*::Yeah, [https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/cyclone-peru-causes-major-flooding-least-six-dead-2023-03-12/ Reuters] explains it as well. {{tq|Later, INDECI said 58 people had been killed '''since the start of the rainy season...'''}} only 6 have occurred, and the other 58 are from the other events of the rainy season! [[User:Tails Wx|<span style="background:#FFDF00;color:#0000FF">'''Tails'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tails Wx|<span style="color: orange">'''Wx'''</span>]] 22:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
*::Yeah, [https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/cyclone-peru-causes-major-flooding-least-six-dead-2023-03-12/ Reuters] explains it as well. {{tq|Later, INDECI said 58 people had been killed '''since the start of the rainy season...'''}} only 6 have occurred, and the other 58 are from the other events of the rainy season! [[User:Tails Wx|<span style="background:#FFDF00;color:#0000FF">'''Tails'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tails Wx|<span style="color: orange">'''Wx'''</span>]] 22:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Deaths or no, there is no need to meet a [[WP:MINIMUMDEATHS]] toll in order to merit posting, and there are good reasons for posting this, not the least of which is the rarity of this storm. --'''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 14:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Deaths or no, there is no need to meet a [[WP:MINIMUMDEATHS]] toll in order to merit posting, and there are good reasons for posting this, not the least of which is the rarity of this storm. --'''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 14:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
*<b>Oppose</b> Due to contradictory sources. <b>Support</b> When an accurate death toll is found. [[Special:Contributions/47.23.10.234|47.23.10.234]] ([[User talk:47.23.10.234|talk]]) 17:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Nominator's comments: It seems that these annual blooms have become a big deal since 2011 but I noticed it now because it's in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I've seen this all over the news, it doesn't seem like a major disaster or the like, more another sign of climate change. --Masem (t) 14:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This may well be on its way to become a big thing in around U.S. Gulf states and Caribbean, but I'm afraid that this blooming is still far away from this becoming actually disruptive and dangerous to the oceans. MarioJump83 (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hungary announces that a vote on Finland's membership application will take place on March 27. Fidesz parliamentary group leader Máté Kocsis says that Sweden's application will be considered at a later date. (AFP via Barron's)
No. 1 seed Purdue is defeated 58–63 by No 16 seed Fairleigh Dickinson, only the second time a 16 seed has defeated a 1 seed in the tournament's history and the first time since 2018. (USA Today)
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: Not updated yet but surely will soon be. Appreciate we have the ongoing link but this seems a major development - Dumelow (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, absent a revolution in Russia it is doubtful Putin (and the other person charged, the Children's rights official) will ever see the inside of an ICC courtroom or even be arrested. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but not ready. Wow, that was unexpected. There's no chance of Putin being arrested any time soon, but this is still a big deal in international relations. We don't normally post mere arrest warrants, but for Putin I think we should make an WP:IAR exception. The problem is getting a suitable update somewhere - I don't think a couple of sentences in Putin's long biography article is particularly helpful to readers. Is there one of the Ukraine war articles that could be updated? Or a new article started? Modest Geniustalk15:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would be a good option - it gives context on the specific crime, rather than a general biography (I think most readers will already know who Putin is). Modest Geniustalk15:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Conditional & Reluctant Support Normally I would oppose a report of war crimes charges as I think they should be covered by ongoing and singling out an individual in a blurb based on a charge only, could raise BLP issues. However, this is Putin himself and that puts things on an entirely different level. The main problem at the moment is that this needs to be substantially expanded. Ideally it should be the subject of its own article. As of right now, this cannot be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - unprecedented act indeed, but let's be honest, the ICC knows that the chance of this warrant being carried out is extremely low, and will almost certainly come with major escalation. This is at least in part a virtue signal. Crusader1096 (message) 15:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
dont really know whats unprecedented about the ICC issuing an unenforceable warrant, but plenty of heads of state have been charged previously. This has next to no chance of doing anything, as the Russians would likely react similar to what the US would do. It is in the news though, but all the same, covered by ongoing and of little impact. nableezy - 16:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody please tell me what is unprecedented about this? I guess a warrant against the head of state of a UNSC permanent member, but again several heads of state were indicted while they were heads of state for actions in an ongoing armed conflict. Off the top of my head Omar Bashir for crimes against humanity in Darfur. Gaddafi for the Libyan Civil War. Russia isnt a signatory to the Rome Statute, this is effectively a press release. nableezy - 16:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that a warrant against the head of state of a UNSC permanent member is both entirely unprecedented and significant. I think that's where the minds of most people in support of posting this are. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)17:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think ICC issues unenforceable warrant against target that will never be brought to trial unless there is a regime change being a non-event and not at all unprecedented, but thats just me I guess. nableezy - 17:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the precedent cited below on Bashir and Gaddafi being posted when indicted then my objections are lessened, though this still is indeed covered by ongoing. nableezy - 20:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support significant development in the Ukraine war, and the ICC is the global body for prosecuting war crimes. While it may seem that the odds of carrying out the warrant are low right now, many former heads of state have been arrested and prosecuted years afterwards. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Almost certain to amount to nothing seeing as there's basically no chance Putin ever shows up to face these charges. If Putin does eventually come before such a court and is found guilty however? Now that's ITN material. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ICC issuing arrest warrants in general is uncommon, never mind against the leader of a major world power engaged in warfare against another country, for conduct in said war. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative blurb. This is unprecedented in the history of the ICC, and it is extremely significant in that the head of state of a P5 country is being charged. I like the focus on the article relating to the abductions, though both that article and Putin's biography are nowupdated to include this information, which was absent at the time of the nom. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)16:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb - there are two items which lack references, but this is not serious enough to prevent it being posted. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb Major news, think its good to include Maria Lvova-Belova in the blurb and important to note that the charges relate to the alleged abduction of children. ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING16:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: Just as a quick WP:BLPCRIME note, I think we should probably use the less concise version; something like "alleged involvement in" or "suspected involvement in" seems more compliant with that policy than the thing that got posted. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)17:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, "arrest warrant" implies that they are accused, not yet convicted of crimes. If other admins disagree, feel free to adjust, but "involvement in" is euphemistic; they are accused of ordering these crimes. Sandstein 18:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, one would need to look at the arrest warrants to determine what specifically their respective relation to the abductions is alleged to be. That would complicate the blurb and make it overlong. Sandstein 19:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose. Not really relevant given that Russia (and even the US) don't recognise this court. Also no chance anything will come of it, and we already have a line item in Ongoing for everything related to the Ukraine war. — Amakuru (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose. This is not really ITN worthy as it has no real world significance. It is very unlikely this will result in any real world action in the next month. On the off chance something comes of it, it will come months or years down the line and we should post that if it ever happens. Aure entuluva (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC) (Striking in line with extended-confirmed restriction of WP:GS/RUSUKR.) — Red-tailed hawk(nest)18:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Today there were lots of high profile news stories that "China's Xi to meet Putin in Moscow next week". Why are we not reporting that too as it seems more likely to actually happen?
But we already have Russian invasion of Ukraine in Ongoing to cover the numerous and various news stories arising from this conflict. How is this different?
WP:PERP says "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law."
Presidents meeting each other is a routine activity. International courts issuing warrants for permanent members of the UN Security Council who are engaged in open warfare is not routine. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclones, floods and other disasters are routine. Elections of national leaders are routine. Sporting events are routine. And yet we post all these. What's supposed to matter is significance and Xi's meeting with Putin seems more significant than the ICC because China is a superpower and the ICC isn't. Neither China nor Russia nor the USA is a signatory to the ICC. Even the Ukraine hasn't ratified it. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to nominate Xi's visit and check out opinions. As for ICC's arrest warrants, regardless of enforceability and bureaucratic obstacles, this is a major public degradation of Putin's international standing that would enter history textbooks as a symbol of everyone's equality before the law, regardless of ranks, and determination to seek justice at the highest possible level. That alone is sufficient for a blurb. Brandmeistertalk22:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - it doesn't really matter whether or not something will come of it. What does matter is that it's making news around the world and is unprecedented to boot. Ed[talk][majestic titan]18:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. Obviously there will be little to no immediate practical effect barring a dramatic Russian collapse, but an ICC warrant is significant and news in and of itself. ITN has blurbed both previous ICC warrants of sitting world leaders: Omar al-Bashir [1] and Muammar Gaddaffi. [2] al-Bashir's trial still has not occured, though after the 2019 coup, he might be handed over to the ICC. Gaddaffi of course, was killed in the war, so never stood trial. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions19:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support ICC warrants for heads of state are highly uncommon, let alone the leader of a UNSC permanent member. The Kip (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support It doesn't matter that nothing will probably come of it. The ICC is widely recognised worldwide, even by those who don't recognise its jurisdiction over their own country. It's an arrest warrant for a major current world leader. It's clearly notable news. -- KTC (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really??? As far as I can tell there are exactly two sentences in the bolded article about this, plus one in the lead. That is completely inadequate coverage for an ITN blurb and to the best of my recollection has never been considered acceptable in the past. We need to slow down and actually look at what we are linking. ITN is not a news ticker and we should not be lowering, or simply ignoring our standards just because something is grabbing headlines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...or we can be responsive to what happens in the world and remain relevant. I would urge you to review the stated purpose of ITN for which this IMHO checks at least three of the boxes. Quality can always be improved, but perfect should not be the enemy of good. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - The ICC has never made an arrest warrant against a (sitting) head of state. As others have said, it doesn't matter if a trial occurs (which it almost certainly will not), it's still important nonetheless. Estar8806 (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most annoying part of the BLP correction from every unsourced tidbit should be retained cus it may in fact be verifiable of yesteryear to today's unambiguous facts should be suppressed because other future things may not be true. It is unambiguously true that an arrest warrant was issued for Putin by the ICC on these charges, and no future trial, conviction, acquittal or anything else would change that from being true. nableezy - 23:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the for the abduction of children from Ukraine part I find prejudicial. That's the charge. The two never-to-be defendants weren't neccesssarily served the warrant for actually abducting children. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. I am not really surprised but still disgusted by the number of Putin's defenders who came out of the woodwork here. Shameful. Nsk92 (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did we consider an Event article that only has Background and Reactions "ready"? Since now, bud. This is yet another stupid fucking precedent to have to remember we threw on the pile, like the Mandela/Thatcher Standard, Lebrongate or WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I'll get killed for this but I actually think the LeBron record will go down as more significant. This is DYK material here. The fact that the arrests are likely getting merged into the abductions article substantiates the fact that in-actionable warrants such as these are footnotes in a much larger story. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to kill you, they'll have to get through me next! LeBron setting an all-time NBA scoring record is still a bigger deal than yet another Putin hater trying to hurt him with words. As are the facts that Nelson Mandela and Margaret Thatcher are dead (I don't think anyone here really still cares that 197 died in this suicide bombing or 306 in that flood, though). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: The current event article was never even the target for this In The News fiasco. Just Putin and missing children. Two things that have already happened. At least it got his picture on the front page. That'll show him. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's an entirely symbolic move, as acknowledged by all parties, and there's virtually no chance that an arrest will follow it. Not the sort of thing we should post at ITN – we shouldn't just consider whether an event is unprecedented, but whether it has real consequences or the potential to. — Goszei (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull Firstly Ongoing exists for a reason. We should also not be throwing out BLP in any case, these are still just charges not a conviction (Bashir and Gaddafi might have been posted but those were a decade ago; regardless mistakes should not be repeated). Gotitbro (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no BLP involved here. Saying X has an arrest warrant for crime Y does not say X committed crime Y. And while this is just charges, this is for one of the top world leaders. Masem (t) 14:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While formal indictments might be included in articles without BLP violations, it is something else to feature these on the main page through ITN. All the recent indictment noms for politicians et al have been shot down at ITN, with an ask for formal convictions. I don't see why we need to move away from precedent, opening a Pandora's box whenever some high profile person gets charged. Gotitbro (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly this case with Putin falls into the IAR-type territory due to the ongoing war and Putin's and Russia's position. We also know any trial is unlikely to happen, so waiting until the results of that highly unlikely trial would be pointless. So this is an IAR-type area.
We are going to have to think about this as next week, it is expected that NY State will arrest Trump on various charges. There may be other reasons to post (Trump is calling for his supporters to revolt, so we may have significant protests that would be appropriate), but there is something to be said about the arrest of a former President. Masem (t) 19:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Posting the arrest warrants for Gaddafi & al-Bashir set a precedent for posting this & the arrest warrant for Putin is even more notable since he’s the leader of a UNSC permanent member state. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - Historic decision. Clearly appropriate for ITN, even if there is not a huge amount of update about it.BabbaQ (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - For a head of state to be wanted for war crimes is clearly a signficant development in international relations. I know it's not unique, but that's not a barrier here. And I support the detailed blurb used; there's no BLP violation in specifying the nature of the charges for which the accused are wanted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this up on ERRORS, but the current blurb is absolutely a BLP violation. The arrest warrant is not for "abducting" children, it is, according to the ICC news release, for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation. The current blurb is both inaccurate and a BLP violation and needs to be corrected. nableezy - 15:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)][reply]
No it is not. The crime here is the unlawful transfer of civilians in to or out of occupied territory. Abduction in the Rome Statute is about forced disappearances, not transferring civilians in to or out of occupied territory. And yes, this is definitely something that needs to be cited, and BLP applies to Vladimir Putin as well as every other living person. I dare say that our BLP policy's main purpose is to protect the people we dislike the most from our biases. nableezy - 19:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you may not participate in this discussion due to the extended confirmed restriction applied to the topic area. nableezy - 19:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for multiple reasons. Firstly, the ICC isn't a global judicial authority as the ICJ, which is a UN organ, and this view has recently gained support with the numerous controversies surrounding its work. Note that Russia and the United States withdrew from the Rome Statute, whereas China, India, Indonesia and Turkey have never signed it. These countries make up almost a half of world's total population and include three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Secondly, it's been a long-standing practice that we post convictions, not arrest warrants or arrests, so this posting practically violates both WP:BLP and WP:PERP. Thirdly, the updates in both articles on the people involved are too short and don't indicate that they've committed the alleged crimes. A reader of Maria Lvova-Belova would guess that she rescued a 15-year-old boy given that she's a mother of 5 biological and 18 adopted children. There's absolutely nothing about why that adoption is considered abduction. How the boy's parents and relatives reacted? Did the they file a lawsuit? These are highly relevant questions that should be addressed in the article. Fourthly, this is covered by the ongoing item.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this is the problem with using "abduction" when the charge is not that. It makes one think kidnapping. The charge is the unlawful transfer of civilians from occupied territory. nableezy - 16:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—The ICC issuing an arrest warrant for a current, former, and in one case future head of government and/or state is not unprecedented. In the past, they've indicted Omar al-Bashir (Sudan), Muammar Gaddafi (Libya), Laurent Gbagbo (Ivory Coast), and Uhuru Kenyatta (Kenya). Out of the four, the only one who ever spent any time behind bars in the Hague is Gbagbo, and he was ultimately acquitted of all charges in 2018. Gaddafi was killed before he could stand trial, the charges against Kenyatta were dropped due to alleged witness tampering in Kenya, and Bashir is supposed to be transferred into ICC custody from Sudan, but the status of his impending extradition is in limbo. So, suffice it to say, the ICC has had a... less-than-stellar record when it comes to prosecuting and convicting heads of state. Nevertheless, the symbolic significance of issuing an arrest warrant for the leader of Russia—either the second or third most powerful country in the world, depending on how you rank China—should not be understated. Kurtis(talk)20:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose— More or less a symbolic move, the war is already featured in the ongoing section and int'l news outlets seem to have already moved on to other incidents of this war, mostly. DogeChungus (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Has anyone looked at the featured article lately? After a quick look there are multiple broken references, and some interesting sentences (the construct "sometimes maybe" looks especially strange in an article discussing war crimes). Since it's protected, there isn't much I can do about them.51.154.145.205 (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC) (Striking in line with extended-confirmed restriction of WP:GS/RUSUKR.)[reply]
Comment: As stated in the nom below, we were waiting for the death toll to stop increasing so rapidly before removing it. 111 more bodies were recovered just yesterday between Malawi and Mozambique. The storm is considered dissipated as soon as the low-level center can't be tracked or the agencies simply decide to stop tracking it and the article transitions to past tense. This is regardless of whether or not the remnants still exist and are still causing flooding. In this case, heavy rainfall is still occurring over the flooded areas and floods haven't begun to recede as of the latest reports. NoahTalk15:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull While heavy rain is still falling and floods are still killing people, the cyclone itself has "dissipated". This is part of the reason why ongoing is honestly inappropriate for tropical cyclones. They are "finished" as soon as they degrade enough that agencies don't bother tracking them anymore. We can't keep this here forever while the hunt for survivors and remains is conducted. As far as Meteo France and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center are concerned, the disaster ended on March 14–15 when they ceased tracking it. NoahTalk16:26, 17 March 2023 (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.
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.
The tournament is ITN/R but doesn't need to be ongoing. We'll have the article ready to post after the final game concludes on Tuesday. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work A typical sports article with lots of flags and scores and tables and not much else. And there are other issues such as the use of future tense. And it doesn't seem suitable for Ongoing as it's nearly over. And there's an issue with some of the teams which are rather phony. For example, though baseball originated in Britain, the game has died out there and is only played by a tiny number of amateurs. And just about none of these are on the roster for the so-called GB team which seems to have been packed with ringers. These claim to be British in the same way that Boris Johnson was American – a technicality of birth or parentage. But they are really Americans who play in the US, right? The article doesn't explain this. The sport has generally struggled to establish itself as an international sport, having been removed from the Olympics, and so this shaky background needs explaining. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the odd team composition is all interesting to bring up, I don't see any of that as being necessary to establish the prose of the article unless it's something specific to WBC 2023. Most of what you are describing seems to be an issue with the competition in general rather than its yearly iterations. --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)12:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon. The tournament is only at the quarter-final stage and doesn't conclude until Tuesday (which is a weird day to hold the final, why wouldn't it get a prime weekend slot?). I suggest you withdraw this nomination and come back once they tournament is actually completed. The article will need referenced prose - not just tables - describing what happened at the tournament, during the final etc. Modest Geniustalk12:03, 17 March 2023 (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.
How does this meet the criteria for WP:SPEEDY and WP:SNOW? Just because an article is a stub doesn't mean that it can't be posted, and whose to say that there won't be an uptick in edit activity? Additionally, you can't invoke the snowball clause for only two opposes. Crusader1096 (message) 02:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We dont post things to ongoing on the chance that there will be an uptick in editing activity. That is getting into WP:CRYSTAL territory there. A blurb would be more appropriate as Masem has said below once the article is updated enough. NoahTalk02:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably this should be first improved but brought as a blurb - the decision by Macron to push through the retirement age bill today is causing a newfound round of protests, which have been covered by the news (they ahve been a million strong at times). --Masem (t) 01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb when ready - Generating a lot of media coverage and the scale of the protests is blurb-worthy, but the article needs improvement. ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING07:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready: this might be significant enough to post, but the article is pure WP:PROSELINE. It doesn't even explain why the protests are happening - just one sentence saying it's related to pension age - or why the government is attempting to bring in these reforms. What's there is well-referenced, but it needs to explain the causes of the protests. Modest Geniustalk12:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not ongoing, maybe blurb - This is In The News, and is getting bigger and bigger (especially as it's about an issue that will only become more relevant as demographics in the western world age), so I could hear arguments for its notability, but we post a blurb first, and if by the time the blurb has rolled off the event is still ongoing, then we can post it to ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the page quality is acceptable and it's receiving updates. The incident has been ongoing for at least two month and It had to be on the main page sooner than this. The incident is statewide, serious and ongoing. Still making news and further protests are announced [3].
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.
The death toll from Cyclone Freddy increases to over 300, with most of the deaths occurring in Malawi. (Al Jazeera)
Law and crime
Two police officers are killed by a 16-year-old gunman while responding to a domestic dispute call at an apartment complex in Inglewood, Edmonton, Canada. The perpetrator kills himself after seriously wounding his mother. (CBC News)
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.
Weak Support That's Jacqueline Summers Gold, by the way, once hailed as the 16th richest woman in Britain and former chair of three apparently leadworthy companies (two notable). The article needs more pronouns, or at least to refer to her by her cool and only slightly longer surname. I'd do it, but I don't want to. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon expansion - currently not enough information on the actual flood itself outside of the lead. Also, both of the computers I use in a string of bad luck are or will be broken so I'm currently on mobile and thus can't fully tell, but the article seems to be a little short. Crusader1096 (message) 23:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Do not see consensus developing for us to post this one. The technology itself looks breathtaking and will surely impact all of us in some form or the other. If you want to see how it will impact some of our articles, join the discussion at WP:LLM. Closing this one. Ktin (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2023 (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.
Nominator's comments: Very unorthodox nomination, but this is (in my opinion) a HUGELY relevant event. It is In The News, sending shockwaves throughout the internet and tech world, and is a groundbreaking innovation in Artificial Intelligence, a technology that will probably come to define this era. This is truly a breakthrough, and (in my opinion) qualifies for ITN. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The BBC article shows it suggesting you can make omelettes with flour. GPT's "humor" aside, it's just another chatbot. RAN1 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tech news today. I don't believe we announced the other AIs. Maybe when it turns into Skynet (of course by then though...) CoatCheck (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose - This is not an advertising ticker. We shouldn't overstep WP:CRYSTAL in foretelling the impact of this product. And it's not AI: it's just a statistical large data model with no self-awareness. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The original ChatGPT had made such a shockwave, I feel, that any new additions won't top when it first showed up. I could be wrong on that, after all I don't pay very much attention to the tech world, but even then, I still oppose for the reasons brought up previously as well. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - i do feel like people are missing the point a bit. It isn't just some "new product". From what's been told, this new AI version is MUCH stronger than its predecessor by over a quadrillion times. Yet, what makes me oppose this is that it's not that great. It's a major improvement from its previous but it's still not blurbable imo. I would possibly support the blurbing of a hypothetical GPT-5 depending on how good it is but GPT-4 just isn't good enough. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get "a quadrillion times stronger" from? The originally rumored figure was that it had about 570 times more parameters (from 175 billion to 100 trillion), and even that was deemed an exaggeration by OpenAI. Ionmars10 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2023 (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.
Nominator's comments: Very unusual weather phenomenon for the region that is causing widespread destruction in Peru. Death toll is expected to increase. WMrapids (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sources say this has killed six to eight people, not at least 60. About that many have died in the rainy season. Unless I'm missing something (I read Spanish poorly). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose since we don't know what the hell has actually happened due to conflicting sources (multiple Spanish sources say 58-60 deaths for the storm and some say 6). Collapsed further discussion under InedibleHulk's oppose due to its size and it's now straying off the topic of the storm itself. NoahTalk22:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do indeed mention 58 and 3 deaths. I have put a ton of sources on the TP for expansion but sadly it seems nobody wants to help out the article. Cyclone activity is rare in Peru as sources cited it being the first such event since 1997–98.NoahTalk09:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are in Spanish, which I don't read well enough to know. The English ones in your list put the toll at around six, one adding Later, INDECI said 58 people had been killed since the start of the rainy season, which began some months ago. It did not provide a specific time frame for the casualties. Can you share one English source here for "at least 60"? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I can only find 3 major English sources (including the two above) discussing it in detail and they all published similar information. [5] title translates directly as "Peru underwater. Cyclone Yaku: 60 dead and 15,000 homeless without response from the Boluarte coup government". My guess is that official sources aren't differentiating the deaths because Yaku was simply worsening existing rain/flood problems and wasn't the only factor in the recent rains. NoahTalk20:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll understand if I trust the story shared by the staff of Reuters, DW and Bloomberg over a post by someone whose username translates to "fight kings". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not their username but rather their actual name, which is Lucha Reyes. A lot of Spanish names translate to words in English. If you trust the English sources only on these storms, then articles won't go anywhere because they don't provide adequate information. NoahTalk21:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lucha Reyes (Peruvian singer) exists... last name actually was Reyes and her common name was Lucha. Her professional partner's first name translates to pity in English. Not hard to believe someone actually being named Lucha. Articles would be absolute shit if not for local language sources because English sources do not provide in-depth coverage of the impact but rather a summary. NoahTalk21:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since we don't know what the hell has actually happened due to conflicting sources (multiple Spanish sources say 58-60 deaths for the storm and some say 6). Not going to bother arguing with you anymore since it's just talking to a wall. I already mentioned quite a few names in Spanish translate to words in English. If you want to biased against Spanish sources due to the name of the reporter, so be it. NoahTalk21:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Jerry Tuite, so no Wall or Malice intended. I appreciate that some real Spanish names (like Reyes) do translate to English words. But "Lucha" is not one of them and searching Wikipedia for an example to the contrary is fruitless. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's more a lack of evidence, despite searching Wikipedia, combined with a knowledge of many lucha libre stage names, such as Luchasaurus. What I trust less about Lucha Reyes' "diary" than its language is that it's a socialist opinion site, not hard news. Plus, multiple actual and reputable newswires have contradicted his or her claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few newspapers in Central and South America are affiliated with either the state or a political party. That simply comes with the territory. I haven't thoroughly vetted that source, but that has to be done before declaring it entirely unreliable as there are state/political party-affiliated sources that have been deemed reliable in the past for other countries for various articles across Wikipedia. For example, every Chinese news source would be considered unreliable since they are state-affiliated, but that isn't the case. It is decided on a case-by-case basis and sometimes takes hours of searching for an individual source. Given that multiple Spanish sources have stated 60, maybe there was simply confusion on their part. That does happen from time to time in English news reporting, especially when multiple figures are coming out in short order. Reuters had to issue a correction for Freddy's death toll in Malawi today. NoahTalk22:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual disaster with a decent amount of deaths. The article is in okay shape now but could always use more expansion. NoahTalk16:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Giving the article a bit of a skim, might have missed some stuff I'm unaware of, but meets notability standards IMO, it's rare for hurricanes to hit Ecuador and Peru. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Reuters explains it as well. Later, INDECI said 58 people had been killed since the start of the rainy season... only 6 have occurred, and the other 58 are from the other events of the rainy season! TailsWx22:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ecuador withdraws its ambassador from Argentina in protest at the latter sheltering Ecuadorian politician María de los Ángeles Duarte since 2020, refusing to give information of her whereabouts. Hours later, Argentina also withdraws its ambassador from Ecuador, escalating diplomatic tensions between the two nations. (Infobae)
Nominator's comments: Kind of surprised we don't have a nomination for this. "First direct contact between the Russian and United States Air Forces since the Cold War", per the article. Blurb might need improvement, since the facts are disputed. Banedon (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Covered by the Ukraine ongoing for all purposes. It hasn't really tripped the relationship between the US and Russia that's already not stressed by the Ukraine war. --Masem (t) 02:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it's covered by Ongoing, just loosely connected. But I also know we still don't know much and that nobody died in this downing/crash/whatever. We don't mourn robots here, and shouldn't always anticipate doom. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Of all the death and destruction being caused in the Ukraine war, one drone being forced down is a drop in the ocean. This is covered by the entry in ongoing. If it prompted a major response from the US we can consider that as a nomination, but right now it's a minor diplomatic scuffle, akin to the missile that accidentally hit Poland a few months ago. Modest Geniustalk12:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose. If this had been a piloted plane that's a different matter. Based on the video, this actually looks accidental (it was physically struck by a Russian fighter trying to do a near pass; no sane pilot will ever intentionally collide with another object in the air). BD2412T16:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: Died yesterday but death was only announced today; saw no {cn} tags but there is still no section about his death yet. Vida0007 (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Catastrophic flooding ongoing in Malawi with the death toll rapidly rising (199 confirmed as of this nomination). Rainfall is continuing across Malawi and Mozambique in association with the cyclone's remnants. The article is continually being expanded and meets criteria for ongoing. Opting to nominate instead of add it myself given my involvement in the tropical cyclone project. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support its still going as the cyclone's remnants is still bringing heavy rainfall and 238 fatalities is confirmed so far which is very notable for a tropical cyclones
Question. Is this really ongoing? Our article on this topic has this as the first line of the lede. Very Intense Tropical Cyclone Freddy was an exceptionally long-lived storm that tracked across the Indian Ocean for more than five weeks in February and March 2023.. Can any knowledgeable editor, update the lede if it is indeed ongoing. If it is not ongoing, we should not include this in the ongoing section. Ktin (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rainfall is still ongoing and expected to continue for a few more days as a result of the remnant moisture. The storm is no longer being tracked and is considered "dissipated" as of this morning because its center position could not be located. That doesn't mean the disaster is over. NoahTalk21:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it thanks. If the storm is "dissipated," I would recommend removing it from ongoing. Alternately, if the storm is ongoing, I would recommend the lede of the target article be updated. Ktin (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's still otherwise worthy of ongoing (I have no idea) maybe the link can be Cyclone Freddy flooding or something piped to the article. If a 1993 or 2011-level or worse Mississippi flood was caused by a storm new states could start flooding for months after the storm disappears. The rivers in this part of the world aren't as long in water travel time as the Mississippi but an organized wind map still existing is not needed for water from that storm to still be rising in many homes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can remove it if the death toll starts to wane off in a day or so (which is expected). We would not give ongoing coverage to continued humanitarian efforts, similarly to the Turkey/Syria quake. Masem (t) 01:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Main issue is rainfall. [6] specifically mentions "Over the next 48 hours, very heavy rainfall is forecast over southern Malawi and over Zambezia, Sofala and Tete Provinces (central-northern Mozambique)". This would still be ongoing as long as the article is updated, heavy rainfall is occurring, and scores of people are being reported deceased. NoahTalk01:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
101 more dead in Malawi today and missing there increased from 41 to 201. No word on increases in Mozambique yet, but more likely there since they couldnt access many areas. NoahTalk14:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclone Freddy kills at least 99 people in Malawi, including 85 people in Blantyre. It is the longest-lived tropical cyclone on record, according to the WMO, having formed on February 4. (The Guardian)
Thirty-four people are killed after a boat carrying migrants from Madagascar to the island of Mayotte sinks. (Arab News)
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.
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.
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: Died March 3, but death was only announced on March 13; article looks mostly ok, with just a few places missing citations which we can hopefully fix quickly. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have spent a lot of time today adding information about the Signature collapse to its article and overhauling it. I have ported some of that material to the new Collapse of Signature Bank page, but I fear that it will actually be quite redundant the way that the page is structured. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While one can call the Signature Bank a bank failure, my read of articles states it was done preemptively to prevent a mass rush on the bank markets following the SVB failure (which came out of nowhere). As such I don't think an update is necessary, but it is wise to be looking at a broad article on 2023 bank collapses if they keep happening and suggest that for ongoing. We definitely can't keep adding more banks to blurbs. --Masem (t) 04:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully it stops at 2 large banks, but if an increasing number of banks collapse we would just have to do it with a number ticker a la natural disaster fatalities. Juxlos (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on qualityNow Support The article needs to be expanded. Currently, there are very few details. Once the article is improved, I will gladly support it. As Massem suggested, future bank failures should be included in a broad article if that trend continues. --Maxxies (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It will provide a better insight on what is currently happening. I would certainly prefer to see this article compiling bank failures on ITN. Maybe if US bank collapses continue, why not consider this article as an ongoing event? Maxxies (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Photo RD Whatever else this collapse portends, I think it's high time a bank was pictured, or a banker or something. Kaja Kallas had a good run. But times change. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mootish. I think a hundred billion dollars is worth more (in importance bucks) than a movie which might see a hundred million in sales, if lucky. But Michelle Yeoh is definitely the Best Picture, aesthetically, and both are about as topical. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot dispute a bah. She can have it, then the director, then maybe the next bank. Seems that movie was pretty lucky after all, already raking in over a tenth of a billion before the Wikipedian consideration. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WP:ERRORS, there are serious issues with these claims. Our list of rankings is not reliable and, in any case, the authorities are taking action and so the matter is a work-in-progress. So, we should wait rather than rushing to make sensational claims. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not impressed as the Reuters source admits to the amusing error of dropping a billion. The discussion at WP:ERRORS indicates that they still have more work to do in explaining what a "bank" is in this context. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure? But we're talking a bout failures of U.S. banks here, so we would be a bit amiss if we were to include entities that were not considered banks in the United States on the list. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)14:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Entities such as Lehman Brothers were certainly considered banks and they are shown as such on Wikipedia being in categories like Banks based in New York City. The issue which arises especially in the US is the divide introduced by the Glass–Steagall legislation which separated commercial and investment banking in a way which is not so common in other countries. Both sides of the Glass-Steagall divide were still banks and they have both failed in a big way. If we're going make claims like "second-largest", then this distinction is vital. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was pointed out on the talk page of the List of largest failures. Maybe that article needs to be reformatted to include Lehman and other banks-but-not-exactly-banks in the same. I was surprised when I opened the article and saw that Lehman wasn't on top of it. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the issues with the wording of the current blurb are resolved on WP:ERRORS. Then, of course, support. I even consider posting this onto ongoing as it already seems to be a major developing story impacting stock markets and financial regulation in the US. A good target for ongoing would be 2023 United States bank failures, but it's currently not in a postable shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two bank failures is not a trend, so at this time it would be far too soon to use that article as a target. The situation does change day to day so this might be appropriate later. Masem (t) 18:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to have common cause (i.e. bank runs), and the Federal Reserve created a whole new lending facility to try to stem the contagion from both failures. I think that boldlinking the article on the bank failures (which also includes the bank failure that kicked this all off, Silvergate Bank) is more than warranted given the extraordinary nature of the response to these failures. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)18:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
? DecafPotato (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC) (Edit for rationale: partially per WP:ERRORS, I think noting that this is the third major bank failure this month is more important than the scale of them, but possibly both could work, in text following the third major U.S. bank failure of March 2023 text. DecafPotato (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the 2023 collapses link should be boldfaced because it also covers the third (and the first to collapse) bank, which is essential to what's happening. —Alalch E.18:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's also better to make all of this an ongoing news story about the FED interest rates hikes and the economic fallout from that. A lot more banks and companies will go belly up.Count Iblis (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Updated Blurb per nom. No sense messing with combined articles or Ongoing at the moment though, we're just talking about two incidents that are in the same bucket and may stand as more notable when considered together. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. If the trend continues and there are more developments, then a standalone article and ongoing might be appropriate, but this incident isn't individually ITN worthy. — Amakuru (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moody's has downgraded the outlook for the banking sector. Yet even with these banking crises, the stock market actually took a 1% bounce yesterday - 2% for the NASDAQ. A very healthy clawback. I don't think it means the ITN item is totally insignificant, but it speaks to one of the major difficulties in tracking complex economic stories through ITN! --⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)12:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's my concern still is that while many major sources are talking of this as a larger trend, it really is OR at this point to say "two banks failed and some stock corrections" == major event. Its the same reason that when the DOE report about their stance on the lab leak theory was all over the place, it wasn't the type of news that Wikipedia, including ITN, would really give much weight to. Its the 10-yr view we need to consider with topics like these if they will be long-lasting or just a burst of coverage. Its still something to watch for, but the news over the last few days, particularly when the FDIC assured all funds would be covered and alleviating major concerns, have made this story less compelling than when the SVB closure was first announced. Masem (t) 12:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I would have said support but it looks like other banks are now getting affected: Switzerland's Credit Suisse seems to be in trouble (and apparently this has been ongoing since at least 3 March). Per these articles from AP, CNN, and The Guardian, it looks like this is a bigger event now. I say we should wait for more developments before we update this, although admittedly the collapse of SVB and Signature are big news and frankly, ITN worthy. Vida0007 (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the issue is getting larger (and collecting more bank casualties with it), I'm beginning to think we could go with Masem and Amakuru's suggestions of putting it on Ongoing. I still support a blurb, but since the problem is most likely not ending at SVB and Signature, I think a spot in Ongoing can work as well. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support updating blurb &/or adding it to ongoing This is clearly a major additional event, so I think it’d be best to update the blurb, but more banks may fail, so it could be an ongoing crisis. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support updating blurb to include both Signature and Silvergate bank as well. Yes, please do link to the March 2023 failures article. Not too sure about making it ongoing. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs attention most of the early !oppose votes were over article length and quality, which seems to be mostly resolved by now. Significance has at least been established to some extent, in that most financial/business newspapers still have them as headline news a week in. Juxlos (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh becomes the first Asian to win the Best Actress award for her performance in Everything Everywhere All at Once. (AFP via ABS-CBN News)
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.
Are photographs of the artist's 3D sculptures Creative Commons safe under UK Freedom of Panorama, if they weren't "permanent" installations? Cielquiparle (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Influential Czech composer who received foreign commissions while banned in his home country from 1971 to 1989, influential then also as professor from 1991. - Article had only few inline citations, and few works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC) KTC (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Wait Two obvious problems. Date of birth lacks an inline reference. Non-notable children should not be listed by name. Schwede6617:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsourced paragraphs. (And are those paragraphs with only one source at the end mostly covered by that said source?)—Bagumba (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: Recurring item. The ceremony is still ongoing, with best picture not being announced, but the news is that almighty Fraser himself has won best actor while the Daniels best director(s?). Edit: having had BP announced, I am striking the original blurb. Crusader1096 (message) 03:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
per ITNR we go with the winning film. That EEAAO won 7 awards including Best Picture is what we should be noting, which would give us an opportunity to feature a picture of Michelle Yeoh instead. --Masem (t) 03:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-deserved. Can we do a rotation of images for Yeoh, Quan, Curtis, and the Daniels? I'd love to see all of them featured for a few hours each. Davey2116 (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever's image is being shown should have their award in the blurb. It's weird, showing Yeoh as the lead actress but not mentioning that she won the Oscar for lead actress. starship.paint (exalt)04:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is probably a bit more about the ceremony that should be included (no big "slap" to worry about, but we still have the usual things like in Memorandum to be added). Also note that the film page appears to be in very good shape for highlighting. --Masem (t) 03:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the 95th Academy Awards, Everything Everywhere All at Once (best actress winner Michelle Yeoh pictured) wins seven awards, including Best Picture Kirill C1 (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. Looks good. In Memoriam should probably have a separate reference but I suppose it is included somewhere in the other ones. The prose summary is fine. Regarding the picture, we can cycle some of the cast and crew. --Tone08:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did also believe the film itself was potential for a bold link with its quality but no further comments on that, yet. Masem (t) 12:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
In the news toolbox
.jpg)
OK. Grimes2 (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
_reporters_swarming.png)
.jpg)