Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fuzheado (talk | contribs) at 12:21, 9 April 2021 (→(Posted as blurb) RD: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 78 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: John Sykes Cecile Richards Kulanthai Shanmugalingam Russell Marshall Didier Guillaume Denis Law Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

Archives

April 9

(Posted as blurb) RD: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

• Nominated by AllegedlyHuman (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Member of the British royal family, husband to the Queen. 99 and was notably in declining health before now. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Blub per WP:BARBARABUSH --LaserLegs (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • For such a lengthy article, the referencing looks quite good. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support RD RIP Vacant0 (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Beaten to the nom Support blurb - this will be worldwide news, and is inherently blurbworthy. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support RD only the article is good enough for RD, albeit there are a couple of citations needed. He is not the head of state of a country, and so not blurb-worthy in my opinion. We wouldn't post to blurb the death of the head of country's spouse for any other country. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely very notable. Wretchskull (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support blurb article is solidly B-class. Eurocentrism, arguably, but this'll be front-page news most places I wager. -- a lad insane (channel two) 11:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support RD, blurb (edit conflict) Prince consort for 72 years is notable enough alone for blurb for me. That position is his, not just "spouse of head of state" (though that would be head of state of 54 nations, so, it wouldn't be "just" comparable anyway...), but he was also a very long-term figure in military and charity in his own right. Kingsif (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• But if you really want "transformative in his field", he was a commander of the Royal Navy and literally helped invent a modern-day equestrian sport and the premier award for encouraging community spirit in young people internationally. In short, I'd expect the same treatment for any equivalent figure, though there are none (internationally impactful constitutional monarchy, military career, charitable career, dynastic longevity, etc). Kingsif (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support blurb this isn't just the spouse of the queen, he's a well-known public figure in his own right. Major news worldwide and will likely be until the funeral. OMG just the Meghan/Harry aspect lol... —valereee (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support on quality. Unsure between RD/blurb, but leaning towards RD. Dat Guy_Contribs 11:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb, notable, blurb is fine. May he rest in piece. — Berrely • ∕_Contribs 11:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support RD only While he is very notable for having a longest Duke of Edinburgh per Wretchskull argument, he is not popular as the Queen. I believe if the queen dies, the blurb will be more significance than this. Having it has posted as a blurb is unknown for most ears as they assume the queen is death. 36.77.94.210 (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not sure that's a very convincing argument. I'm pretty sure most people will not assume the Queen is dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support blurb after MANY edit conflicts - I think The Crown has helped more people become aware of Prince Philip's life and career, so he is internationally well known, and that's probably why the article is in pretty good shape, as people have probably used WP to fact check his early life and naval career. Shame he didn't quite make it to 100, but he had a good innings. (For the record, I am not a fan of his at all and this is probably the last word I will say on this) Ritchie333 11:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support RD only Old man dies in same year as thousands of old men have died = meh. ——Serial 11:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I've sent the image to WP:CMP should it be required. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support blurb might not be the norm, but few heads of state are as visible and long-lived as the British royal family and given the coverage this will receive I believe it warrants a blurb.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Posted RD with no current consensus for a blurb. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb I'm no fan of the royal family, but there will be few if any deaths this year that garner the amount of news copy that this one will - and this, in the end, is ITN. Black Kite (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb - incredibly well-known in the western world, which is where most of our readers are. People would expect ITN to have something on his passing. Anarchyte (talk • work) 11:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support RD but Oppose blurb, not a transformative figure, not a major head of state. Yes, this will be news the world over, just like many other deaths. For example the death of Hans Küng is being reported worldwide, but he doesn't warrant a blurb either. The death of Paul Ritter is reported worldwide, doesn't make it blurb-worthy. Fram (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb - one of the major events of the year, its not often they interupt normal scheduling.
  SSSB (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb, notable in his own right. Will make front pages everywhere. 49 TL 11:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

*Support RD only We don't post blurbs for the deaths of consorts (a recent example is the death of Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark) and I don't see how this person transformed any relevant field. Blurbs are not reserved for public figures per se.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• • Founded The Duke of Edinburgh's Award, transformed youth development not just in the UK but around the world too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I usually don't strike my votes but there's reason to do it here given the pace at which the death article is being developed. After all, the encyclopedic content is what matters the most.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

    • Never heard of it. WaltCip-(talk) 12:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support blurb comparing Philip to Barbara Bush is patently absurd. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Well you're right, as FLOTUS she was marries to someone with actual authority, Phillip wasn't. Cheers TRM and sorry (truly) for the national loss. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Yawn. Eight years of being being the wife of a president cf. 70 years as queen's consort? Brilliant. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb this is worldwide news. GoodCrossing (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb leading news item for most of the western world AntiVan (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support picture (ec) We have an excellent free picture to display (above). We don't need lots of words to go with this so an RD entry or short blurb to go with the picture and caption would work. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb Very strongly. Not only The Queen's consort for so long, but also founder of the internationally recognised Duke of Edinburgh Award which was so inspirational for young people. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support RD only -- don't think a blurb, here, is good practice, per several above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Blurb As dumb as I may find royal family gawkery, few people will spend 75 years in the active conscience of millions. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh now exists. — Berrely • ∕_Contribs 11:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Link added to blurb. Mjroots (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb If there is anyone that should be an exception to the Barbara Bush precedent, it is Prince Philip. Steelkamp (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb Worldwide news. P-K3 (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Marking ready for blurb It seems that consensus for blurb has been achieved.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb Must avoid systemic bias tempatation for white, male spouse exception. And some continent out there is still sleeping as we !vote.—Bagumba (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • At this moment, almost the entire world is awake. It is 10 pm on the east coast of Australia, daytime in Europe, and early morning on America's east coast. The west coast coast of America is the only major english speaking area that is currently mostly asleep. Steelkamp (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Posted as blurb -- tariqabjotu 12:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. It might be worth noting that the picture was taken in 1992. He didn't look much like that recently... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I noticed that when I put it as the alt text. It seems strange to provide a photo from nearly 30 years ago. Unfortunately, the article doesn't seem to provide a decent newer photo (maybe the one in the infobox?), and I don't know if it's strange to note "in 1992" directly in the caption. -- tariqabjotu 12:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  If it wasn't standard already, it's best to show a deceased person in their prime, when possible. Picture is appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  That could be the only picture available, and as far as I know, we don't have a rule dictating the use of the most recent image of somebody. At least, I know we haven't tended to for other public figures. WaltCip-(talk) 12:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  The image that I added to the blurb was this one from 2015. Mjroots (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment maybe we need a rule that anyone whose funeral will likely be televised live in its entirety on multiple continents automatically gets a blurb? —valereee (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Given the British have majority territory (disputed) on Antarctica, I would expect all continents. Kingsif (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'd set that rule to anyone with a death article but that's yet a two-edged sword. People will fight to work up such articles in order to make the nominations qualify but, on the other hand, we'll probably end up with an increased number of RfDs on notability grounds as a result.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Pulled for now. As described to User:Tariqabjotu on his talk page: "a rapid posting in an hour on the front page should only be done with little to no opposition, but that is not the case here. Consensus may emerge to post, but there is valid policy- and precedent-based opposition at this time." -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Replaced already! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  And now User:Stephen has re-added with "clear consensus" when that is not the case. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Please don't wheel war. WaltCip-(talk) 12:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  WaltCip, it's not a wheel war. It's a BRD with "clear consensus" not being the case. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Doesn't appear to be pulled on my end. Maybe your edit was reverted? Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Didn't see the other two comments. Please stop wheel warring. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  It was reverted with a poor rationale of "clear consensus" -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb per LaserLegs. Might reconsider in the future if the media coverage keeps up. Banedon (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb as a cultural/social figure. Widespread ambassadorial impact for 70 years and the UK still has links to many countries eg Australia, Canada etc Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

April 8

RD: Jovan Divjak

• Nominated by AllegedlyHuman (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Bakir123 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Top-ranking ethnic Serb in the Bosnian Army during the Bosnian War. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted to RD only) RD: Phillip Adams (American football)

• Nominated by AllegedlyHuman (talk · give credit)
• Created by Berrely (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Sunshineisles2 (talk · give credit), Splinemath (talk · give credit), Wgullyn (talk · give credit), Awker22 (talk · give credit) and Nsk92 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Major news. If consensus is to post to RD rather than blurb, I would suggest disambiguating as Phillip Adams has a primary topic (per the recent discussion re Martha Stewart). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Several unsourced sections. If fixed, leaning RD only (beats most proposed death blurbs). Would not disambiguate, per recent Paul Ritter precedent. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  To be clear, I mean it beats most celebrity death blurbs, not a particularly deadly event. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb. Domestic crime (no terrorism or hate crime motive has been suggested at all) and not a high-level player. RD is sufficient for this. --Masem (t) 02:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose RD per lack of sourcing for much of his career. Clearly not worthy of a blurb regardless. -- Kicking222 (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose RD, a middling NFL player and short-sectioned article. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose RD Aside from aforementioned sourcing issues, there are too many short sections due to rote creation of section per team. Per MOS:OVERSECTION: Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. Otherwise, "middling" players are notable enough for RD—that's not a valid issue.—Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've removed the team sections per your comment. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• AllegedlyHuman: Some citations are still outstanding. While he was a journeyman player, anything to avoid the prose being monotonous series of just signings and releases would be helpful (not expecting GA, but still).—Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Bagumba, I've added citations where you added CN tags. I've added some content on more details, but I'll work on adding some more. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• OK, I think the article's in much better shape now. Pinging InedibleHulk, Kicking222, and Randy Kryn to take another look. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• OK, Blurb. Seven spots higher on BBC homepage than the riots. That says something. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This article hit 500,000 views yesterday, for those of you who care about that sort of thing. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support RD, no need to disambiguate display Sufficiently sourced with acceptable coverage, better organized now. No need to add disambiguation to the display as Phillip Adams seems mostly local to Australia and is not widely recognized. It's questionable if that February discussion represents real practice. Bobby Brown (third baseman) was posted a few weeks ago w/o any disambiguation, and Bobby Brown, the singer, has thousands more daily viewers. No complaints were lodged by any readers. Perhaps a solution looking for a problem.—Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

In that case, do you think Phillip Adams should be moved? I understand there's the possibility of this Adams' notability being a flash-in-the-pan moment, but if it holds out even a little bit then I would think he's clearly just as notable if not more so than the other one. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm usually in no hurry to move pages based on recent news. However, an argument for WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC could gain traction. As an alternative, one could consider expanding the WP:HATNOTE to list the football player explicitly, w/o readers having to click on the dab first.—Bagumba (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've added a hatnote per your suggestion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support RD only we don't need yet another category of mass shooting, e.g. "Mass shootings in the United States in April 2021 by former NFL players". Business as usual (as Biden said), this guy just killed 6 out of the 316 people killed that day by firearms. But his death should geet RD and the article is of adequate quality. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  As far as I recall, this is the only mass murder by an NFL player, in any month, at any place, with any weapon. So yeah. No new cats! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, there's the one guy, but the court did the thing, and... yeah. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That was only a double murder, not even counting himself (if he did it). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I found some for you, InedibleHulk: Robert Rozier and Anthony Smith. Those are the only ones I could find who killed at least three; there's several more who did less at List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

But actually, those are serial murders. Mass murder is at once. Cool how Smith and Winship both had a "Ponce", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Drat, looks like the nom I submitted is indeed a unique, major event. Might need some time to reflect. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Minor shooting in the US = unique/major?? Seriously, pull the other one, it's got bells on it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blanton Winship is the only American collegiate player Misplaced Pages seems to recall. But it was 84 years ago, and he didn't literally pull the trigger. A pre-Biden Puerto Rico. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support RD article is good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

*Support RD only We don't post blurbs for the deaths of consorts (most recent example is the death of Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark) and I don't see how this person transformed any relevant field. Blurbs are not reserved for public figures per se.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@User:Kiril Simeonovski, did you mean to post this at Prince Philip's RD discussion? Poydoo can talk and edit 11:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, it seems like I've posted it twice because of the frequent edit-conflicting. Stricken.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Northern Ireland riots

• Nominated by Albertaont (talk · give credit)
• Created by Ulsterwiki720 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Widely-reported riots from area which has seen decades of peace.

• Support Certainly in the news, and the article quality is good (although some images would be nice). Mlb96 (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Sources are covering the topic, article is of sufficient quality. Meets every requirement for posting. --Jayron32 18:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - sources looks ok. Good for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• I suppose the article should be piped to "riots"? The blurb is a bit long but the article looks good. --Tone 18:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  I've taken the liberty of doing just that. --Jayron32 19:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support although given its current nature, ongoing may well be a better home for this. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose and wait how many riots we’ve seen in the lasts months and didn’t had any ITN nomination? I’m aware this is worrying, but riots are not unusual, sadly. I prefer waiting if this escalation worsens. Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Posted - Fuzheado | Talk 19:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality. The article is a bunch of PROSELINE and not a WP:SUMMARY. Blurb needs to mention brexit. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support ongoing rather than blurb. Looks similar to any riot/protest/social conflict that likely will not end immediately. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  For something new like this, I think the typical thing we do is add it as a blurb, and if it's still ongoing when it's about to rotate off the main page, then we move it to ongoing. I don't think it's common to send directly to ongoing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  That was fashionable for a while, fortunately it's gone out of vogue. The notability here comes from the Brexit connection. The article itself is of meh quality. Ongoing won't change that. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose current blurb. Support blurb which contextualizes the riots as being part of the fallout of Brexit. -- Rockstone 23:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose altogether. Actually, am I crazy, or is this not even on the BBC's frontpage? We wouldn't post a riot happening somewhere else that got this little coverage from the media of its own nation. -- Rockstone 23:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I just checked the BBC homepage and it appears there now. Spencer 03:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Eleventh-most read, at my check (behind seven blacklisted supercomputer makers, just ahead of a Satan Shoes recall.) InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment interestingly, for those of you who actually give a shit about this, the UK media are being slated for not covering this in much more detail. Of course, places like the US were terrible afflicted by The Troubles weren't they? Even the great Lord Biden has seen fit to wade into this issue. As for what appears on your bbc.com world homepage, give me strength: they know who they're attracting (you have adverts, right?) so it's all the happy clappy crap which is easy to understand. Still, keep on rotating the record. Eventually it might play a different tune. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I checked BBC.co.uk/news, if that matters, and always block ads. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  It doesn't. Because of the UK's despotic television tax people outside the UK get an international edition of bbc.co.uk. It used to be possible to circumvent but they use IP geolocation now. You can find a proxy in the UK to get the UK edition but I think then you're technically violating UK law unless you have a TV license and you will end up in the tower of London awaiting beheading. Other UK news sources like the Guardian don't have the same affliction --LaserLegs (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Just checked the Grauniad, FWIW. US: 4 stories on the homepage, one of which is in the top section. UK: 2nd-to-top story to COVID, 5 stories overall. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

COVID, COVID, Beltfast, Scottish Independence --LaserLegs (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• :@The Rambling Man: Can you stop being a dick? I'm checking BBC.co.uk/news as well, but even if I wasn't, I would think that if these riots are as notable as they should be to be acceptable to ITN, then the BBC should be covering it as front page news even for foreign readers. They aren't. -- Rockstone 08:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Actually, strike that. I have egg on my face now. I just checked www.bbc.com and the headline is the riots. My apologies. -- Rockstone 08:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  If you're seeing the one I am about a water cannon, don't be sorry, it just got there. Let's see where it is in three hours before settling on who's the dick. And stay away from BBC.ca, it's misleading and wants our money. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment the article about riots (which apparently have nothing to do with Brexit) has two decent images proclaiming "no Irish sea border" if we're tired of looking at Butler. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced we should be putting politically-motivated banners up on ITN. Also, I'm not 100% sure about the copyright status of these- I don't believe they fall under the UK's freedom of panorama, as FoP applies for permanent works stored in public areas (according to Commons, which neither the banner or graffiti are.

• Support, as much for the controversy about the lack of UK newspaper coverage as the riots themselves, although it might possibly be usefully moved to ongoing if it continues - that's 7 nights now. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Kyaw Zwar Minn

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.

• Created and nominated by 61ontime (talk · give credit)

• Oppose The target article listed above is far too short (basically WP:STUB level), and what little is there is vastly imbalanced, suffering from major WP:UNDUE/WP:BLP1E problems. Please propose another target article to highlight, or expand the target article by a LOT if you want this posted. --Jayron32 13:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the BLP1E issue that Jayron32 points out can be overcome but we have this story in Ongoing (as bad as that article is) specifically so we don't need to blurb incremental updates. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – Another tidbit for the 6,600-word behemoth in Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The target article needs to be more comprehensive, the List of ambassadors of Myanmar to the United Kingdom needs to be sourced as well as a cleanup, and the event is not significant enough to be posted on top of the ongoing. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

April 7

(Posted) RD: Charles H. Coolidge

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Only announced and reported today (April 7). —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Referenced; covers in good depth what he is notable for (the Medal of Honor). Spencer 04:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Notable. Referenced. Grimes2 (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Nice article, well sourced JW 1961 09:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Good, well cited Vacant0 (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Posted. --Jayron32 13:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Emmanuel Evans-Anfom

• Nominated by Spencer (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Kandymotownie (talk · give credit) and Spencer (talk · give credit)

 Ghanaian physician and public servant. Article has thorough coverage of Evans-Anfom's medical and political career and is referenced. Spencer 17:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support – well-sourced; looks like it meets the minimum requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support looks satisfactory for RD JW 1961 09:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
•  Posted—Bagumba (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

First results from the Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab

• Nominated by Count Iblis (talk · give credit)

 Count Iblis (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. We can't be pro-active with posting, we need to wait for the actual results, update the relevant article with that, and discuss the quality of that article as well as whether the results are particularly impactful. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Obviously, the fact that the results have not been posted means that we will have to wait until experimental results are published.--Osunpokeh (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until we actually get the results. -- Rockstone 09:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

*Wait to see what the results are. If there's nothing beyond the Standard Model, there's no reason to post. If there really is new physics here, the article(s) need(s) to be updated first, which I expect will take longer than most current events and require subject-matter expertise. Modest Genius 09:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Also, it's not clear if there is a peer-reviewed journal paper associated with this announcement. Modest Genius 10:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wait too soon, as no results have been published. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose We're not going to post anything scientific without a peer-reviewed paper to back it. --Masem (t) 13:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Continued oppose based on the published paper. Yes, the paper's out, but reading through it (most going over my head), there's no such indication of anything suggested in the blurb (namely the fifth force of nature), but only a better confirmation of the results to prior tests at BNL. Reading ArsTech take on it, the results nearly eliminate that the BNL results 20 years were statistical anomalies, but it doesn't bring the field closer to proving that there's a fifth state to the Standard Model ; more work is needed for that. --Masem (t) 04:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – Not only has the seminar not happened yet, but also the topic seems forbiddingly obscure and arcane. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe it's just me, but I think I'd prefer something obscure and arcane get posted to ITN instead of just continuing to post mass casualty events and ITN/R and nothing else. Mlb96 (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

How did you feel about the boat race? – Sca (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is not an issue that demands immediate attention to a preprint. Peer review comes first. --WaltCip-(talk) 13:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Having now seen the results, they find almost the same thing as the 2006 measurement. The precision has improved slightly, but it's still less than the five-sigma threshold required to claim a discovery in particle physics. I still can't see any sign of a peer-reviewed paper either. Lots of theorists will find this interesting, but for the general public it's incremental stuff. Modest Genius 15:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Update: there's now a paper in PRL, which is good to see. However another paper in Nature was published on the same day, which claims the measured value is consistent with the Standard Model after all. That diminishes the excitement level even further. 'Physicists measure the same value as they did in 2006, and argue whether it is or isn't consistent with standard theory' isn't significant enough for ITN. Modest Genius 10:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Can't see the contents of the Nature paper but comparing its contributors to that on the PRL one, it seems to be by a different team altogether and not related to the Fermi data (Nature is by French and German researchers, none that are on the PRL paper?) --Masem (t) 12:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Correct, it's by an independent team presenting new theoretical calculations of the Standard Model value. The simultaneous publication is surely not a coincidence. I have no idea which theoretical value is superior, but it does demonstrate that the experiment is not necessarily discrepant with the Standard Model. Or another way of looking at it: the anomaly may have been a problem with the calculation methods, not due to any new physics. Modest Genius 13:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reopened I'm reopening this not because I think it should be posted (I am ambivalent for now), but because many of the opposes claim no peer reviewed paper, and such a paper has been published: . Banedon (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

That paper came out after this item was nominated, at which time people voted for other reasons. (Notice the "Wait" votes becoming "Opposes".) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support on principle but the article hasn't been updated yet. As the paper was only published today, I think it's fair to give editors time to update the article. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose until result is 5-sigma confirmed. -- KTC (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Exciting for particle physicists as it suggests a crises in the theory so as to lead to advances in human understanding, but still not yet at the confirmed crises. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Just to clarify, there have been three published peer-reviewed papers related to the result. Very roughly, the theoretical overview in PRL, the experimental details in PRA, and the remarkably sophisticated magnetic calibration in PRD. Calculating the higher-order effects is mostly a difficult black art. The Fermilab papers took past theoretical calculations (most recently 2020) as their go-to comparison. The new Nature calculations (using an intense amount of supercomputing) were not available. As for the Fermilab results, these are based on less than 10% of their data, so updates will doubtless be soon enough. But it's going to be unclear for quite some time whether a 5-sigma claim has any meaning! An overview of all this can be found at quantamagazine.com. 73.81.122.254 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose an obscure topic with an insufficient update.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Seems forbiddingly obscure and arcane. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Mrs. Sri Lanka controversy

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.

• Created and nominated by Abishe (talk · give credit)

• Oppose No evidence of major significance, and the page is very obviously written from an advocacy standpoint. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unlikely to see this in the top 10000 stories of the year. Better suited to DYK. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose When the balance issues are resolved, I recommend posting to DYK instead. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and recommend close by WP:SNOW. Significance of event is minimal, while article is lacking in both quality and NPOV (only one major edit, and that was by nominator). --Osunpokeh (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but this does not have the significance to be posted. This is not headline news around the world. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Tommy Raudonikis

• Nominated by JMonkey2006 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Death of a rugby league legend JMonkey2006 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality. Too many unsourced info. INeedSupport 04:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Cleanup needed as the layout could be better, and too much info is unsourced. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

April 6

RD: Grischa Huber

• Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
• Created by SportsOlympic (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Actress who became a role model for self-determined women, by one role in 1975. New article, translated from German. No idea where the dates for theatres and the private life come from, probably the offline Further reading. Sorry for offering this late, but Küng was a tad more notable ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support: Sufficient text and sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans Küng

• Nominated by Grimes2 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Bmclaughlin9 (talk · give credit), Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit) and Grimes2 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Swiss Catholic priest, theologian, and author. After he rejected the doctrine of papal infallibility, he was not allowed to teach as a Catholic theologian. Grimes2 (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you for the groundwork, Grimes2 and Bmclaughlin9. I added the last missing sources. Just for the one thing "citation required", I found only what could be mirrors, - commented out for now. If someone can verify they are not mirrors, please restore. Need sleep. Will dream of more lead, - would be nice to wake up to it done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

As the Dutch say, Slap lekker.... – Sca (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Comprehensive article, and is well referenced. The layout could be a bit better, but it's acceptable. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Decent article, well referenced JW 1961 09:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Sourced and looks ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support – Widely known in religious/theological circles. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer 16:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Alcee Hastings

• Nominated by 331dot (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Sitting US Congressman and impeached/convicted judge. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support decent article, obviously qualifies. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  I have to mention that every person who has a Misplaced Pages article 'qualifies'. Discussion for RD comes entirely down to article quality. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Citations are needed in some places, the "Elections" section oddly only includes specific mentions of his first US House election (1992) and then 2016 and 2018, despite running every two years and 2018 being unopposed, no mention of his 2020 primary challenge, some possible POV issue around the Lexus lease (if he didn't break any rules, why is it mentioned?) and his ten year service as a judge is not covered beyond his impeachment. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• What Muboshgu said. Some citations missing and the content selection in "U.S. House of Representatives" is strange. Wait, if it's still problematic in 8 hours and the current heavy editing slows down I'll try to fix it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Citations needed and the article has balance issues. There's a lot of detail about his impeachment, finance problems, etc,(the negative stuff), which all seems fair and well-phrased, but nothing about what he actually did in his career at that time (the positive and neutral side of things). Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's basically a hit piece at the moment, as 90% of it is about the negative 10% of his career, and only 10% is about the other 90%. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

As one of the few people removed from office by an impeachment trial, I would expect an article about him to focus on that. What more positive aspects are missing? 331dot (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Australia-New Zealand travel bubble

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 JMonkey2006 (talk · give credit)

• Con: wait for the opening and for an article. --Tone 08:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the linked article barely mentions it, and is orange-tagged. If it's really a notable event, then surely it's worthy of its own article? Also, this already half exists (as travellers from NZ can enter most Australian states without quarantine according to BBC World News. So is it really that groundbreaking that it's been implemented the other way? Joseph2302 (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose it's a "good news story" but not really ground-breaking nor super-notable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I guess I'm not seeing how the lifting of any COVID restriction merits posting. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the lack of a specific article & lack of importance. There are many examples of restrictions being lifted/reduced this year which are of similar or greater relevance. Jim Michael (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

April 5

(Posted) RD: Veronica Dunne (soprano)

• Nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit) and Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

 Bloom6132 (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Working on it. We still need refs for her students, and the world premieres, and we have little about opera. Help wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Everything has a ref now. More roles would be great, but not needed. Irish soprano and voice teacher of generations of singers, teaching until age 87, "a national treasure". Sold her pony to study in Italy, - great story ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support: Nice article and well sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support decent little article well sourced JW 1961 14:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Posting. --Tone 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Ritter (actor)

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.

• Updated and nominated by The Rambling Man (talk · give credit)

• Weak oppose – majority of filmography not referenced by British Film Institute general ref at the top. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Feel free to help, I've got a distraction called "work"...! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Even IMDb doesn't have a date of birth, let alone any place. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's gone already. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  And we don't even know date or place of death for certain. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  What is this? The Guardian says he died yesterday at home. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  So where was his home? As far as I know the only source for his death is the statement by his agent who said he died "last night". I'm suggesting that editors may be able to uncover more information about the places and dates of birth and death. That might look better when linked from the Main page? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Our obligation at ITNC is to ensure the death is being reported in reliable sources. The specific date or place is of interest generally, but not for our purposes. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. The article seems to be largely at the mercy of unregistered IP editors at the moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  What a bizarre series of comments. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  I understand them. Article quality matters. A bio missing basic biographical info is lacking. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't say I didn't understand them. The details we have are in the article. What is bizarre is an apparent sudden requirement for information that may simply not be actually be available anywhere reliable which has never been the case in the past. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  How soon could a fair use image be used? Although, yes, I realise the article doesn't need one. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Normally for someone who has been in the public eye for such a long time, in theatre etc, it is not unreasonable to expect a free image to be out there somewhere. We normally expect to wait between three to six months to conduct such a search. This and other such minuatiae probably belong on the article talk page by now as this is wandering way beyond what is required at ITN and is simply unnecessarily bloating this nomination. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The thread I opened about an image awaits your valued input. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I've already added my opinion here, thanks for all the off-topic bloating here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• The "Article quality" part of ITN suggests "not omitting any major items", has for a while. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Sure and if no-one knows his date/place of birth, we have to go without that. It won't preclude it from being posted. This is all well-trodden ground and simply wasting energy and further bloating this debate which is not related to this nomination. Take your concerns to the article talk page if you really care. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  I did. You followed me there, called it a waste of time and repeatedly collapsed the conversation. Just for the record. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Your "concerns" were failed attempts at humour with your pal Martin. I collapsed the elements which included goading me, and left whatever remained. Cheers now, you can get back to your witticisms. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  You told me I don't understand missing birth dates, and should stick to jokes. Then you followed me, called them hilarious and still didn't get it. Calling you lucky is a compliment, to be clear, not an invitation to fight. Neither is this. Peace! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  No, I told you that you don't understand, full stop. I didn't "follow" you anywhere, your pal "invited" me to the talkpage where I discovered the Chuckle Brothers making jokes at my expense. Stick to trying to be funny. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Missing some vitals, regardless of why. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Like what? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Like what has since been added, changing to Neutral. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Brilliantly informative. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  If you must know, Ghmyrtle saved your nom at 14:20. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  DATE OF BIRTH. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think you understand. Best just stick to the jokes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Sufficient there for RD, well sourced JW 1961 14:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support A little short but good enough. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Even with the strong possibility of circular sourcing? Or perhaps that "doesn't matter." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Why are people launching all of these half-baked attacks on this nomination? Is this guy known for beating orphans or something? If you see any circular sourcing, call it out. The sourcing I see is to highly reputable sources. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Just surprised that Playbill has information that the BBC, The Guardian and The Independent don't. I'm not sure why sounding a note of caution counts as a "half-baked attack". Still researching the orphans. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  We've posted child killers before, Playbill knows play stuff, I'm 80% baked. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for your honesty; that explains some of it. Look, trusting reliable sources is what we do here. If you think a source is not reliable, that's fine; there's a whole project to discuss that. But we don't just ignore reporting from a 140 year old institution because "I dunno, maybe they got their info from Misplaced Pages?" GreatCaesarsGhost 15:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Just a total waste of energy and time. Such hilarity. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  The threads opened on the article Talk page await your valued input. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, you're starting to repeat yourself now. More bloat? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Apologies. I thought you might be interested in improving the article. Thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  No problem, try not to do it a third time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose – seem to be some sourcing issues. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Such as? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Short but adequate. Whatever issues may have originally existed, referencing now appears to more than meet our customary standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose – The bulk of this 320-word article is a filmography table. – Sca (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, but they're all pretty good words, aren't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - within standard for inclusion now. Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. No major issues that I can see. It's short at 1900 bytes prose, and A few odd constructs such as "he was married to his wife Polly" but nothing to prevent it going to RD.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The "Early Life" section is an eyesore with only a single, 7-word-long sentence. I'd recommend deleting the entire section if that's the only thing there is to say about his early life, especially considering that that information is already in the infobox. As an aside, some of you need to chill out. The inclusion of an article on Misplaced Pages's front page is really not worth getting this worked up over. Mlb96 (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'd agree with you Mlb96. But was that the only reason for your oppose? I think any article should to be factually correct and should have good sourcing, whether it gets linked from the Main page or not. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you expect. You can't just make up facts that aren't available anywhere. It's been merged (which you could have done since you found it so abhorrent). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Posted Now cut this shit out and redirect your energies somewhere constructive. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Cheers. Some of us have been. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not quite sure as to whom or to what your rather curt description was aimed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  If we eliminate the Supporters (since Posters generally favour them), then discount the Weak and Neutral (for lack of apparent surplus energies), that just leaves one potential Opposer...or does it? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship

• Updated and nominated by PCN02WPS (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Game just ended, information still being added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Updated and sourced with prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Article looks good to go. Only issue is redlinks for some players. TheMrP (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
•  Posted Red links in article are not an issue (see WP:REDLINK)—Bagumba (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Concern - Why is just the men's championship mentioned, when the women's championship article is equally well-sourced? This makes little sense, especially considering the men's and women's boat race listed just below. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan The women's tournament is not ITNR. You are welcome to nominate the women's tournament using the regular ITNC process. Adding it to ITNR has been discussed in the past and not gained consensus. They are separate events in separate locations, unlike the boat race. In addition, rightly or wrongly it does not get the attention of the men's tournament. Note that the WNBA final also is not ITNR. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Women's championship got a ton of coverage incl. Stanford's first title in 29 years. It was certainly in the news. It was widely covered by ESPN, USAToday, etc. AvatarQX (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Support posting the women's result. Same time frame, same effective league, so this is nothing like comparing the NBA to the WNBA. While it is clear the mens play get far more coverage, we should not hide the women's result if it happened nearly at the same time. --Masem (t) 23:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@331dot, GaryColemanFan, AvatarQX, and Masem: I've created a nomination for the women's tournament. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Post-posting proposal to add women's tournament to blurb - As well-sourced as the men's article. Different venue has no bearing on notability. Women's tournament has plenty of coverage and was discussed more than ever this year, including player's claims of gender discrimination in training facilities, food, etc. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan My suggestion would be for you to make a separate regular(not ITNR) nomination for that event. "Different venue" is simply the reason we don't post both as ITNR, they are separate events. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to know what kind of food is strong enough for a man, but made for a woman. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Sigh. Another year and it currently appears that once again many of those editors that come out of the woodwork every January to strongly oppose the posting of the NCAA College Football Championship solely on the claim that "amateur college sports do not belong on ITN" (despite the cultural significance and viewership) are silent in April when similar college events like this and The Boat Race are posted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think we've ever posted NCAA Division I Football Championship Game... Due to COVID, the 2021 edition will be later this year. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Unlike NCAA College Championship, this one managed to get into ITNR. So, as one of the opposers, I dropped the stick in this case. Brandmeister 18:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
      • At least with the basketball tourney, there's actually a championship structure and more than a handful of games to decide the winner, and thus more representative of an actual "winner", compared to the BCS structure and its favoritism. --Masem (t) 23:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
        • ... there's actually a championship structure ...: Unlike The Boat Race?—Bagumba (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
          • The Boat Race is the only top level organized rowing event short of the Olympics. --Masem (t) 13:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
            • World Rowing Championships: The World Rowing Championships is an international rowing regatta organized by FISA (the International Rowing Federation). It is a week-long event held at the end of the northern hemisphere summer and in non-Olympic years is the highlight of the international rowing calendar. Is that even true? Boat Race > World Rowing Championships? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
              • But given the sourcing I'm seeing there, does that even get covered by non-specialist sources (eg "in the news"?) Boat Race at least does. --Masem (t) 14:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
                • WTAF. This gets posted and the same old people still making the same old fuss about the Boat Race? Jesus, change the record. And take the debate about a completely unrelated topic somewhere relevant, 'cos this ain't the place. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • NCAA Division I Football Championship: Not to be confused with the College Football Playoff National Championship (2020 was posted), the top level of college football.—Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not much point in making noise about it when it's ITNR. WaltCip-(talk) 18:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

New president and PM of Vietnam

• Nominated by Alsoriano97 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: New Vietnamese leadership. Articles needs a lot of work. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. So in looking at the List of current heads of state and government the real power in Vietnam is with the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Even if we want to stick with the de jure head of state and head of government, the PM is appointed by the President, so we should only mention the president(if we mention this at all). 331dot (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support head of state changes are ITN/R, HoG are in all but name This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Phạm Minh Chính's article is an unmitigated disaster. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Nguyễn Xuân Phúc is too, though a bit less obvious. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose based on quality of both BLPs. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - both orange-tagged. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support head of state and government changes are ITN/R.--Namnguyenvn (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Namnguyenvn Support on the merits is not required for ITNR nominations, this discussion is only to judge article quality and a blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose based on article quality, and the fact that neither have any real power in the Government. (although if that doesn't matter for ITNR purposes, then strike that. The article quality is still way too poor.) -- Rockstone 07:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality I really wish people would fix articles before nominating them (this is a general criticism rather than being aimed at this editor in particular). Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Head of state changes is definetly notable Nyanardsan (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Any comment on the quality of either article? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Nyanardsan Notability is not at issue for ITNR nominations. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

1. Agree I agreed with the important of news; the quality of article will be better in some days. Newone (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose These are significant leadership changes, but both BLPs have poor quality. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

RD/Blurb: Robert Mundell

• Nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Canadian economist. Death just announced. Article requires some work including referencing before it can be ready for homepage / RD. Will get to it later tonight. If someone wants to get to it earlier, please feel free to. Ktin (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support blurb Mundell was definitely one of the greatest and most influential economists of his generation. He made major contributions to monetary economics for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics and played an instrumental role in the introduction of the euro for which he was dubbed "Father of the Euro".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• RD only quite famous, but doesn't quite rise to blurb level. We probably have someone die about every week or two in the world that reaches this level of impact. 1779Days (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• RD only when it's properly sourced. While he's very famous, he's not famous enough for a blurb. An excellent quality article would make up for that somewhat in my view, but that's not the case. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality as needs a lot more sourcing. Would support RD if sourcing issues get fixed. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb - his article shows he was in the top tier of his field & that he has a great deal of historical & international notability. A lack of fame is irrelevant - the large majority of people in the top tier of academic fields never achieve that. Jim Michael (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Large swathes of text are unreferenced, when it is fixed support RD only; their death was not unusual or unexpected, and requires no further explanation than that they died. --Jayron32 12:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb, oppose RD until referencing issues are fixed.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Palma

• Nominated by Fakescientist8000 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Battle was on ITN when it started; see no reason not to include it, now that it has ended. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support if the article makes clear that the battle has ended. Its conclusion is important enough to post & the article is well-written. Jim Michael (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - didn't we just post this? Is it a wrap, or is this city going to change hands every two weeks for the foreseeable future? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

My bad. I should have clarified; if the city is decisively seen as taken back by Mozambique, then we should keep it. If it does change hands over and over and over, however, then I will proceed to end this proposal. :) Fakescientist8000 (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but would you say it is or isn't clear that the battle has ended? Jim Michael (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Only if you consider Sky News a reliable source. – Sca (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support if it's conclusive per LaserLegs.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mehli Irani

• Updated and nominated by Joseph2302 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Death announced 5 April. Short article, I'm running through obits to try and get as much additional info as possible. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - seems sufficiently sourced to me. And long enough for inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above. Could use an "early life" section but as is, I think its good enough. Dan the Animator 14:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Marshall Sahlins

• Nominated by Wishva de Silva (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: One of the most influential anthropologists in recent decades. Wishva | Talk 12:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment For the purposes of ITN, I do not think a tweet will suffice for verification that a person has died. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, a Recent Death has to be "in the news" in the sense that at least one reliable source has reported it.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggest close, with the option to reopen if a reliable source is added. RD is understandably a very sensitive space. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ve found the following source from the University of Chicago, where Sahlins taught. , I’ve replaced the Tweet in the nomination with this link. Wishva | Talk 06:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

April 4

(Posted) 2021 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship Game

• Nominated by AllegedlyHuman (talk · give credit)
• Updated by PCN02WPS (talk · give credit) and GoWarriors151718 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Nominating per side discussion on men's tournament nom. (Yes, "the Stanford Cardinal defeat" is correct here.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as updater - media coverage is certainly there and article is up to standard quality-wise. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 07:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Regretful support we need to be egalitarian. But we're starting to plumb the depths.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really sure the NCAA tournament, i.e. the most prominent in American college sports, is really "plumbing the depths." The women's game was watched by a peak of about 6 million people. The 2020 NBA finals (Lakers v. Heat) peaked at 8.29 million. Nobody called that "plumbing the depths." AvatarQX (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support combining with men's blurb per Alt blurb. In the past, the women's tournament winner has been combined with the men's winner (already posted above) e.g. 2015 (discussion, post) and 2017 (discussion, post). WP:ITNSPORTS says Every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events (when simultaneous) ...—Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue has been in part that the men's and women's events are two separate tournaments, held in different locations. No issue with posting, just saying. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a technicality that should just be WP:IARed. AFAICS, the years recently when the women's wasn't posted was because it wasn't nominated, not because it was explicitly opposed. FWIW, the recent women's final got 4M TV viewers.—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support media coverage was extensive and it seems sensible to just include both the mens' and womens' NCAA results in one blurb. AvatarQX (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support article is in good shape, and the audience figures indicate this wasn't just some "routine game". Could we combine both basketball hooks though, because 2 basketball hooks in 4 ITN items seems like an overkill? Joseph2302 (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Even the men's tournament is kind of borderline, from the experiences from previous years, when there were contentious discussions. But it is ITNR, so I won't argue about it. Women's tournament is not ITNR. Since we don't post the WNBA results, arguably the highest level of sport in the US, we should not post the college-level event. (clearly, the NBA title is ITNR as well) --Tone 12:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support combining with men's blurb. Received extensive media coverage (more than the WNBA, so that's not a great comparison). Article is in good shape. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Europeans may find this mind-bending, but the women's NCAA tournament is more popular than the WNBA. A female basketball player would get the most attention of her career playing in March rather than October in the WNBA Finals. Might as well codify this in ITNR if this will be posted. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. Game 3 clincher in 2020 WNBA Finals had 570,000 TV viewers.—Bagumba (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  I do love people insisting that we only post the "highest level of sport/professional competition" when that's not even in the rules. It's just made up bullshit to oppose items such as this one. Either this is in the news or not.... you know like... college football lol. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Article is in good shape, topic has been covered appropriately by news sources. Checks all of the boxes. --Jayron32 13:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any and all amateur university sport on ITN. I know the men's version is on ITNR, as is the Oxbridge rowing, so there isn't anything I can do about those. However I will continue to oppose adding any further items of this kind. Stick to the highest levels of professional competition. Tone also makes good points above. Modest Genius 14:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Posted - combined with men's tourney per Alt 1. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

References

1. "Stanford's win in NCAA title game is most-watched women's final since 2014 | Boston.com". www.boston.com.
2. "NBA finals game six draws 5.6m viewers as Lakers clinch championship - SportsPro Media". www.sportspromedia.com.

(Posted) RD: Cheryl Gillan

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

Nominator's comments: Good depth of coverage, a few refs needed but will add those shortly. Spencer 16:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support – well-sourced; looks like it meets the minimum requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Well-sourced.  Spy-cicle💥  11:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

2021 Bulgarian parliamentary election

• Nominated by Dantheanimator (talk · give credit)
• Created by Filipvanlaenen (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Number 57 (talk · give credit), Yupyuphello (talk · give credit), Vacant0 (talk · give credit) and Ol'Shariv (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: ITNR and article is good. The results are currently preliminary but any changes are unlikely to change the general outcome. Dan the Animator 13:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Don't agree with the assessment that the "article is good". There is no prose about the results, and the majority of the article at present is large tables and graphs. Spencer 16:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality the article has 1779 characters of prose, this isn't enough to fully summarise the election. The lead is also way too short, as it doesn't even mention which party got most votes and the impact i.e. if Government/coalition was formed. For reference, 2021 Liechtenstein general election had around 4k characters of prose, and that's for a country with 0.1% of the population of Bulgaria. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Also, doesn't look like 100% of the votes have been counted, so too soon for this to be on ITN. The article also doesn't mention anywhere in prose that the incumbent Prime Minister. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now The voting will be probably concluded by the next morning, and the article needs to be expanded and fixed. Vacant0 (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Table farm with very little in the way of prose. Needs much expansion before it is ready for prime time. --Jayron32 12:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) New president of Kosovo

• Nominated by Alsoriano97 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Dying (talk · give credit), Vacant0 (talk · give credit) and Droodkin (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: My first nomination on the change of national leader, so excuse me for any mistakes. As it's a state not fully recognized internationally I have doubts whether it fits within ITN. The article is brief and some sources are missing. Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Kosovo may not be fully recognized but it is on List of sovereign states which should qualify it for ITN/R. P-K3 (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality Vjosa Osmani needs a lot more sources before it's acceptable to be on the front page. Entire Biography section is unsourced, plus multiple other paragraphs. If the article quality is fixed, I would support- as Kosovo is a sovereign state. As an aside, I also bolded the article in the blurb nomination. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Joseph2302: I removed some of the unsourced content. Take a look now. Dan the Animator 14:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support article looks just about long enough, and is now well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support I removed some extra words, but a large chunk of sourced professorship stuff I couldn't cut and paste to Academic career, need help (see 14:42 revision for chunk). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

All better now. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• done. i'm trying to figure out if she still holds the positions, though. she appears to be an assistant professor (which is distinct from an assistant professor) at the first mentioned university according to this, but i can't find her listed at the second. dying (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support bolded article is short, but sufficient. Some expansion would be nice. --Jayron32 15:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment There are couple more sentences that are missing references, if that gets fixed then it will be fine. Vacant0 (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support All cited now, I think. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and not ready. Kosovo is not a country. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I read the inclusion criteria. It's BS but Kosovo passes. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

admittedly, i have no issues with the list of sovereign nations being generously inclusive, as i worry that being fairly more exclusive could potentially raise pov issues. dying (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits." As such, this nomination should not be labeled ITN/R. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  You can do it yourself, but I've done it for you. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

List of Sovereign states includes Kosovo because of the rather generous criteria so ITNR is appropriate. I was just wrong before. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: we had exactly the same dispute a few months ago re Northern Cyprus. And in the end that was not posted, so we effectively have a precedent that the countries in the "disputed" section of List of sovereign states aren't part of the ITN/R list.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Only the lead mentions she became president on 4 April. No details in body on how she transitioned from earlier title of acting president, or what happened between the parliament election in February and now.—Bagumba (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  As of 07:38, 6 April 2021, the article has explained the election of her as President. --Jayron32 12:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Striking my oppose based on updates.—Bagumba (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  • hah, yeah, i noticed that too, but only hours after the first time i looked at the page.

  regarding your first point (osmani's transition), it's now partially resolved. also, osmani apparently voluntarily resigned from the position of acting president in accordance with article 90 of the constitution, but i haven't figured out why.

  regarding your second point (what happened in two months), i'd like to know too, but am not sure it would be appropriate for this article unless it involved her, and also wouldn't consider its inclusion necessary for posting to itn unless it directly related to what is mentioned in the blurb, i.e., her becoming president.

  in any case, her transition to president is now covered, so i feel that the article has been properly updated with respect to the blurb, even though her transition from acting president, which happened about two weeks before, isn't covered yet. there's more that could be added about the election itself, but i think that what's there currently meets the minimum requirements for updates. dying (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• question: should "5th" in the blurb be spelled out as "fifth", or is it better as is? mos:ordinal refers to mos:numeral regarding "guidance on choosing between e.g. 15th and fifteenth" and mos:numeral states that, in general, "ntegers from zero to nine are spelled out in words", while i couldn't find any applicable exception for this case, though it's entirely possible i missed something. however, in the article on james monroe, he is referred to as both "the fifth president of the United States" and "the 5th president of the United States", and i can't figure out if there were any reasons for using one format or the other. (the "5th" used in the infobox i can attribute to the infobox exception in mos:numnotes, and the "5th"s used in the references are there because they are in the titles of the references.) in any case, i think the word "president" should be uncapitalized in the blurb due to mos:jobtitles. dying (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think the election of a ceremonial office-holder by the national assembly (not by the people in an open election) in a partially recognised and non-UN member state merits inclusion. We didn't post the election of the presidents of Albania, Greece, South Africa and Switzerland who were elected in a similar way so I don't see a strong argument why this should be an exception given that it would set an undesirable precedent that some people are waiting for to use in the future. In general, there's no point to post the election of a head of state when there's no stand-alone article documenting the election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• We post changes of prime minister in many countries where there is no election at all (i.e. Theresa May, Boris Johnson). There is also a stand-alone article on the election.Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: We usually don't post presidential changes in UN member states elected in this way. Do you have a specific reason why this partially recognised and non-UN member state should be an exception (and please make a stronger argument than comparing this ceremonial office to the prime minister of the UK)? This sets an unwanted precedent for other disputed territories (Disclaimer: I have friends from Kosovo and don't have anything against the country's independence but the fact is that it's still not a UN member state and that very fact may encourage snow-balling with nominations about states in similar situation or even regional politics in some large countries.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• The Presidency in Kosovo is not a ceremonial position (see Article 84 of the Kosovan constitution), and they are also the head of state. They are always elected indirectly by the Assembly, however it is always just after a direct election for the Assembly (this year's was 14 February), so the Assembly elections are effectively electing them. Also, check the ITN inclusion criteria. Black Kite (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

There are two discussions at WT:ITN to consider the same. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support References issues have been solved. I would have suggested to say in the blurb if she was the first female president, but I see this is not the case. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Question Should we use the 2021 Kosovan presidential election article instead? Joofjoof (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, true. Changed. Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Not if you didn't add it to the blurb. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added an altblurb, although I haven't bolded the election article as no-one has been !voting on it.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

No, don't bold it. It's OK, but shouldn't be the target. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Marked ready. Her article is good enough and there is no substantive opposition. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Article is comprehensive enough and is well-referenced, and it qualifies. Uses x (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Article is fine, ITNR. Modest Genius 14:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
•  Posted—Bagumba (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and Pull. Per precedent of Northern Cyprus, we established that only states in the main part of List of sovereign states are WP:ITN/R. The line which counts here at ITN/R is: "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits". I see no discussion above of the merits of posting this, and given that this is effectively a mostly ceremonial role, I don't think it should be posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  That seems an odd reason to pull. The ITN/R banner was removed three days ago, and no-one withdrew their support. There was still consensus to post.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  I agree - I admittedly haven't looked into the Northern Cyprus discussion, but I think it's clear from the "Further Information" section on List of sovereign states: Kosovo is recognized by 113 UN Member states, while N. Cyprus is only recognized by Turkey. Kosovo also has de facto control over its claimed territory, which is a strong indicator of sovereignty IMO. I don't have an opinion on inclusion/pulling based on the ceremonial nature of the role, but I think Kosovo is "sovereign enough" to be included. AviationFreak💬 17:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's not an odd reason to pull at all. Most of the !votes are based on the assertion that it's ITN/R, which the Cyprus precedent suggests it isn't. Very few of the !votes actually addressed the question of significance at all. And I'm sorry, AviationFreak but the whole point of using the "List of sovereign states" article is to give us an objective standard of what counts for ITN/R and what doesn't. Note that if this was the PM of Kosovo, I'd support it in a heartbeat, as someone of true significance within a territory that is under that person's control (as indeed Northern Cyrprus is). But the largely ceremonial post of presdident just isn't that.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Again, I don't have an opinion on whether to include or pull based on the importance/ceremoniality of the role - My main opinion is that Kosovo is "sovereign enough" to be covered at ITN. I think we agree here, seeing as you would support posting a change in PM of Kosovo. Even if there is currently consensus against posting ITN blurbs relating to, say, Northern Cyprus, that doesn't rule out posting blurbs about other disputed states (in my interpretation, this is what is meant by the phrase "Disputed states and dependent territories should be ... judged on their own merits"). Hope that clears things up! AviationFreak💬 22:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  @AviationFreak: sure, yes I understand your point. I did say after the Northern Cyprus debate that we should clarify the rules once and for all on this, because it seems to cause procedural arguments every time it comes up. Personally I think Northern Cyprus, and indeed Kosovo, Taiwan and other places, should be on the list of things we always post, because however much they're disputed they do control real territory with a real population, and act to all intents and purposes like a nation state.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Seroja

• Nominated by Nyanardsan (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Seddon (talk · give credit), HurricaneEdgar (talk · give credit), DachshundLover82 (talk · give credit), StopBoi (talk · give credit) and CodingCyclone (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Actively edited, ongoing, notable Nyanardsan (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support a blurb for significant impact once the issues are fixed, oppose ongoing. Noah 00:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Fuck it... I'm done putting up with all the bull shit arguments to oppose any significant weather event that happens. We don't need to participate in ITN period if you guys don't want us here. Go ahead and keep posting all the sports stories and awards while ignoring items that are definitely "in the news". We have better things to do then keep arguing with brick wall. Let the more sensible editors comdemn you all when the next Hurricane Katrina occurs and it doesn't get posted. Noah 01:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean like the wall of opposition for the first nomination and lesser but present opposition to the second nomination for what was literally a record breaking Atlantic hurricane season? there was an inconclusive discussion about it. Relax, this will get posted, almost all death toll stories get posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

No, it wont get posted. The regime will oppose it in mass and close it before anyone else gets to respond. Nobody wants to cooperate and establish any kind of criteria for weather events. I think it's time the weather projects just leave ITN and focus on more important things. Noah 02:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah the "snow close" mentality has got to stop, but you'll see, this will get posted. If not, you could try DYK. These articles are always new, DYK has a high rate of churn, and there is always some bit of trivia to use for a hook. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

See, it was posted like I knew it would be. Relax. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Holy shit, calm down. The internet is not serious business. Mlb96 (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. He needs to calm down, lest we're going to see what happened on February this year. MarioJump83! 14:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

If this isn't working, then WPTC boycott is the best choice unfortunately. I'll still be involved in the ITN however as the part of WPCE (WikiProject Current events), especially about the events involving my country. MarioJump83! 04:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb or ongoing. Storm during storm season does storm things, not uncommon for the Timor sea. Relatively low death toll for a developing country with poor infrastructure. This is no different from an Atlantic hurricane killing 40 in Central America with landslides and flooding. It's sad, it happens. Article isn't terrible by disaster standards. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that my country really has a bad infrastructure, it's important to note that Indonesia is a country of islands, not a single landmass, and Java is very dense for an island, contributing to 56.1 percent of Indonesian population. And the floods affected Timor Leste which is far smaller country than us and was formerly colonized by us, contributing to sorry state of our situation. MarioJump83! 04:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose ongoing and blurb for now on quality grounds. When the article is fixed up (grammar issues, etc) then I will be happy to support a blurb. CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 03:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb per the above. HurricaneEdgar 03:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support for blurb only. This disaster killing at least 50+ in two countries. --Tensa Februari (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb. Tropical cyclones in Indonesia that causes major damages like this are rare meteorologically, and as an Indonesian, this is worthy of a mention. But, this isn't a plane crash, which garners way more attention from the Indonesian media than the severe weather events. MarioJump83! 04:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In regards to this being an ongoing event, oppose. I don't think Seroja will do much outside Indonesia or Timor Leste. MarioJump83! 04:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support blurb We don't typically post storms in ongoing, so I'd support a blurb instead. Regarding a blurb, the article quality is much better than the usual disaster article, being well-cited and well fleshed-out, with only minor grammar issues here and there; and on significance this is the deadliest cyclone to hit the Australian region since Cyclone Guba 14 years ago, and the deadliest to hit Indonesia and East Timor since Cyclone Inigo 18 years ago. Therefore I see no reason not to support a blurb. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The cleanup tag (which I agree with) needs to be sorted out. Otherwise, it's notable enough for a blurb. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality cleanup tag needs to be resolved. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb Significant death toll. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support once the maintenance tag is addressed. Honestly, the snarky outburst at the top of this nomination is really quite unnecessary. If you want to play, play, but don't go off into swear mode just in case things don't go your way. That's part of why most of the strange behaviour of that Wikiproject is summarily ignored these days. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb – The storm has become a major weather disaster for Indonesia and East Timor, and the crisis is far from over. The death toll as it is is already significant and will likely continue to increase in the days to come. Also, the article quality has dramatically improved since the nomination was opened up, and the article is no longer missing any key information. Oh, and anyone who thinks that this event is not notable enough for ITN either clearly doesn't understand what WP:NOTABILITY constitutes or has a rather messed up view of what does and doesn't belong on ITN. This storm is all over the news, at least for that part of the world. This is definitely more than notable enough for ITN. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - the expand section tag should not prevent a posting on the MP. Mjroots (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • For Info - WT:WPTC#Moratorium for ITN. Mjroots (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, this is clearly notable. I would also strongly suggest to the first poster that forcibly ejecting your toys and attacking other editors when anyone opposes in what is meant to be a discussion is indeed not conducive to participating in a collaborative environment. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: This is what happens when you have over half a year of a specific group of editors opposing (and closing in most cases) every nomination no matter how severe the storm was. Killed over 100? Too bad, it wasn't enough. Crippled a whole state's powergrid and water supply? That's just a normal snowstorm. I'm sorry if I got upset, but this is getting ridiculous when this group comes out and does the same thing every nomination because they WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We tried to discuss with them for criteria, but that discussion was not fruitful in the least. I see no need for myself or my project to participate any further in this toxic environment. We might as well just stop nominating anything here if people don't want us to be here. Noah 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• What "specific group" are you referring to? P-K3 (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• What specific group opposing and closing? I've begun to suspect you are just ranting emotionally at this point.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• The disagreements here between regular editors on storms are no different from any other subject at ITN/C. Go back and have a look at the history of the discussions on US mass shootings, or the deaths of very-well-known-but-not-quite-legendary celebrities. Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Especially Brodie Lee! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Here we go again, more toys. The weather fans need to stop this faux indignation (glad to see no repeat of the co-ordinated oppose like we did for the America's Cup nomination though) and suggest that if you and your project don't "like" the way ITNC operates, you do something positive about it rather than these fruitless outbursts. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• @Hurricane Noah: Hi Hurricane Noah, I understand your pain. I've had similar experiences with you in this ITN/C, seeing bias towards certain countries, double standards, and else. My method is just to rant on your own talkpage and quit ENWIKI for a while. If you are addicted to Misplaced Pages and multilingual, try contributing to other Misplaced Pages. After a while or so, return back here! Please, whatever you do, don't try to blame anybody on "toxic, bias, etc" unless you have sufficient evidence to back it up. And try to rant somewhere else other than in publicly visible place. Thank you... :) --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• I named my tragic lonely ode to Brodie Lee "JON FREAKIN' HUBER" (for dramatic effect). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: It's kind of nice that you have a lot of watchers in your talkpage, so your ode has literally a lot of views. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I more appreciate having 123 watchers than a lot, given my namesake's incredible 1-2-3 over The Iron Sheik on 1/23 of '84. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• At ITN we try not to post weather storms or other natural disasters like earthquakes that simply involve disruption of everyday life, unless that disruption is on a massive scale or that it because a major loss of human life. Storms and disasters happen all the time, and many simply knock out power, cause flooding (without loss of life), and other types of property damage but because this is "routine" , we avoid those. It's when there's clearly something more fundamentally critical in the damage and disruption post-storm or disaster that we consider to be significant. Plenty of storms make it to ITN (like this one is definitely going up), we're just not going to post storms with minimal impact even if these may be seen by weather experts as major events. --Masem (t) 15:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Significant storm and death toll. P-K3 (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Post or the kitten gets it! Seriously though, relax, the kitten and article are fine. One meets MINIMUMDEATHS, has everything other storm postings did and is in the news. The other is purely rhetorical. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support – Looks reasonably complete. Guardian says toll is "at least 97." Certainly more significant than the moat race. – Sca (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support hard to see it as not being notable. Article quality is OK. Dan the Animator 14:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, it surely qualifies w this death toll. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Certainly 97x more significant than our #1 story. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  Oh do change the record. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Posted. --Jayron32 15:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Venezuelan clashes

• Nominated by NoonIcarus (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Recently nominated as a blurb. Ongoing, at least fifteen deaths and 6,000 civilian displacements. NoonIcarus (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose for now. It's certainly ongoing, but the updates are not long enough for me (last was 10 words) combined with the fact there's not much else to read. I recommend expanding the background, as most of the article is just from news updates of, and reactions to what's happening. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Uses x: Expanded last events a little bit more and added a Background section. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus Is there any information about why the conflict is starting up again after the ceasefire? The article is still missing that. There are a few things that need explanation too, such as what "Infobae" or a "mixed patrol comission" is. Uses x (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Uses x: Thanks for the ping. The article mentions that "Experts have argued that control of drug trafficking routes is the motive for the clashes", and Colombian President Iván Duque has also declared that the conflict "was between the Venezuelan Cartel of the Suns and the FARC dissidents", but I have avoided placing it in the lead or repeating it to try to keep neutrality. Infobae is an Argentine news website and according to the references, a "mixed patrol comission" performs patrol, recconnaisance and search operations. I have added these details to the article, along with other updates. Notifying editors that voted in the last nomination: @AllegedlyHuman, Jim Michael, Dantheanimator, Fakescientist8000, Gotitbro, Jayron32, and Amakuru: --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I will solely state the following; this is not ongoing-worthy. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose there is a lot of filler in this one (background/reactions). Of the events, two soldiers blew themselves up by accident, four agitators were arrested (by whom, and why?). Looks like the last actual clash was on 3/31 but the updates are thin and border on nonsensical (who is Vladimir Padrino López? What radio transmissions and why are they relevant? Whose armed forces? And WTF is a Tiuna FM Radial Circuit?). --LaserLegs (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• weak Oppose - still ongoing. More can happen. for now.BabbaQ (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose ongoing Article is ok and well-sourced but I don't think it rises to that of an ongoing article. It was better as a event nom. Dan the Animator 14:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose ongoing I agree with Dantheanimator above: would consider a blurb, and in general items like this nominated for Ongoing should start as a blurb and roll onto Ongoing if warranted. Neutral for a blurb right now since I don't think the article clearly explains recent events. Spencer 16:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) The Boat Race 2021

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.

• Created and nominated by The Rambling Man (talk · give credit)

• Support Oh no, not this again. Hooray, at last the Fens hit the front page! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support and ready another FA in the making from TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Better than expected in the circumstances. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment updated now, sufficiently I hope, to be considered sufficient for posting. Unusual to see the crews battling out in an almost dead-straight race, but as Andrew alludes, better than I had expected. And of course, the correct university won. Both. Races. Go Tabs! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Post-Posting Comment A true legend. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Chhattisgarh Maoist attack

• Nominated by OrbitalBuzzsaw (talk · give credit)
• Created by Elton-Rodrigues (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Madhusmitabishoi (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Significant event in one of the world's longest-running insurgencies This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Currently two sentences on the event. (Also, these blurbs could use ce and the links are pretty MOS:EGGy.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree the update isn't long enough. It appears only soldiers were killed as well, and I think a higher bar is needed for that compared to civilians being killed, especially since they died during a raid (part of the job description, to be insensitive). Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest snow close. Dan the Animator 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support now that we have an article. Disclaimer: I updated the blurb and the nomination. @AllegedlyHuman, Dantheanimator, and Uses x: this nomination needs a re-look on your part. Depressed Desi (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Article has no body paragraph about the incident. Spencer 16:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support Article could use additional expansion, but meets minimum standards. Spencer 03:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - so we have a "Background", and we have "Reactions", but absolutely nothing in between. This reminds me a little of the Collect underpants ... ? ... profit meme...  — Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: @Spencer and Amakuru: the article does have a body now. Depressed Desi (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support -The event got enough media coverage in international media. This attack with two dozens casualties of armed forces qualifies to be in WP:ITN. USaamo 22:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support The coverage by various third party source satisfies WP:GN--Sylvester Millner (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The bar for ITN is higher than simply the general notability guideline. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Jordan alleged coup attempt

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Osps7 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Significant arrests. In the news. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose grammar is pretty bad, article is light on details. 2021 Jordanian coup d'état attempt is no better. Was there a coup attempt or not? Did Abdullah smell a coup and strike pre-emptively? Once the government releases a statement there might be something here, right now it's just media speculation and scattered reports. No reason to rush an inadequate article to the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 2021 alleged Jordanian coup d'état attempt exists now and isn't bad. Still not many details released. It's in the news though. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Wait – Some coverage, but situation seems murky. – Sca (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not notable enough, and it left the news fairly quickly. Probably a bit stale by now, in fact. The article is also too short for my liking. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Wait - Let’s wait and see if further events happens.BabbaQ (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support Article is decent, and what's there is sourced. Unsure about notability per above. Dan the Animator 13:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems mainly a celeb/royal foofaraw. – Sca (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The Jordanian coup: arglebargle or foofaraw?--LaserLegs (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per consensus above. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - An alleged attempt isn't important enough for ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

April 3

(Posted) RD: Arthur Kopit

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Only announced and reported today (April 3). —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Well sourced, comprehensive. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good to go. Well sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 10:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Looks ready JW 1961 11:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer 17:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Luo Ying-shay

• Nominated by AllegedlyHuman (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Neo-Jay (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Taiwanese politician; Minister of Justice from 2013 to 2016. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Citation needed tags need sorting. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cyprian Kizito Lwanga

• Nominated by Ravenpuff (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Catholic archbishop of Kampala, Uganda. Article a little on the shorter side, but well-referenced. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC) — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Short and sweet. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support well referenced ! Vacant0 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Short but sifficient.BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer 17:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carla Zampatti

• Nominated by JMonkey2006 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Canley (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Death of an iconic fashion designer JMonkey2006 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support article looks alright and is well referenced Vacant0 (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Falling down the stairs at a notable opera's premiere at a notable rock/point/chair might even make a relatively substantial blurb, in theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Seems good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer 17:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2

(Posted) RD: April

• Nominated by AllegedlyHuman (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Strattonsmith (talk · give credit) and Yngvadottir (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Giraffe. Became a viral sensation in 2017 when her pregnancy was live-streamed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Overly promotional tone, too much focus on related-but-different giraffes, referencing seems adequate. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - promo-tone can be fixed. Other than that good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Posted to RD Promotional language cleaned up; article is adequate. Spencer 15:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Hualien train derailment

• Nominated by SounderBruce (talk · give credit)
• Created by Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article needs expansion, but clearly a major disaster. Deadliest rail crash in the country since 1981. SounderBruce 05:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly a major event. {{u|Sdkb}}  05:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Article has enough to post Sherenk1 (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - major accident in a developed country, high death toll. Image added. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Posted. The article is already in decent shape and will no doubt be worked on quickly today. Notability seems WP:SNOW too so I've gone ahead and posted. I'd probably Oppose using the suggested photo though, as far as I know we don't usually post a "similar" train/plane after accidents, it could be confusing.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• !Vote to pull Current version is only 1400 bytes of readable prose—a stub. Bad precedent to post this quality on the MP, and only after two hours of discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing an issue. Nothing in the instructions about a minimum byte size of prose. Article is not a stub, it has good structure, an infobox and an image. There are at least three paragraphs of text and everything is referenced. This should be enough to post. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • We regularly hold off RDs for being too short. DYK has a 1500B requirement. I expect the same of blurbs.—Bagumba (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

      It's at 1775 characters now. {{u|Sdkb}}  07:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

      Even if it was posted at 1400B of wikitext, it clearly would be expanded with new information quickly to get past 1500B. Completely fair to post something like this that was just a tad short. Would be more an issue if we were talking an RD stuck at 1400B with likely no reason to grow more. --Masem (t) 14:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Agree with pull as a matter of principle; three early support votes is not enough to demonstrate consensus even if the article were in excellent shape, which it is not. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support there you go, four supports and a passable article, no need for any further complaints. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• I also second the posting. The article is as long as it can be at this point, without adding trivial details. --Tone 08:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Just wondering what to do about an image. The current photo on the article, File:TRA TEMU1000 Tze-Chiang Ltd-Exp Taroko North Link Line Heren Chongde 20190618.JPG seems more relevant than the one proposed above, as it appears to be pretty much in the location of the crash. (Perhaps the tunnel pictured is even the one where it happened). I guess it gets a bit complicated when you have to point out in the blurb and in the picture caption that this is not actually the same train that derailed though. Any thoughts?  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The reason we say "similar trainset pictured" is that the type of train is known, but until the actual unit number is known, we cannot be certain the image is of the actual trainset involved. Once the info is available, then image choice can be reassessed as to whether or not there is a decent photo of the actual trainset available for use. Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Trainsets 1013 and 1014 involved. There's this image of 1014 available. Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
      • File:TRA TEMU1000 Taroko Express (TEMU1013-1014).jpg might be better, the distracting (and possibly slightly inappropriate for this situation) livery is not particularly visible in this shot. Black Kite (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
      • There is now File:2021年太魯閣列車出軌事故 01.jpg available provided by Executive Yuan which is a photo after the accident. Sun8908 _Talk 15:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Post-posting support Major disaster, article quality is acceptable and it will obviously get better as more information comes in. P-K3 (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment at the time it was posted the article did not consist of three complete, well referenced paragraphs as set out by the guidelines. In fact, it was no better than the Egyptian train crash which was rejected. Background and reactions sections are filler. Could we please make sure these disaster stubs meet some benchmark for quality before rushing an article about an excruciatingly irrelevant disaster to the main page. Thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I imagine that this might somehow be different if these were 50 casualties in a different country, or the uproar if another continent was mostly asleep while this was posted in two hours. Confirmation bias? (Yes, the page meets quality standards ... now.)—Bagumba (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not from here. If a train crash in America killed 50 people, I'd support its inclusion at ITN. Very poor choice of article to attempt to die on that particular hill! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  ... good to see discussions being conducted in quicktime while the rest of the world sleeps. The Rambling Man—Bagumba (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Post-posting support This killed more people than coronavirus did in the country. feminist (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2021 (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:

Editor's discord (for help and questions) Maseyy#1128 :)

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