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.
Nightclub fire damage
A nightclub fire(damage pictured) in Kočani, North Macedonia, kills at least 59 people and injures more than 155 others.
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.
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).
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).
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.
According to Syria's state media, clashes occured at the Syrian-Lebanon border, after the Syrian interim government accused militants of Hezbollah kidnapping three soldiers into Lebanon and subsequently killing them. (AP News)
Nominator's comments: Looks like a major, life-changing disaster for the country, with local residents and ecologists saying things like "The river died in a single day." The article may need more details and pictures. Trepang2 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it seems that the event happened on Feb 18, about 1 month ago. Unsure why AP is reporting on this so late. Natg 19 (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Al Jazeera had a good on-the-spot report six days ago. The area has a long history of such pollution from the mining industry [1], [2]. So it goes...
At least 59 people are killed and more than 152 others are injured after a fire breaks out in a nightclub during a concert in Kočani, North Macedonia. (Al Jazeera)
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.
Article:Kočani nightclub fire (talk·history·tag) Blurb: At least 59 people are killed and more than 155 injured in a nightclub fire (remains of the nightclub pictured) during a concert in Kočani, North Macedonia. (Post) Alternative blurb: At least 59 people are killed and more than 155 injured in a nightclub fire (remains of the nightclub pictured) in Kočani, North Macedonia. News source(s):BBC, CNN Credits:
North Macedonia If I ever see someone starting some indoor pyrotechnics, I'll be running for the exit as they often end badly. Anyway, the detail that catches my eye is describing the country as Macedonia rather than North Macedonia, which is controversial – see Macedonia naming dispute. And we don't usually link country names, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality While what's there is sufficient there are several unsourced paragraphs. Likely with more sourcing the article can be fleshed out more. Masem (t) 12:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its still a bit thin (under 10k prose), and I would expect more coverage of what aftermath events there, particularly with the arrest warrants being issued. Masem (t) 14:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Investigation" section has been added with relevant information available in reliable sources. I'm struggling to find free pictures, but the article should now be ready for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:54, 16 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.
Hundreds of people attend a protest outside the U.S. Consulate in Nuuk, Greenland, in opposition to U.S. PresidentDonald Trump's proposals of acquiring Greenland for the United States. (DW)
Indonesian lawmakers meet at a Central Jakarta luxury hotel instead of the legislature amidst budget cuts, allegedly to secretly discuss on military law revisions that would bring back dwifungsi, a doctrine allowing military personnel to hold civilian positions. Civil activists try to stop the meeting but are hindered by hotel security. (Kompas.com)(TEMPO)
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.
Nominator's comments: This is the most significant US military operation in the Middle East since Donald Trump took office, according to Reuters 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)11:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality This is an example of a poor quality news event article that is all too often the case with new event articles on WP - there's maybe three short paragraphs about the actual event, the meat of the story, that perhaps is only 10% of the prose of the article, the rest weighed by the background section. It doesn't need that much background, there's a reasons we have main/seealso templates. If anything, the background should be focused on why the Trump administration focused on the Houthi (which is tied to the admin's attitude towards Iran). I also note that the blurb here doesn't even mentiont the Houthi, which seems to be the specific target of the attacks (being military facilities held by the Houthi, there's no discussion of any Yemen civilans lost in the attack). Masem (t) 12:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the victims are women and children which seemed to have not been there in this article (and I've added that now) but it is mentioned in the Reuters report 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)12:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support article's OK, although why the cites in the lead? See WP:CITELEAD. I imagine the main sections of the article will expand as further info comes to light. Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi13:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The article definitely needs a WP:SIZESPLIT into a protest article given the complexity of this unfolding political drama; two impeachments, one arrest, multiple protests, constitutional and political and perhaps even societal crisis. Protests unusually large in scale although aware this has been an ongoing crisis as well. The article is still titled 2024 however there is no consensus how to split or incorporate the current events (from 2025) into the article. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the AP, these appear to be mostly peaceful protests, and thus just one of many protests that are happening due to various reasons across the globe. If anything, the story about Yoon Suk Yeol's release and re-arrest is really the headline here but that's relatively old news itself. also consider that there appears to be major overlap between the crisis and the impeachment article that is causing some of the size issues, it doesn't make sense to try to split off these protests (particularly since they aren't generated major conflict themselves) before the duplicated material is removed and some attemtp to eliminate the proseline is handled. Masem (t) 12:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Protests don't have to violent to be posted. I would argue that the size and scale of the protests is the significant part here. As for the reorganisation of the article; many different options can be debated but in its current form it's just too long and convoluted and would ideally be redolved with wider consensus regardless of ITN. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, but given how long these have been going for, without neither any real change at the gov't level nor any type of violent action means this is just mostly noise at the larger scale. Comparitively, something like the 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest which did have a direct impact (in terms of blocking roads and other similar non-violent acts) would be the type of protests that I think we should focus on for ITN, in addition to those that turn violent. — Masem (t) 20:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this is just a foreshock of incoming decision about Yoon's impeachment by Constitutional Court of Korea. We can post the decision then. Didgogns (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Looks to be the climax of this ongoing protest, reported worldwide. Very large in scale, especially factoring the size of the population; estimated 100,000 people at the protest. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I suppose "cumulates" should be "culminates" but such language claiming that this particular event is a decisive climax seem too WP:CRYSTAL. My impression is that the existing regime is unmoved and so it will take more to shift it. As this has been ongoing for months, we should consider an Ongoing entry. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected to "culminates". Protests don't have to be successful nor finite for us to be able to post them. I would argue that 100,000 people out of a population of 6½ million is quite a feat given it's ~1.5% of the entire population. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also support ongoing instead. The article is documenting the chronology very well and is being constantly updated. Yesterday's protests were the biggest but they will keep going. --Tone10:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality issues Overall these have been maybe large but seem to be mostly non-violent, but the biggest thing that stands out to me is the quality of the page. First, treating the protests using the infobox that is usually used for wars or armed conflict seems excessive and inappropriate, its framing the protests as a battle rather than being a mostly non-violent protest. Second, the bulk of the article is just proseline which is not at all helpful to try to understand the scale and scope of the event, and none which further supports some of the information in that infobox such as explaining the types of protests used or the police response. I know writing proseline as a start of an event may seem helpful to document it, but we should be able to do far better by this point with a narrative style to explain more how and why the protests developed and what reaction the Serbian govt has had to them in summary rather than day by day. Same applies to the list of people and countries/ctieis at the bottom, with that many people and names, its a sea of blue problem, and we should be trying to summarize these better. Masem (t) 12:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support an Ongoing as these protests seem to be getting larger and larger as time goes on, with new news coming out of Serbia very often. Yesterday an estimated 20% of Serbia's population went out to Belgrade to protest, so this seems very notable. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 14:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – as these are really the largest (so far) in a series of ongoing mass demonstrations, it may be better to nominate this article for Ongoing. ArkHyena (it/its) 22:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Might be a little early to nominate this and the article does need some heavy work which I'm willing to do over the coming hours. The storm is only halfway done, and later today into tomorrow it's expected to produce an even larger tornado outbreak than it already has. Departure– (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the potentially historic storm later today over AL and MS. Multiple fatalities and heavy damage are confirmed across several towns, but it’d be better to include the entire event. EF513:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I’d hardly call one of the largest moderate risks ever issued and the third-ever day 2 high risk “extremely common”. EF514:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tylertown, Mississippi has been hit by at least two significant tornadoes and nineteen deaths have been confirmed; the event isn’t even at its peak yet. This is now the deadliest meteorological event in 2025; we posted the LA fires. EF520:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Welcome to spring in the Midwest. This type of system is extremely common at this time of year in that region and is definitely not unusual. If the results of the front that is supposed to hit later today in the southern states has a much more devasting impact, maybe there's a reason to reconsider, but not with what has happened so far. Masem (t) 13:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment Not mentioned in the blurb, but the Windmill and 840 Road fire systems were spawned by this, each of which has reached >20,000 acres by now in the <24 hours they've existed. Three deaths were confirmed from blowing dust causing a car crash in Amarillo, Texas. That isn't counting the as-of-yet unknown death toll from last night's tornadoes, let alone those that might happen in the South this morning. Departure– (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No prejudice against a nom on just the tornado outbreak alone, as it's shaping up to be a big one. But that would be the story itself. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The specific problem with that is that this specific low pressure system was the cause or contributing factors to all of the aspects of the blurb. The tornado outbreak is likely to be the most impactful, however. Departure– (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support based on latest damage data. I'd like us to wait some on more accurate fatality and damage information, but this really is looking quite nasty. Rolling Fork, MS looks like it just got hammered again. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until today's system ends. Changing to Support - pretty large death toll, major outbreak (although not a super outbreak). 3/31 was posted so I don't see how this is much different with multiple intense tors. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? It affected places from California, Texas, Minnesota, and is in the process of hitting areas of Alabama in the Deep South. Departure– (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? Many states are affected, including Alabama, Arkansas, California, Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, New Mexico. (dust clouds). I could continue, but thats “much” of the US. EF520:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would change the blurb to "Midwest and southern United States", as "much of the United States" is imprecise and the winter storms in the West are not directly related to tornadoes. Natg 19 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The winter storms are related to the storm system, though. Tornado outbreaks usually aren’t just tornadoes. EF521:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe the article title needs to be changed. It is currently focused on the tornadoes, with some information about other effects. Natg 19 (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Change my support to a proposal of Altblurb I think altblurb should be changed to "Midwest and southern United States" As Natg 19 proposed. Shaneapickle (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article doesn't provide a clear historical narrative. I especially don't like its heavy use of alerts, forecasts and models rather than reports after the event. It describes the event as ongoing and so I suppose it's a compilation of such forward-looking as the stormy weather developed. There are also scope issues as this doesn't seem to be a named weather system like a cyclone. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does it look better now? I’ve removed (should be all) of the unreliable Twitter references (not including the NWS and SPC ones, those are considered reliable) and have removed most, if not all, of the uncited and quite CRUFTy material. I’m on mobile so I probably screwed something up. EF512:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That actually looks better now. Based on the fact that: the entire storm system has caused widespread damage; that there's still ongoing coverage of the system; and that the quality concerns have been addressed (+ this fact also), I'm striking my oppose and now [Support] this nomination. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The altblurb is inaccurate, as while the total death toll is 34, 12 of those were not as a direct result of a tornado and were caused by other aspects of the event. Departure– (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve boldly changed it to “storms and tornadoes”; there is zero reason to discount over half of the deaths from the event. EF515:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Counting all non-tornadic fatalities, this is now the deadliest tornado outbreak in the United States since the December 10, 2021 outbreak, at 34, now beyond the tolls of the March 24 (Rolling Fork) outbreak and the March 31 (Little Rock) outbreaks of 2023, as well as any outbreak of 2022 or 2024. Departure– (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We posted December 10, right? I am on mobile and for some reason it mashes together talk page banners to the point where they’re unreadable. EF517:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I think I’ll go write a “weather as usual” essay on weather at ITN/C. This is definitely historic and by no means “ordinary”. I mean, this is deadlier than every event in 2024 and deadlier than the March 24 storm that was posted. EF519:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Per Departure, this is the deadliest tornadic event in the US in three years. Coverage of the system in media is still recent or ongoing (e.g. at ABC: [7] CBS: [8]). This is a historic event. ArkHyena (it/its) 20:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First EF4 tornado since May 2024 was confirmed just a few minutes ago. This is the first time since May 20, 2013 that a tornado had a 190 mph preliminary wind speed; the 2013 one is currently recognized as (controversially) the most recent EF5 in history. EF520:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my humble opinion, I do believe that this event is notable and deserving of being featured due to the total destruction caused overall as well as the historic nature of this storm. CaptainGalaxy22:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I am usually skeptical towards our imbalanced focus on American weather events relative to the rest of the world, but I acknowledge this is a recordbreaking (and thus unusual) event that has a fairly high death toll. 40+ people killed is quite high. FlipandFlopped ツ04:28, 17 March 2025 (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.
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.
Strong oppose, no significance outside of the US, no precedent for posting, and "Second presidency of Donald Trump" as a target article is way too general. --SpectralIon23:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: Nominating this again since the previous nomination happened before the eclipse. Since the eclipse has happened, I feel it is time to nominate it again considering we usually post total solar eclipses. Interstellarity (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have nothing against it. It's a nice event, it's getting some news coverage, and it's been a while since we've covered one of these. Blurp is fine, no need to do anything fancy here. Maybe make it a full sentence (ending with a full stop). Renerpho (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Close The last nom was not closed for being posted too early, it was closed on account of non-notablity. If editors oppose the close, they should open it rather than making new noms. Gotitbro (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close No, there's still nothing majorly notable about this eclipse that has changed in two days. And really, that's just WP:POINT and disruptive - the previous nomination was closed because it was deemed not notable enough for ITN, not because "it hadn't happened yet". Black Kite (talk)12:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to assume bad faith. The timing was one reason why it was opposed in the first nomination (including by myself; and I've now voted support). Renerpho (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One reason why I've changed my mind which I haven't mentioned yet is the large amount of news coverage I see from Europe and elsewhere. Renerpho (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on the talk page after the previous comment, but before the discussion was reopened. Since I provided some arguments for support that have not yet been given here, and there has been a relevant reply, I am copying those parts of the discussion here. Renerpho (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pity that we can't discuss this eclipse again. There are quite a few interesting aspects of it emerging in the news today. Like, that it's the first since 1967 to be imaged as a solar eclipse from the lunar surface (by Blue Ghost).[9][10][11] I opposed it yesterday because I didn't see anything unusual about this eclipse (which may not have been an accurate assessment), and because of the timing -- it's not been properly in the news before it happened. Compare this 2014 APOD (and no, as far as I can tell, Chang'e 3 didn't image the 2014 eclipse). Renerpho (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
This would of course have to be added to the article before that fact could be featured in ITN. Renerpho (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
We can and are discussing the eclipse again but the discussion is not very edifying. The point you make about the eclipse being viewed from the moon too is a good one but the nay-sayers are not providing or engaging with such evidence and are making ad hominem arguments instead. This ought to have been a straightforward posting of an uncontroversial scientific event which has attracted much interest but, instead, ITN is gridlocked once again. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Support This was the top read article yesterday beating Mark Carney by a significant margin. This demonstrates that there was lots of interest and coverage of this and mainstream coverage has continued: BBC, NYT, NPR, The Times. There was a lot of showcasing of pictures of the event, showing the "blood moon" and we have plenty too. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its been repeatedly said that we do not consider page views in ITNC significance. Some topics will be popular compared to others which is a significance bias that we dont want to reflect at ITNC. — Masem (t) 12:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it backwards. WP:ITNPURPOSE starts by saying that we should consider what our readers are looking for. WP:ITNSIGNIF and WP:ITNATA indicate that proof of coverage is required and that our personal interests are not adequate evidence. It therefore follows that evidence of coverage and public attention is not just valid but is expected.
In this case, the evidence is that this story about the moon is getting much more attention and coverage than the other story about the moon which we are currently blurbing -- the Athena landing. The latter is over a week old and so is now getting just a small fraction of the attention. The stories are otherwise similar in being related to astronomy and space and so are both quite respectable and encyclopedic in nature. Per WP:ITNPURPOSE, we should now switch from one story to the other to assist our readership and demonstrate Wikipedia's dynamic nature. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also point out that "we usually post total lunar eclipses" is not true - we have posted 3 out of the last 10, and they all had extra notability factors which this one doesn't appear to have. Black Kite (talk)10:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This had had the most news coverage for the past few weeks, leading up to it happened, and it is really notable for the fact that ALOT of pictures has been taken, and is also getting news about it even after it happened.
Strong Oppose Not what we usually blurb on ITN and questionable notability, lunar eclipses are not solar eclipses and happen quite regularily. In fact theres 2 more total eclipses coming in the next year alone.... ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING17:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again as it's easy to find further coverage such as the reports that one of the recent landers captured the eclipse as seen from the moon to provide an unusual perspective. This nicely ties these moon stories together. CNN, Scientific American, Sky News, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:29, 16 March 2025 (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.
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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former leader of Right Sector in Odesa was assassinated in broad daylight. Somewhat big story in Ukraine at the moment, didn't have a page before I made it a few minutes ago. Scuba16:01, 14 March 2025 (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.
Closing good faith nom. There is a strong and longstanding consensus that we do not post internal political developments other than national elections and changes of government. Consensus to post this is not going to develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"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."
Strong oppose The blurb is a bit misleading. NHS England, the entity that oversees the NHS, is being discontinued, and its operations shifted to the Department of Health and Social Care. The NHS is the system of public health care in the UK. The NHS itself in England isn't going anywhere. It's a typical reorganization that doesn't put anything particularly new on the table. Departure– (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this is UK only, and is just about the abolition of a a quango. We don't even know what will replace it yet. Hardly world news. Secretlondon (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Subnational reorganization. We have not posted large restructurings in the USA under DOGE, so I don't believe we should here.
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.
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: Legendary classical composer Sofia Gubaidulina has passed away at the age of 93. A leading voice in modern classical music, and one of the most important female composers in history, she is probably worth a blurb discussion. That said, Kaija Saariaho was the obvious female classical music death blurb from this generation. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - will support once the citations are fixed. Piano section and works section are unsourced. I added what I could find but needs more work.
As an update, piano section now largely deleted as was seemingly uncited OR /an essay on a single work. Leaning towards supporting but needs a bit more attention on the lead and ref formatting and have spun out the necessarily long but hard to fully cite "works section"; hold on :) Ceoil (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(non-admin closure) Consensus to post will not develop (at least not now). Commenters mention this being an event only relevant to a certain portion of the world, and not an uncommon event (happens multiple times a year around the world). RachelTensions (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment Can we use UTC rather than EST? It's mostly north and South America according to our article. I think the picture caption reads as though it is a picture of tomorrow's eclipse. Secretlondon (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to show an image before the event, use a simulated view of tomorrow's eclipse, like the one used in the article. Renerpho (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When was the last time we've featured a lunar eclipse in ITN? The last total eclipses occurred in May 2022 and November 2022; I can't find any mention of either in ITN, even though the latter was particularly notable. This isn't an argument against it (maybe the opposite), it just makes me wonder why we should do this one. Renerpho (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is not a news reel of the happenings in the United States; it's about stories with a global significance. It being the last for a while in the United States isn't enough to bring it to ITN if it's going to happen somewhere else in the world less than a year later. Departure– (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Americas or US makes no difference in this context. A lunar eclipse that's visible from South America will automatically be visible from parts of the US as well. The last (more significant) lunar eclipse in the Americas was in November 2022, and the next one will come in March 2026. There is nothing unusual about this eclipse, or its coverage in the news. Renerpho (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not ITN/R and I don't see that this eclipse is particularly notable; we've posted three out of the last 10 total eclipses and they were all particularly notable for one reason or another (six out of the remaining seven weren't even nominated). I could be cynical and say "because America" but the January 2019 one was also visible there and was one of those not nominated too. Black Kite (talk)11:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As far as it being "regional", the article says The eclipse will be completely visible over North and South America. But there's insufficient importance to post it *after* it happens; unfortunately ITN isn't equipped to make a short-term posting before the event. 217.180.228.171 (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights documents three further reprisal massacres of Alawite minority communities on 12 March in which 158 civilians were killed, totaling 1,383 civilian deaths as a result of fifty separate massacres conducted in western Syria since March 6. (Barron's)
The Houthi movement in Yemen announces it will resume targeting Israeli ships because its deadline for Israel to resume aid deliveries to the Gaza Strip has passed. (Al Jazeera)
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: The launch of a new space observatory seems to be major science news, comparable to the likes of Hubble and James Webb telescopes. Brandmeistertalk08:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The launch doesn't seem especially interesting and the article only has a brief sentence about it. As the instrument is designed for a specific survey, rather than being a general purpose instrument like Hubble, it seems better to wait on some results.
Also the launch put up a new constellation called PUNCH (Polarimeter to Unify the Corona and Heliosphere) which also has a specific mission. But again there's nothing much to say about this launch phase.
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:2025 Beledweyne hotel attack (talk·history·tag) Blurb: A 24-hour siege at a hotel in Beledweyne, Hiran, Somalia, results in more than 15 civilians and 6 attackers being killed and over 100 Somali Parliament members urging presidentHassan Sheikh Mohamud(pictured) to resign. (Post) Alternative blurb: A deadly 24-hour siege at a hotel in Beledweyne, Somalia, leaves more than 15 civilians and 6 attackers dead, later 100 Somali Parliament members call for President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud's resignation. Alternative blurb II: More than 15 civilians and 6 attackers are killed in a 24-hour hotel siege in Beledweyne, Somalia, and 100 Somali MPs asked President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud step down. Alternative blurb III: A hotel siege in Beledweyne, Somalia, claims 21 lives, hundred Somali lawmakers urge President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud to resign. Alternative blurb IV: At least 15 civilians are killed in an Al-Shabaabattack and siege on a hotel in Beledweyne, Hiran, Somalia. Alternative blurb V: A 24-hour siege-attack at a hotel in Beledweyne, Hiran, Somalia, results in at least fifteen civilians and all six Al-Shabaab attackers killed. News source(s):APIdil News Credits:
Support per above, an already high and still rising death toll with the possibility of causing world leader change. I am also going to pre-emptively support a merge blurb with this blurb if Mohamud resigns. --SpectralIon03:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - significant casualties, large political implication in Somalia. Article looks good enough.
Support ALT4 only owing to several issues with the other blurbs:
The overall death toll of 21+ includes the six Al-Shabaab attackers themselves - we shouldn't count them in the blurb, only the victims of the attack.
The MPs simply asking for Mohamud's resignation is not notable by itself, and that aspect is WP:CRYSTAL anyways, considering we don't know if he actually will resign or not. If he does, then we can add it to this blurb as something like "At least 15 civilians are killed in an Al-Shabaabattack and siege on a hotel in Beledweyne, Somalia, later prompting PresidentHassan Sheikh Mohamud's resignation.," though it would almost certainly be worthy of a separate blurb on its own (as ITN/R). TheKip(contribs)04:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Somali Civil War has been going on for over 30 years and, per the list of ongoing armed conflicts, generates thousands of deaths annually. This just seems to be more of the same as the AP source says nothing at all about the President. Instead it says "Al-Shabab, which opposes Somalia’s federal government, frequently carries out bombings and assaults targeting government officials and military personnel in the Horn of Africa nation." Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ALT4 blurb talks about "civilians" but it appears that they were targeted specifically because they were military and political leaders and so were part of the federal government rather than being uninvolved bystanders. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big event in Somali politics and potentially destabilizing, Blurb 1 is good but perhaps too long if the resignation dosen't pan out Normalman101 (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any evidence in mainstream news coverage that this is a big deal. It just seems to be a routine insurgency attack which has been crushed by the government. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support the arrest and conviction of Saakashvili is notably one of Russia's demands (listed by Sergei Prikhodko) to Georgia for the return of its own territories and the privilege of becoming a Russian client state.[1] Bummer to see Georgian Dream are just openly sabotaging their own nations sovereignty to make Putin feel happy. Scuba03:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose This seems to mainly only affect Georgia and somewhat affect Russia and pretty much nowhere else. Even with a pro-western government, it is unlikely that Georgia would ever join on Ukraine's side. Also, these are obviously made-up charges for the purpose of power consolidation, and while some might find that more notable, I personally think it makes it less notable as the former world leader did not commit an actual crime. --SpectralIon03:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose unless I'm reading the article wrongly, he has been imprisoned since 2021 serving a 6-year sentence originally imposed in absentia in 2018. Given that, I'm not sure this is as notable as it might otherwise have been. Black Kite (talk)12:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conviction of former head of state is already significant in itself, but this has wider significance within the overarching story of Russia-Georgia relations under Georgian Dream, as per Scu ba. FlipandFlopped ツ13:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically support due to the geopolitical context & since Saakashvili is a former President of Georgia. However, I oppose on quality since the article needs more references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2025 (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.
I'm not sure if I can leave a support on my own nomination, but in case it helps, all three articles should meet the ITN criteria, especially with regard to being sufficiently-cited. Toadspike[Talk]08:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This doesn't seem to be in the news outside of Switzerland and so the readership for all three articles is tiny. If we give every member of the council WP:ITN/R status, then Switzerland is given seven times the representation of other countries. But it does seem a sensible stable system compared to the risks of having a single supreme leader. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ITNELECTIONS subsection of ITN/R specifically outlines that elections of new members into the Swiss Federal Council meet the requirements. The 2022 elections, for example, also got posted. If you wish to discuss a change for this guideline, this nomination is not the place. YuniToumei (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:ITNELECTIONS. The Swiss system is peculiar: the seven-member Federal Council is the collective head of state and government. By convention, members are reelected until they choose to resign. Therefore, the only election of political significance is the initial election of a new member. The general (re-)elections every four years are pro forma and not newsworthy, and neither is election to the rotating and purely ceremonial presidency. Sandstein 16:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking at the articles right now, they are already pretty decent (Pfister is a little short and the election article has 3 CN tags), I think they will be completely fine by the time a consensus emerges. --SpectralIon03:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ontario PremierDoug Ford suspends planned surcharges on electricity in the US. Trump backs off afterwards, though his original plan to impose 25% tariffs will go as planned. (AP)
The military chiefs of all European NATO countries meet in Paris, France, to discuss a potential European peacekeeping force in Ukraine, alongside Ukrainian representatives. The U.S. was not involved in the meeting. (RFE/RL)
I'm not sure this qualifies for ITN/R as Greenland isnt a soverign state, so this is technically a sub-national election. However I still think its notable as it is a significant change for Greenland in an Election that has greater significance given todays geopolitics. ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING14:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, if it wasn't clear; I do support the blurb as I think it is notable regardless of it not being ITN/R, both because the election result itself represents a significant upset to the makeup of Greenlandic politics, and because of all the foreign attention on the territory generating a lot of news over this election. ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING05:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support; I wouldn't usually support a sub-national election (as Greenland is not a sovereign state but part of the Danish Realm), however given the circumstances surrounding the election and Donald Trump's threats to Greenland I think we should still post this. I could be convinced otherwise but I think that the context around this particular election makes it ITN-worthy. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 14:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Democrats are against the US annexation. The election wouldn't be some magical "elect us to be American" deal either way. Departure– (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, I mean the Democrats that won a plurality in this election, not the US Democratic party. I feel this is being partially nominated on the edge of "pro-annexation party won". Regardless, I don't think this is going to cause a major status quo change in the Greenland situation. Departure– (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comment. I'm afraid what the Greenlanders want and decide may be of little significance given Ukraine, a country with almost 1000x bigger population and a vastly bigger economy is being often sidelined by the US and is struggling to repel an invasion. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're all against it. Nevertheless, the election on a hot-topic issue is notable of itself. As would be essequibo voting against or for venezuela.49.206.4.204 (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the Somaliland and Taiwan precedents. Granted, not comparable situation as the aforementioned countries, but still exercises a high degree of autonomy and is a country in every aspect even if not fully sovereign. Furthermore probably the most pivotal election in its history, with unprecedented worldwide attention far surpassing that of other elections of even fully sovereign democratic nations at the moment. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite not being ITNR, this election is garnering a higher level of coverage in the RS than most states' national elections which we would otherwise post. The increased interest is certainly due to Trump's proposed annexation, but it is clearly "in the news" nonetheless. It would be overly bureaucratic and strange to reject posting this, when this is clearly is a more newsworthy election than most others we post as ITNR. FlipandFlopped ツ18:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Meets notability due to the amount of coverage (despite not being ITN/R), and the article has a lot more cited prose than a lot of elections do this early after results. We have the background, platforms, results analysis, in addition to the usual quality tables. ~Malvoliox(talk | contribs)19:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Somewhat of a subnational election, but also not really given Greenland is mostly autonomous, and it's been receiving a high level of attention given the current circumstances. TheKip(contribs)19:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support' - doesn't qualify automatically as ITN/R, but it's certainly very much significant and in the news, with the USA's threats of invading Denmark. Nfitz (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Normally not a fan of blurbing subnational elections. However, this one has an unusual level of significance given the ongoing threats by President Trump to annex the island. The "weak" is due to a few tables being somewhat unclear on the sourcing. I am going to assume that is an easy fix. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft support although not an independent country, Greenland is so autonomous I feel like they should be an exception for ITN. Scuba03:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vastly more significant than most sub-national elections as an area with self-government and because of the whole Trump fiasco. It also helps that this is a gigantic upset. --SpectralIon03:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trump shenanigans should not let us get carried away. We do not post elections of the Scottish Parliament despite the independence movement there, similarly for Catalonia, Puerto Rico etc. The politics of Greenland itself appears to be dominated by the Greenlandic independence movement and this isn't as big a sea change as one would make it out to be. There would be definite notability if this was a referendum or similar. Gotitbro (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro I think the argument here as for the blurring of lines with subnationality is that Greenland exercises quite a lot more autonomy that Scotland or Catalonia do, subjective as that may be. It seems more akin to the Netherlands' semi-union of equals with Curaçao and Sint Maarten, rather than being a true territory. TheKip(contribs)05:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ITN criteria doesn't prevent the blurbing of subnational elections, if found notable based on their merits; just most often they are not. Greenland, while not a sovereign nation does have a lot more autonomy from Denmark than Puerto Rico, Scotland and especially Catalonia have from their national governments. ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING05:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would also support posting a subnational election in Scotland or Catalonia, if that particular election was garnering widespread, substantive, and/or "unusual" levels of coverage in the global RS. It isn't unique to Trump's influence or to Greenland. FlipandFlopped ツ05:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support although sub-national (and not ITNR), it is notable in recent context. As an aside the sub-national, defeat of the communist party in west bengal was also posted.49.206.4.204 (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sub-national elections. The influence of Trump's crazy and unworkable proposals are circumstantial, stop giving prominence to everything he does and says. There are more important things at stake in this election. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's borderline, but I'm leaning support because of the combination of 1) Greenland already being one of the "most country-like" subnational regions and 2) the fact that this story is very much In The News™. As others have pointed out, just because it's not ITN/R (as in, not automatically eligible) doesn't mean it's therefore automatically ineligible for ITN. We just have to evaluate elections like these on a case-by-case basis, and I think in this case, there's a good enough reason to post. It helps that Greenland is still much more than just a territory or province, and even more autonomous than other subnational entities referred to as "countries" like Scotland, so this doesn't set a precedent that we should be posting subnational elections more often. But I also agree with Flipandflopped that we certainly could post subnational elections in other areas with a significant amount of autonomy and/or notable movements seeking to gain further autonomy or independence, just as long as those elections are very much in the news and more notable than typical subnational elections for one reason or another. I don't find the Trump fiasco on its own to be a very compelling reason to post; obviously Trump will not annex Greenland, there is absolutely no mechanism on the table for him to actually do that. It's not for sale, and no one seriously believes an American invasion of Denmark is imminent. But this election was a major upset whose results differed greatly from the polls, and it's receiving considerable coverage in international media. Vanilla Wizard 💙11:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trump did however alledgedly (not a lot of sources reporting this) order the military "to plan options to expand the presence of American troops in Panama and potentially try to reclaim the Panama Canal." (nbc) so i suppose if he really is going to go through with panama greenland might unfortunately be on the table. not saying this has any relevance to the greenland nom just throwing this out there bc i saw you mentioned greenland and the potential of a us invasion Ion.want.uu (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support yes, it is a local election; however the results are clearly a response to Trump declarations, becoming a subject of international coverage. ArionStar (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Toss out the Trump angle for a second, as it was almost certainly never happening anyway. The real background here is an almost 180 degree reversal in the composition of the Inatsisartut. Siumut had their worst result ever, and even combined with Inuit Ataqatigiit, the two parties COMBINED have never performed so poorly. Naleraq controls 8 of 31 seats, which could potentially cause an even greater independence push. This is purely conjectural, but these results show a real shift in Greenland politics (I suggest anyone editing here to look through the "Analysis" section of the article). DarkSide830 (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a blow to Trump in the sense that any election could and would have been, seeing as none of the major parties in Greenland had any interest in becoming part of the US, and almost all are in favor if independence. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The vote tally stands at 15 in favour, 4 opposed (including softs). The rationales have been clearly fleshed out. That's enough for a consensus decision, and nobody has objected on quality, so I am tagging ready. FlipandFlopped ツ22:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Obviously not ITNR, but just as obviously really prominently in the news. It feels like we have quite a lot of 'ready' items that aren't getting posted for some reason. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Updating the tally given by @Flipandflopped almost 2 days ago (assuming that it was correct at the time), and adding subsequent (and my own) support, we're now 18 in favour, and 4 opposed.
At present, ITN/R status is given to general elections in all entities on the list of sovereign states. This list describes the difficult and controversial nature in formation of a list, and uses criteria/methodology that I am broadly in support of, with the majority of states listed meeting all criteria. It also includes a short list of 'other states', including Taiwan, Somaliland, Niue, Cook Islands, etc. Each of these 'other states' is unique in its nature, and can be described as being of a sui generis nature. Greenland itself is widely considered to be of a sui generis nature, even (or especially) by Denmark - with Greenland not being part of Denmark, nor being in a federation of states with Denmark. This 'other' status is also recognised by the UN (where Greenland represents itself in some committees), with Greenland also having its own representation to the US and EU, where in the latter, Greenland is not part of the EU. I think, even without Greenland being a topical and newsworthy issue, as a case of sui generis, the 'otherness' of Greenland makes it vastly different to almost any other 'subnational' election. Montezuma69 (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2025 (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: Article is currently a stub, but a hijacking/mass hostage incident of this scale seems more than notable enough for the FP. TheKip(contribs)17:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative blurb as there is an active hostage situation and the incident was a major terrorist attack. I oppose the article's quality though, as it is a stub. Once it has more information I think it should be posted. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait on article quality per above, and Strong Support on notability once it is improved as there are hundreds hostage and at least dozens if not also hundreds dead. --SpectralIon18:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the article is expanded and updated but after that is fixed I strong support the altblurb (although the other one would be fine as well. This is a really major event with most likely over 50 people killed and at least a hundred taken hostage. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 21:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support 30-200 deaths is obviously significant. I'm concerned both that the article seems pretty light content-wise, and that details on the event seem unclear even in the mainstream media. –DMartin03:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The hostage crisis is now over, and the article has been mostly updated and expanded. Over 340 hostages who were eventually rescued and over 100 deaths is certainly nothing to scoff at, and the hijacking is a relatively unusual event by Pakistani terrorist attack standards. The total death count is still unclear, but I believe that the real numbers will come soon. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on significance, but the article still is unclear to the number of casualties. The infobox states "59 [deaths] (including 33 militants)" but the prose mentions 100 dead. Natg 19 (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for actual conviction by ICC (which seems most likely to happen). Since he was not a sitting leader at the time, this is not really the best point to post this, based on several more recent stories around world leaders and crimes they may have committed. Masem (t) 04:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Respectfully disagree with Masem. Being arrested and detained on an ICC warrant is already quite rare, but on top of that it's an arrest of a former world leader, who was until 2022 the head of state for a country of over 100,000,000+ people? That is a once in a lifetime event. Both the arrest and the future hypothetical conviction (if it happens) probably clear the barrier for notability, independently of one another. FlipandFlopped ツ04:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with focusing on the arrest of a former leader (not sitting leader) is that it somewhat of a POV throw of guilty-before-proven innocent BLP violation, given that the usual metric for the inclusion of any criminal trial is the conviction or sentencing. If it were a world leader, like in the case of South Korea's president, that's more a factor related to the change of power in that country. Also, given this list of ICC indictments, "once in a lifetime event" is an extreme stretch. Masem (t) 04:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Laurent Gbagbo is the only other former head of state who was arrested by the ICC, in 2011. While the argument that being "arrested and detained on an ICC warrant is already quite rare" (there were 22 instances), and this being a "once in a lifetime event" (the last being 14 years ago), a former head of state being arrested is indeed very rare, this being second in history. I don't think we'll see an arrest of a sitting head of state no matter how atrocious the charges are. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - slanting oppose per Masem, wait for conviction.
Weak oppose - Masem provides a good point. If a sitting world leader was arrested, it merits inclusion in the bulletin, but considering Duterte is a former chief executive that has so far only been accused of committing crimes (even if he already admitted responsibility elsewhere), it would set the wrong precedent in Wikipedia's news coverage. On the other hand, Duterte is the first Philippine chief executive (sitting or otherwise) to be arrested based on a warrant issued by an international court. LionFosset (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support given he was in office fairly recently, combined with the infamy of his "war on drugs," but I won't fight to have it posted. TheKip(contribs)05:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERP doesn't preclude the high-profile arrest of an already notable figure from being included on the Wikipedia, as evidenced by an article like "Arrest of Rodrigo Duterte" existing at all. If the fact and circumstances of an arrest are so unique or newsworthy as to be independently notable (e.g. a rare ICC warrant arrest of a prominent head of state), then nothing in WP:PERP precludes a blurb, so long as the wording of the blurb does not incorrectly connote guilt. This was the precedent we set with Netanyahu, for example. Everything currently in the blurb is factual, no? FlipandFlopped ツ17:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the primary blurb is not factual as Duterte was arrested by the Philippines police not by the ICC as the latter doesn't have a police force. This is a bit weird because the Philippines no longer accepts the jurisdiction of the ICC. It appears that the arrest is political in nature and some kind of power play by the Marcos faction. The alt blurb only presents one side of the story and so is prejudicial. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is the alt blurb prejudicial? It is plainly factional and neutral without having prejudice about whatever underlying politics are going on. The ICC warrant is a real warrant (no comment whether the ICC is a legitimate institution or not). Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's plainly factional because it uses legal language which legitimises the matter. The ICC is not respected in much of the world -- China, Russia and the US all oppose it in various ways. If it's not legitimate then this might be considered extraordinary rendition. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be more fitting if this gets posted to ITN once he is already convicted, though I personally would not mind that this gets posted now. After all, while it is not the first time that a former state leader was arrested by the ICC for crimes against humanity (or any other similar cases), this is the first instance that a former Filipino president was arrested by the aforementioned court. Vida0007 (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support per the points stated below by Patar knight, not to mention that there has been a precedent for this (Gbagbo in 2011). The arrest itself is a rare instance, and the case against Duterte is considered to be special and complex, so much so that it is different from the usual court cases which usually fall under WP:BLPCRIME. Vida0007 (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support With ICC arrests and warrants for them, the notability is such that we have to move beyond the absolutism of BLP crime. They are clearly high profile, uncommon and definitely in line with the recent precedents we seem to have set up with the Putin, Netanyahu etc. postings. Further, this comes with the recent expansion of ICC's actions beyond smaller states. That Duterte might be convicted is inherently WP:CRYSTALBALL and does not affect this notable news now. Gotitbro (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think we should wait for a conviction, which will be years away. We previously ran Netanyahu receiving an arrest warrant. Secretlondon (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if he is acquitted years from now this is big news. An ICC arrest warrant actually being carried out is nearly unprecedented. Bremps...16:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a notable event and is in the news around the world. The fact that he hasn't been convicted is secondary - the news of his arrest is what's newsworthy at this very moment, and running this blurb does not imply he is guilty. RachelTensions (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as I am sure has been pointed out, ITN only posts convictions. In this case, there is a good chance that somehow strings will be pulled and he will be set free in a few hours or days. Also, the support notvotes seem to be engaging in a little bit of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Abductive (reasoning)17:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this event is the result of a power struggle within the Philippines, and this method was chosen to shaft him. So, not as interesting. I am still opposed. Abductive (reasoning)23:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per all above. We don't post indictments but this is a proper arrest, and one of the most prolific events done by the ICC recently. We did post warrants being issued for Netanyahu and other figures due to the Israel-Hamas war so I don't see why seeing an arrest would be less notable. Departure– (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any RGW banditry here (what am I missing though?!), most supports seem to be based on the notability of an CC arrest warrant being carried out per se. As is mine. WP:PERP's primary concern is "not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured". We are not creating an article, we are mentioning a notable historic, globally-recognised fact. Cheers, Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi17:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. This will certainly cause political and domestic drama with Duterte's popularity and the Marcos-Duterte feud. --SpectralIon18:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ICC arrests of former heads of state are extremely rare, with the only previous example since the court's creation in 2002 being former Ivorian president Laurent Gbagbo in 2011, which we posted (and sitting heads of state have never been arrested). This is massive news both in the Philippines and around the world. The privacy interest that underpins WP:BLPCRIME (a subsection of WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy) is almost entirely mitigated by the fact that this a former head of state who was in power until very recently (2022), the charges are not something minor, and the charges are not obviously frivolous (we have an extensive parent article at Philippine drug war). What BLPCRIME does bind us to do is to avoid imputing guilt before a conviction, which is done by making sure that it is made clear that these are just charges. I've proposed an altblurb that clarifies that the ICC did not arrest him, but it was pursuant to an ICC warrant, as well as the context of the charges, which we included in previous ICC head of state blurbs. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions20:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the arrest itself, regardless of any future outcome, is highly unusual. It was some kind of secret operation, in a country that is no longer even an ICC member! In fact, I would argue that it is much more surprising (and thus notable) than any possible future trial or conviction. Toadspike[Talk]20:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support first blurb, the "first planet" part of the second blurb seems unnecessary with only 8 main planets we can readily observe. I will add the IAU recognizes these as well. There are a couple of unsourced Para eay in the article that should be fixed. Masem (t) 23:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary oppose - The article has not been sufficiently updated to include all 128 new moons, and discussion of the new moon discoveries isn't fully fleshed out yet. To be blunt, I dislike the generic moons of Saturn image here as it does not depict the outer irregular moons at all. I'll be uploading an image showing all of Saturn's irregular moons, including the 128 new ones, shortly after I make this comment. Nrco0e(talk • contribs)23:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this article does get updated in time, then sure I'd go for the firstsupport the 3rd blurb. The number "200" is rather arbitrary in my opinion. Nrco0e(talk • contribs)23:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GN22: I've updated the orbit diagrams of Saturn's irregular moons. I suggest replacing the ITN image with this one, which actually shows the orbits of the new irregular moons (alongside the previously known ones mixed in there). The news media is severely lacking on relevant and accurate illustrations of irregular moons. Nrco0e(talk • contribs)01:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]Nrco0e(talk • contribs)01:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While "the news is severely lacking X" is rarely a reason to use X in WP:ITN, this one has actually been used in the news (example 1, example 2), just less often than one might hope. The originally proposed image -- a generic image of some of Saturn's regular moons -- is not representative of the discovery. Renerpho (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much like either blurb. Mention of a "record" is weird and out of place, and the 200 cutoff arbitrary; and both have the jarring connotation of these moons being new, not merely newly-discovered. Besides, Saturn already had more confirmed moons than any other planet. —Cryptic00:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting and generally good material for ITN, but I've got to oppose until the article is updated accordingly. As long as it needs that hat note, it's not ready. Renerpho (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Changed to support now that the article has been worked on. Renerpho (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is currently in the process of being updated. The list of moons is currently being expanded. Should be fully updated in short order. GN22 (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Renerpho and GN22: I've filled out the list with all 128 new moons now, with the help of a Python script I wrote to convert MPC orbital elements into the Wikipedia table format for this list. I'm quite glad this method has saved a lot of time and potential wrist pain, though I hope other editors find out before they end up wasting time manually filling out the table. @FilipinoGuy0995: I saw you working on the list. You can stop and rest now :) Nrco0e(talk • contribs)22:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I don't see the impact of a bunch of new moonlets just a "few miles wide".
Wait for the article to update, then Support Altblurb 3. Even if they're pretty small, 128 new moons is quite a lot and this is a major astronomical discovery. --SpectralIon04:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT3 per others. I'm not sure if it is wise to emphasize Saturn's "record" count—these moons were all already there, we just hadn't found them before. Regardless, this is clearly IT/N-worthy, considering it has received appreciable attention from science communication outlets and media, including the New York Times[24]. It is also astronomically significant, as expanding the number of known moons allows astronomers to clarify the dynamical history and origin of Saturn's outer moons (per Ashton et al.'s preprint [25]). ArkHyena (it/its) 22:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Saturn was already known to be surrounded by a cloud of stuff of various sizes. The moons of Saturn article says, "an absolute number of Saturnian moons cannot be given, because there is no consensus on a boundary between the countless small unnamed objects that form Saturn's ring system and the larger objects that have been named as moons". Reminds me of the Sorites paradox... Andrew🐉(talk) 22:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If these moons had been discovered within Saturn's rings, I'd agree with that argument. Given they're irregular (orbiting much further out), they're of genuine scientific interest though, and the number of new moons makes this a great discovery. Renerpho (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That said, some news outlets got this story wrong, and are reporting it as if it were related to the pieces that form Saturn's rings.[26] That's unfortunate, but Wikipedia can deal with misinformation like that, and I think our Moons of Saturn article handles it well by clearly distinguishing between the kinds of satellites, and we've already switched to an image that's representative of the discovery (see the comments above by myself and others). Renerpho (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose most of the moons are very small, and therefore minor. I don't see how this has any impact except in a small niche of solar system science. If this leads to the IAU defining a "moon", we can post that then. Banedon (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus so far seems to be to post blurb 3. Eight supports for blurb 3, one support for blurb 1. Four opposes to all three blurbs. GN22 (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the type of important scientific discovery that an encyclopedia should highlight and readers will be interested in. --121.6.6.229 (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt blurb 3. The discovery of so many moons around a planet in our solar system is a historic and unusual event worthy of recognition. Bluemarsman (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget, Saturn has a ring system made up of countless particles, so it (in theory) already has a lot more "moons" waiting to be discovered. To a lesser extent, the same goes for Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune. Banedon (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Andrew, Banedon and GenevieveDEon. These tiny objects are of no significance, for a planet that already has thousands of small objects resulting from the ring system. And it's not like these have just come into existence, they just happen to have been announced in a larger than usual group. Unmarking as ready, because I don't think there's consensus to post here. — Amakuru (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thirty-two people are killed and at least 12 others are injured in two bus crashes in Mexico. (The Daily Observer)
Three people, including two hospital workers, are killed when a medical transport helicopter crashes in a forested area near Tupelo, Mississippi, United States. (Irish Star)
A court charges the dismissed Valencian regional minister Salomé Pradas [es] and the former regional secretary of Emergencies for the management of emergency warnings during the floods that caused 228 deaths in October 2024 in the Valencian Community. (El País)
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: German actor on stage, in film and tv, famous in several tv series. The article was a stub. The television work needs more refs, help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2025 (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.
FYI influence/notability aren't a matter of discussion for RD, only the article's quality. 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. Regardless, soft oppose on quality as the entire "Early life and career" section is unsourced. Estreyeria (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2025 (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: Member of the British dance group Five Star (called the "British Jackson 5"). News broke March 13, death occurred March 10. Article is slim but no glaring issues. FlipandFlopped ツ13:27, 13 March 2025 (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.
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.
Also, for the record, I disagree with where that discussion is heading and have added my opinion to that merge discussion (in support of your preferred choice). As of right now, I don't think Khalil even passes WP:GNG on his own. The target article should be the detention article, if we are going to post this at all (which per below I also disagree with). FlipandFlopped ツ03:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The arrest of a University student who attends an Ivy league university, spurring local protests in an American city, is not news of a sufficiently global character so as to merit inclusion on ITN, which generally features globally reported news with a significant impact. We would not even be debating posting this if the Indian, South African, Chinese, French, Russian, Brazilian, literally any other government started proceedings against a University student protestor, causing local backlash. If or when this causes a more systemic impact with large-scale protests, along the lines of the Mahsa Amini protests or the George Floyd protests, then I think we could reconsider. FlipandFlopped ツ02:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The most probable consequences of this I can see (court cases, deportations ...) are both internal to the US and relatively minor compared to things like the US-Mexico-China-Canada trade war. If something more dramatic happens (such as auxiliary effects in Israel, although I'm hard-pressed to see any realistic possibility), reconsider then. Banedon (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nom. In the grand scheme of things this is pretty pedestrian news. Although arguably a legal abuse, I could throw darts while blindfolded at a list of recent actions by DJT with a very high probability of hitting one with greater legal and constitutional significance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both stories are part of the larger picture around the Trump administration and civil rights, including the arrest itself (which is one of a long list of these), and protests (which there have been numerous and not just to any single event). Focusing on any one that doesn't have any immediate international effects (like the tariffs and trade war) is just not going to work for ITN. (obviously, this is based on the fact the protests remain non-violent and lack any type of inappropriate response at this point). Masem (t) 04:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - just one in a series of actions by the government of the US. No particular notability.
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.
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.
@Bakhos2010: When you nominated this, the article was just one sentence. That is impossible to assess. Write the article first; nominate it once it has been updated, to at least close to postable quality. ITN is not a breaking news service. This was clearly a premature nomination - even hours later, the article doesn't clarify the impact of this event, presumably because it's still unknown. Modest Geniustalk16:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I thought some wikipedians could nominate the event quickly after the article was created, so i had to nominate it quickly. I know ITN is not a breaking news service. BakhosLet's talk!04:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. The article doesn't give enough information currently, and looking at news reports they don't have much more information either so there isn't (yet) anything that it can be expanded with. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's now clear that this is a significant enough incident and the article is in good shape, no need to wait any longer. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Only makes sense to post if there is a significant oil leakage or a large number of deaths (which this doesn't seem likely to be the case). The collision and fire itself is not a significant enough story for ITN. Masem (t) 14:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait too much is in the air to post. I suppose that goes without saying. No reporting on injuries or deaths in the article, nor threats of an oil spill, both of which may occur in the coming hours or days. Departure– (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not a routine accident given the size of the ships involved but definitively not a major event. Impact appears to be limited to only one non-fatal casualty, potentially an oil spilll, and one big headache for the ship owners and insurers. 2607:FA49:553D:1900:6456:4768:7E7C:1845 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This doesn't seem to be of international importance. We are absolutely not a rolling news source. Articles on the main page should be really high quality. Secretlondon (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant (and rare) major maritime accident. Unknown number of persons missing + jet fuel + sodium cyanide + both ships on fire close to shore... yeah this is a blurb worthy event. Obviously there is also the potential for serious environmental impacts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was the subject of an absolutely huge controversy at WP:SHIPS back in 2014. There were multiple discussions that eventually resolved to deprecate the use of that term because it was deemed too niche. FWIW I was strongly opposed to that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's arrant pedantry of a most unhelpful kind - most people just don't know the word 'allision' and no clarity would be gained by using it. It's also untrue: a ship riding at anchor is not a fixed object in the sense that a pier is. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, less significant than other oil spills that weren’t posted. If this happened elsewhere, it would not have a snowball's chance at getting posted
Support alt unusual incident which is making global headlines, so support. And while I sympathize with Andrew's insistence on using the proper terminology, I think we should go with how the most prominent reliable sources are describing it. Unfortunately, the New York Times and BBC are using "collision", while only minor more niche maritime news sources are using "allision". FlipandFlopped ツ23:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Two total confirmed/possible casualties, neither ship is notable on their own. An unusual incident, sure, but shipwrecks aren't uncommon, and this doesn't seem to have a special/lasting notability beyond the novelty of a collision. TheKip(contribs)05:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impossible to know in advance whether something will have lasting significance, but at the moment we are looking at an international investigation and multiple sources suggesting the likelihood of a environmental crisis. That suffices. Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi11:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We don't usually post things because sources think something will happen. Two casualties and no significant impacts. EF512:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst "off Withernsea" is cited as the location in the article, and both alternative blurbs, a wider audience might find that reference too parochial. Associated Press and the BBC identify the location simply as in the North Sea and 20km off the East Yorkshire coast. AP goes further and talks in terms of 240 km north of London. The mjor ports of Hull and Grimsby are detailed on maps, whilst Withernsea (population 6,159) doesn't get a mention.
Support One person has died and another has been arrested on manslaughter charges. Also, the environmental effects are looking worse by the minute. Black Kite (talk)18:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strike my earlier wait vote, and strong oppose, this isn't seeming notable. One alleged death wouldn't be much of a reason to post, and I'm not convinced about the ecological effects being any worse than numerous other oil spills that haven't been posted. Departure– (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As has also probably happened several times since in all kinds of traffic incidents around the world... Tragic, but this incident is already falling out of the news cycle. Latest I can find is that even the environmental impact will be very limited, "Regular aerial surveillance flights continue to monitor the vessels and confirm that there continues to be no cause for concern from pollution from either the Stena Immaculate or from the Solong." [29]2607:FA49:553D:1900:ED46:542:F41B:49DF (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Thank you mate 
QalasQalas (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
