Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GenevieveDEon (talk | contribs) at 16:49, 22 January 2025 (→2024–25 College Football Playoff). 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 76 people dead and 51 others injured. A series of attacks by the National Liberation Army in the Catatumbo region of Colombia leaves more than a hundred people dead. A ceasefire agreement suspends the Israel–Hamas war, involving the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners. Two Supreme Court judges are assassinated in a shooting at the Supreme Court of Iran in Tehran. Ongoing: Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Linda Nolan Tommy Brown Diane Langton Simon Townsend Claire van Kampen Nello Altomare Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

Archives

Archives of posted stories: Misplaced Pages:In the news/Posted/Archives

Sections

This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.

Section sizes Section size for Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates (46 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 359 359 Archives 157 157 Sections 263 263 January 22 171 171 January 21 122 122 RD: Garth Hudson 857 857 RD: Jules Feiffer 958 958 (Posted) Kartalkaya hotel fire 6,768 6,768 RD: Håkon Bleken 1,077 1,077 (Closed) Trump executive orders 10,587 10,587 January 20 122 122 RD: John Sykes 969 969 2024–25 College Football Playoff 16,280 16,280 (Posted) 2025 Catatumbo attacks 7,728 7,728 RD: Cecile Richards 1,729 1,729 (Closed) Second inauguration of Donald Trump 4,436 4,436 January 19 123 123 (Posted) RD: Jeff Torborg 965 965 RD: Kulanthai Shanmugalingaml 859 859 (Closed) Restrictions on TikTok in the United States 28,181 28,181 Storming of South Korean court 2,746 2,746 January 18 122 122 (Posted) RD: Claire van Kampen 1,480 1,480 (Posted) 2025 assassination of Sharia judges in Iran 7,441 7,441 2025 Suleja fuel tanker explosion 4,725 4,725 RD: Russell Marshall 925 925 January 17 122 122 Didier Guillaume 10,645 10,645 Blurb/RD: Denis Law 4,195 4,195 (Posted) RD: Joan Plowright 2,369 2,369 January 16 122 122 (Review needed) RD: Hans Dobida 851 851 (Removed) California fires to ongoing 6,319 6,319 New Glenn launch 9,152 9,152 (Posted blurb) RD/Blurb: David Lynch 11,055 11,055 (Posted) RD: Bob Uecker 2,573 2,573 January 15 123 123 (Posted) RD: Tommy Brown (baseball) 2,061 2,061 (Posted) RD: Jafar Masood Hasani Nadwi 1,091 1,091 (Posted) RD: Stephanie Aeffner 2,289 2,289 (Posted) RD: Diane Langton 1,172 1,172 (Posted) RD: Linda Nolan 1,265 1,265 (Posted) RD: Jack Hoffman 1,138 1,138 (Posted) Israel-Hamas ceasefire 31,288 31,288 (Posted) Yoon Suk Yeol arrest 17,288 17,288 References 830 830 Total 206,098 206,098

January 22

January 21

RD: Garth Hudson

• Nominated by GeoGreg (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: American musician, member of The Band, death announced today. GeoGreg (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Article needs some citation work before it can be put on ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

RD: Jules Feiffer

• Nominated by Sunshineisles2 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by NathanielTheBold (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: American cartoonist, death announced today. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose 2 CN tags - and the Selected Works section needs some citation patch work. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

(Posted) Kartalkaya hotel fire

• Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
• Created by BSRF (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Borgenland (talk · give credit) and Chorchapu (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Another tragedy. Another article to work. ArionStar (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Like all of my other votes, Oppose on quality but Support on notability Bloxzge 025 (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bloxzge 025: in good shape now. ArionStar (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking better but still can be improved. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support 66 dead. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support 66 dead & counting, in a fairly developed country to boot. JayCubby 15:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support at least Seventy a significant fatal incident.QalasQalas (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak support seems a substantial event with a surprisingly high death toll. But the article is disappointingly light on details or context - it's a basic news report. Good enough to post but I'd like to see better content. Modest Genius 15:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose tragic, but lacks long-term significance. 2A02:8071:78E3:DE40:8A7:24DA:C40D:85CB (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Of course not, as the death toll can rise and an investigation is already underway. ArionStar (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• I share the concerns expressed by Modest Genius. Schwede66 17:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Modest Genius. The Kip 18:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - The event is significant enough for sure but until the article is expanded a bit more I don't think it should be posted. Certainly not ready in the current state. ✈ mike_gigs _contribs 18:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support – Rest in peace to peoples who died from the fire. I know some peoples opposing it, but the article will be expand soon and the death toll might be rise. Bakhos Let's talk! 18:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak Support - article is slightly stubby. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait: 24 hours or so, see if the article gets fleshed out? As it currently stands, it's not something we should be proud to put on the main page. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Definitely worthy of being on the main page, at least 76 have died and 51 are injured. Chorchapu (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  There are 76+ deaths (and sadly counting) and it's a significant event. Definitely notable 🔥Jalapeño🔥 contribs 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NEWSEVENT explains "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, "shock" news, ...) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. I'm not seeing anything further in this case. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Posted - consensus that it's significant enough to post, and also rough consensus that quality is just about there. Hopefully it will be expanded further as more details emerge.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

RD: Håkon Bleken

• Nominated by Oceanh (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Norwegian painter. Needs more updates. Oceanh (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Some statements in the article still need citations. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

(Closed) Trump executive orders

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

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Created by AndrewRT (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Pauliesnug (talk · give credit)

• Fixing nomination header from 'nomination header' to current title. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 11:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks. There must be a lot of cut-and-paste when preparing the orders too. I trust they also have someone carefully proof-reading them. :) Andrew🐉(talk) 11:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment See also United States withdrawals from the Paris Agreement as a potential target article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - 1) he already campaigned on doing this, so this action was entirely expected, 2) both withdrawals already happened last time, and 3) a nomination for the 1st WHO withdrawal was made in July 7 2020 and failed to gain consensus. The Paris Agreement one was posted in June 2017, though I'd note that a second withdrawal doesn't have the same impact the original one did. This isn't the American Misplaced Pages; this is the English Misplaced Pages. Not everything that Donald Trump does needs to be ITN. And these executive orders were not the most important; he also signed an executive order (illegally) trying to end birthright citizenship for immigrants who came in illegally, declared a state of emergency at the southern border, and an executive order proclaiming only two genders. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:C5C1:C762:3EA7:2882 (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The nominated article lists all of the orders. The selection of examples in the blurb can be expanded or amended to taste. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Front-page news in Europe, of international political significance. Also nice Bond villain headshot on the main page. Sandstein 11:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Sandstein: All that's missing is a pair of tiny hands stroking a white cat. Kurtis 16:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Whilst these first orders might be more headline-friendly than usual, we aren't a Donald Trump news ticker. He also withdrew the USA from the Paris Agreement in 2017, so that's hardly surprising news at all. Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

We posted other unsurprising changes to international organizations recently such as Bulgaria joining Schengen and Indonesia joining BRICS. This bundle seems to be a bigger deal. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

And then what about the next bundle? and the one after that? Black Kite (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It appears that this is an exceptional salvo but the nominated article will continue to cover any further orders. If the stream of orders remains a significant topic, as it is currently, then it can be put into Ongoing. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose He promised this, this happened. There's nothing surprising here. In addition, the focus on Paris and WHO are likely the lowest of issues of importance that his EOs addressed, as there's far more furor over, for example, eliminating birthright citizenship (which is certainly going to be in legal limbo for a while). ITN is not a news ticker. --Masem (t) 12:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  There's a big difference between a promise and a decision that comes into effect (in this case, it's the former), and promises made by politicians during campaigns are usually not very reliable. He also promised to buy Greenland. Would you oppose it if that actually happens?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  If the actual legal transfer of Greenland from Denmark to the US actually happens, yes, but even EOs are not actual actions since most of these are likely to be tied up in legal actions Masem (t) 14:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose and snow close We are not a Trump news ticker. The Kip 14:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and snow close a politician doing politics. We will talk about it when the country's withdrawal from the WHO and the Paris Agreement is formalized. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed, and only if those withdrawals get significant international news coverage (which it probably will), especially with the WHO. Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Routine government functions. Not everything Trump is news. Flibirigit (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article (or a mention ITN). Estreyeria (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Support - Front-page news everywhere PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wait on the Paris Agreement and WHO withdrawals, oppose the other orders or lumping them together, strong oppose on quality. Taking the US out of the Paris Agreement is hugely consequential for the entire world, not just the US. I know Trump did the same thing in his first term, but the process took years and had barely taken effect when Biden reversed the decision. For that exact reason, we should wait until the US actually exits the agreement, not just Trump's order telling his officials to do so. The WHO is a similar situation though perhaps not quite as impactful. The other executive orders are domestic politics that ITN avoids, and lumping them all together to make one blurb is a bad idea. The article is just a list with no context or explanation of what these orders actually do, utterly unsuited to being a bold link on the Main Page. Modest Genius 15:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose all the above. It’s not even the top story of what Trump did yesterday or today, and likely won’t be tomorrow or the next day either. nableezy - 16:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Modest Genius. This is a very poor nom barely defining what exactly is the main topic area for which to determine notability (we do not post broad lumpen lists like this). ITN regulars should not be making such mistakes. Gotitbro (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose just signing a bunch of orders is very nonspecific. If there was one in particular that stuck out maybe, but this is simply too broad to be useful. Withdrawal from the climate accords and WHO may be more acceptable, but would be best left til they actually happen. La Ovo (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not Trump's personal news station. Maybe the Paris Agreement and WHO withdrawals, but not all the executive orders he's signed in the past 24 hours. qw3rty 18:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

January 20

RD: John Sykes

• Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:CC27:6B75:1481:D667 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by SilverBullitt (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Guitarist for Whitesnake, Thin Lizzy and Tygers of Pan Tang. Death announced on Jan 20. 240F:7A:6253:1:CC27:6B75:1481:D667 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

2024–25 College Football Playoff

• Nominated by Sagittarian Milky Way (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: They finally found a way to hike tournament size from 4 teams to 12 removing or greatly weakening one of the arguments against posting. Tradition+New Years Six tourism beneficiaries is why it took so long (college football started 1869 AD). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Amateur sport. We post the Super Bowl as it is the top, professional event in football for the US.Noah, BSBA 01:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Is it really amateur if most if not all of the payers are on sports scholarships to their respective colleges? HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Being amateur is irrelevant; we post the college basketball championship, which is not the top, professional event in its sport in the U.S. – and college football is actually more popular than that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  We largely refrain from posting amateur sports. Historically, we have only posted the top event in each sport for each country here. I see no reason to start posting the national championship for football now. Noah, BSBA 01:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Historically, we have only posted the top event in each sport for each country here. – nope, not true. We post the less popular college basketball championship which is not the top basketball championship in the U.S. And college football is amateur in name only at this point: last year, over a dozen college players made more money from playing than Super Bowl quarterback Brock Purdy. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is because it's not considered professional football. That is the NFL which college athletes graduate to when they are drafted by a team. A scholarship is different than a salary. Noah, BSBA 03:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Support top level of college football, any claim that it is amateur is clearly coming from people who have never watched a game of D1 college football in their lives. Scuba 00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

'College football' is not a separate sport. The top level of American Football is the Superb Owl. GenevieveDEon (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If "Canadian Football" is a separate sport (we post the grey cup), then College Football is also a separate sport, since the rules are just as different. I'm sure that Owl is really Superb. Scuba 15:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong Support This is the major championship of probably the 2nd or 3rd most popular sport in the US. Anyone opposing on the basis of "amateur" status is so ill-informed that they really shouldn't be commenting at all. How it isn't ITN/R is beyond me. If this isn't ITN/R, then we need to get rid of about 2/3s of the recurring events listed on that page. LocoTacoFever (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"This is the major championship..." - No, it's not. That's the Superbowl. This is nothing like that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not American, and was commenting from an international perspective. College footballers obviously don't pay their own way. You internal definition is not a globally recognised one. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

They make up to $6.2 million from side money like their share of college football video game name image license rights without getting paid (Spain website). Recent lawsuit made it illegal to not do that when NFL players get their cut of NFL video game right to use their name etc fees. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment It's still January 20 in America, so this should be moved to yesterday. Departure– (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Moved. Masem (t) 01:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not UTC date? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

ITNC should be posted on the date based on the date first reported, which we have usually taken to be in the country where the event happens if it is localized like that. — Masem (t) 03:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Can we stop proposing these noms before the winner of the game in question is determined? DarkSide830 (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support on notability, once winner determined. This is a massive, massive deal in the U.S. – the second biggest sporting event in the U.S. annually. Its becoming larger and more popular each year (notably, the size of the bracket was tripled this year) and increasingly more covered internationally (last year I presented articles on it in a dozen different countries on multiple continents) – over 700 players were non-US as of 2022 ("Record number of international athletes proves college football is now global"), and its amateur in name only: as shown above, 16 players made more playing college football last year than Super Bowl starting quarterback Brock Purdy (even one high school recruit I made an article for will receive several million per year for signing with a particular team). Not that being amateur would prevent posting, however, as we post the equivalent-but-less-popular college basketball championship. Attendance regularly gets near 100,000 for some teams, with most of the largest sports stadiums in the world being for college football. I previously made a comparison of the viewership for the college football championship compared to numerous other ITN events and it bested nearly every single one we post, including all but one of those in the U.S. That includes events such as the NBA Finals, Stanley Cup Finals and the World Series, which the CFP beats by large margins. Further, describing this as a "second-tier" league to the NFL shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how college football works – its a whole different thing from the NFL. This is extremely obviously an event notable enough to post, and it deserves to be featured. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Wait The game is not over yet. ArionStar (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support on notability per Beanie. The Kip 04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I’ve changed my view a bit on this, and I’ve come down on the side that this really isn’t that big a news story, and that we post way too many sports stories as is. Yes, it’s considerably bigger than many things in ITNR, but I think that’s best dealt with by paring ITNR down quite a bit and not posting what’s a fairly trivial story. nableezy - 05:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I've always been against posting amateur sport events (I'm still against posting the NCAA event though it was pushed through as an ITN/R item.), so my view on this is still a resounding no despite the claims about its commercial success. Moreover, there's no indication that this event has had any major impact on popularising the sport amongst the young population around the globe over the past 15 years as there are no newly established equivalent competitions in other countries (As a comparison, snooker has become a major sport in China over the same period.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose not the top level of the sport. I don't think we should be posting any university sporting events (Boat Race, NCAA etc.) and have consistently opposed them all for years. Yes the NCAA basketball is currently on INTR, but I would rather see that removed from the list than compound the error by posting college football as well. I appreciate this event has an unusually outsized cultural impact in the US, including TV audience. However American football is really only popular in one country and we already post the Superbowl every year - that's enough coverage for what is a minority sport in global terms. The argument that college football and the NFL are different sports is spurious - there are only very minor rules adjustments, less than the difference between NHL and IIHF ice hockey, which no-one considers different sports. Modest Genius 12:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Is Canadian football a different sport? Its cup is rightfully on+its rules are different enough that their attempt @ a binational expansion+some but not all crossover players failed but similar enough that many Canadians are fans of American football or both. Even 1st or 2nd college football draft picks can+have failed to adjust to the NFL the strategy's different. More games, longer season, smaller rosters, better defense, less off-season to try to fully recover from that, lower average scores. Defense is so hard to learn they rarely if ever master it till they're already in NFL. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Modest Genius. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Considering that new NIL deals mean that top college players make more than some low-end professional players, can we really consider NCAA college ball to be 'amateur'? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - We don't post the Boat Race, we don't post other nations' student events, we shouldn't post this. (And we also shouldn't post NCAA Basketball.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support — Nowadays, college football isn't really an "amateur" version of American football but rather just a different version of it, one that is massively popular in the United States (and, in ITNC lingo, whose conclusion was widely covered by reliable sources). And I disagree with the idea that we only post the "top" competition in each sport. The World Cup is undoubtedly the highest and most prestigious level of competition in international football, but we still post the UEFA Euro and Copa America, for instance. And, of course, as many have mentioned, we do indeed post the NCAA college basketball tournament in the U.S. DecafPotato (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  College football playoffs last year had about 15 M viewers. The Super Bowl nearly 100 M. The latest World Cup was estimated to be 5 billion worldwide. It is extremely clear that association football has massive worldwide interest that featuring only the World Cup would be trivializing the sport. Masem (t) 01:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Quality article, covered widely in the press. In general, I favor posting major university-level sporting events as long as there is a quality article. Spencer 03:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Whilst I wouldn't post the NCAA either, I can at least admit that it gets decent coverage outside the USA, i.e. on BBC Sport. This event, however, does not appear in the news to that level at all - for example there does not appear to be a BBC Sport story on it at all; there is a Sky Sports story but it's not on the front pages and is indeed buried down as the 7th story on the NFL page. Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

(Posted) 2025 Catatumbo attacks

• Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: The article is under construction but we have relevant events in the Colombian conflict. ArionStar (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support on notability as it’s a major escalation of the previously-quiet Colombian conflict. Oppose on quality, however, as the article’s still quite short. The Kip 02:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Waiting for updated news; I have difficulties editing infoboxes, could someone help me? ArionStar (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  @ArionStar Tried my best to do so. The Kip 03:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks! Improvements  Done. @The Kip: better now? ArionStar (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Per the List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts, this war has been ongoing since 1964 and there were over two thousand deaths last year. And the similar cartel/drug wars in Mexico are even worse. This incident is therefore just a drop in the ocean and not significant per WP:NEWSEVENT. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson it’s been decades since any single attack in this conflict has killed anything even close to this many people. Are you genuinely serious? The Kip 16:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  The nomination is for a "series of attacks" not a single attack. The List of ongoing armed conflicts gets its numbers from ACLED. This has a detailed report on Colombia in recent years. This includes a chart of "Violent events involving armed groups" for each year from 2018 to 2024 and these seem quite steady with about 2,000 killed each year. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support - this is clearly in the news per and 80 people killed is way beyond the unofficial never-to-be-mentioned "WP:MINIMUMDEATHS" threshold that I would personally consider an indicator of significance. Quality looks reasonable for a short article too  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Amakuru, he said it perfectly. It's in the news, an unusually high number of deaths, and the article quality is sufficient given the recent nature of the attacks (shorter is to be expected when recency is a factor). FlipFlopped ツ 20:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 23:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Stephen: please, include "results in more than a hundred deaths and several others injured, kidnapped and displaced". It is a important part of the event. ArionStar (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Better: "A series of attacks in the Catatumbo region of Colombia leave several people dead, kidnapped and displaced, while president Gustavo Petro declares state of emergency". ArionStar (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Those are details best left to the article. Stephen 02:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not about the state of emergency declaration. ArionStar (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Stephen: An earlier item used "A series of wildfires leaves". Is "A series of attacks leave" intentional here? J3133 (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Fixed, thanks. Stephen 18:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Stephen: I think to add "while president Gustavo Petro declares state of emergency" is appropriate. ArionStar (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

RD: Cecile Richards

• Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)

 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:Weak oppose 2 uncited awards at the end, but the article looks good otherwise. Departure– (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Article has enough citations and length for ITNRD. The uncited awards have photo evidence in the article. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  I see another citation in the article for the presidential award but nothing for the Legion of Honour. Departure– (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  I am only finding it on Instagram, so far. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  In that case, I'm challenging and removing the claim. Instagram isn't an RS for addding an award like this. Support on quality. Departure– (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

(Closed) Second inauguration of Donald Trump

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 JohnAdams1800 (talk · give credit)

• Oppose - A routine event that is the consequence of another event - the November election - which we already covered. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Consensus in the past has been against the posting of inaugurations. Masem (t) 14:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. We already posted the election results and don't double up with inaugurations as well. Also, it hasn't happened yet. Modest Genius 14:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose we posted the election months ago. Unless we see another capitol attack, there's hardly anything notable about this inauguration over the election that preceded it. Except, it's taking place... inside? In that case, we should post the cold wave that's affecting half of the US today, because I can tell you right now that's actually going to be newsworthy even if it isn't posted. Departure– (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Support meets all the criteria for posting. It is in the news (very much so), it is notable and with some minor improvements the article will be up to shape. 2A02:8071:78E3:DE40:3DEF:5E7B:72CC:6A64 (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose presidential inaugurations are not ITNR nor ITN-worthy. Consensus must be kept in mind so as not to have this discussion every four years. And in fact, the formal ceremony has not even begun. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and snow close per above. The Kip 15:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Trump was already elected in November, this is just a normal consequence of that. We didn't post Biden's inauguration nor Trump's first. OTD already has a link to Inauguration Day for anyone looking for it on the front page. PolarManne (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

January 19

(Posted) RD: Jeff Torborg

• Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)

 – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Article is well cited and has enough length for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 23:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

RD: Kulanthai Shanmugalingaml

• Nominated by Abishe (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Kanags (talk · give credit), Abishe (talk · give credit) and Editrite! (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: prominent historian, dramatist and playwright in Sri Lanka Abishe (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Article has enough length and citations to be placed on ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

(Closed) Restrictions on TikTok in the United States

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 Royiswariii (talk · give credit)
• Created by Ageofultron (talk · give credit)

Strong support lmao this is big coming from the country that promotes "free speach speech" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Two things: first off, it is speech, not "speach", and secondly, how on Earth does that constructively add to the discussion on whether or not to add it to ITN? Seems merely like a way to ragebait people from the U.S... Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 12:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  my bad lol, I mean it is everywhere in the news so why not support that (and it might've been a small rage bait) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support - Major country banning a major website, unprecedented in the United States. --FelineHerder (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, @FelineHerder

  I think the Blurb was okay or Alt1 what do you think? Royiswariii Talk! 04:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  @FelineHerder or it's okay to add the image since the tiktok logo is in Public domain? What do you think. Royiswariii Talk! 04:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Royiswariii I added an image of their American headquarters. --71.93.9.236 (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, thank you! RoyiswariiiTalk! 04:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support with modifications. Shutdown is a noun, so it should say "shut down in the United States". 675930s (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. DigitalIceAge (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - This is literally just the ban coming into effect, which everyone knows. You should have made the court decision on that day ITN. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Also Trump may give leniency and suspend the enforcement for 90 days, so its not like it even matters. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Notable and widely covered QalasQalas (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support the original altblurb II. Social media platform TikTok shuts down in the United States, as it doesn't lay the blame squarely on ByteDance. The ban isn't premised just on American legal compliance, but also on the wider geopolitics of platform ecosystems. 2600:1700:5890:69F0:3DB3:30C8:4F5F:E360 (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support first blurb. Obviously notable Personisinsterest (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Alt2 actually. And I think the ban image fits better Personisinsterest (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose It was just a fucking Trump PR stunt Personisinsterest (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support original blurb Of course. ArionStar (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as being too soon. Trump has said he will grant a 90-day extension to TikTok to get a buyer (but can only do that after he is in office), so it could easily be back on the 20th or 21st, making this a very short term thing. --Masem (t) 04:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Also, all current blurbs are wrong. Bytedance didn't do any shopping for a buyer, likely expecting a friendly ruling from SCOTUS, which ruled the bill was constitutional on Friday, and thus never came. If anything, the blurb should be along the lines of "After SCOTUS ruled Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act was constitutional, TikTok opts to shut down options in the United States." --Masem (t) 04:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Your reasoning here is why I would support this, but not yet. ByteDance has no intentions of selling it. China will not permit them to sell the algorithms, and the app/servers are basically useless to any potential buyer other than another major social media company if they don't come with the algorithms to drive profit/content/engagement. Since all the potential social media outlets have a competitor form of short video already... unless Trump's going to buy it and incorporate it into Truth Social, it's extremely unlikely that a sale will ever occur. And TikTok knows this - they'd rather keep it offline and lobby for the law to be repealed than bring it back for 90 days and then go through this again in 90 days. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Let's put it this way - TikTok's own message to users say they expect this to be temporary (see ), and that's likely why we'll see something that gives more clarity to the situation on the 20th/21st when Trump can do something (and has stated intentions to do this). Hence now is too since we know we'll have a change in the situation in the next few days, which if this brings TikTok back, would have the same effect as an extended network outage, which we shouldn't be posting.
    I also have a feeling that there are some that see this as a first amendment/free speech thing, making it seem like a big deal, but SCOTUS specifically ignored anything along those lines and focused on the national security complexities of a Chinese owner with data on 170 million Americans, justifying that that company should not be doing business in the US. — Masem (t) 04:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'm not a american citizen but I do believe that Trump will intervene on ban of TikTok, I think it's a little bit long process to back the TikTok and move the date of ban. But, we will see on January 20th. Royiswariii Talk! 05:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    I have no problem waiting until the inauguration or at least until we get more mumbling from the Trump circle about their plans. Ultimately, this may result in a complicated situation - the law states that the ban can be delayed once for up to 90 days if the following (per our article on the law): a path to a qualified divestiture has been identified, "significant" progress has been made to executing the divestiture, and legally binding agreements for facilitating the divestiture are in place. There is no path that has been identified (China will block all paths), there has not been any progress made other than some blabbing on social media, and there are no legally binding agreements in place. So technically, if Trump offers an extension.. he himself is violating the provisions of the law as passed by Congress.

    Hence why I think TikTok may not be saying "temporary" hoping for a 90 day extension (just to repeat in 3 months), but saying that because they believe they can get Congress to repeal the law. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Well, for example, one company has submitted a merge request which would appear to sufficiently dilute the foreign control which would be more appealing to China . Also, fwiw, the 90-day extension in the law is a one-shot deal, they cannot keep getting another new 90 day extension (hence why the terms of granting it are based on significant progress towards divestment). Masem (t) 05:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    I personally think that a merge where ByteDance retains any access or ownership does not meet the spirit of "qualified divestiture" under the law... And what I meant by "repeat in 3 months" is repeat shutting down... but I feel I'm getting into FORUM now so I'll end it with I think we agree - let's wait until at least the daytime Sunday and then depending on what news comes out it can be considered for posting. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wait to see what news comes out throughout the day Sunday US time, in case there is a magical hail mary pass that's been in the works behind the scenes that comes out of the woodworks and gets this extended or, ultimately, rendered moot by a "qualified divestiture". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Alt blurb 3; it's worth mentioning the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 05:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Should this image be used instead of the current skinny image? AlphaBeta135talk 05:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  @AlphaBeta135, I think yeah 'cause it's readable than the first one. Royiswariii Talk! 05:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Changed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 06:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support ALT3. It is better to just cite the undisputed legislative reason why the app is banned instead of singularly assigning failure or claiming there was an inability to comply. This is major news, regardless of what happens after Trump comes into office. If something happens, that can be revisited and the blurb edited, and even then the talk seems to be about a final decision in 90 or so days, which is plenty of time between this blurb and a hypothetical further blurb. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 06:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per SimpleSubCubicGraph Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Wait - agree with Masem, let's wait and see what happens. Blythwood (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment For those saying "it's too soon" or "it'll be overturned quickly", the important thing is that it's in the news now. We posted the South Korean martial law declaration and it had already been rescinded by the time it was on the front page. Whether it's overturned or not, this is still a notable news event. PolarManne (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  @PolarManne, I agree but I respect their opinion. If TikTok was lift the ban by the new U.S. President Donald Trump, then, just nominate it. Royiswariii Talk! 09:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  A coup of a major gov't, even if it was undone within hours, is far far more encyclopedic and newsworthy than an app that may be shuttered for only a few days. — Masem (t) 12:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose TikTok is already banned in various places – see map. And other software and sites are banned too – see map for Misplaced Pages. So, this particular ban in this particular place is not that special. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  We're talking about the law of banning of TikTok on United States or U.S.A., The notable news now is the shutting down of TikTok on U.S.. As per PolarManne comment, the important thing is what it is in the news now and if it's notable, the TikTok ban on U.S. is notable at all 'cause it's have major impact on the whole U.S., if the upcoming U.S President Donald Trump intervene and lift the ban and give the extension for ByteDance, then we can nominate a another separate news on this. Royiswariii Talk! 09:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  It doesn't seem that this will have much impact because there are lots of equivalents on other platforms. See Why is its disappearance being met with a shrug? Andrew🐉(talk) 12:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Have you been on social media recently? Personisinsterest (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  the article Kevin Roose of The New York Times is a opinion article. I respected the opinions of the journalist about the ban of TikTok, In some people who don't use or not really use of TikTok, not have a impact. According to NBC, the user of TikTok on U.S. is 170 Million users around the U.S., so, this news was notable and have a huge impact to U.S.A users. Royiswariii Talk! 12:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Facebook has over 3 billion users and so its recent policy changes which were in the news have a bigger impact, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support One of the most cited in the news about a social media platform ban in any country. 170 million people got banned from the app. If this isn't posted, nothing should be posted. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - obvious Americocentrism. India has banned TikTok since June 29, 2020 and that wasn't even nominated for ITN, let alone a successful one. The ban could very well be reversed or an extension granted by the incoming Trump administration; such an event would render this nomination redundant. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:5DA5:1062:6319:56FF (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Oppose Another day, another ban. The US has banned plenty of other apps and companies from doing business. Just another drop in the bucket.

  Noah, BSBA 13:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  How many of those were used by 170 million Americans? Khuft (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Not banned yet, voluntary action by Bytedance. And generally oppose as well: not the first thing on the internet to be banned by the US government. If Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act has an impact beyond this single app, may reconsider. Gotitbro (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm still on oppose, but a few corrections: They had to have divested by today (the 19th) or otherwise the apps stores would be required to remove the app. That said, Bytedance took a more nuclear option of shutting down completely in the US (in addition to app store removal), which has affected a few more apps that fall under the ByteDance umbrella (eg like Marvel Snap). Neither of those points still make this an appropriate ITN item since we know the situation could easily change in the next two days. Also, PAFACA is written to apply to other apps if they are found to be controlled by an hostile foreign country, but they would have 180-270 days from that determination to divest or pull from stores; ByteDance/TikTok were specifically called out in the bill and with the 19th deadline, but its not intended to end with those. Masem (t) 14:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro Lemon8 and CapCut are also banned at the same time as TikTok, though both apps are also owned by Bytedance. AlphaBeta135talk 14:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  From the above replies I again gather that this does not go beyond Bytedance. Considering that act itself was introduced from the get go as the "TikTok ban bill", I am still waiting to see any impact beyond this or the company that owns it. Gotitbro (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as per above Sharrdx (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Wait or Strong oppose As mentioned above by other editors, it's just another app blocked by the US. When India banned Tiktok, the app lost about 200 million active users, which as mentioned by the IP, wasn't even nominated. And if Trump is going to come around and reverse the ban, it would be worthless to get it posted. If we are going to post this, I support a date after Trump's coming into office, such as 20th or 21st TNM101 (chat) 14:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem TheHiddenCity (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support The US government banning a Chinese-owned app used by 170 million American users is clearly notable, for all the reasons already mentioned, as well as for its geopolitical implications. These latter are why this ban is making more waves than when India banned the app. Would prefer AltBlurb III: Bytedance wasn't unable to comply - it didn't want to so far. Alternative would be to replace "inability to comply" by "failure to comply". Khuft (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Oppose given the latest developments. Khuft (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• As another reason to wait, Trump has now confirmed that he will EO the 90-day extension on Monday or Tuesday to allow TikTok to find a buyer , so this is going to be a temporary outage. Masem (t) 16:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support. Millions of users will be lost and will potentionally migrate to other platforms such as Red Note and YouTube Shorts. JordanJa🎮es92🐱9 16:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with adding information about the TikTok ban to the main page. This is notable and it could teach readers about it. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wait to see if Trump follows through with an extension or not. The Kip 17:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• And now TikTok is in the process of restoring service in the US, making this ITN useless. . --Masem (t) 17:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose The ban was just lifted (at least on the app), which kind of ruins the whole point of this nomination. If it gets shut down again maybe I'll reconsider my vote. Hungry403 (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Suggest snow close Ban lifted. 85.166.4.191 (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose events have now overtaken this. Support close. Nfitz (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The ban has been lifted, with indications that it will be made permanent on Monday. The app was only unavailable for hours, meh. RachelTensions (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Wait TikTok is still banned in the two major mobile app stores (Google Play and Apple App Store) . I think the blurb could focus on that instead of "shutting down" or "suspending operations". Anyways, there's no rush to see if a deadline extension will be granted by the incoming presidential administration. _Gravity 19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support ALT3. This is a noteworthy and widely covered story now. It is very much “in the news” now so I don’t understand the calls to wait. The wording in ALT3 is most neutral and accurate. Highlighting ByteDance’s “failure” or “inability” is at best POV spin that places undue weight on one interpretation and I would argue it is misleading and inaccurate. Regardless, the article itself is the place for readers to find the full explanation and for editors to determine the right way to provide it.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Situation is too fluid and confusing to be a good ITN. Lets just leave this one for news networks... Tradedia 20:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Suggest snow close By my count, there are 14 support votes, 17 oppose votes, and 4 wait votes. Consensus to post is unlikely to develop. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Storming of South Korean court

• Nominated by 103.111.100.82 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is the first time in South Korean constitutional history that a court was attacked by people. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Apart from the WP:SEAOFBLUE violation and the missing article, we've had too much coverage for that president. Might as well list it as an ongoing event 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - While I'd be happy with posting another major development in this story, this isn't it. This is a footnote in the developing story. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

January 18

(Posted) RD: Claire van Kampen

• Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Moscow Mule (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Woman composer at her famous husband's side for the Royal Shakespeare Company, who also ventured into writing a play that proved successful in England and on Broadway. - NYT obit, which would have more detail if someone has the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Theatre section is entirely unsourced. Please add references. Support Article now has enough citations and quality to be on the Main Page. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Please check, Fakescientist8000

• Support Theatre section is sourced now. Its a C class article with no problems. Grimes2 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

(Posted) 2025 assassination of Sharia judges in Iran

• Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Relevant event in the judicial history of the country. ArionStar (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Two judges known for being linked to a mass execution assassinated in a rare attack at a Supreme Court.Bloxzge 025 (talk • contribs)
• Oppose on Quality. Article is exceptionally thin, and most of the body is not directly about the shooting. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. It's notable but needs more information. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  I just did a improvement. ArionStar (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Looking better, thanks. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  @DarkSide830: quality is decent now. ArionStar (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support - Two top Iranian judges being killed is far more important than the tiktok ban. Another case of northerncentrism. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. The Kip 05:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose solely on article quality. If some meat can be added, I would support. The assassination of two supreme court judges almost anywhere is going to merit a blurb here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Ad Orientem:  Done. ArionStar (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Support Article is now adequate for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support This is important in the context of all what is happening in the middle east, including the Iran-Israel proxy war. Also, the quality/size of the article seems ok now. Tradedia 07:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  We did a good work in the article. ArionStar (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Ad Orientem. The Kip 17:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support notability but oppose on quality. Firstly the background section is orange-tagged so unmarking as ready. The article is very short and lacking a lot of background detail that would inform the reader of the basic facts. Also the fatalities section is unusual; surely the two judges warrant articles of their own given their position? Abcmaxx (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  I can help improve it. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support – if something like that happened in the US, it would be added in a heartbeat. 🐔 Chicdat   20:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support on notability per Bloxzge 025 and Tradedia. As for article quality, I still support - aside from the background section, I think the article is short but sufficient. With this being said, the currently background section should probably just be removed altogether until it is more complete/adequate. I do not think a background section is strictly necessary to meet the bare bones minimum necessary for the article, though. FlipFlopped ツ 20:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 01:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Stephen: Why not the full proposed blurb? ArionStar (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Stephen, the cited article doesn't mention "Sharia" anywhere, let alone "Sharia judges". I can't find anything on google for a single source that calls them "sharia judges". This looks like a WP:V violation.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The article title on this event also uses this term 2025 assassination of Sharia judges in Iran, so if this is OR, the article title also needs to be changed. Natg 19 (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Done (both) by Amakuru 20:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC). Natg 19 (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

2025 Suleja fuel tanker explosion

• Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: High number of deaths. ArionStar (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support on notability, oppose on quality. A large fuel tanker explosion with a big death toll, but the article needs improvement. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Support - 125 victims in total is alone enough for ITN. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose solely on article quality. We need a bit more meat on this article before it can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Not every disaster is going to have sufficient coverage to make for a quality article for ITN, and generally a recognizition that WP is not a newspaper, we should not be rushing to create event articles after any type of disaster until there's some certainty that it will have the longevity for notability .--Masem (t) 14:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose article is too short and there's not much indication of wider notability beyond the sheer number of deaths. The Kip 17:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Falls short in terms of quality and encyclopedic value. Tradedia 20:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Almost 100 deaths… ArionStar (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Bloxzge 025, Ad Orientem, @The Kip, @Tradedia: look at this now! ArionStar (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  We are getting close. One cn tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  A tank truck destroyed 20 shops? No way! ArionStar (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it's possible. ArionStar (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Info The article is in good shape now. ArionStar (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• The lead contains a lot of information that is missing from the body. Not ready. Schwede66 17:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree; see Explosion and Victims section. ArionStar (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

RD: Russell Marshall

• Nominated by Kiwichris (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article covers all notable events in his life and career, well sourced. Kiwichris (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Article has enough sourcing and length to qualify for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 13:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

January 17

Didier Guillaume

• Nominated by TNM101 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Borgenland (talk · give credit), GoodDay (talk · give credit) and Fakescientist8000 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Minister of State of Monaco, ITNR since he was the head of government TNM101 (chat) 17:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Is this ITNR? The Prince of Monoco is the one listed at List of current heads of state and government that administerss the gov't, not the minister. --Masem (t) 17:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Masem: It is not, and I’ve removed the ITNR tag. The Kip 18:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Per Minister of State (Monaco), The Prime Minister of Monaco... is the head of government of Monaco and the officeholder is responsible for directing the work of the government and in charge of foreign relations... also presides... over the Council of Government, directs the executive services and commands the police and military. They're also listed in the second column at the link you linked to. The ITNR listing says the following: Changes, reelections or reappointments in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election.

Ultimately, I'm not really miffed either way, but this does bring up a quirky situation. In most other monarchies around the world, the monarch is little more than a figurehead by this point, but is usually still notable enough on their own to post on ITN with a blurb. According to Monarchy of Monaco, only Lichtenstein and the Vatican still have their monarchs playing an active role in politics. It's a weird situation - if a country still has an "active" monarchy, but that monarch delegates virtually all of their tasks to a Prime Minister or similar role, do we count both for ITNR? Personally, I don't see how we can justify not treating both as eligible, but in any case I would argue that head of government is more close to the phrasing of ITNR of "administers the executive".

And ultimately, the results of general elections are already able to be posted, so the only thing that saying Death or replacement (other than by election) of an officeholder listed on the page List of current heads of state and government. That would only add, what, maybe a dozen or two "eligible people" to the mix, not including those who are almost certainly going to qualify for ITN blurb on their own (ex: Charles III, and some other monarchs). Regardless, better discussion for another page to clarify. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Support - Any head of state dying is notable enough, no matter how small the country is. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The head of state of Monaco is the prince. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Somewhat medium support. Without even considering who on that list of heads of state/government is eligible for ITNR, I think this office is at least borderline on satisfying "the office which administers the executive", per our article on the office. While the Prince still holds ultimate authority, our article on the monarchy states Executive power is retained by the monarch, who has veto power over all legislation proposed by the National Council. The minister of state and the Government Council are directly responsible to the Prince for the administration of the principality (citations omitted). Probably need a discussion at the appropriate venue to clarify further the criteria, which is currently able to be interpreted in... less than exact ways. I'll leave it to others to discuss quality of the affected articles, but I don't notice any major concerns at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I am reconsidering a full on support, though. From my reading of it, she was made the acting Minister because of the incapacitation (hospitalization) of the prior Minister who was duly appointed. There is no guarantee she is appointed the Minister by the Prince - so I could support a RD posting for the Minister now, and a potential blurb if/when the new Minister (whether her or someone else) is appointed by the Prince. Sometimes, I think the world just specifically tries to make things more complex/complicated than they truly need to be, just to see Misplaced Pages disagree. </joke> -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support dies > passes away. ArionStar (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Support blurb despite Monaco being a small country, the head of government dying while in office is still relevant. Scuba 20:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

RD Only - Good candidate for RD, but Monaco has a population of less than 40,000. 1779Days (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

What does Monaco's population have to do with anything? It's still a country nevertheless. Aydoh8 13:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• RD only Monaco has a special status, but on the ground, it is just like any other French city. So Didier Guillaume is more like a random mayor. Tradedia 22:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Monaco is a sovereign state, not a French city. RachelTensions (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support death of head of government should be the only acceptable RD blurbs IMO This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Whatever happens, the blurb needs to be updated to be "dies" instead of "passes away". WP:PASSEDAWAY. RachelTensions (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

   Done TNM101 (chat) 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Not Ready for the usual reason. Support blurb in principle, but article quality for a head of government does not wow me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Support blurb Article appears quality now to be adequate for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Weak support given the arguments of some above, though it still seems the MoS is mostly at the mercy of the Prince rather than a fully autonomous actor. The Kip 17:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality Four cn tags. Once fixed, a change in leadership along with the death of an incumbent head of state is blurb worthy, although per The Kip in terms of MoS being an actual head of state. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Ad Orientem and @TDKR Chicago 101, please double check the quality of the article. I have given previously uncited statements sourcing, and this article should be good to go now. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 11:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Blurb/RD: Denis Law

• Nominated by Jmorrison230582 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Record goalscorer for Manchester United and the Scotland national team, Ballon d'Or winner (1964). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support blurb, the only Scottish football player to win Ballon D'Or, the last surviving member of Manchester United European Cup winning team. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Law wasn't in the United team for the 1968 European Cup final, because he was injured. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb Let’s be honest, if Bobby Charlton wasn’t notable enough for a blurb, Denis Law is certainly not. He’s trailing Charlton in virtually every category. Also, as far as I know, Wayne Rooney is Manchester United’s record goalscorer.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Correct, Law is Manchester United's 3rd highest goalscorer (Charlton is 2nd). Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb No indication of being a great figure. Winning the Ballon D'Or may lead to that but there's nothing to discuss legacy or impact on the game, and a sport's MPV award for a year is not sufficient for this. Support RD, I think there's one loose CN on the awards but nothing else stands out being a problem. --Masem (t) 23:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb Bobby Charlton probably should have been blurbed, but I don't believe Law rises to his level, so on that basis I will have to oppose. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support blurb per User:BilboBeggins SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb, oppose support RD We didn't even blurb Johan Cruyff. Also, in terms of quality, there is a message error at the end of the page: "Cite error: There are ref group=note tags on this page, but the references will not show without a template (see the help page)." it is ok. Tradedia 02:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  That was broken by this recent edit. I've fixed it. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb Elderly person dying after a long disease, over 50 years since they were an active footballer. Article is in fine-enough shape for an RD. –DMartin 08:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment There were 215,000 views on the news which seems typical of someone who was a household name in the UK but unknown in the US. The high readership shows that readers are not finding it difficult to find the article. Running this in the RD ticker will make little difference. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• I nominated this for RD. I'm not sure why somebody added blurb to the nomination. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joan Plowright

• Nominated by Wizzito (talk · give credit)

 wizzito | say hello! 14:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Not ready. It'd be nice to see her there, but a slew of her acting credits aren't referenced. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Like Denis Law, she was another famous name in her day and so there were 283,000 views on the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Far too many CN tags to be considered eligible quality for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 13:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment CNs down to four: TV shows from the 50s and 70s (for which there are sources, but not WP:RS). Moscow Mule (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support There are only a handful of CN Tags left within her acting credits. If they are not resolved and the passing admin reviewing this deems them unacceptable, it would be better to remove those entries from her filmography list (I could not find cites for them) and then post to RD. It is an otherwise quality article on a very noteworthy person. FlipFlopped ツ 01:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 02:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

January 16

(Review needed) RD: Hans Dobida

• Updated and nominated by Flibirigit (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Copyedit and updates complete. I feel it is ready for the main page. Flibirigit (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Referenced, adequate depth of coverage. Spencer 06:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

(Removed) California fires to ongoing

• Nominated by Stephen (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: I've added fires to ongoing as they were pushed off by David Lynch. Discuss whether that's appropriate below. Stephen 22:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Return, pull Chad - Fires still ongoing(not fully contained). Chad attack seems to have gotten one burst of coverage a week ago and barely any after that. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Do you understand that the fires have been moved to the ongoing section? Stephen 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support/concur appropriate addition. The Kip 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment Could the wildfires be moved to Ongoing? --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@MtPenguinMonster they already have. The Kip 00:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose the fires may be ongoing but the rate of destruction has significantly flattened out as well as deaths. There may be potential fir a damaging flare up but we're on the backend of that story, which doesn't make it great for the ongoing line, particularly given what else is in ongoing. Masem (t) 00:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Pull from ongoing No fire weather days in the forecast for southern California, and everything that would be burned has been. Containment takes a while, but fires burn through their fuel, and most of these fire's fuel is gone, and you can expect very little updates from here except for records to be broken and various celebrities revealing their homes have / have not been destroyed by the fires. Departure– (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Masem. Banedon (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Pull/Support. I'm favorable to the fires still being in Ongoing, but, there is nowhere near a consensus for such placement as of right now. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem. This item pales in comparaison with the other Ongoing items in terms of duration and magnitude of death toll. Tradedia 03:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Pull If you didn't like the fire pushed off by David Lynch, then you should have added South Korean Crisis to ongoing, pull Yoon's arrest and add the fire back. The fire is not significant enough to be ongoing. Didgogns (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  It has nothing to do with whether I like or dislike anything. If I added anything to ongoing I'd still have the courtesy of asking here. You need to learn a little more about how ITN works. Stephen 04:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  ITN or not, the WP:SUPERVOTE they suggested wouldn't fly very well. —Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Removed Stephen 04:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Connection Lynch died from breathing difficulty after being evacuated from his home on Mulholland Drive. So, the fire might be mentioned in his blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think his importance/great figure-ness aspect, and that he was already of old age, far outweighs the means of his death, and that detail would hurt the concisness of the blurb. (Whereas, to use the case of Kobe Bryant's death in the helicopter crash, that death was completely unexpected and so both aspects (the crash and his status as an NBA player) likely weighed equally. Masem (t) 14:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  The fires are still generating significant traffic but the title of the article is not obvious and there's a proposal to change it again. So, ITN should help navigation per its primary purpose. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

New Glenn launch

• Nominated by 109.166.233.124 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Surprised it hasn't been nominated since I think inaugural launches of notable rockets are ITNR. Notable that it is the first methalox rocket to reach orbit (SpaceX's bigger Starship has only technically done sub-orbital flights), and its payload capacity is only passed by the few Super heavy-lift launch vehicles. 109.166.233.124 (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@109.166.233.124 Please create a correctly formatted nomination, and if possible an account. SpectralIon 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@SpectralIon: I took care of fixing the nom. The Kip 19:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@The Kip Alright, then I would say Support on Notability since this is the first launch of an advanced rocket, and it reached orbit as well. --SpectralIon 19:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support in principle, weak support on quality. This rocket actually worked and its (test) payload was successfully deployed into orbit. The booster was lost on descent, but that's a failure of reusability not of the launch. However, there's only 80 words of update in the article. Don't we normally have a separate article for notable launches, rather than just a section in the article about the rocket? Technically this does meet our minimum requirements, but I would prefer to see more details in the article and fixed cn tags. Modest Genius 19:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Nitpick, but there was no payload deployment. The payload stayed attached to the upper stage. Ergzay (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly as planned. Modest Genius 14:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment and support on notability. There isn't even a separate article on the flight/ test itself (I know I know, I could have created it myself, but I'm feeling kinda discouraged from everything this week). The notability is there though. --Ouro (blah blah) 19:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above. Quality is adequate The Kip 19:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment should be noted that the first stage failed to land on its drone ship and was lost during descent, but other than that soft support as it is an inaugural launch, but the article needs some work. Scuba 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support - a huge advance given how large this rocket is, and particularly the payload volume. Of particular note with this (first) launch is that it is orbital - something that Starship is yet to achieve. Only SLS can currently put a larger payload into orbit.(Falcon Heavy is relatively similar on mass, but is severely constrained on payload volume in comparison. Nfitz (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support - Major development in spaceflight. Competitor of Starship & SLS. Successful orbital insertion, RIP stage 1. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not a major development in spaceflight. Not a competitor to Starship or SLS either in size or capability. The rocket is a heavy launcher not a super heavy launcher. There are already partially reusable rockets. This is another partially reusable rocket, but it didn't succeed its landing so its not partially reusable yet. Also there's no page dedicated to the launch. Also the nominator's comments are factually incorrect. ULA's Vulcan rocket already reached orbit and that is also a methalox rocket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergzay (talk • contribs)

It's a huge development, User:Ergzay. How many Starship ITNs have been posted, and the damn thing hasn't even achieved orbit yet. And why claim it's not a competitor to Starship and SLS? The turnaround on an SLS launch, even years from now, is measured in years. New Glenn is measured in weeks, with several more launches scheduled this year - the next one to the moon. And with the massive fairing size, and the lack of obstructions in the fairing compared to Starship, this can launch stuff that Starship can't. Not to mention Starship hasn't actually achieved orbit yet - so yes, this is ahead of Starship. Nfitz (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

None of those Starship ITN requests have been actually posted because of people lacking technical understanding of the subject. First of all Starship hasn't been trying to achieve orbit in any of those tests yet. They've been trying to achieve both stage reusability. It's also the largest rocket in history, by a large margin.

Perhaps I'm overreaching with claiming its not a competitor to SLS, but its clear its not in the same rocket class as SLS and definitely not a competitor to Starship which is in a much higher class of vehicle and also aiming for full reusability. New Glenn's turnaround time is not measured in weeks, not yet. I'm not sure how it is "ahead" of Starship when it's not even aiming for the same capability. It's purpose is different. Ergzay (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Failing to see what's particularly revolutionary about this launch. Slightly bigger, slightly more reusable, slightly different fuel. Ho hum, we don't need to post every incremental change in rocket technology. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support on notability. We posted milestones for both Starship and Falcon 9, and we do so for new public-funded (i.e. government made) rockets. There is absolutely no reason to do the same here. Spaceflight is not yet so "mainstream" that new entrants are not "in the news" when they meet milestones such as first orbital launch. I defer to others on article quality and whether it's improved enough to post at this time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Interesting news... However, i feel that it falls short of being ITN. Tradedia 03:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Per Nfitz, nom and The Kip. Jusdafax (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose There seems to have been a lot of space news lately including a spacewalk, a double lunar launch, a starship launch, a multiple satellite launch by China and so on. This event doesn't seem to stand out. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose on notability, not apparent that this is a major development of general interest LocoTacoFever (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose on notability per DarkSide830, and only a single prose update. --ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Well I guess on this apparent precedent, that we won't be blurbing Starship if it ever makes orbit, or lands something on the moon. (though it seems to be getting more media coverage for it's Caribbean fireworks display! Nfitz (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) RD/Blurb: David Lynch

• Nominated by Jon698 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Thriley (talk · give credit)

 Jon698 (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Lynch is the type of person that comes to mind a likely to have a blurb as a major figure in filmmaking, but the doesn't not have legacy section or equivalent, yet, to support this. If that was added I'd support a urb on all other quality aspects (which appear close) Masem (t) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support blurb The death of a film-maker with "the most important film-maker of the current era" in his lede deserves a blurb on the main page. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I added a blurb. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Article is in excellent shape Chaiten1 (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support No notable CN tags or uncited statements, and the article is of excellent quality. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I just created Draft:Cultural impact of David Lynch. His influence is so massive that an article on his impact is definitely necessary. Thriley (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • For timing of posting here, I'd recommend building out two or three good paragraphs on the bio article and worry about expanding later. — Masem (t) 19:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support RD. Article is in great shape. Sooner posted the better. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support blurb Even for the more conservative death-as-blurb people, the standard is typically held as being "top of their field" - in 2007, The Guardian literally declared him "the most important filmmaker of the current era." Monumental impact on the world of film and more than deserving of a blurb. The Kip 19:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Blurb Article is in good shape, and Lynch is a world wide household name among anyone with more than a passing interest in cinema. Rockview13 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support RD and oppose blurb - dont see the breadth and depth of coverage as meriting a blurb. nableezy - 19:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support blurb Extremely influential filmmaker who deserves a blurb, although a section explaining his impact would help. Found it interesting that by the Oxford English Dictionary - as far as I know, only a few filmmakers have such influence that their names become adjectives in the English language, including Stanley Kubrick, Sergei Eisenstein, Alfred Hitchcock, and Andrei Tarkovsky. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support blurb was one of the more famous filmmakers of the modern era. Scuba 19:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support blurb. Top of the field. One criterion for blurb is the existence of works about person. There is film David Lynch: The Art Life. Has Academy Award, won at Cannes. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment If posted as a blurb and using the current picture, please make sure it is captioned as in 1990. Masem (t) 20:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb manner and direct impact of death not notable This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  See Major figures in Blurbs for recendt deaths section. Manner of death is for another type of blurb. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support blurb Influential and acclaimed filmmaker, clearly meets the "transformative figure in their field" standard. --CommanderShepardX (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Support blurb I guess the triage would read something like: Would we blurb if this were Spielberg? Yes. Would we blurb if this were Lucas? Probably. Would we blurb if this is Lynch? Depends how many art housey adjudicators there are on Misplaced Pages that day. CoatCheck (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support blurb - large impact on filmmaking. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support blurb Twin Peaks alone had a pretty big impact, and combined with everything else? He's definitely important enough. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support blurb Top of his field and article in good shape. Definitely influential filmmaker. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. Can we somehow put featured list of his Awards in the blurb? Saying that he received honorary Oscar, for instance. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • That gets into a bit too much editorializing, as as well as simply having numerous awards is not a reason to post (compare with Jimmy Carter and the frequent mentions of his Nobel peace prize in the news headlines as a case where that is more appropriate) — Masem (t) 23:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Posted, consensus is for a blurb. Stephen 22:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• I know I'm late, but just to add on to everybody, support blurb. I promise that this support has nothing to do with the fact that Blue Velvet ranks among my top 10 favorite movies of all time (though it doesn't hurt, either). Kurtis 07:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Post-posting support Top of his field - there are <5 other directors that we would probably blurb (Spielberg, Scorcese, Coppola and Herzog?). Black Kite (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: James Cameron. We might also blurb Oliver Stone, Christopher Nolan, Tim Burton, George Lucas, and a few others I can't name off the top of my head. Kurtis 11:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Black Kite and Kurtis: Michael Haneke, Pedro Almodóvar and Asghar Farhadi should be clear-cut cases for a blurb one day. I personally think that Béla Tarr should get one as well because of his depth.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support The article got over a million views on the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support blurb as he was truly a great and influential director.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Post-posting support I know I'm just preaching to the choir at this point as there's overwhelming support (as there should be), but I felt compelled to pile on. Few artists will ever have the high honor of having their own name be synonymous with a unique style. The influence his works had on film (and television in the case of Twin Peaks) cannot be overstated.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 11:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Retroactive oppose An elderly person who is no longer working in their field dying of a disease they were known to have is not worthy of a blurb. –DMartin 08:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just wanted to correct "who is no longer working in their field" – he never retired.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Post-posting strong oppose Per DMartin. Also I'd bet a very strong majority people on Misplaced Pages never even heard this man's name and even more don't know who he is. Keep this to the recent deaths section. 2607:FEA8:9DE:67E0:D98D:390A:3EE1:CE70 (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Uecker

• Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)

 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Weak support: Article is mostly fine but is missing a few inline citations. MT₍₇₁₀₎ 16:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Still working to expand and source between meetings today. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Article is well cited and long enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support - with Muboshgu's work, the article looks solid. There's an intriguing dark horse argument for a blurb here, as Uecker reached the pinnacle of his profession (radio baseball broadcasting, although he broke outside that on numerous occasions). That said, I'm not confident it's enough. Ed  23:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Limit g the profession to "baseball radio broadcasting" is far too narrow, I would expect that it would be at least sportscasters or even journalism, and he definitely is not a major figure. It's very easy to think a local beloved personality (here for Milkwalkie as well as in baseball) may be a great figure but we should think at the scope of worldwide aspects of said field. — Masem (t) 00:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

January 15

(Posted) RD: Tommy Brown (baseball)

• Nominated by Ad Orientem (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Youngest position player in MLB history at 16. Article has referencing issues. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality - several CNs. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment "Ball player" is very much a US-centric label. I'm a non-American who played and sill loves baseball, but I would never call anyone a ball player. HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  In addition, it could easily be confused with "baller" which is an american-centric term for "basketball player". Not to mention it says "ball payer" right now in the ITNC. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, article title is at (baseball). Natg 19 (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Well cited and reasonable length, only 1 cn tag in the "Personal life and death" section but it's nothing controversial and not directly about the person therefore shouldn't hold up the nomination. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• There are two citation needed tags. Otherwise the article is much improved. Flibirigit (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 23:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jafar Masood Hasani Nadwi

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

An Indian Islamic scholar, writer, and the secretary of Nadwatul Ulama at the time of his death. Khaatir (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Well cited and long enough, with good quality holding this up for ITNRD recognition. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stephanie Aeffner

• Nominated by TNM101 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: German Member of Parliament TNM101 (chat) 07:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support 3449 characters (537 words) "readable prose size" and sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Sourcing is good and just long enough ✈ mike_gigs _contribs 13:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Lead too short.—Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

   Done I've added a sentence. Grimes2 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• None of the sources states that she died on 15 January; both simply say that she died. The German article, which is almost identical to the English translation, says that she died "on or before 15 January". Schwede66 13:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  She died on 15 January 2025. I've added a source. Grimes2 (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Diane Langton

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

Nominator's comments: English actress, singer and dancer – Meena • 23:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ready. All information is cited, and I fould no other concerns. Marked as ready. Flibirigit (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Article seems good to go for RD. FlipFlopped ツ 20:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 23:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Linda Nolan

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

Nominator's comments: Irish singer and television personality – Meena • 23:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Article is long enough and is well cited. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 13:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• There is one citation tag and the discography section is unsourced. This seems almost ready. Flibirigit (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Ready. Unsourced information has been removed or hidden. Marked as ready. Flibirigit (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 05:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Hoffman

• Nominated by Dmartin969 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by 1949mercury (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article is in good shape. –DMartin 23:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support - article looks good ✈ mike_gigs _contribs 13:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

(Posted) Israel-Hamas ceasefire

• Nominated by Nice4What (talk · give credit)

 Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong support on notability About time. Departure– (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll also add oppose on quality for now - article is insufficiently updated as it stands (given the news broke minutes ago). Departure– (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Added altblurb. Departure– (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Departure– are you sure this agreement is to "end" the war or merely to "halt" it? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It won't end the war necessarily, but it'll end the 15 months of conflict (since 7 October, anyway). Departure– (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Right, so the word "end" might not be appropriate.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak support on article quality, support on notability - A ceasefire agreement in what is probably the largest current geopolitical conflict currently ongoing is important stuff. Quality seems OK, just needs to be updated. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe you've mixed up your votes, @Wildfireupdateman ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Oops Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

changed :) Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support on notability for obvious reasons, but weak oppose on quality as the article needs to be updated. The Kip 17:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Prefer the original blurb over ALT1 as well, given there were more parties to the deal than just Israel and Hamas + there's (unfortunately) no guarantee this permanently ends the war. Do feel the hostage release should be somehow noted, though. The Kip 17:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Temporarily changing to Wait per Modest Genius - neither Israel, nor Hamas, nor any of the mediators have formally announced the deal yet. Let's pump the brakes until that happens. The Kip 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  The USA’s now confirmed the deal, but I’m remaining at wait until it formally goes into effect The Kip 20:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Support now that’s it’s in effect. The Kip 14:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wait to get the article(s) in shape. Obviously this is a major development and I support on notability, but it was announced leaked literally a few minutes ago. We now have separate articles on Three-phase Israel–Hamas war ceasefire proposal (which is still presented as only a proposal) and 2025 exchange of Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners, which should be the bold link but focuses on the hostage exchange rather than the ceasefire and needs to include some reaction. It should probably also be renamed. ITN should let that article settle down a bit rather than rushing to post - we're not a news ticker. Modest Genius 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Correction: after reading more of the media reports, it appears the existence of a deal has been leaked to the press and posted on social media, but it hasn't been officially announced by either Israel or Hamas and the terms of the deal remain opaque. That's even more reason to wait. Modest Genius 17:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Another update: it has now been announced that the ceasefire will begin on 19 Jan. So we should wait until then to post, which also gives time for the articles to be sorted out. Modest Genius 19:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  According to the Wall Street Journal, this is an "agreement to the outline" of the deal that was leaked. There will be 24-48 hours before it is finalized. It's major news, but an alternative blurb with attribution is necessary. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support on notability, noting that yet another article was created at 2025 Israel–Hamas ceasefire, meaning a merge should definitely be considered. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wait All reports i see include "according to ppl familiar with the matter", so this is not confirmed yet. Masem (t) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • White House is now confirming but the article should fully reflect all details of the ceasefire — Masem (t) 19:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support now that hostages have actually been exchanged. There may still be a violation in the future but that we got to this point is pretty significant. --Masem (t) 16:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait Cannot jump the gun here, the article as of now begins with "is a proposed" i.e. not official and not announced by either party. A prisoner exchange is apparently official but the significance lies in the broader ceasefire agreement not the exchange itself. We can and should wait till this is official. Gotitbro (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait, but if nothing changes for one hour promote this quickly. JayCubby 18:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wait - We aren't a news ticker. No need to keep trying to throw breaking news up on the main page as fast as possible. We should be waiting for more developments to come out. ✈ mike_gigs _contribs 18:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  .....this is a section called In The News PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  For featuring quality articles that happen to be in the news, not to perform the functions of a newspaper. Quality can't be there until more terms of the ceasefire are known. Masem (t) 20:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  And now it looks like Israel and Hamas are quarreling over the final details of the ceasefire, holding up its approval. ITN is here to highlight quality articles about current events. No article can be of main page quality if it’s an hour old - and people saying things like “post this breaking story to the main page immediately” don’t seem to understand that. ✈ mike_gigs _contribs 11:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose declaring a ceasefire and holding a successful ceasefire are two very different things; they can announce a ceasefire multiple times in various ways and combinations and agree on anything they like, but it will be meaningless until the ceasefire agreement actually results in one; given how few ceasefires hold and how volatile this particular situation is, this isn't much more than pure politics at the moment. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  WP:CRYSTAL. We can’t presume ourselves that the ceasefire will or won’t hold. The Kip 19:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I do think there's a case for waiting until the ceasefire enters into effect. Modest Genius 19:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Modest Genius I fully agree, hence why I struck my initial vote and changed to Wait - I’m just saying that I think it’s CRYSTAL to oppose posting it because it might not hold once in effect. The Kip 20:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. Modest Genius 20:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wait, then support upon confirmation of the agreement by Israel If signed by both sides, this is monumental. Responding to Abcmaxx, only the signing of an agreement itself, not it celebrating its future hypothetical six month or one year anniversary, is the type of thing we can post at ITN. We don't post anniversaries. This ceasefire agreement is also the first time Israel has acceded to a mass release of Palestinian prisoners and the first time they have agreed to a path towards a permanent end to the current war. That is extremely notable, even if it ends up dissolving after a few weeks. WP:CRYSTAL also applies here - political theorizations that this is doomed to fail because within x y or z number of days do not negate notability. FlipFlopped ツ 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I understand the WP:CRYSTAL arguments however politicians promise lots of things all the time but very rarely deliver. We should have some proof that this ceasefire agreement is actually meaningful in some other way than some grand words and crossed fingers. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Grand words and crossed fingers are what goes in ITN. doesn't matter if somehow it fails.

  See, the reason we nominate this for ITN because it is breaking news. Not because its a landmark, commitment to peace, etc. ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wait/Support for the deal going into effect. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support notable and major event

QalasQalas (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wait for the ceasefire to take effect. –DMartin 20:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support They reached a ceasefire, and there’s no reason to wait. We should post a blurb on this and remove it from ongoing. If one of the parties breaks the ceasefire and continues with military operations, that’d be a separate story to post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Strongly oppose removing this from ongoing. The first phase, which has been agreed to, covers only a temporary ceasefire. The negotiation of a permanent ceasefire has not yet happened.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support but make it only about the hostage exchange until the ceasefire is official Ion.want.uu (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wait I'm just listening to an Israeli spokesman on the BBC (David Mercer) who states quite definitely that the deal has not been finalised and won't be until tomorrow at the earliest. And the background of US politics seems quite puzzling (why is Trump so keen on doing this before the inauguration?) It will take time to nail down these details and also to see if the ceasefire and hostage releases actually happen. In the meantime, we have the war listed in Ongoing and that covers all such developments. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  There's a precedence likely Trump would like to emulate, but its Crystal Ball to say if it true or not, but see Iranian Hostage Crisis. TheCorriynial (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strongly support when ready. Very notable, very significant. I will note that so far they have only agreed to phase one of the ceasefire out of three. -TenorTwelve (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support huge news This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support very important. --IDB.S (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support on notability because this is indeed very important news. --Plumber (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Wait for the ceasefire to take effect. Tradedia 03:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support when everything's ready and assured. ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 06:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'll believe it when I see it. Also, if this does happen, then Gaza should go from ongoing. Otherwise this is ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wait It is just a 42-day ceasefire, not the end of the war. It doesn't even take effect until Sunday, so there will be more fighting until then. Should stay in Ongoing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wait until ceasefire takes effect on the 19th. Angusgtw (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait per Angusgtw, and also per article quality. I'd only heard of this a few minutes ago and when I went to read the article it was not satisfactory to sate my curiosity about the actual agreement that happened on 15 January. /home/gracen/ (they/them) 16:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment noting that Israel wants to delay the ceasefire, as it performed airstrikes overnight. Definitely should wait. Masem (t) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  The ceasefire doesn't go into effect until the 19th. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait Notable, but it's not 100% confirmed yet (Israeli cabinet needs to agree). Bremps... 18:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy post Ceasefire went into effect at 11:15 a.m. UTC+02:00 today per reliable media outlets.Pachu Kannan (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Wait until it goes into effect. Israel's cabinet hasn't approved the ceasefire and it's entirely possible they will not. Estreyeria (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Israel’s cabinet has now approved the ceasefire. --Plumber (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support it's being reported widely, so it should be good enough. Banedon (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

That would be true, if it wasn't already listed in ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support due to positive responses. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Israeli government is on the verge of ratifying it. It seems that this will be a actual ceasefire.Pyramids09 (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support if/when it goes into effect tomorrow morning. I'd want to make sure it's 100% confirmed before we post. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy post A leading event for the end of the war. ArionStar (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  How does this end the war, ArionStar? Netanyahu was clear that this is only a temporary ceasefire, and that Israel has the right to resume attacking Gaza. Nfitz (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  He didn't say that. Personisinsterest (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  The BBC, Personisinsterest, clearly reported that he said that in a televised speech. Why do you claim otherwise? Nfitz (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't see that. But still, that's only if the ceasefire doesn't reach the second phase during negotiations. Personisinsterest (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment with the more recent news that Israel is saying that this is only a temporary ceasefire, I'd argue that this still is still covered by ongoing. However in case this is posted anyhow, the two proposed blurbs are way too definitive about the end of the war - so I've proposed a new one to reflect Israel's claims. Nfitz (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  There is significant dispute about which and how many Israelis are being released, I wouldn't include the exact number there.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree. Looking at the latest news, Israel has already been ignoring the ceasefire for a couple of hours. Perhaps we should close this debate, and keep the ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Nfitz, cautiously optimistic that the ceasefire deal may have begun.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 09:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  they started it after hammas released the hostage list. ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy Post its important and to check why others refuse:

1) It may not actually lead to anything. well guess what, the section is "In The News", not "Development of Peace" or something like that. And this is very much in the news.

2) It's only temporary. Yes, the blurb makes it look like it's finally over, but @Nfitz has added ALT2 which seems better.

3) It didn't even happen yet. Okay, until 2 hours ago at least. Now I guess we don't have to wait, right?

4) Israel can just stop it. Once again, it's In The News and not "Development of Peace". Now for those who were saying that before the ceasefire begun, I can understand. ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Scratchinghead not to mention, those arguing #1 and #4 (and somewhat #2) are firmly into WP:CRYSTAL territory. The Kip 17:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

You don't mention the only issue, Scratchinghead, that I think is stopping this getting blurbed. It's already in the ITN in ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy post Ceasefire is in effect, hostages are being exchanged currently. Lets get this through now. Personisinsterest (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Admins willing to post ITN: this is good to go. The Kip 17:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Which blurb? Valereee (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee just speaking for myself, but IMO the original blurb is best;

• ALT1 implies the entire three-phase deal has been agreed to in order to end the war, when in reality only phase 1 has been agreed to and the Israeli gov thus far seems not keen on further phases.
• ALT2 implies all Palestinian prisoners being released are POWs/combatants from the current war, when many (most?) are not - some are, some are civilians, some were convicted of terrorism or other non-combat charges, etc.

I would prefer something like "A ceasefire agreement is reached to halt the Israel–Hamas war, involving the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners," but that would also be a supervote on my part.

The Kip 17:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps "suspend" would be better than "halt". I'm having trouble seeing why this is anymore significant than the last cease fire. ALT-2 was an attempt to make something that didn't announce the end of the war. Nfitz (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing why this is anymore significant than the last cease fire.

@Nfitz In theory, per negotiators, this ceasefire is intended to ultimately reach an end to the war as part of the three-phase framework; last year's ceasefire didn't carry the same connotations for anyone but the most optimistic. It's not guaranteed that it does, but similarly, there's no guarantee it doesn't; WP:CRYSTAL dictates we can't make that decision ourselves. The Kip 18:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

So how is this not already covered in ongoing, and should we leave it in ongoing? (I'd strongly support if it wasn't in ongoing) Nfitz (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nfitz:

1. Ongoing is not a universal override against including any events from an item in ITN - it instead heavily raises the bar for anything from that item to appear. I believe we posted the Kursk offensive last year and the Kharkiv/Kherson counteroffensives the year before, despite the Russian invasion of Ukraine already being there.
2. As per precedence from the invasion of Lebanon item, we should probably leave it in ongoing until a definitive conclusion can be made on whether it's truly at an end - in this case, at least through when we know if phase 2 will actually go into effect.

The Kip 18:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm just reading that Israel has killed 19 people in Gaza today alone - hours after they were supposed to stop fighting. This all feels too soon to me. Nfitz (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

They did that when they delayed the ceasefire because they wanted Hamas to release the names first. The ceasefire did go into effect, and Hamas released the names and the hostages. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Definitely ready The prisoner exchange is ongoing. ArionStar (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Admins willing to post ITN: another ping, this item should now be posted, as the ceasefire is currently active, with prisoners being exchanged by both sides. I support using the original blurb, or Alt II. Natg 19 (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'll give the discussion a read and will action this if I see a consensus to post. Schwede66 08:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Posted a modified version of the blurb suggested by The Kip. Schwede66 08:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

(Posted) Yoon Suk Yeol arrest

• Nominated by Ca (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: First time in South Korean history a president got arrested, or even received an arrest warrant. Ca 01:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support: Seems notable. Deserves attention. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 01:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• English language sources (BBC) are trickling in. Ca 02:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support on notability Article quality seems sufficient for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose This seems incidental to the impeachment process as a whole. What should be blurbable is the result, with removal and a change in the officeholder (beyond someone acting as president) being INTR. rawmustard (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that the "arrest" by itself should not be the subject of a blurb. The blurb should be about the end result of this whole saga. Tradedia 03:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Was already impeached, this drama around avoiding arrest is very much secondary to what we already posted. Masem (t) 03:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support because he is the first South Korean president detained while in office, although he is suspended due to impeachment. JordanJa🎮es92🐱9 03:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support as his arrest is the first of a sitting (albeit suspended) president in South Korean history. This event is noteworthy enough in its own right, independent of his impeachment in December (which has already happened twice before) Prince Of Iso (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Unlike Impeachment of prime minister Han Duck-soo, this is direct consequence of the Martial Law declaration. He would not have been arrested if he attended any summons he received, but if he were the kind of person to attend the summon, then he wouldn't have declared the Martial Law. Didgogns (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support We posted the arrest of Trump, I can't see how this is fundamentally different from that. Also to be noted here are the multiple attempts to evade arrest by Yoon, including with the help of his presidential guard. Gotitbro (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yoon has already been impeached, the arrest a formality in completing the process. Trump has not been convicted, but it was being indicted that was the story, the necessary arrest and booking a part of that. Effectively, this is like posting an inauguration after we already posted the election results; its part of the process and not the newsworthy part of the process. Masem (t) 13:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- a sitting head of government being arrested should always satisfy ITN criteria, in my opinion. --Rockstone 06:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Trump precedent This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose for multiple reasons. Firstly, he wasn't actually arrested, but voluntarily handed himself over. Secondly, he's been already impeached for the illegal declaration of martial law, so the arrest warrant was a highly anticipated logical consequence. Thirdly, he's no longer sitting president as he was impeached a month ago. Fourthly, posting Trump's arrest was a mistake, and I don't think it should be used as a precedent. We don't really need to post every single development in the story. Let's wait to see if he gets convicted, and then we can post it as a conclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Firstly, he wasn't actually arrested, but voluntarily handed himself over. In common English usage, "arrest" means "a detention during which one is not legally free to stroll out the door at any time one chooses"—it has nothing to do with whether one walks into a law enforcement office and surrenders to law enforcement vs being tackled while on the run by half a dozen officers and cuffed and shackled while helicopters circle overhead. It is quite common in "non-violent crimes" (like financial "white-collar crimes") for law enforcement to communicate back and forth with a suspect's legal counsel and mutually agree upon a time/place for the suspect to present themselves for arrest, vs smashing the door down at 1 AM. --Slowking Man (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support A major event of the Korean crisis. ArionStar (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above, still important. Sahaib (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Culmination of a two-week standoff where Yoon has been using his presidential security and supporters to resist arrest. Describing this as "voluntary" is disingenuous, since Yoon himself said that he "voluntarily" decided to surrender after watching a 3,000 strong police contingent dismantle the barricades his security team put up and use ladders to infiltrate the compound, and insisted that the whole thing was unconstitutional. Also, it's very big worldwide news, and a historic first for a sitting president in the country. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 12:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  He's no longer a sitting president after his impeachment, so your last sentence is factually incorrect.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Kind of. He can still return to power depending on the Constitutional Court decision. Ca 13:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  He still holds the office, he just has essentially zero power unless the Constitutional Court ruling rules in his favour. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 19:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support This should actually be added due to the fact that this might be the first on record president of the Republic of Korea to be arrested, and plus @Ca is right, he can return to power. So he is technically still the president and this standoff led to an arrest. Shaneapickle (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support on notability. A major event in global politics. --IDB.S (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose This is just a minor stage in an ongoing drama. Looking at previous presidents under this constitution, Roh Moo-hyun jumped into a ravine, Lee Myung-bak got 17 years in jail and Park Geun-hye got 24 years in jail. Having to answer some questions seems quite mild by comparison and it's the final outcome which will matter more. My impression from their game shows is that SK is quite highly strung and intense and so they often tend to go to such extremes. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  The difference being that Yoon is still president in suspension and hasn't been removed from his post. Roh's suicide happened years after he lost the 2007 South Korean presidential election; Lee's conviction came more than half decade after his loss in the 2012 South Korean presidential election; Park too was convicted years after her impeachment. Notably none of these involved the intensive stand-off at the heart of the story here.

  And we seriously cannot be assessing South Korean politics through its TV game shows. Gotitbro (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong support altblurb 2 - not just the arrest. The standoff at Yoon Suk Yeol's residence is much of the story, not his ultimate arrest. A president of a major nation having a 13-day standoff with law enforcement of his own country to me seems extremely ITN-worthy. Departure– (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Sitting head of government arrested" seems notable enough, and is something "in the news" internationally. Suggest modification on altblurb: "South Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol is arrested following a 13-day standoff." Keep it pithy, if people want more details that's what the links are for.

Note on linking: the prez bio article is currently titled Yoon Suk Yeol. Main Page links should reflect WP-canonical Romanization, so make sure to change that presuming the title is the "right" one. --Slowking Man (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support - very notable, sitting president arrested

Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support - A sitting president (yes, he doesn't exercise his powers due the impeachment but he's still a sitting president) was arrested. What news is significant if this isn't? MT₍₇₁₀₎ 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support even with the prior posting of his impeachment, this is still the arrest of a sitting head of state/government. It's easily notable enough. The Kip 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Trump precedent. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • We posted Trump:s impeachment, indictment and his convictions, but never posted his arrest, so there is no ", Trump precedent" here. (we already posted Yoon's impeachment) — Masem (t) 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    There is no Trump precedent, but if Trump had only surrendered to authorities after a fortnight of using his Secret Service detail to barricade Mar-a-lago or Trump Tower to stop police from arresting him and forcing a 3,000 strong police force to infiltrate the building, it probably would've been posted. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    On the basis that the arrest was not preceeded by a conviction or similar. And while Yoon did cause this delay, this was all peaceful, making an interesting part of the whole impeacent process but not a significant standalone part of that story. Masem (t) 23:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose His martial law, his impeachment, and the subsequent impeachment of Han Duck-soo were notable enough, but I'd argue that this isn't really that notable. Yoon definitely had it coming, and we've already blurbed 3 events relating to this crisis. --SpectralIon (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support this has made global headline news, even made some if the front pages of some very far flung places far from Korea, and the surrounding circumstances and manner of arrest is highly unusual and polarising in itself. Unprecedented event, and his arrest although possible was in no way a foregone conclusion at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Arrest of a sitting (albeit suspended) President. That alone should be enough to warrant a blurb here. Add in the fact that this wasn't just some mundane arrest either, and this is a slam-dunk nom. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment it may be more prudent to add 2024 South Korean martial law crisis to ongoing. I suspect this isn't going to go away any time soon, and not every update is going to be ITN-worthy. –DMartin 20:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Significant. Setarip (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support as Yoon is the first president of South Korea detained while in office in history. --Plumber (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Most definitely a key moment of the current crisis in South Korea, although I agree with Dmartin969 that adding the 2024 South Korean martial law crisis to the ongoing section might prove to be a reasonable decision, as well. But we likely need to open a different discussion for it... Oltrepier (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per editors above. Technically still in office, becomes the first arrested sitting president of South Korea TNM101 (chat) 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support we posted Trump for getting arrested, and he wasn't even the incumbent at the time. 🐔 Chicdat   16:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Posted. I believe there is a consensus to post, so I am doing so. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  @331dot: Could you please add 'Posted' in the beginning of your comment, as it is helpful in navigating through the discussion when it is archived or is further discussed. Thanks, ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 17:53, 16 January 2025 (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:

1. "Why did India ban Tiktok?". Product Monk. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

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