comment above). In any case, we have multiple WP:RS stating as a matter of fact that the events occurred, including the US State Department and AP headlines, so it is suitable to include at this point. JDiala (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A possible compromise position which may please everyone is simply including the word "reportedly" in the blurb. I should clarify that I'm not super keen on this, but it could be a way to streamline the consensus process here. JDiala (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This news is headlining multiple organizations including the BBC, and the scope and scale of the massacres have provoked widespread international reactions. This clearly goes beyond the causalities one would expect from a war, and and Wikipedia should recognize at such.FossilDS (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Should we link March 2025 Western Syria clashes in the blurb? DecafPotato (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This NEEDS to be added. This is not just some clash in the ongoing civil war, but a notable series of events including the worst violence over a few days since the days when ISIS still held considerable territory in Syria. As someone who was cautiously optimistic about the developments since December, I had to face reality after seeing how awful these events are-they are notable of their own accord, and even if one still hopes the government brings accountability for this, to just pretend it's not a major event disturbs my conscience. And just because some of the facts around them are still ambiguous doesn't make them not worthy of the newsbox. There have been many attacks/massacres/other similar events that have made the news box even if casualties/perpatrators were unclear or being debated.

At the very least, the clashes should be moved as one of the 'ongoing events'. RoughEndofthePineapple (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Updated vote I agree in spirit with Nice4What and others that atrocious massacres have certainly happened, but strongly caution any posting admin to post altblurb 3 only. The original nomination of this blurb confidently, and yet objectively incorrectly, attributed the massacres to Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham. This has since been modified to accuse the Syrian Armed Forces (an arm of the the new Syrian government). There is an understandable rush to support posting on notability, fuelled by the moral outrage, but this initial inaccuracy underscores that who exactly committed this massacre is still being investigated. We have to be very careful that what we are blurbing is accurate and independently verified. Among the RS, there seems to be a general agreement that many of the massacres were committed by anti-Assad groups. Howwever, there is a major difference between Sunni Muslim militant groups who are allied with the government committing the massacres, and the military directly committing the massacres on order of the new Syrian government. Wikipedia should not be the first to break a story and confidently accuse a state of war crimes, when the NYT BBC CTV etc are not yet willing to do so and are only relaying the Syrian Human Rights Monitor's accusations in passive voice. FlipandFlopped ツ 19:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support only ALT3 per Flipandflopped. These are the largest clashes since the fall of the government and the civilian deaths only add to to why it should be posted, but assignment of blame is still unclear and we should post a safer blurb. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 7

[edit]
March 7, 2025 (2025-03-7) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Gabrielle Davis

[edit]
Article: Gabrielle Davis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Kent Online
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Death published on 7 March. Date of passing not apparent in the source, however, unsourced additions by an anonymous editor, presumably a family member or a close one from the more intimate details added, put her death sometime at the end of February. – robertsky (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. For your information, I have never had any close relationship, friendship or local knowledge of Gabrielle Davis. I created the article about her (and other related articles) because of her notable local political work regarding the 2010 threatened closure of local museums by Canterbury City Council. I took the article's photo of her, and it was kind of her to permit that. All my own edits on the article had to be separately referenced by my own efforts, so as to provide citations (so no OR by me). I have not spotted unsourced edits in the article (which is on my watchlist), but if you are aware of any, please let me know so that I can search for citations. If she made a will, then the exact date of death will be announced when the probate is published, but that process can take months. I could apply for and pay for her death certificate now, to get an exact date, but if you want me to do that, please tell me now, as the process can take more than a week, via the GRO. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Brad Sigmon

[edit]
Article: Brad Sigmon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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.

 ArionStar (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Doyin Okupe

[edit]
Article: Doyin Okupe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]
Credits:

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.

 Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Appears to be cited and somewhat whole. Last section should be renamed "Legal issues" but that's a small thing. Bremps... 02:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

[edit]
March 6, 2025 (2025-03-6) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

RD: Ricardo Scofidio

[edit]
Article: Ricardo Scofidio (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

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: American architect Thriley (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Australian Suicide (wrestler)

[edit]
Article: Australian Suicide (wrestler) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sky News AU
Credits:

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.

 Natg 19 (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Somalia Civil War

[edit]
No consensus to post. Stephen 00:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Somali Civil War (2009–present) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The Constitutional crisis in Somalia and the Las Anod conflict (2023–present) are often in the news. ArionStar (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kowal2701 (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's the criteria for ongoing? ArionStar (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kowal2701 said it in their reply, Wikipedia:ONGOING. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 22:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article. In general, articles are not posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status. Natg 19 (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RD: Krzysztof Kononowicz

[edit]
Article: Krzysztof Kononowicz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [8][9]
Credits:

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.

 Natg 19 (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Iftikhar Ahmed Sirohey

[edit]
Article: Iftikhar Ahmed Sirohey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [10][11]
Credits:

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.

 Natg 19 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article looks complete (enough) and well-cited. Bremps... 19:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IM2 loses contact with ground control

[edit]
Article: IM-2 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Athena loses contact with NASA and Nova-C controllers. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Athena touches down on the surface, communicating to earth, but might be on its side.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Intuitive Machines's Athena soft-lands on the Moon as part of NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services program.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Intuitive Machines's Athena soft-lands on the Moon on its side and is unable to complete its mission.
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
  • Oppose due to it being too soon. Likely that Athena toppled over just like Odysseus, but all we know now is that Athena is sending some data as far as I can see in this CNN live update, that's limited to just reporting that the Athena is generating power. Scuba 17:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Alt2 landing was actually a success, ITN/R
  • Oppose Watching the feed, I didn't see any indication that they lost contact. Though it does seem that it is again on it's side. WAY too soon. Nfitz (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They did lose some of the lander's contact due to the fact 1 of the two radio antennaes shut off. Shaneapickle (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's looking increasingly likely that it landed too close to a boulder that is blocking the sun, and radio signals, on one side of the lander resulting in a loss of power... or it tipped over. But it never went out of contact unexpectedly. Scuba 19:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the landing was a disaster, and they've now permanently lost contact with it, I don't know why there's any support. These attempts are frequent enough these days, I don't think we need to post the crashes. Nfitz (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically all of these supports are correct on this, although it did get to Mons Mouton it was 250 miles away from its designated landing spot, but it still landed on the moon. So based on ITN/R, the moon was a technical landing designation, but it stil dident get to its destination, and its based on my specific ides and thoughts along with the other supporters, Chorchapu is supporting the alt blurbs not the og blurb. Shaneapickle (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for confirmation that the lander has in fact is on its side, we should really avoid preemptively saying anything about the lander before more information is released. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 18:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until more information is known. We're not a breaking news service. ITN shouldn't put a blurb on the Main Page until the outcome of the landing is clear - and the article has been updated accordingly. Did it crash, land safely, or something in between? Modest Genius talk 19:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Still wait. The press conference last night has provided some information, but it remains unclear what the status of the spacecraft is. It seems to have landed but either been damaged or fell over, and isn't generating enough power to operate the science experiments. Maybe this is recoverable or maybe it's terminal; we don't know yet. Modest Genius talk 12:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Official reports by NASA and IM have said that the lander did land, but facing the wrong way. Shaneapickle (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If so, that information should be added to the article and cited to reliable (third party) sources. Modest Genius talk 15:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I now oppose. It is now clear that the spacecraft landed in the wrong place, fell over, couldn't generate power from its solar panels, and was unable to complete its mission. I don't think ITN should be posting unsuccessful attempts, regardless of the positive spin that the company is attempting to put on it. Modest Genius talk 11:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It still falls under ITN/R due to the fact it reached an area that was part of its mission was to go to the SOUTH POLAR REGIONS OF THE MOON. Shaneapickle (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the updates say there is some communication and experiments on board are running, but if it did land or topple on its side, like IM1, I don't know if we'd call that a successful landing for ITNR. Masem (t) 23:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can see, it hasn't toppled over, it's just angled away from the sun so it isn't getting a full charge. Scuba 00:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't know how it's oriented outside of the poor solar charging, and it will be a few days before any craft will be ae to sight it and conform. — Masem (t) 00:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind you, "destination" is the key word for the ITN/R criteria, not status. So in this case, the fact that it accomplished "A soft landing on the Moon" (even if it tipped over) means that it did manage to arrive at its destination. Whether it could accomplish its mission at its destination is another matter entirely, and not covered by the ITN/R criteria. (and would be impractical to cover, given that the at-destination durations of these missions readily exceed the lifetime of any ITN item on the FP) Nottheking (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait as per others. As the ITN/R criteria specifies, "destination" is critical. This both means that the blurb needs to mention its destination, and likewise, a final statement on its condition (whether it was a success, partial success, etc.) should be known. (on an aside, this does mean that had it failed to land at all the argument could've been well-made that it failed to meet the ITN/R criteria) Nottheking (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and has added an alt. It's now been confirmed it's on its side and the company has declared its mission cannot be completed given its orientation. -- KTC (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose According to the Guardian (see link) it didn't even land where it was supposed to, but 250 miles away. That doesn't sound like "reaching its destination" per ITNR, at least in my book. Khuft (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Spacecraft never bullseye their landing. There's a reason "Astronomical distances" is a term. The overall target was... To land in the polar regions of the Moon, which it definitely made it to. Nottheking (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am neutral on this, but doesn't "destination" for ITN/R in a more general sense mean the Moon? I assume this is distinguishing between successfully landings (or entries into orbit) and failures. Natg 19 (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, in spaceflight this is the general sense. So the broad category here that makes it "to Lunar orbit and beyond" is that it reached "soft landed on the Moon." The arguments that it somehow isn't on the Moon because it deviated a distance from where they aimed it would be like claiming that the Mars Perseverance Rover failed to reach its destination because it didn't bullseye its target either. Nottheking (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's in the news and the article seems adequate. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support AltBlurb 3. We now have confirmation from RS that the mission is "dead," though it did achieve its destination of a "soft landing on the Moon." The exact landing location isn't as critical here: when it comes to landing on other bodies, successful missions still tend to land many km away from the targeted spot. Nottheking (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the "destination" was the targeted destination, not in a crater hundreds of kilometres away. Is the "soft" landing on the Moon the first time it hit, or the second time when it impacted on it's side? Nfitz (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, we had no problem with all the "2020" sporting events (such as the Tokyo Olympics) being held in the wrong year. And to answer your question, we have an article that defines "soft landing." The lander was undamaged, just that its position was incorrect for the function of some key components. (namely its solar panels, needed to keep power) Nottheking (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Just wanted to note here that I've updated the proposed blurbs to reflect the fact that "Athena" is actually the name of the lander. "IM-2" is the name of the mission that flew the lander. — AFC Vixen 🦊 01:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb 3 as ITNR It reached its destination, which was the moon. Like it or not, the current ITNR criteria does not include additional conditions about how scientifically impactful the subsequent mission must be, nor about the relative accuracy of the landing. If folks disagree with this, we should take this as a sign that we need to narrow our space exploration criteria (something I might actually agree with, because I think we verge on being a space news ticker). However, this clearly meets the ITNR requirements as written. FlipandFlopped ツ 23:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

[edit]
March 5, 2025 (2025-03-5) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Edesio Alejandro

[edit]
Article: Edesio Alejandro (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Prensa Latina
Credits:

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: Influential Cuban band member (guitarist and singer) and composer across genres, 50+ film scores, Grammy nomination. The article is better sourced and longer than in the beginning. Problem I see: long list of films. I know that IMDb is not regarded reliable, but what is? Help wanted. If we find nothing we can split the list and leave only the sourced ones in the bio, still 20+ - some with articles of very different quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2024 Turing Award

[edit]
Articles: Andrew Barto (talk · history · tag) and Richard S. Sutton (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Andrew Barto and Richard Sutton are awarded the 2024 Turing Award for their work on reinforcement learning. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

Article updated
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.

Nominator's comments: Turing award. ITNR. Announced on this date. Ktin (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as all linked articles seem to be in good shape(though I must admit I understood very little of the last one). Barto and Sutton's articles do need to be updated to reflect the award. –DMartin 05:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Aspirin and Cancer

[edit]
WP:SNOW
Consensus to post is unlikely to develop.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Aspirin (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Aspirin has been found to reduce cancer metastasis (Post)
News source(s): BBC Gizmodo Independent
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Study has been peer-reviewed, so no questions there. There is coverage in multiple sources for this potentially groundbreaking discovery. I have added a paragraph about this to the article, unsure if this is enough updating, so I have not added myself as an updater TNM101 (chat) 17:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless I'm missing something - seems like a breach of WP:MEDRS to me. Claims like this, that a particular drug is effective or not effective against particular diseases, should be cited to secondary review sources, whereas the above claim references an individual primary study. Putting up something that looks like medical information while the article clearly says "It was also said that taking self-medicating with aspirin should not be done yet" seems like a red flag to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a peer reviewed Nature article associated here, [12], linked in BBC article (which is usually consistent in pointing to the published paper). This should not be taken as my sign of support, as this is a first step towards a cancer blocker. — Masem (t) 18:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Amakuru's point is that the Nature paper is a primary source, not a secondary systematic review as required by WP:MEDRS (which has a whole section entitled 'avoid primary sources'). I think MEDRS is overly strict on that point, but it's still the guideline. Modest Genius talk 18:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed, that was my point. I actually don't think MEDRS iS overly strict at all actually, given the stakes. As much as we put in big letters that Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, and does not purport to be any sort of medical guide, it's still eminently possible that readers will see things in our articles relating to their own medical conditions and potentially act on what we write. With that in mind, it's vital that the information we present represents the prevailing medical consensus. Individual research, peer reviewed or not, very often doesn't represent the overarching prevailing science. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The BBC story reports that a) this effect has been known about for a decade, the new discovery is just determining the mechanism; b) the experiments were all in animals, not humans; and c) clinical trials are only just starting. This isn't a cure for cancer. That's backed up by the cancer prevention section of our article. Modest Genius talk 17:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on notability. This is a big step in a long process of discovery, but the sourcing just doesn't back up that it is ITN-worthy (framing of the reporting by all 3 sources here only claims a improved understanding of an already known prevention mechanism) ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 18:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: this is not really that groundbreaking. We've known for a while that there is an association between aspirin and reduced incidence of CRC. Like Modest Genius said, this is just about the mechanism. Like most news about cancer, it's something interesting to keep an eye on but this does not change management.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 18:44, 5 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.

March 4

[edit]
March 4, 2025 (2025-03-4) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Jean-Louis Pichon

[edit]
Article: Jean-Louis Pichon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Diapason
Credits:

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: French opera manager and director, reviving works by Jules Massenet who was also born in his hometown, creating a festival around them. He worked internationally. - The article was long and unsourced. There are still some bits missing, but the key information seems referenced. Help wanted. -- --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Roy Ayers

[edit]
Article: Roy Ayers (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

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: American jazz-funk vibraphonist, record producer and composer. 240F:7A:6253:1:1088:1DCE:94DC:C5B (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sylvester Turner

[edit]
Article: Sylvester Turner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [13]
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Selwyn Raab

[edit]
Article: Selwyn Raab (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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.

 Natg 19 (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Woolly mouse

[edit]
The lack of a peer-review scuttles this. Schwede66 04:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Woolly mouse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Scientists from Colossal Biosciences create a new form of genetically modified woolly mouse as part of de-extinction efforts for the woolly mammoth. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Colossal Biosciences scientists announce the creation of a new genetically modified woolly mouse as part of de-extinction efforts for the woolly mammoth.
News source(s): (The Guardian)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Diversifying the ITN template. ArionStar (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, this page could benefit from more citations and doesn't seem like a particularly important discovery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chorchapu (talk • contribs) 00:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not yet peer reviewed. Masem (t) 00:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is in the news and there's a good amount of content for a new development, so this feels like the only real obstacle to me. Masem, do you think a blurb saying they announced the development would be better than stating it in wikivoice? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, science and medical topics need to have peer-review to make sure that we are not featuring junk science on the main page; otherwise, this is closer to PROMO (even if news sources are reporting on it). Its similar to the quantum chip from a few weeks back - it was more a product announcement at its core, without a peer reviewed source on the actual chip. — Masem (t) 01:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even with peer review, this isn't anything exciting. This was possible since the 90s and it was only a matter of time before scientists did it. I would support if it was scientists recreating the woolly mammoth while keeping it alive. DotesConks (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Let's wait until they do have a woolly mammoth. We don't want to mis-fire posting every step along the way, even if it makes a good newsbite (at least before the scientist talking heads come in and clarify for those listening past the headlines). Kingsif (talk) 03:21, 5 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.

(Posted) Pritzker Architecture Prize

[edit]
Article: Liu Jiakun (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Pritzker Architecture Prize is awarded to Chinese architect Liu Jiakun (pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Chinese architect Liu Jiakun (pictured) is awarded the Pritzker Architecture Prize.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Chinese architect Liu Jiakun (pictured) is awarded the Pritzker Architecture Prize for his modern interpretations of classic Chinese architecture.
News source(s): Official Announcement AP
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: I'm inclined to prefer Alt2, but it may be too long. Feedback appreciated. –DMartin 00:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ōfunato wildfire

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Ōfunato wildfire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A wildfire in Japan's Iwate Prefecture grows to become the largest in the country's history. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ One person is killed in the largest wildfire in Japan's history.
News source(s): Japan Times, BBC, NYT,
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Largest wildfire on record in Japan, being covered by countless international news sources such as ABC News, Al Jazeera, CNN, Reuters etc. as well as extensive coverage in Japanese news. Note: most news sources are describing it as 'the largest in decades', however, this fire is now over double the previous fire's size - the Japan Times source states that "that fire burned 1,030 hectares, the previous record". harrz talk 14:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks done. This was also reported on ERRORS. The current blurb has "becomes the largest in the country in at least five decades." Natg 19 (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to this article is still prominent on the mainpage. However, the article needs to be updted. AFAIK, the rains tamped down the fire about a week ago, all evacuations are now lifted. Authors might want to reflect it in the lead. --Викидим (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jean-Louis Debré

[edit]
Article: Jean-Louis Debré (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Le Monde (French)
Credits:

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: Occupied several of the most important political functions in France for the better part of 20 years. --Procrastineur49 (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) US tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico go into effect

[edit]
Article: 2025 United States trade war with Canada and Mexico (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Amidst an ongoing trade war, new US tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico go into effect (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The United States imposes tariffs on Canada and Mexico and increases tariffs on China, incurring retaliatory tariffs from (Canada and China / all three countries).
Alternative blurb II: ​ The United States imposes tariffs on Canada, Mexico and the European Union, beginning a trade war with Canada and Mexico.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The United States imposes tariffs on its allies Canada, Mexico and the European Union, beginning a trade war with Canada and Mexico.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ The United States imposes tariffs on Canada and Mexico and increases tariffs on China, but then reverses the vast majority of tariffs on Canada and Mexico within 24 hours of imposing them.
News source(s): [14]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Involves multiple countries and billions of dollars. It is possible the target article is not appropriate, since China is not a subject there. Second Trump tariffs could also be a target article, but that article is broader since it mentions the European Union and other countries. Banedon (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the tariffs already get posted in February? 675930s (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the blurb was nominated but not posted because they didn’t go into effect in February Hungry403 (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment US has been in trade war with China since 2018, and this is even analysed in research papers (see Fajgelbaum & Khandelwal, 2022, Caliendo & Parro, 2023 and Alessandria et al., 2024). Also, note that the Biden administration didn't reverse the tariffs imposed by the First Trump administration, and even imposed additional tariffs on China in May 2024, which went into effect in September 2024 (CNN). So, China should be excluded from the blurb as this isn't really new, and the nomination should focus on whether the imposed tariffs on the neighbouring countries are notable enough.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support posting. This was nominated in February but consensus was to wait until the tariffs take effect. Disagree with excluding China because the new tariffs on China are a lot larger than the old ones and will significantly disrupt global supply chains. ITN historically neglects economic news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.200.171 (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait until we know they go into effect. Blurb also needs to add that at least Canada has stated intent to tariff US goods in retaliation, as from last time, its the fact it was escalating into a trade war was the reason many supported posting. There's still hours before this could happen and things could change so just wait until we have an official word on this. --Masem (t) 12:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Canadian counter tariffs are already in effect - and took effect last night, User:Masem at the same time the USA ones took effect. I'm not sure what you are waiting for. The first round of the Canadian tariffs aren't as extensive, but targeted on vulnerable, mostly luxury, items and states. The second round in about 3 weeks will be more extensive - but I don't think we should wait for that. Nfitz (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadnt caught they started at midnight (both ways) so yes, there is no wait needed now. — Masem (t) 14:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb — Tariffs on China are also relevant, though maybe don't need to be bolded. I proposed an altblurb that includes that Canada and China imposed retaliatory tariffs (both of which have entered force, alongside the U.S. tariffs, about five hours ago as of writing). Wording can be changed to "all three countries" if Mexico imposes retaliatory tariffs of its own, which is highly likely, and Mexico's president Sheinbaum is expected to announce them in her news conference this morning. DecafPotato (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb. This is a significant shake-up to geopolitics. I prefer the alt blurb, as it uses the active voice; the use of passive voice in the original blurb strikes me as a bit weasel-worded. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - alt blurb - but is "trade war" the best description? The Americans have been clear that it will use economic coercion as a weapons to force Canada to become part of the USA. That makes this an act of war. On the other hand, the description is more apt for the other 2 nations. Nfitz (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb but I'm not sure if China should be included, that's been happening for ages now. Oppose using any other phrase than "trade war" since we shouldn't really put too much trust on what could very well be posturing. Yo.dazo (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, this will have long-lasting and most likely devastating consequences on the economy, if this isn't important and ITN I don't know what is. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 14:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Top of the headline news. ArionStar (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why not mention the EU tariffs? I've added it to an altblurb. Bremps... 17:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support posting, though exclude China as it's only an escalation as opposed to the start of an entirely new trade conflict. Bremps... 17:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we should mention tariffs on the EU unless they actually go into effect; right now Trump has just said he might/will impose them and hasn't even set a date. DecafPotato (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    D'oh, I thought the US imposed them already. Bremps... 19:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, and also prefer altblurb 2 per Bremps. The Canada/Mexico/EU tariffs are the start of a new trade war, and are more uniquely notable, whereas the tariffs on China are a readjustment to an already existing trade dispute. Better to make clear to the reader the most central development: a new trade war has begun amongst the Atlantic powers. FlipandFlopped ツ 17:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And to be clear, I agree with others above that the term "trade war" should be used in the blurb. FlipandFlopped ツ 18:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support major escalation, also added alt blurb 3 to specify the allied status/insanity of this action Udder1882 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Incredibly prominent news. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Most participants did not oppose the inclusion of the Chinese tariffs or only weakly opposed, and the same was true for the "trade war" wording, for which the only voiced opposition touched on using stronger language. EU tariffs are only a threat for now, so not included. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull or modify to altblurb 4 Per the Toronto Star and NYT, Trump has essentially reversed the tariffs. Only a narrow minority of exports that are not currently governed by the USMCA agreement will still be tariffed, and even among those exports, he's lowered it to 10% on anything energy-related or all potash-based goods. The current blurb has now become misleading. FlipandFlopped ツ 22:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a "narrow minority": 50 percent of imports from Mexico and 62 percent of imports from Canada will still face the tariffs. (per inverted US gov figures from ABC); "imposes and partially suspends" is my preferred wording. "Reverses" falsely implies that billions of dollars of goods entering the US are not still facing 25% taxes and also ignores that Canada's retaliatory tariffs are staying in place for now as well. DecafPotato (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've implemented an update using "delays" instead of "suspends", which could be misinterpreted as the US suspending some pre-existing tariffs while imposing new ones, which isn't the case. In addition to the federal tariffs still in place, multiple premiers have indicated provincial retaliatory measures will remain in place until the tariff threat is ended (including Ontario's 25% surcharge on energy to the NE USA). It hasn't changed significantly to pull in and of itself, and we would need consensus here to do so. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. At the time I made that comment, it was unclear what exactly was being exempted and the NYT was reporting partially inaccurate claims. I rescind my vote. FlipandFlopped ツ 14:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace It's not clear why this topic of tariffs has been selected from amongst the general stream of radical orders from the new US administration. But the headlines describe this as Tariffs by Whim and Trump Whipsaws on Tariffs and so it seems too chaotic and uncertain for our blurb to be stable.
I previously nominated List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump as a catch-all for such topics and still reckon that we need something like this in Ongoing as a general way for readers to find our coverage of them.
Andrew🐉(talk) 07:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put: the culture of Wikipedia generally frowns upon emphasizing political events within a country (outside of the mandatory ITN/R "selection of Prime Minister" via general election or other event) that don't immediately and directly impact other countries, regardless of how far-reaching the ramifications are. (particularly compared to say, a single sporting match) However, tariffs are by nature international, so this passes the threshold that most draws support. Nottheking (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tariffs are international events - affecting multiple countries. Much of Trump's other EOs are "local" politics only relevant to the US. Natg 19 (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

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:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1279875094"