Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2022

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

May 31

[edit]
May 31, 2022 (2022-05-31) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Walter Abish

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

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

Nominator's comments: First reported today (May 31); died on May 28. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jim Parks (cricketer, born 1931)

[edit]
Article: Jim Parks (cricketer, born 1931) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News; ESPN; The Daily Telegraph; Sussex County CC
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Victor von Halem

[edit]
Article: Victor von Halem (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WDR
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Internationally known operatic bass, article was fine thanks to Voceditenore. He died 28 May but the news came around today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: KK (singer)

[edit]
Article: KK (singer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NDTV
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: C class article. 😭 Venkat TL (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Article needs ref work and the lead could be beefed up to mention more about his career (such as why is he regarded the "most versatile singers of his generation") because it only mentions the languages his songs were in. such as the career section and his album/awards section contain no sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will try to update in some time. As a fan, very sad due to his untimely passing. 😭 Venkat TL (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Seems to be an important figure to Indians. Prodrummer619 (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Prodrummer619: It's not about if the person is important, the main criteria is if the article is in good state (good sources, good info, etc.) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment will try and assist folks on adding more sources to the article. Other than that, it has my Support. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Early life: "graduated from Kirori Mal College" in what?; two uncited statements: "This song featured members of the Indian Cricket Team.", "KK also has a daughter named Tamara Kunnath." Career: a lot of cn tags along with an additional refs banner. Awards and honors: completely uncited.
Also, related article List of songs recorded by KK contains three wholly uncited sections (and subsections): Film Songs in other languages, Albums, TV Title Songs, TV Performances, Other Non-Film Songs; and uncited 2020, 2022, 2023 sub-sections. Gotitbro (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Miangul Adnan Aurangzeb

[edit]
Article: Miangul Adnan Aurangzeb (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Dawn, The News, 24 News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Needs improvement Ainty Painty (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2022 monkeypox outbreak

[edit]
No consensus to post. Stephen 23:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2022 monkeypox outbreak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 500 cases have been confirmed since the beginning of the outbreak of monkeypox three weeks ago. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The number of confirmed cases in the 2022 monkeypox outbreak has doubled to around 700 over the past week.

Nominator's comment: Check the chart from OurWorldInData (local version linked to on the right):

Chart of worldwide casenumbers in the ongoing monkeypox outbreak

Disclaimer - I am an involved editor in the article.

Notes: I had read some of the comments on the previous nomination. For all the epidemiological points, I'd like to point out that, as of now, there is too much unclear about the outbreak to be able to say whether this will go "pandemic" or not (even if due to the nature of transmission, a pandemic would be quite different to that of COVID-19 in any case). Also, I'd like to point out that - rather than being "hypersensitive" to the subject, my impression is that opposite - I think this would have been making more headlines before the pandemic (70 new cases of a disease - in one day in the UK - that was previously restricted to West Africa?).

So anyway, even if its not in the news that heavily anymore, I think this is warranted to presentation here on Wikipedia. (Also - I think it would be a shame not to showcase an article that many editors have put good work into - and which might be substantially out of date within a couple weeks though). Regards Sean Heron (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"not ruling out that this might...: is the sloppiest reason to post. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb, Support Ongoing The only news about 500 cases I'm seeing is about Nigeria's 500 cases since 2017 and Sankuru's 500 cases since January. In a non-African context, it's just apparently some number. But the broader outbreak keeps chugging along in general, with however many new cases (article says 568). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing it's an ongoing event with ongoing news coverage. However, there is no single event so far that meets the threshold for an ITN blurb. And once again, there is no rule that something has to be a blurb before being added to ongoing, contrary to people that will inevitably argue this. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait It is fair game that this potentially can be a pandemic or the like, but we're still talking 500 cases out of 7 billion people, compared to COVID that by the time we posted was in the high thousands. Feels too premature at this point for ongoing. --Masem (t) 12:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't go the rest of your life comparing everything to COVID. Apples and oranges. How long did the Russian invasion take? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly! From creation, 19 days, 18 hours and 42 minutes of continual news and article updates. God knows how many seconds. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, this article is now precisely 13 days, 14 hours and 50 minutes old. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Without checking for sure, we didn't add Covid as ongoing until about 3 to 4 months after its first major news of spread. I am pretty confident our first articles on Covic were created that December before the pandemic declaration. Masem (t) 18:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, everything about that storyline is weird. The bards in charge had to whip up an entirely new and never-before-seen word just to describe its twists and turns. The "fight against monkeypox" is also not combat in the traditional sense, but as this enemy is selectively targeting gay men through physical contact and turning them red, it's closer in spirit to Russian barbarism than some ethereal indiscriminate upper respiratory threat. The simplest choice, of course, is to treat it on its own merits. Its incremental updates are novel, unique and original, after all. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing - A COVID-19 comes along only once in a lifetime. All other pandemics in this generation will pale in comparison to it. But this is still newsworthy despite its limited impact thus far.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing. The blurb would happen if a pandemic is declared. Jehochman Talk 13:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ongoing ... oppose blurb, since the situation doesn't appear to have changed markedly since the blurb nom. last week failed to fly, and because as Walt notes impact has been limited. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb first - unusual outbreak. I would hold off on ongoing until the blurb sinks down though, within the week or so in which that happens we should know for sure whether it's Ongoing-worthy or not. Either way, hopefully it wouldn't be. Juxlos (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb or ongoing Either or should be fine, but this should 100% be on the main page ITN section ASAP. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Still 0 deaths; it has also largely rolled off of the front page at most news organizations. The last blurb was nominated during peak media hysteria about a new potential public health crisis 47.176.81.182 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless WHO declares this a pandemic. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 20:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Honestly, not yet a pandemic, and with HIV/AIDS not posted, even that bar alone is not an auto-inclusion in my mind. 500 cases of a disease - and none of which yet fatal - in a span of a few weeks is notable, but not quite seismic in impact, nor unique. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification question - is this opposition to a "blurb" or inclusion as "ongoing" ? (Just going by the current "ongoing" events, I could understand your seismic comment - for the blurb, I'm not sure how eg the winner of a Sports event would qualify as "seismic") Sean Heron (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Actually, bar SARS and COVID, and to an extent the 2003 US monkeypox outbreak (which was zoonotic though) - this outbreak is in fact unique, as far as I can tell (happy to be pointed to other examples though!) Sean Heron (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm not sure where in the ITN guidelines it says that a public health issue has to be declared a pandemic before it reaches sufficient newsworthiness. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. -- Sca (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Last major outbreak was in 2003, looks significant. Gotitbro (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless it's declared a pandemic. This disease is also endemic to some parts of Africa already, so to suddenly highlight it just because it's moved to the "western" world is not a good look IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    its not that it's moved to the western world, its that the disease has moved to countries where it shouldn't be found in. 4iamking (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but Ongoing its getting alot of news coverage, and its not going away anytime soon. There is no requirement for it to be anther pandemic to be featured in ITN, it just has to take up a lot of oxygen in the news.4iamking (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Why isn't this nom. using the standard template? – Sca (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose ZERO deaths. I don't think natural disasters with zilch fatalities get posted. At least bother to nominate this once the first fatality is confirmed. I personally have a hard time finding differences between this and a panic-obsessed media complex trying to generate clicks. It's like the media complex has become habituated about posting every incremental update about possible but unconfirmed health condition that might or might not have an economic impact. 81.181.130.106 (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blaming 'the media' is always a good ploy. -- Sca (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Support ongoing - Ongoing event with continuous coverage. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 06:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There has not even been 1,000 confirmed cases yet and no reported deaths. This can perhaps be renominated in a few weeks if the reported number of cases explodes. Thriley (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because it's easily important enough & the article is good enough. It doesn't need to be an epidemic/pandemic to be important enough to post. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb or ongoing. It's in the news, article quality is good enough. There are no rules about it having to be declared a pandemic, or having to kill a certain number of people, or having to be in the news in the place where editors live... all of these are oppose rationales that should be discounted. Levivich 22:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, in regards to "having be declared a pandemic", we do not want to post the same story multiple times to ITN so we want to be at a point where we move out of speculation into when it is a proven event (eg high-profile criminal convictions, business merger announcements). There's a potential for this to be a pandemic, so ideally we don't want to post the story before it reached that turning point. Masem (t) 22:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    but then, with the absence of the pandemic hook, wouldn't the logical thing be to add this to ongoing (given that it is receiving a lot of attention in the news and has been for a few weeks now), and when it actually gets declared a pandemic if that ever happens, then we would blurb it? 4iamking (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In the spirit of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, we shouldn't not post an ITN blurb about an outbreak because we think it will become a pandemic later. Also there really is no problem with posting a story twice, it's not like we don't have room or we have too many blurbs rolling off too soon; in fact the problem is the opposite, ITN blurbs are perpetually stale... mostly because good blurb candidates are voted down by a myriad of new and inventive reasons like "might become a pandemic later". Also also, posting it to ongoing avoids this issue entirely. Levivich 01:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing. There's no major recent development that would warrant a blurb, but this has been in the news enough at a high enough sustained frequency, with regular gradual developments, that ongoing makes sense. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Marking as "attention needed", since this is bound to get archived in a day and discussion has died down, Currently 15 support some form of posting (either in form of blurb or ongoing with a push towards adding this to ongoing), 6 opposed, but imo a decision needs to be made. 4iamking (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing Unlike COVID this is a disease that has been around for a long time and we know how to deal with, so it's not as significant an outbreak. But it has now topped 1000 cases in 29 countries, and the CDC has raised its alert level. Not a story that's going away.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that it's always been around, and also isn't going away, is exactly why it doesn't belong in Ongoing or anywhere else. It's just spread to rich countries now, so suddenly it "matters" to the main stream media. As before, if and when WHO declare a pandemic, that's significant. But not before that, we're not a news ticker.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It has been "In The News", no doubt, but the media has overwhelmed due to panic. And I think it has already passed unnoticed. If the WHO declares it pandemic or if several states apply restrictive measures (beyond confinement for days of those infected or close contacts in countries like Malta or Belgium), perhaps it would be time to include it in Ongoing or as a blurb. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Questions (by nominator):
[edit]

I'm not understanding some things here (and have doubts I would understand better by reading the policies on ITN in more detail). So:

  • Will an administrator be looking over the nomination and bringing it to a conclusion, or not? I'm asking, because the first nomination was "simply" auto-archived from what I can tell.
  • What criteria are used to decide on inclusion for ITN - is it whether the Wikipedia article has been updated (and of high enough quality)? Or whether the subject matter / article is being reported on in big (international) media outlets? Or if the news item some passes some kind of notability criteria? What guides notability? (For the Outbreak, notability has been dismissed with arguments ranging from "no deaths yet" to "when it is declared a pandemic")
    • -> My feeling right now (and looking at other nominations, eg for the Texas elemenary school shooting), is its some kind of amalgation of all of those, (but then in certain cases, the question of how many people take one view or another is not deemed relevant?)
  • In general - people weighing in, on both sides for the Monkeypox outbreak, seem mostly to be strongly swayed by their personal opinion. Is that the general idea of how ITN nominations are to be resoved? Put differently, my impression is the process is pretty badly broken, or at least could be considerably improved (to make for more structured discussions, along more objective and deliminated criteria).

Sorry if there are answers to these questions somewhere already, or if there is a better forum to pose the questions - I'm happy to be pointed there! Regards, Sean Heron (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your observation about the process is a valid one. See this discussion. --RockstoneSend me a message! 00:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main concern is if this has passed a threshold that is recognized as a key point. Eg: We don't post on arrests or the like until the person is convicted in a court of law, etc. When the best time to report a potential epidemic/pandemic is unclear but we do know there are points like when WHO officially names it as such. Hence the hesitation for posting this now when we don't have that, and thus harming if we have to post again when the WHO make their assessment. --Masem (t) 00:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sean shouldn't stress about ITN's manifest flaws because the monkeypox topics are actually doing fine. Here's how they compare in recent readership with the current bold entries in the ITN blurbs:
Recent readership (30 days)
Topic Readers
Elizabeth II
2,289,203
Monkeypox
1,755,887
2022 monkeypox outbreak
706,368
Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II
356,113
Tara Air Flight 197
55,502
2022 Port Harcourt stampede
31,182
2022 Indian Premier League Final
11,898
It's clear from this that ITN is driving few readers to the topics in question. Our readers mostly decide for themselves what's important and go straight there. That includes monkeypox and so Sean's efforts have not been in vain. Well done.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing Andrew's advocating for ITN to be replaced by WP:TOP25 again. This is never-ending. And dull as dishwater until Andrew does something pro-active about it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But he also doesn't think any sports articles should make the FP, regardless of popularity or notability. Hilarious. The Kip (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the friendly comments, and the pointers :) . Sean Heron (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2022 (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.

May 30

[edit]
May 30, 2022 (2022-05-30) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Costen Shockley

[edit]
Article: Costen Shockley (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The News Journal, Cape Gazette
Credits:

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

 BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Boris Pahor

[edit]
Article: Boris Pahor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DW, France 24
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Notable Slovene Holocaust survivor and novelist. NovumChase (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Friedrich Christian Delius

[edit]
Article: Friedrich Christian Delius (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Spiegel and many others
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: German Novelist who wrote as a great observer of Germans from pre-Nazi to present time, received highest German literary award, novels translated into English and other languages, - article was decent, slightly expanded, more possible if someone has more time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sean Thackrey

[edit]
Article: Sean Thackrey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): San Francisco Chronicle
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @PFHLai: done – citation needed tags addressed and unsourced statement removed. I removed one CN tag (first para. of "Early life") because it is an uncontroversial statement re. his university prof that was already verified by ref 7 at the end of the paragraph. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ramses Ohee

[edit]
Article: Ramses Ohee (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Liputan 6
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Incumbent member of parliament from Papua. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jeff Gladney

[edit]
Article: Jeff Gladney (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fort Worth Star-Telegram Former TCU teammate Jalen Reagor
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American football cornerback who played for the Cardinals and Vikings. Unexpected and tragic death in a car accident. Only 25. KingOfAllThings (thou shalt chatter!) 18:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2022 IIHF World Championship

[edit]
Stale, consensus to post is unlikely to develop. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2022 IIHF World Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In ice hockey, the IIHF World Championship concludes with Finland defeating Canada in the final. (Post)
News source(s): CBC/The Canadian Press, National Post/Reuters
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.
  • Oppose on quality there is no summary text in the article, either for explaining how this complicated tournament works, or any match summaries. These are standard issues with sports articles, and is why most of them don't get posted (see for example all the other ITNR sports things below that haven't been accepted). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I might be able to work on it tomorrow, can’t guarantee it however. The Kip (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2022 (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.

(Posted) RD: Ronnie Hawkins

[edit]
Article: Ronnie Hawkins (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CTV News, New York Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: 1950s rock and roll / blues musician who contributed significantly to the early development of modern rock. Article needs substantive work, but hopefully this draws attention to that. Floydian τ ¢ 03:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems like it's meant to show the transition of The Hawks into The Band, but I don't see the point of including the portions after Hawkins left. I'm sure there's a biography out there that could source all this, but I have no qualm moving it to the talk page until sources can be found for it. - Floydian τ ¢ 11:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the removal. It seems like a good idea, but not yet ready for use with the sourcing thus far. This wikibio is more than long enough to qualify (2684 words of readable prose), has footnotes at expected spots, with no obvious formatting problems. Apart from a few quotes, Earwig has found no issues. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Stan Rodger

[edit]
Article: Stan Rodger (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Stuff.co.nz, Otago Daily Times, NZ Herald
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Notable New Zealand unionist and politician. Currently C-Class article, well referenced. Kiwichris (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

[edit]
May 29, 2022 (2022-05-29) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) Indy 500

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2022 Indianapolis 500 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In auto racing, Marcus Ericsson (pictured) wins the Indianapolis 500, the second Swede to do so. (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press
Credits:

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

 2600:1702:38D0:E70:452C:FB38:4B5A:A417 (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks it's pretty simple. If you don't want this on ITN/R head over to WT:ITN and propose a removal so I can oppose it. Your oppose in this nom is invalid. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very bizarre that Monaco Grand Prix is not ITNR listed but this is given they both form part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport. I know what race attracts more international coverage and it isn't this one. AusLondonder (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there is a secret WP:CABAL of US only motorsport enthusiasts who conspire to keep the whatever you linked to off the main page. When you re-enter the earths atmosphere and the radio blackout has ended I'll transmit instructions to you on how you can nominate your favorite events at ITN, then if successful nominate for inclusion at ITN/R. I'm not sure from which planet or other celestial body you're originating from, just call me when you make it to Earth. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your constructive, collaborative, insightful comments as usual. A real asset to the project, you are. AusLondonder (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality there doesn't seem to be a summary of the actual Sunday race itself (just a results table). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this needs to be codified somewhere: ITN/R is not a guideline and there are no exceptions. Any attempts to treat it as such by opposing an ITN/R item based on notability, usually with the accompanying argument of WP:IAR, should itself be ignored. Any consensus established on ITN/R supersedes any attempt to block a posting on such grounds, and in order to remove an item's ITN/R status, consensus needs to be established on WT:ITN.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITNR is a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" AusLondonder (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:In_the_news#Sports_and_other_recurring_events " Items listed there are considered exempt from having to prove their notability through discussion on the candidates page" --LaserLegs (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is neither a policy nor a guideline. The guideline is WP:ITNR, and it says occasional exceptions may apply. BilledMammal (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What has more weight - a boilerplate template that is applied to every "guideline", or the wording of WP:ITNR itself which provides for NO exceptions? WaltCip-(talk) 11:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:5P5: "Wikipedia has no firm rules". People pretending otherwise sound at best like lawyers (not in a positive sense); and more likely just silly. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Tara Air Flight 197

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Tara Air Flight 197 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Tara Air Flight 197 crashes with 22 people on board after going over some high mountains in Nepal (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Tara Air Flight 197 crashes in Nepal, killing all 22 people on board.
News source(s): AP, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: A plane crash with 22 deaths, even though the plane is small, plane crash should be mentioned because they are not common now a days which results in causalities. Debjyoti Gorai (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Indian Premier League Final

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2022 Indian Premier League Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cricket, Gujarat Titans win the Indian Premier League, defeating Rajasthan Royals in the final. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In cricket, Gujarat Titans win the Indian Premier League, defeating Rajasthan Royals in the final (player of the final Hardik Pandya pictured).
News source(s): Cricbuzz
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Will be done in 1.5 hours. Prose is there. Good refs needed Sherenk1 (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant and immaterial.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

[Attention needed] Madjoari massacre

[edit]
Article: May 2022 Madjoari massacre (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 50 people are killed by armed assailants in a rural commune of eastern Burkina Faso. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Kompienga Province, Burkina Faso, over 50 civilians are massacred by an armed group believed to be linked to the jihadist insurgency in the country.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Over 50 civilians are killed in Kompienga Province, Burkina Faso.
News source(s): France 24, Reuters, CNN, DW
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Mass casualty incident with international coverage. Article requires significant expansion. Most details surrounding event remain unclear (perpetrators, exact death toll, motives...) Mooonswimmer 15:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map of ongoing armed conflicts (number of combat-related deaths in current or past year):
  Major wars (10,000 or more)
  Wars (1,000–9,999)
  Minor conflicts (100–999)
  Skirmishes and clashes (10–99)

(Posted) RD: Sidhu Moose Wala

[edit]
Article: Sidhu Moose Wala (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express, NDTV
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: C class. good sourcing. Venkat TL (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make any difference, per the RFC linked in the nomination. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also disturbingly false - I've seen multiple news stories here in Canada. Nfitz (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please be reminded that for RD noms, "recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD." PFHLai (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - He is well known person among the Punjabi community around the world specially in India, Canada and the UK. He is most well known among the Sikhs. His membership with the INC and participation in the 2020-2021 Farmers' protest also makes him known even more. Debjyoti Gorai 18:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Support- Well known subject and notable event. -Tow (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks fine for an RD. And as Lai/the ITN template above notes, notability is not a factor for RD noms, only the article quality (prose et al) should be discussed here. Gotitbro (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Port Harcourt stampede

[edit]
Article: 2022 Port Harcourt stampede (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 31 people die at a church charity event in a stampede in Port Harcourt, southern Nigeria. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Over 30 people are killed in a stampede in Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
News source(s): AP, BBC, DW, CNN, Al Jazeera, Vanguard, The Guardian (Nigeria)
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Made world news as significant disaster, article however is a stub and needs major expansion. Nominating in order to draw attention to it. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lester Piggott

[edit]
Article: Lester Piggott (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian, Bloomberg, BBC, Sky Sports
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Notable British jockey. "In popular culture" section has issues, rest of article OK. Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as stands 19 citation needed tags, not including the whole of his extensive honours section. I'm unsure as to whether blurb could be a possibility, as he was the record Derby winner with nine, and competed for nearly a half century. I would say the average person on the street in the UK knows only him and Frankie Dettori, though I can't speak for the rest of the world. Horse racing can hardly be called a niche due to the millions (billions?) put into it by the richest people in the world in order to get winners. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    9 tags now. I guess you mean "Major wins" which is wholly unsourced (although many of the horses have their own articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sourcing needs to be fixed, content appears alright otherwise. Can be considered for a blurb but as it stands, no. Gotitbro (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - lots of unsourced information, CN tags and quite a few MOS issues, such as flags in the competition victories section. Also, the shirts under the infobox take up about 8 pages on mobile view. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC) Supporting now, have made some changes for MOS. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Refs now added (citation needed tags removed).SethWhales talk 19:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: The green boxes of jerseys placed just under the infobox, presumably not added there just as pretty decorations, need to be explained and sourced. --PFHLai (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On that, I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They should never have been included in the article relating to Lester Piggott, they should only be in a specific horse race, such as 1983 Epsom Derby. They include also include second and third place finishes too, I have therefore removed them. I have been bold. SethWhales talk 21:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I started a topic is because this isn't restrained to only this item - see Walter Swinburn for instance. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they should also be removed too.SethWhales talk 21:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the Cite banner Unreferenced section too, as each race win does not need to be referenced as this information is widely available such as Willie Carson, Pat Eddery, Eddie Delahoussaye etc. SethWhales talk 21:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- how does that source this information? These victories are uncited. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure that this would all have been covered in major UK newspapers at the time, such at The Times. Mjroots (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an archived reference as a source at bottom of the "Major wins" section from racingbase.com. Is it now good to go? SethWhales talk 06:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Issues mentioned above, including citation of Major wins section and the disruptive list of jersey pictures, appear to have been resolved satisfactorily.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

[edit]
May 28, 2022 (2022-05-28) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Bujar Nishani

[edit]
Article: Bujar Nishani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former President of Albania Bujar Nishani dies at the age of 55. No blurb, please. --PFHLai (talk) (Post)
News source(s): WaPo, CNN A2
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: President of Albania, 2012–2017. Coverage seems thin for a recent head of state. Is anyone interested in beefing it up and adding refs? Blurbing is unlikely. --PFHLai (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Cannes Film Festival

[edit]
Stale. Consensus to post will not develop. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:13, 3 June 2022 (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.

Articles: 2022 Cannes Film Festival (talk · history · tag) and Triangle of Sadness (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the Cannes Film Festival, Triangle of Sadness wins the Palme d'Or. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Triangle of Sadness wins the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival.
News source(s): Deadline, France 24, Variety
Credits:

Article updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: ITNR, but articles for the festival and the film need a good deal of work and/or expansion. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Needs a poster, awards section, plot (currently a single-line summary), for a film which won a major award reception section is bare-bones. Themes and analysis and the director's viewpoint/style (has also won the same award prior). The prod/disto companies listed in the ib are too large, only the major/directly involved ones should be listed and the list culled. Gotitbro (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I realized that, was listing what an ideal film article for the second d'Or winner should at least be. Though a poster and a basic plot summary are still necessitated. Gotitbro (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The festival article needs a lot of work, as it's just a list of tables at the moment. Nothing in the lead to say who actully won too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose needs more prose and lots more sources- most of the information in tables isn't sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the film article is nearly close to being a target as well, lacking a few citations (and it is more than just plot). It would be good if this could be highlighted as a bolded link too. --Masem (t) 19:04, 29 May 2022 (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.

(Posted) Champions League Final

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2022 UEFA Champions League Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, Real Madrid beat Liverpool to win the 2022 UEFA Champions League Final (Man of the Match Thibaut Courtois pictured). (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press
Credits:

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

 2600:1702:38D0:E70:452C:FB38:4B5A:A417 (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

[edit]
May 27, 2022 (2022-05-27) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Marko Račič

[edit]
Article: Marko Račič (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Slovenian Olympic athlete Canadian Paul 22:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ahmad Syafi'i Maarif

[edit]
Article: Ahmad Syafi'i Maarif (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Major figure in Indonesian Islam. Juxlos (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Angelo Sodano

[edit]
Article: Angelo Sodano (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Pillar, FarodiRoma Associated Press
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Catholic bishop. 94. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 26

[edit]
May 26, 2022 (2022-05-26) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

(Posted) RD: Ciriaco De Mita

[edit]
Article: Ciriaco De Mita (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): la Repubblica
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Italian PM between 1988 and 1989. Quick updating. Article is ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: George Shapiro

[edit]
Article: George Shapiro (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety; WFTV (ABC); Toronto Sun
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) International Booker Prize

[edit]
Stale, now older than oldest item on ITN.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Articles: Geetanjali Shree (talk · history · tag) and International Booker Prize (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Indian writer Geetanjali Shree (pictured) and translator Daisy Rockwell win the International Booker Prize for Tomb of Sand. (Post)
News source(s): AP, Indian Express, BBC, International Booker Prize
Credits:

Article updated
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.
 Joofjoof (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was most recently denied mainspace status on notability grounds: diff. Surely that's no longer the case, with the Booker win? (Still, neither it nor the novel's article are ready for the Main Page.) Moscow Mule (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the link to Rockwell in the blurb. Thanks Moscow Mule, Thriley, and others.Joofjoof (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2022 (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.

(Posted) RD: Andy Fletcher (musician)

[edit]
Article: Andy Fletcher (musician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Member of Depeche Mode. Kafoxe (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: Mass Shootings in the United States

[edit]
Good faith nomination, but this is predictably going nowhere and isn't suitable for ongoing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I'm not a regular face at ITNC but I've seen some noise lately in blurb discussions about both Uvalde and Buffalo that suggests some support for this to be at Ongoing. To my reading, it meets all of the criteria laid out at WP:ONGOING. AviationFreak💬 18:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't pass the laugh test, I'm afraid. WaltCip-(talk) 18:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? As stated above I'm not a regular here so a bit of WP:DBTN would be appreciated, but I think this meets all of the criteria laid out for ongoing additions. At any rate, I would reckon it's eligible enough for a discussion/debate? AviationFreak💬 18:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone laughing at this is (IMO) a horrible person, I can't imagine someone would laugh at a a shooting. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although... 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support From the discussion about the Robb Elementary shooting nomination here and seeing how ongoing this is and how two of the country's mass shootings happening basically a week apart, I feel this is worth adding to ongoing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's not an ongoing event, it's a series of unrelated mass shootings caused by poor gun control. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles such as this aren't added to ongoing since there really isn't an end date. It's similar to nominating an article about the modern age or search for a cure for cancer for ongoing – yes it's happening, but it's been happening for a while, and it'll probably continue happening long after we're dead. The recent shootings were disconnected, and, as weird as it is to say, not that much out of the ordinary. If this were a series of connected, planned, terrorist attacks over a span of a week for instance, then it would be different. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it is a long running problem, but it would absolutely inappropriate to treat all US mass shootings as part of the same event. --Masem (t) 19:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even as I feel like it's constant, these shootings not actually a singular event, but a series of multiple events as a result of a decades-long underlying causes. It's inappropriate and mis-characterizing to say they're all the same, connected, one event. It's a series of events. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Oppose while the most recent slaughter is still on the main page under ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this has indeed been mentioned by several commenters on the Buffalo and Uvalde nominations. I'm not sure if linking to a list is the best course of action though, despite it likely being the most updated. I'd hope there might be a less-listy article we could feature, on the line of Gun violence in the United States but more focused on recent events. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although it may seem this way, we’re not actually at war. Trillfendi (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Absolutely not. This is essentially connecting dots that we should not be connecting under any circumstances. Kafoxe (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree - I think mass shootings in the US are "dots" that are absolutely worth connecting as they show just how common these things are in the US opposed to other countries. This discussion is about the problem of whether our connecting of these dots should be put on the Main Page. AviationFreak💬 20:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are connected dots on the top of gun violence in the US, but they are not connected events outside of a long circulous route of legislation, case law, socioeconomic problems, and more. --Masem (t) 20:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXTREMELY Strong Oppose - This isn't even an ongoing event, just something (bad) common in the USA. CR-1-AB (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2022 (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.

(Posted) RD: Alan White (Yes drummer)

[edit]
Article: Alan White (Yes drummer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ultimate Classic RockThe Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article is fairly well sourced, shouldn't be too difficult to fix up the issues. Pretty much just the discography/contributions left. Floydian τ ¢ 18:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed, RD Posted) RD/Blurb: Ray Liotta

[edit]
Time to call this one I think, consensus for a blurb isn't going to emerge and it's already up at RD.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Ray Liotta (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5][6]
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Source confirming his death is reliable, the article is up to C-Class, and seems to have well over the minimum word count. interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 16:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RD Only Page looks good, but unless i'm missing something there doesn't seem to be anything that I can think of why this should be blurbed. Being a famous actor isn't blurb worthy. 4iamking (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He was nominated for a Golden Globe and picked up a handful of second tier, though WP:NOTABLE, awards. No other top tier award nominations. So no, I don't think he was an A lister. He was a well known actor who was steadily employed with some good roles to his credit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Emmy is top tier award. He was also nominated for Screen Actors Guild Awards and won Film Independent Spirit Awards, these are top tier awards too. As for why he was not nominated for Academy Award - we may look at nominees for the years he was in contention. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2022 (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.

May 25

[edit]
May 25, 2022 (2022-05-25) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Julie Beckett

[edit]
Article: Julie Beckett (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times,The Washington Post
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: NY Times obit published 25 May. Washington Post obit published 26 May Thriley (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Salvadoran gang crackdown

[edit]
Article: 2022 Salvadoran gang crackdown (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ El Salvador's National Civil Police announces that more than 34,500 people have been arrested since the declaration of a state of emergency two months ago in response to gang violence. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ More than 34,500 people have been arrested in El Salvador since the declaration of a state of emergency two months ago in response to gang violence.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The National Civil Police of El Salvador announces the arrest of more than 34,500 people in two months of crackdown against gang violence.
News source(s): https://twitter.com/PNCSV/status/1529435156750139400, as reported in e.g. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/26/pressure-to-make-arrests-as-el-salvador-extends-gang-crackdown
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Hey, I'm back. This continues to be in the news, and I think the article is more or less ready for the main page now. Open to feedback on the blurb, which is a little longer than I'd like. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Morton L. Janklow

[edit]
Article: Morton L. Janklow (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; Associated Press; Columbia Law School
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Thomas Murphy (broadcasting)

[edit]
Article: Thomas Murphy (broadcasting) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; WABC-TV; WPLG
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Partygate

[edit]
WP:SNOW closing. Nomination appears to be an attempt to right a great wrong, and we're not here to do that. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Partygate (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ UK prime minister Boris Johnson is criticized after attending parties during the height of the coronavirus lockdowns. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A report is released which reveals the UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, to have attended multiple illegal events during the height of the country's coronavirus lockdowns.
News source(s): BBC, ITV, Sky
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I feel like the blurb may need improving, feels too wordy. For avoidance of doubt, this entry is relating to the Sue Gray report which was released earlier today. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2022 (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.

(Posted) Yasin Malik

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Yasin Malik (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Indian court sentences Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik (pictured) to life in prison. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ An Indian court sentences Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik (pictured) to life in prison.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, Dawn, BBC
Credits:

 Ainty Painty (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Notable event and significant figurehead to a movement. Not sure why you would even compare a nationalist movement to the Proud boys, thats a really horrid comparison. 4iamking (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Azadi march

[edit]
Article: 2022 Azadi march (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Primer Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan leads workers in a Long March to Islamabad in a bid for early elections. (Post)
News source(s): AlJazeera, DAWN News, Reuters
Credits:

 Open to suggestions in regards to the blurb نعم البدل (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article itself is a stub basically, and also the significance seems to be rather limited based on the limited amount of reporting that I can find, It seems like the Local authorities have Banned it. 4iamking (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

[edit]
May 24, 2022 (2022-05-24) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Sports

(Posted) RD: John Thompson (American football executive)

[edit]
Article: John Thompson (American football executive) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Seattle Times
Credits:

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

 BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Texas school shooting

[edit]
NO MEANS NO
If you have corrections to the already posted blurb, WP:ERRORS is thataway. --Jayron32 17:30, 25 May 2022 (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.

POSTED
blurb is posted, it's not being taken down, and further tangential editorializing is not needed here. --Jayron32 12:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Robb Elementary School shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas (map pictured), United States kills at least 22 people, including 18 students and two teachers. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the United States, twenty-two people are killed in a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the United States, twenty-two people are killed in an elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.
Alternative blurb III: ​ A mass shooting at an elementary school kills at least twenty-two people, including nineteen children, in the U.S. state of Texas.
News source(s): The Guardian, The New York Times
Credits:
 2600:1702:38D0:E70:1DBC:F871:E47D:39C7 (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose This is a routine incident. Americans shoot each other up all the time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) Fair enough. Stricken because of the complaints below.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really? I mean, that is one way to put it. Sum Kompreni (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    This attitude needs to be stopped, its harmful to discussions. Yes, mass shooting do happen all too frequently in the US, no question, but it is not like the general public are all ready to shoot each other, like this tone gives. To most of USians, this situation sucks but we have so ineffectual givt to make any fixes to it. Additionally, school shootings of this scale are very rare and not the typical shooting events we ignore at ITN. --Masem (t) 21:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve stated many times before that the real news to post would be a law restricting gun acquisition which would prevent this from happening (for now, we have only numerous lies from US presidents such as this or this). I’m sorry if you don’t like the tone and you think it’s harmful to discussions, but it’s an undoubted fact that Americans shoot each other up all the time. The truth always hurts and better to have it said in a direct way instead of griping about how tragic all these incidents are or what mundane records a shooting has broken.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Its insulting to those of us that are American editors to see someone say "Americans shoot each other up..." America 100% has a gun control and mass shooting problem. That doesnt mean the whole country is fun happy as that suggests, and we're hands tied to get any type of better gun control passed to a point of frustration. Hence why the request to back off that excessive rhetoric. --Masem (t) 23:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, just because mass shootings happen almost everyday in the U.S. doesn't mean we're desensitized to a mass shooting where young elementary school children were massacred. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rare? There were two last year in elementary schools. Such things have never happened in many countries! It's sad, but it's predictable, not notable. Nfitz (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A man killed 18 young children.
That is not routine. Djprasadian (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please refactor the remark. It's grossly offensive. Jehochman Talk 02:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I’m on the fence about notability, that remark is a horrendous attitude to have and an even worse choice of words. Shame on you. The Kip (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't news. There's a mass killing in the United States basically every week. That it effects different populations over different incidents does not make any single incident special or unique. Gun violence in the United States should be treated as one single ongoing current event. That's what it looks like on the outside. People in other countries die. Ten people just died of a storm like we've never had in Ontario in ten years and tens of thousands are without power. Our capital city is basically out of comission. 142.126.80.182 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support -- School shootings that kill 10+ children in the United States are uncommon, and the shooting has made international news (check BBC, etc.). We posted, for example, the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 (the last time there was a mass shooting like this at an elementary school). As an aside, this is not ITNR, and I'm not sure why it was marked at being so. I've just unmarked it. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lmao, "since 2019". As though that's actually a long time in the context of deadliest school shooting ever 2001:569:57B2:4D00:B493:CB51:3387:9641 (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on significance, assuming the death counts currently being reported are accurate. Yes, mass shootings happen routinely in the U.S., but this is still a large one, and we tend to post those, plus it's young children who were murdered, which is likely to generate more coverage than if it were adults. No comment on quality as I have not evaluated it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It doesn't matter if another US mass shooting is already in the ITN blurb box, this type of shooting is unusual, the event itself is notable and in the news, and the article is in good quality. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 14 elementary school kids. Fourteen. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose regretfully, unless this turns out to be terrorism related or something similar. Otherwise, at the risk of sounding callous, it's just another day and another mass shooting in the US. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'd say just another day and another mass shooting in the US is pretty callous, and not at all a fair and accurate assessment of the situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as both an American, and a gun owner, I respectfully disagree. The only unusual aspect of this, is the body count for this particular event and the ages of the victims. But if you look at the list of mass shooting in the US, we are killing each other with a near run of the mill frequency. If someone wants to post an ongoing nomination for the mass slaughter in this country, I'd give serious consideration to supporting it. But I am done with these individual nominations. The lives of these children and their teacher are no less sacred than the four people shot to death in a public housing complex in Puerto Rico two days ago, or the two children and mother murdered in Alabama on the same day, or... it goes on and on. The United States has become synonymous with mass murder and I am not inclined to support events at ITN that are more or less routine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you... up until being done with these individual nominations. This shooting is "in the news" in a big way, similar to Buffalo last week, and in ways that most of the shootings on our lists of U.S. shootings are not. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - This isn't your average shooting, this literally killed 14 people, most were children. Definitely news worthy. CR-1-AB (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Yes, mass shootings are sadly common in the U.S., but the relatively high death toll and location at an elementary school make this notable enough for ITN. Funcrunch (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While mass shootings are common in the US, a mass shooting at an elementary school with a high death toll is rare, this is the deadliest one since Sandy Hook in 2012 I believe. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the deadliest in only 10 years @Rockstone35: makes it rare. It's certainly not the only elementary school shooting in a decade in that country! It only becomes notable if the murderer is a good shot? Surely, if anything, mass shootings in USA should be an ongoing issue, like the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Covid.
  • Support - Extenuating circumstances come into play that warrant the posting of an otherwise routine shooting.--WaltCip-(talk) 22:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Even though mass shootings are unfortunately quite common in this country, this is one of the deadliest in modern history, with 17 dead, most of them young children. The mass shooting in Buffalo, which killed 10 people, is listed on ITN. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 22:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support due to the last sentence of the lead: "The attack was one of the deadliest mass shootings in American history and the deadliest at an elementary school since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012." Would've nominated myself if this wasn't up already. interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 22:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A shooting like this in countries that have never had such a shooting (or even one with a lot less casualties) might be notable. But a mass shooting in the USA? Didn't we have one of these last week, that everyone swore up and down was the exception? We can't have exceptions every week. What's notable is that you can open-carry a machine gun in Texas. But that happened in 2021. That people then shoot people en masse is the completely predictable and non-notable outcome. Nfitz (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Predictable"? I doubt anyone showing up to Robb Elementary School "predicted" that there would be a shooting (aside from the perp). Simply opposing a mass shooting because it's in the USA is a bad-faith argument IMHO. And you're very busy pushing to post a quite-on-schedule and predictable infrastructure project. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's entirely predictable - not at that school, that day. But in the greater picture of things. I'd oppose posting such mass-shootings wherever they happen frequently. It just so happens that the only place it happens so regularly is the USA. How you can compare this to one of the biggest mega-projects in the world I don't know. There's been much bigger death tolls in Ukraine recently that we haven't even nominated - because it too is predictable. Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Events in the Ukraine are covered by the ongoing, those aren't being ignored. Masem (t) 22:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So why not have an "Ongoing" US mass shootings link to go beside the covid and Ukraine war links at the bottom of the ITN panel? Ericoides (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because mass shootings in the US are sporadic and unpredictable. Whereas an ongoing war and pandemic are relatively predictable in terms of casualties, simply by saying that tomorrow will probably have about as many as today --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is making headlines internationally. -- Tavix (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So are the interceptions of Chinese and Russian fighter jets off Japan. But like this, it's predictable and not particularly notable. Nfitz (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go write a comprehensive article on that and I'll support it. That's not what we're discussing though. -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can wave it off, when it happens so frequently, and their government's response to it is to enable people to make it even easier to do. Nfitz (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously an appeal to emotion. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:B493:CB51:3387:9641 (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
False. This is a notable event. CR-1-AB (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Uvalde and Buffalo aren't making headlines just for being deadly mass shootings. Buffalo was a racist terror attack on African-Americans and Uvalde killed children at elementary school. That's why Buffalo went on ITN and why Uvalde should too. GeicoHen (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Top story around the world, deadliest school shooting in nearly a decade. It is indeed sad that the story this would be pushing out of the ITN box is the Buffalo shooting two weeks ago, but that doesn't make this any less noteworthy. Davey2116 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- A schooling shooting in America is pretty much the equivalent of a suicide bombing in Afghanistan: it happens every Tuesday. We certainly don't report every suicide bombing in Afghanistan on the front page. Afghani children are no less valuable than American children. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:B493:CB51:3387:9641 (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This type of everyday barbarity in America is routine by now. Deaths in routine natural disasters or crimes typically take a death toll in the hundreds, not in the tens as in this case, to make the front page. The same applies to the Buffalo shooting, which I'd have also opposed posting. Sandstein 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support because of the heavy media coverage. I would wait a while however as the death toll still needs to be settled. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Although the US is of course used to such shootings, this one pokes above the threshold I would set for ITN coverage.--2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:82C:3F5E:DAE1:9CB8 (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- people seem to think that mass shootings in schools that have high fatality rates in the US are common. They are not. Yes, mass shootings are (relatively) common in the US, but mass shootings at public schools are uncommon, and mass shootings at public schools that kill large numbers of children are incredibly rare. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are not incredibly rare there. Seems to me there was an ITN about one only 10 years ago! I struggle to find ANYTHING similar for most major countries - even during wartime. Most recent I can find in this country, is a single child wounded in a 1902 shooting, who died later - aged 8 but it's not clear if they were of elementary age or not; that though would be incredibly rare. Nfitz (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody denies that these shootings do not happen with anything of this sort of frequency in any other country. That does not mean that when we have a mass shooting with a major news response that we should ignore it because "just another day in 'Murica". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the last mass shooting with a high death toll at an elementary school was back in 2012 (signifying the rarity of this tragic event). While I 100% agree mass shootings are all too common in the U.S., one where there is a significant loss of life of 2nd to 4th graders is rare. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once a decade is not rare (let alone incredibly rare). It's all too common. I'm stunned anyone would call this rare, for this type of event! Nfitz (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the ITN guidance does it say that an event has to be "rare"? We just posted the EPL champions even though we have one once a year. That's not "rare". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying rare to those calling this a common shooting in the U.S. It's pretty damn rare, even in the U.S., for a shooting with a high death toll of young students (elementary school) to happen. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once a decade in a country of 330 million people, with more guns than people, is pretty rare. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vehement Support A man murdered 18 young children. EIGHTEEN. YOUNG. CHILDREN. This is the deadliest school shooting in America since Sandy Hook. Djprasadian (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WaltCip Usual comments, quite a lot of !votes (on both sides) that don't actually understand how ITN works, closed too early by an admin who gave away their own views with an unnecessary piece of snark - which wasn't even correct - while they were doing it. Par for the course when it comes to US school shootings, isn't it? Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Following the Dunblane massacre, the government passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, defining "short firearms" as Section 5 Prohibited Weapons, which effectively banned private possession of handguns almost completely in Great Britain." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2022 (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.
  • Looking at international media this morning, there is more coverage than I expected - but it's mostly in the context on politicians call for gun control, either by the President or a Senator. Should the blurb change to In the United States, politicians call for gun control as 21 people are killed in a mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. Nfitz (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Elizabeth line

[edit]
Consensus will not form to post.—Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Elizabeth line (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Elizabeth line, an east-west railway tunnel crossing Greater London, opens. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Something a bit different. First new underground line in London for decades and a very significant expansion of the transport network. Not sure how often we post new railway lines, but we did post Marmaray a few years ago - a similar line in Istanbul - and we have posted some others like the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway. Smurrayinchester 12:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was thinking of nominating this myself as it's in the news so much currently. The blurb needs a bit of work as the line mostly runs overground from Reading to Abbey Wood/Shenfield while the new tunnel for the underground section doesn't seem to have a separate name. And there's a variety of possible pictures. Unfortunately, the official pictures of the opening ceremony with the Queen, PM and Mayor all seem to have a NC licence. But Commons has a category of alternatives. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while understanding that a new line on the Underground is rare, there doesn't seem to be any technical marvel (like a high speed train) or major geographic barrier reached with this (the Marmaray line was connecting the contextual split of Turkey.) --Masem (t) 13:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a layperson pov, I don't think how the construction mattered...unless it was the first system dug with help of The Boring Company. I am sure to architechs and engineers, how they threaded the needle us interesting, but its still not a new technology wonder. --Masem (t) 14:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Enormous U.K. news, definitely not something that happens every day.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality lots of places where many more sources are needed, also lots of the history duplicates Crossrail article (and so probably isn't needed in this article). Neutral on blurb if fixed- it's a big thing in London/the UK, however, less coverage anywhere else, and this is a worldwide encyclopedia after all (which is why we don't post all the US-specific stuff that gets nominated). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not it is of worldwide significance is immaterial. The standard is whether the item is newsworthy and covered by reliable sources, which it very well appears to be. WaltCip-(talk) 13:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is covered in reliable sources, but only in the UK. That isn't clearly significant enough coverage for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. Here's a recent article in the New York Times, for example. And, in any case, there's the standard rubric above, "Please do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." Andrew🐉(talk) 14:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An oft-cited tenet from the ol' ITN catechism, typically applied to parochial news of little general interest. Yawn. -- Sca (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, on article quality issues, the file used: File:Elizabeth line Map as in May 2022.svg is factually incorrect. It lists Bond Street and Old Oak Common as stations, when neither are open yet, and doesn't list Moorgate, where purple line trains are stopping at peak times. If nobody fixes article quality issues, then importance debates are meaningless. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose really? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could make a featured article, I spoze. -- Sca (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Massive news. Definitely an engineering marvel, although delayed for 3 and a half years. (Remember, not a tube line!) Maybe change the blurb, it's not just a tunnel, it runs out west to Reading and east to Shenfield. Angusgtw (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not yet it doesn't. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yes I suppose you're right. Current TfL rail services will be rebranded though. Angusgtw (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - I'm a bit of a transport nerd so I actually headed out to Paddington this morning to ride on the second train from there on the new line (the first had already filled up by the time I reached the front of the queue!) But is this earth-shattering news on a global scale? I doubt it. New roads and railways are opened quite frequently, and ultimately despite the fanfare and pedantry regarding whether it's a "tube" or not, this is really a repeat of what's gone before. Also the new bit doesn't run to Reading or Shenfield, it's only the Paddington to Abbey Wood section that's new. New York Times and Le Monde don't seem to have it on their front pages today...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if it were a major rail line connecting two distant places, maybe, but one of many lines in the London underground is not significant. Banedon (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The 11th line on a network up since 1863. I highly doubt we would post any other new line on any of these [13]. The Turkish example seems to have been a major feat to make an underground tunnel under the Bosphorus, and the Ethiopia-Djibouti one is an international railway in a part of the world that lags in infrastructure, linking its biggest city and its most strategic port. What's so special about this line except being in London and named after the Queen? Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Unknown Temptation. The Turkish tunnel was posted as it was considered an engineering marvel constructing a cross-straits tunnel; this seems to lack that significance. The Kip (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While sources are covering this, it is clear that from what those sources are writing that this is a purely local infrastructure thing. It's a big, important locality to be sure, but on the balance what I am reading in reliable sources does not indicate to me that this is should be posted. --Jayron32 17:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Can't see anything groundbreaking about this. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To me, this seems like just another tunnel being opened. If someone can prove to me exactly how this is notable, I'll strike this out and Support per that reasoning. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, the blurb doesn't mention anything special about the Elizabeth line and makes it sound like its just another tunnel being opened. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose despite all Sadiq and Boris's bluster about world beating infrastructure, this is just of local significance. I can't find it on the front page of Reuters, the New York Times, or any Czech media. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a metro line opening in just about any other city probably wouldn't get posted, a big piece of infrastructure opening can be newsworthy, especially when it accomplishes a major feat or connects previously hard to reach places together, but a connector through the centre of London, England ain't that. 4iamking (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A no-brainer. Most significant transit development in London for a century. And one of the biggest engineering projects in the world. It's a major feat, decades in the making, with difficult engineering challenges, that connects hard to reach places to each other. The bias here against major technological developments is unfortunate, given the number of times that the predictable events involving kicking a ball, or hitting it with a raquet or a stick. Given the massive news coverage about this, including internationally (it's certainly been covered here in Canada), I'm surprised that any are opposing this. Nfitz (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    how exactly does this connect hard to reach places together, this train doesn't go anywhere other than downtown London, as far as im concerned that isn't "hard to reach". It may cut commute times down by a few min but thats not exactly revolutionary, and new metro lines open up in various cities all the time. I was thinking more of infrastructure projects like the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link or Sinamalé Bridge that literally connect places together that wouldn't have been otherwise connected. 4iamking (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How are Reading, Berkshire and Shenfield downtown London, @4iamkin: - they are over 100 km apart? A few minutes - the savings are far more significant than that - particularly for trips outside of central London (I'm not quite sure what you mean "downtown"). Trips to/from Canary Wharf in particular. Even in the (new) central section 40 to 50 minute journeys become 18 to 30 minute journeys - see some examples; and that doesn't include the improvements in a few months, when through trains start running, eliminating the 10-15 minute transfer at Paddington (and the 5-minute transfer at Liverpool). I really get the impression that many here aren't fully grasping the magnitude of this 30-year US$24-billion megaproject that is Crossrail. Nfitz (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Agree with Nfitz above. The culmination of a large infrastructure project in a large metropolitan area that took over a decade. There is no policy than an item must be of global significance; if so, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Will we be posting Brussels' new metro line too? Or Birmingham's metro extension? This is quite nuts. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are any as significant @Brigade Piron:? We posted a big one in Beijing - why is that different than London? (here). Nfitz (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that was a mistake too and it is worth bearing in mind that ITN does not work on the basis of common law-style precedents. Wikipedia is a very different place now to what it was in 2011 in any case. But even if it wasn't, London is not a city on a rank with Beijing in either size or global importance. This is not even the most important story on the BBC's own website anymore! —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
London isn't on rank with Beijing in global importance, @Brigade Piron:? I'm sensing bias here. You ignored my question about Belgium and Birmingham. The answer is they aren't very notable at all compared to the Elizabeth Line. There isn't even an article yet for Brussels Metro line 3 - even though it's supposed to open in only 3-years time. The Crossrail article is almost 20-years old; even the French version (fr:Crossrail (Londres)) is 16-years old! The three-station extension of Line 1 of the West Midlands Metro only get's a single paragraph at West Midlands Metro#Birmingham City Centre extension, so out of date that it says it's scheduled to open in 2021! The references say it was going to cost less than £150 million! That's less than one-hundredth of the £19 billion cost of Crossrail! How are these comparable examples? It's like comparing the World Cup to a kids playoff in Bracknell! Nfitz (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Brigade Piron: - we did post the 2016 opening of the Moscow Central Circle - another significant transit line. (see here). Nfitz (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the Second Avenue Subway opening in NYC in 2017 was not posted.[14] I wouldn't spend too much time looking into "precedent" here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As ironically @Muboshgu:, I alluded to below, 2 minutes before you posted! I don't think a 3-station and 3-km extension, is significant - particularly one that doesn't provide any interchanges. A comparable London example would be the Northern line extension to Battersea which I wouldn't have suggested be ITN (it was DYK though). If they'd opened the entire proposed 14-km line in NYC, then it would have been more notable - and a similar cost to the London project. But as a megaproject, it's just wasn't that big. Nfitz (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, I admit I was being facetious about Brussels and Birmingham. The point is that this kind of story is very meaningful to the people who happen to live in the city where it happens, and not to anyone else. It is, in other words, not the kind of thing ITN is about. For the record, London is absolutely not as important as Beijing in any serious metric. Except for the fact that I happen to live there, of course... —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, it's not quite true that the SAS has no interchanges, the Q train (usually the only SAS train so far) merges with a ~1 kilometer concurrency with the F train circa 0.1km before the start of their shared station. Besides taking the Q to the F you can also leave that station, walk 0.25-0.3km on the sidewalk to a different station with 4, 5, 6, N, R and W trains and interchange with any of them for free — the only place where pay-per-ride doesn't charge a full fare for re-entering the system. You can also stay on and wait for them to jump from the F line to the NQRW line where you can switch to an N, R or W train 0.1 kilometers after fusion and many other trains further down the line though by the time you can transfer to the other 3 yellow trains directly it's no longer SAS by any stretch. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just clicked on that BBC link. The page has a section heading Must See. The lead item in that section is "Elizabeth lines opens and welcomes excited passengers". The following section is Most watched and that item is the most popular on the entire site. So, it is the top story on BBC News currently. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that it is in the "Must See" section - alongside such globally important news as "Nation asked to sing Sweet Caroline for the Queen" and "Love Island could change second-hand buying habits", both of which also make it onto the front page. Perhaps we should consider featuring these too? Crossrail is curiously absent, meanwhile, from the section above with the 13 serious front-page news stories. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question reading the article I'm left confused: this is new trackage and right of way or a new line on existing tracks or new tracks on an existing right of way? Also without a stop in Bracknell it hardly seems worth the bother. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's both. It's similar to the Paris RER. They dug a large mainline-grade tunnel(not a much smaller Underground-grade tunnel) underneath Central London to connect rail lines in the suburbs with each other. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the grounds that a similar infrastructure project (a major link in a major city, but not affecting multiple metropolitan areas at once) would not be nominated, let alone posted, if it weren't from London. SounderBruce 20:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true @SounderBruce:. See posted examples above for Moscow and here. There's also been other nominations that didn't get posted - such a short 2 or 3 station extensions in other big cities. We also had an ITN for the Gotthard Base Tunnel in 2016 - a similar, though cheaper, railway megaproject. Nfitz (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I'd Oppose this sort of thing, but I think I'll jutst stick a Support in here to contradict the large number of utterly clueless Opposes above. I'm actually astonished at the number of people who post things which immediately show that they clearly don't know what they're talking about. Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly please show us what "they clearly don't know what they're talking about"? Thank you Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this seems like more of a Twitter argument than a Wikipedia one... With no further evidence, it's "you're all wrong, and have no idea what you're talking about!!" Is there anything in particular that you find clueless in the discussion so far? 😎  — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, it was earlier. It also was a week ago here. Nfitz (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per above arguments. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose new metro lines are opened on China like, twice a month, and nobody even thinks to nominate them. Just because this one is massively overbudget and the UK needs 20 years to build a railway line does not make it more significant in my eyes than, say, Beijing Line 19 or Guangzhou Line 22, both metro systems having several times more traffic than the tube even pre COVID. Massive showcase of the good old Anglosphere bias. Juxlos (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Major news story with fairly well sourced article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to a few too many missing citations, but support in principle, as it is a nice looking article that is completely new. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This made Australian news, but only because the queen opened it, and for some reason our media is obsessed with the queen. This is certainly the world's biggest news in public transport for the year. I oppose because there is nothing ground-breaking about this line. Steelkamp (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2022 (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.

May 23

[edit]
May 23, 2022 (2022-05-23) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Joe Pignatano

[edit]
Article: Joe Pignatano (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

[edit]
May 22, 2022 (2022-05-22) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Sports

RD: Hazel Henderson

[edit]
Article: Hazel Henderson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post
Credits:

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

 Thriley (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Horst Sachtleben

[edit]
Article: Horst Sachtleben (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FAZ
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: German actor Grimes2 (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bonar Sianturi

[edit]
Article: Bonar Sianturi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): National Radio of Indonesia
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former military officer and regent. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Oemarsono

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

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

Nominator's comments: Former governor, grammatical and diction fixes is welcomed. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John M. Merriman

[edit]
Article: John M. Merriman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Yale University
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: A leading historian of 19th century France. I can take no credit for updating. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • support John Merriman's European history survey texts have been read by countless undergrads, whose Yale classes have been freely watched by countless people online, and who never wrote a book without the Rolling Stones playing. (withdraw participation) -- GreenC 20:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Needs work. Most of the info is in the lead paragraph, followed by a couple of sentences that include his education. "Awards and honors" are unsourced and presented like a resume, "Published works" also uncited. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Article needs more information. Alex-h (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Published works section is unsourced. Please add more REFs/ISBNs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ISBNs  Done Grimes2 (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Grimes2, for all the new sources. --PFHLai (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PGA Championship

[edit]
Article: 2022 PGA Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In golf, Justin Thomas wins the PGA Championship (Post)
News source(s): ESPN NYT
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: The second of golf's four majors, the PGA Championship is listed on ITNR. Article seems to be in good shape. -- Vaulter 14:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose like almost every other golf tournament article, the "Field" section is massively overdetailed and incomprehensible to anyone other than a massive golf fan. The additional number in parentheses that always get added make no sense, because they're not explained anywhere in article, and until this is fixed, the article is not the correct quality to be on the front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neither the lead nor the infobox of the target article explain what the sport or format is. And they don't explain what PGA stands for. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia not the sports pages for fans of these sports. And there's very little significance in these events. Obviously if you hold a sporting contest then one of the players is going to win it. So what? WP:NOTNEWS says plainly that "routine news coverage of ... sports ... is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion". Andrew🐉(talk) 19:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it's an ITNR event. Your opinion on sports' significance is irrelevant (thereby making this vote invalid), the only considering factor should be the quality of the article. The Kip (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see this current discussion which proposes that WP:POINT be relegated because it is commonly misunderstood. My points are quite sincere and based on policy. I don't expect the numerous sports fans here to agree with them but so it goes. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to understand the point you're attempting to make when again, all ITNR sports events have been decided on a wide consensus. Should that consensus be overturned because one user believes it conflicts with policy, especially when few to no other users have vocalized the same concern? If you have a problem with the inclusion of sports events, again open a discussion on Wikipedia talk:In the news; this page is not the place for it. The Kip (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: has above quoted WP:NOTNEWS, but not included the end of the sentence, that points to WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events. ROUTINE refers to sports scores and everyday items. It also says that Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. The word may is hardly prescriptive, and the context certainly doesn't preclude the rare sports event that is very notable. Either way, this isn't the place to discuss the if ITNR needs to be revised; see WT:ITNR. Nfitz (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to clarify this, Andrew Davidson is now advocating for the removal of every single sports event from ITNR? Or just the PGA tournament? Or something else? I think we've gone well beyond making a point to be disruptive here.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear the former, unfortunately. The Kip (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, support in principle for same reasons as Joseph2302. Field section seems overly complex; will change to support when issues are resolved. The Kip (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality per Joseph. It's now two years since we managed to get 2020 PGA Championship over the line, but it seems no lessons have been learned from that, the old poor article structure has been revived. Unless this is addressed, it won't be possible to post any golf results to ITN, which is a pity.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support I find absolutely nothing wrong with the article, and I wouldn't change a thing. It's not worth it to ruin the article just to satisfy people who couldn't tell a golf ball from a hockey puck. If the field section is the only complaint, then look at the Premier League article that was just posted. It has tables all over the page. The Stanley Cup final page every year has complete rosters. What's the difference between those and the field section on a golf page? In my opinion, this should have been posted already.  — Compy90 (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the field section is the only complaint, then look at the Premier League article that was just posted. It has tables all over the page.: One criticism above was the confusion over the numbers in parentheses. It doesn't seem to be a general objection to tables.—Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference for me between the Premier League/Stanley Cup article and this is that a) the prose about the matches comes first before the tables about roster/stadiums/field etc. and b) that the tables are easy to parse and not overly long. If you want to put Field as the second section of the article, it should not take up 2 pages of space on a standard desktop monitor.Chaosquo (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not worth it to ruin the article just to satisfy people who couldn't tell a golf ball from a hockey puck. the point of an encyclopedia is so that people can learn and understand things. That article, particularly the complicated field section, don't allow this. I and many others will understand how golf works, but not have a clue about what on earth that complicated field section means. This isn't golf Fandom/Wikia site, the articles should be understandable by people who aren't just golf fanatic fans. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose will support if the unwieldy Field section is condensed as per 2020 PGA Championship. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Man City win the Premier League

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2021–22 Premier League (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, Manchester City have won the English Premier League in the final day of the season following a 3—2 comeback against Aston Villa (Player of the Season winner Kevin De Bruyne pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In association football, Manchester City win the English Premier League (Player of the Season winner Kevin De Bruyne pictured).
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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

 2600:1702:38D0:E70:78B5:3944:153D:FE53 (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Each article is different, I can understand you want to see more prose, that can be done, however this is just looking for a simple statement and not so much the article nomination. Govvy (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You literally said "the article is the standard format it has been for years" then you say "each article is different". Looking at 2020–21 Premier League it's obvious your first statement isn't right. There's no way this is ready for the main page. AusLondonder (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, oppose on quality Article is merely tables upon tables. Prose is needed in order for this to qualify for the Main Page. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not ready for the main page. Not even close. AusLondonder (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is WP:ITN/R but this article is far from the quality standards required for a ITN blurb. MarioJump83! 08:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb, The article is of a good standard in my view, I really feel the oppose comments above are now out of date. Govvy (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The target article is not just table heavy, the tables contain promotional material like "Kit manufacturer, Shirt sponsor (chest), Shirt sponsor (sleeve) ..." It is our policy that "Wikipedia is not ... a vehicle for ... advertising..." Note also the big slogans in the proposed lead picture: "Mastercard ... Etihad Airways"! Andrew🐉(talk) 12:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? The season articles contain that information because the kits change every season and people might want to identify the shirts. It's borderline impossible to get a shot of a footballer of this level on a pitch without some logo in the shot. We'd have to remove a lot of pictures from football bios if this is to be our stance... – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sport isn't serious or significant compared to monkeypox, Scandinavian neutrality, space vehicles and the other stories that we're not running. We're an encyclopedia, not the sports pages, you see. But it's still possible to show photos without excessive spam – see below. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of your individual ideas on significance, the Premier League is listed in ITNR recurring events. It's already been deemed significant enough. The Kip (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly if we are talking a free image, any corporate logos should be present only on a de minimus approach. If one took a photo of a scoreboard where ads were predominate, that would be a problem, while a shot of a player in the foreground that happens to include an obscured version of the scoreboard would be fine. Samd would apply to uniform markings. Masem (t) 22:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Te McMinimus? Didn't he play for Derby County?? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 United States infant formula shortage

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2022 United States infant formula shortage (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Operation Fly Formula begins delivery of infant formula from Europe to the United States to alleviate ongoing shortages (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The first flight of Operation Fly Formula delivers 35,000 kilograms of infant formula from Germany to the United States
News source(s): Colton, Emma (2022-05-22). "Baby formula shortage: Biden celebrates as 78,000 pounds of baby formula flown to US". Fox News. Retrieved 2022-05-23.
"Military plane carrying 39 tons of baby formula arrives in U.S." www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2022-05-23.
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Maybe I'm a masochist, but:
1. The article is now much more complete;
2. The event is now undeniably international in impact, with Europe sending formula and Canada experiencing shortages as well;
3. Even if impacts were limited to the US, as the ITN significance guidance says, "Arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful. Almost all news is of greater interest to a particular place and/or group of people than to the world at large, and arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community." I quote this in full because of how blatantly it seems to get ignored where the US is concerned.
4. There is plenty of international coverage, as demonstrated last time (or translate "infant formula shortage" into whatever language you like and search Google News);
5. At least one person last time thought the shortage wasn't newsworthy as no children had been sickened; well, now they have.
Also: I implore the closer to respect WP:NHC and read all the arguments in that light. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 17:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that reason amounted to "it's US-only news", to which I can only point back to points 2 and 3 above. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 20:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank God there are other requirements that must be met and, in this case, this news item doesn't meet them.Are we going to include all strictly local news just because of this rule you mention? Please... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It actually meets every one of the criteria in the guideline. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 21:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it's now been in the international news for multiple news cycles (i.e., it's significant per RS) and the article is of sufficient quality. It meets the criteria to be posted. Levivich 20:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Same reasons as before, Although there is more coverage than there has been a week ago, it's just not very notable with everything else that's going on right now. 4iamking (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A week ago, I blew your claim of insufficient coverage out of the water. The coverage then was enormous and has only increased since. I understand you have a right to oppose a nomination for any reason, good or bad. In this case, bad. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 21:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It wasn't notable then. It isn't notable now. A massively publicized flight doesn't change anything.--WaltCip-(talk) 22:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a good looking article, which is our primary purpose. Yes, there are other things "going on right now" but our guidelines wisely note that nominations should be considered only on their own weight. Likewise, all news is local news. All four stories currently posted are local to a single country. All have some degree of foreign interest, but are of primary interest to domestic audiences. This is why such arguments are specifically precluded. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we're currently in the midst of a global food shortage. This is at best one facet of that much bigger news item. Banedon (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. Both its causes and its effects are quite unique and separate from other current shortages, as the article makes clear. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 06:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is your standard that nothing is news until it kills someone? I'm sorry the parents haven't obliged you yet. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 13:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad many more babies aren't starving and no experimental formula came of this. But yeah, either of those would have been more newsworthy than a country importing something it doesn't produce enough of domestically. Almost nothing manmade is more common and mundane than international trade. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support high quality article, which does an excellent job of capturing the complex web of causation (goes beyond COVID shortages - although they are a factor) and the international response. Regarding the argument that the article is missing that "starvation/innovation angle" - at least 2 children have died due to the bacterial infection that lead to the recall in February, the article mentions at least 6 children hospitalized due to the shortage (improper homemade formula, complications from switching formulas, requirements of specialized formulas that aren't available...) and there are other children not specifically captured in the article, who have been hospitalized for similar reasons. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a very good article, but in the end I don't see how the event differs from any other food shortage in the world - some of which are far more serious than this - other than it has received far more publicity because it happened in a first world country. Black Kite (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is clear about how it differs: for one, unlike every other food product, formula often has no acceptable substitute. And the fact that such a thing is happening in a first world country (a country, in fact, that largely believes it has the highest standard of living in the world) is part of what makes it so newsworthy. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 14:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what that means, unless its that you oppose all stories that happen in the US. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 15:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you replying to everyone who disagrees with you? That's WP:BADGER territory dude. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BADGER: "Asking for a clarification is fine, as long as you aren't demanding. Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine". I'm not worried. I'm pointing out the weaknesses of the arguments for the closer's benefit; it's entirely up to you whether you want to address that weakness. I'm invoking WP:MWD here. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 16:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank god for that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've seen a couple of recent news reports in Canada - and there is no mention of shortages in Canada. I see some lower profile reports of some types being unavailable here - but it's a very different supply chain - with a lot of Canadian manufacturing. Also breastfeeding rates are much higher here. I don't see that it should be ITN because of Canadian issues. Either way, it's all very local. Supply chain issues however are global - everything from silicon chips (and everything that uses them) to furniture; there was quite a couch shortage here a few months ago. Perhaps supply chain issues could be Ongoing? But I don't think we need an article for just one item in a one place. Nfitz (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Buffalo shooting currently on ITN was far more local than this, and directly affected far fewer people, so the problem must be something other than just localism. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 20:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which I also thought was too local. There's barely been mention of it in days. Nfitz (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz - are you suggesting 2022 food crises should be in Ongoing? Or perhaps 2021–2022 global supply chain crisis? I think those would both face push back as being related to the COVID 19 pandemic and/or the Russia/Ukraine war which are already in ongoing. However I think the Abbot recall makes the infant formula issue distinct enough that it's not adequately covered by the presence of COVID 19 pandemic in ongoing already. @Swpb, the baby formula shortage should probably be mentioned in 2022 food crises with a link back to 2022 United States infant formula shortage, as 2022 food crises#North_America really is rather sparse. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; done. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 01:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking 2021–2022 global supply chain crisis (I haven't looked closely at the article - didn't it start in 2020 - at least with silicon chips and LED screens?); I'd think the food issues were a subset of the bigger issues causing supply chain issues. Though perhaps that's a different debate. Nfitz (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The formula shortage has nothing to do with the global supply crisis (which is more driven by the covid wave in China). The formula crisis is due to one of three suppliers in the US have to shut down production after a FDA review on plant conditions, and the market inelasticity of the other two to be able to simply up production to meet demand. Masem (t) 21:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The global supply crisis is partly driven by the same drive for extreme profit that have destabilized production of infant formula, and put more eggs in less baskets. Still, if it's that local, then even less notable. Nfitz (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing they're the same story because they both involve capitalism? —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 12:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not per se. And the more I look at 2021–2022 global supply chain crisis, the more it seems the article is very narrow in scope. Supply chain issues started to break down here before months before Covid with strikes at ports, railway by First Nations protesters, and even Brexit. And yet that even article notes that The supply chain crisis is a major contributing factor in the 2022 United States infant formula shortage. Foreign media says similar. Media reports here blame sunflower oil shortages. Another factor would be increased global protectionism. There's literally a massive infant formula manufacturing facility on the Canada/US border, that is 100% for export, but exports nothing to the USA because of US protectionism. That being said (and increasingly off-topic and TLDR), I do note there was an ITN in 2008 for the 2008 Chinese milk scandal that lead to the construction of that baby formula plant near the Canada/US border. Nfitz (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Yes, it has been in the news, especially in the U.S., and politicos have promised action, but general significance in the context of horrendous int'l.events seems lacking, IMO. – Sca (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

[edit]
May 21, 2022 (2022-05-21) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Rosemary Radford Ruether

[edit]
Article: Rosemary Radford Ruether (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NPR
Credits:

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

 Thriley (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Colin Cantwell

[edit]
Article: Colin Cantwell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): THR, The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Hollywood effects artist behind designs of ships/props including 2001 and Star Wars. A few unreferenced statements. Masem (t) 21:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Achmad Yurianto

[edit]
Article: Achmad Yurianto (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Jakarta Globe
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Indonesia's Anthony Fauci. Made from scratch; grammatical and diction fixes urgently needed. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Australia election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2022 Australian federal election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Australian Labor Party, led by Anthony Albanese (pictured), wins a majority of seats in the Australian federal election. (Post)
News source(s): ABC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Election called for at least a minority government, Morrison has conceded. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait until we know whether Labor will win a majority. BilledMammal (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it matter whether Labor gets a majority or minority government? It is clear that Labor will form government anyway. The blurb can be amended later when we know whether Labor got a majority or not. Steelkamp (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until we are 100 percent sure that the Labor party wins a majority. Additional prose in the 'Results' section would also be helpful. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it matter whether Labor gets a majority or minority government? It is clear that Labor will form government anyway. The blurb can be amended later when we know whether Labor got a majority or not. Steelkamp (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Vote counting in the close seats will take several days, and possibly weeks. It's possible, maybe even likely, that it would be considered by some editors to be a 'stale' story in early/mid/late June once the final seat count is known. It would be best to post the item now, while it is actually in the news. Chrisclear (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the significance is that the election happened, not what its result is. Levivich 15:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support important election 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Melmann We don't typically wait for the formal swearing in/inauguration. It's the election that is news, not the formalities. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The former PM has conceded the election to the Labor Party. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They don't declare seats until all the postals are in, and we have never waited for 'dead rubbers' to be finalised Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So we should wait until June to put this on ITN? Albo would have been sworn in long before that. Steelkamp (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until May 23, the swearing in comes close enough on the heels of the election that we can bundle the results and their formalization into a single post. BD2412 T 05:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The former PM has conceded the election to the Labor Party. We won't have formal results for probably a month. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This position is in violation of WP:ITN/R, and so should be ignored. Steelkamp (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I love all these "Albos" Bumbubookworm (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not advocate for ignoring the voices of our contributors. We are a community ruled by consensus. ITN/R is not the law, it is a guideline. Election blurbs are routinely held for greater clarity, and suggestions for a negligible delay to improve the blurb are valid. I disagree, and Support posting now, but your efforts here are uncivil. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your reply. Can you advise who (apart from you) has imposed this requirement "to have a minimum of prose"? And I will ask again, what content/information are you expecting to read, that is not covered by the tables in the results section? Chrisclear (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any articles that are featured or target links (those in bolded text for the most part) on the Main Page (including TFA and DYK) are expected to represent the best of what WP articles can be. Articles consisting only of tables does not meet that quality baseline. --Masem (t) 15:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can do the exercise yourself, by taking a look at the nominations on elections from, at least, last month. And you will see that I'm not the only one who demands it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully those demands will subside. Repeating information in prose when it's already in a table doesn't strike me as increasing article quality. Levivich 15:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing the table details for the highlights is both more appropriate to an encyclopedic format as well as improving accessibility. There is also sometimes details that prose can cover that tables cannot necessary show. --Masem (t) 15:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's what the lead does: provide a prose summary. The Results section doesn't need to repeat that with another prose summary. It goes back to the question, "what content/information are you expecting to read, that is not covered by the tables in the results section?" (Or in the lead, I would add.) I'd say it's all covered in the tables and summarized in the lead. The lack of prose in the Results section is not a reason not to post an article on ITN. Levivich 15:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lede should be summarizing the body of the article, so if there's no prose in the body, that's a problem. I mean, this is why we want LEDECITE for, for the body to be where references are located and keeping the lede clean of citations outside of direct quotes. Also, keep in mind people may jump directly to that section, and thus why even a short summary of the table itself should be present. --Masem (t) 16:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I think the wording should be changed from "majority" to the slightly less specific "most" because it's clear Labor have won, but not necessarily a majority, which has more implications. The official Electoral Commission updates currently suggest 75 of 151 (1 away from a majority). — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree with this. It’s not currently known whether it’s a majority. Steelkamp (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely a majority, the question is only whether it's a relative majority or absolute majority (and no, not "plurality", because this is Australia, not USA/Canada). Regards SoWhy 18:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, no-one ever says the words "relative majority" when talking about Australian elections. Whenever someone says "majority", they are referring to an absolute majority. Steelkamp (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "The majority" was correct. It is not equivalent to "a majority". "The majority" means "the most", not a plurality. Still, I see someone's changed it now - whatever. Black Kite (talk)
  • Update For those who thought swearing in was a significant moment in time, that has now happened. It was a stupid requirement anyway. I cannot imagine us ever delaying the posting of the election of a new US President from November to January. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That last part really sounds like some silly America-centric remark. The point is that this isn't the US and that the delay between the election and the swearing-in is so much shorter that waiting the extra few hours (which might have allowed for some more suitable prose to be written for the results section, prose which is still lacking) wouldn't have been a bad idea... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For every country, we post when the results are reported, not when the person is inaugurated, which often takes a few days or a week (and much longer for US). If someone wants to change that, they should discuss it at WT:ITN, because it would be a change to the usual process of posting these elections. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that "which often takes a few days or a week" is clearly not the case with Australia - in fact, the guy was sworn in before we even had the full results, which just shows how the comparison with other countries is in this case inaccurate; and how following process for the sake of process is not particularly a good way to do things. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, Albanese was not sworn in as the next Prime Minister as the result of the election. He was sworn in as an interim Prime Minister until such time as the election result is finalised and the true winner is known (it will almost certainly be Albanese, but it is not yet certain that he will be able to form government). This was an exceptional case, because of the Quad Summit in Tokyo beginning on Tuesday. Outgoing PM Scott Morrison (who is still PM until a new PM is sworn in) could not attend meaningfully as by convention as the outgoing PM he would be unable to commit Australia to any decisions, so he resigned after the election trends became apparent, forcing the Governor-General to appoint an interim PM until such time as the election is finalised. This is all a technicality, but speaking in technical terms, Albanese has not been sworn in as "the new PM who won the election", he is currently only an interim PM. dmmaus (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The ABC says nothing about it being interim.[17] It says it was done quickly because of the Tokyo summit, but also that the Governor-General was convinced Labor was able to form government. Adpete (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One could also take it as an anti-US special treatment comment. Anyhoo, AGF.—Bagumba (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    HiLo is prone to bemoaning putative U.S.-centricity on ITN/C. I wouldn't worry about it too much. WaltCip-(talk) 14:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I love you too. It's probably worth pointing out that, for most informed Australians, the result of an election are accepted as clear when Antony Green says they are. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs to update to something indicating Labor has won the election, like, "... and Anthony Albanese becomes Prime Minister of Australia". "Wins the most seats" is too technical and should be removed if there is not enough space; the party winning the most seats does not always form government. Adpete (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeypox

[edit]
Article: 2022 monkeypox outbreak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ an outbreak of monkeypox has spread to at least 12 countries. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ An outbreak of monkeypox spreads to at least 16 countries.
News source(s): BBC, Aljazeera, NBC News, Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Not sure what to do with this one, could potentially go for ongoing as well, but it defitnetly is making the news right now. 4iamking (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

   * That’s what everyone thought when COVID started as a minor illness.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.31.219 (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the spread of this rare disease outside of remote parts of Africa is significant as evidenced by it being front-page news worldwide. The article is of sufficient quality. Levivich 15:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a more recent report, WHO said it was "containable" and overall risk to the broader population is very low. That article also says Despite being the largest outbreak outside of Africa in 50 years, monkeypox does not spread easily between people and experts say the threat is not comparable to the coronavirus pandemic. That the event is getting as much news coverage in the West seems to be more about post-Covid anxiety than any real risk. Nfitz (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starliner docks to ISS

[edit]
Article: Boeing Orbital Flight Test 2 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Boeing Starliner docks with the International Space Station. (Post)
News source(s): The Verge
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Pretty significant, as it is the fourth crewed spacecraft that docked to the ISS. See also: Commercial Crew Program. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Similar to other superlative events, we usually don't post the second or beyond-type events. While this is Boeing's first attempt (compared to SpaceX), it really isn't much of a new accomplishment. --Masem (t) 14:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Might be a big deal for Boeing, but otherwise a footnote to the ISS story. – Sca (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Currently only two spacecraft are able to deliver crew to the ISS; Soyuz and Dragon. The success of this flight changes this, reducing the reliance on Russia and the market dominance of SpaceX; this makes it a significant event that should be posted on ITN. BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sca. This isn't receiving the sort of international, front-page coverage that would indicate sufficient significance to post at ITN. Levivich 15:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think @Kiril Simeonovski:, that it's the fourth type of crewed spacecraft to dock, that is the point. It's that it's the first docking of this type; mind you, given the other 3 types first flew in 1967, 1981, and 2019 - it's not like the category is flooded! Technically, this flight meets WP:ITNR#Space exploration of The launch of space stations or installation of new major components thereof. At the same time, the first crewed flight might be a better target. I am surprised the previous Boeing Orbital Flight Test wasn't posted, as it met the ITNR of Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article - although no one brought that up WP:In the news/Candidates/December 2019#Boeing Orbital Flight Test. Nfitz (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: You're welcome to tweak the blurb so that it documents what the first docking of its type really means.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the blurb - I think it's the nominator's comment that bends that way, @Kiril Simeonovski:. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that "it's the first docking of this type", but that's nowhere clearly explained.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kiril Simeonovski; I would perhaps support an ITN for Boeing-CFT, when it actually flies crew, as it then signifies that Boeing is ready to fulfill its commercial contract with NASA. Even then, it's not that big of news; the main story is with America achieving the independent ability to launch astronauts, which it already has before Starliner flew successfully. Lyrim (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hardly noteworthy in the history of the ISS, this isn't even getting that much media attention. 4iamking (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not particularly noteworthy. Not the first flight to the ISS and woln't be the last. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 20

[edit]
May 20, 2022 (2022-05-20) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Aroha Reriti-Crofts

[edit]
Article: Aroha Reriti-Crofts (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/128718416/mana-wahine-dame-aroha-reriticrofts-dies-at-83
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Updated, fully cited, recent image MurielMary (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Roger Angell

[edit]
Article: Roger Angell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Susan Roces

[edit]
Article: Susan Roces (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rappler
Credits:

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

 HurricaneEdgar 02:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 19

[edit]
May 19, 2022 (2022-05-19) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

  • An unusually cold spell of weather hits southern Brazil. A meteorological station in Gama noted the lowest temperature since the beginning of weather observations (1963) in the Federal District, which contains the capital, Brasília, at 1.4 °C (34.5 °F). Several locations in the area have also seen snowfall, which is very rare in the country. (France 24)

(Posted) RD: Sam Smith (basketball, born 1944)

[edit]
Article: Sam Smith (basketball, born 1944) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WYMT-TV (CBS); WXKQ-FM
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Donald K. Ross (author)

[edit]
Article: Donald K. Ross (author) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: NY Times obit published May 19. Thriley (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm seeing news of his death as early as the 15th. --Masem (t) 01:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a handful of {cn} tags across the prose. Please add more REFs. Furthermore, I wonder why the subject is considered as an author in the disambiguation. The section on his books has only one sentence. Please expand on his career as an author, if appropriate. Or perhaps move the page -- "(lawyer)" may be more appropriate. --PFHLai (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Or "(lobbyist)". --PFHLai (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking of moving the article to his full name so no disambiguation would be needed. Thriley (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention needed) Sri Lanka Debt Default

[edit]
Article: 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Sri Lanka defaults on its debt for the first time in the country's history. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Sri Lanka becomes first Asia-Pacific country in decades to default on its debt.
Alternative blurb II: ​ An ongoing economic crisis in Sri Lanka causes the country to default on its debt for the first time in its history, amid widespread protests and a political crisis.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Sri Lanka defaults on its debt amid economic and political crises and protests.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ Amid economic and political crises and protests, Sri Lanka defaults on its debt.
News source(s): FT, BBC, AP
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Needs updating, but a significant event, even in the backdrop of recent turmoil there. 4iamking (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be it a financial crisis or an election we don't like, you can't fit all the context into the blurb -- that's what the article is for. If the default is in the news, that ought be in the blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The target article is called "Sri Lankan economic crisis" not "Sri Lankan debt default". If it seems like there's too much happening to fit into a blurb then maybe we should put it into Ongoing. That way, we've got the protests, political changes and other consequences covered too. Others have made similar points above too. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added altblurb2 to reflect this. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As ongoing. The Alt2 version is too long, as has been mentioned, there is that whole chain of events that basically can be summed up as criminal mismanagement. The default is only a cherry on top of the cake. We'll see unrest for quite some time, so it's better for the people to know about the whole shit happening there. But there's that maintenance tag that would best go before posting. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still need to point out the article is not properly updated to explain the more recent defaulting after the 30-day soft period. This needs to be clear before we can post. --Masem (t) 16:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Put forward slightly re-worded 4th altblurb. The Kip (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 18

[edit]
May 18, 2022 (2022-05-18) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

  • Around 200 anti-government militants block a road in Gorno-Badakhshan, Tajikistan, which links the country to China. Some of the militants, armed with firearms and petrol bombs, later ambush a security convoy on the same road. Eight militants and one officer are killed, while 13 officers are injured and more than 70 militants are arrested. The Tajik interior ministry later say the attack was an attempt to "destabilise the social and political situation" in the region. (Reuters)

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

  • Twelve people are killed and another is injured after a wall of a salt factory collapses in Morbi, Gujarat, India. Several others are missing. (Reuters)
  • One person is killed and several others are injured after a car drives into 14 cyclists in Przypki, Poland. (AP)

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Cathal Coughlan

[edit]
Article: Cathal Coughlan (musician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hotpress, Irish Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Irish singer and songwriter, frontman of the band Microdisney. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I trust that you'll find a ref for the bands others formed, which isn't even necessary for his bio. Just for formality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you have a sentence/para in mind? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Have spent a bit updating and referencing. Its a sad day, and as a coi declaration, he was a major musical influence who personally, the one time I met him aged 15, got me off oi! punk and onto Joy Division and The Fall. Nonetheless, I believe the article is neutral (eg I love Fatima Mansions almost as much as I hate Microdisney, but it doesn't come through). Ceoil (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Aw f*ck. I hadn't even seen this. Random fact: I once had my glasses broken by a random female stagediver landing on my head during "Blues for Ceaucescu". But yeah, the article is good. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite, Nirvana supported Sonic Youth in Cork in the summer before they were famous, but the gig we are all proudest to have been at was the Mansions touring Blues For Ceausescu in june 1992. It was bone crunching, never seen anything like that perfect blend of angst and noise since. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Thomas Resetarits

[edit]
Article: Thomas Resetarits (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Eisenstadt diocese
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Austrian sculptor prominent in churches and public space --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Posted. El_C 12:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bob Neuwirth

[edit]
Article: Bob Neuwirth (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; The Guardian; Rolling Stone
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jim Murphy (author)

[edit]
Article: Jim Murphy (author) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post; Publishers Weekly
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First reported today (May 18); died on May 1. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mpho Moerane

[edit]
Article: Mpho Moerane (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://ewn.co.za/2022/05/18/former-joburg-mayor-mpho-moerane-passes-away-after-accident
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: A short wikiarticle on a former mayor of Johannesburg with a short tenure. --PFHLai (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC) With 367 words of readable prose, this wikibio is NOT a stub, and Earwig has found nothing wrong here. --PFHLai (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PFHLai: You could post this yourself first instead of the others... --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posting my own nom on MainPage? That would be a conflict of interest. IMO, nominators and content contributors should not be the same person as the poster (postor?). --PFHLai (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PFHLai: I think it's a good thing to apply IAR for this rather than seeing this article getting swallowed by the ITN void. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in due process. IAR can still be used in "the ITN void" :-) --PFHLai (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Finland and Sweden apply to join NATO

[edit]
After many days, consensus to post will not form (and the most recent comments have trended toward not posting until accepted into NATO).—Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Enlargement of NATO (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Finland and Sweden apply to join NATO. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Finland and Sweden renounce neutrality and apply to join NATO.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Finland and Sweden renounce neutrality and apply to join NATO, due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Alternative blurb III: ​ In a major change to their foreign policies, Finland and Sweden apply to join NATO.
News source(s): CNN AP
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is no longer hypothetical, they have now actually applied. Sweden is abandoning 200 years of neutrality. This is not WP:CRYSTAL as the story is that they have applied. It would also be newsworthy if they are accepted or rejected. --> 331dot (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sweden's end of its 200-year neutrality has some merit, albeit violated two months ago when they agreed to send military support to Ukraine, but this is just a process of applying and not joining NATO. Let's wait until they officially become members and post it then as we did with other countries in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We had a nom for that which snow closed. And we will have many that say at the point of joining that it's old news. Most of us think this thing is worth posting but only question when. I think we should have a discussion about that preference over on the talk page, rather than having different editors shoot down each stage. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The main problem here is that "applying" doesn't mean "joining", and that's the reason why we post at the moment of joining. In this particular case, the risk is that Turkey may veto their applications because Finland and Sweden allegedly support the Kurdish military groups (Reuters).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely that it is too early to post now. My only question is which specific step is the best place to post. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Wait This is the third time this has been nominated in as many days, and the story hasn't significantly changed since it was closed the prior two times. When NATO accepts the new members, we have a meaningful story. Applying for entry is not a sufficient landmark here. Can we please read the already declined nominations and stop trying to beat this dead horse. Let's wait until they are actually accepted as new NATO members. --Jayron32 12:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At which point the argument will be "old news! They applied months ago!". 331dot (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I did read the prior nominations, thanks. As I note above, this is no longer hypothetical, or a mere announcement of intent. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first was closed with Too early to tell, we should revisit this when they actually send it in, IF they send it in. and the second was closed with There is clear SNOW consensus that the intent to join is not going to be the point of coverage. Whether we post when they fully apply and/or when NATO approves is a different matter, but this is clearly not going to be posted from the numerous waits.
    Reading the declined nominations supports opening a new one now, and the story has significantly changed since then - Sweden and Finland have sent in their formal applications. BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Wait It should only be when NATO has accepted their membership, though I do agree these countries finally taking sides is of interest, but that arguably is all under the Russia-Ukraine ongoing. As Turkey has expressed oppossion so far, we should wait until the NATO acceptance is done. --Masem (t) 12:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If as being claimed that the story is Finland and Sweden "abandoning" neutrality, that's a side effect of the Ukraine-Russia war, and thus should already be covered by that ongoing. Both countries have already taken a side (with Ukraine) in some type of capacity, so their neutrality was already abandoned. --Masem (t) 20:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until if/when they actually get accepted, as that would be the ITN worthy event. Applying to something isn't notable enough for ITN< especially when Turkey have implied they'll veto the applications. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, because as of now this is still WP:CRYSTAL. Even if they apply, it doesn't really change the state of geopolitics that much until they get accepted, if they get accepted. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fakescientist8000 This is not crystal because the story here is that they applied. Nothing more, nothing less than that. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question If we don't post now, then we should determine what we will post, because there's guaranteed to be separate nominations for the Accession Protocol, for the last NATO member ratifying, for the treaty coming into force...Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a significant geopolitical change, marking Finland and Sweden abandoning neutrality - even Turkey vetoing their application will not change this. BilledMammal (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to this, I also support the original blurb per 4iamking. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per BilledMammal. The newsworthy event is the decision to abandon a decade-long/centuries-long stance of pact-neutrality in favor of applying to join NATO. This alone has let to a lot of news coverage all over the world, with my sources explicitly highlighting the historicity of the application itself e.g.
Whether or not the application is accepted, is irrelevant. Those who argue to wait or see a CRYSTAL violation fail to take into account that it would only be a CRYSTAL violation if the blurb was "Sweden and Finland will join NATO". No one is proposing this though. Even if Turkey were ultimately successful in blocking their membership, the decision to apply itself will still have been newsworthy. There is no rule that an application and an acceptance can't both be newsworthy if they are about different things. Regards SoWhy 13:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I am in agreement with SoWhy that the most newsworthy aspect is the application to join NATO. -- Tavix (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm convinced. Even the intention to do so greatly changes the geopolitical landscape in Europe. Neutrality as a principle is beginning to fade from existence.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Still premature. It remains to be seen whether Turkey will play the shill for Putinia. And Hungary lurks (surprise!) as a possible foil. Applying changes nothing. There's many a slip. Realistically, membership may happen later this year. – Sca (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support thanks to SoWhy, and also as there are myriad other milestones that can be used, debated, and posted/rejected. Neutrality in Scandinavia is over, and Russia/Turkey's reactions are noteworthy enough. As pointed out by Scaramouche33, for those who don't want to post this event, what do we post instead? 66.209.246.6 (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Something newsworthy. -- Sca (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For not being newsworthy, this sure is in a lot of news outlets. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they can't just re-run yesterday's nooz, that would be to much of a snooze. But in this case it's not news anyone can use. -- Sca (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly seems to be of concern to Russia's apparatchiki, as they keep threatening nuclear war to Sweden and Finland for daring to consider joining. WaltCip-(talk) 15:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hot air. -- Sca (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what people thought about Russia's threats to invade Ukraine as well. How wrong we were. WaltCip-(talk) 17:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    stop it, you're making me snooz..... zzzzz Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No, ending neutrality is NOT worthy because it's arbitrary and subjective. No, let's wait until they are accepted. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how ending 200 years of neutrality is "arbitrary and subjective". It's not arbitrary, both nations have specific reasons. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking about what constitutes neutrality. Almost all of these self-proclaimed "neutral" countries send military aid. Sweden is in the EU and they are sending military aid to Ukraine. So yeah, it's kinda debatable as to whether or not they are really neutral. What is not debatable is if they are or are not in NATO, which also promises to have a much bigger impact. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable sources consistently described them as neutral. Per WP:V and WP:OR, that means we need to consider them to be formerly neutral. BilledMammal (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then by that definition I don't think simply ending "neutrality" is ITN worthy. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support That the process is officially started and underway is underway is Newsworthy and worth a mention on ITN, we are past the stage of statements of intention that wouldnt be. 4iamking (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait. Too early to tell, there are (from SE's and FI's perspective) some rather annoying roadblocks (Turkey, Croatia, probably Hungary), and you know, we have the (related case) of Turkey applying to the EU in 1987 and not being in the EU in 2022, with the negotiations sort of started only in 2004 but then suspended after the attempt of a coup d'etat in 2016. We also have Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania in negotiations with the EU, and they've long applied for the status, but well, they aren't part of the EU, either. In any case, the application itself is not notable. The negotiations themselves aren't. But accession is. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      the news is that the application process is officially underway, not that they will be admitted (though those road blocks look extremely unlikely to actually block it). 4iamking (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to this, I support the original blurb. I don't like ALT 1 & 2 because if Sweden as an EU nation (and Article 47.2 Existing) was truly neutral before is up for debate, and I don't like Alt 2/3 because its unnecessarily leading. 4iamking (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now is the time to post, when it's actually in the news. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this step is a pretty big deal in international relations. I agree with several commenters above that it's not WP:CRYSTAL to note the countries applied. While "Sweden and Finland join NATO" will also be worthy of ITN if/when it happens some time in the next year or so, I don't see how that negates this also being highly newsworthy.-- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 17:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support the act of application alone is a huge deal, perhaps as big (if not more) than formal membership itself, especially as it has been said Article 5 won't immediately apply on date of joining and their application is basically guaranteed to be successful. Certainly newsworthy. And regardless of acceptance, I agree with SoWhy that applying is noteworthy in itself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Prefer alt blurb. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I empathize with the wait crowd, but due to the Russia Derangement Syndrome this is "in the news" now, and their admittance is a forgone conclusion. Should it be posted now, it should not be posted again when formally admitted. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support IF it will preclude the next incremental steps from nomination. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think the only other postable aspect here would be the last country to approve. I don't think the formal accession ceremony would merit posting or the date effective. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This should be posted one time. If the last approval is the milestone then wait. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it can be posted twice, once now that it's officially started, and once they actually get admitted. both are equally newsworthy events and there will be quite some time between them most likely. 4iamking (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I Oppose, based on my crystal ball showing the end result with more news and longer-lasting impact (and Oppose Alt due to neither country's arguable neutrality matching Switzerland's for historic geopolitical distinction, plus prior SNOW). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Alt II as explicitly covered by ongoing and Oppose Alt III for tooting its own horn. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re Alt II, I can't see why our readers should be deprived of a more helpfully informative blurb simply because of the presence of 3 words in a different and largely unrelated part of the Main page. Tlhslobus (talk)
    It's seven words, including one duplicated link from the exact same box. The main reason is still the incompleteness of the story. Readers aren't deprived, anyway, just not forcefed. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In the news now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative tag. The story here is less that S+F are joining NATO per se. Rather, it is that they are abandoning long-held stances of political neutrality. Whether or not NATO actually takes them, this remains unchanged. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The story is that the application process is formally started and underway... In practical terms both countries really renounced neutrality in 1995 when they joined the EU. 4iamking (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a big fan of the verb "renounce" in that ALT option for a couple reasons. Namely, I agree, Finland and Sweden haven't exactly been "neutral" for some time, not when compared to a country like Switzerland, which prizes neutrality, or the nonaligned movement members. My proposal would be something like "In a major change to their foreign policies, Finland and Sweden apply to join NATO."-- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 20:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainly because EU has Article 42.7 (and to a lesser extent Article 222) that prevent member states from effectively staying Neutral. Switzerland doesn't have this restriction by not being in the EU, but It does get most of the benefits of EU membership. Switzerland and the European Microstates are the only countries in the single market that can be truly called neutral. 4iamking (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support major geopolitical change, especially for Sweden. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (preferably the alternative tag) — For all reasons mentioned above. Some editors have argued that their neutrality has already been technically broken when they decided to send military support to Ukraine (or even when they joined the EU); that is debatable (see Neutral country#Points of debate); what is not debatable is that asking to join a military alliance is clearly a historic breach of neutrality, which is the way that multiple news sources have chosen to report on this. Also, I should mention that there seems to be a contradiction between the argument that reporting this before they actually join is WP:CRYSTAL and the argument that Turkey seems bound to veto their entry... Rather, refusing to post this in anticipation of a likely Turkish veto sounds to me like that would be the WP:CRYSTAL-based decision here... LongLivePortugal (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As new alternative blurbs have been added I would like to clarify and explain my preferences about each of them (although I accept any in general): my strongest preference is Alternative Blurb 2, because it explains the reason for the application; my second preference is Alternative Blurb 1; then, it would be Alternative Blurb 3, which I don't like as much because it doesn't specify the change (and makes it seem like we have made an arbitrary decision as to what would constitute a 'major' change in foreign policy); finally, I think the original blurb is too dry, as it does not explain why their application is relevant. I do not agree with those opposing AltBlurbs 1 and 2 with the argument that Sweden and Finland may have already broken neutrality earlier — perhaps they have, that is a debatable issue; what is not debatable is that, right now, with this application they have now definitely broken neutrality (and that is how most sources seem to be reporting on it)! LongLivePortugal (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Support: It is the application that is the news, and which is the start of the period of greatest apparent danger, especially if the process gets prolonged (Ukraine seemingly eventually got invaded because it had applied years ago but was not quickly admitted). Arguably we should have posted it earlier (as soon as the countries officially stated their intention to apply) when it was even more newsworthy (and I feel rather embarrassed for Wikipedia in general, and ITN in particular, that we didn't, thus somehow deeming self-evidently-not-ITN-worthy a once in three quarters of a century profound change for Finland, and a once in two centuries profound change for Sweden), instead of repeatedly snow-closing before some of us had a chance to express our Support (thus somehow seemingly deeming the question not even worthy of discussion, though I'm not criticizing the snow-closers, who behaved reasonably given what had got posted at the time), but that's now water under the bridge, and in any case better late than never. Waiting until if and when the membership formally comes into effect (which may well include various obstructions and a possibly long ratification process in every NATO member Parliament) will merely compound the apparent mistakes that we have already made. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not posting speculative intents is not a 'mistake', just as we do not post election results until official announcements. Gotitbro (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "strongest possible support" = support. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added altblurb 2 because I think our blurb should tell our readers why it's happening (which is because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine). Obviously this is my preferred blurb, though I will happily support whatever blurb is needed to get the story posted. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - wait until they're officially a part of the organization 2600:1702:530:3240:ACBF:E71F:1F77:4496 (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major foreign policy development given past non-aligned stances, and this will almost certainly be more “in the news” than when they formally ascend to NATO. The Kip (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per The Kip, both are breaking decades old neutrality stance amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is making global news and is an ITN blurb noteworthy no brainer. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Application for membership is the story/in the news. When they eventually get accepted/rejected can be discussed at that time but should not negate this. Gotitbro (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there is a clear consensus to post this. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because my crystal ball says it will probably be considered stale at the point of joining, or, prior to that, the point of acceptance, or, prior to that, the rest of NATO voting… this is to say, I support posting these certainly ITN-worthy but progressive stories at the first or most publicly newsworthy point. And the public probably care more about the moment of application and all the implications with it, than the political debates that will happen. Kingsif (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It might be months or even years until it happens (if it does given Turkey's opposition). This should be posted when it's ratified by NATO. I wouldn't post a blurb about winning the lottery just because I'd bought a ticket. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What a bad analogy! The probability of winning the lottery after buying a ticket is not even remotely similar to that of joining NATO after applying to do so! And it is precisely because it might take a long time before they actually join that it makes sense to report now that they formally intend to join! LongLivePortugal (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I do apologise *rolls eyes*. The rather obvious point I was making is that we'd be posting something that (a) may not happen for a long time, and (b) may not happen at all. Black Kite (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. We would be posting something that has already happened: they have applied! No-one is saying they will join. LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the point. No one is proposing a blurb about winning the lottery but about buying the ticket. To modify your example: If you were the preeminent scholar on why lotteries should be banned and have led a decades-long crusade to ban all lotteries, then the very act of you buying a lottery ticket would indeed be newsworthy, regardless of your chances of winning. And thus, the act of two countries with a decades/centuries-long policy of neutrality formally deciding to end their neutrality (buying a lottery ticket), is indeed newsworthy as well, regardless of them joining or not (winning the lottery). Regards SoWhy 15:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Although it is not ratified yet, but it is already a major event. Alex-h (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Still premature. Turkey plays the shill for RU ... for now anyway. [19] – Sca (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    not really the process is formally underway, thats what the story is. Turkey objecting is just part of this process where Erdogan tries to gain some leverage in the whole ordeal, but it doesn't really detract from the actual story. 4iamking (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll see how Recep Tayyip plays the game. -- Sca (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Sca on this (and it's not that often I say that). Posting this now does seem premature to me, especially as it's not a formality that they'll actually join. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am most grateful for your lordship's astonishingly prescient remarks. -- Sca (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    the process being initiated and actually joining are two totally different stories, with totally different merits. thats more what my argument boils down to. That the process is officially started (and the what this means for European security) is what is dominating news headlines today. NATO admitting FI/SE would be something different. 4iamking (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until NATO accepts them. That will be the news. This is just the process leading up to the news. Jehochman Talk 13:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In which the details are devilish. -- Sca (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct but success or failure, the decision alone is newsworthy as evidenced by the huge amount of news sources saying that this decision alone is significant. Regards SoWhy 14:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very newsworthy Googleguy007 (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That can't be. Sca says it's not newsworthy. Who to believe? 🙄 WaltCip-(talk) 14:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sca gives reasoning behind his, thus making his argument stronger. But oh my goodness, these are on the same level! 🙄 Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The official applications are big news now regardless of the result. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a specific reason why Finland and Sweden should be treated differently than all other countries which have recently joined NATO and a blurb was posted at the time of their official accession? NATO’s recent expansion has been repeatedly cited as an argument in support of the invasion, so it doesn’t stand to reason that this is a special case because of the developments in Ukraine. Also, it’s not a major change in global politics. I’d rather call a major change if countries like Mexico or Brazil, whose economies are much bigger than Finland and Sweden combined, apply to join NATO (albeit still wait until the official joining to support posting a blurb). This smells like a systemic bias in favouring the Nordic over the Balkan countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the speed of the change is significant. Sweden and Finland have gone from neutral (or maybe first gear?) straight to fifth gear in the span of little over two months. Montenegro began negotiating with NATO after declaring independence, then applied for their Membership Action Plan two years after that, and then it took another 13 months before it was granted. That sort of process basically took just hours for Sweden and Finland, so okay, maybe there is bias, but it's with NATO (asterisk being Turkey) facilitating that sort of speed change. If Serbia applied for NATO membership tomorrow, that too would be a drastic change and would likewise be newsworthy.-- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 18:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all hypothetical at this pt. -- Sca (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Finland and Sweden have deliberately stayed out of NATO since the foundation. The big news is their sudden wish to join. Most Eastern European countries probably wanted to join as soon as possible (when the Soviet Union, Russia or Serbia didn't prevent them) but knew they couldn't get in right away. Their official applications may have been timed to optimize their chances of being accepted (and not be invaded for applying). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s not convincing at all. They stayed out by their choice because they wanted to be non-aligned, and NATO has never put any significant efforts to convince them to join. It was the same case with Yugoslavia which was non-aligned by choice, so Finland and Sweden are comparable to Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro and Macedonia as former Yugoslav states which joined NATO in the past. I think it’s a much greater shift when a country formerly part of the Warsaw Pact joins NATO.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The great shift for Eastern Europe was the end of communism and the breakup of the Warzaw pact, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. I assume that would have produced many ITN items if ITN existed. Most of the newly independent countries viewed Soviet Union/Russia/Serbia as a former occupier and possible invader they wanted protection from. The NATO applications were a natural consequence of the shift. It wasn't the shift itself. Sweden and Finland have been politically stable for at least 75 years. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From the NATO perspective, this is quite significant, as basically NATO will not only have the Baltic Sea as almost an internal one (Kaliningrad will be surrounded) but also they will have alternative routes of supply than the current choke point of the Suwałki Gap. So yes, them joining the Alliance does change quite a lot wrt to the defense of the Baltic states and Poland, even if Finland and Sweden were previously in a close relationship with NATO; and the defence of the Baltic is what preoccupied NATO commanders in the last couple of years.
    Besides, in NATO, economies don't matter as much as military prowess. For example, Finland has a quite well-organised army (they have conscription) and a robust navy. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Economies matter because NATO members commit a minimum of 2% of their GDP to defence spending. As for the military prowess, however well-organised armies both Finland and Sweden have, they can't be compared to many existing NATO members (e.g. United States, Turkey, United Kingdom, France etc.) and others which are out of it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there is clear consensus that the application itself meets the significance threshold, but have the supports considered the quality of target updates? It seems light to me. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it better to link to a single article, but there is Finland-NATO relations and Sweden-NATO relations, though the latter is not as well updated as the former. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, there is a consensus and should be marked as ready/posted soon. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose normally I'd support this since it's been in the news for so often and so long, but I doubt this item would have been in the news so long if it weren't so linked to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We need to decide if incremental updates in that news item are worth posting. Since we apparently thought no (c.f. Siege of Mariupol nomination) then we should not post this either. Banedon (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - We do not post these until they are admitted. The supports see this as a major change, but if it is, it is a major change regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine and that is already in ongoing. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Richard-of-Earth Please link to the policy that establishes "we do not post these until they are admitted". 331dot (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do that. He didn't say or suggest it was policy, & strawman arguments are uncivil. Everyone here uses that kind of phrasing to describe the normal posting behavior at ITN. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per Kiril Simeonovski, Jayron32, and Jim Michael. When it formally enters will be quite notable. But applications aren't important enough, and it's very possible that the application could still be vetoed by another NATO nation (most likely Turkey). Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - its official. And with the new dimensions of Sweden vs Turkey this is definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's official that they've applied, not that they've joined. -- Sca (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As others have argued above: Their mere application is not more ITN-worthy than Turkey's current opposition. Secondly, both countries are certainly less "neutral" than Switzerland because of their EU membership. Renewal6 (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because it's in the news and the article is of sufficient quality. Who decided that an application to NATO isn't newsworthy, and it's only the acceptance that's newsworthy? And since when is "newsworthy" part of ITN criteria? It's newsworthy because it's in the news. Editors are not "editorial boards" that decide whether or not an event is "important" enough to post. If it's in the news, then it's in the news--that means professional editorial boards have decided that it's newsworthy. We need to judge significance based on whether the world thinks its significant, not whether Wikipedia editors think it's significant. Levivich 15:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as no significant update is made to the article and its too soon. The section for both the countries say that they applied and that's not enough. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Unless this application results in new notable news (e.g. new Russian invasion), then wait until formal accession. SpencerT•C 00:26, 23 May 2022 (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.

May 17

[edit]
May 17, 2022 (2022-05-17) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

(Closed, posted RD) RD/Blurb: Vangelis

[edit]
Consensus will not form to post blurb, though there was majority support. However, it was on RD for 2.5 days.—Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Vangelis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Greek composer and musician Vangelis (pictured) dies at the age of 79 (Post)
News source(s): [20], Guardian, BBC, Kathimerini, AP, Stereogum
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Oscar winning composer. Needs some help Masem (t) 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But if they're from North Dakota, that's a different story. – Sca (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca absolutely. North Dakota has an incredibly powerful family of politicians called the Bongbongs, and they have been known to forcefully disappear people from the fictitious state of Wyoming. I heard that information from my great great granny, who [[WP:COI|worked for them as a chauffeur for a couple years back in the summer of '69. I think. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my Mom hailed from N.D., from a tiny town 40 mi. north of Bismarck, i.e. in the Middle of Nowhere. Later they moved to a larger town, which you can visit here. – Sca (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. 65.94.214.187 (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb of course We posted literalwho american judges no one has ever heard about. Alas this website is dominated by americans and american culture. Had Vangelis been American, he would have 100% posted already. DzhungarRabbit (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I count one - just one - American story in the ITN ticker and one American death in RD (not counting naturalized citizens). You have a right to your opinion, but nevertheless it originates from falsehood. WaltCip-(talk) 13:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The audacity of wikipedia admins to think their opinion is the truth is astonishing. That star wars actress and some american judge have been posted, meanwhile many great minds will never be simply because american culture dominates 90% of wikipedia. DzhungarRabbit (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fisher has been acknowledged by most of the contributors here as a mistake, and Ginsburg's death was significant because of the situation during which it occurred. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posting Carrie Fisher's death as a blurb was not a mistake. The sheer volume of news coverage her death received dwarfs that of most celebrity deaths. It was the right call. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least we posted this dwarf celebrity death. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I count one - just one - American story in the ITN ticker and one American death in RD (not counting naturalized citizens).". First, why naturalised citizens are not to be counted? Second, the comment was about blurb posting. Non-english speaking people do not usually get blurb, and even if they do, they get pulled. It is fair to point that this occurs in case of blurbs. If even such celebrated and known actors as William Hurt doesn't get blurb, there is barely chance a European gets blurb. At the moment of his death Shane Warne had 30 Wikpedia entries, Vangelis - 65. Who is more worldwide famous is obvious. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb, to make it short: transformative for his work in electronic music and film music. --Clibenfoart (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support blurb per all supports above. More famous and historically influential than, e.g., the current president of Greece, if that person happened to die today. BD2412 T 23:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point stands. I didn't say he was equally famous and historically influential, but more so. Offhand, I can't think of another Greek of equivalent notability alive today. BD2412 T 00:42, 21 May 2022 (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.

(Posted) RD: June Preston

[edit]
Article: June Preston (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Died on May 11th, however death was announced today. Article is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) End of Siege of Mariupol

[edit]
Consensus to post will not develop. Stephen 05:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Siege of Mariupol (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The siege of Mariupol ends in a Russian victory. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, AP, BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: We posted the Moskva sinking, implying that sufficiently widely-covered events in the war deserve a blurb. Banedon (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose – There was an element of inevitability about this, which wasn't the case with the Moskva. While possibly symbolic for the Russians, the final evacuation of Mariupol doesn't substantially change the balance of forces. – Sca (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, wait. Nothing is clear yet. We only know that a chunk (probably a large one) of Ukrainian soldiers in Azovstal got evacuated, just at this moment it doesn't seem they have ceded control of the plant. Another thing is that the Ukrainian side, quoted by AP, says that some Ukrainian troops still remain inside the plant. This medieval horror of a siege might be already wrapping up, but the credits haven't appeared yet on the screen. When it ends in whatever outcome, then yes, we should all be pounding on the F button hard. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wondered about that statement -- not a direct quote -- in the AP piece saying Ukraine was "working to pull out the fighters that remain." It seemed somewhat dodgy. Note that farther down in the story an ex-Ukraine official, Oleksandr Danylyuk, is quoted as saying (time not specified) in a BBC story that those remaining in the plant are still "able to defend it ... but I think it’s important to understand that their main mission is completed and now their lives need to be saved." I got the impression this statement may have been made before the evacuations detailed here. Situation murky. -- Sca (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I rest my case. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither AP nor BBC already feature the response of Danylyuk about the remaining soldiers. Still, we have no rush. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me like the first statement in the AP story probably is their paraphrase of the quote in the BBC story they cite. If the AP had its own quote they would have used it. War reporting these days seems to be somewhat incestuous. -- Sca (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait as per the very good summary by Szmenderowiecki. Not 100% clear that this has ended. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this is already covered by the ongoing item. And we never decided that “sufficiently widely-covered events in the war deserve a blurb”. The sinking of the Moskva was posted because of the records that she was the largest Soviet/Russian warship to sink after World War II and the first Russian flagship to sink in more than a century.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WaitReports on the actual situation on the ground still a bit dodgy as to if fighting is definitively over (reports suggest some ukrainians may still be held up inside the works), otherwise significant enough I think. 4iamking (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose what the hell is a "Russian victory"? Don't use Wikipedia's main page as a device for advancing pro-Russian propaganda. Disgusting. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reporting on a russian victory if there has been a russian victory is not pro-Russian propoganda. I despise what russia is doing as much as anyone but also udnerstand that we have to remove that bias while reporting. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what it is, like it or not. The siege of Mariupol ending would mean Mariupol is entirely under Russian control, and thus a Russian Victory. That's reporting facts, not "pro-Russian propaganda". We're talking about a battle, not the war. 4iamking (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys are crazy. This is the "Russian special operation". Declaring "victory" is utter bollocks. Still, why not get the Russian flags out to celebrate guys! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    no one is calling it a "special operation" other than Russia themselves, if not a "victory", what word would you use to describe the outcome of the battle? you can either call it a Ukrainian Defeat or a Russian Victory, but both amount to the same thing. 4iamking (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is calling it that, The Rambling Man is being purposely obtuse to accuse us of being russian sympathizers. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that "Russian propaganda", just because ukraine lost doesn't mean it's fake and it's "russian propaganda". I could say more, but Wikipedia wil not let me. (As usual). CR-1-AB (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me we should avoid the victory/defeat labels by referring to Ukrainian evacuation from and/or Russ occupation of Mariupol -- a widely known locale due to weeks of focused coverage. -- Sca (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait As per Szmenderowiecki Googleguy007 (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unless and until the war itself ends, individual sieges and battles are rather fluid ways to report on the war. We already have a link to an article about the war, which is sufficient. The status of the various military units and the territory under their control is not worth updating at this level of granularity; it's fluid anyways, and if people want that they can get there through the link that is already there. --Jayron32 18:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Over now, very important. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TRM. "Victory"? Come on. This is not how we should describe this humanitarian disaster. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per a previous discussion we had where individual battles should not be blurbed (as per the war being labelled "Ongoing" along with COVID). To all the folks out there who are claiming that Support !voters are "russian sympathizers" should be ashamed of yourselves for violating WP:ACCUSE and WP:CIVIL. Come on now... but Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Default position is to not post each battle. At first glance, the significance here is in the remarkable resistance on the city against overwhelming force. That being the case, the eventual fall is expected and not noteworthy. What's more, posting a lesser Russian victory days after their loss of Kharkiv creates a unneeded air of bias. It's just why we're better off just pointing to the Ongoing. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note. Russians didn't lose Kharkiv because they never captured it in the first place. They simply retreated. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does this mean we're done posting incremental updates as blurbs? We posted the unverified claims of war crimes, we posted the propaganda victory (but strategically worthless) story about that Russian ship, and we posted I think some story about Russia at the UN. I hope it's finished now. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it's not over yet according to BBC. That said, I completely disagree with LaserLegs unusual perspective on the Russian invasion. Nfitz (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2022 (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.

(Posted) RD: Kay Mellor

[edit]
Article: Kay Mellor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Probably the best British television screenwriter. Died May 15 but just announced. Kingsif (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 16

[edit]
May 16, 2022 (2022-05-16) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Ben Roy Mottelson

[edit]
Article: Ben Roy Mottelson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American-Danish nuclear physicist. Death announced on this date. Ktin (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sidney Kramer

[edit]
Article: Sidney Kramer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post; Bethesda Magazine; Montgomery Community Media
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Hilarion (Kapral)

[edit]
Article: Hilarion (Kapral) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Metropolitan Hilarion of Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia dies in New York at age 74
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Orthodox Metropolitan bishop. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Margot Heuman

[edit]
Article: Margot Heuman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Neuengamme Concentration Camp Memorial
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Died on May 11th, announced yesterday, added to article today. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rainer Basedow

[edit]
Article: Rainer Basedow (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Tagesspiegel
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: German actor and cabaret artist Grimes2 (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Angus Grossart

[edit]
Article: Angus Grossart (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Daily Telegraph; The Times; Bloomberg
Credits:

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

 CPClegg (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Sweden ends its Neutrality

[edit]
WP:SNOW close. No chance this gets consensus to post. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Swedish neutrality (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Sweden ends its 200-years old neutrality stance. (Post)
News source(s): AP
Nominator's comments: Both Sweden and Finland will formally apply to NATO, but I think the fact that such a notable country with such a notable neutrality stance in history (they did not take part in WW2 as both of its land neighbors Finland and Norway got invaded) is a major geopolitical change. Article needs a bit of massaging though. 81.181.130.106 (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2022 (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.

(Posted) New President of Somalia

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2022 Somali presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hassan Sheikh Mohamud is elected as President of Somalia. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, BBC, Reuters, Washington Post, AP News, France24, Bloomberg, CNN, WSJ
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Election of a head of state, president in Somalia holds pretty significant power per the list of head of states. Notable as the election had failed several times (one year delayed), with IMF and the international community threatening the stop of financial aid. Peaceful transfer of power. Reported a lot by RS. BastianMAT (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there is one section in the elections article without any references at all. Other than this, everything seems fine.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 08:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per the recent talk page discussion, this should not be described as an election as it seems to have been a complex process of indirect horse-trading in which delegates are typically bought. The results have a {{cn}} and the article contains painful howlers like "orchastrated". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus there seems to be that it's not our place to dictate what an election is... the word "election" doesn't define anything about who the electorate has to be. 4iamking (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The articles on the election and the president-elect are both in very good shape. Given that it's an ITNR item, I think it's ready to go now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Kiril Simeonovski.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 11:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is well cited, long enough, and generally issue free. Based on my personal consensus, what matters here is not whether or not the election was free or fair. That's not what we do, we're just here to show what's in the news without acting like a news ticker. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Fakescientist8000. It's ITNR and article is in good shape. No further debate belongs to us. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous. The Kip (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting I hope someone fixes the WP:PROSELINE in "January 2022 agreement" and adds accessibility to the tables, but otherwise it's good enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment - I'm not convinced this nomination actually qualifies under WP:ITN/R. ITNR says either "general election" or "Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election." This was an election by parliament not a general election. We say the PM is the one in Somalia who "constitutionally administer the executive of their respective state/government" / "the Prime Minister, who serves as the head of government". -- KTC (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    True. But it did get the votes. Not sure we can invalidate our own minielections for having grown from a fundamental misconception. It's up to voters how diligent they want to be on an issue before choosing, in "real" democracy. Maybe a mass ping beats an administrative pull, let the electorate reconsider (not necesssarily change) their pick in light of the truth. I'll Post-Post Oppose, personally. Somalia is (believed to be) very politically corrupt and we shouldn't appear to promote such things unless our own protocol requires it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    People supporting above explicitly noted that it's ITNR in 4 of the 5 support comments, so clearly the support related only to the quality of the article rather than whether it should be blurb in the first place. I could have pulled it, but I didn't because even though I don't think it's ITNR, I can see it be argued that it's close enough to qualify. Would welcome feedback @Muboshgu, Kiril Simeonovski, Hamza Ali Shah, Fakescientist8000, Alsoriano97, and The Kip: -- KTC (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This was already discussed at the time and the consensus was clear: whether they are "real" elections or not, if they are elections, the leadership of a country is being changed and RS are talking about it, it is ITNR and should be included in the Main Page if the quality and consensus requirements are met. We, as editors, cannot go much further. Another issue is whether in the blurb you can and do mention the "unfair" or "undemocratic" status of an election and I, particularly, don't think it is far-fetched. But beware, the debate on whether they are "real" elections or not can lead to non-neutral opinions, to long debates without consensus and in the end only taking into account the elections that take place in Western countries (mainly). Where would we put the limits, then, of what is and what is not "real" or "fair"? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, I did not mark it as ITNR (someone else did)[33] but I posted it on its own merits. I explained my nomination in my comment, a head of state election, on the List of current heads of state and government it is blue (meaning signficant power) although not head of government in Somalia. For context, I found this nomination suitable as we posted the Italian presidential election, which was also a parliamentery vote with the president having even less power. In Somalia it made the election even more significant with a peaceful transfer of power, RS picking it up, and that they finally managed to complete the election after two year of delays (it even made it to the Wikipedia DYK and a lot of international pressure, besides a crisis). The article is in good shape, and of course the consesus decides the faith of this nomination. [34] @KTC: BastianMAT (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    KTC, I saw only the one oppose vote, with an argument that gained little to no traction on WT:ITN, and still see no pull votes. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned by Alsoriano97, this has already been discussed and the consensus was that we as editors can’t decide what is and isn’t an election. As long as it is in ITN/R and it meets general criteria (coverage in reliable sources, quality of article etc), the elections should be posted. We are only telling readers what is in the news and it isn’t our place to decide what counts as an election.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 20:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned by KTC, it's not about the election. It's that a change in an office without the executive power is not ITNR. The Prime Minister gets that free ticket. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @KTC: This election seems to end a year-long political crisis which occurred after the former president suspended prime minister's executive power, so it's very naive to believe that the prime minister administers the executive power in practice when the president can suspend it. Anyway, even if this isn't an ITNR item because "constitutionally" it's the prime minister with the executive power, this whole situation with the political crisis and all potential repercussions which this election ends is notable enough for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note On Coverage The sources in the nom labeled Al Jazeera, Washington Post and France24 are wire copies, not independent reports. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you have some more Mr Coverage, happy reading! VOA, Bloomberg, CNN, NY Times, WSJ BastianMAT (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Better, thank you, Mr Happy. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: 2022 United States infant formula shortage

[edit]
WP:SNOW close. No chance this gets even close to consensus to post. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: 2022 United States infant formula shortage (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): [35], [36]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Major US event that has been affecting thousands of households for months and will continue to do so for several weeks at least —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 14:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This is not significant worldwide news. Jehochman Talk 14:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not a significant event, not comparable to the other worldwide events we have on ongoing (COVID-19 pandemic and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine), which is the level of how important things need to be to be posted on ongoing. If this wasn't in the US, it wouldn't even have been suggested... Joseph2302 (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Joseph. Suggest snow close. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jesus Christ, not the reaction I was expecting! How is being a US event disqualifying? Would the event be acceptable as a one-time entry rather than ongoing (even though it is ongoing)? Your own guideline for significance says "Almost all news is of greater interest to a particular place and/or group of people than to the world at large, and arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community." What gives? —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 14:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't have enough significant coverage for the front page of this worldwide encyclopedia. End of story. If there were a shortage of the same food in any other country, nobody would nominate it here. Stop complaining at users who are applying the ITN rules correctly. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Global significance" is a code for "it happened in America" and is a yardstick rarely applied to other countries (such as disasters or sports). The worlds third most populous country is experiencing a significant and long running shortage of baby food, but that's not "significant". Welcome to ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the regulars here don't respect the rules. #Please do not... oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive. There is no rule that this be "significant worldwide news" or "comparable to the other worldwide events". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of the country/countries it affects, the news coverage doesn't demonstrate it's a notable enough event for the front page. Posting this explicitly so that people can't pull the "worldwide" trick to try and push US-stuff on the front page again. It's only US articles where we get an overkill of nominatuions that mostly get rejected as not important enough, never an issue with any other country... Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the word solely. The event only relating to a single country is not the only reason this is being opposed. It's also not significant. WaltCip-(talk) 15:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a blurb, not ongoing, and the blurb should mention the plant closure that led to the shortage. The worlds third most populous country is experiencing a deep and long running shortage of baby food certainly significant and affecting millions of people. Honestly much more hard hitting than the Buffalo Body Count story we posted which is utterly insignificant in any way. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @LaserLegs: I re-nominated as a blurb below; please vote there, and if you're feeling really nice, help improve the blurb to ITN standards! Thanks!! —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 15:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even less so as a blurb, didn't even realize there was such a thing, but regardless it just feels like a localized version of the Toilet Paper/Yeast shortages at the beginning of Covid, or the sunflower oil ones more recently.4iamking (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You may not be aware, but all humans can survive without toilet paper and yeast. That is not true of all infants and formula. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 15:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do a quick search on News.google.com for "Baby Formula" and tell me how many results you find that aren't just American tabloids or local news sites that are GDPR blocked anyway. Its not making the international news at all. 4iamking (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What on Earth are you talking about? New York Times, Wall Street Journal, ABC, NBC, CBS: name a major US media entity that isn't covering this! —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 15:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) 2022 United States infant formula shortage

[edit]
Consensus will not form to post.—Bagumba (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: 2022 United States infant formula shortage (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Widespread shortages of infant formula continue in the United States following a major recall and plant shutdown. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Infant formula shortages in the United States provoke acts of desperation.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Infant formula shortages in the United States provoke action from the White House and Congress.
News source(s): [37], [38]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Maybe a one-time entry is more acceptable, if this isn't big enough or global enough for "Ongoing"? Major US event that has been affecting thousands of households for months and will continue to do so for several weeks at least. I'd remind whoever closes this for the second time that consensus is about the soundness of arguments, not the volume. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 14:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, so below. Oppose categorically. Not only is this a ridiculously localized microcosm of the supply chain crisis that all nations are facing due to COVID-19 (which is already an ongoing item), but the article (and not incidentally the blurb) is rife with POV problems. Let it go.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I on an alien planet? What POV? And all across the third most populous country in the world is "ridiculously localized"? I can sense I'm losing a battle here, but those arguments are bonkers. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 15:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A section header named "Republican misinformation about shortage" doesn't seem very WP:NPOV to me? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't write that, but they were all Republicans! —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 15:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per my comments on the other thread with the same heading name. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-opened - I'm going to be gracious and re-open this thread, reverting User:Fakescientist8000's closure. It's true that this didn't get a chance to run for a full few hours. But in reopening this, I will caution that it's highly unlikely the consensus will change.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I can understand concerns this may seem stale since the shortage is based on events from Feb, but the part that is hitting hard, the 43% lack of supply, was the big news last week that brought this to a crisis level. --Masem (t) 16:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per above discussion, but also more than anything its really not reported in any meaningful way by any non-american news media.4iamking (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A few minutes of looking for international coverage: UK, UK, France, Spain, China, Mexico, Qatar/worldwide, Switzerland, Japan, Russia. I'm sure you can find a hundred others. Why are you lying? —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 19:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Daily Mail is a deprecated source, and thus unreliable. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, and I guess the dozens of other international sources are equally invalid, for a reason I'm sure you can create. Don't "cheers" me as if you're acting in good faith. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 20:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not "cheersing" you in particular, it's part of his signature (and yes, it often seems inappropriate in context). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is zero requirement that ITN items have international coverage. It can help highlight importance but by no means required. --Masem (t) 17:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But even then, I don't see how this is really much different from the sunflower shortages, shortly after the Ukraine war started or the yeast/toilet paper ones at the beginning of covid. If it were any other country I can almost guarantee nobody would have suggested it. 4iamking (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of those would be tied to ongoing posts, so a new blurb wouldn't be appropriate. But this formula shortage is wholly unrelated to any ongoing event. --Masem (t) 17:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    not really though, at least its all linked to how streamlined we've made our supply chains that any event can easily throw them off, but none of this is anything new and people have been talking about a "supply chain crisis" for a while now. 4iamking (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's certainly in the news. I'm in the UK but heard some of the buzz and wondered what was happening to generate it. Wikipedia is here to inform so what's the problem? Note that there are some interesting angles to the story. I'd not heard of shopping bots before... Andrew🐉(talk) 17:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar to a situation that happened in Australia between 2008 and 2013.[39] SusunW (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Having read the comments above, I am flummoxed. Here in Mexico, the event is causing grave concern that it may well spread south from the US because of the economic connections in the supply chain.[40],[41],[42],[43]. As most of the English-language news available here is from abroad, I note that the Guardian has been covering the situation for months[44],[45],[46] as has Aljazeera. The latter's coverage clearly shows that the issue in the US is having effects abroad, i.e. see impact on Russia. SusunW (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The worlds third most populous country is experiencing a deep and long running shortage of baby food certainly significant and affecting millions of people. Honestly much more hard hitting than the Buffalo Body Count story we posted which is utterly insignificant in any way. If this had been any other country it would never have been snow-closed as "lacking international significance". --LaserLegs (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support A pretty rare event especially for the world's third most populous country (per LaserLegs). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The impact and international interest is very limited in a specific country in a specific way. This is not the New York Times and American users should start to think that this page is not for nominations to some non-existent type of Main Page: the USA and that not everything that affects this country has global impact. As Joseph said, if this were to affect another country (even another macro power) most likely the users above would be objecting. Wasting our time. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as we usually don’t post shortages of single products unless they trigger serious consequences such as global crises or famines. I might consider posting this in case it results in a significantly increased infant mortality; if that’s not the case, there’s no need to heed the shortage of an easily substitutable good. At the same time, most of Europe is short on natural gas, which is much more important commodity than baby milk, so a resounding no for this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Doctors indicate that formula is not easily substituted, warning against cow's milk, goat milk, sheep's milk, powdered milk and plant-based substitutes. They have also noted that mothers have to learn to lactate or re-lactate and for some that is not possible.[47],[48],[49],[50] SusunW (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling formula an "easily substituted good" is an astonishing level of ignorance of the topic. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 19:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From an economic point of view, substitutes don’t need to be of similar quality to attain the same goal. Margarine is a substitute for butter even though it’s made from oil. What doctors warn against is that the substitutes may not be of sufficient quality, but that doesn’t mean they fail to prevent babies from undernourishment.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What alternatives are you even talking about? The questionable YouTube homebrews? The cow's milk that is well known to be harmful to younger infants? —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 19:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Parental desperation is always sad everywhere, but pending a spike in infant mortality or the development of a new cheap wondersupplement, not shocking enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Terrible but too local (US-centric). We don't post similar shortages in other countries. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The ITN candidate guideline specifically dismisses arguments based on an event being specific to one country; and this event has international effects and is no more limited to one country that the Ukraine war is. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 19:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What international effects? The Ukrainian war and this are two completely different things. One is an invasion which has killed countless people, devastated millions of lives, and shaped international geopolitics for the next few years. This, is some baby formula not being on the shelves. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a shortage, not a famine. We can't cover shortages unless there are absolutely severe immediate consequences. Thriley (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose bloody hell, some countries on the planet don't even have formula. Get over it Amurica. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Too US-centric when so many more newsworthy critical issues are going on around the world (whether those issues have to do with supply chain crises or other events). As stated above, there is not a famine, and there are alternatives. Netherzone (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can't get my favourite brand of muesli here in Australia right now. This is precisely the kind of nomination that makes Americans look like ignorant, parochial fools to many people among the other 95% of the world's population. And most Americans aren't. Shut this down now to stop more people thinking otherwise!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this is more of an ongoing thing than an individual event, anyway. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - way minor, given that we're currently in a global food crisis. Banedon (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2022 (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.

May 15

[edit]
May 15, 2022 (2022-05-15) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: David Milgaard

[edit]
Article: David Milgaard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian advocate for the wrongfully convicted and for all prisoners' rights. --PFHLai (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Klara Höfels

[edit]
Article: Klara Höfels (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ntv and many others
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Actress with a wide range: first stage, then own experimental projects and popular tv crime series (and also the mother of a famous actress), - no article yet. The German one has much more detail, but my time to dig up sources was limited. Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Lebanese general elections

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2022 Lebanese general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Lebanese Forces, led by Samir Geagea (pictured), wins the most seats in the 2022 Lebanese general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Hezbollah and allies lost its majority in the Lebanese Parliament after the 2022 Lebanese general election.
News source(s): Lorient lejour, MTV Lebanon
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Many article headlines go along the lines as this: "Lebanon Vote Brings Blow for Hezbollah Allies in Preliminary Results". This is a revolutionary achievment for the party after breaking through the 6-year ruling March 8 Alliance. Even after countless death threats, vote buying and fraud, the March 14 Alliance, lead by the Lebanese Forces, managed to gain the most seats. Prodrummer619 (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India and Korea are the champions of the 2022 Thomas & Uber Cups

[edit]
Article: 2022 Thomas & Uber Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ India and South Korea are the champions of the 2022 Thomas & Uber Cup. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In badminton, India wins the 2022 Thomas Cup, while South Korea wins the 2022 Uber Cup.
News source(s): Mint, Outlook
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Thomas cup finals was today (May 15) while the Uber cup concluded yesterday. Still I feel like mentioning them both here as they are always associated with each other. Shanze1 (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Urvashi Vaid

[edit]
Article: Urvashi Vaid (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Advocate, LA Blade, GLAD
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: A few (very few) statements are still unreferenced; I fixed a bunch of these from her obits —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Finland and Sweden announce intent to join NATO

[edit]
No consensus to post at this time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2022 (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.

There is clear SNOW consensus that the intent to join is not going to be the point of coverage. Whether we post when they fully apply and/or when NATO approves is a different matter, but this is clearly not going to be posted from the numerous waits. --Masem (t) 23:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Finland–NATO relations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Finland formally confirms its intention to join NATO. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Finland and Sweden announce their intentions to apply for membership in NATO.
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Sweden will probably follow suit with this, and a press conference will be held at 18:00 (6PM) CEST where the Swedish Democrats will formally show support or be against joining NATO. Twistedaxe (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Until the application letter is actually sent. 4iamking (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it only appears on ITN once (which is pretty reasonable), which of these events is likely to send the largest surge of readers who would like to see the article, and so, by the criterion of being most useful to readers, be the event that triggers the ITN blurb? I'm not certain, but I would guess it'll be the accession entering into force - i.e., the last, ultimately decisive step in the process, which will probably come with a fresh wave of news reporting driving interest.
Also, yeah, the article to point to will be Finland–NATO relations, unless there's a specific Accession of Finland to NATO article created in the meantime, though I doubt it will be. FrankSpheres (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say application submission and entry into force are the main newsworthy events. It can be several months between them, it was 13 months for the last new member (North Macedonia), though likely the period may be shorter this time around. 4iamking (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2022 (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 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.

May 14

[edit]
May 14, 2022 (2022-05-14) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Uri Savir

[edit]
Article: Uri Savir (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Haaretz; The Jerusalem Post; The Times of Israel; Associated Press
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Date of death (May 14) per Knesset —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Peter Nicholas (businessman)

[edit]
Article: Peter Nicholas (businessman) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Boston Globe; Bloomberg News; Duke University
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Maxi Rolón

[edit]
Article: Maxi Rolón (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Marca
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former FC Barcelona and Argentina football prospect, from Rosario, Santa Fe just like you-know-who. His career fell into brief uneventful spells in South America, Catalan local football and - bizarrely - Iraq, before dying too soon. Page has been updated and sourced. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:790D:89FD:AB0C:A882 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: David West (baseball)

[edit]
Article: David West (baseball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Philadelphia Inquirer; Star Tribune; Delaware County Daily Times
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Andrew Symonds

[edit]
Article: Andrew Symonds (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Sydney Morning Herald, Fox Sports Australia, News.com.au
Credits:

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

 Craig Andrew1 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Eurovision Song Contest 2022

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: Eurovision Song Contest 2022 (talk · history · tag) and Kalush (rap group) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ukraine, represented by Kalush Orchestra (pictured) with the song "Stefania”, wins the Eurovision Song Contest in Turin, Italy. (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph, NY Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: It’s Eurovision! UA 631 Points 4iamking (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Buffalo shooting

[edit]
Article: 2022 Buffalo shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ten people are killed in a mass shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, United States. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Ten people are killed in a mass shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.
News source(s): AP News
Credits:

Nominator's comments: At least 10 people killed, making this the deadliest mass murder in the US this year to date. Possible white supremacist motives. 142.127.171.107 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Randy Weaver

[edit]
Article: Randy Weaver (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, Seattle Times, KREM, AP
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Main participant in the siege of Ruby Ridge. 74. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Lil Keed

[edit]
Article: Lil Keed (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone, NBC
Credits:

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

 Mooonswimmer 15:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

[edit]
May 13, 2022 (2022-05-13) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Walter Hirsch

[edit]
Article: Walter Hirsch (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Lexington Herald-Leader; University of Kentucky; WTVQ-DT
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First reported today (May 13); died on May 10. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Richard Wald

[edit]
Article: Richard Wald (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC, NYT, Variety
Credits:

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

 Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Teresa Berganza

[edit]
Article: Teresa Berganza (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): La Vanguardia, El Mundo, Süddeutsche Zeitung
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: A leading mezzo soprano at her time, article was too short which is better, and little referenced which is also better. Films need a ref (but I did see one of them), recordings should be added but, I need a break. Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Blurb: Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  President of the United Arab Emirates and ruler of Abu Dhabi Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan (pictured) dies at the age of 73. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan inherits the Emirate of Abu Dhabi.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan inherits the Emirate of Abu Dhabi and becomes President of the United Arab Emirates after Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan dies at the age of 73.
News source(s): BBC, CNN, CNBC, Al Jazeera, Khaleej Times, AP
Credits:

Article needs updating
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.
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: UAE president. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

[edit]
May 12, 2022 (2022-05-12) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) RD: Gino Cappelletti

[edit]
Article: Gino Cappelletti (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Suzi Gablik

[edit]
Article: Suzi Gablik (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ARTnews; Artforum
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First reported today (May 12); died on May 7 —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) New Prime Minister in Sri Lanka

[edit]
Proposed image
Ranil Wickremesinghe
Articles: Ranil Wickremesinghe (talk · history · tag) and Mahinda Rajapaksa (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Amidst protests, Ranil Wickremesinghe (pictured) is appointed as the new Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Amidst protests, Ranil Wickremesinghe (pictured) is appointed as the new Prime Minister of Sri Lanka after Mahinda Rajapaksa's resignation.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Not ITNR as president has more powers but still very significant, PM is the head of government. Wickremesinghe is part of the opposition, and this is a clear response of solving the political crisis in Sri Lanka. Swear in has occured on the same day as the appintment and his cabinet will most likely be a unity one. BastianMAT (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Sagittarius A*

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Sagittarius A* (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Event Horizon Telescope releases an image of the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A*. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The supermassive black hole Sagittarius A* in the center of the Milky Way galaxy is imaged by the Event Horizon Telescope.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Scientists at the Event Horizon Telescope discover that the Milky Way runs Ubuntu.
News source(s): Reuters, BBC, The Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Sag A* is the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way so it has attracted a lot of interest. This is also the second black hole ever to be imaged. 24.28.96.202 (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is undeniably a huge step forward for astronomy and our understanding of our galaxy and universe, id say thats big news. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 20:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How is this earlier image of the same hole not way better? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm no expert, but to quote the article (although it probably needs rephrasing because of this new image):

    Astronomers have been unable to observe Sgr A* in the optical spectrum because of the effect of 25 magnitudes of extinction by dust and gas between the source and Earth.

    So, that older image doesn't show the black hole itself, but other things in that direction in the sky. Look at the image full-size and you'll see a circle noting the location of the black hole -- one that's so miniscule as to be invisible at thumbnail size. More theatrical, I suppose, but only helpful in the same way a pin in a map is useful. And seeing as how this nomination is directly about the image in question, it would be bizarre to me not to then use said image. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 21:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The new one is definitely the only good one for the nom. And I guess a wider absence of colour is better, if black holes are to be observed at all. But there are several images in that article, a few claimed or suggested to be the first. I give up. Space is hard! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- definitely notable as the first true color observation of our galaxy's black hole. Also, in the immortal words of the Space Core from Portal 2: SPAAACEEEEEE.-- RockstoneSend me a message! 22:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please note that the image has been generated using radio telescopes, so it can be said that the color assigned is arbitrary. Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2021 Southeast Asian Games

[edit]
Article: 2021 Southeast Asian Games (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2021 Southeast Asian Games open in Hanoi, Vietnam. (Post)
News source(s): [62]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This is the most significant games in the South East Asia region, recurring in two years. Add to that is the fact that the game is delayed for a year due to COVID-19, may need some brush-up before posting. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

[edit]
May 11, 2022 (2022-05-11) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

  • A small plane crashes in Cameroon with eleven people on board. It is unknown if any casualties occurred. (AP)

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: William Bennett (flautist)

[edit]
Article: William Bennett (flautist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Radio France
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Legendary English flutist, orchestra, ensemble and solo, for whom composers wrote music. - The article was a copy of his personal website, without refs, news of his death came 13 May. I commented a lot out, rephrased, and added sources. Please bring back details for which you find refs (him composing, for example), and drop private life if you don't find them. I am done for today, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John L. Canley

[edit]
Article: John L. Canley (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post; KTVZ
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Alexander Toradze

[edit]
Article: Alexander Toradze (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://1tv.ge/news/gardaicvala-pianisti-leqso-toradze/ , https://www.wvpe.org/wvpe-news/2022-05-12/acclaimed-concert-pianist-former-iusb-professor-alexander-toradze-dies-at-age-69, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2022/05/15/alexander-toradze-mercurial-pianist-played-louder-faster-anyone/ among others
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Renowned Georgian-born pianist Zingarese talk · contribs (please use {{reply to|Zingarese}} on reply; thanks!) 14:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gloria Parker

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

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

Nominator's comments: First reported today (May 11); died on April 13. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Sukh Ram

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

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

Nominator's comments: Just breaking. Former Indian minister. Ktin (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Needs cleanup/copyediting, referencing, and expansion to describe what Ram did in those roles, not just election results and a list of jobs. SpencerT•C 03:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I misjudged my availability for this week. Will not be able to get to editing this article in time. If others want to jump along in fixing the article please feel free to do so. Thanks. RIP. Ktin (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to RD) Blurb/RD: Shireen Abu Akleh

[edit]
Article: Shireen Abu Akleh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh is shot and killed while covering an IDF raid on the Jenin refugee camp, sparking international condemnation. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The UN Security Council calls for an “immediate ...fair and impartial" investigation into the slaying of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in the West Bank on May 11.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh is shot and killed while covering an IDF raid on the Jenin Camp, sparking international investigation.
News source(s): NYT, AlJazeera, AP, BBC, Reuters
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Possibly a blurb, but I'm not a regular here so I'll nominate it as RD and leave others to decide where/if it should air. RD is also preferable, since the updater may want to take this to WP:DYK instead? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support RD Article looks fine for RD, but it shouldn't be a blurb. Journalists around the world are killed every day, and we don't post those because it'd merely clog up the ITN section. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD - Article looks good. Another victim of Israeli terrorism. CR-1-AB (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD good to go. There are exactly zero RS who support that the journalist's death is due to "Israeli terrorism". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment One of the other users stating roughly that previously vandalized WP:Israel calling for its removal as Israel "doesn't exist," so unfortunately the bias is inherent here.
    That said, there's a high probability she was killed by the IDF, especially given that AJ (usually an RS) themselves are saying so as well as eyewitnesses. "Terrorism" is a strong word, and probably not correct, but at the same time it's an occupying army intentionally or unintentionally killing an unarmed journalist. There's no real way to sugarcoat it other than as state violence. The Kip (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support RD – Very widely covered, almost – but not quite – to the point of being blurbable. – Sca (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD – Extensive coverage by multiple agencies. Article seems fine. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD – Significant but not blurb-worthy. Our comments should focus on the article quality, which from a very quick glance looks alright to me. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD Extensive coverage and the article is in good shape. Mount Patagonia (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Yet another instance of the Israeli occupation forces murdering a journalist in cold blood for no reason other than them not liking what she said DzhungarTroll (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD - article looks good to go. notable death.BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. Note if anyone does want to see if consensus for a blurb will form they can do so here, but a specific blurb will need to be proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting Support per above. Murdered by the IDF. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warning This is controversial topic. Several personal attacks have already been reverted. Further personal attacks will be met with blocks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So much for the freedom of speech. DzhungarTroll (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DzhungarTroll read Wikipedia:Free speech. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support RD, oppose blurb If we can keep personal bias out of the way for a minute (which it's clear that several can't), while her death is horrible there are (sadly) dozens of journalists murdered every year; last year's total of 46 was the lowest since 2003. We shouldn't and can't blurb every single one. The Kip (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb as per The Kip, there are dozens of journalists who die each year. We shouldn't blurb one of them. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This one involved notable circumstances. Coverage continued Thursday. [63] [64] [65] -- Sca (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I would agree, but most journalist killings don't get this amount of global attention in the news. The circumstances here (and reaction to the killing) stand out and go beyond just "journalist is killed". 4iamking (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I feel like it may be fair to infer that the global coverage, state funeral, and so on is primarily driven by the Israel-Palestine conflict being a hot-button, click-generating topic as opposed to the actual unique circumstances of death, which should be the primary motivator behind a blurb. It’s just my opinion, but in order for a journalist death to be blurbed it’s gotta be something like the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, which was especially notable due to a powerful state committing a premeditated, planned-out kidnapping and murder on foreign soil. While Abu Akleh was most likely killed by Israeli forces, based on available info I highly doubt it was premeditated/planned, and she was killed during a raid with an inherent degree of danger existing (as opposed to a kidnapping, sudden out-of-the-blue attack, or something else of the sort). Again, just my opinion, her death was horrible as is the occupation, but the circumstances don’t meet notability standards for a blurb.
    Additionally, from the way several users have reacted, it’s pretty clear there’s some support here based off of personal views/bias, as opposed to simply neutral Wiki standards. I’m not sure if we can count those votes on merit. The Kip (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. This is not "just another journalist killing". She has been accorded a state funeral[66], which is not at all common for killed journalists. The strong international reactions to her death, from Middle East, the West and rest of the world also suggest this is a significant event.VR talk 16:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a blurb, something along the lines of Shireen Abu Akleh, a veteran al-Jazeera correspondent, was killed in Jenin while covering an Israeli raid. Think both the circumstances and the personality, one of the Arab world's most famous journalists, merit a bit more than listing in RD. nableezy - 16:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb I was hesistant at first, having no idea who she was. The more I read, the more I believe she was a legit TV news star, just in Arabic. This blurb certainly isn't about her age, however it's written. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yeah, as a life story, her biography is a bit on the sparse side. But this hypothetical blurb seems a case of the death itself as the story, so it's almost fitting that the article leans accordingly. Expand the career section, but don't let it hold this back, I'll advise. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Usually I don't support journalist killings, but this one is more notable. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb ... for now' – While I'm empathetic toward the subject, she was one person, and the story (now in its third cycle) seems to be getting hyped for political/ideological reasons. Also, the exact cause of death hasn't been officially determined yet. So I'm not convinced a blurb is appropriate at this pt. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    agree. opposing blurb. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She was shot once in the head. That's cause enough, and the bullet is identified. If you mean the perpetrator hasn't been determined yet, fair enough, but that hasn't stopped previous shooting blurbs. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb Only because of the circumstances of her death and the massive amount of diplomatic/international media attention this is getting, including from the UN security council. This goes beyond the average journalist that gets killed in the line of duty.4iamking (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb After today's events. Starting to look less and less like just any other death of a journalist. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb – Per previous. The UN Security Council's call Friday for an for "immediate, thorough, transparent, and fair and impartial investigation" gives us something definite to hang our hat on. Alt 1 offered above. Coverage continued Saturday. [67] [68] — Sca (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not thriled with alt 1, there should be a better way of saying there was widespread outrage/condemnation of her death including from the UN SC. It's not just the UN SC but the total of that triggering this as a blurb. --Masem (t) 14:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      We could insert 'controversial' before 'slaying,' but in a blurb we can't do detail on 'widespread outrage.' Alt 1 already has the same total of words (29) as the Mohamed bin Zayed blurb, which given his mere pro forma significance looks overweight. But as a topic Abu Akleh is far more significant & interesting, so one more word would be OK. -- Sca (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There is too much to this story that makes it hard to condense into 1 blurb (also taking into account the protests/violence at the funeral yesterday), and I hesitate to think that the UNSC resolution is the only reason why this would be blurb worthy (rather because of a consensus of international outrage which the UNSC is part of), nor is the UNSC the only one to call for an investigation, for that reason I think I prefer the original blurb. I agree though that this is way far more significant than Mohamed bin Zayed. That being said the unanimous UNSC resolution is noteworthy on its own right too. 4iamking (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Since this topic has been very prominently in the news for four days, It would seem that a simple blurb about the UN Security Council statement would be sufficient for ITN -- although as noted above we could (and probably should) put "controversial" before "slaying." This story is not going away anytime soon. -- Sca (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I also prefer the original. For the same reason, plus an uneasiness with blurbing words over actions, truncated or not. "Slaying" suggests a blade was used, too, at least to me; regardless, "shot and killed" is unambiguous. (UTC)InedibleHulk (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Her being shot and killed is old news. -- Sca (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2022
      And her slaying somehow isn't? Both sparked the newer news. I've blended them somewhat to that effect. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb There is clearly worldwide attention, especially after additional violence at her funeral. W1lliam halifax (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    16:28? -- Sca (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Alt2 – This shooting isn't "sparking international investigation" yet; so far there's only been a UN call for one. AFAIK there's no word on who or what agency would investigate. – Sca (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're overlooking the coroner, IDF and many reporters' investigations. The "immediate" ones (so-called by three notable multinational groups in the article alone) are already sparked and heating up, just not blazing yet. Many agencies are committed to helping. Anyway, don't quotes need inline attribution? And what's wrong with 16:28? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that so? -- Sca (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, read her Death section, it says "investigation" almost more than "death" itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Very perspicacious. -- Sca (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

[edit]
May 10, 2022 (2022-05-10) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Bob Lanier

[edit]
Article: Bob Lanier (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Leonid Kravchuk

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Leonid Kravchuk (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  First President of Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk, (pictured) dies at the age of 88. (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post, NPR, The Guardian, Radio Free Europe, AP News, US News, France24, Reuters, Euro News, DW News, ABC News, Yahoo News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First president of independent Ukraine, very significant death, should be posted when the article is ready. BastianMAT (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Shivkumar Sharma

[edit]
Article: Shivkumar Sharma (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Indian classical musician. Article needs some significant work before it can be ready for homepage / RD. Edits done. Reasonable biography. The discography seems sourced to the single link and seems alright, but, if someone spots any holes let me know. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Ktin (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Robert Gillmor

[edit]
Article: Robert Gillmor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2][3]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Significant artist, illustrator and ornithologist, with international impact Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb/Ongoing: 2022 Sri Lankan Protests

[edit]
Article: 2022 Sri Lankan protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Sri Lankan Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa resigns amid protests, an economic crisis, and a state of emergency. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, DAWN, The News Al Jazeera, Guardian, AP
Credits:

 Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) May 2022 Sri Lankan unrest

[edit]
Consensus to post will not develop. Article is also being nominated for deletion; will nominate 2022 Sri Lankan protests above. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: May 2022 Sri Lankan unrest (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Sri Lankan Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa resigned amid unrest and economic crisis and declared a state of emergency. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, DAWN, The News Al Jazeera, Guardian
Credits:
 Ainty Painty (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2022 (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.

May 9

[edit]
May 9, 2022 (2022-05-09) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: John Leo

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Pulitzer Prizes

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Template:Block indent Comment The Reception section could use a second or third observer. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a remark and note about a revamped category for this year's awards. Funcrunch (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I just clicked your thank button. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At three now. Template:U has no thank button. So just kudos! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Midge Decter

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Qin Yi

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: John H. Coates

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Amarakeerthi Athukorala

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Adreian Payne

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) 2022 Philippine presidential election

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Template:Strikethrough The Kip (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 May 8 Template:Cob

RD: Fred Ward

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

2022 British Academy Television Awards

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose Could perhaps be convinced otherwise, but as it stands only the Emmys are considered ITN/R as a TV award. The Kip (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality only It's not ITN/R, however we did post it last year (discussion). Oppose at moment though, as there's no prose on the ceremony and it's undersourced. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose BATA are not listed in the Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haris920 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not enough prose or sources. I'm also not convinced these awards are notable or internationally-relevant enough to be included in ITN. AusLondonder (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Not widely covered. – Sca (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm seeing plenty of coverage on the US side of the pond of these from the expected places (Variety, Hollywood Reporters, etc.) --Masem (t) 12:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality Would full support if the article was improved. --Jayron32 12:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any oppose just because it is not ITN/R will, as always, be simply ignored. Recurring events that are not listed there are judged on their own merits (or how do you expect they would ever get posted enough to be listed at ITN/R). This was posted last year after there was a prose update. for Americans that don't know BATAs have comparable international considerations, renown, and history as the Emmys, though I didn't think I would actually need to explain it since it gets international and even some American media (as averse as it is to show things that would defy American exceptionalism) attention. As has been explained in previous years, posting the Emmys does not prevent posting the TV BAFTAs; we do post the Oscars and Film BAFTAs. Kingsif (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not American and I oppose posting this. The issue of what has been designated at some time as ITN/R is irrelevant (personally I would support a large cull of ITN/R). I have seen relatively little coverage outside the UK and the article is still not suitable for inclusion quality-wise. AusLondonder (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, your !oppose wasn't just "isn't ITN/R", or "seems unimportant", so? Though another comment could be that if you are saying an international award show isn't significant, maybe give some thoughts on why. Kingsif (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way is this an "international" awards show? Because they have an international programme award? AusLondonder (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsif: In fairness to AusLondonder, neither of their comments !opposed this because it "isn't ITN/R" at all. Effy Midwinter (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So why they felt the need to reply to a comment not directed at them... Kingsif (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agreed that any oppose !votes on the basis of not being ITN/R should be summarily ignored by a posting admin given that the BAFTAs were posted last year. A local consensus exists to post this item as long as this meets quality standards, which admittedly based on past experience, can be a high bar for award show articles to meet.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, however agreeing with WaltCip and Kingsif in that any oppose !votes on the basis of not being ITN/R should be ignored by the posting admin. Article does need work, though. Ping me when everything's been fixed. Cheers. WimePocy 18:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article has been updated in line with other instances of the event (including last year's, which was posted). Since they asked, pinging Template:U. Kingsif (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While awarded by the BAFTA (British Academy of Film and Television Arts), they are not as notable as their film awards nor has their noteworthiness been demonstrated in the articles herein. Gotitbro (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how one set of awards from a body is less notable within its field than another set of awards from the same, but both are considered in the majors in their fields, and to me the meaning of "not as notable" at your link is referring to television being less glamorous than film in general. Kingsif (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose yes there's some news about it, but that news level has reduced massively in the last 24 hours. Not important enough for ITN in my opinion (and before anyone says anything, I'm British, so it's not just North Americans opposing this). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fast drop in coverage for any award show is that way, unless you have something that falls into celeb gossip as the Wil Smith thing was this year at the Oscar's. This us a poor reason to oppose. --Masem (t) 19:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Because it is not in ITNR, and it is not as notable as the Emmys. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 06:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mahendra Raj

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Dennis Waterman

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(attention needed) New Chief Executive of Hong Kong

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose as since not ITNR and we have this "Lee was the only candidate and won with over 99% of the vote in which nearly all 1,500 committee members were carefully vetted by the central government in Beijing." I dont think we really can call this an election. --Masem (t) 12:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Masem. Not significant. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Results section needs prose. And if we are willing to include subnational elections, we must believe it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending update needs a results paragraph otherwise it's fine. Hong Kongs special status has been a focus of attention for decades and this election is a significant part of that saga. While some individuals like to pick and choose which elections are deemed "legitimate" that's outside the scope of ITN. Is it in the news and is there a quality update? If yes to both then up it goes. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support going off of my own consensus, like the Turkmeni election earlier this year and the Northern Ireland election just yesterday. Article needs prose updates, however. HK's autonomy has been a growing issue for quite some time now, much like Northern Ireland, and even though this isn't a totally free and fair election, it still is the changing hands of a government. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A rubber stamp election with only 1 candidate is not really significant compared with the recent one in NI. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support we posted Northern Ireland even though it was subnational because it had "worldwide coverage" and are not posting Hong Kong? That's got double standards written all over it, sorry. Banedon (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NI was an actual election, this was effectively a formality. The Kip (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    its still an election, even if the electorate is pretty restrictively defined. 4iamking (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per 4iamking, and if you really believe this was a formality then I suggest changing the article's title to something else. Banedon (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Posting one sub-national election ≠ automatically posting all others. Regardless of that fact, this event can hardly be classified as an election (perhaps a coronation?). According to the first sentence of our Election article "An election is a formal group decision-making process by which a population chooses an individual or multiple individuals to hold public office." I think the bit about population choice has been missed in this "election". AusLondonder (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose wording Not an election in any sense of the word (other than PR/propaganda purposes). Abcmaxx (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was indeed an election. Just involving a closed, inner circle, making a decision that impacts on the community outside the circle. A very limited democracy. Just look at the news as one about a change in leadership. --PFHLai (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, and if the opposers have any validity to their argument they'll nominate a move at the article talk page where it'll die a quick death because they're wrong. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason the Northern Ireland one was posted was not because it was just an election, but because it was an unusual result in a sub-national election (the first time Sinn Féin took majority control). There is nothing of significance of the result of this election here. --Masem (t) 21:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I don't care HK vs NI I just care about claiming it wasn't an election. If that's your beef, get the article moved. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refrain from forum shopping. We are capable of evaluating the legitimacy of the election here. Editors contributing to a move discussion would have no greater skill or credibility in addressing the question. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support an alt blurb alt2 Based on the news coverage and significance of further police crackdowns, this should be posted. But, main blurb is POV in what it fails to convey. NYT: John Lee Wins Hong Kong's Rubber-Stamp Election, BBC: Hong Kong's John Lee: Ex-security chief becomes new leader, CNA: Ex-security chief John Lee confirmed as Hong Kong's next leader. These headlines make it clear it wasn't a free and open election and we should post a blurb that does similarly. I'm less impressed with AP, NPR headlines. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't post those as blurbs either because those are also POV statements. We can't right great wrongs at ITN, and given the questionability about this as a sub-national election that we don't post normally, we can avoid the mess about this. --Masem (t) 02:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Template:U, I'm not suggesting RGW, I'm suggesting accuracy. Calling this an "election" implies democracy and that's misinformation in this case. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Nothing about the word "election" requires it to be "fair", that's the democratic/Western interpretation of the word. Hence still a RGW issue. --Masem (t) 12:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Alt2 is worded well. It is neither trying to topple the CCP nor is it suggesting that this was an "election" in the way we typically think of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Secession of sub-national leaders should only be posted in the most exceptional circumstances. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there previous precedent for previous Chief Executive elections? None of them are really democratically elected, I could see the 2017 one being posted because of the campaign possibly, but no Beijing-chosen candidate has ever really gone below fifty percent in one of these because of how they are conducted. Regardless, relying on precedent could potentially yield a consensus or at the very least contextualize the potential decision being made here? Ornithoptera (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:U, the 2017 election was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Any word about the one before that? Was CY Leung's election posted as well? If the precedent is met I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to do so, but I'm neutral on the matter. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    2012 election wasn't nominated – Muboshgu (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current blurb is inappropriate; it should say he was appointed, not elected. The article has similar issues, but once both of those are corrected I would support posting this. BilledMammal (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If a Montenegrin getting the nod from 46 people is an election, I see no reason a Hong Konger's approval by 1,416 (30 times more) is an appointment. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what Montenegrin you are referring to, but reliable sources like the BBC and the New York Times have described this as an appointment. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dritan Abazović, the third bolded item in the ITN box. Both of those sources also use "election" or "elect". I think when someone is appointed following an election they won, we can safely consider them elected. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He was elected by a democratically elected parliament. However, that isn't the event we are discussing; this one is described by reliable sources as an appointment. BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, an appointment resulting from an election by a larger, less Westernized and just as lawful body. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you conflating democratic institutions with the "West" and by extension non-democratic institutions with the "east"? India is the largest democracy in the world and would rarely be described as part of the West. AusLondonder (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of Indians wouldn't describe India as particularly democratic, either... SN54129 14:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Democracy Index classifies India as a flawed democracy, alongside the United States and much of Europe. AusLondonder (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were asking me, I just meant this particular communist Chinese committee is less Westernized than the Parliament of Montenegro; India and the United States are indeed relatively complicated. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with appropriate clarification of the circumstances of the rubber stamp per alt or similar. Coups and fake civilian governments have been posted, this is similar Bumbubookworm (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Alt The Election Commission, described as an electoral college, should reasonably be expected to elect people, not appoint them. I get how this may not seem free and fair, relative to a race with two candidates, but that's life in China. No opinion on the original blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt2 While alt1 is perhaps excessively biased and makes assumptions on the organization of the election, we should also recognize that the 1. Lee was unopposed, and the vote was simply yes-no, and 2. the election was by a small body, rather than by members of the public, and 3. nomination of candidates was by the same body, and he had already received more than half of nominations. This entire process seems much more along the lines of, say, nomination and confirmation in the US Supreme Court. Sources such as my local Globe and Mail come to a similar conclusion. I have offered another alternate blurb which makes these two points clear in a more neutral and factual tone. Mdu02 (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT2 as it explains that this was an uncontested election- which is one of the main focuses of news coverage on this "election" event. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Per above, this does not look like an election. Alex-h (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT2 it is an election, even though it is uncontested. – robertsky (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not an election. This is more of an administrative appointment. Nfitz (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template:Ping Don't turn this into your personal soapbox against Northern Ireland. Please strike your grossly inappropriate comment.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, Hong Kong had a change of head of state, which is ITNR anyway. Whether it's a proper election or not in HK, it should be posted, as it's an ITNR event. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • HK is not a sovereign nation, and thus does not qualify for that ITNR, just as the case with Northern Ireland. --Masem (t) 15:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Template:PingSome users had tried to point out that this should be treated the same as the recent Northern Ireland. I was trying to explain the why it's very different. Against? I don't see any indication that I have revealed my position on Northern Ireland at all, while using encylopaedic language. User:Joseph2302, Hong Kong is a region of China; it's not a state - which is a bigger issue than how the CE was chosen; but does impact the wording; I should have stressed that. NI is the exception, not the rule; I certainly don't advocate that every NI election is notable. Nfitz (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked attention results section has a prose update --LaserLegs (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Since posts here are running 11-8 against at this pt., the Needs attention tag doesn't seem appropriate. Removed.
    – Sca (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your supervote is most appreciated, thanks Sca. I'm sure an uninvolved admin could have determined if the invalid WP:IDONTLIKEIT opposes had merit and made a determination but your childishly simplistic WP:VOTE count is probably better. Maybe you should just close the nomination entirely. Keep up the good work buddy, you're really helping the project out here. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Amen to that. There are a few opposes on the count of relevance or Hong Kong being a subnational unit (irrelevant, as if it was ITN/R would make it automatic with a sourced article), but most oppose votes are about the wording of the original and first blurb. Mdu02 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I really fail to see how consensus exists to post this. Sarcastic personal attacks on other good-faith editors is not going to convince anyone otherwise. AusLondonder (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The voice of reason -- as opposed to puerile blather. TNX. -- Sca (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that it's been a few days, I don't think this will get posted because of inactivity, and to be fair the event is somewhat borderline on notability without some editorializing. That being said, I don't think the original commenter should have simply looked at the vote and unilaterally made such a decision. I won't say it's in bad faith but it's irresponsible. About half the oppose votes are arguments about wording rather than about notability, and on a more notable event such a vote count could still easily lead to consensus achieved. Mdu02 (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a complete misread of the consensus of the opposition. Even if we conceded this was a technically an "election," there is absolutely no case being made for an exception to our standard practice of not posting sub-national elections. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT2 Well-worded compromise and this is still in the news. The so-called Uncontested election lacks sourcepower, but despite my ongoing protest, that's not illegal. I think John Lee is our real target article here. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I believe the article is unlikely to go on ITN for the lack of timeliness as noted by other editors, still I would like to mark my support on record, also as the main editor of the article, and I thank the nomination by User:Unknown Temptation. ALT2 is preferred, wording could be changed from "uncontested" to "sole candidate" in my opinion if such is controversial. ~~ J. Dann 05:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 May 7 Template:Cob

RD: Mickey Gilley

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Kang Soo-yeon

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) 2022 Kentucky Derby

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) Benjamin Rich arrested near Site 112 at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

Template:Abot

(Posted) 2022 Northern Ireland Assembly election

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

May 6

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 May 6 Template:Cob

(Posted) RD: Bill Laskey (American football)

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: George Pérez

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

DC and Marvel. Support. DS (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entire Bibliography needs sources, though if there is one overall source that captures all that, that would work. --Masem (t) 12:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Hotel Saratoga explosion

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

May 5

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 May 5 Template:Cob

(Posted) RD: Mike Hagerty

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Axel Leijonhufvud

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Kenneth Welsh

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Kevin Samuels

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

May 4

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 May 4 Template:Cob

(Posted) RD: George D. Gould

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Jack Morris (American football)

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. Long enough with 400+ words. No issues with formatting and footnotes. Two minor issues that should not hold back this RD nom: [1] What position(s) did he play? Scoring points, conversions and rushing gave the impression that he was an offensive player in college. He switched to DB as a pro? [2] A little more info on his post-football life would improve the coverage in this wikibio. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 23:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kenny Moore

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Stanislav Shushkevich

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Let me remind you that this is also one of the three leaders of states that signed an agreement on the collapse of the USSR (+ Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kravchuk). And don't forget his connection to Lee Harvey Oswald. This is a historical figure. Mrs. Alena (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb just because he's a white European leader, that doesn't entitle him to a blurb. He's no more noteworthy than the African ex-leaders that never get consensus for a blurb (and yes, I know his impact on the dissolution of the USSR). Also, orange tag needs fixing, otherwise nothing will get posted anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Every biography on Wikipedia is a historical figure. Bar needs to be set higher than just "any head of state/government" for death blurbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD oppose blurb - per above CR-1-AB (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb Not transformative or notable enough to merit a blurb. Was leader for scarcely 3.5 years and didn't do particularly much besides oversee independence. The Kip (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD at the moment. As there are literally no supports for a blurb, I think we can table that discussion. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Major sourcing issues that no one who voted support seems interested in fixing. --Jayron32 12:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    should be good now. 4iamking (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not. Someone just removed the "refimprove" tag, but didn't actually provide any references. The "political activity" section contains lots of information for which there is no clear source. There had been a refimprove tag on that section. Someone removed it without fixing the problem. Problems don't go away like that. I returned the tag, because the actual problem had not been fixed. Someone still actually have to find the sources and provide citations to fix the problem. Please do so. Or not, you don't have to. But if you (or someone else) doesn't, this isn't being posted on the main page. --Jayron32 11:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb and RD While the person in question are significant enough, references within the article needs a lot of work to do. There are some sections within the article that doesn't have any citations yet. MarioJump83! 23:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Impactful in the dissolution itself, but was not able to hold power much longer after that, the significance for a blurb is thus not clearly shown. Gotitbro (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too much unreferenced materials. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 3

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 May 3 Template:Cob

(Posted) RD: Aguil Chut-Deng

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: David Walden

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Erich Barnes

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Meda Mládková

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Norman Mineta

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Jon A. Reynolds

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Tony Brooks (racing driver)

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. The 'overturning' hasn't even been confirmed as of yet, and it's just major speculation. Wait until it's been confirmed, THEN wait until it's happened to post. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The final ruling, if holds to what is leaked, likely will be ITN worthy, so here we should analyze what is left which is the leak if a draft opinion from SCOTUS. That is being called unprecedented but I would not call it an ITN story itself given that the ruling likely will be. --Masem (t) 17:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The blurb is way too long. Is the story the leak, or the draft opinion itself? There has been an investigation launched into the former, but it would be better to wait until the ruling is actually issued and takes effect. That will be a story. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The draft is notable, but not legally official. Wait to post until the ruling (unfortunately) is formally made public. The Kip (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The ruling itself would be major news, we don't need to "scoop" the story by posting every leak that comes out this early. We can wait. --Jayron32 18:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:EcOppose per Masem and The Kip. The end of Roe v. Wade is a big deal, probably should be posted on ITN, but not until the ruling is official, which I believe will happen in June. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. I think there is neither reason to support when the final resolution is nominated (because I'm sure someone will come up with it). _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

(Closed) Remove from ongoing: COVID-19 pandemic

[edit]

Template:Atop


I think it's now time to consider removing this item. COVID-19's outbreak started about two years ago, and since then has peaked several times with each new wave and new variant. Countries have locked down, then re-opened, and many social distancing and quarantining restrictions (with the exception of China) are falling like dominoes. Now we are fortunate to have vaccines readily accessible (in developed countries, at least) and boosters coming out for them on a regular basis. Whatever can be said about COVID-19, it seems we are gradually approaching the phase at which it is considered endemic. This is not to say that the event is no longer in the news, but the updates are becoming few and far between, and when I peruse Portal:Current events, I see very little updates on COVID-19's outbreaks. We will never eliminate this virus entirely from the global population, but we are adapting. Therefore, I submit to ITN/C a consideration to remove this item from ongoing, with no prejudice against re-posting if another severe, widespread outbreak occurs.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose because as you said: Template:Tq, and it still certainly is, especially now in China, where extreme COVID restrictions have led to horrific videos where you can hear hundreds if not thousands of people wailing into the streets in pain and sadness because of these extreme restrictions. Until COVID restrictions in China have halted (and there aren't anymore COVID breakouts such as the omicron one) my !vote remains Oppose. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose it's too early to say we're out of the pandemic. The fact is that there's still a large portion of the global population which hasn't received a single dose of the vaccine due to multiple factors. We're also dealing with Omicron subvariants that throw any kind of prior immunity out the window in regards to previous Omicron infection. With that being said, I can't support removing "COVID-19 Pandemic" from ongoing until a broad-spectrum vaccine is created or we start rolling out variant-specific boosters that can be received every few years (no less than 3 years between doses).
    To call COVID-19 "endemic" goes against the reality right now as an endemic illness lacks the spikes and declines that we currently see on a global scale with COVID-19. Yeah sure, the flu is considered a seasonal illness with spikes in the winter but you'll almost always see an inverted graph when taking account for the opposing hemisphere as they enter their flu season. These spikes strain our healthcare systems and put further strain on healthcare workers who might need or be required to call off elective operations to treat an individual infected with SARS-CoV-2. This often leads into a domino effect straining other parts of our normal lives even if there aren't any restrictions from different levels of government.
    Take care,
    Narwal SlavicNarwal (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops meant to tag WaltCip's post not Fakescientist8000's. SlavicNarwal (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reasons as Fakescientist8000 Flameperson (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Still making headlines particularly with the more recent shutdown of Shanghai from the last variant. We still gave waves going around, and once those die out, it then probably can be removed. --Masem (t) 16:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support MERS and AIDS are both still a "pandemic" in the WHO sense but are endemic in the real sense, so too it COVID-19. If we eject it from ongoing we can go back to posting occasional blurbs for significant updates. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - still in the headlines. Still highly relevant though of course media reports on more other subjects today than a year ago.BabbaQ (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The Covid threat has subsided in some parts of the world, but the incidence of new cases is still high in others, with Germany and France being notably affected. Germany, per Reuters, "leads the world in the daily average number of new infections reported, accounting for one in every six ... each day." Although the current Omicron variant is "less severe" than prior variants, it's considered dangerous. So I don't see a need to drop Covid from Ongoing now. – Sca (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I feel like the pandemic has run it's course, and for the most part on society too, its hardly in the news and I can't remember the last time I saw a face mask in public. I mean unless we are talking about china, but to me that's more of a case of a (harsh) localised reaction. It shouldn't be listed for ever as there are other diseases out there too that affect society. Would support reevaluating this should covid take a turn in the future. 152.115.83.242 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Despite the desires of many (see directly above), this pandemic has not run its course and is still in the news.[76][77] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not really in the headlines anymore; we are moving to the "learn to live it" phase.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. And WP:WORLDWIDE. We may not currently be in special measures in western countries, but it's still having major impact in other countries, particularly China at the moment.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Continues to dominate international news. I think a few weeks ago I may have even agreed with the OP and others that this was dropping off the radar, but things are on the rise again; locally my area has seen a ten-fold increase in cases in just the past two weeks, and major lockdowns have recently been implemented in several places around the world, notably China. I think it's getting to be a better prospect to drop it in the future, but I don't think we're there yet. It's still a major story and we're still seeing headlines about it. --Jayron32 18:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Still ongoing, still in the news. -- KTC (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per WP:WORLDVIEW. Shanghai is in lockdown, Beijing may be next. Many covid restrictions are still in place worldwide and covid remains in the news. AusLondonder (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

May 2

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 May 2 Template:Cob

(Posted) RD: George Yanok

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: David Birney

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Biancamaria Frabotta

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) 2022 World Snooker Championship

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) Finland sends in a NATO application on 12th of May

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

Template:Abot

May 1

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 May 1 Template:Cob

(Posted) RD: Millie Bailey

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Kathy Boudin

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Ricardo Alarcón

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Support no issues. Good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Régine Zylberberg

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  1. ^ Template:Cite web
  2. ^ Template:Cite web
  3. ^ Template:Cite web
  4. ^ Template:Cite web
  5. ^ Template:Cite web
  6. ^ Template:Cite web
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/May_2022&oldid=1166569098"