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

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.

Andrew Barto In computing, Andrew Barto (pictured) and Richard Sutton are awarded the Turing Award for their work on reinforcement learning. A wildfire in Japan's Iwate Prefecture becomes the largest in the country in at least five decades. Chinese architect Liu Jiakun is awarded the Pritzker Architecture Prize. The United States imposes—and later partially delays—tariffs on Canada and Mexico and increases tariffs on China, incurring retaliatory tariffs from Canada and China. Firefly Aerospace's Blue Ghost soft-lands on the Moon as part of NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services program. Ongoing: M23 campaign Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Sylvester Turner Khalil Fong Joey Molland Selwyn Raab Hazel Nell Dukes James Harrison Nominate an article

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

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.

Article: 2025 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ In the 2025 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney (pictured), wins the election to succeed Justin Trudeau and become the next prime minister of Canada. ()
Credits:

• Nominated by Rushtheeditor (talk · )

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.

 Rushtheeditor (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, this is a change in the PM. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we need a reference for the results, the table doesn't have one. Secretlondon (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Secretlondon, fixed. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - this is premature. This is not a change in PM, it's the change in the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Wait to see if Trudeau resigns (which is almost inevitable), and renominate if Carney becomes Prime Minister. I'm not sure why people keep nominating things prematurely. It's not a contest. Also, it was a leadership vote. It was not an election. Nfitz (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not premature. The party members elected him; if it shouldn't be called an election, then you need to get the article title changed. Trudeau had already announced he will resign(that triggered the election), they will decide the exact moment soon, but no one thinks this isn't going to happen. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And Putin announced he wasn't going to invade Ukraine. Either way, renominate when that happens - which normally take one to two fortnights. Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We don’t post an inauguration - we post the election of a new leader. 2607:FEA8:2D43:D700:58D3:99FF:5AD5:E62C (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's already done. Trudeau is no longer PM. freshacconci (✉) 00:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The leader of the Liberal Party of Canada is the Prime Minster, so it is a change in PM. Hungry403 (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leadership of a nation changed. We posted Trudeau's announcement of resignation, so we can post the results of it too. Hungry403 (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait for Carney to take office, which should be in a few days. Natg 19 (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Mark Carney has been voted as leader of LPC and is now legally the prime minister elect (or next prime minister/prime minister in waiting). To become acting prime minister, he first needs to be sworn in by the Governor General (a representative in Canada of Britain's King Charles III) - this swearing in is an inauguration. Montezuma69 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support A leadership change in a G7 country. ArionStar (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: 2025 ICC Champions Trophy final (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ In cricket, India defeat New Zealand by 4 wickets in the final to win the ICC Champions Trophy. (Player of the final Rohit Sharma pictured) ()
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Ktin (talk · )

Nominator's comments: ICC Champions trophy. Link to 2017 nomination and discussion. Ktin (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - National championship. I'd say its notable enough. DotesConks (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International, not national. Secretlondon (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Popular tournament and notable too.

Support on quality, not sure about notability. I'm not in the loop about cricket (or sports generally). It does look like a different ICC tournament is on WP:ITN/R (the Men's T20 World Cup), and I'm not sure about the difference in notability for Champions. However, the article has a good amount of sufficient quality prose, both about the content and context of the game, and it's fully cited.

strong oppose a sideshow of a never ending demand for live content to broadcast, not ITNR and only 8 eight teams (a sideshow for live content). It is neither the world cup nor the t20 world cup, nor the ipl (which is someone ITNR).

• Oppose on notability. This is very much the second tier contest in men's one day cricket, behind the World Cup. Given we already blurb the World Cup, the 20/20 World Cup and the test World championship, not to mention women's events and the Ashes, it would be excessive to also blurb this.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For anyone opposing — while, I respect your opinion — the question to ask is — what changed since 2017 for the notability of this event to change? If there has been no change to this event’s notability since the last time we posted, I do not think that argument holds. Ktin (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• many of the WP:ITN criteria have changed since that time. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What change specifically would rule this nomination out? Ktin (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as this doesn't meet WP:ITNSIGNIF. It probably isn't in the top 5 most notable cricket events, and isn't even the premier 50 over competition (the Cricket World Cup is). Posting in 2017 when criteria was different to now does not mean it has to be posted in 2025 using our current criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• And I am also currently opposing on quality. The sections on each innings are too short, and there is way too much meaningless trivia in e.g. the match details notes using every stat they can find. Fails WP:ITNQUALITY. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: South African playwright. 240F:7A:6253:1:607E:905:50A8:545B (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: article is in pretty good shape, well referenced, significant prose. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 22:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft oppose--The article is in mostly great shape, but there's one uncited sentence around his death claiming two factoids (that might not need to be there): a) he was the last surviving person who played with Joe Dimaggio and b) he was the last surviving member of the 1953 World Series winning Yankees. If those details are either removed or reliably cited, we'll be good to go. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 08:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support now - these issues appear to be fixed. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 20:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This news is headlining multiple organizations
• Oppose, if the 300 death toll were a single massacre then that would be notable, but this has been across multiple massacres since January. People dying is nothing really unusual in a war. 675930s (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 300 death toll is only for march 7-8. Djodjor (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, then I change my stance to Support upon independent verification of the claim. 675930s (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Djodjor is that a support blurb from you? Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I Support. Djodjor (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ITN blurb. Very depressing turn of events. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now For three main reasons:

1. I wanted to verify whether the death toll cited in the blurb is accurate, so I did a little bit more research. That figure comes from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, and has now been re-reported by the New York Times. However, the NYT article is clear that "the allegations could not be independently verified [...] another monitoring group, the Syrian Network for Human Rights, reported that government security forces had only killed some 125 civilians. It said that men of all ages were among the casualties and that the forces did not distinguish between civilians and combatants". The 340+ claim does not seem sufficiently independently verified among the RS to make the main page.
2. Although Djodjor is correct that this is a horrific death count for only two days of conflict, the current blurb makes it seem like 340+ people were executed and massacred in a singular mass killing, such as what occurred with the Flour massacre, for example. Per the NYT, this is not what happened: the NYT article linked above discusses reports of indiscriminately dropping crude bombs from helicopters and aggressive guerrilla tactics throughout Tartus and Latakia, which has resulted in dramatically rising civilian casualties. Heavy civilian casualties due to indiscriminate tactics is distinct from a singular massacre of hundreds of civilians, which is what the blurb implies. That might still be sufficiently notable for ITN, but we need to make sure the blurb is accurate.
3. In addition, the blurb claims the massacre was committed by Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham. However, the target article for that organization refers to it in the past tense in its first sentence and claims it was disbanded in January 2025. Either the blurb or the lede of the article it links to is therefore incorrect.

I'm open to changing my vote once these accuracy issues are addressed or once the RS become more clear. Flip^andFlopped ツ 15:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait per Flipandflopped's first point — independent confirmation is needed. SOHR has also updated its death toll to 745 civilians. Another issue is that the target page appears to be about a broader range of attacks starting in December, not this specific clash on March 6–8 (which might merit its own article). I would support posting this to ITN on notability. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  With the amount of coverage this massacre has received, I strongly support posting it; *not* posting this high-profile story would be a failure on our part. This massacre did occur, it is only the death toll that hasn't been independently confirmed (Reuters and BBC have still been unable to confirm the death toll). Altblurb1 without an exact death toll seems sufficient. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now counterinsurgency campaign has civilian death toll. More at 11. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While a counterinsurgency campaign typically has civilian casualties, the events unfolding in Latakia are being characterized as deliberate massacres by multiple sources, including the BBC and CNN. It seems a bit flippant to dismiss the events as simply side effects of an insurgency when there is ample evidence that this is a pogrom and should be treated as such. FossilDS (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait for independent confirmation as per Flipandflopped and Nice4What. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment should we add the Actual Insurgency article to the blurb? Considering its significance i feel like it would help bolster the argument for blurbing this further. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is the latest phase of the continuing Syrian Civil war which is no doubt generating much conflict and misery. But the article Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present) has quality issues with multiple orange tags. And it says that misinformation is rife and so we should be wary about selective reporting of inflammatory claims. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights seems respectable but is based in the UK and mostly a one-man operation so we shouldn't just repeat their output.

More generally, the Syrian conflict seems like the Somali civil war which is nominated below. They are both classified as minor wars as they generate 1-10,000 deaths annually. There are 6 major wars listed which are worse and so we should keep our coverage in proportion. The entire region of the Middle East seems to have endemic conflict just about everywhere -- only Jordan and the Gulf States are shown as peaceful.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral—In principle, I would support a blurb on the notability of these massacres as a major (and deeply unfortunate) development in this new phase of the Syrian Civil War, What gives me pause is the attribution of the massacres to the Syrian Armed Forces, without any further context or elaboration, when the question of culpability remains up in the air. As the two proposed blurbs are currently worded, the underlying message being conveyed is that the current Syrian government, under Ahmed al-Sharaa, ordered these killings. In reality, we don't actually know whether they were perpetrated as part of a systematic and centrally-organized campaign of persecution against the Alawites, or if they were spontaneous acts of mass murder committed by rogue combatants within the SAF. In his response to the violence, al-Sharaa explicitly pinned the blame on pro-Assad elements attempting to discredit the new government; for all we know at this time, he may be right. In short, I do think this is a significant enough development to merit a blurb, but I want us to be very careful about how we phrase it to avoid inadvertently giving any particular narrative undue weight. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Specific targetting of civilians from a minority ethnic group is clearly significant, being a part of a larger ongoing conflict does not downplay it. Labelling these as counterinsurgency operations is abhorent. A blurb along the lines of "A massacre of Alawite civilians has been conducted in western Syria" would be better. Gotitbro (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support When it seems to end… ArionStar (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until independent confirmation. Even the most recent BBC article I see, 30 minutes prior to writing this comment, says there's no validation yet of any deaths. Masem (t) 13:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This happened. There are dozens of videos of people being shot. The whole "independent confirmation" thing just strikes me as lowkey racism, where you need some organization ran by white people to verify the atrocity before it is deemed truth, and the Syrian human rights groups are inadequate. But such verification may never come because the West supports these jihadists. JDiala (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support One of the worst atrocities of the modern era. It's basically a Yazidi-tier genocide. Calls for independent confirmation are, in my view, textbook systemic racism in action (see comment above). In any case, we have multiple WP:RS stating as a matter of fact that the events occurred, including the US State Department and AP headlines, so it is suitable to include at this point. JDiala (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A possible compromise position which may please everyone is simply including the word "reportedly" in the blurb. I should clarify that I'm not super keen on this, but it could be a way to streamline the consensus process here. JDiala (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Major and tragic event that is escalating as we speak. Media is conflicted on exactly what branch of government-affiliated fighters are committing these atrocities so leave that out for now and add it in when that's stable. Bremps... 19:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Almost shameful if we don't recognize this. --FelineHerder (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This news is headlining multiple organizations including the BBC, and the scope and scale of the massacres have provoked widespread international reactions. This clearly goes beyond the causalities one would expect from a war, and and Wikipedia should recognize at such.FossilDS (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — Should we link March 2025 Western Syria clashes in the blurb? DecafPotato (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Death published on 7 March. Date of passing not apparent in the source, however, unsourced additions by an anonymous editor, presumably a family member or a close one from the more intimate details added, put her death sometime at the end of February. – robertsky (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 ArionStar (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article has plentiful references, especially on the firing squad execution. Only slight quirk is that they are mostly at the end of paragraphs, but that's ok — WikiContributor0830 (t) 02:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well written and sourced plus highly notable. Inexpiable (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Satis. Execution by firing squad. Incredible! Grimes2 (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Appears to be cited and somewhat whole. Last section should be renamed "Legal issues" but that's a small thing. Bremps... 02:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Bremps: no major issues with article. Renamed last section. Should be good to go. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 14:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American architect Thriley (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Natg 19 (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: The Constitutional crisis in Somalia and the Las Anod conflict (2023–present) are often in the news. ArionStar (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please help ITN voters out by specifying a blurb and adding a nomination editor? Just because something in the news a lot, doesn't mean it merits a blurb. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 20:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this might be supposed to be an ongoing nomination. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's an "ongoing" nominatination. ArionStar (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure the articles get updated enough for ongoing, there are other conflicts such as Myanmar civil war (2021-present) which also unfortunately don't meet the criteria (WP:ONGOING)

Kowal2701 (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's the criteria for ongoing? ArionStar (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kowal2701 said it in their reply, Wikipedia:ONGOING. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 22:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article. In general, articles are not posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status. Natg 19 (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Ongoing are meant for stories that would have near daily coverage and updates to their articles (in addition to quality issue), not simply because the event is ongoing. This gets some coverage from time to time but given how prolonged it is, most of the media seem to give little coverage of it. Masem (t) 23:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not in the news. There are numerous ongoing armed conflicts (pictured). This one is graded as minor. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not nearly important or frequently updated enough to warrant an Ongoing. While this is notable for lasting so long it doesn't have enough coverage to deserve an Ongoing. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 02:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Masem. Spencer^T•C 05:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Natg 19 (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article's sourcing and length appear to be up to standard. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 14:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Natg 19 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article looks complete (enough) and well-cited. Bremps... 19:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose due to it being too soon. Likely that Athena toppled over just like Odysseus, but all we know now is that Athena is sending some data as far as I can see in this CNN live update, that's limited to just reporting that the Athena is generating power. Scuba 17:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt2 landing was actually a success, ITN/R

• Oppose Watching the feed, I didn't see any indication that they lost contact. Though it does seem that it is again on it's side. WAY too soon. Nfitz (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They did lose some of the lander's contact due to the fact 1 of the two radio antennaes shut off. Shaneapickle (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's looking increasingly likely that it landed too close to a boulder that is blocking the sun, and radio signals, on one side of the lander resulting in a loss of power... or it tipped over. But it never went out of contact unexpectedly. Scuba 19:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the landing was a disaster, and they've now permanently lost contact with it, I don't know why there's any support. These attempts are frequent enough these days, I don't think we need to post the crashes. Nfitz (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Technically all of these supports are correct on this, although it did get to Mons Mouton it was 250 miles away from its designated landing spot, but it still landed on the moon. So based on ITN/R, the moon was a technical landing designation, but it stil dident get to its destination, and its based on my specific ides and thoughts along with the other supporters, Chorchapu is supporting the alt blurbs not the og blurb. Shaneapickle (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait for confirmation that the lander has in fact is on its side, we should really avoid preemptively saying anything about the lander before more information is released. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 18:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support altblurb 2 per more recent updates. Fairly important mission that I think deserves an ITN mention. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 23:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the new information I now change my support to altblurb 3, but changing "and" to "but". User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 18:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until more information is known. We're not a breaking news service. ITN shouldn't put a blurb on the Main Page until the outcome of the landing is clear - and the article has been updated accordingly. Did it crash, land safely, or something in between? Modest Genius ^talk 19:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Still wait. The press conference last night has provided some information, but it remains unclear what the status of the spacecraft is. It seems to have landed but either been damaged or fell over, and isn't generating enough power to operate the science experiments. Maybe this is recoverable or maybe it's terminal; we don't know yet. Modest Genius ^talk 12:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Official reports by NASA and IM have said that the lander did land, but facing the wrong way. Shaneapickle (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If so, that information should be added to the article and cited to reliable (third party) sources. Modest Genius ^talk 15:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I know the updates say there is some communication and experiments on board are running, but if it did land or topple on its side, like IM1, I don't know if we'd call that a successful landing for ITNR. Masem (t) 23:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I can see, it hasn't toppled over, it's just angled away from the sun so it isn't getting a full charge. Scuba 00:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They don't know how it's oriented outside of the poor solar charging, and it will be a few days before any craft will be ae to sight it and conform. — Masem (t) 00:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Mind you, "destination" is the key word for the ITN/R criteria, not status. So in this case, the fact that it accomplished "A soft landing on the Moon" (even if it tipped over) means that it did manage to arrive at its destination. Whether it could accomplish its mission at its destination is another matter entirely, and not covered by the ITN/R criteria. (and would be impractical to cover, given that the at-destination durations of these missions readily exceed the lifetime of any ITN item on the FP) Nottheking (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait as per others. As the ITN/R criteria specifies, "destination" is critical. This both means that the blurb needs to mention its destination, and likewise, a final statement on its condition (whether it was a success, partial success, etc.) should be known. (on an aside, this does mean that had it failed to land at all the argument could've been well-made that it failed to meet the ITN/R criteria) Nottheking (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and has added an alt. It's now been confirmed it's on its side and the company has declared its mission cannot be completed given its orientation. -- KTC (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose According to the Guardian (see link) it didn't even land where it was supposed to, but 250 miles away. That doesn't sound like "reaching its destination" per ITNR, at least in my book. Khuft (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Spacecraft never bullseye their landing. There's a reason "Astronomical distances" is a term. The overall target was... To land in the polar regions of the Moon, which it definitely made it to. Nottheking (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am neutral on this, but doesn't "destination" for ITN/R in a more general sense mean the Moon? I assume this is distinguishing between successfully landings (or entries into orbit) and failures. Natg 19 (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, in spaceflight this is the general sense. So the broad category here that makes it "to Lunar orbit and beyond" is that it reached "soft landed on the Moon." The arguments that it somehow isn't on the Moon because it deviated a distance from where they aimed it would be like claiming that the Mars Perseverance Rover failed to reach its destination because it didn't bullseye its target either. Nottheking (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's in the news and the article seems adequate. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support AltBlurb 3. We now have confirmation from RS that the mission is "dead," though it did achieve its destination of a "soft landing on the Moon." The exact landing location isn't as critical here: when it comes to landing on other bodies, successful missions still tend to land many km away from the targeted spot. Nottheking (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought the "destination" was the targeted destination, not in a crater hundreds of kilometres away. Is the "soft" landing on the Moon the first time it hit, or the second time when it impacted on it's side? Nfitz (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, we had no problem with all the "2020" sporting events (such as the Tokyo Olympics) being held in the wrong year. And to answer your question, we have an article that defines "soft landing." The lander was undamaged, just that its position was incorrect for the function of some key components. (namely its solar panels, needed to keep power) Nottheking (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — Just wanted to note here that I've updated the proposed blurbs to reflect the fact that "Athena" is actually the name of the lander. "IM-2" is the name of the mission that flew the lander. — AFC Vixen 🦊 01:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Influential Cuban band member (guitarist and singer) and composer across genres, 50+ film scores, Grammy nomination. The article is better sourced and longer than in the beginning. Problem I see: long list of films. I know that IMDb is not regarded reliable, but what is? Help wanted. If we find nothing we can split the list and leave only the sourced ones in the bio, still 20+ - some with articles of very different quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• All films are now referenced, - some documentaries were commented out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Turing award. ITNR. Announced on this date. Ktin (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as all linked articles seem to be in good shape(though I must admit I understood very little of the last one). Barto and Sutton's articles do need to be updated to reflect the award. –DMartin 05:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not ready. Although the two articles look decent at first glance, it turns out that neither says anything about Barto or Sutton's work. They cover education, academic appointments, and awards, but give no description of their research i.e. the reason why they won the award. There should be at least a paragraph (with multiple references) in each article describing the research they did. Modest Genius ^talk 15:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Modest Genius: this has been completed. Please can you and / or others have a look. Ktin (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can anyone take a look at this nomination and the articles? These are ready to go to the mainpage IMO. Ktin (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support articles are good enough to be posted. For me are ready to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Admins willing to post ITN: Checking if we have an admin around to take a look and post this one. Ktin (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American jazz-funk vibraphonist, record producer and composer. 240F:7A:6253:1:1088:1DCE:94DC:C5B (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The article's referencing needs work, some information has no source. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I tried my best to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards by changing the language used anyway, but it's a very brief article for a very long career, and I'll admit that the wording is still clunky. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks pretty well-sourced to me. I however Oppose because the circumstances of the death don't warrant a blurb. 675930s (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They've not asked for a blurb. Secretlondon (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (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. 675930s (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. I am unsure why you have voted to oppose? No blurb was asked for and as you said, the article is well-sourced and that's what matters for RD. Youraveragearmy (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've placed an orange tag. Schwede66 22:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, everything appears to be cited well and is updated Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as article is in decent shape. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: the law practice section isn't adequately sourced in my opinion.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed that and one other unsourced claim. –DMartin 23:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. Looks good now.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose, he seems important, however a few sections of his article could definitely use more citations User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 20:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd be prepared to call this ready. –DMartin 23:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Schwede66 22:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Natg 19 (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support Some of the awards are not referenced. Grimes2 (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article is good enough now. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 08:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: I'm inclined to prefer Alt2, but it may be too long. Feedback appreciated. –DMartin 00:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Can Jiakun's article be expanded? May have to look to other language wikis, but that feels woefully short for this recognizition. --Masem (t) 02:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Ktin (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the original or alt1 blurb; alt2 is too wordy. ITNR and the article is in decent shape: updated and adequately referenced. I've just added two {{clarify}} tags, but those aren't vital. It's unfortunate we don't have more images of his work, but that can't be helped. Modest Genius ^talk 11:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  PS. the image has been tagged as lacking licence information, so seems likely to be deleted. Best not to use it. Modest Genius ^talk 14:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support altblurb 1, seems like a decent article and a fairly important award in architecture. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 13:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb 1 or original blurb. This is basically the Nobel Prize for Architecture. Article is a bit short, but fine. Khuft (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 21:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Haha, had an edit conflict trying to post this item. Schwede66 21:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And somebody added me to the credits; I shall state that my article edits were of cosmetic nature only. Schwede66 21:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Ōfunato wildfire (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ A wildfire in Japan's Iwate Prefecture grows to become the largest in the country's history. ()
Alternative blurb: ​ One person is killed in the largest wildfire in Japan's history.
News source(s): Japan Times, BBC, NYT,
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Harrz (talk · )
• Updated by AlphaBetaGamma (talk · )

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Largest wildfire on record in Japan, being covered by countless international news sources such as ABC News, Al Jazeera, CNN, Reuters etc. as well as extensive coverage in Japanese news. Note: most news sources are describing it as 'the largest in decades', however, this fire is now over double the previous fire's size - the Japan Times source states that "that fire burned 1,030 hectares, the previous record". harrz ^talk 14:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original blurb Relevant enough. ArionStar (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at this point. There are multiple wildfires going on across the globe and in terms of scale this is not large (even if largest for Japan). Masem (t) 15:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original blurb We regularly post American and Canadian wildfires which do not even come close to breaking the national record, I see no reason not to post the largest wildfire in Japanese history, especially when the impacts of the fires (mass evacuations) are prompting global coverage (NYT, BBC, etc). Flip^andFlopped ツ 15:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original blurb, this appears to be a very notable event and the largest in Japanese history. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 18:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original blurb -- the biggest wildfire in a country's history can be reasonably considered internationally notable to some extent, and it's not like we don't post all the national elections results. Plus, the photo is good. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original blurb Biggest wildfire in the a country's history, good photo. –DMartin 00:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original blurb. Reasonably fleshed out, immediate wide-scale effects that indicate likely notability under WP:NEVENT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original blurb as per above. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Schwede66 04:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Blurb issue - "for at least five decades" is future-tense, and we don't know what'll happen in the next five decades. The word "in" was probably the better fit than "for," as that indicates the better-known information: that it exceeds the size of all known wildfires in the area during the past 5 decades. Nottheking (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks done. This was also reported on ERRORS. The current blurb has "becomes the largest in the country in at least five decades." Natg 19 (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Occupied several of the most important political functions in France for the better part of 20 years. --Procrastineur49 (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support: Needs a few more citations, but good enough IMO. MT₍₇₁₀₎ 13:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bibliography needs citations or ISBNs. Some paragraphs and claims also need citations. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Involves multiple countries and billions of dollars. It is possible the target article is not appropriate, since China is not a subject there. Second Trump tariffs could also be a target article, but that article is broader since it mentions the European Union and other countries. Banedon (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the tariffs already get posted in February? 675930s (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the blurb was nominated but not posted because they didn’t go into effect in February Hungry403 (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment US has been in trade war with China since 2018, and this is even analysed in research papers (see Fajgelbaum & Khandelwal, 2022, Caliendo & Parro, 2023 and Alessandria et al., 2024). Also, note that the Biden administration didn't reverse the tariffs imposed by the First Trump administration, and even imposed additional tariffs on China in May 2024, which went into effect in September 2024 (CNN). So, China should be excluded from the blurb as this isn't really new, and the nomination should focus on whether the imposed tariffs on the neighbouring countries are notable enough.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support posting. This was nominated in February but consensus was to wait until the tariffs take effect. Disagree with excluding China because the new tariffs on China are a lot larger than the old ones and will significantly disrupt global supply chains. ITN historically neglects economic news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.200.171 (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until we know they go into effect. Blurb also needs to add that at least Canada has stated intent to tariff US goods in retaliation, as from last time, its the fact it was escalating into a trade war was the reason many supported posting. There's still hours before this could happen and things could change so just wait until we have an official word on this. --Masem (t) 12:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Canadian counter tariffs are already in effect - and took effect last night, User:Masem at the same time the USA ones took effect. I'm not sure what you are waiting for. The first round of the Canadian tariffs aren't as extensive, but targeted on vulnerable, mostly luxury, items and states. The second round in about 3 weeks will be more extensive - but I don't think we should wait for that. Nfitz (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I hadnt caught they started at midnight (both ways) so yes, there is no wait needed now. — Masem (t) 14:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support altblurb — Tariffs on China are also relevant, though maybe don't need to be bolded. I proposed an altblurb that includes that Canada and China imposed retaliatory tariffs (both of which have entered force, alongside the U.S. tariffs, about five hours ago as of writing). Wording can be changed to "all three countries" if Mexico imposes retaliatory tariffs of its own, which is highly likely, and Mexico's president Sheinbaum is expected to announce them in her news conference this morning. DecafPotato (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb. This is a significant shake-up to geopolitics. I prefer the alt blurb, as it uses the active voice; the use of passive voice in the original blurb strikes me as a bit weasel-worded. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - alt blurb - but is "trade war" the best description? The Americans have been clear that it will use economic coercion as a weapons to force Canada to become part of the USA. That makes this an act of war. On the other hand, the description is more apt for the other 2 nations. Nfitz (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb but I'm not sure if China should be included, that's been happening for ages now. Oppose using any other phrase than "trade war" since we shouldn't really put too much trust on what could very well be posturing. Yo.dazo (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support, this will have long-lasting and most likely devastating consequences on the economy, if this isn't important and ITN I don't know what is. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 14:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Top of the headline news. ArionStar (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why not mention the EU tariffs? I've added it to an altblurb. Bremps... 17:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support posting, though exclude China as it's only an escalation as opposed to the start of an entirely new trade conflict. Bremps... 17:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think we should mention tariffs on the EU unless they actually go into effect; right now Trump has just said he might/will impose them and hasn't even set a date. DecafPotato (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  D'oh, I thought the US imposed them already. Bremps... 19:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support, and also prefer altblurb 2 per Bremps. The Canada/Mexico/EU tariffs are the start of a new trade war, and are more uniquely notable, whereas the tariffs on China are a readjustment to an already existing trade dispute. Better to make clear to the reader the most central development: a new trade war has begun amongst the Atlantic powers. Flip^andFlopped ツ 17:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And to be clear, I agree with others above that the term "trade war" should be used in the blurb. Flip^andFlopped ツ 18:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support major escalation, also added alt blurb 3 to specify the allied status/insanity of this action Udder1882 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Incredibly prominent news. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Most participants did not oppose the inclusion of the Chinese tariffs or only weakly opposed, and the same was true for the "trade war" wording, for which the only voiced opposition touched on using stronger language. EU tariffs are only a threat for now, so not included. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull or modify to altblurb 4 Per the Toronto Star and NYT, Trump has essentially reversed the tariffs. Only a narrow minority of exports that are not currently governed by the USMCA agreement will still be tariffed, and even among those exports, he's lowered it to 10% on anything energy-related or all potash-based goods. The current blurb has now become misleading. Flip^andFlopped ツ 22:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a "narrow minority": 50 percent of imports from Mexico and 62 percent of imports from Canada will still face the tariffs. (per inverted US gov figures from ABC); "imposes and partially suspends" is my preferred wording. "Reverses" falsely implies that billions of dollars of goods entering the US are not still facing 25% taxes and also ignores that Canada's retaliatory tariffs are staying in place for now as well. DecafPotato (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've implemented an update using "delays" instead of "suspends", which could be misinterpreted as the US suspending some pre-existing tariffs while imposing new ones, which isn't the case. In addition to the federal tariffs still in place, multiple premiers have indicated provincial retaliatory measures will remain in place until the tariff threat is ended (including Ontario's 25% surcharge on energy to the NE USA). It hasn't changed significantly to pull in and of itself, and we would need consensus here to do so. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right. At the time I made that comment, it was unclear what exactly was being exempted and the NYT was reporting partially inaccurate claims. I rescind my vote. Flip^andFlopped ツ 14:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace It's not clear why this topic of tariffs has been selected from amongst the general stream of radical orders from the new US administration. But the headlines describe this as Tariffs by Whim and Trump Whipsaws on Tariffs and so it seems too chaotic and uncertain for our blurb to be stable.

I previously nominated List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump as a catch-all for such topics and still reckon that we need something like this in Ongoing as a general way for readers to find our coverage of them.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put: the culture of Wikipedia generally frowns upon emphasizing political events within a country (outside of the mandatory ITN/R "selection of Prime Minister" via general election or other event) that don't immediately and directly impact other countries, regardless of how far-reaching the ramifications are. (particularly compared to say, a single sporting match) However, tariffs are by nature international, so this passes the threshold that most draws support. Nottheking (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Slovak politician History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about her father needs a reference. It might be in the Daily Telegraph obit, which I don't have access to. Secretlondon (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, first sentence is uncited. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Italian actress and film director. 240F:7A:6253:1:697D:BDE:6248:9BF (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready. Orange tagged and the filmography section is largely unsourced. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 21:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Has a fair amount of CNs but hope to work on this soon. Natg 19 (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be good to go. Needs a review. Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good enough. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Needs work. Natg 19 (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Publications section may need some cleanup, but overall looks fine to me. Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth has citation needed tag. Secretlondon (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to just use birth year, which is unambiguous. Natg 19 (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the cite error. Secretlondon (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say that the "selected articles" with permanent dead links should either be referenced or removed. Apart from that, there are two citation needed tags. Schwede66 22:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That entire section could probably be removed. Natg 19 (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Scottish artist; article in pretty good shape SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support — good, well-written article with extensive history & supplementary article surrounding one of Scotland’s highest selling paintings ever Hauntbug (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, everything looks sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - No issues ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 13:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Schwede66 23:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Good, clear article. I have expanded details of his death with everything currently known, for fullness - i.e. location, when he was discovered, who announced his death (his publicist), lack of suspicious circumstances, and publicist's comments on his passing (via The Guardian). Montezuma69 (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: His blood donations saved the lives of over 2.4 million babies. -Abhishikt (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article seems to be of adequate quality. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 19:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Flip^andFlopped ツ 00:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article's sourcing and length appears to be of adequate quality for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 13:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Schwede66 22:08, 5 March 2025 (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: