Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:20, 27 March 2023

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

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

• WP:ITN/C

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

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

Grand Kartal Hotel in 2007 A fire at a ski resort hotel (pictured) in Kartalkaya, Turkey, leaves at least 76 people dead and 51 others injured. A series of attacks by the National Liberation Army in the Catatumbo region of Colombia leaves more than a hundred people dead. A ceasefire agreement suspends the Israel–Hamas war, involving the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners. Two Supreme Court judges are assassinated in a shooting at the Supreme Court of Iran in Tehran. Ongoing: Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Linda Nolan Tommy Brown Diane Langton Simon Townsend Claire van Kampen Nello Altomare Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

Archives

March 27

March 26

The Boat Race

• Nominated by Whizz40 (talk · give credit)

 Whizz40 (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose on quality. The Boat Race 2023 is the appropriate article - needs fixing up like in prior years. Lee Vilenski 18:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsurprised that the article is of far lesser quality than previous years, since it's since been removed from ITN/R. Well done, everyone. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, it's not just that, it's the relentless hatred that's stopped me bothering. Fuck it, why bother? The ex-colonials win and the encyclopedia loses. Standard stuff these days. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on significance. A minor event with limited international coverage. nableezy - 19:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Amateur competition with only two entrants, little public interest, and all the other significance issues that were raised in the recent discussion on WT:ITN. Modest Genius 19:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not being on ITBR does not exclude a topic from being discussed as its ITNC entry. Masem (t) 19:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am well aware of that. I specifically referred to the significance concerns that were discussed there, not the outcome (delisting). Many of those arguments also apply to an individual nomination. Modest Genius 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Very true, albeit I believe he meant that his oppose is based off the same significance reasons given to remove it from ITNR (as opposed to arguing it shouldn’t be posted because it was removed). The Kip (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose MVP Jasper Parish doesn't have an article, much less a suitable picture, and Jasper Parrish is awful. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nableezy. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nableezy. The Kip (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: María Kodama

• Nominated by BorgQueen (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Jorge Luis Borges' widow and the sole owner of the rights to his work. Needs more update. BorgQueen (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Oladipo Diya

• Nominated by Ammarpad (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Nigerian military officer; article needs some more update – Ammarpad (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Innocent (actor)

• Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Innocent Vareed Thekkethala an actor and Indian MP . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

March 25

RD: Frank LeMaster

• Updated and nominated by BeanieFan11 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: First reported by the Eagles on March 25, although he died on March 23. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Article seems OK. Alex-h (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2023 New South Wales state election

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

• Nominated by Thiscouldbeauser (talk · give credit)

• Oppose We don't post subnational elections, and don't post elections to Ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Mub XxLuckyCxX (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Good faith nom but we don't typically post sub-national elections This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• A small but I think reasonable request: Can we please wait for more than a bloody hour before SNOW closing a nomination, especially if it has only garnered three !votes? --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• I suppose so, but considering it was three quick opposes on an item that would already be highly unlikely to post considering precedence, in my opinion it was justified. The Kip (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: Protests in Israel

• Nominated by Son Of The Desert (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: This has been going on for a while now, and just now Netenyahu's defence minister publicaly called on him to freeze the legislation. It's a big deal and there have been threats of civil war. Son Of The Desert (Talk) 18:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Compared to the current French ones, where the number of protestors have been near a million, the numbers here are far less significant. I realize recent changes may cause these to grow. However, I would point out the same issue that most of our protest articles start as: a pure timeline without a significant background section and larger narrative section is not very helpful to readers. Masem (t) 19:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

As a proportion of the population I wouldnt say that this is less significant. nableezy - 19:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

A bit late, but with ~700,000 Israeli protesters (7-8% of the population) it’s hard to say so. Juxlos (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support This is a huge deal with serious implications for Israel's long term politics and constitutional order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - this was nominated before last month, but it was dismissed as "politics as usual." This is anything but: this can have immense ramifications for Israeli politics and can change the very structure of the country's government. Additionally, @Masem's point regarding the French protests is misleading; 1.5% of France is protesting, and with these protests, as many as nearly 3% have been protesting in Israel. The comparison is not apt. However, I will agree with you @Masem in that it should be expanded into more of an article of proper prose. Crusader1096 (message) 23:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support once expanded per Knightoftheswords281. DecafPotato (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. They've been going long enough at a large enough scale to merit an ongoing event. The Kip (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support agreed with all above. It also seems these protests won't be ending any time in the near future, or at least the month. Daneellis114 03:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - Per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, especially with news of Netanyahu firing Israel's defense minister. This will only escalate from here. Blade Jogger 2049 18:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Post-posting comment Given what has happened over the weekend in Israel, I really think that 1) this needs to be a blurb along the style of "Mass protest arise in Israel after Netanyahu fires its defense minister." and 2) the article needs to be more in depth about what is happening in the govt instead of just covering the protests. eg 2023 Israeli judicial reform and these protests should be in the same article since their timelines go hand in hand. --Masem (t) 03:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Asteroid 2023 DZ2

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

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Created by Starcluster (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Kheider (talk · give credit)

• Oppose no significant impact, not visible without good telescopes, etc. Yes, we do need to be aware of the importance of tracking objects that may hit earth, but close misses are not really good ITN stories, since we generally do not post on "what ifs" --Masem (t) 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  It is a once a decade close approach by an object this large and (other than Apophis in 2029) these things are never visible without a telescope. -- Kheider (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Apophis will be visible without a telescope IIRC. I think when it does pass by Earth we should post it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Suppose near-misses happen frequently. Fdfexoex (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• AFD. Article seems to fail WP:NASTRO. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Google 2023 DZ2 and look at the news tab instead of assuming. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  No you. Reaffirming my suggestion to send to AFD. Close passes like this aren't all that infrequent, and a flurry of sensationalist headlines every time there's one doesn't really add up to GNG for the object in question. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  How exactly does this fail WP:NASTRO? Seems to fulfil clause IV. Crusader1096 (message) 23:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Are we looking at the same #4: "The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the use of astrophotography or automated technology.", because that's definitely not fulfilled. The NASTRO fail seems pretty clear...the place where there's some room for disagreement is GNG, but I still feel that it's not satisfied. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Three not smaller* objects got this close or closer since the start of a campaign 25 years ago, to stop missing ones from systemic bias (looking where it's easier to discover an asteroid). *size is how big it'd be if it was the most likely shade of gray cause its light reflection efficiency isn't known beyond "most asteroids are between 5 and 25%". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  If you think it should be AfD'd, feel free to bring it there. DecafPotato (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair, an IP technically can’t create an AFD without an (autoconfirmed?) editor to finish the process. Courcelles (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - per @Masem. Crusader1096 (message) 23:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem. The Kip (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - NEO passes happen a lot, obviously didn't hit anything, no real reason why we should post it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Masem. Alex-h (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Einstein problem

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

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Updated by David Eppstein (talk · give credit) and Tompw (talk · give credit)

• Comment Shouldn't "Einstein" be lowercase? DFlhb (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done, thanks. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - As I mentioned on the main ITN talk page, the discovery is currently only in pre-print, so I don't know that it's been appropriately reviewed. And neither of the two proposed target articles is in good shape. Aperiodic tiling doesn't even link to Einstein problem, even though the latter is clearly about the former. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Science News reports that "While the paper has yet to be peer-reviewed, the experts interviewed for this article agree that the result seems likely to hold up to detailed scrutiny." Formal publication might take months or years and, by then, the result will be well known and the news will be stale. This therefore seems the best window for us to share this development. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

That's helpful, thank you. If the articles can be improved, I would be inclined to reverse my position. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

We always wait on the publication of a peer-reviewed paper for ITN. Masem (t) 15:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No, we don't. Just about nothing that appears at ITN is based on a peer-reviewed paper that has been through the ponderous process of academic publishing. Instead, most stories are based on news reports and press releases. For example, see the Afghan earthquake which has just been posted. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

For all scientific and medical-based stories (this is one), we expect a peer-reviewed source per SCIRS and MEDRS. Newspapers and the general media are not experts to be able to judge if the results are valid. Masem (t) 18:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the details of a recent earthquake, such as its magnitude, are a scientific matter – that science is seismology. The same applies to other occurrences such as weather (meteorology), space (astronomy and astrophysics), &c. Just about everything is covered in some way by academia but we do not require peer-reviewed papers. What we require is that it's in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a bit of a difference between the occurrence of a massive natural disaster (reported by mainstream news, with immediate and up-to-date facts) and the solving of a long-standing math problem (which still requires peer-review to confirm). The Kip (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The key difference is that insisting on a different level of sourcing for mathematics introduces an arbitrary and systemic bias. It accentuates ITN's tendency to run topics which are recurring, repetitive and routine while shutting out those which are actually new. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope, given how math proofs can generally be easily verified by other skilled mathematicians, compared to other scientific fields where the peer-review has to be based on an assessment of the data quality and methods used rather than recreation, expecting a peer-reviewed source for a mathematics proof is absolutely reasonable and within expectations.

Now, in a case like this, where the result is an interesting result but one with little practical application, as opposed to demonstrating, hypothetically, that NP-hard problems can be solved in P-time which would have massive impacts on computing technology, that the news is reporting it prior to a peer-review shows that its more a curiosity than a groundbreaking discovery. So we're not creating a bias here. Masem (t) 13:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's look at the evidence and do the math. There's 10 nominations at WP:ITN/C currently which are STEM in some way. The only ones which have been posted are those which feature some deaths - the earthquake and tornado. So, that's all that matters in practise. But the trouble is that "if it bleeds, it leads" is a journalistic, tabloid sensibility. ITN is posting sensational stories and snubbing science. That's systemic bias. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - It may take a while, but peer review exists for a reason. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Question Is this actually... important? I've read the target articles and sources, and while the problem has existed for a long time and might have applications in material sciences, I'm not convinced (but could be!) this really matters all that much. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Was the proof that pi has infinite digits important? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This is material suitable to DYK, not ITN as its not a major scientific breakthrough. --Masem (t) 15:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Per @Masem. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Masem. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Infinite support outweighs any finite number of opposes.Fdfexoex (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  An editor can still express uncountably infinite opposition below, which would outweigh your relatively small support :) Son Of The Desert (Talk) 19:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, maybe not as important as a darts tournament or a storm, but I think that a solution to a half century problem deserves to be posted. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem and Genevieve. The Kip (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

(posted) RD: Gordon Moore

• Nominated by ElijahPepe (talk · give credit)

 elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, article is relatively short but very well sourced. DFlhb (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support I see just a couple statements that could use citations but this is well sourced for a bio. --Masem (t) 02:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Moore is a very influential person in the field of computer science, and in fact has a whole "law" of Computer Science named after him (Moore's law). RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• support blurb obviously. Household name due to the law 5.44.170.26 (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• I definitely wouldn't consider this to be an obvious blurb. Gordon Moore is not a name that everyone would know (i.e. not really a household name), and I doubt the average person has heard of Moore's law either. A highly influential businessman and engineer, who co-founded and oversaw a company that could stake a legitimate claim to having changed the world, but I feel like blurbs are generally reserved for individuals who are known to pretty near everyone. Kurtis 10:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• I'd support a blurb; Steve Jobs had one when he died, and I'd say Moore was just as significant if not more. DFlhb (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• The difference is that Steve Jobs was a household name—everyone knew who he was. Gordon Moore is certainly a major figure in electronics engineering (indeed, I argue above that Moore flat-out changed the world) but he doesn't have the same name recognition. Kurtis 18:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb - Sadly, Moore was definitely not a household name. There's an issue of small sample sizes here - Misplaced Pages editors are vastly disproportionately likely to have heard of him. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Lead is sparse.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Posting. The lead the is sparse but still works. --Tone 09:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, it was borderline of when I'd apply the orange {{Lead too short}}.—Bagumba (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Support RD, Oppose blurb - Notable figure, but not enough to warrant a blurb.

I feel like we need an ITN/R for recent deaths, so we can figure out who is notable enough for a blurb and who isn't. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Call it ITN/BD for blurbable deaths and put Gene Hackman and William Shatner on the list. Fdfexoex (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit of a morbid subject, but yes I think we should probably post them when they die (hopefully later rather than sooner). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Creating such a list would be impossible. When examining those recent deaths that do occur and determining whether they are eligible for a blurb, one of the factors that comes into play is the suddenness or unexpectedness of the death. For example, if the currently-serving head of state of a country dropped dead tomorrow, this would or should prompt a blurb (notwithstanding those editors who have their own personal criteria that exclude all but the most transcendent people from receiving blurbs). As a famous figure becomes older and gains distance from the apex of their career, it becomes more difficult to justify them having a blurb. The list would need to be changing constantly in order to reflect the reality of the current consensus. I don't think anyone would be up to the task. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll also note that whether to blurb a recent death depends, for some of us, on the extent to which their article is updated, following their death. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Seems to have posted with missing citations. Premature post. Would not recommend a pull though. Instead someone knowledgeable and who has the ability to, should go in and fix the article. I am out today. Ktin (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see where citations are missing from the time of your comment —Bagumba (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have added tags for your benefit. Please see. Also, if you are helping edit the article, please see if you can fix some of the WP:PROSELINE issues. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Still seems to meet WP:ITNQUALITY: Articles should be well referenced; one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, but any contentious statements must have a source, and having entire sections without any sources is unacceptable. —Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have resolved the tags now. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

March 24

(Posted) Tornado outbreak of March 24–25, 2023

• Nominated by Teemu08 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Tornado outbreak with an unusually large death count (it struck at night) that is expected to rise. Better image likely to come. Teemu08 (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Currently the top headline on the BBC (as seen from the UK). GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support given the scale of the devastation. Rest in Peace to the victims. --Rockstone 14:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - WP:MINIMUMDEATHS does not exist, but we historically have tended to post disasters of this magnitude, with this high of a death toll being a major contributing factor.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support with different image This is a very notable and tragic tornado outbreak notable enough for ITN. However, I feel like the image may not make sense to people not into meteorology. Maybe an image like Late March 2023 Tornado Outbreak 2023-03-25 1406Z.jpg (showing satellite imagery of the outbreak) or Rolling Fork, Mississippi tornado.jpg (showing the 19 deaths tornado) would be better. Infinity (talk - contributions) 15:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Crossed out the latter image (one currently used) as it is being marked for deletion. Infinity (talk - contributions) 23:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Article seems to be of good quality. Highly visible and "in the news" tragedy. Kafoxe (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - per above. RIP. Also, support @RandomInfinity17's calls for the other image to be used, with the blurb acknowledging that the picture shows the wider tornado system. Crusader1096 (message) 16:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. There appears to be a dissonance between the fatality number reported in multiple sections of the article. The Rolling Fork-Silver City tornado section mentions the fatality number as both 19 and 23, while two more are added for Amory. I believe we should rectify this before ITN posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support As per above. The article is in good shape. --Maxxies (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support

Deeply saddening event with extreme damage and a high death toll, so I strongly support this being posted onto ITN User:Idontknowlol7

• Support, notable tornado outbreak, and as per above. That was a really catastrophic tornado hitting Rolling Fork, Silver City and Amory, worst I've seen ever. Tails Wx 17:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly an extreme and deadly weather event with major media coverage. Article appears to be in decent shape. Jusdafax (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support—It’s not like highly destructive tornado outbreaks in the American South and Midwest are uncommon, but a death toll of 23 people does seem exceptional to me. Kurtis 18:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Article looks ready to be posted; I saw no {cn} tags in it. This is also an exceptionally catastrophic tornado outbreak which is receiving national and international news coverage. And as reflected in the article's title now, I fear that we have not yet seen the end of this particular tornado outbreak. Vida0007 (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The casualties now include at least two dead from Alabama. Perhaps the blurb could be changed to something like "in the Southern United States, including the states of Mississippi and Alabama."? Kafoxe (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Done. Heythereimaguy (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

    I would be fine with just "in the Southern United States", because that's what the article says. DecafPotato (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Support: unfortunate but important. Article seems ready –lomrjyo 01:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: The image associated with this nomination does not have copyright information associated with it, and it is NOT free for use. This needs to be changed before publishing. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would do Late March 2023 Tornado Outbreak 2023-03-25 1406Z.jpg, satellite imagery of the outbreak on March 25. Infinity (talk - contributions) 02:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  We really need to fix this immediately. That image absolutely should not be used, it's not free. Planet specifically says on their website

  Planet’s imagery that is posted online via our owned media channels (i.e., Planet.com, social media and in the press) is done so under creative common CC-BY-NC-SA. Under this license, you are free to share and adapt our imagery as long as you correctly attribute it to Planet (e.g. ©Planet Labs PBC, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0), and properly indicate any change that is made to the imagery. The imagery may not be sold or commercialized under this creative commons license, but interested parties can reach out to images@planet.com to discuss licensing our imagery data for commercial purposes.

  I'm not sure if the press piece applies, I saw it widely shared on social media but not by anyone associated with Planet. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I support using this image as a replacement for the Planet imagery now that it's been removed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Can this be posted? It's been up for nearly 24 hours with unanimous support. --Rockstone 06:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Posting. I'll write 25 as per article. --Tone 08:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment at a glance, the vast majority of fatalities were caused by a single tornado. Should that one specifically get its own? Juxlos (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Epeli Ganilau

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Notable Fijian political figure. Article is lengthy and extensive, but is unfortunately basically unsourced. I'll try my best to remedy it. Crusader1096 (message) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jean-Jacques Favier

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: German-French astronaut who flew for NASA. Article needs work however. Crusader1096 (message) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

March 23

RD: Jerry Green (writer)

• Updated and nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Sunshineisles2 (talk · give credit)

 – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

IAAF bans trans athletes

Nominator's comments: Seems to be of worldwide notability, zeitgeist; article editing is semi-locked. 2A02:2F0B:B604:E100:E022:4DF3:6412:3E6F (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Except that it is considered a temporary measure until they debate how to handle trans athletes further, and currently has zero effects on competing athletes. Masem (t) 00:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see any update to the bolded article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Temporary decision, article isn't of sufficient quality. I can see the notability, but how does this actually affect most sports in the world? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Good faith nom, but its temporary for now, so its significance is still up in the air. Crusader1096 (message) 06:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Needs work The article needs updating to reflect the latest rule changes. And it's rather ongoing as there were previous rules and there will be a working party on more. Getting the technicalities about testosterone right seems complex. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• I'm afraid we would never be able to feature something without an updated article, so I would recommend getting active in editing in the field (perhaps starting with non-locked articles initially, to learn the ropes). ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – the target article hasn't even been edited at all in over ten days. DecafPotato (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Terran 1 launch

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Chlod (talk · give credit)

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

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

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

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

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

Which was? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sagittarian Milky Way, I think it was another rocket launch, if I recall correctly. I don't remember which or exactly when. Curbon7 (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a. Good to have positive, diverse stories to post

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

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

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

• Support since this is in ITNR. Also, I watched it from my university's parking garage last night, and witnessed the 2nd stage fail to ignite, so that was interesting. --Rockstone 21:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Despite the second-stage failure, this first-ever of its kind 3-D printed launch is notable and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• IAR Oppose - The use of 3D printing as a novel fabrication technique seems to be popular as way of trying to boost the significance of otherwise small-scale developments, and this is a striking example of that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Umm... to 3D-print almost an entire fracking rocket is no small-scale development, hence support. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I am quite surprised an administrator has not posted this yet. I know I'm echoing LaserLegs from long ago who got similarly angry about a nomination for Blue Origin, but that nomination was even more clear-cut that the event was not to be posted. Are admins waiting for the resolution of the discussion on WT:ITN? --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Given that the WT:ITN discussion seems to be leaning towards 'remove from ITN/R', the "support since this is ITN/R" !votes likely won't have much weight. DecafPotato (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  If true, this should be a damn effective tactic going forward. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see why the manufacturing technique is important here. Otherwise it's an entirely unremarkable launch, by one of dozens of commercial providers who have entered the field in the last decade. Modest Genius 19:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

March 22

RD: Lucy Salani

• Nominated by Oltrepier (talk · give credit)
• Updated by KamillaŚ (talk · give credit), Oltrepier (talk · give credit), WanderingWanda (talk · give credit) and Robby.is.on (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: She was the only Italian transgender person that survived Nazi concentration camps. I should note that she actually passed away on 22 March. Also, I would like to thank everyone who helped clean this article up, and especially KamillaŚ, who translated it from it.wiki in the first place. --Oltrepier (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support: I was just nominating it myself! Looks to be in good shaped. Note: moved to the 22nd bc her death was announced hen as well. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - article appears to be in good order. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - article looks good. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Kéné Ndoye

• Nominated by Rushtheeditor (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: death was reported recently in some english-language reports. Rushtheeditor (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

2022 Turing Award

• Nominated by Joofjoof (talk · give credit)

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

• Comment That should be just Ethernet not "the Ethernet" as it's a family of protocols, not a particular network. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Metcalfe's article needs a lot of sourcing work. --Masem (t) 12:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Striking out the second 'the' in the blurb per Andrew's comment. Cheers. WimePocy 11:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Metcalfe's article still needs a good amount of work, but the Ethernet article looks good so I'm excited to see this featured once BLP guidelines are met. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Not ready. Unfortunately there's an orange tag on the article, which seems to be justified. It's mostly stuff that should be easy enough to source though, just needs a bit more work. Modest Genius 19:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 Abel prize

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

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

March 21

(Posted) 2023 Badakhshan earthquake

• Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Quake1234 (talk · give credit) and Filipinohere (talk · give credit)

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

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

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

• Posting. --Tone 09:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) World Baseball Classic

• Updated and nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
• Updated by José A. VEN (talk · give credit)

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

Oppose until it's updated. Noah 02:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  I posted based on the !votes at the time. No problem if consensus happens to change afterwards. There is no minimum wait time, and this is not close, timewise, to other posts that have been faster. We are all volunteers here, so nobody should expect anyone to "stay awake all night". However, we have historically posted once there is consensus among a sufficient number of participants. If the community wishes tighter guidelines than what has been done in the past, they are free form a consensus to amend WP:ITN/A, which reads: Editors at ITN/C declare their support or opposition and, after a few hours, it's usually fairly clear if enough people express reasonable arguments in favour of posting. If the consensus is not entirely clear, consider letting the nomination run for more time, especially if the nomination is less than 24 hours old. —Bagumba (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ryugu asteroid samples

• Nominated by Brandmeister (talk · give credit)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose I don't like opposing but the story seems lacking. The molecules in question are fairly simple organic compounds and so it's not surprising to confirm their presence. The sampling mission was posted at ITN in 2018 and this item is just part of the long tail of results. Checking for space news, there seem to be bigger stories. I've just nominated Terran 1 while Hakuto-R has just achieved lunar orbit, prior to a landing for the Emirates Lunar Mission. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on the simple basis that the update to our article isn't significant enough. If, inspired by this news, someone wrote a whole major section or article about the molecular analysis of Ryugu, then that might have been a meaningful article to feature. Here we'd basically be featuring the same text as we did a few years ago. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is potentially extraordinary! --Ouro (blah blah) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support -per Count Iblis. Notable discovery with big implications. The article is in fine shape, a credit to the 'pedia. Opposers fail to convince me, though I agree it would be helpful to have more relevant text in the target article. Nevertheless, this is a Japanese space triumph with a payoff. Jusdafax (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Willis Reed

• Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Tails Wx (talk · give credit), Muboshgu (talk · give credit) and Bagumba (talk · give credit)

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

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

• Not yet ready Orange-tagged for citations; several inline CN tags present. Curbon7 (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons outlined by Curbon. Orange-tagged article, for CN. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support all reference issues addressed and resolved! Feel free to ping me if any additional issues exist or pop up! Tails Wx 00:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Tails Wx, thanks for your work! You did a lot to improve the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

    No problem! Glad I could help! Tails Wx 03:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Tails Wx: I've tagged a few more. —Bagumba (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

   Done, I hope I did everything right! Tails Wx 13:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Above issues have been addressed and the article is expected level of comprehensive. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Close paraphrasing issues with NBA.com @Tails Wx: Courtesy ping if you're interested in helping to clean it up.—Bagumba (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Support I resolved the copyvios, and added a few more refs. Marking "ready".—Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, and nice work! Tails Wx 12:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Kazakh legislative election

• Nominated by ShadZ01 (talk · give credit)
• Created by PLATEL (talk · give credit)
• Updated by PLATEL (talk · give credit), ShadZ01 (talk · give credit), Malik Nursultan B (talk · give credit) and Syaz351 (talk · give credit)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support Looks perfectly fine, it just needs a bit more info about how many seats each party won. TomMasterReal 00:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per all above. Article looks good!! Cheers. WimePocy 12:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It's orange-tagged and the lead does not summarise the bloated body nor give any details of the outcome. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The article is comprehensive, thoroughly referenced, and has been updated with the results & related prose. Normally I would like to see a bit more prose discussion of the outcome, but the rest of the article is good enough to outweigh that concern. Seems ready. Modest Genius 19:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

March 20

(Posted) RD: Virginia Zeani

• Nominated by Cielquiparle (talk · give credit)
• Updated by 4meter4 (talk · give credit)

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

• Support Article looks good, well cited and long enough to not be a stub. Cheers. WimePocy 12:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer 17:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Paul Grant

• Nominated by Tails Wx (talk · give credit)
• Created by Autarch (talk · give credit)
• Updated by EclecticEnnui (talk · give credit) and Eric Carpenter (talk · give credit)

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

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

RD: Terry Norris

• Nominated by HiLo48 (talk · give credit)

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

• Comment: Filmography is unreferenced. Additionally article is heavily balanced toward his political career and would need additional prose regarding his film career. Spencer 21:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

IPCC Sixth Assessment report

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Chidgk1 (talk · give credit)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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 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:

• Misplaced Pages In the news
• Main Page discussions
• Current events