Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

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

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

Azzi Fudd
Azzi Fudd

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

[edit]
  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

[edit]
  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

[edit]
  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

[edit]

Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...

[edit]
Shortcut
  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

[edit]
Shortcut
  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

[edit]

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

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

Archives

[edit]

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

Sections

[edit]

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

April 8

[edit]
April 8, 2025 (2025-04-8) (Tuesday)

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

Jet Set nightclub roof collapse

[edit]
Article: Jet Set nightclub roof collapse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Dominican Republic, at least 44 people are killed and more than 150 are injured after the roof of a nightclub collapses. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, New York Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Unusual disaster in the Dominican Republic with an increasingly high death toll. As noted in the paused RD below, former MLB pitcher Octavio Dotel may have been among the casualties. Article quality is already pretty good. The Kip (contribs) 18:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: No CN tags and seems detailed enough. Very tragic. Prodrummer619 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to the high number of fatalities and injuries and because well known people were dead/injured. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as we generally put this sort of thing on the Main Page regardless of where in the world it happens. Among the notable dead is Octavio Dotel, a former Major League Baseball pitcher, so this is news in more than just the DR. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian invasion of Belgorod

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Belgorod Oblast incursion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky announces Ukrainian forces have invaded the Belgorod Oblast in Russia (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I know this is covered by ongoing, but this has a chance to have severe repercussions in the Russian military. Shaneapickle (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I doubt this will have any more consequences than the already ultimately inconsequential Kursk incursion, as Ukraine now has even less resources to attack Russia with. It is also covered by ongoing. --SpectralIon 17:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see what happens with this. The Kursk incursion was pretty important and this might be a repeat of that. Now, if this ends up being nothing more than a few border territories and very small settlements <3000 population each then that's another thing. Departure– (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Octavio Dotel

[edit]
Article: Octavio Dotel (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former MLB player killed in the Jet Set roof collapse in Santo Domingo. Could use some more expansion on the accident (which may have a forthcoming article), but otherwise the article looks good. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose and take a wild guess why. The article is decently sourced and long enough, but some expansion of an "early life" section would be appreciated. Also, 0 reference of his death, and the Daily Mail source would best not be used for such a claim. Departure– (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the source, but both are referencing the same original tweet. The Mail is absolutely not the only publication reporting on this. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MLB Trade Rumors may be a bit more reliable. Newsweek may be acceptable as well. Still, not sure I want to post it until the MLB or someone closer to the source confirms it. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 18:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, but oppose based on the sources there are right now. We're not 100% sure he's even dead yet. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 18:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll apologize on this one. Reporting is all over the place. I jumped the gun a tad. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close - Is this guy even dead yet? — EF5 18:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

[edit]
April 7, 2025 (2025-04-7) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Closed) Dire Wolf

[edit]
(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Hate to do this as I think it's quite cool, but consensus to post will obviously not form at this point. The Kip (contribs) 15:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Articles: Dire wolf (talk · history · tag) and Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Colossal white wolves with dire wolf traits have been genetically-engineered, recreating the extinct phenotype. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, NYT, The Times
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Making America great again with a new top predator – what could possibly go wrong...? Note that dire wolf is a Featured Article. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb already allows for this aspect, as it's a common point in much of the coverage. But see the duck test. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, if it looks like tech company hype, and quacks like tech company hype, then it's an ordinary wolf, and not a duck. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per above. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that isn't what's happened, so we shouldn't call it that. What we call it is important; this an encyclopedia, not The Sun. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Since this is being proposed as a science blurb, let us clarify some things here. De-extinction is itself a questionable exercise (even beyond the ethical issues) as for its validity as a hypothesis. Colossal Biosciences has not done anything of that sort here, these are for all intents and purposes modern wolves who have been genetically modified to give the pretense of de-extinction/revival. Wikipedia should not serve as a promotional platform for Colossal Biosciences to raise funds (money which would be better spent on conservation rather than dubious "revival" efforts [we are going through a mass extinction right now]). And we are better off without nods to Trumpism on ITN (or bizarre anti-science citations to WP:DUCK). Gotitbro (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See this MIT Technology Review for what is actually happening here. Some quotes, “'I would say such an animal is not a dire wolf and it’s not correct to say dire wolves have been brought back from extinction. It’s a modified gray wolf',” says Anders Bergström, a professor at the University of East Anglia who specializes in the evolution of canines. 'Twenty changes is not nearly enough. But it could get you a strange-looking gray wolf.' ... A confession: "Beth Shapiro ... acknowledged in an interview that other scientists would bristle at the claim. 'It is a dire wolf,' she said. 'I feel like I say that, and then all of my taxonomist friends will be like, 'Okay, I’m done with her.'" And for all the hype about its white fur (one of the genetic modifications to "revive" the dire wolves) its existence in the dires might be a complete conjecture. Gotitbro (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Propose Altblurb II "3 grey wolfs (with link to the 3 pups) are genetically mixed with dire wolf traits, bringing back the extinct species" Shaneapickle (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are not actually dire wolves, which is an extinct species and will remain so. It's three altered wolves to superficially resemble the extinct species. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is being brought up again. No Colossal has not 'brought back' anything here. These are grey wolves who have had their genes modified, not a new species and definitely nothing to do with the Ancient DNA of the dire wolf (yes still extinct) [insert a joke about Creature suits here]. Also it is simply incorrect to have white wolves in the blurb, completely unrelated to the Colossal stunt. Gotitbro (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, is there a peer-reviewed paper? User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 12:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No peer-reviewed paper, similar to the previous woolly mouse thing this company did. Its an interesting concept that's being misreported by poor scientific coverage in mainstream paper, as these are just normal wovles with some selected dire wolf DNA imprinted on them to give them a few dire wolf traits, but by no means a revival of the species. Masem (t) 12:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is even more bluster and bust than that. No actual dire wolf DNA has been used, the grey wolf DNA was modified so that they may 'resemble' the extinct species (which of course is also much conjecture). Gotitbro (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment About Precedent - Didn't we post about a species no longer being endangered not that long ago? De-extinction seems bigger than that, so I think that should set precedent. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If this were de-extinction, I would agree. However, there is no dire wolf DNA spliced into the grey wolf, it's just recreating the phenotype of the dire wolf. The species is still extinct. Youraveragearmy (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that this isn't "de-extinction", though. — EF5 13:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose It isn't de-extinction. It's a selectively-engineered approximation based on extant species. While it might fill the role of the Dire Wolf in its habitat, at the end of the day it isn't de-extinction of the Dire Wolf and shouldn't be treated as such. 13:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC) Departure– (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though its habitat is extinct as well. Gotitbro (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the original habitat of the Dire Wolf no longer exists on this earth, but it may still thrive in a similar role in the food chain as say horses did in the New World. Departure– (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be surprised after the push to stop eating dog meat. Nfitz (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a human cultural phenomenon. The vultures don't much care what humans do when they find the corpse of a predator on the ground. Departure– (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not true. You're utterly misrepresenting the situation. And I'll take Covid vaccines over ChatGPT every time. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They are just GMO wolves and "no ancient dire wolf DNA was actually spliced into the gray wolf's genome" + I have no idea why my username's mentioned at the top. Junsik1223 (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we're one or two !votes away from a snowstorm. 8 opposes to 4 supports to 3 non-!votes. As the primary reason for the !oppose votes is that the blurb is misleading we should start seeing snow falling any second now. Departure– (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't even that. No actual dire wolf DNA was involved. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per all above, it is just a phenotype modification, not actually bringing back an extinct species. 2605:B100:748:5AD:7454:5C06:69C9:7AF7 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Peter Geiger

[edit]
Article: Peter Geiger (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Liechtensteiner Vaterland
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Liechtenstein historian TheBritinator (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Clem Burke

[edit]
Article: Clem Burke (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Consequence
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Drummer for Blondie and the Ramones Mjroots (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

[edit]
April 6, 2025 (2025-04-6) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(posted both) 2025 NCAA Division I men's/women's basketball championship games

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: 2025 NCAA Division I women's basketball championship game (talk · history · tag) and 2025 NCAA Division I men's basketball championship game (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In NCAA Division I basketball, the UConn Huskies win the women's championship (Most Outstanding Player Azzi Fudd pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In NCAA Division I basketball, the UConn Huskies win the women's championship (Most Outstanding Player Azzi Fudd pictured) and the Florida Gators win the men's championship.
News source(s): Fox Sports.
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: The article needs expansion for this. Moraljaya67 (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support merged men's and women's ALT. I don't see any glaring issues. Scuba 13:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jay North

[edit]
Article: Jay North (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American actor. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Picture I just read through this because it was the top read article yesterday and I didn't recognise the name (the UK has a different Dennis the Menace). The arcle was a good read and, while it's not perfect, it's adequate. As big nostalgia item for many but with weak name recognition, a picture (example right) would work best. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any sort of consensus or precedent for RD images to be posted? I searched the archives of WT:ITN and found these discussions which may be relevant:
Left guide (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One example is Kirk Douglas. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proposal to have a blurb, just Andrew's proposal to have just an image. Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I misunderstood, still not sure we need a picture. Scuba 14:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Paul Fierlinger

[edit]
Article: Paul Fierlinger (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Animation Magazine
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Czech-American animator, writer, and director. Death reported 6 April. Thriley (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose big chunks of the article are uncited. Needs work. Scuba 14:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Ovechkin breaks Wayne Gretzky's goal record

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Alexander Ovechkin (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the National Hockey League, Alexander Ovechkin (pictured) breaks Wayne Gretzky's record for most goals scored. (Post)
News source(s): CBS Sports; The Athletic
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Breaking the all-time goal record in a major league sport is more than worthy of an ITN blurb. schetm (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on quality, the article now seems fully referenced. FlipandFlopped ツ 15:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, have not checked quality Mrfoogles (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose goal records don't seem to be posted historically (at least to my knowledge and small search). I don't think regional league (no matter how important) goal records of any sport belong on ITN. 2A02:A03F:EAEE:EE06:80A6:8DD7:DF6E:3B41 (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL, etc. The Kip (contribs) 06:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support obvious. Scuba 05:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this is an outstanding achievement that is widely covered in the media. Furthermore, it's not true that we don't post such records. We posted Magnus Carlsen's record FIDE rating of all time, and pulling LeBron James' record was a mistake.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The BIG difference is FIDE rating is I - International while this concerns a national league. Furthermore ice-hockey is FAR down the list of sports by popularity, to the point where i think it is hard to justify a national goal record as ITN. 2A02:A03F:EAEE:EE06:80A6:8DD7:DF6E:3B41 (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NHL is an international league as it consists of clubs from Canada and the United States.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IIHF considers winning the NHL as equivalent to winning an Olympic gold medal and a World Championship. See Triple Gold Club. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Some positive news, and if you think this is a bit north American centric, we can balance it later with international events or events outside of North America. Also, NHL contains players from Canada, USA, Russia, and all over the world. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Congrats, Ovechkin. But looks like utter sports trivia which will affect no-one and will have zero consequences. Does this really have news coverage across the world? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this really has news coverage across the world. Ovechkin himself is Russian, and there are many, many results from Russian sources, Norwegian sources, Turkish sources, and others. schetm (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all above. Trivial. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very rare for the record to be broken. It has been a long time for this to happen. Also there is the Lebron precedent. AsaQuathern (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is incredibly rare for a record this old to be broken so many years later. Nationality shouldn't matter. A record is still a record. Urbanracer34 (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So how many years is it? To what is it compared to make it "incredibly rare"? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The time between new records for this has progressively increased (10ish years for Howe, 30ish for Gretz, 31 for Ovechkin), and with the total getting increasingly higher while scoring plateaus, that’s likely to become longer if it’s even ever broken again. The Kip (contribs) 14:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? So the record is broken every 30 years or so, on average. Because it was broken five years sooner, it's "incredibly rare"? Surely it would be much rarer if is was broken after only one or two years? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve edited my comment to reflect the actual reality and clarify my meaning. This record is only rarely broken and likely won’t be broken again. If you can’t see how that’s not trivial I don’t see how you ever will. The Kip (contribs) 14:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I trust you have multiple WP:RS sources that say "likely won’t be broken again", otherwise it sounds like WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe the blurb should say "broken after 30 years" or something? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The last time the goal scoring record was broken was 31 years ago. That span of time makes it incredibly rare, and the scope of global news coverage makes this objectively noteworthy enough for an ITN blurb. schetm (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Kip above says this is just about "average"? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Rare. It's an event that happens, on average, more than a quarter century apart. That makes it rare. Not to mention the vast scale of global press coverage of this event. schetm (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we can’t post total solar eclipses anymore since they happen every 18 months or so, guess that makes them trivial. The Kip (contribs) 14:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I guess so. I've noticed that sunrises and sunsets also don't often get mentioned. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds a bit predictable to me. Is it rare compared to record-breaking goal tallies in other team sports? How often do they happen? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can one of the “this is trivia!!!” voters actually explain how/why this is trivial, other than ITN’s occasional “sports bad” sentiment? People complain about how sports news on ITN is routine, meanwhile here’s something absolutely not routine and it’s branded “trivia.“ The Kip (contribs) 14:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So what consequences does it have? for anyone? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The same argument can be made for anything sports-related. Why bother posting sports at all if it's all inconsequential? /over.throws/✎ 14:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, the “inconsequential” argument can be made for anything we post that’s not politics or a war/disaster, and yet others consistently criticize ITN for being a politics/war/disaster ticker. The Kip (contribs) 15:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen F. Roberts.
    In the same way, I gave you two more records above that were both achieved last weekend. You dismissed them as trivial. When you can explain why you dismiss these other records as trivial, you'll be able to explain why I dismiss this one as trivial. Banedon (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The burden of proof is really on you to prove how this clearly-important record is as “trivial” as those are, but I’ll entertain the premise I suppose.
    First off, to put it bluntly, this is receiving massive media coverage and attention across the world. That’s what Wikipedia’s standards of notability are based on. If you can pull up two dozen news articles from two dozen varied news sources about how important Kimi Antonelli’s record is, be my guest.
    With more regards to opinion, some records are simply obscure/less important. “Youngest/oldest to do something,” especially when it’s been broken multiple times in the last few years like the F1 record, is one of those. Fastest relegation from the Premier League is solely a domestic league record, and one that could easily be broken with how the PL’s parity with the Championship is in some ways decreasing. In the same vein, I wouldn’t even begin to consider nominating Ovechkin breaking the record for most game-winning goals, or empty-net goals, or power-play goals; these are more obscure, sport/league-specific items of note. Nobody nominated the Boston Bruins’ best NHL season ever a few years back either, and I wouldn’t have supported that anyways.
    Breaking the all-time goal-scoring record, in the world’s biggest hockey league, a record that was previously thought unbreakable, in a sport that is centered entirely on scoring goals, is not one of those records. Similarly, I’d support a blurb for someone breaking the all-time PL/international soccer goal record, or the F1 race wins record. The Kip (contribs) 15:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't bring up "burden of proof", or I'll say that the burden of proof is on you to show that this record is not trivial.
    First, this is not receiving massive media coverage and attention across the world. I didn't see anything about it until I saw it on ITNC. It's there if I look for it, but that goes for most sporting trivia (you can try searching for the two records I showed above - the Kimi Antonelli record was on ESPN, Straits Times, France24, New York Times, and more).
    You could argue that this record is obscure/less important; that runs right into the argument I made above that this record is also "obscure/less important". Again, you are hard-pressed to come up with objective criteria as to why this record matters and the others don't. (And I can come up with a lot more such records, especially if the scope is broader than "last weekend").
    Here's another example. You say you'll support a blurb for someone breaking the all-time soccer goal record, etc. Last weekend Stockfish set the record for the all-time highest rating in computer chess. Will you support that? This is even a global rating, while NHL is a 2-country league. But I honestly doubt you'll support it; you'll say "that record is broken every day!" in which case I'd point out that if Ovechkin plays another game and scores another goal, then he'd be breaking the record again, so this record is allegedly broken very often.
    What all this illustrates is just how arbitrary these records are. From my point of view what matters in sports coverage is 1) who won and 2) what the score was; everything else is trivia. Banedon (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with The Kip above: It's very difficult to see your counterexamples as commensurable with the Ovechkin record; the former are just plainly incidental. /over.throws/✎ 15:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the records you cite got anywhere near the level of coverage in global reliable sources as the Ovechkin record. They relatively got, at best, "trivial" levels. That's the difference. FlipandFlopped ツ 21:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    THANK YOU. AsaQuathern (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's every thirty years or so per above. That indicates this is a once-per-generation achievement in the discipline. I don't think "trivia" rightfully characterizes the rarity and effort of this achievement. It's very much a landmark for the sport. /over.throws/✎ 14:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. per nom. Shanes (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re quality: will be providing references in the International play section. /over.throws/✎ 15:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on Notability. I'm glad LeBron's record was noted here for reference, because I think we made a serious mistake pulling that story. The way I see it, we have these leagues in ITN/R for their championships, but in some cases you could argue that the breaking of key records could be an even bigger story than that year's championship. In this case, at least, I think it is. Gretzky's nickname "The Great One" wasn't just a simple moniker - it was a statement of his status as the greatest to ever do it. While Gretzky's points record may be the most hollowed, it's really hard to overstate just how impressive Ovi breaking the goals record is, and how dominant he's been for years to earn this status. In short, this is more than just trivia - it's the hockey moment of a generation. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly agree with this rationale, to such an extent that I want to voice my agreement explicitly.
    If we don't post sports trivia, why do we post ITNR tons of annual championships which garner very little coverage in the reliable sources, but then decline groundbreaking world records which get overwhelming coverage in global RS? The fact of the matter is, we do post sports trivia, and we do it as a matter of ITNR! FlipandFlopped ツ 21:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose We don't typically post sports records. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the Lebron precedent above. AsaQuathern (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, sadly. Gretzky's achievement was monumental - and exceeding it perhaps even more so. And most importantly, well covered in the media. This record has stood for over a generation. And I shouldn't oppose it even though given the odious nature of either gentleman. Nfitz (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are many such records in sport, football goals records, touchdown records, cricketing runs / wickets etc. By and large these are incremental in nature and not usually significant enough for ITN. LeBron was a particularly prominent example, and although he was initially posted there wasn't consensus in the end and the decision to post him was a mistake. Let's not repeat that please.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The last time this record was broken was in 1994. Scuba 23:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nom - Support currently stands at 24; oppose at 10. I've never posted at ITN before, but in almost every other part of Wikipedia, that demonstrates a consensus. The ref issues in the international play section have been dealt with. This article is ready, and the !votes are clear. It's worth noting that a fair few opposes smell of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - asserting this is trivia without saying why. The massive amount of news coverage from all around the world makes this item, literally, In The News. It's time for someone to slap a ready on this one. schetm (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! AsaQuathern (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All this talk and still swathes of unreferenced material. Stephen 02:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you make of the consensus above? schetm (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What consensus above? It's not getting posted as an unreferenced BLP. Stephen 04:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Stephen is making the point that the article is not ready for posting. Whether the topic is notable or not is moot if the bolded article does not meet quality standards. Natg 19 (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree that most sports stories we post can be considered trivia (even have boating, darts etc. at ITNR), so an argument on that line is tempered by the fact that this is perhaps the trivia of this sport. Though I am not comfortable with overturning the LeBron precedent especially for niches. Gotitbro (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing comment The § Career statistics section needs citations. The entries at § Honors, awards, and achievements and § Records lack citations. Some might be repeated facts already in prose, but it doesn't seem reasonable that readers would remember already seeing this level of minutiae, and not question whether it's verifiable. If it's already sourced, it should be straightforward to reuse the citations in the list.—Bagumba (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bagumba: In sports bios, isn't there often a single master source used to cite the whole section for these types of things like stats, awards, and records? Left guide (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Left guide: I can't speak for hockey, but it probably depends on the level of detail in the bio, and whether that is covered by a single source. Nobody needs a citation every line if a WP:GENREF suffices for the entire page or a specific section. For example, see Slick Watts § NBA career statistics, a recent RD post. —Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bagumba: Ok thanks for the info. I added a couple of WP:GENREF sources (ESPN, Yahoo Sports) atop the sections that should be able to verify large batches of previously unsourced material that you called out. Left guide (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don’t think it really needs to be said that some early comments calling this a record in a major sport are at best misleading: ice hockey is not a major sport, and the record only relates to one league, the NHL (which, TBF, in the USA is a major league). But it’s worth commenting on this to remember that ice hockey is a much less globally-significant sport than basketball (and see LeBron precedent), and that one league (even the largest by a distance) shouldn’t speak for the whole sport. My main reason to oppose is that it’s a trivial record, and per a comment above, I will qualify that: it does not have an impact on its sport in any way, the only result is the record itself being harder to beat, its existence is self-sustaining and nothing more. Surely the definition of trivia. It’s impressive but compare to breaking the record for fastest 100m: there, the record is the actual result of the event. Ovechkin having two goals more than Gretzky doesn’t mean anything for the match, his team, the season, the league, or the sport. Maybe he gets a bonus from a sponsor. I also think about it like longest winning streaks, which is also an incredible achievement, and in fact actually takes into account results and is team-relevant, but ultimately is not the point of the sport and just something tangential for fans to follow. Speaking of team, as I think I commented at the LeBron nom, there’s something that seems wrong about posting an individual record in a team sport. Again, this is not to downplay these achievements or say they’re not worth public acclaim, but as a sports blurb it doesn’t make the cut for not being a result or having any other real impact. If we were to start allowing blurbs for cool trivia, this would surely make the cut — or maybe we’d ask for a Goalscoring records in the NHL listicle to ‘prove’ it’s a WP-worth piece of trivia, IDK — but as of now, we’d have to IAR cool trivia blurbs and precedent for that (not just LeBron) is no. Kingsif (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I told myself I wouldn’t comment any further to avoid even the appearance of bludgeoning, but
    ice hockey is not a major sport
    You can’t possibly be serious. By that argument, soccer/football is virtually the only “major” sport.
    Ovechkin having two goals more than Gretzky
    Given they’re tied (Ovechkin is not two goals ahead) Ovechkin is one goal ahead, not two, while I try to AGF, this indicates to me that you’ve taken only a cursory look at the article/media at best and haven’t read them at all at worst. The Kip (contribs) 13:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re right, you are bludgeoning, when your response quotes me but doesn’t actually respond to me, just brings up your own opinion again. I am deadly serious about ice hockey not being a major sport, globally. It’s behind football, cricket, basketball, athletics, golf, motorsports, by a distance - just off the top of my head for absolute certain. Canada, Russia, Sweden, Finland, and as the fourth sport in the USA, are the only regular markets. Of course, as noted, not my main reason to oppose.
    Speaking of, you haven’t even acknowledged my argument, just claimed ice hockey is the world’s number two sport and then tried to discredit me instead. My argument detailing what makes this kind of record trivial, for the record, would not require knowledge of the specifics, but from what I have actually very much read, Ovechkin broke the record on Friday and scored again on Sunday. You disagree? Of course, if they’re tied like you claim, there’s no story to blurb - so which of us hasn’t paid attention? Kingsif (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a source to back up your claim that “ice hockey is not a major sport” or is this just a personal opinion? Subjective editor opinions on which sports are the best aren’t what grounds notability, it’s about the depth of courage in the reliable sources. FlipandFlopped ツ 14:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Flipandflopped: The Kip appears to have been quoting (and responding to) that claim made by Kingsif, not making the claim themselves. Perhaps you misunderstood the context, or indented the reply improperly. Left guide (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, indentation error. Fixed, thanks. FlipandFlopped ツ 14:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? They are tried on goals, but "Alexander Ovechkin has broken Wayne Gretzky's record for most goals scored"? Errrm... 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Flip, did you remove my reply to you for a reason? Kingsif (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, trivia. Sandstein 11:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There's only a handful of sports records that should be posted, and this is one of them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I didn't realise there was an agreed list. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is this agreed list? Left guide (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't an agreed list. I'm saying that there's only a few that deserve being posted (i.e. only a few that are significant enough to ever be In the News), and this is one of the few, in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the IP was employing sarcasm. Kingsif (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refocus discussion. I think it's clear that there's a consensus to post based on notabilty. Based solely on notability, I would post it now. I don't think continuing to argue about that is likely to be useful or change the consensus much. But there is still a pretty strong consensus that the article is not ready, quality-wise. I'd suggest (a) getting the article in shape, and (b) commenting on that aspect, rather than arguing about whether this record is earth-shattering or utterly trivial. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d recommend you revisit many of the “support on notability” !votes to determine what their actual argument is — from “it’s a major sport” to “I am insulted by people thinking it shouldn’t be posted” to no reason given, they’re very weak on balance. Kingsif (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I'm just trying to save people time. If you want to keep arguing, go for it, but don't include me. I'm comfortable enough in my reading of the discussion that I will post if there's ever any consensus that the article quality is good enough. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    adding to my previous comment: I don't care whether it's posted or not, except to the extent I'd like to see some kind of functional, non-paralyzed method of determining whether it's notable or not. To a very large degree, these are all "opinions" on whether or not it's notable. The opinions are not concentrated on one side or the other. For every "this is a big deal", there's a "this is trivial". It seems like a dumb way to decide, except there is no other way. There's a supermajority that it's notable enough, and there are no overriding policy reasons pro or con, so as a potential posting admin, I'm not curious about what further arguing in that area would lead to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam re: quality - While I might’ve missed something, the orange tag’s been resolved and it appears there’s no longer any CN tags on Ovechkin’s article. The Kip (contribs) 18:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more interested in whether experienced ITN denizens think the sourcing is now adequate. My own judgment on this has always been much less exacting than others' (if it were up to me we'd post a lot of stuff earlier than we do), so since my judgment doesn't match the community's judgment, I'm not going evaluate its readiness myself, I'm waiting for experienced editors to say sourcing meets ITN/C standards. If enough people whose judgment in this area I respect agree that it does, then I'll post it. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One can easily counter that by pointing out most of the oppose votes are simply “it’s trivia” with no elaboration, but I digress. The Kip (contribs) 18:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose seems trivial to me, maybe something for DYK but certainly not for ITN. 2A02:8071:78E1:A100:500E:8D51:3236:B845 (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sure it's important to those who follow ice hockey, but the sport is not a big global one, so I'm unconvinced it meets ITN. However, the article still has multiple unsourced statements in it, so it's ineligible at this time anyway. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite please tag any unsourced statements you come across, as it stood a few minutes ago there weren’t any CN tags remaining. The Kip (contribs) 18:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What's a big global sport except football? Ice hockey isn't the most popular, but it's still well known. win8x (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Tony Rundle

[edit]
Article: Tony Rundle (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News (Australia)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Premier of Tasmania (1996–1998). 240F:7A:6253:1:E966:5804:5261:FE41 (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Chicago I-94 Crash

[edit]
SNOW close. (non-admin closure) History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Interstate 94 (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fox 32 Chicago
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Current Event Valorrr (lets chat) 17:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—first, this event isn't in the article. Second, we wouldn't actually add it to Interstate 94 in Illinois anyway. Imzadi 1979 → 18:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm going to presume AGF since the user seems new and unaware of notability rules for what should or should not be nominated, but this obviously does not pass as in the news. This is hyperlocal and has no significance past tomorrow to anyone other than the family involved. Plus, there isn't even an article about this. Kline • talk • contribs 18:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose and close - Yea, no. No indication of significance, article doesn’t even mention the crash so I don’t know how many dies, although I’m assuming it was a routine fatality count (under 6). Very tragic and sad for the families of the people involved, but we don’t post this type of stuff. EF5 18:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 5

[edit]
April 5, 2025 (2025-04-5) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

Grand National

[edit]
Article: 2025 Grand National (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nick Rockett ridden by Patrick Mullins wins the Grand National. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: All three articles are currently quite stubby but there seems to be something to say about a couple of horses that didn't finish. Also, I read an interesting article recently which explained that horse-racing in the US is quite dead as a spectator sport and has become a corrupt adjunct of the casino business. I'm not sure how the UK compares... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article has no highlights summary. Moraljaya67 (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same as last year? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately there’s not much to the article nominated. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looking at the articles for this event going back a few years, they are very heavy on tables and light on prose. Its fine to have some tables, but they really should only be augmenting the prose. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A prose version of the single results table? There's quite a bit more text now. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hands Off protests

[edit]
Proposed image
Hands Off demonstration in Washington, D.C.
Article: Hands Off protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Over 1,300 Hands Off protests take place across the United States against the second Trump administration (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Over 1,300 Hands Off protests take place across the United States, Canada, and Europe against the second Trump administration.
News source(s): CNN, The Washington Post, Axios, USA Today, The New York Times, AP News, The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: WSB-TV described this as the first "mass mobilization" against the second Trump administration, comparing it to the 2017 Women's March, which is significant. Additionally it is on the front page of the Washington Post, and in the New York Times, Axios, CNN, USA Today, The Guardian, despite not even having finished happening yet. About 100,000 people attended the D.C. rally and probably many more attended all the rallies, of which there were thousands, in sum. Think this is worth putting on the page and informing people about -- new to ITN but hopefully the article updating (3 cited paragraphs) is good enough. More can probably be added. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait The topic is attracting a lot of attention - The Guardian quotes organisers estimating half a million protestors across the US, which is big for the US, so it's newsworthy. The article was created 5 April, so the amount of updated content is sufficient. However, the article itself to a large degree describes plans and what is happening "now" rather than what happened. Work is needed to bring it up to standard. Even the second out of the three sentences of the lead is about what is planned. Boud (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is now written about a past event. There are some online hints that protests will continue 6 April in some places, but if WP:RS report that, then that can be added later. Boud (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are not the first mass protests in this administration, eg several on 2/17 [2]. Additionally, as these have been peaceful and have no apparent affect, there's not much impact compared to what happens with other protests that we usually post. Masem (t) 00:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources saying that earlier Trump-II-era protests had 500,000 or more participants? If not, then this is the biggest US anti-Trump-II protest. Reliable sources will judge the political impact in the long term - these are not the sort of protests that lead to the immediate resignation of a politician. Neither police violence against protestors nor violence by protestors is a requirement for newsworthiness. Boud (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The news story you just cited described "thousands" of people as marching at D.C. The news stories about this protest describe 100,000 people protesting at D.C. alone. The difference in order of magnitude from the protests you are citing is 100 times. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair I don't see an exact count on the protest you mentioned, but this protest is likely ~10 times larger at least in D.C.. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I feel these protests are notable for their unusually large size -- if reports 500,000+ attended nationwide are true, which I believe they are after viewing the images of the crowd sizes in the attached articles, then this movement would be comparable to the anti-Iraq war protests at their peak and essentially appeared out of nowhere during a non-election season. Gambitenthusiast99 (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
100,000 people attended the D.C. protest alone, according to current estimates, so I wouldn't be surprised. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cambalachero, we frequently post protests, including from other countries than the USA, if they attract a large quantity of protestors and receive international news coverage: see e.g. 2025 Turkish protests, Canada convoy protest, 2024–present Serbian anti-corruption protests, 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest, which were all posted. FlipandFlopped ツ 01:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of those had some type of actual demonstratable impact, like roads being blocked in the Candian or Indian ones. So far we just have large numbers showing up and calming protesting. Masem (t) 03:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Protests that block roads aren't necessarily inherently more significant than those that do not; e.g. the Vietnam war protests couldn't be called insignificant just because they weren't all focused on blocking roads. But the truth of protests' long-term effects is only known long after the event -- so if we want to cover current news, we are forced to guess based on their size and news coverage. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are examples of the effects of a protest or set of protests per WP:NPOV consensus based on WP:RS in Wikipedia? Per protest: When protests are part of a systematic and peaceful nonviolent campaign to achieve a particular objective, and involve the use of pressure as well as persuasion, they go beyond mere protest and may be better described as civil resistance or nonviolent resistance.[6] "Systematic and peaceful nonviolent campaigns" are long-term processes - WP:RS may report the effects in days, weeks, months or years; the impact (or lack of impact) is not yet known. Boud (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem we have at ITN is that there are a fair number of protests occurring around the globe every day. We absolutely cannot feature them all, and so we generally look to a metric about actual impact and not just the mere act of a protest. Masem (t) 14:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a protest, it's 1,300 protests, some with on the order of 100,000 people in multiple major cities, which made the front page of most major US newspapers. It doesn't happen every day by any means. That's the distinguishing factor. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per Boud. Depending on how enduring/prominent the coverage of this is throughout the next couple days across global news sources, I may be inclined to support. I generally disagree with the idea that we should be gauging their effect or impact on American democracy or society based on how peaceful or large they are, as that is WP:CRYSTAL. Suitability for posting here can only really be measured by how much enduring, sustained coverage and emphasis they get in the reliable sources, which is yet to be fully seen, as protests are onging. Hence the wait vote. FlipandFlopped ツ 01:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that waiting is probably a good idea. I'm not sure that requiring news stories be published again, in the days after, right after the first news stories were published, is a good idea, though? Usually emphasis on long-lasting coverage talks about more than the next couple days after an event -- more like months, or years. WP:CRYSTAL applies to article content -- speculation should generally not be placed there. However, it doesn't restrict making editorial judgements as to what is worth putting on the main page based on guesses of its significance -- in a sense, that's most of the point of this page. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP is not a newspaper, and ITN is not a news ticker. Our goal is to feature quality articles that happened to have been in the news, not to report news, and we'd rather wait to have an idea of impact or significance as documented by sources rather than just rushing to put it on the maijn page. Masem (t) 06:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that ITN is for quality articles that happen to be in the news. The impact will only be known in the long term, but the notability is well-sourced and well-defined, as in the first sentence of the lead: ...the largest one-day, nationwide display of public resistance against the second administration of President Donald Trump. The quality of the article seems acceptable to me now. Boud (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Estimates report around 500,000 participants in a nation of 350,000,000. One out of every seven hundred people did the absolute bare minimum thing they could possibly do to voice disagreement with what has widely been described as a fascist takeover and an intentional triggering of a Great Depression. If I was a MAGA supporter, I would be absolutely thrilled with the turnout. The most radical administration in US history and virtually everyone shrugged their shoulders and kept on scrolling.Danthemankhan 03:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reply here comes across as bizarrely defeatist, fatalistic, and dismissive of the actual significance of this event. 500,000 is massive and would easily put this in the top five largest single-day protests in U.S. history. What were you expecting? People still have jobs and families. Gambitenthusiast99 (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To add on to what @Gambitenthusiast99 said, going to a protest is a significant amount of effort, especially if it's a huge, chaotic crowd of 100,000 people. They can last hours, and big ones have to deal with riot police, and sometimes tear gas. And if you're really trying to talk about the bare minimum thing that can be done, it's much easier to e.g. call your representatives. It would be amazing but is unreasonable to expect that every American who thinks these actions are a major problem to come out for a day and stand in a protest, if they even heard about it. The fact that 500,000 people did, across the 50 states, indicates that there are many more than 1 in 700 who care deeply about the issues -- that's how all protests work. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait So far, the readership for the article is quite small -- just 4K yesterday. For comparison, note that the readership for 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre has been remarkably huge lately -- over 4 million -- which is a thousand times greater. I'm not sure why that is -- maybe it's an effect of a recent HK court case.
So, this new article needs more time to settle down and establish whether it's something that our readership is also searching for.
Andrew🐉(talk) 07:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope it doesn't go Tiananmen. Bremps... 07:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, haven't you been told numerous times that pageviews don't matter at ITNC? I feel like I've seen several people call you out on it, yet you continue. — EF5 12:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't normally respond to such badgering because it's invalid and off-topic. There was a proposal six months ago that our readership should be ignored but this did not command a consensus or even a majority. The actual rules are per WP:ITNSIGNIF, "It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits." A high level of readership clearly merits consideration because it obviously chimes with ITN's primary purpose, "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." ITN is here to help the readership, not to ignore it. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring ITN’s procedures and norms wholesale no matter how many times he’s reminded of them in favor of his own bizarre logic has pretty much been Andrew’s thing for years now. The Kip (contribs) 14:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense that Tiananmen Square is more famous than this, but I don’t think that makes it not worth featuring. E.g. the election of the Latvian president is probably not what the majority of people in the world are searching for, but we feature it anyways because it’s significant. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that the protests are ongoing but doesn't make it clear to what extent they are continuing now. As a one-off, I don't think they've had sufficient impact but we can keep the nomination open in case there are fresh and prolonged waves, as happened with the Occupy movement.
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality - Dupe-cite tag, unicted sentence in the #Virginia section, NPSN tag in lead. — EF5 12:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: Still far from WP:GA status, but the two dupe-citations, the unicted ;) sentence in #Virginia, and the non-primary sources sentence have been tidied up. I also usurped ;) the oddly claimed URL usurpations. Boud (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, this seems to be the largest protest against Trump's actions, and the article is well cited and good quality. Given the muted response from the Democratic Party to Trump, this appears to be a very important political event in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chorchapu (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Protests have minimal impact. We did not post Trump policies with massive global impact like shutting down USAID (which will cost many lives in developing countries) and the Signal group chat (which will strain diplomatic ties with Europe). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.198.3 (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ITN isn't a Trump ticker. A lot is going to happen in the next 3.5 years (if not more) and it's likely going to be covered heavily by most newspapers given how connected the US is to the world. Why not just have the Trump administration in ongoing at this rate? 202.144.171.99 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose maybe it's my fault since I only use the AP for my news, but this is legitimately the first I'm hearing of this. They seem rather small and don't have ITN worthy news coverage. Scuba 15:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They’re the largest protests so far, and they really are in most major newspapers. I also find out about a lot of things for the first time from the Wikipedia ITN, but I don’t think that means they’re not worth putting there —- it means that ITN is working because I’m learning stuff. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Protests themselves don't matter and have functionally no more impact than whining on social media. It's not like this is part of a political crisis in America, and this event is already OUT of the news cycle, thus literally not "in the News". What importance some people (especially in America) attach to the protests is irrelevant. Compare this to the Myanmar Earthquake, or the Trump Tariffs, and it's apples and oranges. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom Replaced the image with a similar but better one with more people. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Definitely a major protest against Trump but the US is in complete flux right now and when put in context this [along with other anti-Trump and anti-Musk protests] does not appear to be of much significance. Pushback in the form of Trump policy blockage or judicial checks would appear much more ITN suitable. In other news, Trump fired the top US security establishment when an alt-right white supremacist told him they were not loyal enough to MAGA. And so we go. Gotitbro (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome to propose a different notable act of resistance against the Trump-II administration for ITN. From a long-term sociopolitical point of view, it's true that judicial blocking of democratic backsliding may be more notable than street protests, but short-term statements by political scientists or legal experts are harder to find and get a lot less media attention. If you can find one, then please propose one of these specific events that has sufficient new content, is a Wikipedia article of sufficient quality, and is considered newsworthy by the mainstream media WP:RS and preferably also by researchers. Boud (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Already out of the news cycle, unclear what if any impact it has had or will have (or won't have). As I said, it's out of the news cycle, so it was a blip and then over. No impact internationally or even within the USA's political system. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you can assume protests have no impact just because most major newspapers only do 1 story on them. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unclear how protests that have wound down, are out of the news cycle, will have any impact. Protests can have impact if it leads to a political crisis, leadership resigning, etc, but none of that has happened. If one in 700 people in El Salvador engaged in a nation-wide protest, and it was unclear what the impact was, I would treat the story the same. Compare these protests to the Myanmar earthquake that left thousands dead, and the new Trump tariffs which will have worldwide economic impact. Those events have clear impacts. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Harizotoh9 "No impact internationally", actually that is not quite accurate: see e.g. Canada, Europe, Australia & New Zealand. FlipandFlopped ツ 17:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, no impact internationally. It hasn't even led to any of those countries changing any of their policies. They're continuing what they were gonna do anyways. I repeat: No Impact Internationally. Making noise is not an impact. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant, weak oppose The sheer scale of the protests probably meets the ITN bar, but most of the protests we've posted in recent memory have had endurance to them as well, while these were specifically a one-day event. The Kip (contribs) 05:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Serbian, North Macedonian and South Korean protests recently were not posted for a lack of impact, and those were the biggest protests those countries have seen for a long time and much larger population percentages took part in those. These protests are tiny and weak compared to the size of the country and the impact a protest could or arguably should have especially considering the subject matter has affected the whole world. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I forgot to mention the most obvious: the South Korean protests didn't make ITN, but the impeachment of the President did! Same would apply here. Unless something tangible happens, protests themselves are not notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Protests, as they occur in so many other places. Doubtful notorious and real impact. Nor are they triggered by an extraordinary event such as the removal of a president (South Korea) or an accident with many victims (Serbia). Meh. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant update: the actual number of protesters is not known with complete certainty but may have numbered in the millions [3]. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See List_of_protests_and_demonstrations_in_the_United_States_by_size for a size comparison assuming organizer's numbers are accurate. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have to wait for official and confirmable figures from objective sources (those of the organisers, in any protest, are usually biased). In any case, the US has a population of over 340 million people...low impact. And when we talk about impact it is not only the number of people who join the protest, but also political consequences and, in this case, none is to be expected. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this does get posted, just merge it with the tariff blurb. Bremps... 06:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would imply the protests were in response to the tariffs, though. They were being organized as an anti-DOGE/anti-authoritarian protest movement for a while now, as opposed to being purely reactive to the market downturn. FlipandFlopped ツ 14:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

[edit]
April 4, 2025 (2025-04-4) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Petro Georgiou

[edit]
Article: Petro Georgiou (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC, Sydney Morning Herald, 9News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former Liberal member of the Australian House, known for supporting the rights of refugees and immigrants, and crossing the floor to vote against to vote against offshore processing of asylum seekers. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Complete enough and cited enough. Bremps... 19:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Paul Karo

[edit]
Article: Paul Karo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4], [5]
Credits:

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

 Happily888 (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Manoj Kumar

[edit]
Article: Manoj Kumar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Indian Actor Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mirawas

[edit]
Article: Mirawas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DAWN
Credits:

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

 Ainty Painty (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose First sentence runs into a WP:NPOV issue and the rest of the article doesn't let up. The writing's charming but not suited for Wikipedia without revision. Bremps... 07:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose + Snow Close per @Bremps Shaneapickle (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the subject is not worthy of an article at all, the usual point of RD is to polish the article up rather than reject it based on its initial condition. Cheers, Bremps... 16:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are fixable issues with an RD article, a WP:SNOW close isn't appropriate. RachelTensions (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Too early for a SNOW close; issues are fixable. EF5 13:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did some copy-editing for a more neutral point of view and added a citation needed tag. Youraveragearmy (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: per @Bremps LuxembourgFan42 (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's a little slim, but I'm not seeing any unreferenced claims or NPOV issues. I'm assuming further editing work has been done since the original votes some days ago. FlipandFlopped ツ 00:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 3

[edit]
April 3, 2025 (2025-04-3) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Theodore McCarrick

[edit]
Article: Theodore McCarrick (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American former Roman Catholic cardinal who accused of sexual abuse. 240F:7A:6253:1:58E9:FF0C:A4DB:5A2 (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Long and well sourced article, definitely meets quality standards V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Schwede66, although it is not footnoted in the article's lead, the date and place of both are included in the very first footnote, which links to the archived biography from the Archdiocese of Washington website: 1. FlipandFlopped ツ 00:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But you can’t and should not expect a reviewer or reader of the article to trawl through the references to see whether the verification is somewhere. Schwede66 00:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Impeachment of Yoon Suk Yeol

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Impeachment of Yoon Suk Yeol (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ South Korea's Constitutional Court removes Yoon Suk Yeol (pictured) as the President of South Korea. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ South Korea's Constitutional Court removes Yoon Suk Yeol (pictured) as the President of South Korea, following his declaration of martial law.
Alternative blurb II: ​ South Korea's Constitutional Court removes Yoon Suk Yeol (pictured) as the President of South Korea, following his declaration of martial law. Han Duck-soo is named acting president.
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC, NYTimes, MBC live, Reuters
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: removal from office by the South Korea's Constitutional Court Haers6120 (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support major development in South Korean politics, especially considering we did post the martial law declaration and this is arguably more impactful SparrowSparrow (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Verdict needs a bit of expansion and some clarification on the succession. That said, this is obvious ITN material and I support on expansion. Article quality is quite good. No issues with referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT1 There have been widespread coverage on his impeachment by the legislature (National Assembly (South Korea)) and the Constitutional Court by Korean and international media. ALT1 gives context as why he was impeached. Ca talk to me! 02:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose ALT2 since Han Duck-soo was already the acting president before the ruling. Ca talk to me! 03:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Andreas, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

[edit]
Article: Andreas, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Andreas, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, dies at 82, in Coburg, Germany (Post)
News source(s): Fränkischer Tag, BR
Credits:

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

 Mr. Lechkar (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support but Oppose on notability Head of major european royal house died, if he was the ruling monarch of a nation, this would definitely have its onw page on this, I oppose this based on notability and the fact that few news sources are reporting on this. Shaneapickle (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths are automatically notable, comments should focus on quality alone.
My vote is oppose on quality Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a blurb nomination. Blurbs have a blue or cyan template with a written blurb - i.e. "Andreas, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, dies at age YY". Recent deaths appear as beige boxes, and they just need to have articles that are well-sourced and long enough and appear below the main ITN blurbs, and don't have blurbs of their own. Departure– (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mick O'Dwyer

[edit]
Article: Mick O'Dwyer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Irish Times, The Irish TimesRTÉ, Irish Examiner, Irish Examiner, BBC, Irish Independent
Credits:

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

 Lf8u2 (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2

[edit]
April 2, 2025 (2025-04-2) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Sports

(Posted) Trump Tariffs

[edit]
Article: Tariffs in the second Trump administration (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ US President Donald Trump imposes sweeping trade tariffs on most countries. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ US President Donald Trump declares a national emergency to announce tariffs on all imports.
News source(s): NBC News
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Obviously the main story globally for the last several days and probably for the next few. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025-April-02-Reciprocal tariffs (left half)
Trump showing a chart with reciprocal tariffs (shame about the teleprompter)
Support This is basically tariffs on every country in the world from the richest country in the world. Beyond notable, regardless of impact. Personisinsterest (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tariffs will continue until morale improves, apparently. Article looks comprehensive and economic implications are massive. Bremps... 22:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I can't help but wonder if an article for these "Liberation Day" tariffs might not be warranted. I suppose that'll have to come as the impacts make themselves more apparent. BSMRD (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably why we should wait to see what international actions are done because more likely a 2025 international trade war would be the best target Masem (t) 23:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, this is a massive world event, and I'd even support a separate article about just these tariffs. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 23:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The list of reciprocal tariff rates is cited to a tweet. Such social media from the Trump administration and policy in general is not reliable because of their history of flip-flops and make-it-up-as-you-go. Most countries often tinker with their taxes and so there's lots of news in the UK about its government's fiscal policy. The devil is in the details with this stuff and that will take time to work through and settle down, which may not happen any time soon. We shouldn't just report the Trump speech as given per WP:SOAP. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on media: I've had a look what's available online and found a couple of media files that could possibly illustrate this story (if we don't want to use Trump's official portrait). See what you think. Schwede66 23:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as we don't directly rely on White House sources. Bremps... 00:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Just another unremarkable thing done by Trump (adjust tariffs) that is treated as a big deal only because it's Trump. If John Doe, president of Foo, did a similar thing nobody would conder this worth of ITN Cambalachero (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In all due respect, that's not correct at all. Look at Foreign policy of the Joe Biden administration, Presidency of Joe Biden, Presidency of Barack Obama and Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration as a comparison. The word "tariff" only occurs in the Biden admin in regards to Chinese tariffs, and the word doesn't even occur once in the Obama articles. This is Trump making sweeping tariffs against many of America's trade partners out of nowhere plus a general 10% additional tariff. This will have a huge impact economically on America and the broader world. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be new for the US, but it's common in the international stage. Cambalachero (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is almost unheard of and I would gladly support if up next, Zimbabwe or Bhutan does the same kind of thing, regardless of how "not relevant" the country is in the global world stage. SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not your neighbourhood crazy uncle, but he is the President of the United States. Your neighbour wouldnt affect your employment or egg price in Walmart, but Trump can, and is passionate about doing so in the wrong way. His power enables him to actually implement his crazy ideas, which would affect everyone on this planet. In this case, in the worse scenario possible HolyCrocsEmperor (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying that these tariffs are unremarkable is frankly ridiculous, as a Canadian I've seen how people went from loving America to absolutely blood-boiling hatred towards Americans over the tariffs and Trump's actions these are VERY remarkable and I would argue the most remarkable of both presidencies and maybe even the most remarkable when his time in office is over (maybe not seeing how things are going). Even conservatives who would usually agree with the Republican Party just cannot agree with them over the tariffs and President Trump's other actions the tariffs are possibly the one thing if they come into effect that will ruin Canada-USA's 100+ year long alliance and brotherhood.
    Plus even in a different perspective like the ones above you can clearly see that it is very remarkable. Even Trump himself would most likely admit it is one of the most remarkable things of his presidency.
    Roc1233 (Talk | Edits) 01:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the tariffs become live. This is undoubtedly major news and will affect the global economy if implemented for even less than a week, but we have to see them be live first. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a major escalation, and distinct from the trade war with Mexico and Canada. It could have serious impacts on the entire global economy and is much larger in scale, if implemented. FlipandFlopped ツ 00:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is the biggest news today in the world, literally because every country is affected. Universally 10% is too crazy that it looks plain, but millions if not billions of jobs would be at stake. HolyCrocsEmperor (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Wait Due to the scale of these tariffs. This affects nearly every important country on the world stage. However, we should probably wait a day or two to see the international response as Masem and PrimalMustelid suggested. Hungry403 (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Lots of people were watching this, and it's not just politics since business decisions are also affected. In fact I remember reading that for many CEOs, April 2 (aka "Liberation Day") couldn't come quickly enough. Unless the tariffs are walked back on soon, this will affect billions upon billions of goods and services; I don't see why that would not be worth posting. Banedon (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One of the biggest economies in the world making sweeping tariffs, which will have huge impact on the global economy. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Will have enormous global ramifications, very clearly meets the ITN threshold. Mlb96 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This will absolutely impact the global economy, and poses a significant issue. Support a different blurb than the current suggested blurb as it feels too general. Tofusaurus (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Posted. El_C 05:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Push back Not seeing a consensus for this but so it goes. What I do see is that there's already pushback for this in the Senate. You see, the President doesn't have complete freedom to do as he pleases with tariffs. Trump is abusing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act which is supposed to be for "unusual and extraordinary" cases, not a global policy affecting all trade. If there's an economic emergency, it will be of Trump's making! Anyway, the point is that this is an ongoing situation in which pushback is happening both domestically and internationally. The blurb presents it as a done deal when it's just the start. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Senate bill is not expected to pass the house according to analysts but we'll have to wait and see. Yes, Congress could close the loopholes that Trump is using, but they haven't yet. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, obviously I judged there being consensus (at the very least a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS), so I will not be doing that. El_C 07:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time of posting there were 12 supports, 2 opposes, and 3 waits. Of course it's not a vote and strength of argument counts, but there was clearly a consensus in favour of posting. I do think it would have been better to wait a few hours, so editors in Europe had a chance to comment (this all happened overnight for them). Modest Genius talk 11:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What needs work now is the blurb so that it doesn't normalize the idea that Trump controls tariffs by diktat. The blurb currently doesn't explain that Trump has declared a national emergency in the US, as his pretext for this. To make this clearer, the blurb would be
US President Donald Trump declares a national emergency to announce tariffs on all imports.
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Getting into how Trump introduced tariffs when it is not normally within his power is getting into the weeds for the main page of a global encyclopedia (But obviously should be covered at the article). What the blurb is lacking is the impact. Its why we should wait to verify what other nations are likely to do, with the expectation it will start a trade war and potentially a recession/depression at a large scale (if not just in the US). Even seeing how bad the markets dive from this (based on overnight trading) would be something. Right now the blurb gives zero suggestions of its importance and only if you have been following the news do you know what that means. We shouldn't assume that for the readers. Masem (t) 12:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support. While there are some reasonable arguments above, this is undoubtedly headline news around the world. Deliberately causing economic damage to trading partners is a big deal. We can't post every tariff that Trump imposes, but collectively these are a large package that affects most of the world economy. It's good to keep the blurb simple too, without attempting to explain his stated reasons (or why they're bogus). Modest Genius talk 11:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment, should we consider mentioning the fact that stock markets across the world are plunging in response? User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 12:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support. Whilst it's tempting to say "oh, it's just another on the list of stupid ideas that Trump thinks are cool", this one is genuinely worldwide front page news, for obvious reasons. And no, we shouldn't try to kick it into the long grass by saying "Wait for responses", the story is this, happening now. Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support. Whether from Trump or someone else, helping crash the global economy in that way is definitely notable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Ad Orientem and @AsaQuathern, the promoter and nom, respectively. Thoughts on noting the stock drops that have resulted? JayCubby 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really wild about the idea. The tariffs are the story. Markets rise and fall, sometimes dramatically for a lot of reasons. If this turns into a 2008-09 type financial crisis, where we had a months long cascading stock market crash, I might support putting that into ongoing. But I'm not comfortable going there right now. If the market rebounds dramatically in the coming days (not likely IMO), then we are going to look like we were trying to be alarmist or allowing political bias to influence ITN. I think the blurb is good for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure tbh. AsaQuathern (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support Yeah, so that's one way to destroy the global economy. Adding comment following clearly inevitable discussion to say I don't think the stock drops should be added to the blurb - if they truly crash, that can be its own thing. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outcome Looking at how this played with the readership, we see that the nominated article was not the top read. The stock market wasn't either. Apart from other topical subjects like Val Kilmer, the most read relevant article was Heard Island and McDonald Islands which generated much amusement by appearing on the list despite having no population apart from penguins. This aspect is in the news and generating lots of coverage: Penguin memes, Nowhere on Earth is safe, Reuters, Sri Lanka Guardian, How everything works now ... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your point? It would hardly have been appropriate to single out that territory in the ITN blurb. Besides, the number of hits on an article is not one of the ITN criteria. Modest Genius talk 10:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One point is the best target article(s) for this topic as currently the target is just a section in a broader topic. The story continues to develop and now China has announced that it is reciprocating. Perhaps China–United States trade war will then be what our readers are looking for. We also have a more specific article called Liberation Day tariffs... Andrew🐉(talk) 14:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Laura Loomer is now the top Trump topic, while the stock market is the top economic news. It's interesting that readers are finding this despite the wordy title of List of largest daily changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. ITN's blurb is still ignoring this notable aspect and so it's obviously the search engines that are actually driving the traffic. Heard Island is still getting attention but another exotic island has just overtaken it for a different reason. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you’re trying to say that the best blurb for this would’ve been "Trump imposes tariffs, including on these islands that only have penguins, and people find that funny", what’s the point, Andrew. In general, please remember that one of the stated purposes of ITN is to direct readers to articles that may contain more information on topics they’ve heard about - the idea of directing suggests the readers aren’t finding these articles themselves, so, showing the ones they’re already reading sounds counterproductive to me. Both for the readers and for WP, as ITN is using real world news awareness to promote our articles on ITN to attract more readers to a wider array of articles. I don’t know how many times it has to be said to you, but ITN and Top25 are very different endeavours. Maybe one day ITN will become a MP list of most-read, but nobody besides you seems to want that right now, and trying to force it to happen by already acting like pageviews is ITN’s purpose is not contributing to discussion of the criteria that everyone is, making many of your comments redundant. Kingsif (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bill Cottrell

[edit]
Article: Bill Cottrell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Detroit Free Press
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Death announced today. The NFL's first black center, and one of the first articles I'd written, back in 2020. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Khamtai Siphandone

[edit]
Article: Khamtai Siphandone (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Laotian Times
Credits:

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

Former president of Laos. Jmanlucas (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support- Page looks good and the guy is worthy for ITN LuxembourgFan42 (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full enough article. Longest lived world leader ever. Doesn't meet Thatcher/Mandela criteria for ITN though. Bremps... 22:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Longest lived was Celâl Bayar. Curbon7 (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Chinese landing barges

[edit]
SNOW close. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: PLA Navy landing barges (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ China starts testing invasion barges which extend bridges to form a pier. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, US Naval War College, CNN, Naval News
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: These new barges are being tested on China's south coast currently and these seem more significant than the current exercises around Taiwan. The barges put down feet into the sea bed and then extend bridges to form a pier. These would enable fast roll-on/roll-off logistics for a naval invasion of places such as Taiwan. These seem as significant as the Mulberry harbours were for the D-Day invasion of Europe. Our article needs expansion but the US Naval War College paper has lots of good detail. What I've not found yet is a good free image but I'm just getting started after reading the electrifying article in the NYT. That's dated April 1st but this does not seem to be a joke. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's early days yet. I've just edited the article to add more sources and detail. There are lots of naval buffs on Wikipedia and I expect that they will do more as the news breaks. Watch this space... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and snow close - Weapons and equipment tests are not significant enough to warrant a blurb even when they strongly suggest impending invasion, and any suggestion that this will be used in any military operations is leaning into WP:CRYSTAL territory since it is not guaranteed that these things will be used as per my understanding, even though common sense says it is highly plausible. Tube·of·Light 08:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting but not really of ITN significance (which itselfs derives from the crystalball of use in an invasion) as reflected by the blurb. Perhaps DYK. We did not post the minor Cross Strait crisis around an year ago, these developments are even less significant. Gotitbro (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Militaries test new equipment all the time. If these landing craft are used in an actual invasion, then we can post. Merely trialling them isn't significant enough. DYK might be a possibility, but the article would require expansion to meet their requirements. Modest Genius talk 10:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The beginning of tests of a technology is obviously not ITN material. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not ITN material. Secretlondon (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A military exercise is not ITN-worthy.
675930s (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huge Oppose; please SNOW it. It is not much of an event . Yet RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Najmuddin Shaikh

[edit]
Article: Najmuddin Shaikh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DAWN
Credits:

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

 Ainty Painty (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, missing sources LuxembourgFan42 (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It doesn't have a image and its past recent deaths by now.Roc1233 (Talk | Edits) 01:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Roc1233, if you want to be taken seriously here, I suggest you drop your comments on lack of images. It’s not a criterion for evaluating recent death nominations. See WP:ITNRD. Schwede66 18:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 1

[edit]
April 1, 2025 (2025-04-1) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: John Thornton (venture capitalist)

[edit]
Article: John Thornton (venture capitalist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Death reported 1 April. Thriley (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose having this stub on RD. The article currently doesn't focus on why he's notable beyond the passing mention of founding The Texas Tribune. Departure– (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Its a stub and it doesn't have an image.Roc1233 (Talk | Edits) 01:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nuh-uh. Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page. Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Michael Hurley

[edit]
Article: Michael Hurley (musician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Pitchfork [7], The Guardian [8], Rolling Stone [9]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American Folk musician with career spanning over 60 years, described by Pitchfork as the Godfather of freak-folk. Known for many albums, including 1975's Have Moicy! --Golan1911 (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Johnny Tillotson

[edit]
Article: Johnny Tillotson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): People
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American country singer-songwriter. 240F:7A:6253:1:C807:43E1:28B4:4DD (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mark Laforest

[edit]
Article: Mark Laforest (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Toronto Sun, TSN, American Hockey League
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian ice hockey goaltender. Article doesn't have any CN tags, nor any other glaring issues at first glance. The Kip (contribs) 21:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Career stats need to be cited. Bremps... 00:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bremps common practice in WP:NHL is to source stats from the “Biographical information and career statistics from…” sources listed under “External links” (ex. Eliteprospects, HockeyDB, NHL.com, etc), without a direct link in the table. The Kip (contribs) 01:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: George Freeman (guitarist)

[edit]
Article: George Freeman (guitarist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Chicago Tribune
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American jazz guitarist. 240F:7A:6253:1:5B2:5A14:8151:B74 (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the discography serves as its own citation, then count this as a support vote. Article in GA quality. Bremps... 00:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bremps above. Yakikaki (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unreferenced date of birth. Schwede66 01:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unsourced discography. MOS:LISTOFWORKS is clear on need for sourcing:

    Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet.

    —Bagumba (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Val Kilmer

[edit]
Article: Val Kilmer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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

 elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Really sad. Enjoyed his performances. The article has citing issues, and his death category could use some more. AndrewGarfieldIsTheBestSpiderMan (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as soon as the article polishing is ready. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: our man here was popular enough to be remembered. But article needs hefty work to be nominated. RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still a lot of citation needed tags, and a few uncited and untagged paragraphs in the Career section. Departure– (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say that I strongly oppose a blurb - the article does NOT tell me why they were notable beyond saying they were in big movies. Departure– (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support one of the big box-office draws in the later half of the 1980s and early 1990s though article needs work.
SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's Val Kilmer, not much more to think through here. If whoever Betty Webb was can go up, he can too. Tidy up the article for sure, but the minute that's done, play ball. Xanblu (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of god, Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. The Kip (contribs) 17:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not WP:BITE. BangJan1999 18:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Photo distinction maybe? BilboBeggins (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly oppose article as it stands now. Big orange tag at top. Scuba 13:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I realize there is a "big orange tag" on the article, but I don't understand why it is there. Kilmer's article has 112 citations. This sadly is the norm at now for recent deaths, where editors are demanding more sources than required by Wikipedia policies, and prevents longer articles like this from getting to the main page while allowing stubby articles to make it on much easier. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the big orange tag at the top. It seems to apply only to the filmography section (which already has a tag). I added a bunch of references based on Associated Press' article but I don't have time to sift through every single film and TV show (especially the smaller productions) to find all references. I support RD but reserve my judgement on blurb. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, most if not all of the roles in the filmography section are already sourced in the article. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Betty Webb

[edit]
Article: Betty Webb (code breaker) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Elderly UK Bletchey Park code-breaker Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: no issues and is worthy for being under RD LuxembourgFan42 (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Gas Pipeline Explosion in Malaysia

[edit]
This won't get support. Schwede66 21:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2025 Putra Heights pipeline fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A natural gas pipeline explodes (pictured) in Putra Heights, Selangor, Malaysia, injuring 305 people and causing the destruction of at least 190 houses and 159 vehicles (Post)
News source(s): The Star
Credits:

Article needs updating
 sherm (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ready References are badly messed up, only 2 citations in the lead paragraph. This needs alot of fixing. Shaneapickle (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though the incident had garnered some worldwide attention, I don't think it is notable enough for it to be in ITN. Furthermore the article content need to be reworked Syn73 (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose background section has no sources. Besides that, with no deaths and seemingly not-wildly-extensive property damage, I don't really think this rises to the level of ITN. The Kip (contribs) 14:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not enough sources and with no deaths or massive damage. It isn't worthy of ITN LuxembourgFan42 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) China imposes temporary blockade on Taiwan

[edit]
Consensus is against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Cross-strait relations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ China imposes temporary blockade on Taiwan (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article needs updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose run of the mill military exercise. Scuba 10:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose until bombs start falling on Taipei, per all above. Departure– (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are military exercises in international waters. They're certainly provocative, and China is doing a lot of sabre-rattling today, but it's far from the act of war implied by the nomination. Also, there is zero update in the linked article, and that's too broad a topic anyway - I would expect a stand-alone article to be written before nomination for ITN. Modest Genius talk 13:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close or preferably, Withdraw If something changes significantly, feel free to nominate again once the target article has been updated. Jehochman Talk 13:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and SNOW close So what, average day in the Taiwan strait. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) NBA fight

[edit]
Consensus to post a sports fight will not develop. Stephen 03:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Minnesota Target (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A violent altercation broke out during an NBA game on March 31, 2025 between the Minnesota Timberwolves and the Detroit Pistons at Target Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The incident, which drew comparisons to the 2004 Malice at the Palace, resulted in the ejection of 6 players and 2 coaches. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A fight between multiple coaches and players from the Minnesota Timberwolves and Detroit Pistons resulted in Donte DiVincenzo (guard), Naz Reid (center), Timberwolves assistant coach Pablo Prigioni, Ron Holland (basketball) (forward), Isaiah Stewart (center), Marcus Sasser (guard), and Pistons head coach J.B. Bickerstaff. being ejected.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Detroit Pistons: Ron Holland (basketball) (forward), Isaiah Stewart (center), Marcus Sasser (guard), and head coach J.B. Bickerstaff. And, sparked debates on player conduct and security measures in the National Basketball Association.
News source(s): [1][2][3][4][5]
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: A fight between multiple different players and head coaches in the Minnesota Timberwolves and the Detroit Pistons in the National Basketball Association is going viral through the media. And, is drawing comparisons to the 2004 Malice at the Palace incident. CostalCal (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, fights always happen at sporting events. 675930s (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ "Timberwolves-Pistons fight: 7 ejected in brawl". Fox 9. March 30, 2025. Retrieved March 31, 2025.
  2. ^ "Donte DiVincenzo in middle of ugly Timberwolves-Pistons brawl". New York Post. March 30, 2025. Retrieved March 31, 2025.
  3. ^ "Pistons-Timberwolves brawl: NBA punishment looming?". The Sun. March 30, 2025. Retrieved March 31, 2025.
  4. ^ "Timberwolves bounce back after brawl, pull away from Pistons". Star Tribune. March 30, 2025. Retrieved March 31, 2025.
  5. ^ "Timberwolves vs. Pistons - Game Summary". ESPN. March 30, 2025. Retrieved March 31, 2025.

References

[edit]

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1284640454"